DCS F-35A

[Python]

True. If it had been DCS: F-4 I would've wept tears of joy.

 

We all would....

[sobek]

OT posts removed. Some of you need to mind their language.

 

Last but not least:

 

If we find you operating a sockpuppet, your posting privileges will be cancelled, active immediately.

[531-Ghost]

True. If it had been DCS: F-4 I would've wept tears of joy.

 

:thumbup:

[XtraChrisP]

...

 

Well......

Quite disheartening, to say the least. A compelling argument well presented. Thank you SCJ. As it stands, I was quite excited about the F-35 project and had pledged to the KS. Still am, although my expectations are somewhat tempered in light of some recent info.

 

I still think it's possible for Kinney & Krew to pull off, if only because he has some independence from publishers (Saitek/MC in this case) and a well established World and user base to draw on. It can't be easy starting a program from scratch (Combat Pilot) especially if your publishers start to get antsy. I'm hoping that's why CP failed, and that Kinney Interactive have the talent and access to make the module as good as DCS F-35 can be. Fingers crossed, and I still wish KI the best.

[DayGlow]

You just seem to reply with "its possible". Anything is possible, but I don't accept the plausibility of its success next to the available data. I do believe that many people would welcome a half assed project because they want their 5th Gen candy.

 

Some people suggest that receiving any project with negativity would discourage people from making more projects. I hope so! Good consumers ask questions and say what they think. If a little negativity on the forums drives a developer away then I suspect they were never up to it anyway. The last thing you want is DCS looking like a soft target for easy money. I think this F-35 pitch was as close as we might see to that. It was, as Falcon (I think) said, an unrealistic sales pitch for what they were promising.

 

 

 

In my opinion if you can't get a hold of anybody who's ever flown it to tell you if you've got your numbers right, then it isn't.

 

Devs dont have to fly it, but somebody who has needs to be around for a little Q and A.

 

I didn't realize that this project can already be determined to be 'half assed'

[AndyE]

Well......

Quite disheartening, to say the least. A compelling argument well presented. Thank you SCJ. As it stands, I was quite excited about the F-35 project and had pledged to the KS. Still am, although my expectations are somewhat tempered in light of some recent info.

 

I still think it's possible for Kinney & Krew to pull off, if only because he has some independence from publishers (Saitek/MC in this case) and a well established World and user base to draw on. It can't be easy starting a program from scratch (Combat Pilot) especially if your publishers start to get antsy. I'm hoping that's why CP failed, and that Kinney Interactive have the talent and access to make the module as good as DCS F-35 can be. Fingers crossed, and I still wish KI the best.

 

Pretty spot on. Not that it really matters any more. KI didn't get anyone's money. So if the module doesn't come out as expected, if it comes out at all, the only people out of pocket will be KI. So I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going to just kick back and see what happens.

[Spins321]

We are still working. I'm still working on the model. I completed the EOTS turret last week. Pics are on my flickr:

 

Jamal

[SinCityJet]

The way this thread is developing, say goodbye to any chances this add-on is coming to DCS: World. Well done and please enjoy the continued circle-jerk. Sad ...

 

 

:doh:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/search.php?searchid=5772545

 

In the 8 days you've been a member here, Hans, five of your posts have been about the F-35. Glad you've found your time here fun.

[Hans-Joachim Marseille]

In the 8 days you've been a member here, Hans, five of your posts have been about the F-35. Glad you've found your time here fun.

I was looking forward to this add-on, which seems pretty much canned now. It seems some of you take pleasure in posting negatively towards a company that is actually trying to expand the scope of our mutual hobby.

 

We are still working. I'm still working on the model. I completed the EOTS turret last week. Pics are on my flickr:

Glad to hear you are still working on the model! And ... Phantom!

Edited July 16, 2013 by Hans-Joachim Marseille

[NineLine]

I would be onboard for a Robotech Mod by the looks of your models :D

 

We are still working. I'm still working on the model. I completed the EOTS turret last week. Pics are on my flickr:

 

Jamal

[PFunk1606688187]

Not only that it's possible, but methods exist to do what needs to be done. And no, not everything is possible, you can't simulate an aircraft from nothing. Thankfully the F-35 does not have this issue, though what info there is is limited.

I don't want to harangue you on this, but you just keep throwing positive thinking at me. Information is limited, but by the grace of god and wind tunnels and... something non specific in terms of methodology, we can craft an accurate-ish FM from information thats pretty limited! Meh.

 

I don't buy it, and with ED themselves basically contradicting the aimed accuracy of this project, I feel justified in my staunch position of skepticism.

 

Very true. This is something I stand by and always have. There is no need to settle for something subpar.

Glad we agree on something, in principle. Unfortunately where we would see the Dart representing 'Subpar' landing, is not one of them.

 

 

 

I didn't realize that this project can already be determined to be 'half assed'

 

I never suggested the whole project would be, just the flight model and likely aspects of the avionics and other systems. I have no comment on the likely outcome of the presentation, but frankly building a high quality clickable cockpit seems like something that costs you man hours and talent and determination, more than a need for classified performance data.

[DayGlow]

Well then I've been playing half assed sims all my life. Longbow 1&2 had modeling if systems that aren't fully unclassified, Janes F-15 & Superhornet as well. Pretty much all sims don't have full disclosure on flight dynamics and avionics, but they are still believable and fun.

 

I think we can have a believable F-35 sim based on public knowledge and educated guesses. The flight dynamics don't have to be 1:1 accurate as long as it flies believable. Same for the avionics. Will they be a complete accurate? No, but based on what we know sensors do now we can make an educated guess on what they will be like on the aircraft. Will radar dection ranges be 100% accurate? No, but he'll that's a constant debate for the aircraft we have already.

 

Really if we demand 100% accurate sensor representation, why are we flying DCS A-10 with its 'half assed' FLIR representation?

[Exorcet]

I don't want to harangue you on this

I don't mind, that's what I'm on the forums. If I get bored, I'll just move on.

 

but you just keep throwing positive thinking at me. Information is limited, but by the grace of god and wind tunnels and... something non specific in terms of methodology, we can craft an accurate-ish FM from information thats pretty limited! Meh.

 

Well, where did the data come from that is used in other aircraft FM's? It came from a wind tunnel. Either an actual wind tunnel, a virtual wind tunnel, or the really big wind tunnel outside, or some combination.

 

For the F-35, you've got all the dimensions and shape. You have enough to generate all three components of force for all values of the three Euler angles. This is the easy part of the FM. The less easy part is figuring out the internals (structure and mass allocation) but there are hints here: total weight, landing gear, weapons bay. The hard part is control laws which can be really obscure. I don't know what KI plans to do about this, but the first two alone negate the idea of a sci-fi or Tie Fighter aircraft, at least dynamically.

 

And if any of the specifications above change, they can change in the sim too thanks to updating.

 

Stealth wise, I don't think DCS is good enough to make much of a fuss regarding the subtleties of the RCS details of a particular plane. What we have now seems to be a base RCS value with some multiplier as a function of orientation compared to the radar. What the F-35 then needs is its own base RCS value. I've said before that I'm not a radar guy, but as with aerodynamics, there is a theory behind radar. It's good enough to make predictions and it most likely has its own simple models that can be used for evaluation. And while specific info in this area is hard to come by (though quotes on RCS aren't), there is probably more general research and information that can be used as a guide.

 

How much work the above (and other areas) will entail depends on what info KI has.

 

I don't buy it, and with ED themselves basically contradicting the aimed accuracy of this project, I feel justified in my staunch position of skepticism.

That makes perfect sense, though things can change. For one thing DCS did go from being A-10 level only to multifidelity, so even if the F-35 isn't A-10 level, that doesn't mean it's unfit for DCS World. I'm glad that the restrictions were loosened because it means that much less is off limits, and there's no reason to exclude 5th gen aircraft when everyone is able to choose whether or not to bother with them. I find flying fun, and that is not limited to real aircraft, I'm only limited to realistic aircraft. If I want a general idea of what 5th gen combat is like, I can load up my (for argument's sake) 65% accurate F-35. If I want to go make a historical recreation of air combat I'll take the (for argument's sake) 85% realistic P-51. I don't see how the former harms DCS is anyway.

 

Glad we agree on something, in principle. Unfortunately where we would see the Dart representing 'Subpar' landing, is not one of them.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact is we don't have a finished product to review, so it seems kind of pointless to draw final conclusions. I'm ready to purchase the F-35 but only on the condition that it turns out well. Since I can see a path to that result, I haven't dismissed it.

[Mike Busutil]

Nice work on the EOTS!!

[sobek]

OT posts deleted.

 

Guys, keep your personal vendettas of the boards.

[Zomba]

I wonder how they will model the engine performance? Would Lockheed give up that sort of information? If they don't then what could they do to get around that?

[Dudikoff]

Wow, this thread has really undergone through several transitions. First it was overly enthusiastic for (IMHO) an unrealistic project plan where any stated concerns were labeled as naysaying, hating or even as having a personal vendetta against the project and people even started forming virtual test squadrons and handing out positions, but now after the KS fundraiser has (expectedly) failed, some supporters seem to be starting to believe the voices saying it was an outright scam!?

 

Yes, opinions are like asses (everybody has one), but (here goes nothing) I certainly don't think it's a scam or anything like that (though there has been a noticeable number of vocal supporters who only joined the forum a few months ago), just that the project seemed to be rather unprepared and not well organized. The stated timelines were imprecise and overly optimistic considering that the project was in its infancy and no real DCS World integration was made. Furthermore, whatever the question was about adding some now features, the answer from Mr. Kinney seem to have been "Yes, sure, we can add that" much too often. Now, that doesn't really seem like something you do in a well-planned project, especially as time constrained as this one so IMHO that just further secured any concerns I had regarding the project's promises on what can be delivered and when.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Dudikoff

[Cedaway]

As long as ED would pre-approve any module release, I've faith in their judgement.

But if the project is not enough documented or has issues concerning avionics, flight model or whatever, I hope ED would warn them/us during their pre-approval.

[WildBillKelsoe]

is there any chance I can contribute?

[WildBillKelsoe]

I'm going to be lobbying hard with a number companies to get involved and develop an F-35 HOTAS stick and throttle that might be available when we release the jet. Any thoughts - good idea or bad? Thanks guys, Eagle

 

I recommend CH products but it's entirely up to them. I'm literally a CH dog.

[Hans-Joachim Marseille]

I think most of the real arguments are over, but you could probably get some 11th hour name calling in.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

 

I really like the TM concept of interchangeable sticks. Would love to see more 3rd party sticks for the base, in addition to the FSSB mod.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Hans-Joachim Marseille

[jay43]

I think if enough of get together on this we could contact some of these I have found and find out how much they would do a bulk order for or if they could make something compatible with the TMWH base's check out the links.

http://aerotronicsllc.com/index.html

http://www.bugeyetech.com/#

http://essexindustries.com/aero-defense/products?cat=27

 

Although I think they are for military sims could be worth a ask even if they can just do an empty shell for us to put the buttons and switches in and as they all make metal ones I am guessing one of these companies made a job lot for TM.

[531-Ghost]

Meanwhile, in other F35 (B) related news...

[Rangi]

I think if enough of get together on this we could contact some of these I have found and find out how much they would do a bulk order for or if they could make something compatible with the TMWH base's check out the links.

http://aerotronicsllc.com/index.html

http://www.bugeyetech.com/#

http://essexindustries.com/aero-defense/products?cat=27

 

Although I think they are for military sims could be worth a ask even if they can just do an empty shell for us to put the buttons and switches in and as they all make metal ones I am guessing one of these companies made a job lot for TM.

 

There is a guy in the Input/Output section doing warthog grips with a 3d

printer.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=104154

[diveplane]

imo f35 is only good as a AI aircraft.

 

most of the systems onboard will be highly classified, so I don't see how it will work as a fully flyable?. not unless Lockheed make a deal with the developer to release so much information for the project.