DCS F-35A

[npole]

There is a lot of info about that on their website. It is enough for me, but will it be enough for your standard is for you to decide.

 

I didn't mean that... I wanted to know if they are designing a 3D model (in that case the pictures could be enough), of if they are developing a module *at DCS level* .. in this case the 3D model is nothing, we still miss the flight model and especially the fully avionics and controls. So I wanted to ask where they are going to get all these details.

 

In other words i'm not sure if they are just designing the model and then guessing the whole rest (basically inventing the avionic working on speculation), or if they really working at contact with lockheed martin.

 

/confused

[sobek]

There actually is a lot of info about just that on their website...

[159th_Viper]

I didn't mean that... I wanted to know if they are designing a 3D model (in that case the pictures could be enough), of if they are developing a module *at DCS level* .. in this case the 3D model is nothing, we still miss the flight model and especially the fully avionics and controls. So I wanted to ask where they are going to get all these details.

 

Apparently aiming for a module at DCS standards.

 

I am also a wee bitty concerned about the complete absence of information regarding flight model modelling. Avionics is explained to a certain extent by 'we know how it should work so we'll model it accordingly', substantiated by the YouTube videos on which the modelling will be relied upon. Thought it would have been a wee bitty better explained at the Kickstarter stage but not yet.

 

I'll wait and see.

 

 

There actually is a lot of info about just that on their website...

 

About the Flight Model modelling? Where?

[Starkiller]

I didn't mean that... I wanted to know if they are designing a 3D model (in that case the pictures could be enough), of if they are developing a module *at DCS level* .. in this case the 3D model is nothing, we still miss the flight model and especially the fully avionics and controls. So I wanted to ask where they are going to get all these details.

 

In other words i'm not sure if they are just designing the model and then guessing the whole rest (basically inventing the avionic working on speculation), or if they really working at contact with lockheed martin.

 

/confused

 

See avionics section on their site...

[Biggles07]

Maybe the Kinney Interactive guys should start a new thread entitled "Kickstarter is live!" or somesuch. Not sure it's getting the exposure it deserves with the link buried in this thread, even as huge and popular it has become.

 

Agreed. There is no "maybe" about it Boris, that's just common sense. The 'hardcore' sim fans all know about it, but the link to the actual Kickstarter should have its own thread and not be buried. I would have asked ED to sticky it for the 2 weeks, no reason why they would not as it obviously benefits them if successful in the long run too. :)

 

Are they advertising it with the likes of PC Pilot and SimHq? I'd be amazed if they are not. Surely it would have been worth the small initial outlay for the exposure and to maybe get 'fence sitters' tempted. I'll make a pledge (if only to one day see an F-35B, and hopefully get to play about with the likes of Stormshadow and Brimstone one day that Viper mentioned hehe). Not the top of my list and I'm looking forward more to the Harriers, but I'm not 'opposed' to this at all either. All good, I reckon. :)

 

I can well understand the scepticism of some regarding fidelity, and it is warranted. However, as much as I do enjoy the high fidelity sim aspects of the likes of A10-C, I am also fully cognisant of the fact that its all "only a game" and quite obviously not reality lol. Lets be honest, we are all overgrown kids pretending to be fighter jocks and ground pounders etc because its a bit of escapism and fun. Most blokes never really grow up *Wheeee! Dakka-dakka-dakka! KABOOM!!!* and we always need our toys to play with....LMAO.Nothing wrong with that, and great fun it is too! :D

 

If they get 70% of it convincingly 'right', that would be ok by me, and I can definitely see some enjoyment in it tooling about with their version of systems like DAS and the AESA radar etc (and especially their implementation of ground radar); personally though I'm far more interested in the likes of Beczl's Mig-21bis and others that require less "guesstimation", and are far less automated and 'old school' hehe. That's just me however, and each to their own! :) Don't understand why anyone would want to wee on the F-35's parade, and as mentioned if you don't like it no one will force you to buy it, or even make you fly against it. Simple as that, really. :)

Edited June 28, 2013 by Biggles07

[TZeer]

I have been designing and producing flight simulation products for both the general public and the military for almost 30 years. These projects have manifested in many different forms, ranging from F-22 and B-2 avionic integration into the most advanced simulators ever built,

 

MY BACKGROUND

Education – Bio-Medical / Mechanical Engineer

 

Military – Captain United States Marine Corps - MAG-11

 

Aerospace – Project Manager - developed and integrated the avionic

systems into developmental simulators for both the B-2

and F-22, Northrop and Lockheed Corporations

 

That being said, we do have some very good information especially on the crew interface. It may be true that we do not know exactly how a piece of hardware works, but we do know the amount and types of information the crew has or will have available within a margin of acceptable error. We do know the basic number and types of air and ground threats that can be tracked simultaneously and the sources, for the most part, of addition sensor information available from other assets such as wingman, AWACS, friendly aircraft, etc.

 

I don't think it's a guessing game. Like it's been said. As long as you know an aircraft can do specific things, there is no need to know how it does it. It's all about simulating it to a point where it behaves as the real thing.

 

When it comes to flightmodel, I guess they'll do as many others. Do it in the software and do adjustments based on feedback. Same as in real life. Everything is done on a computer and tested there, before they build scale models and can start to see if theory matches reality...

[Vivoune]

Shame not included the UK as an associated Squadron. Will wait to see if this changes, if at all.

 

Weird indeed. Probably a small omission.

[Biggles07]

Nice one, just been talking about it on the other thread. :thumbup:

[TZeer]

Backing it :)

[Mnemonic]

Could someone be so kind and post in the russian...

Done: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=109192

[npole]

What i'm saying is so easy to understand (language barrier?) .. so I make an example: when they (ED) did the A10-C, they compared the simulation with the real aircraft, so you're almost sure that anything reproduced into the simulation is accurate (with the limits given by the technology).

 

With the F-35 how you know if "pushing that button" does exactly the same thing of the real aircraft is you don't have a complete F-35 flight manual available? I mean it's two big touch screen we have there.. do they have access to a simulator.. do they know a pilot.. whatever.. ?

 

I'm asking because I love to have the aircraft fully reproduced, so if there's that menu named "XXX" and the submenu named "YYY" .. I want to have those in the simulation, I don't want them to "guess" how that thing is supposed to work.

 

I didn't found this information on the website or anywhere.. someone claiming: we have access to all the F35 schematics; or we have a flight manual; we know a F35 pilot; we have an agreement with LM... and stuff like this.

 

Everyone could say: "the simulation will be accurate" ... but when asking for money, it's legit to know: "it is accurate... based on what?".

[Biggles07]

Weird indeed. Probably a small omission.

 

It's probably because although the UK is the only "Tier One Partner" in development with the US and the primary foreign investor (and AFAIK the only other Air force that as of now are flying them), the decision was made by the flip flopping inept gimps of Govt to change to the F-35B, instead of previously saying F35-A and also flirting with C (till they found out how much it would cost to outfit the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers).

 

Since the UK will not be using the A model at least for now, I suppose its 'technically correct'.

 

Alright by me though as I reckon the B is cooler. It hovers, ffs. :D :music_whistling: I think the UK has even reduced its initial order for the B STOVL model, but god knows what is going on. I give up. :noexpression: Might as well capitulate, its all over. I for one, welcome our new Benevolent and Merciful Chinese Overlords. Great food, on the bright side lol. Mmmmm.....kung pao noodlez.:D

Edited June 28, 2013 by Biggles07
*be

[Daze]

I think 75k in 2 weeks is a bit ambitious. I really hope they make it though. Good luck!

[Boris]

I think 75k in 2 weeks is a bit ambitious. I really hope they make it though. Good luck!

 

Well if they keep going the way they are, they will reach the goal well before two weeks pass.

The will need to keep up the momentum though.

[XtraChrisP]

Backed! Best of luck KI. Seems like you have a great vision and lofty goal. Here's hoping you can make the happen.

[bumfire]

Next we will end up with the Starship Enterprise as a DCS module with the way this is going.

 

Basically, why model aircraft that are so highly classified that it's likely that the info regarding its systems and performance will never be released in our lifetime.

 

Personally, I see no need for the F35 as a dcs module or any other aircraft similar to it until the vast majority of the info is available to the public so that it can be modelled correctly, as I foresee dcs airquake part deux in the near future due to new dcs modules that have the performance of ufo's.

[Boris]

Next we will end up with the Starship Enterprise as a DCS module with the way this is going.

 

Basically, why model aircraft that are so highly classified that it's likely that the info regarding its systems and performance will never be released in our lifetime.

 

Personally, I see no need for the F35 as a dcs module or any other aircraft similar to it until the vast majority of the info is available to the public so that it can be modelled correctly, as I foresee dcs airquake part deux in the near future due to new dcs modules that have the performance of ufo's.

 

Even if (and it more than likely won't be) the F-35A is only FC3 level of detail, it will have it's place in DCS.

People have already voiced your concerns a million times over in the original F-35A thread. Why not keep this thread for those who are actually optimistic about this becoming a reality?

[bumfire]

I would be happy if it was locked down to FC3 only, but it wont be as FC3 is now apart of dcs world.

 

Its just wrong is all am saying, modules like that should only be allowed in a standalone FC3 type version or even FC4 and not be apart of dcs world.

 

Thats all I am saying.

[Mt5_Roie]

Next we will end up with the Starship Enterprise as a DCS module with the way this is going.

 

While I know you meant this in jest, it would be cool if space combat could be simulated in the future. After all, there is developement for space vehicles to fight combat. I don't know the limitations (altitude wise) of DCS, but I don't think it can support space at this time.

 

Other simulators like X-plane do have the ability to fly in space and actually design vehicles for space.

 

As for the kickstarter...I pledged 50 bucks. We'll see how far it goes.

[Revelation]

What i'm saying is so easy to understand (language barrier?) .. so I make an example: when they (ED) did the A10-C, they compared the simulation with the real aircraft, so you're almost sure that anything reproduced into the simulation is accurate (with the limits given by the technology).

 

With the F-35 how you know if "pushing that button" does exactly the same thing of the real aircraft is you don't have a complete F-35 flight manual available? I mean it's two big touch screen we have there.. do they have access to a simulator.. do they know a pilot.. whatever.. ?

 

I'm asking because I love to have the aircraft fully reproduced, so if there's that menu named "XXX" and the submenu named "YYY" .. I want to have those in the simulation, I don't want them to "guess" how that thing is supposed to work.

 

I didn't found this information on the website or anywhere.. someone claiming: we have access to all the F35 schematics; or we have a flight manual; we know a F35 pilot; we have an agreement with LM... and stuff like this.

 

Everyone could say: "the simulation will be accurate" ... but when asking for money, it's legit to know: "it is accurate... based on what?".

 

They do have access to a lot of that information. Heck they have access to a Crew Chief on the F-35 on these very forums. With their background on the REAL F-22 and B-2, I have a lot of faith in these guys.

 

FWIW: ED would not have allowed DCS branding if KI did not provide a good enough argument that they could model this thing accurately. (subjective, I know)

 

Give it time and let them earn your trust if you want to wait, no one is forcing you to buy. Just don't "shit on their parade" just because you can.

[ishtmail]

I will wait for the Beta to come around, and see the reaction of the beta testers, and only then I'll decide... Currently I'm all cashed out. I'm sorry to see they went for such a short campaign, though. Maybe next month I'd find the funds and pledge, but in this short time span of 15 days, I just can't.

 

I do hope they will make it a good experience, and as realistic as humanly possible, and I wish the team all the best in their Kickstarter campaign.

[159th_Viper]

 

When it comes to flightmodel, I guess they'll do as many others. Do it in the software and do adjustments based on feedback...

 

Feedback from who/what? F-35 pilots? Data?

[Starkiller]

What i'm saying is so easy to understand (language barrier?) .. so I make an example: when they (ED) did the A10-C, they compared the simulation with the real aircraft, so you're almost sure that anything reproduced into the simulation is accurate (with the limits given by the technology).

 

With the F-35 how you know if "pushing that button" does exactly the same thing of the real aircraft is you don't have a complete F-35 flight manual available? I mean it's two big touch screen we have there.. do they have access to a simulator.. do they know a pilot.. whatever.. ?

 

I'm asking because I love to have the aircraft fully reproduced, so if there's that menu named "XXX" and the submenu named "YYY" .. I want to have those in the simulation, I don't want them to "guess" how that thing is supposed to work.

 

I didn't found this information on the website or anywhere.. someone claiming: we have access to all the F35 schematics; or we have a flight manual; we know a F35 pilot; we have an agreement with LM... and stuff like this.

 

Everyone could say: "the simulation will be accurate" ... but when asking for money, it's legit to know: "it is accurate... based on what?".

You asked for the place to get info. I told you that there are some on their site. A bunch of video that including an F-35 simulator YouTube clip. The fact that you still ask for such simulator suggest that you didn't bother to check the site at all. And nobody claim that this gonna be 100% accurate. Matt Wagner said that it will be close but it is not expected to be perfectly accurate, even A-10C is not that accurate. Some stuffs are classified and Wags have modified that parts.

[Starkiller]

I would be happy if it was locked down to FC3 only, but it wont be as FC3 is now apart of dcs world.

 

Its just wrong is all am saying, modules like that should only be allowed in a standalone FC3 type version or even FC4 and not be apart of dcs world.

 

Thats all I am saying.

 

If it is so wrong then don't buy it and don't play on server that use it. Problem solved.

[Revelation]

If it is so wrong then don't buy it and don't play on server that use it. Problem solved.

 

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

 

I completely understand some people are not happy with this module for various reasons - fine. I understand people have concerns on whether authenticity or accuracy will be achieved - fine.

 

Can those of us interested in this module be left alone of the naysayers and let us discuss this module in peace?