DCS:F-35, a guy can dream right?

[Netsk]

lol here we go again :P 200 pages of-:

 

1. Its not going to be realistic / accurate / authentic enough to have the DCS brand name.

 

2. Its going to ruin multiplayer.

 

 

Did everyone forget about flaming cliffs planes? they haven't ruined anything have they?

 

Get Battlefield, you can fly it there.

[Netsk]

I'm just not interested in a sim that is made 90% on guessing and 10% of actual data.

 

The current generation jets have been operational world-wide already for decades, some earlier variants have even retired. Access to theese jets is much more free, info about the handling charasteristics is more available, pilots from different countries have flown them, shared their experiences. They have been compaired against eachother in military exercises (ie. Many American pilots got to train against German MiG-29s and fly them). Lots of unclassified data and manuals are available.

 

I'm not saying it would not be fun to use the advertised super situational awareness features of the F-35, or exploiting stealth capabilities. But it's not interesting for me if it's based upon someones imagination and not how it actually is.

 

EDIT: It's true some FC planes are lacking in realism, but thats because they are relics from the Flanker/Lock-On era, everything new that is beeing released is DCS level.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Netsk

[WRAITH]

DCS - F-35 and Carrier Ops

 

Hello gents LoL,

 

Well look I will be the first to say, hell yeah, I want realism! Please, I do not make light of that and yes all the research hours implementing code for weapon systems and AFM + FM is the main objective. It is not to detract, diminish and bring to a stop the attempts to develop realistic simulation of air combat air crafts. Although to exclude jets like the F-35 because not enough real unclassified data is also wasted opportunities and the fun one could have. I'm also quite aware of the simulated development difficulties having been in sim world long enough and have read enough Forum posts on all pov's to know exactly what it entails, and believe me I have and am in various Forums watching reading and posting in many discussions on flight sims which are a dying breed of gaming which needs livening up. But some people desire the impossible in air combat simulation requesting things by which there is no data to go by other than simply developing a basic mock systems that will do the job yet provide enough fun and realism pilot input instead of scraping the project. Better to settle for something than nothing and improve over time.

 

How best to do this by acknowledging or bridging the gap between both worlds of flight gaming / simulation. This might mean even an arcade level, semi simulation and full realistic simulation pulling in a younger crowd. Its about market growth and allowing DCS to be a market leader in Flight Air Combat gaming would be the end goal.

 

Point is here, its been done by FSX gents, get it here ............ http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/f-35-lightning-ii-version-230-limited.html

 

So now add it/develop it to DCS Series as a Combat Air Craft again at this level..........

 

 

......... it would be great in a growing inventory of jets that are improved over time.

 

Then add Theaters of WAR in Single Player and Multi Player with Dynamic Campaigns ( http://www.lead-pursuit.com/downloads/understanding_the_campaign.pdf ) and Unity3D or Edge Project.....

also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZIY622nOVk :thumbup: How awesome would that be, right!

 

As for other air craft would love to see a SU-47 Berkut believe it or not, amongst many other air craft at a DCS level.

 

Flight sims need all the help it can get and to embrace more is not less its just enticing the market getting the starters and newbies up to speed as they move up in the sim world. Lets not just make it a one way street.

 

Wishing the best for DCS and simmers for years to come......... :beer:

Edited December 10, 2013 by WRAITH

[ENO]

The funny thing is some people here entitle themselves to the opinion that they would know the F35 enough to be able to tell the difference anyway.

 

Really is a shame that someone who has never even SEEN an F35 nevermind flown one can be so arrogant as to what ANY program can provide. It's astonishing.

[outlawal2]

The funny thing is some people here entitle themselves to the opinion that they would know the F35 enough to be able to tell the difference anyway.

 

Really is a shame that someone who has never even SEEN an F35 nevermind flown one can be so arrogant as to what ANY program can provide. It's astonishing.

 

 

What he said...

[WRAITH]

LoL, Yeah I count on over a thousand replies as to every rivet, grease nipple, and blade count on each turbine has and dont forget to check the bilge pump....... me awaits with trembling. As I service F-35 PC variants here at the DCS Maintenance Hanger R101 :megalol:

Edited December 10, 2013 by WRAITH
no wonder flight sim development is takin years, with the tight rope expectations

[SPEKTRE76]

The funny thing is some people here entitle themselves to the opinion that they would know the F35 enough to be able to tell the difference anyway.

 

Really is a shame that someone who has never even SEEN an F35 nevermind flown one can be so arrogant as to what ANY program can provide. It's astonishing.

 

 

+1

 

I had no idea that my wish would become a complainfest. I'd just like to see a DCS level model that can simulate the F-35 as must as possible. There is a video on YouTube that shows how the pilot interface works. That's one thing down.

 

:joystick:

 

 

F-35 pilot interface operation

 

 

.

.

..

.

.

.

[WRAITH]

+1

 

I had no idea that my wish would become a complainfest. I'd just like to see a DCS level model that can simulate the F-35 as must as possible. There is a video on YouTube that shows how the pilot interface works. That's one thing down.

 

:joystick:

 

 

F-35 pilot interface operation

 

 

.

.

..

.

.

.

 

if you like that vid check this link.......... http://www.mediafire.com/folder/34ur5uq8k3qkh/05.%20F-35%20JSF%20-%20All%20you%20need%20to%20know

 

:drunk:

Edited December 10, 2013 by WRAITH

[TAW_Blaze]

I doubt there's any point in modeling it in FC level, it's clearly impossible even in such low detail level. For instance, FC level aircraft have fix RCS values afaik, and I don't think I need to explain anything further on that.. It'd be more sci-fi than anything else, there's barely any reliable data regarding it's avionics. Posting YT videos about "how stuff work" doesn't help much if at all with simulating it..

 

Perhaps you would be able to simulate it's aerodynamics and the aircraft model itself, anything combat related.. for sure not. And then again, it is Digital Combat Simulator, so what would be the point?

Edited December 10, 2013 by <Blaze>

[Scrim]

The funny thing is some people here entitle themselves to the opinion that they would know the F35 enough to be able to tell the difference anyway.

 

Really is a shame that someone who has never even SEEN an F35 nevermind flown one can be so arrogant as to what ANY program can provide. It's astonishing.

 

By that logic it'd be fully acceptable for e.g. Belsimtek to make a Huey using nothing other than flight models and such that they pull out their ass, because let's face it, 99.99995% of everyone who's bought the Huey module hasn't actually flown one IRL, so they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

The funny thing is some people here entitle themselves to the opinion that they would know the F35 enough to be able to tell the difference anyway.

 

Really is a shame that someone who has never even SEEN an F35 nevermind flown one can be so arrogant as to what ANY program can provide. It's astonishing.

 

That's a terrible argument.

 

I'm not interested in the F-35 because I want to suspend my disbelief and get as close as I can to the experience of operating a particular aircraft. If it's unlikely that the information is available to accomplish that goal, then I've no desire to support its development.

[NineLine]

That's a terrible argument.

 

I'm not interested in the F-35 because I want to suspend my disbelief and get as close as I can to the experience of operating a particular aircraft. If it's unlikely that the information is available to accomplish that goal, then I've no desire to support its development.

 

 

Which can also be listed as a terrible argument as what would it take to suspend belief and make you believe you are flying an F-35, I think not much as none of us have any clue what it would be like, even remotely. You would be amazed at what you can get in documentation, and beyond that if someone could partner with Lockheed, then all bets are off... so depending on the ability of the dev making the F-35 and their ability to gather enough resources would be what I would base my decision on.

 

I would rather take the stance of welcoming any and all aircraft into DCS World, their quality and execution would be the basis for my spending money on it. I was never interested in the Mig 21 until I started seeing what they are doing with that module, now its something I plan on buying... its as simple as that.

[NoJoe]

By that logic it'd be fully acceptable for e.g. Belsimtek to make a Huey using nothing other than flight models and such that they pull out their ass, because let's face it, 99.99995% of everyone who's bought the Huey module hasn't actually flown one IRL, so they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

Except that Huey flight characteristics are verifiable by the general public. Just go ask a Huey pilot, read the available manuals, etc. One couldn't do this same checking with the F-35.

 

[EDIT] To add, I think it's unfortunate that the work on the DCS F-35 was stopped. I was really looking forward to it, and I agree with SithSpawn in welcoming any and all aircraft to the simulator. If there's one where I think the devs couldn't have enough info to realistically create it, I simply won't purchase it. No need to stop it from being produced, or anything. :)

 

--NoJoe

Edited December 10, 2013 by NoJoe

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Which can also be listed as a terrible argument as what would it take to suspend belief and make you believe you are flying an F-35...

 

No. I wasn't making an argument, I was debunking ENO's. I stated that I wouldn't have confidence that the information to do it properly was available because, as was clear in my post, I believed that wasn't available. It was a response to ENO who stated as a matter of fact that those who were sceptical about the F-35 were arrogant, which is missing the point entirely.

[Scrim]

Except that Huey flight characteristics are verifiable by the general public. Just go ask a Huey pilot, read the available manuals, etc. One couldn't do this same checking with the F-35.

 

Not to any larger degree. The general public for starters is unlikely to even know the name of the helicopter (most people aren't like us), and even most of us have never actually even been in the pilot's seat of an actual Huey, not to mention fly one. Reading manuals and asking pilots questions wouldn't go a long way towards getting a realistic flight model.

 

And more to the point, ENO made the terrible argument that since most consumers of an F-35 module wouldn't know the difference between the virtual plane and the real one, guesstimates and assumptions would suffice for the flight model. By that logic, the same would apply to the Huey or any other aircraft in DCS, since only a very small percent of us would actually know the difference.

 

And personally, I like DCS because of things such as realistic flight models. Therefore I would not appreciate modules where the changelogs would practically say "we reckon that it handles like this based on YT films, so we've tweaked the flight model accordingly."

[kk0425]

No. I wasn't making an argument, I was debunking ENO's. I stated that I wouldn't have confidence that the information to do it properly was available because, as was clear in my post, I believed that wasn't available. It was a response to ENO who stated as a matter of fact that those who were sceptical about the F-35 were arrogant, which is missing the point entirely.

 

So if you replaced I with We, then you would be making an argument?

 

I don't see why the community has to be so negative about such a project. Let them at least try before declaring it a failure. If they don't live up to their promises then so what? You've lost nothing. It's ultimately up to ED to decide if it's a DCS quality product anyway, not the community.

 

Or if this is just an issue with multiplayer balance then don't play on those servers or make suggestions to the server operators to improve it.

 

Seriously, the negativity I see on these forums is astonishing sometimes and makes me wonder why some people even bother to play the game.

[Mainstay]

I voted No, not because i have something against the F35 but rather because i wanna see a fullsim Bone or F16 and other planes way before i would chose a team to work on a F35 type plane.

[ENO]

No. I wasn't making an argument, I was debunking ENO's. I stated that I wouldn't have confidence that the information to do it properly was available because, as was clear in my post, I believed that wasn't available. It was a response to ENO who stated as a matter of fact that those who were sceptical about the F-35 were arrogant, which is missing the point entirely.

 

Sorry a couple of you took my remark so personally but I can definitely see why you did and you helped to make the point.

 

Anyway- I had / have no interest in the platform either but I supported it during the kickstarter because it's initiatives like this that help the series move into the future. Same as I did MiG21- I have 100% less interest in the MiG21 than the F35 but that's the kind of project that needs to happen to keep development fresh- and yes, whether you like it or not.

 

Getting the bulk of the work out of the way now helps to ensure that when / if accurate data is available it can be applied in a similar fashion to the way the F-15 / Su-27 are getting revamped with an AFM. In the meantime people who have less sophisticated tastes (but no less actual experience with the real platform) can enjoy flying it.

 

To some it's sufficient to be the MOST accurate simulation available on the public market... as opposed to being ACCURATE.

Edited December 10, 2013 by ENO

[theOden]

While I fully agree with your last post ENO, I still cannot see anything arrogant with the others opinion.

[WRAITH]

DCS JSF F-35 & Carrier Ops

 

Which can also be listed as a terrible argument as what would it take to suspend belief and make you believe you are flying an F-35, I think not much as none of us have any clue what it would be like, even remotely. You would be amazed at what you can get in documentation, and beyond that if someone could partner with Lockheed, then all bets are off... so depending on the ability of the dev making the F-35 and their ability to gather enough resources would be what I would base my decision on.

 

I would rather take the stance of welcoming any and all aircraft into DCS World, their quality and execution would be the basis for my spending money on it. I was never interested in the Mig 21 until I started seeing what they are doing with that module, now its something I plan on buying... its as simple as that.

 

Amen, thats the spirit............... now go'on get me that F-35 built! :thumbup:

 

 

It would be awesome and with upgrades over time it would be better, but to release something at a DCS level would be better than nothing.

 

Again I point out the point of the video makes that it doesn't have to be all that in depth study sim initially, but over time as long as its functional somewhat ie. Firing Missiles, Bomb Drops, Guns, Jamming, Radar, JHMCS, Navigation etc all basic systems which are covered in any modern fighter jet or as per this video.............

 

 

 

 

Again FSX gents have done a great job, better it in DCS.

 

Also you could learn allot from this project for the F-35

 

 

........... two in one hand so to speak.

 

Cheers,

 

:beer:

Edited December 10, 2013 by WRAITH

[SkateZilla]

You dont need to keep posting that same video, lol

[WRAITH]

You dont need to keep posting that same video, lol

 

its called brain washing, cognitive repetition! "Psychology 101"......... LoL :megalol: :smilewink:

[ENO]

While I fully agree with your last post ENO, I still cannot see anything arrogant with the others opinion.

 

Fair enough- but in my initial post I wasn't speaking specifically to this thread as much as those I recall back when the kick starter was still running.

 

The subsequent response to my "terrible argument" was just a late addition.

[SkateZilla]

its called brain washing, cognitive repetition! "Psychology 101"......... LoL :megalol: :smilewink:

 

It's called Spamming, lol, Internet 101

[WRAITH]

It's called Spamming, lol, Internet 101

 

not if your "Jimmy-Two-Times" .............

 

 

:megalol:

 

But fair enough dont want to be a pita. :doh:

 

Take care all :thumbup: