DCS F-35A

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.

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.

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).

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.

Awesome guys, all the best of luck!!

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

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.

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:

 

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?

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%.

I wonder what will happen if the kickstarter fails to reach its goal.

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.

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.

I wonder what will happen if the kickstarter fails to reach its goal.

Unless the goal is stupidly high, I predict them passing the goal by a very wide margin.

This thread needs less whining and more pictures...

........

 

Putting a percentage value on it.

 

No more than 70%.

Cheers Eddie

Now if the F-35 Devs can match that figure of 70% I dare say we have nothing to complain about it bearing the DCS-tag.

Eagerly awaiting confirmation either way.

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%.

Really, yet when people asked before this F35 announcement, they were let to believe how well modeled everything is in the A10C.

Down to aerodynamics, engine performance, hydraulic and electrical system.

Failures were apparently not a part of weapon A hitting part H but due to elaborate damage and systems modelling.

Down to the electrical current being drawn by systems etc etc.

So now then, what is it.

Option A, as realistic as we were always let to believe

Option B, an elaborate and ever changing scam that the publisher changes the definition of throughout its live cycle's to what suite's there needs best at that given time.

Option C,.....................

What Eddie describes sounds like option A to me. DCS is very realistic. But it's still a simulator, not a remote desktop connection to an A-10C.

The A-10C is still by far the most accurate representation of a modern military combat aircraft to date.

Very little of what isn't there is classified. It mostly a mix of there simply not being enough time /resources for ED to implement such things or the USAF/US DoD not allowing things to be implemented in the commercial product.

Every single system I mentioned could be modelled based on public information/physics/common sense, if the dev resources were there and the USAF/US DoD allowed it.

The point is, as has always been said. If I, or anyone else, tells you system X is realistic how would you know any different? At the end of the day, as long as the implementation is plausible and maintains the suspension of disbelief it's fine.

Question for you, looking at that list of systems that are not modelled/simplified I posted before, can anyone tell me why/how they are simplified? I'd be willing to bet the number of people on these forums that could is barely in double digits.

There is nothing that makes me think the same could not be achieved with the F-35.

Hi again to all. I would to once again make it clear that I have dedicated myself and my company to bringing the joy of military aviation to as many as possible... when the dust settles we still fly together for the joy of it. I was hoping that an announcement of a new module for DCS would bring us all closer together as a community. FYI - I was in VT-10, VT-86, VMFA-531, MAG-11, VFC-13, and HC-9 might have been a couple of military cockpits mixed into that group... not to mention hundreds of hours in both the B-2 and F-22 developmental simulators.

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.

^This