DCS: F-35A Kickstarter

[531Ghost 15]

Combat Pilot was supposed to be an add on to FSX.  It was supposed to be a pay per month MP server to fly training missions and eventually graduate into being a "Fighter Pilot" Check this REVIEW.  I've FINALLY found someone that remembers his name and MAYBE his face,  Afterall, it's been 33 years since.  But, he remembers him being a Cpl MAYBE a Sgt.  NOT an officer.  More to follow on that...  As for Fightertown, it was there 'til the lease ran out and they (Kinney) packed it in. 

[BailOut 1]

I've FINALLY found someone that remembers his name and MAYBE his face,  Afterall, it's been 33 years since.  But, he remembers him being a Cpl MAYBE a Sgt.  NOT an officer.  More to follow on that...

 

That's a pretty serious accusation. I'd hold off spreading that around till you have something harder than "someone" that remembers "a" name and "maybe" a face.

 

Combat Pilot another of Kinney "creations", abandonware.  Full of bugs and holes and left to die.  Fightertown, failure.  When the lease was up, packed it up, done.  What you see HERE, isn't.  The museum has been made aware ;)

 

Combat Pilot was supposed to be an add on to FSX.  It was supposed to be a pay per month MP server to fly training missions and eventually graduate into being a "Fighter Pilot" Check this REVIEW. As for Fightertown, it was there 'til the lease ran out and they (Kinney) packed it in.

 

Without knowing the exact details of the work that KI was contracted for on those projects, it's kind of hard to blame them for anything. All I'm saying is try not to run around making wild accusations without proper proof.

Edited July 9, 2013 by BailOut

[531Ghost 15]

That's just it, NOBODY in 531 (me included) remembers him in 531 as an officer.  I know people that were in the squadron from 1965 until the squadron disbanded.  I was in VMFA 531 from 1978-1982.  Then I went to H&MS 11 Power Plants/Test Cell.  For Combat Pilot, he wasn't KI then he was with MadCatz.  Look up his bio and check out his Linkedin page.  Do the math and research.  Download Combat Pilot (free now) and you'll experience the bugs for yourself. 

 

Same Bugs...

Edited July 9, 2013 by 531Ghost

[BailOut 1]

Alright, I can see where your coming from.

[JediMaster 451]

Oh, this guy is the same guy that was doing Combat Pilot? I honestly had forgotten about that. I wasn't really interested in what it was going to do, and using FSX was a negative for me, not a plus, but I had no idea it sputtered to a halt like that.

[531Ghost 15]

Oh, this guy is the same guy that was doing Combat Pilot? I honestly had forgotten about that. I wasn't really interested in what it was going to do, and using FSX was a negative for me, not a plus, but I had no idea it sputtered to a halt like that.

 

Yep.  It died a slow painful death. 

[+ST0RM 145]

The idea of "Pay to Play" a FSX module made zero sense to me. As an experienced simmer, I just couldnt see the benefit and honestly it sounded like a scam. For noobs/kids, it might have taken off but the price was way too steep.

 

This F-35 DCS module smells much in the same as a TV preacher. "Send me your money"...

[+Stary 2,426]

This F-35 DCS module smells much in the same as a TV preacher. "Send me your money"...

I wonder how all those die-hard hardcore simmers DCS is known for will swallow simple fact that close to zip, nada, null in this F-35 will be realistic ...because it's all clasified

 

that's something for a longer essey about state of current simmers demands and flightsims in general though

[+ST0RM 145]

 

I wonder how all those die-hard hardcore simmers DCS is known for will swallow simple fact that close to zip, nada, null in this F-35 will be realistic ...because it's all clasified

 

that's something for a longer essey about state of current simmers demands and flightsims in general though

Honestly my friend, I dont think the hardcore flyers are the target market for this module. DCS (insert any sim here) is full of kids who just want to fly around, go fast and shoot stuff 5 minutes after install. They dont want something difficult to learn. This has the potential to be the plane that makes it even easier for them to get into "combat".

 

With all of the data for the F-35 still under wraps (unless you are in China), it's all going to be a ??? as to accuracy.

[+HomeFries 29]

I think the classified issue is not as bad as people might think.  The displays and information shown are already unclassified with the cockpit trainers at the trade shows.  The real classified stuff is not so much what it can do, but how it does it.  How can the aircraft detect and identify targets, and do air and ground radar tracking at the same time?

 

For purposes of the sim, all you need to know is that it can be done.  The sim already knows what's going on, so it's just a matter of what information it can feed the cockpit display.  The ranges will need to be fudged a bit, as will anything with "numbers" (which will have to be approximated or use the unclassified approximations), but this is something simmers have always lived with and will gladly continue to live with.

[JediMaster 451]

A point I've made time and again. The real planes are concerned with finding where targets are and hitting them. In a sim, the game knows where everything is, precisely, all the time. So for older planes it's actually about modeling when they would NOT be able to know where a given target or friendly is. For the F-35 you can just make some determination that it will just "know" any air target in a bubble of range X and any ground target in a bubble of range Y and leave it at that.

 

Of course, many simmers don't like the F-22 and F-35 precisely because they've been designed to let the pilot fight like it's a video game, without needing hours of coursework, instruction, and practice to learn the arcane inner workings of their systems to get the most out of them and avoid their pitfalls. The design objectives of the F-22 and F-35 was to make a REAL pilot have "god mode" and know where everything was without being seen.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Even the DCS:A-10C and BMS:F-16C sims dont have all the displays and classified stuff in the pits - so there will be a hell of a lot missing from this module

 

As has kinda been said - in the 1980/90s sims gave you the impression of a world where all enemies and missiles could be detected around at 360 with no limitations - and missiles rarely missed - and yet here we are again .

 

I'm of the impression the the F-35 will be a Beta test version on IOC and be full of bugs and limitations - however 10 years of development later might move it closer towards those goals.

[+Stary 2,426]

however 10 years of development later might move it closer towards those goals.

that will make the core foundations deep inside DCS 30 years old... yeah I know, different engine by then, maaaybe we'll see EDGE finally too

 

to be honest I uninstalled DSC two days ago, so I think I'm not the target of such modules

[+ST0RM 145]

 

to be honest I uninstalled DSC two days ago, so I think I'm not the target of such modules

Really a shame as I'm finding this more than less. The servers that used to be full of people, are now empty. I ask on TS where so-n-so is and I get the reply, they quit. Or they are on some FPS now.

 

Thankfully the UH-1 is still interesting to me and I jump in at least once a week.

 

Switching gears slightly, I've been following the progress with the Razbam T-2. It seems that it wasnt an easy transfer from FSX to DCS at all. The thing was rebuilt. And the FSX one had a LOT of function already.

 

-S

[+Stary 2,426]

see, realistic weapons and quick missions planner for FSX would do it for me

 

OR

 

better, more unlocked Thirdwire

[JediMaster 451]

The problem the "only hardcore modules!!" crowd doesn't want to face is it will kill the hobby and DCS World.

 

One, it takes a long time and a lot of money to make one, so the output rate is a slow crawl. That means when people go into DCSW to fly something there would be a very narrow range of options--not appealing to the wider audience.

Two, its take a long time and a lot of effort to be competent in a DCS bird, and not every simmer wants that, and even those that do don't always want to fly that all the time. Sometimes you just want to chill out and not worry about whether you set your weapon profile in DSMS properly...and then watch your LGB sail off into the side of a mountain when you realize you didn't.

Three, some of these modules aren't crowd-pleasers. The P-51 might have been, had there been a fully realized WWII environment for it. As it is, it's a novelty and most WWII simmers are sticking with Il-2. The Ka-50 will never be. The UH-1 will never be, it's not attack. The A-10C might have been, but its single role limits that.

Four, no multirole modules yet. LOMAC's big negative, since the day of its release, was you had some planes good for A2A, and some planes good for ground pounding, but none were good at both. So you had to switch. This, along with the relaxed difficulty, is why Flaming Cliffs has been so popular compared to the "DCS" ones. One purchase and you can do either combat. When F/A-18C and/or one of the F-15E modules comes out, maybe we'll see the best-selling DCS module yet as it will be truly multirole and one pilot can do it all. That's what people want. I think an F-16C module would do well, too, although the BMS competition would lead to endless flame wars I'm sure.

 

So, to summarize, what would an F-35 module offer?

Relaxed difficulty, even if it's "full real", because the real plane isn't that hard to fly and fight in, especially compared to an A-10C or Ka-50.

The sexiness factor, because it's new and sleek. The previous 2 are anything but sexy.

The multirole angle, letting you do whichever you want even in the same mission.

Name recognition, because all the press about it makes it the single most talked-about fighter out there right now. More people I'm sure know what an F-35 is/will be than know the A-10, especially after all these years.

 

Now, is THIS F-35 proposal any good? I can't say. I DO think it's a good idea to make one, though. I also think what is needed is perhaps a "Flaming Cliffs 4" (obviously not using that name, just the concept) of several CURRENT/FUTURE fighters at relaxed realism in one package.

Let's say F-22, F-35, Su-35, MiG-35, PAK-FA, Super Hornet? Perhaps throw in a Typhoon or Rafale or Gripen for Western European recognition? DCS World, LOMAC, and FC, other than the A-10C, has been stuck in the past of fighter combat since it started. The Su-25T was an anomaly because it wasn't an 80s plane, it was a late 90s one. Then the Ka-50 reinforced that, and the A-10C solidified that "embrace of current generation" over the previous one. They need to go all-in to the 21st century.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Going more modern would bring in the crowds you would think for FC4 - defo

 

I think the P-51 module is pretty good if you haven't done MSX etc - because its relatively easy to operate the switches - and pretty hard to fly. The challenge campaign is great fun flying through all those gates.

 

And it seems faster than the A-10C 

Edited July 12, 2013 by MigBuster

[+ST0RM 145]

Great summary JM. I've voiced similiar points on the multirole aircraft and how that would help DCS World.

 

-S

[MigBuster 2,861]

pants - was enjoying the P-51 campaign until a load of heavily armed ZSUs came into view!

Edited July 15, 2013 by MigBuster

[MigBuster 2,861]

Seems to be moving

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Constellation1710 4]

Sounds awesome!

[+EricJ 3,937]

Super Hornet is moving slowly "in the dark", so it's being worked on, but given player attitudes we're doing better not talking about it, but it's overall progressing, slowly.

 

It' should be noted that ED won't allow License Agreements for 4th or 5th generation aircraft, so essentially you're on your own for anything like that, like we are.

 

I've gone somewhat public with the texture work but everything else is pretty much not discussed:

 

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153471621314855.1073741835.768464854&type=1&l=d02d8f07fc

 

And it should be stressed that those four are just out of a total of like 34 total, or maybe 35.

Edited March 20, 2016 by EricJ

[Constellation1710 4]

Oh... I just read the opening post and responded.

 

 

BailOut

 

While I agree that a new terrain is badly needed for DCS, I think we can all agree that that ball is solidly in ED's court. Until they release EDGE there's simply nothing anyone can do.

When is EDGE expected to be released?

 

It wouldn't surprise me if some of those same people are behind the design of the F-35s avionics. That's what I find so interesting about the F-35, If they get everything to work as advertised on the actual aircraft, it will be like playing a video game. The SA created by the DAS and the radar should be nothing short of amazing.

Are they planning on simulating every function?  Or just telling the computer "in this case do that"

 

 

Home Fries

 

The way the US Military evaluates its acquisition/development of systems is by capability, and more directly where there is an existing lack of capability that needs to be addressed.

Makes sense

 

This is because too many acquisition professionals and politicians were getting sucked into the "gee-whiz" aspects of a system that it would get funded regardless of need.

Gee whiz?  You mean they thought the capability was cool though unnecessary?

 

 

Ruggbutt

 

Too many inconsistencies in the developer's claimed background, whether it be military or software related.  My favorite is "Award Winning" claims.  That and the whole "I'm a fighter pilot" B.S.

So, he misrepresented himself?

 

 

JediMaster

 

See, the DoD doesn't strive for "hardcore realism" when they're making their requirements...

Well, for a flight-sim, they want it to accurately simulate the plane.  I'm not sure what level of graphic realism is demanded.  As for an airplane being designed to make it easy to blow stuff up, that's pretty much what all combat aircraft are designed for.

 

How much you want to bet when those sims were coming out in the mid-90s there were people at the DoD that saw and played them and said "why can't the real planes do this?"

I think some saw the movie Terminator in 1984 and laughed their butts off about the human-shaped robots but thought that Skynet was cool and wanted to create it for real...  .  Of course they probably thought that they could control such a program (despite it being orders of magnitude smarter than them) and preventing it from turning on them

 

 

EricJ

 

It' should be noted that ED won't allow License Agreements for 4th or 5th generation aircraft, so essentially you're on your own for anything like that, like we are.

Which is from 1980 to modern day correct?

Edited March 21, 2016 by Constellation1710

[+EricJ 3,937]

Pretty much, teams like VEAO got a grant due to the fact that the UK MoD picked up their Typhoon as a component simulator for their pilots so there are exceptions to the rule, just have to play it by ear.

[Constellation1710 4]

EricJ

 

So you really need to pass a lot of road-blocks and jump through hoops in order to be able to get the right to achieve the licensing?