DCS F-35A

You have one option tho: do NOT pay for this products.. in example, do not buy semi-arcade things like FC3 and such.

10 years ago it would be considered one of the hardcore. Now people considered it's semi arcade? lol

Many of the great sims in 90s would be arcade games now then.

This thread actually makes me smile.

 

So many people want 100% full realism planes and then they cant plan a mission, calculate t/o or landing speed/weight, or respect the simplest VFR if their lives depended on that.

 

I'm deadly serious.

My work expertise shows me what a pilot train him/herself for. The best part of users are just gamers, in the end...

 

Most of these kids screaming for realism are not able to read an AIP, much less follow it, or even know just the correct importance instruments have...

 

I wonder how many of the owners of the A10C module can actually fly it like it deserves.

Which doesn't mean being able to fire 6 mavericks in a row.

Real pilots don't even fly with such a payload.

 

What people don't realize is the need to study- in study sims.

So, yes, everyone can have doubt about how realistic any module can be, I have doubt most of the user deserves what they have.

Maybe been a little more forceful then I would have been. But in principle I agree with this.

People arguing for 100% realism... does that mean we have to start filling in all the paper work every time you go on a sortie? Or maybe we should have the screen black out every time the pilot blinks? No of course not... it would be ridiculous. Balance has to be struck. Systems are implied, procedures are abridged. It's just plain common sense. Otherwise we would end up with a full scale aircraft in our living room, because that's the only thing that's 100% realistic. (Actually... I'd probably be ok with with that, but you get my point.)

Honestly I feel this is a lot of hot air over nothing. Realism or lack of it is not a communicable disease... your copy of DCS:A-10 isn't going to get the clap because party x produces a more abstracted version of an aircraft. Simply don't purchase it.

For all it's ills and faults, Microsoft Flight Sim since about 5.1 had a very healthy market place, worth a lot of money for all concerned that made it the dominating sim platform for nearly two decades. Sure there was a lot of unrealistic dross, but there was gold too. PMDG, Aerosoft, RealAir and others all produced excellent aircraft.

The point is if you want ED and the DCS brand to continue to grow, have new users and new interest, the market place has to be opened up to allow exciting new prospects that interest the wider community. And that means there are going to be some liberties taken with realism from some 3rd parties. The F-35 may be an aircraft where such liberties have to be taken, only time will tell.

There are still plenty of highly realistic modules coming, VEAO Hawk, Mig-21, UH-1H. What is all the fuss... is this going to prevent any of those seeing the light of day... no.

If you feel that F-35 is potentially not going to be realistic... so what? Don't buy it. Exercise consumer choice, and let the product be judged on its own merits. Isn't that what free markets and capitalism is about? Which the last time I checked is broadly what we live in.

Don't like it, don't believe it will suit your purposes, don't think it will work... then simply don't open your wallet. And that's the long and short of it really. But don't throw arrows and tell them "you shouldn't be doing this". It's just counter productive really, for everyone.

As I said at the start, lack of realism in a product isn't a communicable disease. If the community doesn't like it, it won't get bought or put into missions. This will not effect anything. Other then maybe attract some people who might have passed this sim by before, which equals money for ED, money for a third party developer and continued development and growth.

Lets not judge this product before it's out of the hanger. Given his background in F22 and B2 avionics I happen to believe that the developer has access to information that should make this module pretty convincing. If that is not the case, sales and reaction from the community will quickly indicate otherwise once the product is further in development.

But until then how about we support someone who is choosing to contribute to our hobby community and industry? Rather then simply urinate in their cornflakes.

Is it perhaps possible that the reason so many people have their knickers in a twist over it is that as a group flight sim enthusiasts are somewhat elitist and opinionated - and anything other then 100% somehow damages fragile egos built out of not being able to do this for real? I know I have certainly been guilty of that myself, so no offence intended.

Perhaps we should all take a moment - collectively un-bunch our panties - and put it all in perspective?

I don't bash him

 

And it's not a jugdement, it's just an IMPRESSION

The statement you made is rather loaded. Do not press your luck.

 

Don't like it, don't believe it will suit your purposes, don't think it will work... then simply don't open your wallet. And that's the long and short of it really. But don't throw arrows and tell them "you shouldn't be doing this". It's just counter productive really, for everyone.

I donn't think that is the issue here... Most(?) of us realize that we're not obligated to purchase an F-35 sim.

On the one hand I applaud new 3rd party devs... By allowing said devs. to create new content for the game it will ensure that DCS will stay in the market for a long time to come (think FSX-long). It's just that, personally, I would've preferred something that could be simulated with a lot less guess- work.

There is a huge range of aircraft to choose from and it is simply beyond my understanding that someone would choose an F-35 over say a Jaguar... or an F-4... Heck, even an F-5 is waaaay cool(er) than an ugly 5th gen fighter. But hey, that's just me...

One thing is sure though... the Pokémon generation will snap this one up by the boatload...

I still believe Wags should not announce it, It looks like ED supporting this reality witch they cant distinguish from a dream. At the same time we need to remember what ED has said earlier about DCS products and what is needed to make a simulator clouse to Shark2 and A-10C.

I still believe Wags should not announce it, It made it look like ED supporting this reality that they cant distinguish from a dream. At the same time we need to remember what ED has said before about DCS products and fidelity they should have. It 3d party ED should not putt their name in the dirt as they did.

Or maybe you missed the part where Wags said that folks from ED and KI had long discussions on the matter.

If ED is allowing KI to use the DCS branding, maybe that should tell you something too - based on your comments....

I donn't think that is the issue here... Most(?) of us realize that we're not obligated to purchase an F-35 sim.

 

On the one hand I applaud new 3rd party devs... By allowing said devs. to create new content for the game it will ensure that DCS will stay in the market for a long time to come (think FSX-long). It's just that, personally, I would've preferred something that could be simulated with a lot less guess- work.

Maybe if ED was the only one making modules, I could understand this, but they aren't. We've got a whole bunch of devs with perhaps slightly different talents and resources. If KI can make a good F-35, let them. As long as it's modeled to the highest standard possible, which does not have to be A-10 level, I don't see the problem.

There is a huge range of aircraft to choose from and it is simply beyond my understanding that someone would choose an F-35 over say a Jaguar... or an F-4... Heck, even an F-5 is waaaay cool(er) than an ugly 5th gen fighter. But hey, that's just me...

They'll come. In the mean time, this is the only 5th gen module announced, not counting the possibly somewhere in the future IRIS F-22. Personal preferences are one thing, but from an objective standpoint, there is nothing better about F-5's over F-35's, no matter how much I really, really, really, want a F-5.

One thing is sure though... the Pokémon generation will snap this one up by the boatload...

Simulation flyers with an interest in 5th gen as well.

It´s curious, F35 in develop for DCS, a plane that´s not in service actually, officialy i mean.

I still don´t understand, why to make so different planes:

A10, P51 and F35

I think is better to add similar ages planes, and then do the F35, YT-1300 Millenium Falcon or DCS Tie Fighter

Greetings

what ? do you mean cessna-172 ?

to a combat sim ? :)

i guess you wanted to type c-17

http://precise3dmodeling.com/models/images/c-17/c17_large.jpg

No I meant Cessna c-172. It would bring a whole new level to have people flying around in civilian aircraft. Not to mention how big DCS would become. Everyday civilian aircraft are flying everywhere from gliders to a-380s. On a personal note I was flying a 747 over Iran as our government was probing with our stealth drones. I think something like a c-172 would sell like crazy.

I personally just want to fly around and blow stuff up. But there are a ton of people that just fly from A-B in fsx. We all know how much that game sux.

Sorry for the thread creep. I will start another thread.

Contrary to popular opinion, there's absolutely nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, especially when basing conclusions on information provided by the developer to date that is a contradiction in terms, citing the following statement on the F-35 website:

.....And as you can see below the design team has a lot of information available.....

which incidentally only refers to a variety of YouTube videos and which statement is further contradicted in a Youtube video which stipulates that -

"DISPLAYED FORMATS ARE A SIMULATION AND NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF F-35 SYMBOLOGY"

You see where people can be a wee bit circumspect, refusing to blindly accept the current 'writing-on-the-wall'?

I agree that a certain degree of skepticism is warranted; Eagle13 even hit on that himself, and no doubt the effort to bring more information to a skeptical crowd is what pushed the Kickstarter date back a week.

However, stating that KI's remarks regarding research and his posting of the Youtube videos is not necessarily a contradiction.

Calling the statement a contradiction makes a couple of large and unlikely assumptions:

1. The video that specifies that it is not representative of HMD Symbology is in fact KI's source of information regarding said HMD symbology. I see it as information on how the HMD integrates into the human-machine interface as a whole, and the symbology could be gleaned from one of the other videos of the simulator by Lockheed-Martin.
   
2. The YouTube videos are the only sources of information when it comes to developing DCS: F-35. Remember that while Eagle13 has experience in software development, he is primarily a systems integrator for major avionics systems. He likely has access to proprietary documents that he could not put online (the product is licensed by LM, after all), and as an integrator he knows how to read them and accurately apply the contents (which is not as easy as it sounds).
   

Oh yeah, the Area51-esque idea.......Must admit, a really bad idea.

I agree with you there. Eagle13 was talking about sharing development information and soliciting feedback with stakeholders. Independent of previous events, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach. However, with the FO debacle fresh in peoples' minds, this approach does not inspire confidence with the community. To be fair, Eagle13 was likely unaware of how the Fighter Ops pay-for-access model and subsequent delays soured the flight sim community in general, so that any paid exclusivity will subsequently be greeted with suspicion. Therefore, it's in KI's best interests to specify exactly what Eagle13's statement means.

F-35 vs Pak-FA/Su-35/J20/or what?

Is there any info about those aircrafts, who will F-35 fight?

Look at it that way :I

Mig-21 vs F-35, I don't want this simulator to become that realistic.

If you feel that F-35 is potentially not going to be realistic... so what? Don't buy it. Exercise consumer choice, and let the product be judged on its own merits. Isn't that what free markets and capitalism is about? Which the last time I checked is broadly what we live in.

 

Don't like it, don't believe it will suit your purposes, don't think it will work... then simply don't open your wallet. And that's the long and short of it really. But don't throw arrows and tell them "you shouldn't be doing this". It's just counter productive really, for everyone.

 

As I said at the start, lack of realism in a product isn't a communicable disease. If the community doesn't like it, it won't get bought or put into missions. This will not effect anything. Other then maybe attract some people who might have passed this sim by before, which equals money for ED, money for a third party developer and continued development and growth.

 

Lets not judge this product before it's out of the hanger. Given his background in F22 and B2 avionics I happen to believe that the developer has access to information that should make this module pretty convincing. If that is not the case, sales and reaction from the community will quickly indicate otherwise once the product is further in development.

 

But until then how about we support someone who is choosing to contribute to our hobby community and industry? Rather then simply urinate in their cornflakes.

 

Is it perhaps possible that the reason so many people have their knickers in a twist over it is that as a group flight sim enthusiasts are somewhat elitist and opinionated - and anything other then 100% somehow damages fragile egos built out of not being able to do this for real? I know I have certainly been guilty of that myself, so no offence intended.

 

Perhaps we should all take a moment - collectively un-bunch our panties - and put it all in perspective?

Right on. Buy it if you wish to, don't buy it if you don't wish to.

....makes a couple of large and unlikely assumptions.....

That's the point. Large, maybe subjectively so to others but not to me. Unlikely? Again, subjective. Who's to say in an environment devoid of any info to the contrary, which is why I am eagerly awaiting the kick-starter description which will hopefully quell the speculation once and for all.

The announcement certainly sets a new benchmark in the Community insofar as the perception of the 'DCS'-brand is concerned. Hell, if the F-35 qualifies, then third-parties are going to be hard-pressed to sell anything other than DCS-branded modules, the argument being if the F-35 has enough info to get it to a DCS-standard then the F15's, F-18's and F-whateverelses coming up should qualify with flying colours. In that respect it indeed bodes well for the future of high-fidelity SIM modules for which the DCS-brand was coined :thumbup:

I agree with you there. Eagle13 was talking about sharing development information and soliciting feedback with stakeholders. Independent of previous events, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach. However, with the FO debacle fresh in peoples' minds, this approach does not inspire confidence with the community. To be fair, Eagle13 was likely unaware of how FO fleeced donations for a few screenshots in return, and I think that it's in KI's best interests to specify exactly what Eagle13's statement means.

What you typed there is libel. They didn't fleece donations for a few screenshots...

What you typed there is libel. They didn't fleece donations for a few screenshots...

Please enlighten me on what transpired and I will gladly update my original statement with the appropriate amount of crow.

This thread actually makes me smile.

 

So many people want 100% full realism planes and then they cant plan a mission, calculate t/o or landing speed/weight, or respect the simplest VFR if their lives depended on that.

 

I'm deadly serious.

My work expertise shows me what a pilot train him/herself for. The best part of users are just gamers, in the end...

 

Most of these kids screaming for realism are not able to read an AIP, much less follow it, or even know just the correct importance instruments have...

 

I wonder how many of the owners of the A10C module can actually fly it like it deserves.

Which doesn't mean being able to fire 6 mavericks in a row.

Real pilots don't even fly with such a payload.

 

What people don't realize is the need to study- in study sims.

So, yes, everyone can have doubt about how realistic any module can be, I have doubt most of the user deserves what they have.

Well, to be fair, if a person is going to go out and buy $621.00 (US) for USED flight controls and TrackIR just to get the most out of a flight simulator then they are going to want to get as much as they can out of those controls. Sure you don't have to buy those controls, but bare minimum I was looking at spending roughly $280.00 for controls just so I could fly the A-10C with some kind of decency. That's a lot of money.

Additionally, most gaming software is purchased at once. A one time cost is usually the way those things go, or at worst you'll have to pay for a few expansion packs unless you wait for them to all be bundled. With these modules, you're paying $40 a pop for a single aircraft unless you wait for sales. Most of us have no problem with that because let's face it, the same amount of work (or more) is put into each module to make it as accurate as possible and we don't mind paying for that accuracy. We want to support the developers while also enjoying the simulations that we chose to buy.

So my point is this: even if we don't want to file a mission plan we still want as much realism as possible. Because we're spending as much or more money per module than we would for entire games from other developers and most of us have a metric ass load of money invested in controls to make it more enjoyable. So what if we don't access all of the realism. It is there for us to access when we're ready for it, if we so choose. If we do not choose to access it, we still paid for the module so who cares? I would not have spent so much money on controls for a 25% simulator, and I would not at all even consider paying $40, or even $20 for a 25% module unless I was getting an entire game with a lot of different planes and weapons in it.

I'm not trying to be rude or argumentative, but I just want to point out that the community is varied and the more people that contribute to the community, the better it will be. We're lucky that we have real life A-10 users who contribute to this community. But we're also lucky to have (almost) average gamers contributing too. You need both for a study sim community and it's awesome that a guy like me can jump in a fairly realistic A-10C and actually do something in it and at the same time someone who knows more about it than I do can jump in theirs and use it more effectively, utilizing more of the systems and components.

PEACE.

F-35 vs Pak-FA/Su-35/J20/or what?

Is there any info about those aircrafts, who will F-35 fight?

Look at it that way :I

 

Mig-21 vs F-35, I don't want this simulator to become that realistic.

The prenneially difficult concept:

Then don't make a mission that pits them against each other.

Not a difficult concept. ;)

Please enlighten me on what transpired and I will gladly update my original statement with the appropriate amount of crow.

There's no amount of crow that will fill the void...

FO is still on-going. FO had originally created an Area-51 which was a paid "special membership" set of sub forums. Members of Area-51 received more than just screenshots.

The idea behind the paid membership was "inside" access to the development of FO and to the team, which is what was available.

At no time did they say donate money to develop the sim, oh and here are a couple of screenshots - wait let's close our doors as you are eluding to in your post. That would be fleecing.

There were people that did not like that approach because 98% of the information that Area51 members received never made it into the public realm. Development notes, screenshots, in-game videos, Dev-QA, FO TS for community events...

It´s curious, F35 in develop for DCS, a plane that´s not in service actually, officialy i mean.

 

I still don´t understand, why to make so different planes:

 

A10, P51 and F35

 

I think is better to add similar ages planes, and then do the F35, YT-1300 Millenium Falcon or DCS Tie Fighter

 

Greetings

A-10C and P-51D are Eagle Dynamics products for DCS World.

The F-35 is not.

Also, there is a key difference between the F-35 and the MF or Tie Fighter: The F-35 exists in reality. It will be interesting to see what KI can do with it, but apparently they were able to persuade the powers that be that they are indeed capable of making a good representation of it. I'm surprised, but they're the guys that make a living off of doing stuff like that, I'm just a moderator. :P

Your suggestion would be that ED should block development of aircraft based on some sort of concept where all DCS aircraft should be "fair fights". Well, ED already stated more than a year ago (indeed, I think it's closing in on two years now) that this is not what DCS is. DCS will offer aircraft (and indeed not only aircraft) from a wide variety of eras and locations. Then you, as the user, get the freedom to do whatever you want to do with those. Within that freedom is, of course, to NOT place a given unit into your mission.

Thus your argument essentially is one where you are complaining about third parties giving you a choice. I certainly do not agree with that.

F-35 vs Pak-FA/Su-35/J20/or what?

Is there any info about those aircrafts, who will F-35 fight?

Look at it that way :I

 

Mig-21 vs F-35, I don't want this simulator to become that realistic.

Why not Su-27 and S-300? Or F-35's. We're getting a training range that would be good for that scenario.

Well, to be fair, if a person is going to go out and buy $621.00 (US) for USED flight controls and TrackIR just to get the most out of a flight simulator then they are going to want to get as much as they can out of those controls. Sure you don't have to buy those controls, but bare minimum I was looking at spending roughly $280.00 for controls just so I could fly the A-10C with some kind of decency. That's a lot of money.

 

Additionally, most gaming software is purchased at once. A one time cost is usually the way those things go, or at worst you'll have to pay for a few expansion packs unless you wait for them to all be bundled. With these modules, you're paying $40 a pop for a single aircraft unless you wait for sales. Most of us have no problem with that because let's face it, the same amount of work (or more) is put into each module to make it as accurate as possible and we don't mind paying for that accuracy. We want to support the developers while also enjoying the simulations that we chose to buy.

 

So my point is this: even if we don't want to file a mission plan we still want as much realism as possible. Because we're spending as much or more money per module than we would for entire games from other developers and most of us have a metric ass load of money invested in controls to make it more enjoyable. So what if we don't access all of the realism. It is there for us to access when we're ready for it, if we so choose. If we do not choose to access it, we still paid for the module so who cares? I would not have spent so much money on controls for a 25% simulator, and I would not at all even consider paying $40, or even $20 for a 25% module unless I was getting an entire game with a lot of different planes and weapons in it.

 

I'm not trying to be rude or argumentative, but I just want to point out that the community is varied and the more people that contribute to the community, the better it will be. We're lucky that we have real life A-10 users who contribute to this community. But we're also lucky to have (almost) average gamers contributing too. You need both for a study sim community and it's awesome that a guy like me can jump in a fairly realistic A-10C and actually do something in it and at the same time someone who knows more about it than I do can jump in theirs and use it more effectively, utilizing more of the systems and components.

 

PEACE.

I kind of see your point.

You may have missed mine.

I'll try it simpler.

You said you have A10C, good. Me too and I love it.

You said you want as much realism you can get; cool, that's why you have the possibility to flip the single CB behind the sticktop. Do you know what they do?

Do you know you have to check your altimeter setting? Every how?

Do you have the AIP to always perform the correct take off and landing procedures?

Do you know the fly-zone restrictions of the areas you are overflying?

There's a reason those switches and knobs are there.

This is not a challenge.

I just want to know much of a dedicated pilot you are.

We have access, thanks to ED, to probably the closest thing we have to a military training simulator.

My point is that most of the users still fly it as a game.

And you know why? Because like that is FUN.

The life of a fighter pilot (even Hawgs Pilots...) is not just always as glamorous as 6-mavericks-shooter-in-a-row-YEEHAW-let's-stop-the-red-tide...

It's mostly a repetition of procedures, checklist and waiting.

Not so much fun, but at least you get to fly some of the best hardware! ;)

Full Realism of course doesn't mean WE ALWAYS have to fill the flight plans everytime.

But there's a reason for that, it's USEFUL to do it.

What's the use of all the details included in the A10 if we then just fly it like we stole it?

What I want to express is the delusion of seeing (not you apparently) lot's of young guns in the cockpit and without even knowing the position of the wheel brakes, they want to shoot and kill.

Ask them to land with 5 knots of crosswind and 1.5 NM of visibility and they will crash it.

Ask them to insert a new markpoint and broadcast it and there- Radio silence.

Not everyone is a pilot, it takes dedication and study.

Rightfully some of us just want to have fun, sometimes me too. With two kids all I have is 2 hours per week.

What enrages me is that, here in the forums, so many of these gamers piss on perfectly reasonable projects because they're not just 100% realistic.

People should not act their age, but their skill.

Too easy to go balls out like that.

PS: Glad to know a fellow enthusiast! I spent lots on my HOTAS and building my own sim-desk too! :D

Not everyone is a pilot, it takes dedication and study.

Rightfully some of us just want to have fun, sometimes me too. With two kids all I have is 2 hours per week.

 

What enrages me is that, here in the forums, so many of these gamers piss on perfectly reasonable projects because they're not just 100% realistic.

People should not act their age, but their skill.

So your point is that people should use the software they've paid for in a certain way you deem to be proper before they can express their expectations from another module? Otherwise you're enraged? And using this software your way makes you a pilot? :)

So your point is that people should use the software they've paid for in a certain way you deem to be proper before they can express their expectations from another module? Otherwise you're enraged? And using this software your way makes you a pilot? Funny.. :)

From my read he said the opposite?

Thanks EtherealN.

I guess my simpler way isn't that simpler after all...

I give up.

komemiute:

I'm not getting into an online pissing contest with you about who's a pilot and who's not. I'm not. I took ground school a decade ago and passed the test but couldn't afford flight lessons (it was an elective in college). I wanted to be in the Air Force but decided against it. I'm not a pilot at all. And I fly it mostly like a game although I try to use the A-10C correctly in so far as I have the knowledge and ability to do so.

It's just like my other hobby which happens to be shooting. I love shooting guns and I shoot a lot. Shooting long range doesn't make me a sniper because actual sniping involves a lot of boredom and a lot of discomfort. More than just shooting long range. But if I got on a game forum about Sniper Elite V2 or sniping in ARMA or something like that and started getting elitist about how most of the people doing it don't know how the Coriolis Effect works, don't know the actual trajectory of a 7.62 X 51 bullet, can't make a wind call, don't know how to range a target as a spotter, and don't want to sit around for 3 hours in the game waiting on a target...I'd probably get booted from the forum. The only difference is that those aren't study sims so your point still stands, some.

I actually agree with you a bit. People should NOT piss on a project just because they don't like it or it isn't 100% realistic. So I definitely agree with you on that. I also noticed (after my initial response to you) that your point could be taken either way. I don't think I'm the only one who picked the wrong way but that is another reason I hate the internet. It's just hard to see certain perspectives.

Anyway, it appears that you're telling people to slow down on judging a module that may not be as realistic as A-10C. That I also agree with. I'd like as much realism as possible even if I never use it. I'll probably never use every bit of realism in A-10C. It's not that I don't want to, it's just that I have other things to worry about and in the meantime I'll just learn what I can.

I think my main caution is against elitism. It drives people away and kills conversations. That clearly is not your intent and I think most of what I saw as elitism was actually a misunderstanding, but the caution remains. A lot of us see our time in the sim and our money that we spent on controls and we start feeling good about ourselves and that can be a problem.

Thanks.