DCS F-35A

;1788551']If you want to fly F-35, load HAWX2 or FSX, but please dont fall for this and bring your hopes up too high.

So let me get this straight. The maybe 85% accurate aircraft we have now (nothing against ED/3rd party, but we're not 100% and that's completely obvious) are perfectly acceptable, but 50-70% is not, even when people can choose on a personal basis whether or not to even experience it. So those people that would be OK with that level of accuracy, understanding it's the best that is currently achievable, should instead turn to something that is perhaps 1% accurate (the 3D is most likely OK)?

Well, I guess this F35 will end up in the same bag than the P51. Probably fun to fly, realistic or not, it will never make it into a single serious multi squad mission anyway.

You'll see those aircraft in versus mode servers, just like the p51, and during LAN between 2 missions, to relax and have a good laugh.

After all, it's up to the users to decide what to do with those modules.I didn't buy the P51 module and none of my squad missions ever needed it anyway.

My only concern is that I hope these side developments are not diverting ED resources too much for them to work on real hardcore aircraft and also squash the remaining bugs on existing ones.

So let me get this straight. The maybe 85% accurate aircraft we have now (nothing against ED/3rd party, but we're not 100% and that's completely obvious) are perfectly acceptable, but 50-70% is not, even when people can choose on a personal basis whether or not to even experience it. So those people that would be OK with that level of accuracy, understanding it's the best that is currently achievable, should instead turn to something that is perhaps 1% accurate (the 3D is most likely OK)?

 

+1

I'll be kicking in my birthday present money, F-35 at the highest possible detail available to civilian flyers sounds like a good investment.

 

On a side note I think that DCS World is going to be the backbone of a revival in the flight sim genre.

Pretty mixed opinions have we here, don't we? Not surprising to me, because I don't know what to think myself.

 

On one hand, we have endorsement from Wags himself (and that means something), and even a license from Lockheed, on the other hand, we have heard claims like "we are sure you will be flying open beta in April". Don't want to be negative, but it sounds too much over-confident to me. I'm yet going to see a DCS module released exactly on schedule, let alone such a complex one. Let's see what Mr. Kinny can pull off.

 

On the other hand, I can't get how some people can scream SCAM two days after first announcement. It's always good idea to be skeptical, especially about surprising and unexpected news, but denying something without seeing any evidence, neither positive nor negative, has nothing to do with skepticism.

 

I'm going to support this project for sure, as soon as I will see serious proofs. KI claims that beta is some 10 months away, which means they must have pretty share of work already done (you can't develop a DCS-level module in 10 months from scratch, right?). Let me see how it looks and works, and I will be probably convinced.

 

And finally, for those saying that F-35 will ruin MP... Forget about it. As already said, it's up to mission designer to choose participating aircraft, their number and balance, and it's up to you to which servers you visit, which plane you select and how you use it. Besides that, I'm sure that accurately simulated F-35 will be lots of fun in SP, don't you think?

 

So good luck guys, and prove my disbelief to be wrong. :)

Eagle, do you need more info? My buddy, his brother, is an engineer on the F-35 project and gets to work closely with the F-35 test pilots.

 

I don't know what, or if, he can provide to assist - would you mind if I got him in contact with you?

 

 

Also, are you planning to develop the feature of being able to re-designate a new target for GPS guided munitions after they have been released from the aircraft?

Luckily we only have to skip somehow the next few month till september 3rd. Then rome 2tw will come and the time until the next dcs modules will get shortened a lot :)

What's next? DCS: F-22, F-117 and B-2? I dont want to sound negative, but I was hoping that we would'nt have a lot of aircraft based on guess work in DCS. And I can't see how it's possible to make a realistic representation of an aircraft where most of the systems, and it's capabilities are classified.

So let me get this straight. The maybe 85% accurate aircraft we have now (nothing against ED/3rd party, but we're not 100% and that's completely obvious) are perfectly acceptable, but 50-70% is not, even when people can choose on a personal basis whether or not to even experience it. So those people that would be OK with that level of accuracy, understanding it's the best that is currently achievable, should instead turn to something that is perhaps 1% accurate (the 3D is most likely OK)?

 

Your numbers are completely made up and no relevant basis for a discussion.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it can't be done. How much documentation have you seen of the A-10C systems? Are you sure they're accurate? Did you verify? Do you know how? How do you know it isn't all guess-work?

 

What's next? DCS: F-22, F-117 and B-2? I dont want to sound negative, but I was hoping that we would'nt have a lot of aircraft based on guess work in DCS. And I can't see how it's possible to make a realistic representation of an aircraft where most of the systems, and it's capabilities are classified.

The notion of what he wrote up is correct. Exact numbers not needed.

 

Your numbers are completely made up and no relevant basis for a discussion.

What's next? DCS: F-22, F-117 and B-2? I dont want to sound negative, but I was hoping that we would'nt have a lot of aircraft based on guess work in DCS. And I can't see how it's possible to make a realistic representation of an aircraft where most of the systems, and it's capabilities are classified.

 

 

Seriously, again?

It has been told already. Lochkeed Martin it's backing up this project, officially endorsing it.

Does that ring like something ANYONE can get, just by asking politely?

 

As a side dish, DCS: F22 it's already in the pipeline.

 

Working in the field of Military simulations I think I know a bit about the topic.

And there are many MANY ways fidelity can be matched without having to show the public restricted info.

 

Beside the fact that I personally believe a VERY limited amount of people in this forum could tell whether a Flight Model is 5% or 10% close to reality...

 

What's important is that the RESULT is a close approximation of reality, not that the content of the engine is actually code from the plane.

 

One of the most ridiculous commet I read in this thread is about "How can KI put the Nth millions of code of the real plane in DCS?"

 

Do you REALLY think that the only way to code a plane is to input the FCS code?

 

The amount of illogical assumption and preposterous claims based of feelings and pre-concepts really baffles me.

 

Rant off...

Interesting announcement. However, I'm not sure how I feel about paying $xx for a sim that just simulates a flying computer.

I think this can be a great addition to DCS World.

What I'm a bit surprised about is the hostility/negative comments about the module.

 

1: Wags himself has gone out and posted that this is NOT A SCAM. And they re looking forward to see what can be delivered.

 

2: It's confirmed that it will be produced on license from LM.

 

3: They clearly have experience in various areas within the simulation genre.

 

4: Lead Teams that Integrated Avionics on Both the F-22 & B-2

 

5: Have been designing and producing flight simulation products both for the general public and the military for almost 30 years.

 

 

I would say they have the experience and resources to pull this off.

When it comes to the avionics. It doesn't matter how many line of code the real F-35 needs in it's software. It's two completely different things.

 

All that matters is how the final package is delivered to the pilot. If you simulate an effect with 10 lines of code, where in real life it would maybe take 1000. No one would know.

 

Radar for example. How many line of codes do you think it would take in real life to have radar paint a detailed map of the area of interest....

 

In the game this is already known. So no need to have piles of code to do it, you simply simulate it.

 

Looking forward to this one.

Of course I will have a little skepticism until we see some more. But hopefully it will be good.

TIR would work wonderfully with the F-35.

 

Oculus Rift

What's next? DCS: F-22, F-117 and B-2?

 

 

You know who else does't want these planes? The enemy, when they know freedom is heading their way.... :D

 

Probably not going to bother with this one... I can see a lot of kids joining DCS just to zoom around in an F-35 which they will adamantly proclaim is '100% realistic'.

 

Meanwhile us A-10C types will be left shaking our heads as they purge us from the sky with their all-aspect missiles and all weather, 360 degree visibility.

 

Even if it is realistic, I think it has the potential to ruin the game for a lot of players.

 

As the website proudly states:

 

YOU'RE FLYING AN F-35

OR YOU'RE A TARGET

WHICH ONE ARE

YOU?

 

My answer?

 

Neither. I got shot down too many times by a stealth fighter and now I'm not playing anymore.

 

 

If A Mission Designer Puts an A-10C And F-35A in the same mission or on opposite sides, then that mission designer needs to check out and go back to Fighters Anthology.

 

Same with the P-51, if he's Putting P-51's in Missions with F-15s or other Modern Jets Flying Wing or Opposition, Time for that Mission Designer to Call it Quits.

 

Mission Designers should keep aircraft to the proper time frame.

 

This isnt the Final Countdown, we dont need missions with F-14s splashing Zeros.

;1788551']

 

If you want to fly F-35, load HAWX2 or FSX, but please dont fall for this and bring your hopes up too high.

 

Yeah Cuz HAWX2 is the Pinnacle of realism, and FSX already has the systems in place to make the F-35 Easy to code systems for, right.

 

A. HAWX is a JOKE.

B. FSX if you've ever coded for it, is so limited in so many ways in regards to systems and Flight models.

C. Im pretty sure KI has access to more data than you think.

What's next? DCS: (...) F-117 (...) ? I dont want to sound negative, but I was hoping that we would'nt have a lot of aircraft based on guess work in DCS.

Actually most documentation for the Nighthawk is available - with exception of JDAM integration, but we'll see what will be available in a few months.

 

Lochkeed Martin it's backing up this project, officially endorsing it.

Does that ring like something ANYONE can get, just by asking politely?

Yes. I can shoot an email to a company dressed in nice words that say "Hey I want to implement your product / your company logo in a game, here's what I did so far, here's what I want to do.... are you ok with that ?" And they say "Yeah". Actually I did that few times, does that mean those companies officially endorsed what I was doing ? Heck no!

 

We weren't yet told what the deal with LM is about, don't draw conclusions. This may be as simple as using Lockheed Martin logo, or as counter intelligence loaded as sharing pilot workflow algorithms and aerodynamic flight test data. W E - D O N ' T - K N O W.

When it comes to the avionics. It doesn't matter how many line of code the real F-35 needs in it's software. It's two completely different things.

 

 

Lines of Code Simulating Lines of Code.....:megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol:

W E - D O N ' T - K N O W.

 

This I agree with.

Lines of Code Simulating Lines of Code.....:megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol:

 

This could open a entirely new philosophical debate in this thread.

 

It has been stipulated that as computer simulations become ever more powerful, you could extrapolate that progress until the simulation can simulate reality. Giving rise to the notion that reality is a simulation running on some computer above and beyond our realm of interaction.

 

/explodes.

 

Oh yeah sorry, F35A... erm. Seems like a good idea and I'll look forward to seeing it in action.

To touch on what Skatezilla and a few others have mentioned, it's not just about having an aircraft that can dominate the air.

 

The mission designer has control.

 

Imagine a mission where there are numerous SAMs guarding a target, say a Nuke Plant. There is a large amount of enemy BARCAPs in the air.

 

Conventional AC would have a very difficult time with the setup I have in mind. The mission could be designed where the F-35s are required to get in, hit the target and get out without being detected.

 

I can see scenarios where the F-35 will be great and scenarios where it will be overkill. Don't trash the developers for poor mission design. The Devs are simply giving us tools, we decide what and how to employ them...

it is after all just a Simulation based on a representation on said aircraft, doesn't have to be extremely accurate..:thumbup:

Oh dear, I bought Sabre Ace and Luftwaffe Commander when they came out. What are the award winning simulation games they mentioned?