howie87 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I'm not saying it will be an arcade game and I'm not saying it won't be realistic within the realms of the available data. My only concern is that if ED think there isn't enough declassified material to make their own F/A-18E, why are they letting a 3rd party have a crack at the F-35? There is also a huge difference between not having access to classified information such as IFF and ECM operation and not having access to the basic data required to make a realistic flight model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Home Fries Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I just have a few points. For those who are worried about approximations in a simulator, that's exactly what a simulator is. When you design any simulation, you have to decide what needs to be modeled and where your limits are. There are always limits on what is modeled in a simulation; what makes a good sim is where you put your modeling focus. The stuff that is classified is more likely the means of data collection and sensor integration, and the numerical limits on performance parameters. We don't need to know the F-35 integration algorithms to display information the simulator already knows, so the only thing approximated is the limitations. We already have that (it's the nature of an unclassified simulation), so what's the concern? Having worked as a systems/software integrator myself, I recognize that KI likely has a better resume for this type of project than would a regular software development house. In short, KI most likely understand which items need to be modeled and what can be approximated. Best of luck with your project, Mr. Kinney. -Home Fries My DCS Files and Skins My DCS TARGET Profile for Cougar or Warthog and MFDs F-14B LANTIRN Guide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted June 17, 2013 ED Team Share Posted June 17, 2013 My only concern is that if ED think there isn't enough declassified material to make their own F/A-18E, why are they letting a 3rd party have a crack at the F-35? Did they say that is why they are not doing the E, or did they get a contract to do the C like they did the A-10... I dont think they said.... This group seems to feel confident that they have enough to go on, and ED gave them the DCS title... so that has got to count for something... Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I'm not saying it will be an arcade game and I'm not saying it won't be realistic within the realms of the available data. You're saying that the devs will ignore the available data? My only concern is that if ED think there isn't enough declassified material to make their own F/A-18E, why are they letting a 3rd party have a crack at the F-35? Is an F-18E an F-35A? The USN and USAF don't exactly share the same secrecy process, but it takes a while working with this stuff to actually find this out. Further, the superhornet was intended almost exclusively for the USN. There is also a huge difference between not having access to classified information such as IFF and ECM operation and not having access to the basic data required to make a realistic flight model. Do you have access to the basic data required to make a realistic flight model for a flanker? What about an F-16 or an eagle? An F-4? More to the point, while I know where to get at least some of that info, you might have never seen it and maybe you never will. Based on that, how can you say anything about this particular project? The A-10C development used documentation that I never got to see my self, and you won't either. You think it was 'just IFF and ECM'? ... you think classified data is needed to model IFF? My bottom line is this, really: Your statements are uninformed. [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...
NRG-Vampire Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Not good, eh? Because it's pretty essential detail for planes like F-35. Is there a possibility for 3rd party dev to work around it, or must it be changed in core engine? yeah, they must tell to DLL to use/calculate with RCS of weapons/eft/pylons/launchers -these should be only 1 + row/data in missiles_data.lua, bombs_data.lua, nurs_table.lua files or in db_weapons.lua and use the whole RCS factor with RCS of aircrafts from PlaneConst.lua Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptSmiley Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Do you have access to the basic data required to make a realistic flight model for a flanker? What about an F-16 or an eagle? An F-4? The answer is: -F-4: YES -F-16: ABSOLUTELY -F-15: NO PROBLEM As for sources: -F-4: http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD0888046 Just a quick search, there are many more... -F-16: Check out the originated data sources for my simple F-16 AFM -F-15: www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a288610.pdf. Again just a quick search, there are many more! "Witness mere F-14s taking off from adjacent flight decks, gracefully canting left and right, afterburners flaming, and there’s something that sweeps you away—or at least it does me. And no amount of knowledge of the potential abuses of carrier task forces can affect the depth of that feeling. It simply speaks to another part of me. It doesn’t want recriminations or politics. It just wants to fly.” ― Carl Sagan 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 would think flight model will probably be easier then when it comes to trying to reproduce the systems... as I said, I have seen reports on the F-22, and the odd one on the F-35 that would be enough to get the ball rolling on either aircraft... Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howie87 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 You're saying that the devs will ignore the available data? Is an F-18E an F-35A? The USN and USAF don't exactly share the same secrecy process, but it takes a while working with this stuff to actually find this out. Further, the superhornet was intended almost exclusively for the USN. If you read my uninformed statements correctly I said I'n Do you have access to the basic data required to make a realistic flight model for a flanker? What about an F-16 or an eagle? An F-4? More to the point, while I know where to get at least some of that info, you might have never seen it and maybe you never will. Based on that, how can you say anything about this particular project? The A-10C development used documentation that I never got to see my self, and you won't either. You think it was 'just IFF and ECM'? ... you think classified data is needed to model IFF? My bottom line is this, really: Your statements are uninformed. If you read my uninformed statements correctly you would see that: "I'm NOT saying that it WON'T be realistic within the realms of the available data" No, the F/A-18E is not an F35A but there is probably more public data available for it. ED still does not think there is enough however. And yes, Falcon BMS is an example of an excellent F-16 flight model based on publicly available data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptSmiley Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I would think flight model will probably be easier then when it comes to trying to reproduce the systems... as I said, I have seen reports on the F-22, and the odd one on the F-35 that would be enough to get the ball rolling on either aircraft... Agreed, careful analysis of the geometry would results decent results for the bare airframe vehicle dynamics...the issues is that there is this massive FCS controller that goes between the Pilot stick and the Bare airframe that completely alters the control laws and resultant control response for a given pilot input vs. "stick and rudder" flying. Getting the airframe right might not be too bad, but getting the right feel of those FCS controls laws might prove tricky, but we'll see! "Witness mere F-14s taking off from adjacent flight decks, gracefully canting left and right, afterburners flaming, and there’s something that sweeps you away—or at least it does me. And no amount of knowledge of the potential abuses of carrier task forces can affect the depth of that feeling. It simply speaks to another part of me. It doesn’t want recriminations or politics. It just wants to fly.” ― Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q800 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) thats a very strange attitude from someone who is also developing a DCS module, I will be thinking twice about purchasing yours. Yeah sure. If there's any module released at all, you'll be the first to bring money in your theeth, without asking any questions. Edited June 17, 2013 by q800 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted June 17, 2013 ED Team Share Posted June 17, 2013 Well lets hope they can persuade Lockheed to let a test pilot fly their sim and comment on that ;) Agreed, careful analysis of the geometry would results decent results for the bare airframe vehicle dynamics...the issues is that there is this massive FCS controller that goes between the Pilot stick and the Bare airframe that completely alters the control laws and resultant control response for a given pilot input vs. "stick and rudder" flying. Getting the airframe right might not be too bad, but getting the right feel of those FCS controls laws might prove tricky, but we'll see! Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 The third-party Dev in question can tell us NOW how accurate it is going to be. Have they done so? Just a note to that - when asking for their statement on this on a scale of 0-10 (or percentage), you should also provide a frame of reference, e.g. compared to DCS: A-10C for instance (don't know what that would be exactly, like 6, 7, 8, 9 or whatever depending on an unestablished criteria on how much a particular feature weighs, how accurate it is and what relevant features are not included). 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...
159th_Viper Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Just a note to that - when asking for their statement on this on a scale of 0-10 (or percentage), you should also provide a frame of reference, e.g. compared to DCS: A-10C for instance (don't know what that would be exactly, like 6, 7, 8, 9 or whatever depending on an unestablished criteria on how much a particular feature weighs, how accurate it is and what relevant features are not included). Yes, quite so. For the sake of argument let's agree that we'll afford the A-10C a benchmark of 8.5/10, or 85% - I'm happy with that in the absence of formal clarification to the contrary. One can even be a wee bitty more pernickety and request clarification on Flight Model Fidelity vs Avionics and Systems as it goes without saying that the percentage is considerably higher as it pertains to Flight Model Fidelity in the A-10C. 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. 1 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...
Ells228 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Awesome guys, all the best of luck!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted June 17, 2013 ED Team Share Posted June 17, 2013 Eagerly awaiting the kickstarter description and sales-pitch which I hope is not as 'lean' as the info to date. Agreed, interesting to see if they will be able to give anymore info for this... Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team BIGNEWY Posted June 17, 2013 ED Team Share Posted June 17, 2013 I recommend TI get a tin foil hat, mine works Good luck with this crowd :lol: Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Viper Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I recommend TI get a tin foil hat, mine works Good luck with this crowd :lol: Honesty and Forthrightness.......that's all that is needed. Anything else and a tin-foil hat will seem woefully inadequate :D 1 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...
Eddie 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. 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...
TimeKilla 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. +1 Thought that myself. :thumbup: :joystick: YouTube :pilotfly: TimeKilla on Flight Sims over at YouTube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Viper Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. Now that the veil of ignorance is lifted we can maybe authoratitively find out just how much of the A-10C's systems are actually modelled, if only to facilitate a benchmark of sorts to pin down what accords with a DCS tag. Are you in a position to comment on that? Put a percentage to the speculation? 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...
ED Team NineLine Posted June 17, 2013 ED Team 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. Well that would be because most of us wouldnt know the difference between real world A-10 systems and what we got... but apparently most of us would be able to tell the difference when it comes to the F-35 :) Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Now that the veil of ignorance is lifted we can maybe authoratitively find out just how much of the A-10C's systems are actually modelled, if only to facilitate a benchmark of sorts to pin down what accords with a DCS tag. Are you in a position to comment on that? Put a percentage to the speculation? 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%. 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...
metheluckydonut Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I wonder what will happen if the kickstarter fails to reach its goal. DCS Wishlist: Ka 26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cichlidfan 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%. How much of that is due to 'classified information' and how much due to the impracticality of attempting to run the fully modeled systems on a home PC or is the limitation the time/cost to produce the code compared to what you can sell the product for. 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...
159th_Falcon 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. Maybe it doesn't help that ED, Testers and Mods themselves said it was not possible just months ago? BECAUSE: data is not possible to get, classified, yada yada yada. How often didn't we get to hear that in the infamous wishlist threads. What also doesn't help is that people in this thread say sufficient data is publicly available. I have yet to see ANY links. I'm looking forward to the terrain development of this DEV though. Along whit possible network code tweaks, cause they seem to be quite keen on the multilayer side of things. Maybe call the F35 and FC level plane, and i might start believing. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts