DCS F-35?

[lunaticfringe]

If someone at my company acts poorly, it reflects on our company as a whole as much as the individual. Obviously in the real world its easier to show the individual the errors of their ways, but in that one act of poor judgement, the person on the receiving end will probably pass judgment on the company and avoid doing business with us... if you understand what I mean.

 

The problem with the analogy is that it is positioned in reverse- the community is not the employee of the firm; they are the end customer.

 

Customers are going to be customers. Part of that entails the fact that the old saying "the customer is always right" is a falsehood- the customer is quite often wrong, if not outright full of it. The problem is that if one wishes to trade in a given commodity, they must both know their product and also perform the right amount of due diligence to make an effective pitch to market. If the customer misrepresents your product, that's on them. But if you fundamentally misrepresent or fail to properly represent either your product, or capability to create a product, that's on you.

 

The primary mark against Kinney is that the case for DCS F-35 as a product was presented, not with a truly visible track record, or even a small amount of tangible offerings as a proof of concept, but by way of a curriculum vitae and a bunch of promises using imagery and media that was not constructed by him. That, and he failed the due diligence test- not only did he grossly overestimate the measure by which he could generate a positive response for the Kickstarter, but he did it in a market rife with distrust given both the prior offerings of others (see FO and a growing list of parties saying they'll develop for DCS, only to squash the hopes of fans waiting with dollars in hand) *after* having just run out on Combat Pilot.

 

And he'd not simply left customers in the lurch; he'd left serious private investors for a loss after two separate capitalizations. Consider instead if he'd spun Saitek on the concept of not only sponsoring development of flight sim add-ons for DCS, but convinced them that a Thrustmaster modular grip system was not simply appropriate, but fundamental for a refresh of the X65F, instead of Combat Pilot whatsoever. Expand your visibility *and* corner the market in a direction that your chief competitor has continually failed to move on.

 

You think he'd have needed a Kickstarter if that had been the presentation prior to ever moving on CP?

 

Unfortunately, offering the sky, the stars, and the Moon doesn't work up front when you can't show even a hint of stardust, especially with this crowd. Model pictures are pretty; get them in DCS. Put on a minor demo of a basic FM to show your team can at least start to code one. Present an in-cockpit view in simulation from within a not even close to being complete model.

 

Just, do *something* before you start asking for other people's money. But he didn't, and the only option the diligent had was to look into his credibility. That might be considered unfair to some, but it does underline one important aspect- anybody really digging deep would have likely considered putting their money down if the research came back solid.

 

Same thing happened based on a web design faux pas from CTD; their saving grace was that they didn't actually start taking money, and had at least *something*, even small, to show in the way of development. They'd invested time, meaning they'd invested money (since that was time they could have at least spent earning money elsewhere). Consider the real amount of time spent in development of the DCS F-35 project before moving into the Kickstarter phase:

 

Is it any wonder they didn't make it?

 

And that's the point- did the DCS community treat KI unfairly? You could make the case; conversely, you could make the case that the community was on the defensive both from the position of Kinney having treated a segment of the greater flight simming community in the same fashion through abandonment, and through what essentially amounted as an insult to the intelligence of potential buyers. KI was completely unprepared to make such a request for investors (which is what a Kickstarter is) in this environment, especially considering the work the third parties are doing on their own prior to asking for money, and was duly embarrassed.

 

Sith, you and I had a similar conversation on the subject of Oleg being involved in RRG lately- it's all about credibility. And the last thing anyone should be doing when lacking credibility is asking people for money. KI had zero to show this community, and got kicked in the gonads for it.

Edited October 25, 2013 by lunaticfringe

[Dudikoff]

Speculation, As for everything else, there shouldn't be any debate as to why K.I. Discontinued their development, the decision was made.

 

as for the Character attacks, Finger Pointing, and theories; they need to stop.

 

No debate on a chit-chat forum? I understand it can be volatile, but still.. Though I find it weird that you singled out only my post here. Does classifying someone's behavior as unprofessional constitute a character attack?

 

Yes, it's all speculation, but so is this recurring theme of "community drives 3rd parties away" and that if it wasn't so we would have been all flying the F-35 in DCS in 6 months time which prompted my reaction; I hope your statement refers to those theories as well.

 

BTW, very nice and articulate post, lunaticfringe.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Dudikoff

[TAW_Blaze]

F-35 will do just fine if not better than other stealth. I don't know how much russian and chinese engineers know about stealth but hands down less than what the americans do. I don't think anyone has to explain how little experience they have in terms of stealth compared to america. This is not just "murica, **** yea". They have been producing stealth things since the '80s and they've had a ton of experience with them.

 

I don't get what you mean by "being full of compromises". Everything is a big compromise in these areas. The PAK-FA and the J-20 are full of compromises too. It's not like they have some alien technology to ignore physics.

 

The only real big advantage others have are the twin engines (atleast, from what we know :D). Heavier planes are larger, can carry more weight without losing as much performance.

 

About the typhoon.. it would get demolished in nearly every scenario. AESA combined with stealth is just insane.

Edited October 25, 2013 by <Blaze>

[Winfield_Gold]

And moving right along......Next topic of the day is "Are 3rd party modules of FC3 quality, going to drive up the cost of modules with DCS quality stamp of approval"?

[howie87]

I actually sponsored the kickstarter for the F-35. Primarily because I wanted to support 3rd party developers, even though I had serious concerns about the fidelity of the product. When the kick started fell through and the F-35 was cancelled however, I can't say I was particularly surprised or disappointed.

 

The worst effect that I can see it having on the community is that other developers are put off, thinking that DCS is a hard market to break into.

 

On the other hand though, perhaps it will encourage the development of less classified aircraft that can be modeled in more exacting detail. Or make others aware that there is a market for this type of simulation but only long as it is done to the highest standards.

 

As for the credentials of KI, I cannot comment other than to say I had some concerns the F-35 would ever reach completion after the kickstarter failed to generate enough revenue.

[TAW_Blaze]

It's a pretty tough job to make a good sim out of something that is 99% classified. What is even harder is to put that thing into an environment that provides entertainment. Let's say they'll finish the F-35, but even then there's not many options. Whichever server allows it will probably have a full team of Lightnings going up against another full team of Lightnings. Nobody wants to fight a 5 gen plane with his 27/29/33. That just doesn't work.

 

Basically the only sensible things to do are playing strict missions (against AI? I wonder who would volunteer to act as the opposition to them) or just having them fight each other. Atleast that are the only options I can think of, and it wouldn't take long to get bored of these.

 

To be honest, I'd much rather have some other stuff (I would utterly love the Nighthawk for instance, although I can imagine how hard it is to gather data about it, yet still a lot easier than the 5 gen fighters!). They fit into the existing environment much better.

[MTFDarkEagle]

I actually sponsored the kickstarter for the F-35. Primarily because I wanted to support 3rd party developers, even though I had serious concerns about the fidelity of the product. When the kick started fell through and the F-35 was cancelled however, I can't say I was particularly surprised or disappointed.

 

The worst effect that I can see it having on the community is that other developers are put off, thinking that DCS is a hard market to break into.

 

On the other hand though, perhaps it will encourage the development of less classified aircraft that can be modeled in more exacting detail. Or make others aware that there is a market for this type of simulation but only long as it is done to the highest standards.

 

As for the credentials of KI, I cannot comment other than to say I had some concerns the F-35 would ever reach completion after the kickstarter failed to generate enough revenue.

 

This^

[Pyroflash]

It's a pretty tough job to make a good sim out of something that is 99% classified. What is even harder is to put that thing into an environment that provides entertainment. Let's say they'll finish the F-35, but even then there's not many options. Whichever server allows it will probably have a full team of Lightnings going up against another full team of Lightnings. Nobody wants to fight a 5 gen plane with his 27/29/33. That just doesn't work.

 

Basically the only sensible things to do are playing strict missions (against AI? I wonder who would volunteer to act as the opposition to them) or just having them fight each other. Atleast that are the only options I can think of, and it wouldn't take long to get bored of these.

 

To be honest, I'd much rather have some other stuff (I would utterly love the Nighthawk for instance, although I can imagine how hard it is to gather data about it, yet still a lot easier than the 5 gen fighters!). They fit into the existing environment much better.

 

You'd have to force them to wear the reflectors in the missions. That would kind of even it out I guess, except for the fact that they'd have other advantages which couldn't be matched by any of the other aircraft.

[TAW_Blaze]

You'd have to force them to wear the reflectors in the missions. That would kind of even it out I guess, except for the fact that they'd have other advantages which couldn't be matched by any of the other aircraft.

 

Well that would be quite pointless wouldn't it? :lol:

 

Yeah others still wouldn't be able to supercruise so unless it's about mountain humping the F-35s would win nearly all the time.

[NineLine]

The problem with the analogy is that it is positioned in reverse- the community is not the employee of the firm; they are the end customer.

 

Well of course a real world comparison doesnt work exactly, there are a number of layers at work here, how it does work is these forums are a reflection of ED, if everyone hates the sim and nothing but bad thinks are written, how does the sim do? If devs are attacked or treated poorly, how does the prospect of new 3rd parties do? You get the point right... any company that host a forum, that forum is going to be a reflection of who they are as a company, how they perform and how their product is. If its a hostile, unforgiving environment, well new growth wont happen as fast as we might like.

 

Sith, you and I had a similar conversation on the subject of Oleg being involved in RRG lately- it's all about credibility. And the last thing anyone should be doing when lacking credibility is asking people for money. KI had zero to show this community, and got kicked in the gonads for it.

 

I think Oleg (and I dont want to start the Oleg discussion again) has been a better example of how we should treat 3rd parties, and I have been more pleased with the response to him, although there has been more moderation on that subject as well. Nobody is asking anyone to forget the past, no one is asking you to throw your money were you dont feel comfortable, in fact, your money is the loudest voice you can and should use, if you dont believe in a module, dont back it. The Kickstarter should have been enough to say that the ED community either didnt believe in the project or wasnt interested in it.

 

We should never take it upon ourselves to publicly assault someone on a personal level because we dont believe in their abilities to create a module, that was just plane messed up on many levels. And lets be honest, if those people who attacked him would have left it alone, chances are the F-35 project probably would have failed all on its own (based on the kickstarter and my perceived notions of licensing a 5th gen fighter), and in that, the community wouldnt have ended up with a black eye, KI might have rethought its position and maybe created the WWII fighters they had planned for RRG's effort, or at the very least took on something else, instead we lost a developer, probably forever. A developer that ED felt enough in to give the DCS title to.

 

Bottomline, for me anyways, is this... We hold ED to a higher standard because we have seen what they can create, which is a simulation above and beyond most anything out there right now. I think that as we hold ED to these high standards we should hold the community to a higher standard as well, we should take ownership in this forum, not allow outside elements to drag it down. Thats why I spend hours doing research for Yo-Yo, why I do my best to help others in the Crash Forums, why I spend my flying time trying to crash the game and find bugs and why I now help where I can with Moderation. I want this place to be the premier place for flight simmers of all shapes and sizes. I want older developers to come here and find new life (Really how cool would it even to be to get the guy trying to bring Red Baron back to come here, or some of the Falcon guys, etc) I want new developers to come here and enjoy what they are giving up their free time for...

 

Anyways.. I have probably gotten carried away, and now sounding like a total fanboy, I hope you get my point.

[GGTharos]

It would win the mountain-humping, too. EODAS FTW.

 

Well that would be quite pointless wouldn't it? :lol:

 

Yeah others still wouldn't be able to supercruise so unless it's about mountain humping the F-35s would win nearly all the time.

[SkateZilla]

The F-35 would have been a Win All aircraft in DCS, simply cuz there's nothing to counter it.

 

Then eventually we would have had Naval and STOVL Versions to further dominate the maps.

Edited October 25, 2013 by SkateZilla

[karambiatos]

no all we would need is a mission with some clouds on it, preferably with rain falling out of them.

[Vivoune]

Tbh, I think cancelling that project is for the better for DCS.

 

-If they would model the F-35 in DCS as it is supposed to preform on paper IRL then it would render any other DCS module rather pointless as long as an F-35 is in competition, which quite goes in the opposite direction of the whole DCS "World" ideology.

 

-Maybe it's just me but I don't see any point in modeling an aircraft in DCS as long as said plane doesn't even performs the way it is supposed to in real life.

 

-There not much point in modeling in a high-fid sim such as DCS a plane that is still in intensive development and far from being done IRL. I mean, the thing barely delivered its first training GBU a few days ago..

 

-We all realize some info have to be guessed and estimated but I think that necessary part in a DCS aircraft development should be minimal and a good ratio between actual intel and wild guesses should be enforced as much as possible. I highly doubt the F-35 would have had anything near a decent ratio.

 

All in all it's a cool plane and module on paper but.. meh. I sincerly hope they adapt and hit us with another, more realistic (and less controversially over budget & under performing one) module.

[tarracta]

The F-22 would be so much better plane to build into DCS than the F-35.

 

Surely it's overpowered against the historical planes, but in a real conflict it would be the same. Even bigger is the challenge get down a F-22 e.g. with a Mig-29.

 

All the other things are issues how to balance the multiplayer ...

[Linx]

The F-35 would have been a Win All aircraft in DCS, simply cuz there's nothing to counter it.

 

Then eventually we would have had Naval and STOVL Versions to further dominate the maps.

 

Well, you could always just not place it into a mission meant for player vs player combat, or from any other online mission that you'd want for that matter.

 

 

Anyways, gonna get flamed for saying this but still...

Any new jet plane for DCS series is great and needed very badly at this point. Doesn't matter if it's on level of FC, DCS or something in between.

I'd rather buy F-35 with a lot of guess work in it and some features or systems missing than buy the 5th release of Su-25, A-10 and F-15.

You know, because we've been flying the same fixed wing planes (with the exception of P-51) since 2003.

[outlawal2]

Well, you could always just not place it into a mission meant for player vs player combat, or from any other online mission that you'd want for that matter.

 

 

Anyways, gonna get flamed for saying this but still...

Any new jet plane for DCS series is great and needed very badly at this point. Doesn't matter if it's on level of FC, DCS or something in between.

I'd rather buy F-35 with a lot of guess work in it and some features or systems missing than buy the 5th release of Su-25, A-10 and F-15.

You know, because we've been flying the same fixed wing planes (with the exception of P-51) since 2003.

 

+1:thumbup:

[leafer]

Anyways, gonna get flamed for saying this but still...

Any new jet plane for DCS series is great and needed very badly at this point. Doesn't matter if it's on level of FC, DCS or something in between.

I'd rather buy F-35 with a lot of guess work in it and some features or systems missing than buy the 5th release of Su-25, A-10 and F-15.

You know, because we've been flying the same fixed wing planes (with the exception of P-51) since 2003.

 

^^ THIS + +1 :thumbup:

 

Yah. I was eyeball deep and dead tired with DCS A-10C while exploding jizz all over Finding Nemo trailer. Lucky me I opted for the big circular fast forward button instead of the boxy F5 one and now I'm here thumb upping your post. Anyone know if ED will ever dump the scripted landing for the F-15C or if Bruce Almighty is any good? Hmm?

[cichlidfan]

A deleted post and a web site that no longer exists indicated that we would likely see the F-15 AFM this year.

 

Bruce Almighty has Jenifer Aniston and Catherine Bell in it. :P

[leafer]

Oh my god! Catherine Bell is the one with the big :P:P right? :D

[cichlidfan]

Oh my god! Catherine Bell is the one with the big :P:P right? :D

 

Yes, also the same one that makes Marine dress whites look really, really good. :D

[leafer]

haha :D

[TAW_Blaze]

I want the F-117 :(

[Exeagle]

What happen to this project the website from the kick starter there facebook and everything been deleted looks like they didn't make enough money and spent it on something else :(

[Aginor]

That project is dead, sorry.