DCS F-35A

[npole]

The real core of DCS is DCSW, not any specific aircraft.

 

The core of DCS is .. (was?) the simulation of real aircraft, and when I say simulation I mean a full simulation (with obvious limits). Examples: A10C, BS, BS2, P52, UH1 .. these are proper DCS modules; Flaming Cliffs (and the upcoming modules based on its aircraft) are already sliding towards a series of compromises to please the "mass market" and especially to make more money with less effort (for the developer).

 

When you say 'we', you really mean 'me'.

 

No, I don't.

 

when you're accusing K.I. of making unrealistic/arcade/whatever sims.

 

I didn't accused anyone, i'm saying that I do not have any tangible prove that it will be accurate as a proper DCS module. We will ha DCS module only and IF the module will be completed and accurate enough to be included into DCS, today we have only words.

 

So? Play in a server that doesn't allow flying ships.

 

If you think like this then we could have a Start Trek ship into DCS... doesn't make much sense.

 

Knowing? Who knows? You? You don't know how hard or easy it is to get those documents

 

Words...

 

What should scare you is that you've never seen any of the operational manuals for the A-10C, yet you're trumpeting it as the pinnacle of realism, while 'knowing' how hard it is to get those documents, and at the same time blasting K.I. for having proven to Wags that they will make a module worthy of the DCS title.

 

...and more words. So far I've seen (and this thread does makes no exception) a "copy & paste" of google images and youtube videos by searching "F35", and a claim about building the whole thing "together" ... the idea already scares me, you're going to simulate a military fighter based on the forum users opinions?

 

I think I've said everything.. so good wind. ;)

[NoJoe]

The core of DCS is .. (was?) the simulation of real aircraft, and when I say simulation I mean a full simulation (with obvious limits). Examples: A10C, BS, BS2, P52, UH1 .. these are proper DCS modules; Flaming Cliffs (and the upcoming modules based on its aircraft) are already sliding towards a series of compromises to please the "mass market" and especially to make more money with less effort (for the developer).

 

Sorry, I'd been telling myself I'd stay out of the debate here, but I have to chime on in this one point. :P

 

Just gotta point out: Lock On (which led to the Flaming Cliffs series) was around before the DCS series began. I don't think the trend is toward "FC3-level" modules; if anything the trend over the last several years has been away from low-fidelity modules, and towards high-fidelity modules such as Blackshark and A-10C. Even Flaming Cliffs itself (released a year after Blackshark, I think) added an AFM aircraft and more detailed avionics for the Russian fighters, which was a trend continued by FC2.

 

I think it might be good to keep in mind 2 things:

1. FC3 comes from the older lower-detail lineage that lead to the DCS series.

2. The Flaming Cliffs series has sold better than the DCS-level modules, as said by Matt Wagner.

 

So instead of seeing FC3 as a trend toward lower-fidelity to please the "mass market", see it as what it is: FC3 is the continuation of the successful past of Eagle Dynamics, and it has allowed them to move forward into the specialized DCS modules that us forum-goers seem to love more. :)

 

--NoJoe

Edited July 3, 2013 by NoJoe

[joey45]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1480510&postcount=1

[GGTharos]

The core of DCS is .. (was?) the simulation of real aircraft, and when I say simulation I mean a full simulation (with obvious limits). Examples: A10C, BS, BS2, P52, UH1 .. these are proper DCS modules; Flaming Cliffs (and the upcoming modules based on its aircraft) are already sliding towards a series of compromises to please the "mass market" and especially to make more money with less effort (for the developer).

 

No, the core of DCS is DCSW, the platform for simulation that allows modules to be used in it. It was said from the very start that various fidelity would be accepted.

 

No, I don't.

 

Yes, you do. Get over it. You definitely don't mean me, or anyone else. You're only speaking for yourself.

 

I didn't accused anyone, i'm saying that I do not have any tangible prove that it will be accurate as a proper DCS module. We will ha DCS module only and IF the module will be completed and accurate enough to be included into DCS, today we have only words.

 

So why are you adding to the hot air then?

 

If you think like this then we could have a Start Trek ship into DCS... doesn't make much sense.

 

What you just said doesn't make sense. DCSW doesn't preclude any vehicles. If you don't like something, play on a server that doesn't include it. This option is part and parcel of DCS.

 

...and more words. So far I've seen (and this thread does makes no exception) a "copy & paste" of google images and youtube videos by searching "F35", and a claim about building the whole thing "together" ... the idea already scares me, you're going to simulate a military fighter based on the forum users opinions?

 

I think I've said everything.. so good wind. ;)

 

 

Actually, to quote you, 'words'. You haven't said anything useful. You're just filling posts with empty rethoric whining about how you can't prove that F-35 will be realistic and at the same time, how you're not accusing anyone (!!!) of anything. No really, it's like you had nothing else to do but pick apart a couple of sentences that Kinney posted.

 

You then complain about people not understanding your ill will. Good wind to you indeed.

[NineLine]

You can pretty much guarantee as long as they dont totally screw the pooch, and hold to the standards set by the DCS label, the average... well even most of the above average Flight Sim users that enjoy DCS wont be able to tell that the F-35A module is not highly accurate representation of the real aircraft...

 

As exhibit A, I call into evidence all discussions of realism in the forums of the now popular WWII MMO games on the market :)

 

Actually, to quote you, 'words'. You haven't said anything useful. You're just filling posts with empty rethoric whining about how you can't prove that F-35 will be realistic and at the same time, how you're not accusing anyone (!!!) of anything. No really, it's like you had nothing else to do but pick apart a couple of sentences that Kinney posted.

 

You then complain about people not understanding your ill will. Good wind to you indeed.

[Antorian]

I'm really excited about this aircraft coming out. Some people are calling foul because it won't be 100% accurate. As was pointed out before, even the A-10C had some approximation done for certain systems. And you know what? I wouldn't have known unless you told me.

 

Now to the F-35A. I think we are going to get a great aircraft to fly. Many of the air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons it carries are already in DCS world. That and the GUI interface for the cockpit has been documented pretty well (the simulator walkthrough of the F-35 cockpit outlined in the kickstarter videos is a great resource). Now that doesn't mean every menu or weapon will fire or work as it does in the real thing at 100%. But what I want and what I think a lot of us want from a DCS product, is a close, thoughtful representation of aircraft and vehicles.

 

So far, I've been seeing that out of DCS World and the modules that have been released and I feel that the F-35A can hit that mark.

[Prophet]

You can pretty much guarantee as long as they dont totally screw the pooch, and hold to the standards set by the DCS label, the average... well even most of the above average Flight Sim users that enjoy DCS wont be able to tell that the F-35A module is not highly accurate representation of the real aircraft...

 

As exhibit A, I call into evidence all discussions of realism in the forums of the now popular WWII MMO games on the market :)

 

Thats been exactly my opinion. Most of the classified stuff will not even matter to us. Not unless ED was to create an engine to accurately model radar transmission and reflection and all that jaz.

 

These were the same reason and such we heard back in the LOMAC days. And we all know how accurately those have been modelled. There was plenty of criticism of LOMAC versus Falcon 4.0.

 

Now I realize to the Air Quake crowd this module probably wont see much use unless everyone is using it. But I see tremendous value in Co-op and single player.

[Boberro]

Just wanted to point out....

 

Has anyone else really noticed the level of detail that Kinney interactive has implemented so far?

 

They are still Very early in the development stages and already this module looks outstanding.

 

Very impressive... :thumbup:

 

 

 

Remeber it is just render. Renders always look much better than in the game.

[Phantom88]

That may get my money... so when I come back from Afghanistan, I'll have something to tinker with.

 

Keep your head down Brother,Safe Return.

[MaverickNZ]

Hey everyone, can we ask a big favour!

We have just started a thread on F-16.net also, to try and get more people aware of this project. If you have a forum account there we would really appreaciate some support so the thread doesnt get buried before people see it!

 

The link to the thread is http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-24241.html

 

Thanks!

[Vivoune]

I think anyone has an opinion on what a module that bear DCS's name should imply in terms of quality and it can be the source of an infinite debate given our opinions are as wide as our crowd is a niche. I think if someone doesn't trust in Kinney Int's project, that someone should above all trust in Eagle Dynamics judgement and so far that F-35 project is also under their wings, I might not like it but that's good enough for me.

[Prophet]

It would be safe to say it will be as accurate as the information, their ability, and their commitment will allow.

 

Besides the flight performance data, is there anything else one would consider a no-go? There seems to be decent data on most the MFD. screens and avionics.

 

I look forward to it more for coop than air quake TBH. I hope it ends up sweet.

 

Edit: How will the AN/AAQ-37 EO-DAS system be handled? 360 IR view in the helmet, cueing missiles with the DAS, threat launch detection (mainly the sams)... Would there be a DCS limitation?

 

Edited July 4, 2013 by =Prophet=

[SinCityJet]

In my opinion, the goals and timetable stated on the Kickstarter webpage are unrealistic. While I might happily be proven wrong, this project will only get funding from me when it goes on sale on DCS World. Something does not smell right... "right out of the shoot."

[Vaff]

There was plenty of criticism of LOMAC versus Falcon 4.0

 

In some areas DCS have alittle more work to do to get up the old mighty Falcon 4

 

Still love to fire it up on my server and run a Dynamic Campaign that runs for many days non stop.

 

I was one of those from the Falcon world that thougt Lomac was bad, but whit time that changed. Just have to give it a chance like the new F35 module. We can sit here for years and discuss if it is good or not, but well untill it is is finished, non of us can realy tell. I pledged and that is my choice. Nobody forced me to do it. Maybe it will be a bad move but time will tell.

[Antorian]

Idea! so I'm guessing some of you guys are pilots or pilots in training. If you have a FBO that you go to for lessons, hanger service or whatever, let them know about the project. I'm sure they'd be as interested as many of us are.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Antorian

[MaverickNZ]

Due to requests from both high pledgers and virtual squadrons, we have added two new pledge levels!

 

The first of these is the $1,000 level, which gives you not only all the rewards of the previous tiers, including a digital AND boxed copy of the F-35A sim, OPEVAL access, hard copy manual, test patch, and both the F-35B [/url]and F-35C ‎ additional aircraft, it also includes personalised versions of all three aircraft, and your own custom paint job*!

 

The second addition is we have had some groups ask us about getting their squadron represented or reserved in-game. Now for $3,000 you can get 12 digital copies of the A, B or C model, and 12 personalised aircraft with an exclusive custom squadron paint scheme* (Can be real or fictional) - this is limited to a first in, first served basis, so get in quick to secure your squadron.

 

*custom paint designs subject to KI approval

[sylkhan]

Due to requests from both high pledgers and virtual squadrons, we have added two new pledge levels!

 

The first of these is the $1,000 level, which gives you not only all the rewards of the previous tiers, including a digital AND boxed copy of the F-35A sim, OPEVAL access, hard copy manual, test patch, and both the F-35B [/url]and F-35C ‎ additional aircraft, it also includes personalised versions of all three aircraft, and your own custom paint job*!

 

The second addition is we have had some groups ask us about getting their squadron represented or reserved in-game. Now for $3,000 you can get 12 digital copies of the A, B or C model, and 12 personalised aircraft with an exclusive custom squadron paint scheme* (Can be real or fictional) - this is limited to a first in, first served basis, so get in quick to secure your squadron.

 

*custom paint designs subject to KI approval

:lol:

[Cedaway]

Something I don't understand:

 

For high price pledgers, F-35A and F-35B or/and C will be available.

BUT the goal to reach is $75K.

 

On the kickstarter site, there are those sentences:

 

REACH GOALS

Again, all of us here at Kinney Interactive thank you for your support, and it’s important that you know that all of the funds will go towards the development and integration of F-35A Lightning II, (and reward fulfillment). Possible additions, based on Reach Goals, are listed below. Please note these goals will extend the schedule but will not change the initial delivery of the F-35A.

 

$75,000 – F-35A

F-35A Lightning II includes Campaigns, Training & Instant Action Missions

 

$105,000 – Interactive Ground Crew

F-35A + Ground Crew includes interactive Crew Chief for launch and recovery activities. We will also work to integrate the ability of the pilot to do a "Walk Around" prior to flights.

 

$155,000 - F-35C F-35A + F-35C will include CVN – 78 with full carrier operations plus interactive deck crew. Plus two more campaigns, (one Navy & one USMC), additional Instant Action, Training, and Online Missions. F-35C will have paint schemes for TWELVE SQUADRONS, (8 Navy / 4 USMC) Squadrons are subject to founder selection…

 

$220,000 - F-35B F-35A + F-35C + F-35B will include the LHA-6 America with full carrier operations plus interactive deck crew in support of the VSTOL fighters. Plus two campaigns, additional Instant Action, Training, and Online Missions. F-35B will have paint schemes for EIGHT SQUADRONS, (4 USMC / 2 UK / 2 Italy) Squadrons are subject to founder selection…

 

SO, If I underdstand correctly, if Kinney Interactive reach $75K goal, it would be possible or at least financially easier to model the F-35A... And for the B and C version that are promised? Should the company reach $155K or $225K in order to have the C and B version modelized?

[TZeer]

B and C will be made regardless. It will just take longer time. As they will have to get funding elsewhere.

[sylkhan]

B and C will be made regardless. It will just take longer time. As they will have to get funding elsewhere.

Ah, ....it's so easy to get funding ?

And if they can't get funding(for whatever reason), what happend for someone who pledge 1000$ ?

[MaverickNZ]

If the kickstarter doesnt reach target then noone will be charged.

All three models are being developed regardless, it will simply take longer to source funding and then do the versions one at a time. The idea behind the stretch goals is that it would give us enough funding to start working on the B and C models much earlier on in development.

[Cedaway]

....

....

.... We will ha DCS module only and IF the module will be completed and accurate enough to be included into DCS, today we have only words.

 

:music_whistling: Errr, on what basis or documentation will/would YOU state the level of fidelity of the Flight Model or sensors accuracy, avionics,... ?

Are you professional in aerotech or are you involved in the real F-35 project?

 

Guess not.

So, as you well said,... 'Good wind'. ;)

 

And if you're still interested in high level of fidelity, instead of trolling the K.I. F-35 project, try with beczl Mig-21bis or VEAO Hawk or...

Edited July 4, 2013 by Cedaway

[Cedaway]

If the kickstarter doesnt reach target then noone will be charged.

All three models are being developed regardless, it will simply take longer to source funding and then do the versions one at a time. The idea behind the stretch goals is that it would give us enough funding to start working on the B and C models much earlier on in development.

 

 

Oh, thank you for the fast answer :thumbup:

[sylkhan]

If the kickstarter doesnt reach target then noone will be charged.

The first level, 75000$ will be reach, if necessary, with your own funding, then all will be charged.

It's a fact :)

Then my question is:

If someone paye 1000$, and you can't do the B, C models, and all you promise, for whatever reason,

what happend for the 1000$ buyer ?

 

Don't forget

"EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Always in motion is the future"

 

It's not from me, i read this somewhere :)

Edited July 4, 2013 by sylkhan

[Starkiller]

The first level, 75000$ will be reach, if necessary, with your own funding, then all will be charge.

It's a fact :)

No, your hardcoreness, there is nothing dictate that KI have to put their money to make the minimum goal reached. So it is not a fact, just one of the possibilities.