DCS F-35A

It does throw into question what is defined by simulator other wise DCS may as well be DCA, digital combat approximator.

I think most on this forum are happy with the A-10c, and as wags has stated it is not 100% accurate. :music_whistling:

Thats known for long time. It was always said that the accuracy is about 90-95%.

I doubt that this is possible for a public F-35 sim at the moment. (I hope I am wrong ;))

Thats known for long time. It was always said that the accuracy is about 90-95%.

 

I doubt that this is possible for an public F-35 sim at the moment. (I hope I am wrong ;))

With the information that is readily available on the F-35 project, I strongly believe that a team could get to 80%+ in realism.

Without knowing the technical knowledge and data access they have, they could easily get close to the 90% mark.

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

Uh, yes it does. The whole point of a simulator is to represent the said aircraft to be extremely accurate, be it the FM or Avionics and looks of the aircraft. I agree with the F35 staying with hawks although these guys could pull it off the information is not out there like the older aircraft because of certain classifications. I prefer to fly an aircraft that has properly been researched than someone taking a wild guess. I don't know about you but I cant stand arcade flight games like WOWp as soon as they integrate arcade with simulators things fall apart that's what the F35 is going to do in my opinion.

34 pages of moans and adulations is just a wee bitty too much to stomach so forgiveness requested if this has been answered by representatives of the Dev team, but here goes:

On a scale of 1-10, or as a percentage of 100, just how accurately simulated will the module be?

It does throw into question what is defined by simulator other wise DCS may as well be DCA, digital combat approximator.

My point exactly. There are so many incredible aircraft out there that are already largely declassified that I don't see the need to model one based around speculation.

There might be a couple of videos of the avionics in the public domain but what about when you dig in deeper?

How about instantaneous/sustained turn rates? How does the degradation of one system affect another? What about increased radar cross section and induced drag from opening the weapon bay doors? How does it 'feel'? How does the fly by wire system interpret the pilots inputs? How do the autopilot modes work?

Even if Lockheed Martin are officially backing this, I think it's incredibly unlikely they'd want to give away data that could potentially be used to find a chink in the F-35's armour so to speak.

The things that makes DCS so great as a simulation is leaning about all these complex systems that interact with one another and finding a way to exploit them to your advantage and overcome their weaknesses.

Do you think Lockheed will want to put that information out in the open?

I want simulation, not approximation.

I prefer to fly an aircraft that has properly been researched than someone taking a wild guess.

Well you're not getting the second thing.

I don't know about you but I cant stand arcade flight games like WOWp as soon as they integrate arcade with simulators things fall apart that's what the F35 is going to do in my opinion.

Arcade game in this case is quite honestly ridiculous. Just because we don't know how many bolts are on the airframe, that doesn't turn it into an arcade game. Hide the cockpit and the airframe and take it for a flight and you'd probably never call it an arcade plane. Because it will fly like a DCS aircraft, even if it doesn't fly like the F-35 (and that's not off the table either). I also hate arcade games, which is why I don't want to see the F-35 in HAWX. I want to see it in DCS so I can enjoy it.

Should this go through to the end, we're getting a sim, whether people like it or not. Everyone is going to be able to ignore this sim whether they like it or not. I'll be flying missions as realistic as those for the A-10, and missions just as challenging, if not more so. It's going to be really, really hard to turn this into an arcade flyer. But it's not surprising to see the backlash, people abuse the terms 'simulator' and 'arcade' all the time.

What about increased radar cross section and induced drag from opening the weapon bay doors?

And the current aircraft? What happens to your RCS when you're full of holes? Or a panel comes off?

How does it 'feel'? How does the fly by wire system interpret the pilots inputs? How do the autopilot modes work?

Even if Lockheed Martin are officially backing this, I think it's incredibly unlikely they'd want to give away data that could potentially be used to find a chink in the F-35's armour so to speak.

I doubt any air force using a plane that's still in service feels the same.

The things that makes DCS so great as a simulation is leaning about all these complex systems that interact with one another and finding a way to exploit them to your advantage and overcome their weaknesses.

And I don't see why we can't do that with this plane.

I want simulation, not approximation.

That translates to I want an approximation, not approximation.

The two words are the same.

And the current aircraft? What happens to your RCS when you're full of holes? Or a panel comes off?

I'd say more: external stores don't affect RCS in sim.

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.

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...

but in the mission: players have choice to stay or leave that mission if the forces on sides are not balanced

so i would not worry about it - all the players will leave that mission quickly if red side will get A-10s only and blue side will get F-35s only

I don't know about you but I cant stand arcade flight games like WOWp as soon as they integrate arcade with simulators things fall apart that's what the F35 is going to do in my opinion.

There's really nothing for you to be concerned about. It's a 3rd party developer and if they make something which doesn't fit or is lacking sufficient fidelity then a) people probably won't buy it, b) mission designers just won't include it in the available planes and c) ED probably wouldn't even allow it to release under the DCS stable. ED need 3rd party developers to grow and get planes churned out in a reasonable time - if KI can do a solid job here then it's good for ED and all the rest of us.

I'd say more: external stores don't affect RCS in sim.

sad, you must change it :P honestly, you should tell this to all Alex in your company :)

you should implement RCS factor to all weapons, fuel tanks and pylons - and add the total loadout RCS to RCS of aircraft :thumbup:

Bottom line ends up being this, all we can do is wait and see... how many of use are going to jump into a F-35A sim and say, wow... this isnt very accurate...

Not necessarily.

The third-party Dev in question can tell us NOW how accurate it is going to be. Have they done so?

If so, where?

If not why not?

Sure as sugar-beans they'll know at this stage how accurate it's going to be - tell us, I want to know :D

sad, you must change it :P honestly, you should tell this to all Alex in your company :)

 

you should implement RCS factor to all weapons, fuel tanks and pylons - and add the total loadout RCS to RCS of aircraft :thumbup:

Already in the wishlist. Though you described the simplest way to implement. IRL there are lots of reflections, interference, etc.

I'd say more: external stores don't affect RCS in sim.

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?

34 pages of moans and adulations is just a wee bitty too much to stomach so forgiveness requested if this has been answered by representatives of the Dev team, but here goes:

 

On a scale of 1-10, or as a percentage of 100, just how accurately simulated will the module be?

Uhm... i think my project is more ahead than the F-35.... and mine isn't covered by military secret!

Et voilà!! The Piaggio Vespa! I'll do the 200E model!

Hope someone who want simulation will buy it ;)

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.

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.

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.

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