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

[Flamin_Squirrel]

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.

 

But sure how you figured that out after calling others arrogant simply for not agreeing with your point of view...

[TAW_Blaze]

The way I see it is that the F-35 is a famous / infamous aircraft so it will basically sell itself - I had no idea what an su-27 or an F-15 was when I started playing DCS, but I knew what the F-35 was because of all of the recent news and controversy.

 

Also if FC3 is the best selling module it would make sense to an F-35 somewhere between the FC3 style craft and the DCS full feature sims.

 

One a scale 1 to 10 it would fit somewhere here : (tbh jane's and BF4 could probably move down to 2 and 3)

 

No, it would fit below FC3. Why?

 

Because there's no reliable data. If I wanted to be generous, I'd say you can model the flight performance of the plane accurately, which is quite questionable already. Then, you would want to try model it's avionics, stealth capability, etc. Those will be based on educated guesses at best.

 

How do you think they are going to make a DCS level module out of something that doesn't have anything unclassified about it's avionics other than some worthless YT footage? The more detailed something is, the more data you need. This would just be SCI-FI:F-35, not DCS. Just because something "looked like that" in a video you don't know how it works, nor how to simulate it.

[ENO]

But sure how you figured that out after calling others arrogant simply for not agreeing with your point of view...

 

:huh:

 

Arrogance is a measure of one's opinion against their own perception of how it applies to the end result. Believe me when I say that when someone wants to come in here and obstinately refuse to acknowledge any aircraft proposal irrespective of the benefits to the greater good- based ONLY on their own EXTREMELY limited perspective... we're starting to define arrogance. And ignorance, not coincidentally.

 

Granted, I hadn't had that arrow of accusation pointed at anyone in particular but you seem quite content to put the apple on your own head.

[159th_Falcon]

Now, if he would have asked for an DCS module FC3:F-35 i might have voted yes.

 

Then again, how classified is classified these days? I live in The Netherlands and have already laid my hands on some F-35 parts.

Nothing special really, just some landing gear stuff, but considering our government didn't even make a final decision weather to buy the thing or not........

 

Oh, and no i do NOT work for the government or the military.

[TAW_Blaze]

Now, if he would have asked for an DCS module FC3:F-35 i might have voted yes.

 

Then again, how classified is classified these days? I live in The Netherlands and have already laid my hands on some F-35 parts.

Nothing special really, just some landing gear stuff, but considering our government didn't even make a final decision weather to buy the thing or not........

 

Oh, and no i do NOT work for the government or the military.

 

Good luck getting your hands on avionics designs and software..

 

This is slightly offtopic, but I'd like them to do the F-117 first if they ever wanted to head for stealth things. It has arguably more data available and it actually fits into the environment, and I also bet a ton of people would love to drive it (including myself). However I don't know how difficult it would be to actually model stealth. I assume it'd be quite resource heavy because calculating RCS real time, for each radar that is painting you.. well you get the idea.

Edited December 11, 2013 by <Blaze>

[YorZor]

DCS: Flying Bombrack. Seems like a more fitting name to me.

[Kid18120]

IMO a module up to DCS fidelity (read A10C as a minimum!) based on a quite recent airframe as the F35 is totally impossible to achieve.

 

There are too many things we don't and can't know, due to classified material.

Honestly i'm voting "no" because of the reason stated above.

 

I can't see the reason for coming down to compromises to make a "DCS F-35"; would be more like a mod for FC3.

 

 

My2cents

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Believe me when I say that when someone wants to come in here and obstinately refuse to acknowledge any aircraft proposal irrespective of the benefits to the greater good- based ONLY on their own EXTREMELY limited perspective...

 

I did no such thing. It was my option that any attempt to do an F-35 was pointless as the information wasn't available to do it properly. If that information is/becomes available, then crack on. If you look at the poll results you can see I'm not the only one who thinks this way, despite what you might think.

 

Arrogance is a measure of one's opinion against their own perception of how it applies to the end result.

 

By claming that anyone that disagrees with you is arrogant, you yourself fall into that definition.

[OttoPus]

I did no such thing. It was my option that any attempt to do an F-35 was pointless as the information wasn't available to do it properly. If that information is/becomes available, then crack on. If you look at the poll results you can see I'm not the only one who thinks this way, despite what you might think.

 

 

 

By claming that anyone that disagrees with you is arrogant, you yourself fall into that definition.

 

I fully agree with Flamin, and this is exactly the reason because i voted "no" to this poll.

[streakeagle]

There is absolutely a reason to vote no.

 

The purpose of the poll was to ask each one of those responding:

"Would you like to see DCS:F-35 Lightning II?"

 

I would not like to see DCS:F-35 Lightning II, therefore I voted "no".

 

There is absolutely no reason to have a poll if those responding are not allowed to choose the answer.

 

If for some strange reason ED actually makes business decisions based on these limited audience user created polls, it would be most useful for them to know how many would actually buy the proposed product. I have no interest in the F-35, therefore I won't buy such a product. I am not going to buy it just to support your desire to have the F-35, nor am I going to lie about my willingness to buy it.

 

Modules aren't made merely to complete an arbitrary list of planes. ED needs to make as much money as they can and can only do so by meeting market demand. Polling on a company forum that is mainly limited to a small group of die hard fans is not the best way to determine overall demand, but can still provide useful information. A false unanimous vote is of no value to anyone.

[ENO]

By claming that anyone that disagrees with you is arrogant, you yourself fall into that definition.

 

Actually, that would make me a hypocrite and that's another conversation for another thread.

Anyway, moving on...

 

 

DCS F-35... make it so!

[GGTharos]

That is not necessarily correct.

 

I did no such thing. It was my option that any attempt to do an F-35 was pointless as the information wasn't available to do it properly.

[ENO]

And here we go again ...

 

 

[streakeagle]

It doesn't matter whether the F-35 can be modeled accurately or not. The poll simply asks whether "you would like" it to be modeled. The last time I checked, whether or not I like the color blue or having a DCS F-35 module is merely a question of opinion. Such a question was not asking for justification.

 

How can anyone's opinion be wrong? I love pizza, but some people hate it. I am not wrong (other than the fact that I always eat too much of it as reflected by my body fat/weight), nor are the people who don't like it. You may not "like" my opinion, but you don't get to tell me what my opinion should be. If you don't want to hear my honest answer to a question, then don't ask me.

[ENO]

Well to make a point- you may love it, and others may hate it... but the people who hate it don't really have a place to say that it shouldn't ever be made.

[NeilWillis]

Arrogance/Hypocrisy

 

The plain fact Eno, is that using such terms here is simply impolite, and reduces the debate to gutter insults, whether or not they are directed at an individual.

 

Arrogant - having, or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's self importance, merit, ability, etc.

 

Hypocrite - a person who pretends to be what he is not.

 

Does the phrase Pot and kettle fit your stance regarding the actual definition of arrogance? And if as you say, you are a hypocrite, I for one would like to know what you are pretending to be?

 

The operative word in opinion poll is opinion. Other forum members' may not match yours, but calling anyone arrogant merely because they don't happen to support your pet crusade is stretching things beyond the pale (if you require a true definition of any of those terms, please don't hesitate to ask and I'll oblige).

 

Can you deny that their views are just as relevant as your own? Does shouting the loudest give your flawed argument more weight? Does constantly restating your position progress the discussion?

 

Put simply, the F35 is not a suitable subject for DCS level simulation because the data is far too inaccessible at this point in time. There are plenty of other far more worthy candidates, with much better data sets available for us to worry about the cloud cuckoo land Edge map that would be required for the F35. Should we downgrade the whole DCS package to the lowest common denominator, or strive to raise the bar? You want an F35, and I think by now that opinion has been registered

 

Fundamentally, opinions are our own. No matter how much anyone bangs their collective heads against the virtual brick wall, people will vote with their wallets, and unfortunately, kick starter said it all. Whether that was because no one cared, or didn't know of its existence, the project flopped. You are welcome of course to launch a new campaign, and good luck with that.

 

Does my posting make me a pompous ass in your eyes? Perhaps, but do you think I, or anyone else will lose sleep over it?

[WRAITH]

A DCS F-35 is needed

 

I really cant resist to say that people have limited minds.

 

FSX gents have accomplished a great FM + AFM for the F-35 with general knowledge and flight physics yet people keep the piss fight going.

 

You could use this for creating FDM.......... http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/

 

I guess no different than all the other combat flight sim Forum's same old same old. I wish it would stop and embrace an all mentality.

 

For me those that think that others want a game get over yourselves, because thats not what we are saying, and we would't have registered in Forums clearly stating the intents of the development "GAME" in a "SIMULATION" category, but to deny others the wishes to see more air craft and many other functionalities like Single Player Historical and Modern Theaters of WAR with Dynamic Campaigns built with EDGE would be awesome as well ....... more here on that.......... http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1936777&postcount=905

 

Watch this video see how well STOVL variant performs in FSX.............

 

 

also these video's..............

 

 

http://youtu.be/AqiUsylwJfY

 

 

Now tell me thats not a great achievement in its own merit, yes some things can still be improved on but very kool indeed.

 

imho, I would prefer better more realistic cockpit and model texturing and the green text hud color more like FreeFalcons that bright blur'd freaks me out a bit.

 

Point is there's heaps of jets that can easily be added to DCS like it is in FSX World or even XPlane 10 check it out.......... http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/x-planestore/StoreFront

 

So back on topic votes are on par even if you wish, a good indication that Hi-Fi aircraft are great but gents want more combat air craft to fly with in a WAR air combat simulator.

 

I still vote YES for a DCS F-35 ......... more info here for those interested ......... http://www.mediafire.com/folder/34ur5uq8k3qkh/05.%20JSF%20F-35%20-%20All%20you%20need%20to%20know

 

I would love to see a DCS Hi-Fi..... F-117 Nighthawk, F/A-18A/B/C/D or E, EMirage2000N, C-130 Hercules, SR-71 Blackbird.......... so on.

 

Heaps more to make for an interesting....... "Study - WAR - Sim" ........... with real operations with state of the art Advanced A.i for Single Players and Multi Player Squad missions.

 

DCS could and should embrace allot more of what is Air Defense Operations be NATO or USAF Doctrine and Theory to for old historical wars and modern scenarios.

 

Maybe DCS Santa............ can shed some light.............. :smilewink:

 

But its all about.................. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-M5pbP3qnEx0/T4VbzxP4_sI/AAAAAAAAARU/hxidcj78AC0/s1600/The_waiting_game_logo.jpg

Edited December 12, 2013 by WRAITH

[TAW_Blaze]

 

Put simply, the F35 is not a suitable subject for DCS level simulation because the data is far too inaccessible at this point in time. There are plenty of other far more worthy candidates, with much better data sets available for us to worry about the cloud cuckoo land Edge map that would be required for the F35. Should we downgrade the whole DCS package to the lowest common denominator, or strive to raise the bar? You want an F35, and I think by now that opinion has been registered

 

This. Also it would take away ED's resources to work on a made up jet (well at this point you can't entitle it anything else) instead of much more important things (hornet, apache, cobra, DCS:fighters, you name it).

[NeilWillis]

I can't disagree with that Wraith. The trouble is, there are so many possibilities, so many goodies we'd all love to see added to DCS. Who knows what the future holds. State of the art designs are always a mouth watering proposition.

 

Trouble is, I can't stop thinking of a Phantom, afterburners lit, torturing the air as it zoom climbs and goes vertical with a Mig 21 over the paddy fields and jungles of 'Nam. The pilot wishing someone would soon invent a gun pod so he could toast the MF instead of having to turn tail soon and get back to the carrier group. Call me old fashioned, but seeing the opposition eye to eye, with your pucker factor off the scale - THAT'S real warfare in the skies! But hey, we can all dream can't we.

[WRAITH]

I can't disagree with that Wraith. The trouble is, there are so many possibilities, so many goodies we'd all love to see added to DCS. Who knows what the future holds. State of the art designs are always a mouth watering proposition.

 

Trouble is, I can't stop thinking of a Phantom, afterburners lit, torturing the air as it zoom climbs and goes vertical with a Mig 21 over the paddy fields and jungles of 'Nam. The pilot wishing someone would soon invent a gun pod so he could toast the MF instead of having to turn tail soon and get back to the carrier group. Call me old fashioned, but seeing the opposition eye to eye, with your pucker factor off the scale - THAT'S real warfare in the skies! But hey, we can all dream can't we.

 

Hi NeilWills thx,

 

Yeah I like your take/dream in another thread I'm actually discussing the future of flight sims and DCS.

 

Here is thread............ http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=57607

 

You say in quote above ....... "Thats real Warfare in the skies!"

 

This is the motivation for all that I ask request or press in my posts that with modern gaming evolution high end GFX engines, high detail modeling and increasing improvements in the PC tech industry much is possible for gaming future just vision for Flight Simulators is dwindling.

 

Where exactly are the problems there's a few I believe I have some answers but the difficult part is getting people to stick to it and follow it.

 

This would make projects like wanting your F-4G Phantom and my desire to see a F-35C JSF STOVL and F/A-18A/B/C/D or E/F variant in a Air Combat Sim like DCS with Theaters of WAR and new state of the art GFX engine a sure thing.

 

Take into account how many people are spending on new tech coming out, I have and own5 PC's, 4 Tablets, 2 Laptops, 1 Playstation3, home entertainment system, HD LCD TV's so on, in my household alone. I know people are buying left and right new tech every day. Hence why I say there is a huge market in gaming.

 

Its sorting out those grey areas with some sort of business venture/development plan to allow for a niche market like combat sims to flourish. Then people wont be so disappointed with the lack of development on air craft like the F-35, GFX Terrain engines, Modern and Historical Theaters of WAR with Dynamic Campaigns like what you see in old Microprose Falcon 4.0 and so on.

 

Look I have read enough post in this Forum and many others in the sim community to know what some people think but I just dont see it that way.

 

Its about changing the mindset and direction of how things are done in the Flight sim world.

 

I could elaborate more here...... but you see my train of thought, right.

 

Cheers,

 

:beer:

Edited December 12, 2013 by WRAITH

[tarracta]

 

Watch this video see how well STOVL variant performs in FSX.............

 

 

Oh yes... what a dream ... carrier ops with an STOVL/VTOL plane ... coming home from a nice A2G mission and then the last duty to get this beauty back to the carrier :music_whistling:

 

It's just getting clearer to me that DCS isn't the right simulator for me. A-10C was a masterpiece.. but instead of following these steps and model some more interesting planes like F-14, F-16, F-22, F-35, F-117 or something really cool like a B-2 (in some very long time), the future will rather consist of "flying legends" for the ones, but clear-blue-sky-trashcans for the others...

 

There are dozens of games out there where you can dogfight each other with cannons and sidewinders. But there's absolutely no simulation where you can fly planes with modern avionics and create interesting missions, e.g. getting JDAMs far beyond enemy lines with a stealth bomber and get back to base in one piece. Surely this can not simulated to 100% realism, but even with 80% realism it offers so much more features than these boring dogfights in visual range....

 

The F-35 would have been after the F/A18 the third step to the right direction ... and not developing planes which even come without radar and HUD and don't have anything spectacular either...

Edited December 13, 2013 by tarracta

[Revelation]

Oh yes... what a dream ... carrier ops with an STOVL/VTOL plane ... coming home from a nice A2G mission and then the last duty to get this beauty back to the carrier :music_whistling:

 

It's just getting clearer to me that DCS isn't the right simulator for me. A-10C was a masterpiece.. but instead of following these steps and model some more interesting planes like F-14, F-16, F-22, F-35, F-117 or something really cool like a B-2 (in some very long time), the future will rather consist of "flying legends" for the ones, but clear-blue-sky-trashcans for the others...

 

There are dozens of games out there where you can dogfight each other with cannons and sidewinders. But there's absolutely no simulation where you can fly planes with modern avionics and create interesting missions, e.g. getting JDAMs far beyond enemy lines with a stealth bomber and get back to base in one piece. Surely this can not simulated to 100% realism, but even with 80% realism it offers so much more features than these boring dogfights in visual range....

 

The F-35 would have been after the F/A18 the third step to the right direction ... and not developing planes which even come without radar and HUD and don't have anything spectacular either...

 

What are you talking about?

 

ED will be doing more current-gen aircraft. Flying legends is a side enterprise. Further the F-35 wasn't going to be developed by ED....

 

I really wish people would at least post FACTS instead of half-truths when trying to criticize - it destroys your validity and causes the community to ignore any valid suggestion you might otherwise have...

[Scrim]

It's just getting clearer to me that DCS isn't the right simulator for me.

 

 

Seriously man, enough with your "weeaah, weeaah, i told u i dont want old piece of garbage planes, i want the new ones. Give me nau!11!!!" Not one of the complaints you've made this week have been on topic. First you nagged here about ED backing out of making the F-35, though it's common knowledge that it would be made by a 3rd party developer. Then you started derailing the Belsimtek F86/AH1G announcement thread, crying your eyes out about them not making a modern fighter, even though they have since long declared that their planned upcoming modules will be older, classic planes and helicopters.

[diveplane]

how can u model f35 with next to no data on it lol. voted no not possible for this reason.

give me a f16 module any day tried and tested work horse.

Edited December 14, 2013 by diveplane

[hypersonik]

50%/50% :detective_2: