DCS F-35A

[pyromaniac4002]

probably not

 

 

@ Pyro... Thanks, that link works... but as for your other, and by your own definition, that would make Prophet a troll also. Surely, this isn't really the case now, is it?

 

For Prophet, myself, and anyone else who's excited about this project and has been watching people trash it so relentlessly for the past 12 hours, the initial snide jab about how the programmers can't even put a fricken image link on a forum properly is obviously more offensive than it probably is to you. If you're a fair person, you can definitely understand where Prophet's response is coming from and that it's not malicious and it's not an attempt to start trouble with anybody.

[Wolf Rider]

What do you suspect cause the problem then? Definitely not the server side as many others can see it.

 

 

here's the posted link http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3739/9154996093_21503535c3_b.jpg

 

and here's what comes up when pasted straight into the browser http://l.yimg.com/g/images/photo_unavailable.gif

 

 

you tell us

[Starkiller]

here's the posted link http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3739/9154996093_21503535c3_b.jpg

 

and here's what comes up when pasted straight into the browser http://l.yimg.com/g/images/photo_unavailable.gif

 

 

you tell us

 

I can see the posted link through my browser just fine, sir.

[Wolf Rider]

For Prophet, myself, and anyone else who's excited about this project and has been watching people trash it so relentlessly for the past 12 hours, the initial snide jab about how the programmers can't even put a fricken image link on a forum properly is obviously more offensive than it probably is to you. If you're a fair person, you can definitely understand where Prophet's response is coming from and that it's not malicious and it's not an attempt to start trouble with anybody.

 

yes, but you can't call one something and then not apply that same to another who has done exactly the same.

 

 

You should be asking yourself why (in your words) it is being trashed by some...

 

me? I'm dubious myself, not that I'm hoping it will fail, or worse. I do hope my feeling is misplaced, but for reasons indicated earlier, that dubiousness is there

 

 

 

iEdit

 

I can see the posted link through my browser just fine, sir.

 

no-one is saying you can't see it, sir or otherwise. IE and Firefox are no go. Can you offer anything else apart from "I can see it"?

 

and why ask me, when others also said they couldn't... have you asked them??

Edited June 30, 2013 by Wolf Rider

[TimeKilla]

The people that can see it fine via this link need to refresh there browser.

 

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3739/9154996093_21503535c3_b.jpg

 

As it's a cache image from there internet cache there seeing as the image is no longer being hosted there.

Edited June 30, 2013 by TimeKilla
... in link

[Starkiller]

The people that can see it fine via this link need to refresh

 

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3739/9...503535c3_b.jpg

 

As it's a cache image there seeing as the image is no longer being hosted there. Likely pulled by the team.

 

I tried refresh 10 times, but the picture is still there. May be the problem is your link have wrong address "http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3739/9...503535c3_b.jpg" instead of "http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3739/9154996093_21503535c3_b.jpg"

[TimeKilla]

I tried refresh 10 times, but the picture is still there. May be the problem is your link have wrong address "http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3739/9...503535c3_b.jpg" instead of "http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3739/9154996093_21503535c3_b.jpg"

 

Yup it's corrected now. :smilewink:

 

I was on the correct link before (I pulled the shortened one off the forum) and as soon as I refreshed it told me the image has been removed so all that tells me is the image is no longer there.

 

Not sure why everyone is going crazy about this hehe :-)

Edited June 30, 2013 by TimeKilla
Added more info.

[Starkiller]

Yup it's corrected now. :smilewink:

 

Can you see it now? If not, what is your browser? I use IE 10.

[TimeKilla]

Google Chrome its ok as I've got a copy and have seen it.

 

Its no longer there for me when I refreshed my browser tried to pull the image again and the site said no sir nothing here now.

 

Hope you guys work this out seems like a case for mulder and scully.

 

[Wolf Rider]

I tried refresh 10 times, but the picture is still there. May be the problem is your link have wrong address "http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3739/9...503535c3_b.jpg" instead of "http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3739/9154996093_21503535c3_b.jpg"

 

 

no its not... the flickr notification changed to standard browser 404

[Erdem]

Why does ED allow stuff like these having the"DCS" title? When I see "DCS: X" I want it to be a thoroughly researched and modelled aircraft, not something modelled with a lot of assumptions. Heck, you don't have aerodynamic data, avionics data or system data. The "look at all the documents we got!" images on the Kickstarter page are just laughable.

 

So, my question is; why the F-35? The developer of this mod can do a DCS: F-4 which plenty of data is available even in basic aerodynamic textbooks . . . It will still sell lots, maybe even more because of how iconic this plane is. But I think the devs is just trying to go the easy way, and do a "DCS" plane without all that tedious modelling. If you can legitimately say "we just approximated that stuff" then your work becomes suddenly a lot easier.

[sobek]

Why does ED allow stuff like these having the"DCS" title?

 

Probably because they put a lot of faith in the developer.

[Rotorhead]

Probably because they put a lot of faith in the developer.

 

I sincerely hope they base their decisions on something more solid than mere faith.

[Taproot]

I gotta say there seems to be a lot of arm chair experts in this thread. With a lot of criticisms and negative assumptions.

 

Haha! It's funny cause it's true! :megalol:

[sobek]

I sincerely hope they base their decisions on something more solid than mere faith.

 

You mean like 20+ years of experience developing cutting edge simulators? No, you're right, i'm sure they spent the last 5 years building the DCS brand just so they could drive it against the wall at the first best chance. ;)

 

Seriously people, at this point you are just party pooping for the sake of party pooping.

[jctrnacty]

75 K in 16 days ? Lunacy

[Sharpe_95]

I have total faith that ED will not let a module have the DCS title if they have no faith in it or think it does not 'fit in'.

 

Having done loads of research it seems Kinney Interactive (or at least the people that work there) have arguably, more experience of military simulators that ED themselves (no offense ED). Further they have worked on some of the most sensitive US platforms to be built in the last couple of decades (B2 and F22). So I have faith that these guys know what they are talking about.

 

Further, as Kinney Interactive have already said, it was not so long ago that the F/A18 E/F was highly classified, but now there is plenty of data available for it. In a way, the F35 is in a similar boat to the Eurofighter Typhoon and (to a lesser degree) the F/A18 E/F. I don't see hundreds of negative comments on the VEAO and Cortex forum areas. Kinney has also said that as more stuff becomes known about the F35 they will continue to support and update it. In the mean time I have confidence (and I am sure ED do, or they wouldn't let them have the DCS branding) that Kinney is well placed to make very accurate, educated assumptions to bring this aircraft into DCSW in the mean time.

 

They have also stated that they are capable and willing to help fix areas of code that need to be corrected for F35 and also potentially build a new map. Not only does this company seem able to build the module, but they also seem happy to help ED along the way too - surely this is no bad thing?

 

Finally, I have to point out that even DCS A10c is not 100% fidelity. The ECM pod does not work against SAM's (ED admit this), the IFF is not realistic (ED admit this too as its far to sensitive to simulate) and we have no way of inputting mission planning and data bricks into the aircraft as in real life. So ask yourself: Do I want a 100% fidelity aircraft (if so why? - coz you can say you can fly it)? Or do you want an aircraft that is fun to fly, as accurately modelled as can be allowed and integrated into one of the best (and hopefully, based on ED plans), probably the single source of all future HiFi flight sims?

 

If you are going to chuck every aircraft out that isn't 100% accurately modelled then this will leave us in a really sad state as even ED will say that the A10c is a 'best effort' but not 100%. In which case, who draws the line at what is/is not acceptable? You? Or the company that owns the core product (DCSW)? Lets be fair, ED will be the ones to say if it 'fits' or not. And I have total faith that they wont let us down - its in their own best interest.

 

In the mean time, I look forward to F35, as I look forward to all HiFi modern aircraft (and even the old war birds too, but not quite as much). If Kinney Interactive is all it says it is then I think we will be in for one hell of a module. Have faith that ED will protect its own interests from something that is a poor effort.

 

With only 13 days to go to hit $75k, if they don't get the pledge they are after then this whole thread may be academic anyway. I for one will be supporting this start up, including putting in £££ - remember, if the project does not start up you get your £££ back (its only released/requested IF it goes live).

 

-Sharpe

[Silver_Dragon]

Ok. 4 day F-35 KickStarter 17.222 $ (22%).

 

First 2 days Trends indicate day incoming can be reach initial Kicktarter goal + Interactive Ground crew (or can reach F-35C), but 3rd and 4nd day income drop drastically. Today, the trends has drop below minimum reach target (see below graph) $73,215 / 97%.

 

 

If trends continue dropping, the KickStarted can be move to a "dangerous" status. Kinney Interactive can be forced to put news, updates or make something movement to maintain "alive" them.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Silver_Dragon

[Sharpe_95]

^ Good to know Silver_Dragon - thanks :)

-Sharpe

[howie87]

Well said Sharpe. I have already supported the kickstarter although I fear this project may not make it off the ground.

 

The figures seem to show just how much of a niche market flight simming is these days.

 

The expensive hardware and steep learning curve seem to be a barrier that only the most interested and dedicated make it through.

 

Sadly I can't see this changing any time soon.

[joey45]

Porbably because most of the Devs/Pubs have moved to the console market.

[TimeKilla]

$17.222 is still alot of money maybe they just need to put the goal lower or for longer you can do alot what that money.

[eagle13]

Hi Sharpe - Yes the F-35 will drop into DCS World. Standalone means, for those not familiar with DCS, that it does not require any additional purchase. Please note that I have opened a Q & A on the DCS F35 Facebook https://www.facebook.com/DCSF35

[eagle13]

Dear TimeKilla I put a lot of thought into the goal that was set on Kickstarter. It represents the amount needed for this project. I don't think it to right to misrepresent to the good people of the community or new ones that we might welcome in. Could there be anything worse than raising these funds then not being able to complete the project. I said it before, but its true. These pledges represent a scared trust. In my life and the life of the company I've been blessed to lead there is nothing more important. And TimeKilla don't worry, I have faith that we will not only reach our basic goal but exceed it! Eagle

[eagle13]

Thanks 14th JAR yes once we get through this the real fun can begin. Just as a note, I would like to, over the coming year, try to coordinate with Lockheed and an opportunity for our founders to get access to the demonstration F-35 simulator. I'm hoping to put together activities in different locations so some of us can meet and exchange ideas. What would you think about something like that?