DCS F-35A

[531-Ghost]

Well everyone, it has been a very funny thread. Got a few laughs out of it.

 

I'd like to say thank-you to the members of the "ZOMG F-35 IS AWESOMESAUCE" crowd, and a thanks for all the useless pictures that I wasted bandwidth on. You're awesome!

 

I would however like to point out that if the F-35 was the coming of the aircraft messiah that some seem to proclaim, why were there alleged backhand deals done to sell it in Europe? Oops, off topic...

 

Secondly, thank-you to the "F-35 is a flying heap of junk" crowd. Between the above group and yours, the slugging matches have been amusing to say the least.

 

Finally, I'd like to praise those that form the "Mum! He's saying bad things are going to happen and is trying to shatter my illusions of sunshine and bunnies!" group. Ah, like the arguments of children in a playground.

 

It has been quite a roller-coaster indeed.

 

It has indeed. I particularly like the squirrel. :D

[Hans-Joachim Marseille]

Has there been a formal

from Kinney Interactive on the unsuccessful funding?

Or are they too disgusted by the flamewar on this forum to post here again?

Edited July 14, 2013 by Hans-Joachim Marseille

[PeterP]

(edit: please note the edit at the end of the post!)

 

Sorry - can I get a better explanation as the given one?

 

 

 

I made some texture works myself - you must be damn good to recreate a texture of someone else without to copy it directly...

just saying.

 

edit:

please, don't get me wrong - I have no problem if you use some templates from others during the wip -but saying that it has nothing to do with it is a different thing.

>>>https://www.facebook.com/DCSF35

• 
  Lawrence Wells That looks exactly like Dino's F-35 for FSX. Is he on your team?
   
  https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1044678_588253264538770_642166901_n.jpgÜbersetzung anzeigenhttps://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1044678_588253264538770_642166901_n.jpg
  sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
   
   
   
   
   
  9. Juli um 11:41
  
  • 
    DCS F-35 Hi Lawrence Wells, the panel is as close to the actual aircraft as we can make it, so we would expect them to have some level of similarity. If you look really closely you can see quite a few differences between Dino's FSX version and ours particularly in the bolts/screws used and the buttons under the attitude indicator/mini hud and the thickness of that instrument panel. Also bear in mind that ours is very much a work in progress at this stage.
    9. Juli um 14:24 · Bearbeitet
    

   

FSX:

 

 

 

kinney-interactive:

 

 

EDIT:

Here is a possible answer

LOL

I've been modelling F-35cockpit, just for fun, in Maya somewhere in 2009, before Dino released his model. And I have made exactly the same textures for pedestal. And you know why? Because we all used the same photo!

 

 

 

 

Don't have a better picture of it now.

P.S. that photo is basically a perfect projection, too perfect to ignore.

Edited July 14, 2013 by PeterP

[Python]

Has there been a formal

from Kinney Interactive on the unsuccessful funding?

Or are they too disgusted by the flamewar on this forum to post here again?

 

From their Facebook page (DCS F-35)

 

 

 

 

"An announcement from David Kinney regarding our Kickstarter campaign.

 

On behalf of the Kinney Interactive Team, I would like to thank everyone who has supported the F-35A project over the last few weeks.While we did not meet our Kickstarter financial goal, we have gained something just as valuable, a large number of passionate and enthusiastic community members, and future OPEVAL Test Pilots. As we had previously stated, the F-35 projects will still be going ahead, all be it at a slower pace, as we secure more conventional funding.

 

We have had a lot of supporters contact us, asking if they can still pledge to the project directly because they want to support us and see this project succeed. To them I would like to say thank you, but we prefer to have funding in place and a firm development schedule before taking additional funds. Again we value and look forward to your continued support.

 

Please continue to follow our progress for future announcements, and again thank you for your support"

[Exorcet]

I'm confused. How can we accurately model an airplane without hard data on even something as simple as climb rate?

Why would you need the data? You can figure it out from other data. Getting decent aero figures should be pretty easy. Wind tunnel or CFD.

 

Also I said sim, not perfectly accurate recreation. There will be error bars. I gladly welcome more aircraft at the expense of non consistent error bars (which may be the case already) since in DCS you can choose when, where, and how you use all the available modules.

 

My goal for DCS F-35, and for any module is to make them as accurate as possible. That should be DCS standard. Don't aim for A-10, if you can't reach it go a little less. If there is more info, go a little more.

 

In the end, I don't see why we can't get a realistic sim. We might have larger errors bars for this particular plane, but that's pretty trivial.

 

 

What's our metric? Make sure a late-block F-16 has to use Afterburner to keep up and call it "convincing"?

Convincing is not the goal, and all the talk about "you won't know the difference" that has been brought up by some supporters is not something I agree with. I may not know, but I still want it to be as realistic as possible.

 

As for the metrics, we've got at the very least the shape, weight, and general power plant info. We can fill it what's missing using other information. The F135 is still a turbofan. It's going to behave like a turbofan. All this talk about Tie Fighters (not saying you've mentioned this) is ridiculous because you can't really do anything to a Tie Fighter to fill in the gaps, except maybe a CFD model. The engine and weapon technology doesn't exist or isn't physically consistent. The F-35 is by default since it's actually real.

 

Thats hardly scientific. Apparently though I'm not being rational. You're already saying that my skepticism is irrational, hence my assumption that any statement that isn't basically cheer leading is going to be met with reluctance at best, and venom at worst.

I clearly said your concerns were valid. Quite a few other posts blew things out of proportion though.

 

As for being scientific, what I'm describing is.

[Mnemonic]

Sorry - can I get a better explanation as the given one?

 

I made some texture works myself - you must be damn good to recreate a texture of someone else without to copy it directly...

just saying.

 

LOL

I've been modelling F-35cockpit, just for fun, in Maya somewhere in 2009, before Dino released his model. And I have made exactly the same textures for pedestal. And you know why? Because we all used the same photo!

 

 

Don't have a better picture of it now.

P.S. that photo is basically a perfect projection, too perfect to ignore.

 

Edit: I found better screen of my model:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n1iunivdcw9ewiv/2013-07-14%2016.02.45.jpg

Edited July 14, 2013 by Mnemonic

[jctrnacty]

I think this thread was funny since the very begining, because if someone wants 75 k, then within 16 days its impossible, i have a big feeling of amateurism here.

Edited July 14, 2013 by jctrnacty

[Spins321]

(edit: please note the edit at the end of the post!)

 

Sorry - can I get a better explanation as the given one?

 

 

 

I made some texture works myself - you must be damn good to recreate a texture of someone else without to copy it directly...

just saying.

 

edit:

please, don't get me wrong - I have no problem if you use some templates from others during the wip -but saying that it has nothing to do with it is a different thing.

>>>https://www.facebook.com/DCSF35

FSX:

 

 

 

kinney-interactive:

 

 

EDIT:

Here is a possible answer

 

I can answer this one. We indeed used the same photo reference. It's a shot of the cockpit from just above the seat headrest, and a couple of shots looking down on the side panels. It's the flattest shot of the instrument panels that I could find, and gives some generally good scale of objects to one another. Since there is no instrument panel diagram I could find, it was my best and only photo reference.

 

I also looked up the CDC-2000J and found some good reference shots of that (and also information on what it is), so I could model the data link female end (not shown) and some other details. I also found some good side interior shots to get some of the depths and bezel parts on the LCD screen itself.

 

Any questions regarding modeling, I'm always happy to answer!

 

Jamal

[PeterP]

Stupid Me - I should have thought of it. - thanks for the prompt answer.

 

I deeply apologize!

[Spins321]

Meh, never any need to apologize for natural curiosity. :)

[PFunk1606688187]

I guess you must not have picked up on some of the hatred some of them are directing towards Kinney and others for no good reason. You would think Kinney ran over their puppy.

My experience has been deceit as to the truth of military backgrounds is in fact something which irks people. In any online community I've ever seen which involves realism related to the military there's always been fakers and liars and those who did serve or have some professional link to what another was allegedly lying about take it very personally, for good reason.

 

I have spoken privately to someone about their own factual conclusions about the "Kinney File" and I found them compelling enough. I won't repeat them as thats their prerogative.

 

And yes, I know you're going to take that as very convenient, but this isn't a court of law, its the internet, the least civilized place to do business this side of Bakara Market.

 

Why would you need the data? You can figure it out from other data. Getting decent aero figures should be pretty easy. Wind tunnel or CFD.

Oh yea, I mean its a secret, but nothing so secret some amateurs making computer games couldn't surmise themselves from information that isn't classified?

 

If its that simple, then the secret is rather superfluous isn't it? I think you're oversimplifying the whole notion of flight dynamics.

 

Also I said sim, not perfectly accurate recreation.

All the best sims I ever played used accurate information as references, and in many cases official performance data from the company that designed and tested the airframe. Add to that a healthy dose of expert pilot input and you get convincing sims.

 

You have none of that you get something that probably smells half baked from a mile away.

 

 

As for the metrics, we've got at the very least the shape, weight, and general power plant info. We can fill it what's missing using other information. The F135 is still a turbofan. It's going to behave like a turbofan. All this talk about Tie Fighters (not saying you've mentioned this) is ridiculous because you can't really do anything to a Tie Fighter to fill in the gaps, except maybe a CFD model. The engine and weapon technology doesn't exist or isn't physically consistent. The F-35 is by default since it's actually real.

.

 

I think you're oversimplifying this as well. The shape of the aircraft being known to us doesn't implicitly tell us anything about the drag index. One of the extraordinary things about the F-22 and the F-35 is this Supercruise capability. Many of the highly advanced factors that affect the future of airframe design are the reductions in drag we see generationally. It was enormous following WW2 and will be nearly the same here. To suggest we can just look at its shape and know how fast it goes or how drag affects things is rather silly.

 

This is all before we get into weapons tech, radar, stealth, avionics, and on and on. Its just a monstrous task to model even a single block, yet we're looking at an airframe that isn't even properly out the door and will be heavily modified in the coming years as they fix the bugs in it. You can't even get a camera crew near the tail of the thing without being given the G Man treatment.

 

I just think its going to be very expensive to make something where you have to wonder how much of its going to be complete guesswork.

[71st_Mastiff]

heres one of his games he help produce.

 

 

:thumbup:

[Exorcet]

 

 

Oh yea, I mean its a secret, but nothing so secret some amateurs making computer games couldn't surmise themselves from information that isn't classified?

 

If its that simple, then the secret is rather superfluous isn't it? I think you're oversimplifying the whole notion of flight dynamics.

 

It being secret hides the exact value. It does not mean you can't estimate it. I mentioned error bars in my last post more than once, it's an important bit.

 

Nothing I said was oversimplified, we don't have all the exact figures, but we can try to figure them out. It's not like it won't take work, but the classified data is not necessarily a deal breaker.

 

 

All the best sims I ever played used accurate information as references, and in many cases official performance data from the company that designed and tested the airframe. Add to that a healthy dose of expert pilot input and you get convincing sims.

 

You have none of that you get something that probably smells half baked from a mile away.

Do we have none of it, first of all? Secondly I don't agree at all with the second bit. The accuracy is an issue with missing data, but as for being half baked, that's pretty much on the devs. In the real world, you can't go out and prototype every concept design you have. There is a lot of virtual analysis going on, and it's safe to assume that these methods work or no one would use them.

 

 

 

 

I think you're oversimplifying this as well. The shape of the aircraft being known to us doesn't implicitly tell us anything about the drag index.

I don't see how you can conclude this unless I misinterpreted what you're saying. It tells us tons of things. Certainly enough to make a reasonable aero model that won't perform like a UFO.

 

Get an accurate recreation of the shape and you can dig for a gold mine of data. Not all the data, but quite a lot of important bits.

 

One of the extraordinary things about the F-22 and the F-35 is this Supercruise capability. Many of the highly advanced factors that affect the future of airframe design are the reductions in drag we see generationally. It was enormous following WW2 and will be nearly the same here. To suggest we can just look at its shape and know how fast it goes or how drag affects things is rather silly.

Well to a degree it's true. From a zoomed out perspective, aerodynamics can be pretty simple. It's pretty clear why WWII aircraft are terrible at trasn and supersonic flight. Engineers are trained to do this because it saves a great deal of time to be able to dismiss certain designs in favor of others if they're going to do poorly. Sure we could just toss everything into a computer and get aero coefficients to a dozen decimal places, but then nothing would get done.

 

In the case of the F-22 and F-35, the shape plays a major role in allowing them to reach their performance. Aerodynamics is geometry, shape something to get a desired reaction from the air. If you can model either to a high enough degree of accuracy, you don't need the data charts, because you can make them yourself.

 

This is all before we get into weapons tech, radar, stealth, avionics, and on and on. Its just a monstrous task to model even a single block, yet we're looking at an airframe that isn't even properly out the door and will be heavily modified in the coming years as they fix the bugs in it. You can't even get a camera crew near the tail of the thing without being given the G Man treatment.

All of those have underlying physics that let you fill in gaps, just like aero. How many gaps you have to fill depends on your starting info, and KI has claimed to have some (though we don't know what). So already, it's not pure guesswork, it's engineering.

 

We also need to take into account how all of these things are handled in the sim anyway. Stealth for example can be pretty complex if you want to be perfectly accurate, but that doesn't mean that there aren't simple models available to cut down the work while giving you good accuracy. I can't talk much about stealth since I'm an aero guy, but in aero before you go to CFD, you have Thin airfoil theory, Lifting Line, panel methods, and their derivatives which allow you to model an aircraft without extreme hardware. We all know that DCS isn't running CFD on the aircraft models in game. The AFM breaks the aircraft into pieces and computes forces on those pieces, something you can do with the panel method. RCS is probably somewhat similar You have a base value that is multiplied by a function of angle with respect to the radar. Don't expect any aircraft, F-35 or otherwise to have an accurate RCS map including all the spikes and dips around 360 by 360 degrees with .01 degree resolution.

 

I just think its going to be very expensive to make something where you have to wonder how much of its going to be complete guesswork.

Well we know that the lower bound for guesswork is 0%. I can't really look at the F-35 as being any different from other modules accept that their might be a drop in accuracy (though it's not a given) compared to earlier planes. I see no reason not to expect a sim, and I see no reason to wait until 2050 just to have a sim that little bit more accurate. I'm content with getting what can be made and understanding the limitations that come with it.

 

Since this isn't ED, it's not like it's taking resources away from anyone. Third parties should do what is best for them. If KI is in a better position to do the F-35 than someone else, they should do the F-35. Someome else will come along and make MiG's and F-5's and whatever, and probably do a better job that someone who isn't interested in those other planes or does not have any info on them and has to start from scratch.

 

So I guess the short of it is, to me "DCS standard" varies from plane to plane - it's as accurate as you can get for that particular model. I don't feel a need to be limited to A-10 accuracy or to exclude aircraft that can't meet that accuracy, so long as they are all built as sims. There are too many aircraft to enjoy.

[Napa]

heres one of his games he help produce.

 

 

:thumbup:

 

I remember trying the demo of this sim a long long time ago. :thumbup:

[Eihort]

Meh. Read the thread on the other board, and a lot of that I find humorous. They don't even know how little they know about some of the things they think they do.

[PFunk1606688187]

....

 

Well there's nothing more to argue. I say you need hard information and experienced first hand references to construct a credible FM, you suggest we can do it all from just looking at pictures and extrapolating the likely performance envelope within an undefined margin of error.

 

To me your interpretation of how one should build an aircraft for a sim falls into the mediocre category that is populated by the aircraft I usually stay away from.

 

Lets examine Belsimtek's released article on the experience of the lead going to the US to fly a real Huey. He discusses how his experience with real Russian helos combined with knowledge of the Huey they're designing allowed him to take control relatively quickly. He discovered that much of their presumed flight model was very accurate, however at higher speeds (if I recall correctly) their FM really didn't reflect the correct dynamics, which is something they'll look into solving.

 

This is the thing I'm talking about. The Huey is as venerable a helicopter as you can find, with countless pilots having flown it since the 60s. So much data, so much knowledge, so many examples. Yet, even with all this information they didn't manage to accurately portray everything correctly until they could get into the cockpit and see this. If this is a helicopter with a broad base of knowledge and basically nothing left classified, how can we expect to get an F-35 that isn't far less well modeled?

 

You say you expect a margin of error, as if saying that it won't be perfectly accurate dismisses any concerns about that. I have a hard time believing you can just put together a flight model without the amount of information that you just can't get on a top of the line super secret project.

 

You seem to be in the quantity over quality camp, despite you saying you want as much quality as you can have. You obvious want that quality, but not at the expense of not getting just about anything, whether its prudent to try and make it or not.

[Stephen Higginbotham]

Well Hmm, would be nice if it does get off!

[Tom_Weiss]

Have to post what? A bunch of random guys giving each other interwebz high fives? The evidence about KI is just as slim as KI's showing of product. If they want to bash Kinney and his company that is one thing. The ones bashing people they don't even know, who have done nothing to them, just shows a massive lack of intelligence and a cranium lodged up a third point of contact.

 

duh ... normally I would write a reply , instead, I will watch this once more ... I advise you do the same.

 

http://youtu.be/Db04mQkizds

[Exorcet]

This is the thing I'm talking about. The Huey is as venerable a helicopter as you can find, with countless pilots having flown it since the 60s. So much data, so much knowledge, so many examples. Yet, even with all this information they didn't manage to accurately portray everything correctly until they could get into the cockpit and see this.

I don't see how that hurts my point. I've admitted many times that the F-35 might not be as accurate as other modules. That's OK because that doesn't make it an arcade game. The fact that the UH-1, with all the data available was off in some area(s) also doesn't mean you can't make a good simulation from less data. I'd be more interested in knowing why the flight model was wrong because there is a chance that you could use that information to fix the problem before it starts next time.

 

Also, what if the UH-1 flaw had not been corrected, would it still have been a simulation? Would it still have been good? What about now? How close is it? I bet it's still not right on the mark. You have to give some leeway when it comes to a public entertainment sim. If you want to give less than me, I don't have a problem with that, it's just a difference of opinion. I'm simply open to trying more things if that's the case.

 

You say you expect a margin of error, as if saying that it won't be perfectly accurate dismisses any concerns about that. I have a hard time believing you can just put together a flight model without the amount of information that you just can't get on a top of the line super secret project.

Well you can. You can make flight models for things that don't even exist. The question is how accurate these models are compared to their counterparts in reality. I'm not going to pretend I can judge this on a precise case by case basis off the top of my head because I can't, but I do know that the science behind it is at a state that keeps it well away from blind guesses.

 

Whether or not KI can deliver a F-35 is up in the air. Asking if they can deliver a fighter though, I feel can be answered with a good amount of certainty. Now of course that won't be good enough for some, I can understand. Personally though, if it's the best we can do at the moment, I'd like to at least give it a try while acknowledging what it is.

 

You seem to be in the quantity over quality camp

How? If KI goes away, what do we get in their place? If ED was the only one making modules, things might be different. We have many devs with their own strengths and weaknesses coming to DCS now. Let them do what they're good at. If KI has inside info or particular interest on the F-35, let them make a F-35. I can't see it having any impact on the F/A-18, or Beczl's MiG.

[aaron886]

heres one of his games he help produce.

:thumbup:

 

And here's another. *ducks*

 

flSseGr_K0c

[Eihort]

Lets examine Belsimtek's released article on the experience of the lead going to the US to fly a real Huey. He discusses how his experience with real Russian helos combined with knowledge of the Huey they're designing allowed him to take control relatively quickly. He discovered that much of their presumed flight model was very accurate, however at higher speeds (if I recall correctly) their FM really didn't reflect the correct dynamics, which is something they'll look into solving.

 

 

By this logic, any module won't be accurate enough if the devs of it never flew one.

[sobek]

If they want to bash Kinney and his company that is one thing.

 

No, it isn't. Rule 1.10 applies.

[Wolf Rider]

@ Jar...

yes, many just get too excited

 

Having such a high Kickstarter target for the F35, was always being hopeful at best and realistically, I'm sure it made a good marketing guide - hype doesn't sell

[Napa]

I got the feeling that some of us in this community may have gone way over our heads and assumed that the developers are heavily depended on us to make a decent living because this is a niche community, and that gives us the right to bash, disapprove and denounce anything that can look wrong at first sight so therefore we need to step on their heads and act immature.

 

And the fact that all these are happening in ED's Product support forums makes things even more complicated since now any other dev who would like to take a shot at developing anything, even if he has thumbs up from ED, there will be a "special" niche community right there to turn his not even started product into rubbish.

 

:clap_2:

 

So developers, be warned. Choose your aircrafts well ;)

[159th_Falcon]

It's been sad to see the general negativity towards a new module, and shameful to see some people taking joy over a perceived failure to acquire funds.

A lot of people are not negative, there just being critical and realistic.

The fact that kickstarter missed its goal is just that. A fact, and means

they failed to acquire there required funds by that date and time.

 

Nothing all to bad though, they will look for other funds, and they most likely will find them. All is just a matter of time.

 

I only hope that KI and any other prospective DCS Aircraft creator realises that these characters do not represent the whole DCS community.

No need to hope for that, i am certain they do. Otherwise they would have already pulled the plug on the F35. (which they did not:thumbup:)

 

Many of us are excited by having as many modules to choose from as possible and are willing to show support for any company willing to put the hours into building us new aircraft.

 

Hopefully this thread gets a bit friendlier from now on.

 

Agree, though as i said before, and i will say it once again;

 

ED themselves said that an DCS level F35 (and pak-fa and F22 and.....)

Are not possible. Now suddenly it is and no one can explain what changed.

 

So all i am asking for is simple acknowledgement that it simply can not reach the fidelity of for example the KA-50.

And as such not marget it as an "DCS" title but something else to reflect the (slightly?) lower fidelity.

 

As ED had promised us they would do whit modules that could/would not meet the DCS Criteria.

 

And once again, i have nothing against Kinney, nor his company.

I am very surprised by the marketing terms used for the module though.