Upcoming Modules

Hello, everybody! This might not be the right place to put this, but I'm not sure where else to. I've done a bit of research, and it seems like there's a Mirage F1 and an F-4E coming, but I'd like to know what else is coming, as well as who is making the upcoming modules, aforementioned and otherwise.

Check the official newsletters here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151478

The DCS World Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/

And the "unofficial" roadmap

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

Okay, cool! By the way, what exactly is a JF-17? A Chinese cross between an F-16 and an F/A-18?

It is more like a super super improved MiG-21.

looks more like a beefed up F5 than a mig21 to me.

given there is no publicly available Manual of the Jf17 and the fact its Chinese ( you know how open thier information is right/) this thing only available since 2006 , i seriously wonder where that given 3rd party is getting thier technical source documentation (like manuals and such)

Well, considering it's an export aircraft, and also that they'll need/want training simulators for it, it could very possibly be a "civilian authorised" version of military software, similar to the A-10C (originally made for the US National Guard) and L-39 off the top of my head, Kamov actively helped with the Ka-50, the F/A-18C required DoD authorisation because of classified data in it, etc.

Just because something contains or is related to classified data doesn't automatically make it a no-go, as at least some of the DCS modules we already have contain classified data.

The Chinese government, despite their being "closed" as you say, is relatively progressive as far as exploiting technology and social trends go. A DCS module for their new aircraft is an excellent promotional tool, both for aircraft sales and military recruitment. It's not that hard to think of reasons why they would allow it or even contribute.

Back in the 90s, when flight simulators were games, and there were ten or twenty different ones, they were often used as semi promotional tools. There was this weird Eidos JSF thing, the Eurofighter series, etc. Total Air War from DiD was pretty much a propaganda tool too, on the superiority of stealth fighters over anything else. Those were heady days.

Well, considering it's an export aircraft, and also that they'll need/want training simulators for it, it could very possibly be a "civilian authorised" version of military software, similar to the A-10C (originally made for the US National Guard) and L-39 off the top of my head, Kamov actively helped with the Ka-50, the F/A-18C required DoD authorisation because of classified data in it, etc.

 

Just because something contains or is related to classified data doesn't automatically make it a no-go, as at least some of the DCS modules we already have contain classified data.

 

The Chinese government, despite their being "closed" as you say, is relatively progressive as far as exploiting technology and social trends go. A DCS module for their new aircraft is an excellent promotional tool, both for aircraft sales and military recruitment. It's not that hard to think of reasons why they would allow it or even contribute.

Holy wishful thinking batman!

Also wrong, as Deka said on Facebook they're having some trouble getting info and cockpit photos, so it blows your theory out of the water.

looks more like a beefed up F5 than a mig21 to me.

 

No, it's not only a look like MiG-21, F-5 or whatever.

It is really based on the F-7, which is based on the MiG-21.

Back in the 90s, when flight simulators were games, and there were ten or twenty different ones, they were often used as semi promotional tools. There was this weird Eidos JSF thing, the Eurofighter series, etc. Total Air War from DiD was pretty much a propaganda tool too, on the superiority of stealth fighters over anything else. Those were heady days.

Ah, those were the days... Does somebody know how the total count of F-22 simulators/games developed over the decades compares to the number of actual F-22s built? :lol:

Holy wishful thinking batman!

 

Also wrong, as Deka said on Facebook they're having some trouble getting info and cockpit photos, so it blows your theory out of the water.

Uh, no, that's pretty much how the real world works. I have no theories regarding the project, merely presenting a suggestion on how they may have access to data. You know, by using previous modules as a frame of reference.

I don't know what Deka says, as I'm not following them and don't have any interest in the module. Here's a neat observation, though : If they didn't have access to it sufficient to feasibly produce a DCS level module, ED would not authorise the work.

@Schurem

You're describing a dynamic campaign generator, an often requested feature. See wishlist for more details

Well, considering it's an export aircraft, and also that they'll need/want training simulators for it, it could very possibly be a "civilian authorised" version of military software, similar to the A-10C (originally made for the US National Guard) and L-39 off the top of my head, Kamov actively helped with the Ka-50, the F/A-18C required DoD authorisation because of classified data in it, etc.

 

Just because something contains or is related to classified data doesn't automatically make it a no-go, as at least some of the DCS modules we already have contain classified data.

 

The Chinese government, despite their being "closed" as you say, is relatively progressive as far as exploiting technology and social trends go. A DCS module for their new aircraft is an excellent promotional tool, both for aircraft sales and military recruitment. It's not that hard to think of reasons why they would allow it or even contribute.

The differnece is There are fully legal declassified manuals of the Legacy Hornets up and about Either obtainable through various means (easiest beign the internet) that enthusiasts or Users can refer to for personal interest or for possible Bug reporting past eventual release.

The Permission applies to any aircraft. AFAI anyone knows the F/A18C hornet wasn't An exclusive access of information that ED got From DOD, like with the A10C to develop a military trainer and create a "civilian" version for consumer release.

After all I dont think the US navy are ordering simulators of A NAvy based Legacy C series Hornet, let alone models from circa 2005/06 when the Legacies are on the chopping block. They are already in the gradual process of retirement, and are going to be out by 2025 given the Introduction of the F35C as its replacement that has already begun.

Uh, no, that's pretty much how the real world works. I have no theories regarding the project, merely presenting a suggestion on how they may have access to data. You know, by using previous modules as a frame of reference.

 

I don't know what Deka says, as I'm not following them and don't have any interest in the module. Here's a neat observation, though : If they didn't have access to it sufficient to feasibly produce a DCS level module, ED would not authorise the work.

 

@Schurem

You're describing a dynamic campaign generator, an often requested feature. See wishlist for more details

That not quite the case.

AS of Now DeKA has simply make unofficial announcements ad early WIP showcasing here on forums that they have begun work on a project Without yet officially obtaining a ED 3rd party liscence for that module.

WHen Its 3rd party license for ED is officially granted. Theyl get their OWn 3rd party forum subsection with an official module discussion thread like all the other 3rd parties. ( which has not yet occurred)

Its quite a risky move anyways to Start development before they get a 3rd party license. lest WE forget the fate of Razbams Mig23MLA project mmmm? All that work Down the Drain.

@Kev2Go

Regarding the F-18, whether they were contracted by the military or not is irrelevant. Just because data is publicly available does not mean that is the only data they have access to. It has already been stated government agencies have at times given the developers access to classified data on more than one module, and then gave them explicit permission to sell civilian versions of it on the market. The caveat being they can emulate results but not the specific methodology.

That is not saying the F-18 or Jf-17 either does or does not have classified data, it's saying that it is possible. In the F-18's case, it is highly likely, considering the scope of DCS primary modules, and it does not inherently require a government contract. AFAYK the Hornet does not have special access.... AFAYK, it just as easily could. Stating that is irrelevant.

As for the status of JF-17:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2017-12-29_NY2018/

Fifth in the list, that is not a random forum post, that is the front page of their company website. That is official support.

Whether or not they've created a sub-forum yet is irrelevant. The aircraft that currently have subforums did not receive them until relatively late in the development stage. The lack of subforums only means the project is in early stages and may not get that far.

@Kev2Go

 

Regarding the F-18, whether they were contracted by the military or not is irrelevant. Just because data is publicly available does not mean that is the only data they have access to. It has already been stated government agencies have at times given the developers access to classified data on more than one module, and then gave them explicit permission to sell civilian versions of it on the market. The caveat being they can emulate results but not the specific methodology.

 

Yes it is relevent. ITs the difference between Personal Developer Choice for profit/ catering to community interest VS simply aollowing a byproduct of an official contract for Consumer market.

Official Contracts meant developers got Exclusive access to data not available to public, and certainly much more than They would otherwise with Personal project relying on Mostly Open Source Data. Which mean in Official contracts where there is lack of open source data we are at the mercy of Developers to get things right tha. Kinda hard for simmers to bug report certain issues if they cant Reference That the feel something is performing wrong without being to Back it up with Primary source Or technical data.

Take even a simpler plane like the F86F sabre. BST got the Cockpit window's Frame incorrect, as well as missed out on certain armament types, which correcting wouldst have been possible without reference photos and a Manual. Now image If That was a classified plane and there were no reference photos and No Open Source Data. It would have been incorrect. and thelot of us wouldn't have realized something was incorrect.

 

That is not saying the F-18 or Jf-17 either does or does not have classified data, it's saying that it is possible. In the F-18's case, it is highly likely, considering the scope of DCS primary modules, and it does not inherently require a government contract. AFAYK the Hornet does not have special access.... AFAYK, it just as easily could. Stating that is irrelevant.

 

Yes Thats the point it doesnt require A gov contact. There are more modules that arent Mil Contracts .and If anything id say its the exact opposite. F18 has publicly available manual JF17 manual isnt around anywhere. ED has publicaly admitted A10C was a Mil contract. F/A18C isnt. Thus IF anything its the JF17 that potentially holds more secrets. And yes it is relevant for those given reasons listed earlier. Enthusiasts can self educate themselves and thus be far more useful to participate in a bug Squashing process. And yes knowing the motivating factor is nice to know.

 

As for the status of JF-17:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2017-12-29_NY2018/

 

Fifth in the list, that is not a random forum post, that is the front page of their company website. That is official support.

 

Still does not mean 3rd Party License has been granted. Otherwise there would have been an official statement from Ed and Deka already. This is just a list of planned modules . ED's Su27SM was also once upon a time listed as a planned module. But that was scrapped due to Legal Red Tape trying to obtain necessary data and not being able to obtain enough open source documentation.

After the Mig23MLA denial and earlier Su27SM cancellation one should be skeptical of any module development making to DCS until it is officially confirmed. Especially a Modern one without available Public Data.

 

Whether or not they've created a sub-forum yet is irrelevant. The aircraft that currently have subforums did not receive them until relatively late in the development stage. The lack of subforums only means the project is in early stages and may not get that far.

Yes it is relevant All 3rd party devs had thier own subsection long before a product was released. Even if they don't have that specific Module thread.

Veao had a bunch of projects that weren't near completion ( some weren't even started) for EG. Only recently did their threads for many of their projects get removed due to not showing progress over an extended period of time, some requiring a renewal/ renegotiation with ED.

No, it's not only a look like MiG-21, F-5 or whatever.

It is really based on the F-7, which is based on the MiG-21.

Yea thats what they say. F7 was redeveloped into the JF17. But in all hoenstly If one examines the planes, there is little to no resemblance to the MIg. F7 actually Near Identically resembles a Mig21 ( specifically the Mig21F13) since its a Chinese Copy of it.

JF17. Shares almost no appearances with Mig21.

the Air intakes are On the Sides, Not in frontal area of the aircraft surrounding the Nose Cone, and thus more Similar to the F5/F20 Tigershark in that Regard.

Unlike Mig21 and F7 the Jf17 has No delta wings, a defining feature of the MIg21 and thier clones. the Wings are similar to the F5/F20.

Visually the Jf17 has more in common with the F20 ( Prototype of a basically a next gen souped up F5) than the Mig21 or F-7. The only thing that vaguely seems similar to the MIg or F7 is the upper part of the Fuselage.

The JF-17 looks like the love child of an F-16 and a Mirage 2000.

Hello, everybody! This might not be the right place to put this, but I'm not sure where else to. I've done a bit of research, and it seems like there's a Mirage F1 and an F-4E coming, but I'd like to know what else is coming, as well as who is making the upcoming modules, aforementioned and otherwise.