DCS F-35A

Hi again to all. I would to once again make it clear that I have dedicated myself and my company to bringing the joy of military aviation to as many as possible... when the dust settles we still fly together for the joy of it. I was hoping that an announcement of a new module for DCS would bring us all closer together as a community. FYI - I was in VT-10, VT-86, VMFA-531, MAG-11, VFC-13, and HC-9 might have been a couple of military cockpits mixed into that group... not to mention hundreds of hours in both the B-2 and F-22 developmental simulators.

Nothing personal towards you Kinney.

But wouldn't you be at the very least confused if the following happend?

December 2012;

Someone asks on forum for an SU-27 whatever latest variant, or SU-34 PAK FA etc etc.

Someone from ED replies whit, impossible, not enough information for any level of simulation, not DCS, not FC, probably not even game mode.

And if there was information, it would simply not be allowed to any kind of realistic re-presentation.

What has changed in those few months that all of a sudden it now can be done, at the highest level of simulation i am aware off?

Whoever can explain the above to me wins the Nobel Price for Peace of Falcons mind.

EDIT,

Looking forward to other things you announced btw, like terrain and WWII era plane's.

Its just the F35 that we were always told by ED was not possible because..........laundry list of reasons here.

You just won't get permission from Sukhoi and Russian military. Classified is classified here.

Not being able to model aircraft A to "DCS standards" does not mean it isn't possible to model aircraft B. Even if A and B are from the same generation and have the same capabilities.

Likewise, just because ED themselves can't model a given aircraft, it doesn't mean someone else won't have the necessary contacts/sources to do so. And what can't be modelled today, might end up being possible next month. It's not a clear black/white thing.

Well yeah, but i didn't mean just the Russian craft. Should have put an F22 in there or something.

Cause the same laundry list was used as argument towards modern western planes.

EDIT

Sniped by Eddie

Not being able to model aircraft A to "DCS standards" does not mean it isn't possible to model aircraft B. Even if A and B are from the same generation and have the same capabilities.

 

Likewise, just because ED themselves can't model a given aircraft, it doesn't mean someone else won't have the necessary contacts/sources to do so. And what can't be modelled today, might end up being possible next month. It's not a clear black/white thing.

In that case things may need to be formulated a bit different in the future then.

Cause i always understood it as ........by ANYONE.

instead of .........by Eagle Dynamics.

Well yeah, but i didn't mean just the Russian craft. Should have put an F22 in there or something.

 

Cause the same laundry list was used as argument towards modern western planes.

 

EDIT

Sniped by Eddie

Well, now someone got ability to make this particular aircraft. F-22, Su-35 and other company is still in the same list.

What does a developer need to accomplish to meet the standards of a DCS product ? What kind of aircraft would ED consider too classified to be modeled to a DCS standard ?

What does a developer need to accomplish to meet the standards of a DCS product ? What kind of aircraft would ED consider too classified to be modeled to a DCS standard ?

Lemme take a guess.

This cannot be determined on an per A/C basis but has to be determined on an per Developer basis because they can have fastly different resources and abilities to model a certain craft.

It doesn't matter what planes ED considers 'too classified'. What does matter is what information the module producer claims to have (or can present), as well as their background.

What does a developer need to accomplish to meet the standards of a DCS product ? What kind of aircraft would ED consider too classified to be modeled to a DCS standard ?

Well, now lets see, a quick "off the top of my head" list.

 

Systems that are either not modelled or have at least some degree of simplification and/or "game" modelling (some of the below will be down to limited dev resources and/or known bugs).

 

[...]

 

No more than 70%.

The point is are the documents avaiable to achieve the same fidelty for the F35? Enough to create an AFM and see how the FCS works etc...

Correct. For example, you might say 'I'll make a DCS: PAK-FA', and when you failed to present your ability to obtain reasonable accuracy, your DCS license would be denied - that's just my understanding, someone from ED might have more carefully chosen words on the matter.

Lemme take a guess.

 

This cannot be determined on an per A/C basis but has to be determined on an per Developer basis because they can have fastly different resources and abilities to model a certain craft.

More to the point, the third-party Devs here have just been that wee bitty too vague so as to properly facilitate one from formulating an educated opinion one way or another and that in itself is worrisome to say the least. Eagerly awaiting the kickstarter description and sales-pitch which I hope is not as 'lean' as the info to date.

Yeah, I hope they will learn from the previous F-35 attempt as how NOT to do a sales pitch.

How would you ever be able to know? How would you ever be able to know with respect to the A-10C, to begin with? You took ED at their word. What's wrong with taking Kinney's word?

The point is are the documents avaiable to achieve the same fidelty for the F35? Enough to create an AFM and see how the FCS works etc...

Deleted, was to slow replying.

It's very disappointing to see how negative this thread has become. Everyone seem's focused on telling Kinney how he can't do it instead of recognizing the fact that he as accepted the challenge of such an advanced and systematically challenging aircraft. I for one am fully pulling for Kinney and ED's success with the F-35.

Just being critical, that's all there is to it.

And if it really is possible, then by all means let it succeed.

One thing i find quite brave is to already call out an Beta release for coming April.

(or was it Alpha?)

Now if the F-35 Devs can match that figure of 70% I dare say we have nothing to complain about it bearing the DCS-tag.

It's just that the 70% of the A-10C and 70% of the F-35 are not really in the same league by a long shot.. The radar (especially the A2G mode which would be the first) and the HMS which can project the image which is behind the airframe just to name a few things which would seem to require some additional support in the DCS engine.

I've taken the liberty of deleting some very personal posts.

Let me make one thing absolutely clear, forum rule 1.2 also includes your exchanges with 3rd party devs. From here on out, personal attacks against any member of this forum will be subject to disciplinary action. It's ok to be critical, but learn to voice your concerns/critical thoughts without launching attacks against the person or find yourself another forum. You have been warned.

Also, let's leave the slander and scam accusations, there is no grounds to base those on at this point. You have the right to not spend your money, you don't have a right to be derogatory.

It's very disappointing to see how negative this thread has become. Everyone seem's focused on telling Kinney how he can't do it instead of recognizing the fact that he as accepted the challenge of such an advanced and systematically challenging aircraft.

Well, this is rather different as it's going to be a Kickstarter campaign - which means you're expected to invest into something which is (probably) still in its infancy. So, it's not like all the other 3rd party developers which are promising a lot, but if they don't deliver, it's their loss only (besides our dreams :)).

I for one am fully pulling for Kinney and ED's success with the F-35.

You'll have your chance to put your money where your mouth is soon enough it seems ;)

But my issue is that having the kickstarter added onto it, adds a huge air of skepticism and criticality that is perfectly justified.

 

If there was no kickstarter in place, I think there would be much less criticism and skepticism. (Certainly from me at least). People should always make informed decisions and react on their gut, so I hope the kickstarter pages definitely show some more substaintial proof that an april beta is remotely possible.

This is precisely what makes the 'spider-senses' tingle.

Just that 70% of the A-10C and 70% of the F-35 are really not in the same league...

And that's why I'm eagerly awaiting formal confirmation. Comparing airframes is quite correctly unbecoming.

However

Holding a potential airframe to a certain standard (in this case 70% to qualify for a DCS tag) is eminently reasonable insofar as systems, weapons and avionics is concerned. I dare say flight model fidelity should be considerably higher as I'm pretty sure the A-10C and other DCS flight models are nearer 95%.

In any event, as stated previously, eagerly awaiting formal Dev confirmation/clarification.

I don't see why ... all you need is a different viewport, just like you have for the TGP for example. An alternative is to make the 3D shape textures transparent from the inside when you're 'helmet on', but I don't know how viable that is (the devil is always in the details).

Radar requires some new code, but it isn't exactly a challenge IMHO, just work.

It's just that the 70% of the A-10C and 70% of the F-35 are not really in the same league by a long shot.. The radar (especially the A2G mode which would be the first) and the HMS which can project the image which is behind the airframe just to name a few things which would seem to require some additional support in the DCS engine.

I don't see why ... all you need is a different viewport, just like you have for the TGP for example. An alternative is to make the 3D shape textures transparent from the inside when you're 'helmet on', but I don't know how viable that is (the devil is always in the details).

 

Radar requires some new code, but it isn't exactly a challenge IMHO, just work.

Is the TGP display generally only implemented in the A-10 code or is there a library for it in the DCS world? I don't mean the HDD and the functions there, but the general feature. I guess there's some base used by the Su-25 and the A-10C. So, I expect that a similar base needs to be done for the HMD display and the A2G radar.

I never said it's impossible, I just said that to my uninformed mind it seems it might require some extra support in the DCS World engine (OK, I don't know how far ED got with the Hornet features which should also feature A2G radar at least). And A-10C was two years in the making, no? By people who developed the game itself (meaning, very experienced and familiar). It's not like such features in DCS World are being developed very quickly, it usually takes months to get something like advanced missile modeling, while the announced landing SFM improvements are still not there.

So, call me paranoid then, but I'm rather skeptical about the "it's just work" disclaimer :) (especially given the unbelievingly bold April beta statement).

I'll make a comment on this thread in the form of an image:

:smilewink:

:megalol::megalol::megalol:

Definitely some truth to that.

Would be a boring place here without it though.:D