Jump to content

DCS F-35A


Wags

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I am very excited to see the outcome of this Module, and if it turns out good, I'll probably end up taking a day off work just to fly it all day.

 

But my issue is that having the kickstarter added onto it, adds a huge air of skepticism and criticality that is perfectly justified.

 

If there was no kickstarter in place, I think there would be much less criticism and skepticism. (Certainly from me at least). People should always make informed decisions rather than react on their gut excitement, so I hope the kickstarter pages definitely show some more substaintial proof that an april beta is remotely possible.


Edited by CptSmiley

"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

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've taken the liberty of deleting some very personal posts.

 

Let me make one thing absolutely clear, forum rule 1.2 also includes your exchanges with 3rd party devs. From here on out, personal attacks against any member of this forum will be subject to disciplinary action. It's ok to be critical, but learn to voice your concerns/critical thoughts without launching attacks against the person or find yourself another forum. You have been warned.

 

Also, let's leave the slander and scam accusations, there is no grounds to base those on at this point. You have the right to not spend your money, you don't have a right to be derogatory.


Edited by sobek

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Well, this is rather different as it's going to be a Kickstarter campaign - which means you're expected to invest into something which is (probably) still in its infancy. So, it's not like all the other 3rd party developers which are promising a lot, but if they don't deliver, it's their loss only (besides our dreams :)).

 

I for one am fully pulling for Kinney and ED's success with the F-35.

 

You'll have your chance to put your money where your mouth is soon enough it seems ;)

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

But my issue is that having the kickstarter added onto it, adds a huge air of skepticism and criticality that is perfectly justified.

 

If there was no kickstarter in place, I think there would be much less criticism and skepticism. (Certainly from me at least). People should always make informed decisions and react on their gut, so I hope the kickstarter pages definitely show some more substaintial proof that an april beta is remotely possible.

 

This is precisely what makes the 'spider-senses' tingle.

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

Just that 70% of the A-10C and 70% of the F-35 are really not in the same league...

 

And that's why I'm eagerly awaiting formal confirmation. Comparing airframes is quite correctly unbecoming.

 

However

 

Holding a potential airframe to a certain standard (in this case 70% to qualify for a DCS tag) is eminently reasonable insofar as systems, weapons and avionics is concerned. I dare say flight model fidelity should be considerably higher as I'm pretty sure the A-10C and other DCS flight models are nearer 95%.

 

In any event, as stated previously, eagerly awaiting formal Dev confirmation/clarification.

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

I don't see why ... all you need is a different viewport, just like you have for the TGP for example. An alternative is to make the 3D shape textures transparent from the inside when you're 'helmet on', but I don't know how viable that is (the devil is always in the details).

 

Radar requires some new code, but it isn't exactly a challenge IMHO, just work.

 

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.

[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

I don't see why ... all you need is a different viewport, just like you have for the TGP for example. An alternative is to make the 3D shape textures transparent from the inside when you're 'helmet on', but I don't know how viable that is (the devil is always in the details).

 

Radar requires some new code, but it isn't exactly a challenge IMHO, just work.

 

Is the TGP display generally only implemented in the A-10 code or is there a library for it in the DCS world? I don't mean the HDD and the functions there, but the general feature. I guess there's some base used by the Su-25 and the A-10C. So, I expect that a similar base needs to be done for the HMD display and the A2G radar.

 

I never said it's impossible, I just said that to my uninformed mind it seems it might require some extra support in the DCS World engine (OK, I don't know how far ED got with the Hornet features which should also feature A2G radar at least). And A-10C was two years in the making, no? By people who developed the game itself (meaning, very experienced and familiar). It's not like such features in DCS World are being developed very quickly, it usually takes months to get something like advanced missile modeling, while the announced landing SFM improvements are still not there.

 

So, call me paranoid then, but I'm rather skeptical about the "it's just work" disclaimer :) (especially given the unbelievingly bold April beta statement).


Edited 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

Is the TGP display generally only implemented in the A-10 code or is there a library for it in the DCS world? I don't mean the HDD and the functions there, but the general feature. I guess there's some base used by the Su-25 and the A-10C. So, I expect that a similar base needs to be done for the HMD display and the A2G radar.

 

Also the A-10A with its mavericks. As for 'some library', I can't really answer that except to say that this is basically included within the functions of DirectX etc - you can open multiple view ports.

 

I never said it's impossible, I just said that to my uninformed mind it seems it might require some extra support in the DCS World engine (OK, I don't know how far ED got with the Hornet features which should also feature A2G radar at least). And A-10C was two years in the making, no? By people who developed the game itself (meaning, very experienced and familiar). It's not like such features in DCS World are being developed very quickly, it usually takes months to get something like advanced missile modeling, while the announced landing SFM improvements are still not there.

 

If you're worried about 'new', then really all of the radar representation, but especially A2G would be new. I believe that the missiles have the least resources allocated to them, that's why they're slow going ... certainly KI may have a base of things to work with in terms of the F-35 to begin with: Perhaps they already have a 3D model of the pit and exterior, they have some ready dynamics and a lot of their research done, etc.

 

The touch screen is like a bunch of MFDs so ... the code is there in some form.

[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

Ka-50 never used AA missiles in active service. It wasn't even in danger of having them.

 

F-35 already has training units out there IIRC, and all branches are preparing to receive aircraft.

 

Where are you drawing the parallels?

 

Finally, the F-35 is a 3rd party effort, Ka-50 was ED.

[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

Also the A-10A with its mavericks. As for 'some library', I can't really answer that except to say that this is basically included within the functions of DirectX etc - you can open multiple view ports.

 

Yeah, OK, but you need some sim features around that viewport and I doubt they start from scratch every time they need some display, hence why I assume there's some library wrapped around this DirectX function in the DCS World.

 

If you're worried about 'new', then really all of the radar representation, but especially A2G would be new. I believe that the missiles have the least resources allocated to them, that's why they're slow going ... certainly KI may have a base of things to work with in terms of the F-35 to begin with: Perhaps they already have a 3D model of the pit and exterior, they have some ready dynamics and a lot of their research done, etc.

 

The touch screen is like a bunch of MFDs so ... the code is there in some form.

 

Yes, the radar worries me if ED hasn't done anything there yet. The touch screen doesn't worry me as much so I haven't mentioned that in my posts (but it depends on what options will the pilot have to organize these displays as he finds fit and this could be more problematic as the clickable points would be dynamic and part of the displayed content, not fixed to buttons on the side - so something like this needs to be supported in the code perhaps).

 

Regarding how far have KI gotten with the F-35 development, I guess we'll see on the Kickstarter page if not sooner. They don't seem to show much yet.

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

So, when people ask you to make something to work as the whole world knows - you all stand against him. And then you announce the plane that you know zilch about. Well done.

And thanx for the trolling and the ban in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ka-50 never used AA missiles in active service. It wasn't even in danger of having them.

 

F-35 already has training units out there IIRC, and all branches are preparing to receive aircraft.

 

Where are you drawing the parallels?

 

Finally, the F-35 is a 3rd party effort, Ka-50 was ED.

 

In our make believe world of DCS where Hueys and Ka-50s are allied flight, everything does not have to be historically accurate.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our make believe world of DCS where Hueys and Ka-50s are allied flight, everything does not have to be historically accurate.

 

True, but one must draw the line somewhere.

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

Aerodynamics Numbers, If not Availible, are easily obtained through closed experiments,

 

Download 3 Views, Build parts, Assemble Scale Model, Wind Tunnel, Record Data.

 

FCS and Departure of controlled flight on the other hand.... They are still testing the Airframes, so that data is rare for everyone. But if the Control Logic and Airframes Aero Data is close, then behavior should be pretty close as well.

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

Oh, by the way: 70%?

You talked all around that A10c is 95% real thing.

Why lying?

This is your official product info on steam:

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/DCSA10C.

Liars.

It is a matter of how to count. 95% of functionality is real.

"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

Oh, by the way: 70%?

You talked all around that A10c is 95% real thing.

Why lying?

This is your official product info on steam:

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/DCSA10C.

Liars.

 

 

ED never said it was 70%.....

 

What if the end product we have now was 4%? Do you think you would ever know or care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a matter of how to count. 95% of functionality is real.

 

That was before pilots and A-10C Ground crew that post here repeatedly voiced and posted how much stuff is missing.

 

Functionality is prolly 95%, but overal Accurate Simulation is prolly less, most likely by design.

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

 

Functionality is prolly 95%, but overal Accurate Simulation is prolly less, most likely by design.

 

Could also infer that of the 70% that is modelled, 95% of that is functional....

 

That's the problem with intentional omission - there always comes a time when someone starts digging.

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

What if the end product we have now was 4%? Do you think you would ever know or care?

I know where this comes from, but I don't think it's a good argument to use. I don't think ED is in the business of scamming, and I don't think anyone wants that to be the case.

 

It's not a matter of how much we can get away with, but that we don't need 100% accuracy to actually have a simulation. And if we did, no one would be here because that is not achievable.

 

The F-35 won't be 100% perfect. It might not be A-10 level. To say it's not a sim based on that is insanity


Edited by sobek
Quote of deleted post removed

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

OH YEAH?

SkateZilla - so they're lying from start in their OFFICIAL PRODUCT INFORMATION and there is at least you who understands that. No matter then who said it's 70%.

Why lying? Is that some new tactic of raising sails?

And there are even people who support to be lied... This place is... bottom.

 

Try to read better before throwing libel insults around...

Win 10 Pro 64Bit | 49" UWHD AOC 5120x1440p | AMD 5900x | 64Gb DDR4 | RX 6900XT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..What if the end product we have now was 4%? Do you think you would ever know or care?

 

This line should be read by so many so many times.

And then repeated.

Would create a more sensible atmosphere over here.

Asylum.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...