cichlidfan Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I wonder what will happen if the kickstarter fails to reach its goal. Unless the goal is stupidly high, I predict them passing the goal by a very wide margin. ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1 :thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Busutil Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 This thread needs less whining and more pictures... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Checkout my user files here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?CREATED_BY=Mike%20Busutil&set_filter=Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Viper Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 ........ Putting a percentage value on it. No more than 70%. Cheers Eddie 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. Eagerly awaiting confirmation either way. Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career? Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] '....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell.... One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Falcon Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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). SADL/JTRS DSMS IFFCC Electronic Warfare/Countermeasures TAD IFF Radios (Crypto/Havequick) Maverick JDAM WCMD Unguided Rockets LUU-2 LITENING AT Engines Hydraulics Environmental Control System Putting a percentage value on it. No more than 70%. Really, yet when people asked before this F35 announcement, they were let to believe how well modeled everything is in the A10C. Down to aerodynamics, engine performance, hydraulic and electrical system. Failures were apparently not a part of weapon A hitting part H but due to elaborate damage and systems modelling. Down to the electrical current being drawn by systems etc etc. So now then, what is it. Option A, as realistic as we were always let to believe Option B, an elaborate and ever changing scam that the publisher changes the definition of throughout its live cycle's to what suite's there needs best at that given time. Option C,..................... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exorcet Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 What Eddie describes sounds like option A to me. DCS is very realistic. But it's still a simulator, not a remote desktop connection to an A-10C. Awaiting: DCS F-15C Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) The A-10C is still by far the most accurate representation of a modern military combat aircraft to date. Very little of what isn't there is classified. It mostly a mix of there simply not being enough time /resources for ED to implement such things or the USAF/US DoD not allowing things to be implemented in the commercial product. Every single system I mentioned could be modelled based on public information/physics/common sense, if the dev resources were there and the USAF/US DoD allowed it. The point is, as has always been said. If I, or anyone else, tells you system X is realistic how would you know any different? At the end of the day, as long as the implementation is plausible and maintains the suspension of disbelief it's fine. Question for you, looking at that list of systems that are not modelled/simplified I posted before, can anyone tell me why/how they are simplified? I'd be willing to bet the number of people on these forums that could is barely in double digits. There is nothing that makes me think the same could not be achieved with the F-35. Edited June 17, 2013 by Eddie 1 Spoiler Intel 13900K (5Ghz), 64Gb 6400Mhz, MSi RTX 3090, Schiit Modi/Magi DAC/AMP, ASUS PG43UQ, Hotas Warthog, RealSimulator FSSB3, 2x TM MFDs + DCS MFDs, MFG Crosswinds, Elgato Steamdeck XL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle13 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkateZilla Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 LOL. I find it quite amusing that people are so happy with the A-10C given the number of systems/weapons that are heavily simplified or flat out not modelled, and yet the prospect of the same thing for a Lightning II is somehow so objectionable. ^This Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2), ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9) 3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted June 17, 2013 ED Team Share Posted June 17, 2013 I was hoping that an announcement of a new module for DCS would bring us all closer together as a community. Not spent much time in flight sim forums then huh :D Seriously though, dont sweat the negative stuff... Just make a kick ass F-35 ( and F4U and Zero and others) and thats good enough for most... Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Falcon Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ФрогФут Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 You just won't get permission from Sukhoi and Russian military. Classified is classified here. 1 "Я ошеломлён, но думаю об этом другими словами", - некий гражданин Ноет котик, ноет кротик, Ноет в небе самолетик, Ноют клумбы и кусты - Ноют все. Поной и ты. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. Spoiler Intel 13900K (5Ghz), 64Gb 6400Mhz, MSi RTX 3090, Schiit Modi/Magi DAC/AMP, ASUS PG43UQ, Hotas Warthog, RealSimulator FSSB3, 2x TM MFDs + DCS MFDs, MFG Crosswinds, Elgato Steamdeck XL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Falcon Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) 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. Edited June 17, 2013 by 159th_Falcon [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ФрогФут Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. 1 "Я ошеломлён, но думаю об этом другими словами", - некий гражданин Ноет котик, ноет кротик, Ноет в небе самолетик, Ноют клумбы и кусты - Ноют все. Поной и ты. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LupinYonder Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Falcon Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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 ? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorcer3r Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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... [sIGPIC]http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b582/sorcerer17/sorcf16-b_zpsycmnwuay.gif[/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) 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. Edited June 17, 2013 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Falcon Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Deleted, was to slow replying. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Busutil Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Checkout my user files here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?CREATED_BY=Mike%20Busutil&set_filter=Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Falcon Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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?) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) 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. Edited June 17, 2013 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts