DCS F-35A

[beaupower32]

Nice banner!

[Revelation]

No, I am right. Count me in, then "we", and many other hardcore simmer.

 

We is subjective. As I said you are wrong. You nor npole speak for the community. Let's get something else clear... I don't speak for the DCS community. I can tell you that your generalization is 100% in fact wrong.

 

I can also provide hard data that close to 300 people support this project. How many can you provide without creating a number out of thin air?

 

You mention hardcore simmers.... I laugh at that...

 

If you are such a hardcore simmer, why would you ask for features from the Huey to be ported to the BS? I mean a hardcore simmer would want 100% authenticity, not ease of use - no? Better yet, give me a server you will be on and let's see how "hardcore" you fly....

 

Based on your other posts, it appears your hatred of the F-35 has nothing to do with realism/hardcore flight sim - your only real complaint is that it is a US based fighter...

 

Sure I wish more Russian birds were in the pipeline. They are fun to learn and fun to fly from time to time. Plus I find it more fun when the other team is flying AFM, fully modeled AC. Heck I'd love to see someone mod any Russian stealth bird - make things real interesting...

 

Take the Mig-21, please go and read all of my posts on beczl's work... I fully supported that project and put money in on it. I didn't do it because I thought it was the greatest fighter in the world, I did it because I believe in DCS and I wanted to support 3rd party Devs. It didn't hurt that I wanted to fly the bird a few times before I got into the cockpit of DCS F-18C and begin shooting them down. :)

 

The guys behind the Huey are doing an Hind, I couldn't care less about a Hind, but I will support them anyways. I would love to have a Kiowa or an Apache, but hey, that's just me.

 

See, when you pull your head out of your "nether-regions" and realize that not everyone likes the exact same thing as you and every module that comes to DCS is good for DCS - you just might learn to appreciate the little things.

 

In closing, let me remind you that the Devs behind the F-35 have access to more information than they have publicly stated. They have experience with flight sims, even directly for the military - you know the same ones that pilots train with before they actually get into the bird.

 

You keep talking about hardcore simming and DCS quality and a whole bunch of stuff you know little about. ED has allowed the DCS branding on the F-35 project for a reason...

[Python]

Has "will it have AFM question" been answered?

 

I would also like to know this, my $50 is waiting if the answer is yes. I have never committed to a kickstart but there's a first for everything and this one sounds promising...

[joey45]

I would say yes.

[xaoslaad]

You mention hardcore simmers.... I laugh at that...

 

I wish the whole 'hardcore' simmer thing would die in fire.

 

I doubt most of us started with anything more than a joystick to crash our jets and choppers into the ground in new and interesting ways.

 

And yet at times it seems as though the flight sim community goes out of its way to be as uninviting as possible to newbies. It is as if you don't have a cockpit in your house, a 7 monitor setup, track-ir, pedals, a 400 dollar hotas, and adhere to realistic comms your opinion doesn't count and there is no place for you. But those same people will insist on doing SEAD against SA-11's in the A-10C while carrying 6 mavericks, 6 GBU-12's, 2 GBU-38's and whatever else they can stuff under the wings, so go figure.

 

As much as I love flight sims it does not really surprise me that it is such a niche market.

 

Last I checked my enlistment is up, I was never commissioned in any branch of the military to fly jets or choppers, and so I'm not a hardcore simmer. And if my friends want to fly with labels on, that's cool with me. I'll just try to find targets with the tgp from even further out, before the dots start showing up.

[npole]

Some clarification: when I say "we", I mean DCS seen from a simulation point of view (simmers), it then started to slide to a "bad arcadish" route, understandable for Flaming Cliffs, because ED needed some cash to have enough fund to support the real core of DCS (A10C/BS level...).

 

But keeping the same route, even for third parties, would means to encourage this behavior even more.. now I can ignore what they are trying to do, but im realist and I can't live in my own world, my experience must rely on other players (online), so if we ignore what's going on, one day we will have flying ships all around us.

 

Neither i'm against someone trying to raise found for an "experiment".. but they shouldn't promise a DCS module from the start.

It looks like that they have already decided that this WILL BE a DCS module.. it's like: "hey, gimme 75k and you'll be see a official F35 module". With all my respect, but if you did NOT started to develop the thing, and knowing that it will be extremely hard to collect info for this aircraft, how do you know that this will be good enough to be a DCS module?

 

What "scares" me is that someone have decided already that this will be a official module, no matter if it will turn to be crap, it will be sold (when completed) as a official module. So anyone may thinks from tomorrow that a bunch of money will be enough to release a official DCS module... and the quality? DCS doesn't deserves this future (money or not).

[sylkhan]

You mention hardcore simmers.... I laugh at that...

 

If you are such a hardcore simmer, why would you ask for features from the Huey to be ported to the BS? I mean a hardcore simmer would want 100% authenticity, not ease of use - no?

 

You reffer to this post :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105773

 

It is precisely for the BS rudders act more realisticaly (without return to center at each time you trim the Shark). But if you don't understand that, i can do nothing for you.

 

your only real complaint is that it is a US based fighter...

?????? a link please.

It's just the approch/method that i dislike and the fact that it's a gen5 fighter

 

You keep talking about hardcore simming and DCS quality and a whole bunch of stuff you know little about.

Really :)

 

ED has allowed the DCS branding on the F-35 project for a reason...

Sure, and.....?

Edited July 3, 2013 by sylkhan

[159th_Viper]

Has "will it have AFM question" been answered?

 

Nope.

 

Patiently waiting myself. I mean yes, it will obviously have some type of AFM I would have thought but the 'how we get there and what docs we use to get to the AFM' would be good to know before I contemplate pledging.

Edited July 3, 2013 by 159th_Viper

[NineLine]

What "scares" me is that someone have decided already that this will be a official module...

 

I would think this would scare you less, Im sure having the DCS tag will hold them to a certain standard, now I have no idea what the agreement between 3rd party and ED entail, but I would imagine to hold the DCS tag it needs to meet ED's criteria of a official module...

[GGTharos]

Some clarification: when I say "we", I mean DCS seen from a simulation point of view (simmers), it then started to slide to a "bad arcadish" route, understandable for Flaming Cliffs, because ED needed some cash to have enough fund to support the real core of DCS (A10C/BS level...).

 

The real core of DCS is DCSW, not any specific aircraft. When you say 'we', you really mean 'me'. As for me, I've seen features that didn't make it into A-10C, some that almost didn't make it, and I have some idea as to what's 'approximated', as you said, or if you prefer in some case flat out made up. So really, you don't even know the size of your yardstick here when you're accusing K.I. of making unrealistic/arcade/whatever sims.

 

But keeping the same route, even for third parties, would means to encourage this behavior even more.. now I can ignore what they are trying to do, but im realist and I can't live in my own world, my experience must rely on other players (online), so if we ignore what's going on, one day we will have flying ships all around us.

 

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

 

Neither i'm against someone trying to raise found for an "experiment".. but they shouldn't promise a DCS module from the start.

It looks like that they have already decided that this WILL BE a DCS module.. it's like: "hey, gimme 75k and you'll be see a official F35 module". With all my respect, but if you did NOT started to develop the thing, and knowing that it will be extremely hard to collect info for this aircraft, how do you know that this will be good enough to be a DCS module?

 

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

 

What "scares" me is that someone have decided already that this will be a official module, no matter if it will turn to be crap, it will be sold (when completed) as a official module. So anyone may thinks from tomorrow that a bunch of money will be enough to release a official DCS module... and the quality? DCS doesn't deserves this future (money or not).

 

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.

[cichlidfan]

The idea of no information flowing outside of the 'founders' forum is looking better and better every day.

[D34]

You just got my 150$, really looking forward to this..

[Exorcet]

Some clarification: when I say "we", I mean DCS seen from a simulation point of view (simmers)

That's me. The F-35 is fine from that point of view. So "we" is still wrong.

 

 

it then started to slide to a "bad arcadish" route

This never happened and there is no indication of this ever happening.

 

That includes CA, which actually took the AI ground units and allowed for much better behavior through human interaction. CA itself is not a sim, but it is a wonderful sim asset for DCSW.

 

Calling FC arcade is a joke.

 

But keeping the same route, even for third parties, would means to encourage this behavior even more.. now I can ignore what they are trying to do, but im realist and I can't live in my own world, my experience must rely on other players (online), so if we ignore what's going on, one day we will have flying ships all around us.

This too is a joke. Less fidelity than A-10C (which may or may not be true) does not make flying ships. It makes a DCS sim with a different level of fidelity.

 

Neither i'm against someone trying to raise found for an "experiment".. but they shouldn't promise a DCS module from the start.

But everything else gets a free pass?

 

It looks like that they have already decided that this WILL BE a DCS module

Yes, like every other DCS module.

.. it's like: "hey, gimme 75k and you'll be see a official F35 module". With all my respect, but if you did NOT started to develop the thing, and knowing that it will be extremely hard to collect info for this aircraft, how do you know that this will be good enough to be a DCS module?

Everyone else. Everyone.

 

What "scares" me is that someone have decided already that this will be a official module, no matter if it will turn to be crap

Everyone else.

 

DCS doesn't deserves this future (money or not).

This is exactly what DCS needs. Simulating things to the highest degree possible.

[Revelation]

Some clarification: when I say "we", I mean DCS seen from a simulation point of view (simmers), it then started to slide to a "bad arcadish" route, understandable for Flaming Cliffs, because ED needed some cash to have enough fund to support the real core of DCS (A10C/BS level...).

Again, you speak for yourself. You do not speak for the "simmers." I am a simmer and you know not of that which you speak...

 

 

Neither i'm against someone trying to raise found for an "experiment".. but they shouldn't promise a DCS module from the start.

It looks like that they have already decided that this WILL BE a DCS module.. it's like: "hey, gimme 75k and you'll be see a official F35 module". With all my respect, but if you did NOT started to develop the thing, and knowing that it will be extremely hard to collect info for this aircraft, how do you know that this will be good enough to be a DCS module?

You are against them, re-read all of your posts...

 

They promised a DCS module, ED has sanctioned the use of the DCS branding... If you cannot infer the end product from that - I can't help you...

 

You keep bringing up points that if you read their site, KS page and FB page your concerns would be answered. Your posts prove you have done nothing but try to belittle this project without finding whom is behind the project...

 

What "scares" me is that someone have decided already that this will be a official module, no matter if it will turn to be crap, it will be sold (when completed) as a official module. So anyone may thinks from tomorrow that a bunch of money will be enough to release a official DCS module... and the quality? DCS doesn't deserves this future (money or not).

Scared, really? ED decides if a module gets branded as DCS, not you nor I.

 

I'm more concerned that posts such as yours scare off other developers from brining more modules to DCSW.

 

You reffer to this post :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105773

 

It is precisely for the BS rudders act more realisticaly (without return to center at each time you trim the Shark). But if you don't understand that, i can do nothing for you.

Nope, this one:

 

euh.. what the point with flight director ?...just kidding :)

 

I just don't want to recenter my rudder pedal at each time I trim.

There are some tips like zxxz macro and a little lua program that do the job, but i would like it to be an option (more simple) like for the Huey

 

Thx Azrayen

 

 

 

?????? a link please.

It's just the approch/method that i dislike and the fact that it's a gen5 fighter

 

 

So you want me to post all of your anti-West posts.....

 

Here, do your own search through all of your own posts and read the disdain you have for Western AC...

 

Link

 

It's just the approch/method that i dislike and the fact that it's a gen5 fighter

 

But you had no problem when beczl went the crowd funding route? Oh, I see again, it's a western 5th gen fighter that is the problem....

[Revelation]

Has "will it have AFM question" been answered?

 

Yes it has and the answer is yes.

[MaverickNZ]

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).

 

Hi npole,

 

I think that's a pretty naive attitude there and it saddens me to hear that you feel that way about our project.

 

Perhaps it needs to be clarified as to why we are running this kickstarter campaign to address these misconceptions.

 

It has already been stated that the sim will be made regardless of kickstarter being successful or not, if it isnt, then it just means that alternate funding would have to be found to bridge the gap that this kickstarter is trying to fill, and that may take time - valuable time that could be used to get started developing the sim.

 

By having the community fund a portion of the development (in conjunction with existing funding), it puts more control in the hands of the development team and the community to create the sim that they want - a high quality, authentic as possible simulation of the F-35.

It also helps us to build a fantastic community of pilots who are as excited about this project as we are - who are willing to support us in the most expressive way possible - by putting their money where their mouths are. It is a great community like that which helps to create the highest quality product possible and a strong, supportive community can transform a good game, into a legendary game that lasts for decades. We have a long road ahead to make not just the A model, but the B and C model beyond that, and hopefully content for a long time to come.

 

As we have seen many times over in video game publishing, when you get traditional publishers involved it becomes less what the developers want, and more what the publisher thinks will sell the most copies, and if its not ready by the release date? well, how many games do we see released that are either "half baked" or buggy. And thats something that nobody wants.

 

Thats why we have had the likes of Ace Combat, Hawx, and that other Janes "advanced" strike fighters recently, instead of more high quality air combat simulators like the other DCS modules - because they sell more copies and make the publisher more money, and that's not what we are about.

 

So kickstarter is not "easy money" in fact, its really hard money - much harder then getting someone to just invest in the product, but in the end it could provide a better quality simulation - which to us is worth it. Because we aren't talking about a mod here, we are talking about an experienced development team, who are dedicated to creating a serious and detailed simulation at the level of the DCS titles that have gone before it.

 

I hope this has provided some food for thought and made the intentions behind this approach clearer.

 

Maverick

[Revelation]

Hi npole,

 

I think that's a pretty naive attitude there and it saddens me to hear that you feel that way about our project.

 

Perhaps it needs to be clarified as to why we are running this kickstarter campaign to address these misconceptions.

 

It has already been stated that the sim will be made regardless of kickstarter being successful or not, if it isnt, then it just means that alternate funding would have to be found to bridge the gap that this kickstarter is trying to fill, and that may take time - valuable time that could be used to get started developing the sim.

 

By having the community fund a portion of the development (in conjunction with existing funding), it puts more control in the hands of the development team and the community to create the sim that they want - a high quality, authentic as possible simulation of the F-35.

It also helps us to build a fantastic community of pilots who are as excited about this project as we are - who are willing to support us in the most expressive way possible - by putting their money where their mouths are. It is a great community like that which helps to create the highest quality product possible and a strong, supportive community can transform a good game, into a legendary game that lasts for decades. We have a long road ahead to make not just the A model, but the B and C model beyond that, and hopefully content for a long time to come.

 

As we have seen many times over in video game publishing, when you get traditional publishers involved it becomes less what the developers want, and more what the publisher thinks will sell the most copies, and if its not ready by the release date? well, how many games do we see released that are either "half baked" or buggy. And thats something that nobody wants.

 

Thats why we have had the likes of Ace Combat, Hawx, and that other Janes "advanced" strike fighters recently, instead of more high quality air combat simulators like the other DCS modules - because they sell more copies and make the publisher more money, and that's not what we are about.

 

So kickstarter is not "easy money" in fact, its really hard money - much harder then getting someone to just invest in the product, but in the end it could provide a better quality simulation - which to us is worth it. Because we aren't talking about a mod here, we are talking about an experienced development team, who are dedicated to creating a serious and detailed simulation at the level of the DCS titles that have gone before it.

 

I hope this has provided some food for thought and made the intentions behind this approach clearer.

 

Maverick

 

Great post Mav and it's too bad I cannot give you more "rep" for it...

[NineLine]

Yes it has and the answer is yes.

 

Yes, I believe I saw this too, though dont ask me to find it in the mess of a thread :)

 

As I side note I ask Lockheed if they had any simple drawings of their JTVL I could use for a 3D model and they told me no lol... so I hope a licensed product gets more help than a simple Canadian asking for stuff over the internet :D

[Randolf]

I feel that the idea of Kick Starter or other community funding is welcome as it allows one to avoid third party publishers. Having a publisher who attempts to maximize profits often results into dumbed down or "streamlined" games. This is a general issue with all video games that has been bothering me for a while.

 

ps. Before someone starts to split hair, I use the term "game" broadly, be it tetris or flight sim. :P

Edited July 3, 2013 by Randolf

[Mike Busutil]

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:

 

Edited July 3, 2013 by Mike Busutil

[Pilotasso]

Yes very pretty. :)

[cichlidfan]

Yes, I believe I saw this too, though dont ask me to find it in the mess of a thread :)

 

 

This is from the 'horse's mouth' regarding FM, in response to the question from GG.

 

Great question - I feel best about the aero model. Based on surface area, weight, size and dynamics of the control surfaces, interviews with test pilots and pilots that have flown against the Lightning. Now we won’t be perfect – but we will be very close – AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO MODIFY AND CHANGE WITH NEW INFORMATION. Starting this project I knew there would be classified ranges and operating limits of avionic equipment, but even this I believe can be overcome with crew interface logic that will rival the traveling simulator. But aerodynamics – we get it!!

[NineLine]

This is from the 'horse's mouth' regarding FM, in response to the question from GG.

 

That's the post I was thinking of...

[beaupower32]

I have been helping with the model, and It is comming along great. As for the flight model, it will be as real as we can get it. I keep thinking of the line "built by the people, for the the people" dont know where it came from, or if that is even how it goes. But seems to fit a little bit...

[SimFreak]

That's the post I was thinking of...

 

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