DCS F-35A

So when is it coming out?

 

i guess two years more approx, honestly - forgot that two weeks bulls**t :D

Oops. He stunned me with 'latest info'. Literally froze like han solo in carbonite, but only for a few hours. I am coming to now... :D

I'm extremely pumped for this. Considering his level of knowledge developing F-35 sims for the military I have no doubt that this will be a phenomenal project and product. Good luck

I have to much time on my hands with a Rugby injury so I'm off work for a bit. I took a screenshot of all the people who have literally said this module won't happen. When it is released I think it will make an interesting thread. Just for a bit of happy nostalgia of course :)

I look forward to it coming out.

 

I wonder if it will be modeled to explode when flying into a storm and getting hit by lightning?

 

Storms are something the F35 really doesn't want to be around apparently.

I look forward to it coming out.

 

I wonder if it will be modeled to explode when flying into a storm and getting hit by lightning?

 

Storms are something the F35 really doesn't want to be around apparently.

 

No aircraft wants to fly in storms. I don't know why the F-35 is so special.

No aircraft wants to fly in storms. I don't know why the F-35 is so special.

 

Because the fuel tanks explode if struck by lightning

this is not my favourite airplane by far, but I will say that I will support and buy it if it reaches the level of authenticity and realism announced.

 

good luck to that Dev Team

How were you burnt? Did you subscribe to Area51 and were you never able to access it?

It's alarming to think you aren't joking.

See, I'm a little torn; on the one hand I wanted to help out with a project that really sounded promising. But we were told that as subscribers to Area 51, we would be given regular development news, among other "perks" for our financial assistance. It simply wasn't a "here's some of my cash just because I love you" arrangement.

So on the other hand... regular updates were a fair expectation. What's the point of paying for the privilege of having access to essentially nothing -- on an ongoing basis? It seems you're implying that simply having access to certain areas of the site should make people feel all warm and fuzzy for contributing without anything of continued value being provided to match the contributions... I think you're massively missing the point, yourself.

 

That still stands as of the latest info received from the FO Devs.

Well what a relief. See my previous post.

What was the point of your post?

Read my previous post.

Because the fuel tanks explode if struck by lightning

 

I've never read about any F-35's exploding due to lightning strikes. Link to an article about this accident please?

 

On another note though, aircraft simply don't go flying where there is any sort of convective activity. Sometimes they get caught in it, where there isn't much of a choice, but in the vast majority of cases, stuff just goes around it. Lightning strikes will cause considerable damage to most aircraft, and is extremely dangerous regardless. Mostly the damage comes with the associated convective cells though, which tend to rip aircraft to pieces.

No aircraft wants to fly in storms. I don't know why the F-35 is so special.

 

wasnt there an article on F-35 having Lightning Rods on it??

I've never read about any F-35's exploding due to lightning strikes. Link to an article about this accident please?

 

None, because apparently they have been banned from flight near to a storm during the tests. The ban will be lifted when the problem will be resolved. This same problem have caused embarrassment in the country where I live (Italy), coz they have ordered 35 of them.

 

From DoD:

 

Tests of the fuel tank inerting system in 2009 identified deficiencies in maintaining the required lower fuel tank oxygen levels to prevent fuel tank explosions. The system is not able to maintain fuel tank inerting through some critical portions of a simulated mission profile. The program is redesigning the On-Board Inert Gas Generating System (OBIGGS) to provide the required levels of protection from threat and from fuel tank explosions induced by lightning.

 

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/

They'll either fix that outright, and fairly soon, or they will accept the risk. That's all there is to that.

I've never read about any F-35's exploding due to lightning strikes. Link to an article about this accident please?

 

On another note though, aircraft simply don't go flying where there is any sort of convective activity. Sometimes they get caught in it, where there isn't much of a choice, but in the vast majority of cases, stuff just goes around it. Lightning strikes will cause considerable damage to most aircraft, and is extremely dangerous regardless. Mostly the damage comes with the associated convective cells though, which tend to rip aircraft to pieces.

 

I thought that lightning strikes commercial aircraft on a regular basis with no effect.

I'm kinda disturbed by this news, on one hand I think it's always so nice to have a new aircraft to enjoy in the DCS universe and as a result I probably will end up backing that project regardless of my preferences, if only just to support DCS and enrich its module library.

 

On the other hand I really think the F-35 is quite a terrible module choice for three main reasons:

 

- Apparently that plane is a disaster IRL whether it's in term of performance because of malfunction or various failures so far or in terms of cost and unmanageable maintenance cost/hour of flight which tbh, wouldn't make me proud of flying such an iconic failure (thus far). Not to mention it hasn't even been in a single war op I believe?

-Obviously all that will be ignored while simulating the F-35 in DCS; which means it will focus on what the plane is supposed to be on paper: an incredibly stealthy and effective 5th generation JSF that supposedly will just be vastly superior to every other air module that DCS offers and will offer. It supposedly render any other aircraft (of the same role at least) ineffective.

-Finally, it's (apparently relative) lack of proper intel and specs on such a recent aircraft simply means a tremendous amount of liberty and wild guess have to be taken to develop it.

 

Still like I said, I will support it and hope for the best. ;)

Edited June 21, 2013 by Vivoune

Vivoune thank you but I think we have discussed the availability of intelligence issue to death and I for one trust in in Kinney's ability to make a DCS-level product without the guesswork. That will most likely not be the issue.* On your first point, if you want to criticize the F-35 for acting like every other high-performance fighter aircraft in terms of maintenance and in its design phase, then well that is your right. If people complain about getting murdered by the F-35, well they can either develop tactics (human wave lol) or exclude it from the server.

It's alarming to think you aren't joking.

See, I'm a little torn; on the one hand I wanted to help out with a project that really sounded promising. But we were told that as subscribers to Area 51, we would be given regular development news, among other "perks" for our financial assistance. It simply wasn't a "here's some of my cash just because I love you" arrangement.

So on the other hand... regular updates were a fair expectation. What's the point of paying for the privilege of having access to essentially nothing -- on an ongoing basis? It seems you're implying that simply having access to certain areas of the site should make people feel all warm and fuzzy for contributing without anything of continued value being provided to match the contributions... I think you're massively missing the point, yourself.

Essentially nothing? There was a time when updates "died off" due to the lead programmer needing to take an extended leave of absence due to personal issues - outside of that the updates were regular and on time. The Devs provided notice when the updates weren't going to be regular and they even went so far as to offer a refund to people. They also advised people not to pay for area51 access at one point due to the lack of updates.

 

Clearly they were intent on scamming you... /sarcasm

 

By paying for area51 access you were not supporting/contributing/donating to the development of FO simulations. You were simply supporting the cost of maintaining the forums. To think otherwise shows how little you know of the effort and money required to develop a HiFi-simulator. It's the same type of people that get all pissed at ED when they decide to charge for enhanced features.

 

Now, you can say, you wish or expected more info and that is completely fair. IT IS NOT fair to run around other forums slandering another person or group because YOU weren't happy. I was a paying area51 member from the start, there was a ton of information that was released and it was steady, again until the lead developer took some personal time.

 

Every member of Area51 received prompt notice when things were slowing down due to certain issues, if you feel you were lied to or misled, then you failed to read the updates.

 

Even during the time when the lead developer took a break, there were updates, more rare, but the kept coming in regards to developing the airports/cities.

 

 

Well what a relief. See my previous post.

 

Read my previous post.

I DID read your post. You obviously didn't read mine, you obviously didn't read the Area51 forums either...

I don't think 'no effect' is a fair description. They don't fall out of the sky, but there's definitely an effect.

 

I thought that lightning strikes commercial aircraft on a regular basis with no effect.

It's as much a disaster as any other 'superfighter' you might know of, when those were new.

 

The AIM-120 was a total disaster, but they fixed it up and now it is the premier air to air missile.

 

Did you know that the F-15A's aerodynamic fix (yes, it had horrific buffeting issues) was a carpenter climbing up to the thing, taking a ruler to it and sawing off the wingtips right in front a bunch of officials? (He plugged the tips with wood of course :) ).

 

The F-16 suffered a bunch of 'disasters' well into its useful life as well, there was at least one well publicized scandal. It's not modeled in any flight sim (mind you, GE fixed the problem).

 

There are plenty more examples for various planes.

 

- Apparently that plane is a disaster IRL whether it's in term of performance because of malfunction or various failures so far or in terms of cost and unmanageable maintenance cost/hour of flight which tbh, wouldn't make me proud of flying such an iconic failure (thus far). Not to mention it hasn't even been in a single war op I believe?

The actuall lightening is only half the danger of flying into a thunderstorm. The air is very unstable and unpredictable. It really doesn't matter what you are flying its always best to avoid them all together

Clearly they were intent on scamming you... /sarcasm

Never said they were scamming me, but I certainly feel like I was burnt by it; scamming would imply intent to take money through devious means. Though I think they had the best intent, they simply didn't deliver what I would consider a minimum fair value for the Area 51 community's contribution. But that's action, not intent.

I DID read your post. You obviously didn't read mine, you obviously didn't read the Area51 forums either...

So you read my post but ingested none of it. I don't know how else you could come to deliver your previous post. You even went so far as to ask what my point was when I clearly stated what my point actually was. Sigh.

And you are quite well splitting hairs by saying one level of support is not support for the project as a whole. Not to mention the fact that if the hosting costs were so damn high "FO" were clearly poor at seeing good value in hosting services. "Cost of maintaining the forums" - yowza, did they hire a Cray? Or perhaps they were counting on much more traffic when they signed up...

 

Not after a time I didn't read Area51 - I'd drop by to check that, yep, not much more than tumbleweeds rolling around here... and obviously after such a long period of ridiculously poor communication not at all.

 

You sound like more than just a worked-up fan of FO B

 

This is the internet, if you're afraid of having people express dissatisfaction somewhere others can read it, you may be in for a tough gig trying to shut it down. No point in giving me grief for sharing a warning with others about the risks of dispensing with money without any real guarantee of anything (sorry, but after 7-odd years I feel that's a pretty fair statement). I could go back to the FO forums, but there'd be all of 5 people there to read my incredibly horrendous ramblings /sarcasm.

 

More to the point, as much as it may not seem that way, but as I did write in my original post, I in fact do hope FO eventually succeeds before I die. And the very same for the F35 project, though as I hinted at, I imagine both the DCS module and the actual aircraft will be here long before FO, in any case.

Edited June 21, 2013 by S3NTRY11

Discussions of FO and A51 are off topic here, and that's gone long enough.

 

Please don't discuss it in this thread any more.

It's as much a disaster as any other 'superfighter' you might know of, when those were new.

 

The AIM-120 was a total disaster, but they fixed it up and now it is the premier air to air missile.

 

Did you know that the F-15A's aerodynamic fix (yes, it had horrific buffeting issues) was a carpenter climbing up to the thing, taking a ruler to it and sawing off the wingtips right in front a bunch of officials? (He plugged the tips with wood of course :) ).

 

The F-16 suffered a bunch of 'disasters' well into its useful life as well, there was at least one well publicized scandal. It's not modeled in any flight sim (mind you, GE fixed the problem).

 

There are plenty more examples for various planes.

 

The P-38 was a disaster early on. The P-51 was a disaster when the recommended powerplant wasn't used. In fact, a great many of the most famous aircraft in the world almost failed completely due to these "disasters". Some that failed were probably very close to being legendary aircraft. It's just how it happens.

 

Too true and thanks for pointing this out.

Discussions of FO and A51 are off topic here, and that's gone long enough.

 

Please don't discuss it in this thread any more.

 

THANK YOU