DCS F-35A

[ENO]

What squadron or nation do you want to see in the sim the most? ;)

 

 

Can Haz?

 

[beaupower32]

I will use my contacts as well:) oh wait, I am my own contact hehehe.....j/k

[Snoopy]

I will use my contacts as well:) oh wait, I am my own contact hehehe.....j/k

 

I have a feeling within the next few years I'll be working the F-35 as well. They are slotted to replace the A-10 eventually and since they are talking about retiring the entire fleet of A-10s next year it may be sooner than later.

[beaupower32]

May be. But lets hope not.

[MaverickNZ]

That's a good and bad thing. That's 190 some odd people with limited to no USAF/USN/USMC experience who will be "google" experts telling those actually in the know how something should work.

 

That being said look forward to being a tester and using my contacts at Eglin AFB, FL who are directly working the F-35.

 

Hi Paulrkii,

 

Thats a good point, and I think the answer to that is that we need to have a good and open relationship with the community that if someone disagrees with an element of the simulation we can explain, "well, this is the information we are working off" and be able to explain why we made that choice. We certainly want people to be giving us feedback on what they think. For instance, if testers with no real world military aviation background complain the sim is too hard or complicated, then we need to look at how we can help support those pilots, through creating training options, community support and other avenues, as Eagle said, our motto should be "No pilot left behind". Having a large number of testers is important to us to help ensure that the end product that we are releasing to the public is as high quality as possible. :)

[Mike Busutil]

I work with a friend, who is friends with the guy in charge of the F-35 sims here at our Marine core air station. At one point he offered to get us some flight time in the sim but I had to travel and missed out. Maybe I could put Mr Kinney in touch with him...

[beaupower32]

Plus it will show us how the general community might feel about the plane once its done. By having alot of testers can be a huge insite....

[MaverickNZ]

I work with a friend, who is friends with the guy in charge of the F-35 sims here at our Marine core air station. At one point he offered to get us some flight time in the sim but I had to travel and missed out. Maybe I could put Mr Kinney in touch with him...

 

I think David has already had some time in the F-35 sim, and is currently talking to them about getting some of the test team access also, but thats a great offer, if he is open to helping then it could be a great contact to have :)

[Snoopy]

As someone who has lots of experience with "Google" and "Wikipedia" experts "feeling" that something is wrong with the A-10C and want to argue even when I operate a system and/or quoted directly out of Tech Orders you can understand why I'm not a big fan of "internet" experts.

 

That's why I said it's a good/bad thing.

 

Plus there is the AFI 11-2F-35A series for getting pilots up to speed on certain elements of the F-35. IMO what we on the KI team need to use to build the training that will come with the ACFT.

 

All versions are available to the public.

 

AFI 11-2F-35A Volume 1; F-35A--AIRCREW TRAINING

AFI 11-2F-35A Volume 2; F-35A--AIRCREW EVALUATION CRITERIA

AFI 11-2F-35A Volume 3; F-35A-OPERATIONS PROCEDURES

AFI 11-2F-35A Volume 3; AETC Suppliment F-35A--OPERATIONS PROCEDURES

[Mike Busutil]

That's a good and bad thing. That's 190 some odd people with limited to no USAF/USN/USMC experience who will be "google" experts telling those actually in the know how something should work.

 

Everybody should on the team should have some say in it BUT, I agree the Test team that determines how to test or how she should fly should have some type of experience with R&D, Test and evaluation, real world etc....

 

This will help to ensure proper testing, in order to get proper test results. :thumbup:

 

EDIT:

Kinney did say they would produce the test cards or procedures for the testing stage. As long as these are correct and followed properly, it should not be a problem who flys them.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Mike Busutil

[Snoopy]

Everybody on the team should have some say in it BUT, I agree the Test team that determines how to test or how she should fly should have some type of experience with R&D, Test and evaluation, real world etc....

 

This will help to ensure proper testing, in order to get proper test results. :thumbup:

 

Exactly, testing should be directed and not a "free for all" otherwise all you get is opinions. For example.

 

System X operates like so based on Tech Order 1F-35A-XYZ (or something along those lines).

 

Testers Jim, Bob, & Sam are tasked to check to make sure it is operating In Accordance with the documentation provided. Provide feedback based on provided test guidelines and provided documentation.

 

This takes the "guess work" out for the testers and removes their "feeling" out of the testing. As soon as you completely open it up for the "I don't feel it's right" but they have nothing to base it on the testing becomes a joke (speaking from experience again).

[MaverickNZ]

Exactly, testing should be directed and not a "free for all" otherwise all you get is opinions. For example.

 

 

 

This takes the "guess work" out for the testers and removes their "feeling" out of the testing. As soon as you completely open it up for the "I don't feel it's right" but they have nothing to base it on the testing becomes a joke (speaking from experience again).

 

Yes, as David Kinney said in his video, the OPEVAL testing will be very closely directed :)

[Snoopy]

We shall see...

[beaupower32]

And it should be closely watched. Just so you get accurate data, besides I think the test cards are a great idea. And just like the real world if it doesnt eork the first time you get to test it again

[Eihort]

"Here's today's cards guys!" *drops ream of paper on table*

*groans*

 

--------------------

 

"Today we're doing the B-12 series..."

"BINGO!"

[Snoopy]

That is one long flame!

 

 

 

Just thought they looked cool...

 

 

[Mike Busutil]

And it should be closely watched. Just so you get accurate data, besides I think the test cards are a great idea. And just like the real world if it doesnt eork the first time you get to test it again

 

Typically any test should be completed three times for each configuration and averaged out.

 

Example:

Stall testing at Max weight / zero flaps, record stall speed. (Repeat two more times)

/ half flaps, record stall speed. (Repeat two more times)

/ full flaps, record stall speed. (Repeat two more times)

 

 

Stall testing at Mid weight / zero flaps, record stall speed. (Repeat two more times)

/ half flaps, record stall speed. (Repeat two more times)

/ full flaps, record stall speed. (Repeat two more times)

 

Stall testing at Min weight / zero flaps, record stall speed. (Repeat two more times)

/ half flaps, record stall speed. (Repeat two more times)

/ full flaps, record stall speed. (Repeat two more times)

 

You can see with a trend like this, valid testing can be drawn out... :joystick:

Edited July 4, 2013 by Mike Busutil

[eagle13]

Hello to all with some thoughts on testing. The test cards are very specific in order to evaluate data points. the more data the better, and as always the remarks section will be used for thoughts. The development team can then evaluate, make modes and ask for retest. Of course looking at high AOA is a lot different than evaluating the RWR system, more data is good. The OPEVAL Team will be part of finding normal bugs but also defining the systems on this great jet - this will include training modules - No Pilot Left Behind!

[Eihort]

Remember: Configuration managment is your friend. :D

[Snoopy]

Hello to all with some thoughts on testing. The test cards are very specific in order to evaluate data points. the more data the better, and as always the remarks section will be used for thoughts.

 

As they should be! I'm glad to hear testing will be very structured. Obviously from my earlier posts it's something I think is very important!

 

The OPEVAL Team will be part of finding normal bugs but also defining the systems on this great jet - this will include training modules - No Pilot Left Behind!

 

I would be very careful with that statement. To me this statement sounds like "majority rules" on how a system should work. If that's the case that isn't "DCS A-10C" level of detail but approaching arcade. If that is the route the F-35 is going to go I would have to say my donation to kickstarter wouldn't be there anymore.

 

A DCS level sims should, IMO be based on available tech data. Of course with the F-35 that will be hard to come by but what is available should be used not someone thinking it should do this or that who has no actual experience with the system.

 

As I said earlier, someone "feeling" a system should operate one way doesn't mean that is how it does operate.

 

Like I also said earlier there are people who will argue until they are blue in the face because they feel something should be a certain way but have no technical knowledge or experience to back it up when someone who does tells them otherwise.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Snoopy

[AussieM8]

Hi all

 

At the current rate of Kickstarter pledges it doesn't look like the goal of $75,000 will be reached, As of posting pledges at $23,651/6 days= $3942 per day x that by 16 days only gives a total of $63,072 so short $11928 at current rate of pledges. So will need to up the rate of pledges to $5134.90 per day to meet the $75.000. Come on everyone dig deep into those pockets and lets get this baby in the air.

 

Windows 7 x64, i7-3770k OC 4.4GHz with Noctua NH-D14 CPU Cooler ,ASRock Z68 Fatal1ty Pro Gen 3

G.Skill Ripjaws 16gig DDR3,, Gigabyte HD7970 GHz Egition 3GB, HOTAS

Warthog,Saitek Combat Pedals and TrackIr 5

Using Deadman's Covers and Metalnwood's extension.

Edited July 3, 2013 by AussieM8

[kk0425]

I'm banking on the procrastinators to kick in that last little bit in the final days. I'll wait until after Friday to start sweating though. It's payday.

[npole]

It is. And according to kicktraq they won't make it if the current trend continues. I'm not interested in the F-35 myself so I haven't pledged but I wish them they get the project funded nevertheless.

 

I hope in the opposite: that they WON'T make it.

Nor because I hate KI (considering the general slowness of ED, we can only hope into third parties), or because I particular hate this aircraft (more variation = better, no matter what), but because I do not approve the method.

I hope they won't succeed because if they do, it would invite other ppl in search of "easy money" to do the same in the future, and honestly I wouldn't like this type of "approximation" and guessing approach flooding into DCS, it's more an amateur thing that should be confined into a unofficial mod rather than a official module (I mean: prove it works good enough as a mod.. then ask to be included as DCS module).

[Neor]

I hope in the opposite: that they WON'T make it.

Nor because I hate KI (considering the general slowness of ED, we can only hope into third parties), or because I particular hate this aircraft (more variation = better, no matter what), but because I do not approve the method.

I hope they won't succeed because if they do, it would invite other ppl in search of "easy money" to do the same in the future, and honestly I wouldn't like this type of "approximation" and guessing approach flooding into DCS, it's more an amateur thing that should be confined into a unofficial mod rather than a official module (I mean: prove it works good enough as a mod.. then ask to be included as DCS module).

 

I'm sorry but that is stupid...

(I sad sorry):megalol:

[sebbomann]

I hope in the opposite: that they WON'T make it.

Nor because I hate KI (considering the general slowness of ED, we can only hope into third parties), or because I particular hate this aircraft (more variation = better, no matter what), but because I do not approve the method.

I hope they won't succeed because if they do, it would invite other ppl in search of "easy money" to do the same in the future, and honestly I wouldn't like this type of "approximation" and guessing approach flooding into DCS, it's more an amateur thing that should be confined into a unofficial mod rather than a official module (I mean: prove it works good enough as a mod.. then ask to be included as DCS module).

 

Given that the market for hardcore simulations like DCS is a niche market, I see the benefits of crowdfunding for getting the money to develop on a module.

Developing a module seems to be much more work than I expected.

 

They have my 50$.