WHAT DO YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT A DCS F-35A FULL-FIDELITY MODULE???

[@gerrya4818]

I have a good friend that is in the air force of a European country who was involved in the testing of the F-35 when they decided to purchase it. over some wine, he gave me very few details, but he did say some interesting things about it. The capabilities that are publicly known have been intentionally downplayed and literally every system on the jet is kept in a limited mode until its put into a war mode.

[@fennoman9241]

Definitely interesting, it was also tested by Finnish airforce in intensive tests and came clearly ontop of the others like J39, Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet. Really interested to see the Block 4 performance.

[@gerrya4818]

@@fennoman9241 and the new missiles ;)

[@AlanTheBest97]

ED NEEDS MORE RED AIRCRAFT

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Agreed! MIG29A is a good start...we have several Cold War Soviet Era Staples but FF SU-27 and SU-34 would be cool.

[@royra8562]

The problem is that not only documentation, but they can be prosecuted by the Russian government for trying to model their jets and technology

[@ustio834]

More like ED needs money

[@AlanTheBest97]

@royra8562 I doubt that would be the case since they are Russian nationals for the most part. I would think that would make things a bit smoother. I dont think Russia would be too upset if they did an old su27 full fidelity.

[@royra8562]

@@AlanTheBest97 I far as I remember, there was a new change in the law like 2 years ago from the Russian government in which the complication of military information could be prosecuted

[@DerOrso]

The F-35 fits into the DCS-World community like a fist in your eye, as we say in Germany. It's a waist of resources.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I agree...but the DCS community has changed so much since I joined 10 years ago. We have officially entered "cater to the young gamers" era of flight sims. It is their time now, right?

[@DerOrso]

@@AIRWARFAREGROUP I would have to see some statistics backing that conjecture, and ED refuses to publish anything close to that. My feeling in general on ED's way of generating revenue is that they are extremely mistaken. Imagine you could go to any car company and buy a car and afterwards, never, ever have to pay for maintenance, unless they did a major redesign, and then you got the upgrade for pennies. ED is quickly running into a saturated market. Although I see so many people having a blast with the Kiowa, I'm not going to buy it, because I don't have enough time to even get around to the Chinook as much as I would like to, or the Strike Eagle, or the Phantom II _gasp_ So if ED thinks they are going to solve their cash-flow issues by making more and more tricked-up aircraft, they are going to be deeply disappointed IMHO. Cross-over customers from War Thunder or whatever are going to sh*t themselves when they come up against the learning curve and how the lack of good--expensive--controller equipment will disadvantage them, and years-long customers will simply ignore silly offerings to whither on the vine. Maybe my hearing an ever faster growing call for ED to develop new products in a strategic, synergetic--era fulfilling--direction, because I've been paying close attention to it. Or maybe the voices are just getting louder.

[@EvansRG78]

@@AIRWARFAREGROUP have we though?

[@madaxe606]

I expect it'll sell like hotcakes - and split the community between: - SP guys who love the idea of obliterating swathes of Redfor targets with complete impunity - Co-op MP guys who love the idea of obliterating swathes of Redfor targets with complete impunity while maintaining exquisitely correct comms - PvP MP guys who will wonder why there's a 50-0 stack on any server with the F-35 enabled.

[@Pricklyhedgehog72]

Fox 3!

[@predattak]

​@@Pricklyhedgehog72 beep beep beep Chaff! Flare! beep beep beep

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I'll take it down with my TF-51D Mustang and an Integrated Air Defense System in my pocket!

[@andrewjackson673]

*this poster was shot down by treeline shilka manned by a human player via combined arms shortly after making this comment*

[@AdastraRecordings]

My takeaway is quite simple, ED are being disingenuous about their reasoning for not covering certain modules, and I find this level of dishonesty both frustrating and off putting.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Always a possibility

[@rwhunt99]

Things change, and Ed might think this will bring in the younger gen. As some have pointed out, servers still have control and have the ability to block any assets they choose. I do think that eventually, it will divide the customer base and only sales will determine their path forward.

[@bag-eye]

Reasons change, the market changes, business priorities change. Fact is their main competitor has an f35 and that would have to have impacted ED’s decision.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

​@@bag-eye What competitor has an F-35?

[@RogueSpecterGamingOfficial]

MSFS2020 ​@@FallenPhoenix86

[@hitchcock_]

ED: we dont implement x because there is no documentation or classified ED: lets make an f35, with no documentation and most is classified ME: WTF?

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Good point...I think it's going to be limited at best. We'll see.

[@zarkogorovic682]

NineLine stated: "The info being available is not always the issue, what we can and can't use is another issue. We have to run between the legal lines in many different countries."

[@hitchcock_]

@ and the F35 is classified af, where do you think the legal situation is here when they cant make certain things of jets who are much older than the F35 like F/A-18C, F16C?!?!?!

[@Error-33]

They have more documentation about the F-35 than most 4th and 4.5th gen aircraft according to ED. It seems that they are very confident in their knowledge of the aircraft, so we will have to wait and see

[@hitchcock_]

@@Error-33 Have you read their FAQ? They are basing their simulation on absoluty ZERO official documentation. I wouldnt call "hands-on F-35 demonstrations, white papers, airshows and the butt of F-35 pilots" official documentation.

[@kellymcguire1385]

As far as the touchscreen, MSFS already solved that...you just use the mouse. You don't need a physical MFD with buttons for the other aircraft right now, you just use the mouse.

[@Pricklyhedgehog72]

That destroys immersion...and you have no idea how many times i've lost my mouse in VR...

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Good point, and I agree with prickly on immersion, which is one of the reasons I went with the F 18 MIP set up so that I didn't have to use my mouse and fly with one hand I could reach up and push a button and flip a switch when I needed to.

[@strikkflypilot927]

No. Mouse in VR is hopeless for the above reason. Ive mounted a Trackball in my rig and it is GOLD👍

[@Mauri-ih8oc]

​@@Pricklyhedgehog72 Not an issue for us non vr players xD

[@colinterry7261]

“If you get to the merge, you’ve screwed up” you’re right, and boy do I screw up 😅

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Well, not in the game...but in real life. I can beat anyone in any aircraft while flying the TF-51D Mustang. They just don't know about the IADS units supporting me.

[@spc83]

I honestly think it'll be the most realistic model yet! Anytime an update "breaks" a core system in the F-35, ED can say that's actually a real software glitch in the F-35 and users need to pay a surcharge to have it fixed...just like the US government.....ok ok I'll see my way out /s

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

No, I think in realism it would be something happens and you have to reboot the computer in the jet.

[@spc83]

@AIRWARFAREGROUP in case of the F-35B sub variant it'll automatically reboot and eject you out of the house

[@Lambda420]

@@AIRWARFAREGROUP please no

[@chaadlosan]

It's all about the money.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍

[@Cailean556]

I'm of two minds regarding the F-35... For me, personally, on the one hand it's frustrating that ED has gone from saying 'No, we can't do this or that model because of a lack of documentation' to 'We're using open-source data, pilot interviews and airshow footage to make this module and it won't be 100% but it will be the most realistically modelled F-35 in a commercial flight sim'. So they're using the internet, and guess work. On the other, it's going to allow me to get a glimpse of what it's like to take a 5th gen stealth fighter into a combat setting - something I can't do anywhere else, as ED has rightly said. Will I buy an F-35 module? Yes. I have a nearly 12-year-old that wants to join the RAAF and that's what they fly so he'll want to have a go at that and I support his goal - he'd be surpassing his dad's achievements exponentially if he succeeds. But the downside, for DCS, is that you have a 5th Gen western fighter with no comparable adversary/counter. And the only aircraft that could possibly (at least on paper) counter it are unlikely to be coming to DCS any time soon - the Su-57, J-20 or J-31. So now we have this aircraft that has no peers and the only way to beat it is to go MORE modern, MORE technology. AESA radars, AIM-120Ds and AIM-174s/AIM-260s (or Russian/Chinese equivalents). DCS is not ready to address countering F-35s or REDFOR equivalents by degrading the operating environment with stealth/counter-stealth, EW, GPS jamming or any of that. DCS should stick to the Cold War prior to/just after the advent of the AMRAAM - it's where the most parity between aircraft and their capabilities is. But the damage is done in that regard. Perhaps DCS needs to spilt itself into DCS WW2, DCS Cold War and DCS Modern, with modules restricted to work within one of those eras only - to prevent overmatch. There are so many other aircraft choices that could have been chosen (if not by ED for legal reasons, they could - or should - have negotiated with another 3rd party) using those same cited sources - aircraft that fit way better into the current DCS ecosystem than a US 5th Gen fighter. MiG-27, Su-25, Su-27/33, Su-30, Su-34, Su-17/22 (MiG-29 is left out because its already in advanced development by ED, MiG-23 is omitted because RAZBAM were working on it)... Those are the aircraft that are (obviously, in my opinion) most needed in DCS - full-fidelity Cold War-era (and slightly beyond) traditional REDFOR aircraft. There are so many US/western fighters in DCS that the game is pretty much exclusively (there's only a FF L-39, MiG-15, MiG-19 and 21 in DCS so far - JF-17 doesn't count in a Cold War setting and even then it marries eastern with western tech) a Western air force simulator. Arguably, any of those REDFOR jets would sell as much as an F-35. Putting the F-35 into DCS isn't a bad move (commercially speaking, people are going to buy it regardless and in a lot of cases, it's the first plane most kids in Western countries have seen flying overhead), but in a multiplayer setting if you're solely a PvP-type of player, it will be. Unrestricted servers won't be an issue, but servers that impose limits on F-35s mean you can't play on them (unless you have something else to fly also). And, as you pointed out, players need to understand what they're flying and fighting in. In a dogfight, an F-35 will lose to a *clean* F-16 almost every time. But the F-35 isn't designed for dogfighting, the F-16 was. The F-35 wins air combat at BVR ranges. Even the Typhoon is going to have issues against the F-35, unless the Typhoon gets the AESA radar (which I doubt, but you never know). Even then F-35 is still going to see it before it sees the F-35: Kind of hard to launch a Meteor at 100km if you can't detect the target until its within 20km and has already launched an AMRAAM at you that has gone pitbull. Taking your F-35 into gun range (in an unrestricted arena) means you've failed to utilise your F-35 properly and that's on you as the pilot, not the jet. It's not super-manoeuvrable, it's not thrust-vectoring, it's an aircraft optimised for strike and BVR engagement of aircraft that can't see it.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Reminds me of what Ian Christie says… He is his business model may match our needs.

[@DanBlake3rd]

If you’ve flown the IndiaFoxtEcho F-35 in MSFS, then you can imagine how much detail they are capable of putting in a DCS module. I’m not too worried that it’s not 100% accurate. They can ballpark it and we can enjoy flying it as nearly as anyone else could. I think that it will be somewhere between full fidelity and FC. Need me some Fat Amy.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 I agree it's not gonna be a big deal.

[@shd4618]

This is the correct conclusion.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

Begs the question why potential modules have been killed in the past, Harrier GR7 /Sea Harrier FRS.1 to name two, if making a rough guess was good enough then they could have been completed.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I consider that often and sometimes it's the time and place and what/who we have that can work on it. People come and go. I think people need to know that Igor was the principal programmer and co-owner until he died from cancer in 2018. Nick has done well with the talent retained from the original team, and the additional staff he's picked up. I think if I ask Wags, there's something like 170 employees around the globe and all of them work remotely from home. I tell people ED is doing fine for me, I'll stay with them, and I don't buy what I don't fly!

[@DanBlake3rd]

I stand corrected. Via a statement from IFE, they are not participating in the DCS F-35A’s development. It will be an in-house team project.

[@Wolfe351]

rather have more cold war era planes......FRS1 Sea Harrier, more Blue side Coldwar Naval assets, more FF Red side, some multicrew bombers(Vulcan, B1B, Tu22,...) (looking fwd to the F111C mod that some Oz guys are working on), need way more AXIS WW II air assets to flesh out Normandy2 missions...

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I'd love to go back to full Fidelity WWII if we had more integrated assets like we do in modern products.

[@rutrose2000]

Honestly if ED is going to be releasing modules that aren't FF I would rather have the F-117 than a F35. At least that would actually have a place in the MP universe and doesn't broaden the parity gap that is growing between red and blue as much.

[@skipssmn3754]

Id take f117 too

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

A lot of votes for the nighthawk 👍

[@mobius7089]

People don't understand how bored they would be with a 117... The F-35 isn't this magic bullet either, running LO you're a F117 with 2 AMRAAMs. The F-35 has enough fancy toys and tools to distract from less than perfect EW modeling, same as the 18/16 in their current states.

[@rutrose2000]

@@mobius7089 I’m a Cold War MP kind of guy. I don’t see the F35 getting a lot of play time in that setting. Hell a F14 and MIG 29 are severely restricted on those servers. 35 might as well be a space fighter with lasers.

[@ericlyrode8724]

F117 gameplay: Take off Fly for a long time without escort, don't talk to anybody for emcon Stay away from anything exciting or alive Drop two bombs Fly back in pitch silence again. Definitely super boring.

[@jamesmcd71]

I know people are all excited about the F35. But lets come back to reality. DCS has pushed pass the capabilities of the game engine. We as a community should be telling ED to focus on building a new foundation. Most of us have at least 8 core CPUs. ED has done miracles by getting a single core , single thread platform to outsource some task to other cores. But still 95% of the game is run on 1 core. Can we please get a game DX12 so we can use the CPU and GPU as intended.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Wisdom!

[@mcnugget3851]

DCS is multicore already. I agree 100% but lets give them some credit its already using multiple cores

[@fl398motorsports3]

I will play devil's advocate here.... when we have a real world air vehicle with sensors, whether it be an aircraft or a drone, it requires the use of active and passive sensors to "see" it's place in the world and what is in it. In DCS, everything is known to the engine, every aircraft, every ground unit, every single asset. The sensors in the DCS F-35A do not need to be modeled to propogate waves in 1.21 gigawatt frequencies in order to "see" around itself, the game needs to do nothing more than inform the module what it can and cannot see. Everyone is getting wrapped around the "how", all that really needs to be done is the presentation. There is a demo video on KZbin from 12 years ago I just watched that shows a pretty good representation of what the F-35 can do... in an unclassified fashion, I am sure it can do much, much more than what was shown in the video. Honestly, we as DCS players do not need more than that. We do not 'need' the gigawatts to search for and find targets, the game engine already 'knows' where they are at and can provide that information in whatever "realistic" format ED programs into the module.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 good point, and I think it also touches with the FAQ that wags shared with me today. It's in the description now.

[@canconservative8976]

This comment is pure Logic! The only challenge is what to conceal or reveal... just make it fully clickable!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I think it's a bad idea. Too much of that plane is classified.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 that's why I don't think it's really gonna be considered full functional as most of the DCS aircraft that still have sensitive things about them

[@ilyushka00]

We have actual crew chiefs saying that the F-35 won't be a realistic 'full fidelity' module, so I’d really like to hear from ED in their newsletters and interviews about how they plan to simulate the highly classified systems necessary to claim full fidelity. Not trying to throw criticism, but we do need answers to some legitimate questions. Personally, I'm not interested in the F-35 whatsoever but super thrilled about the ff F-15C, at last. Thank you guys for pushing for it!

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

ED has an FAQ on it: forum.dcs.world/topic/367621-dcs-f-35a-official-faq/#comment-5585281

[@mobius7089]

The Hornet is Full Fidelity without the classified systems, the -35 will be no different. The reason people this this is a big deal is because they think the Hornet and other modules are 90% modeled, not the 40% they actually are.

[@bag-eye]

@@mobius7089finally someone gets it

[@sjolson68]

@ This aligns with my point around what "full fidelity" means and doesn't mean.

[@ilyushka00]

@@mobius7089​​⁠no one is debating that 4th gen modules have a lot of their systems simplified and redacted. But you can’t compare with how much of F-35’s sensors, which make operating this plane special, will be stripped down. Which in this case many would have preferred to see the Nighthawk instead. In any case, I would like to be pleasantly surprised by what ED delivers, it’s not that I’m mad about it, I’m just skeptical at this stage as many are.

[@rwhunt99]

The coolest thing is - no one will force you to buy it !!

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I don't plan on getting it, and I was just talking to a friend today in Norway that he and I own relatively few modules compared to most people to buy everything.

[@rwhunt99]

@@AIRWARFAREGROUP I think it is a slippery slope to head for, but that's just me. There are many upcoming modules I can't wait to buy, but maybe if the Navy VTOL version comes out, I just might look at it. But; I'm 74 now, so realistically, I don't have many flying years left in me, lol! I am thinking the younger gen might not blink an eye and snap it up. Which I don't mind, ED is letting modders bring in all kinds of different jets that I don't fly and I am still standing, so I can handle it, lol! If it keeps ED moving forward, I suppose it's a good thing.

[@AlfonsoFigueroa]

They could… it’s just a matter of commercial strategy.

[@kasmiller9289]

I’m excited for the F-35A. It will be simulated based on what a system does, Based on publicly available data. That’s the case for all modules. Will it be 100% accurate. No. Are any of the modules 100% accurate. No.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 probably the best summary I've seen so far, thanks! 😉

[@lemmingt6207]

I play in vr on quest. I interact with current modules with the hand controllers via a laser pointer type situation. Every button just like a mouse.

[@Pricklyhedgehog72]

Interesting

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Nice

[@ThePixelPew]

F22 is what I want

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Wrapter Love....

[@Pitchlock8251]

All I have to say is, If the F-35, is going to made“full fidelity”. Then where is my Airwolf.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

AMEN!

[@sjolson68]

I believe the actual definition of "full fidelity" is what many people need to be aligned on. The reality is that, in all the IP/NATSEC ways, it can't be - and I hope everyone realizes this for all current modules, as well. This doesn't mean it can't be functional and perform the role it does in real life to an excellent, unclassified level, just like all the other modules do. Qualitative vs quantitative.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Good point, and I think you guys have helped me refocus my thoughts on FF. For me, FF is full capabilities with human interface in the cockpit, sometimes beyond Mouse and Screen.

[@flightsimulatoradventures7246]

F117 would of been cooler for dcs.

[@flightsimulatoradventures7246]

stealth in a sim is programed, we dont need to know how it actually works as long as it does in sim.

[@AdastraRecordings]

Agreed, way more interested in the Wobbly Goblin than the 35.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 "the cockroach"

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I kind of missed most of the video as my World War II goggles were on 🤪

[@flightsimulatoradventures7246]

@@AIRWARFAREGROUP was sorely lacking!

[@sloppydog4831]

Well, I love the F-35. I have Dino Cattaneo's versions since the good old Prepar3D. So, yeah, why not? It's a great airplane. My take on it is that it is a watershed moment for DCS. The announcement of the F-35 demolishes any excuse or argument ED had to not develop X or Y module since "we don't have any publicly available information". If we can have a "not-so" fulll fidelity, a module based on public information, pilot input, guesses and estimates, then what is holding back the development of more "full guessability", "mid-fi" modules? Nothing! The floodgates are open for the Su-27, SU-34, Ka-52 and any other module that you can think of. I believe ED is moving DCS to the M.A.C. direction. A more accessible, more open game. In the end in the future, I now see DCS as a Microsoft Flight Simulator environment. An open world, with people flying different fidelity level aircraft as they please. It is the end of DCS World as we know it.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Good synopsis of how I feel too. I agree it will be some sort of FF, but just how much is TBD. Thanks Dog!

[@dadssimulations]

Virtual hands in vr would be amazing in DCS

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Someone commented that you could use the mouse and against it what is a simulated touchscreen on the screen of your computer but even then I don't like reaching up to grab a mouse when I'm flying in using both throttle and stick and being able to push buttons on my F-18 MIP has convinced me that full cockpit immersion with some balance between aircraft on settings would be nice for all modules.

[@mobius7089]

I can do that with the Quest 3 already

[@dadssimulations]

@@mobius7089 i have a quest 3 as well but i thought you need a mod or somthing am i right?

[@ericlyrode8724]

​@@dadssimulationsCheck the VR setting. You can enable the virtual hand control. However 3rd Party modules support that poorly, better do it in F-16 and F-18

[@Error-33]

@@ericlyrode8724 Do we need Virtual Desktop to turn on the hand tracking or can we use it with the controllers? Sounds like a great solution to avoid using a mouse

[@nickgrey4136]

Dear Juice, thank you for your very thoughtful and precise video. Great to hear PHH in conversation with you. Great format. Kind regards Nick

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Got your note on Discord and totally agree. I just don't see myself getting the "aha" moment of feeling like I'm a real pilot in that jet. I got that from a lot of the other full Fidelity models 😀

[@nelogger]

The problem with it is it exposes an incoherence in ED's design ethic we always knew was there. If it's not ok to guess at sensor integration how will they make the F35? If it is ok why haven't they done it for the Hornet?

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Check out the FAQ ED put out about the open source information and that they are merely mimicking what is depicted without actually modeling the actual system itself. I mean, they don't create a heat source in a combustion engine to get thrust if you know what I mean 😉

[@nelogger]

@AIRWARFAREGROUP yeah that's my point. So why couldn't they do this for the Hornet TPOD offset logic and MSI? There are publicly available videos showing proper functioning of these systems yet ED said it didn't matter because they didn't have official documentation. They can't have it both ways

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Hey, that's a good point thanks for the clarification. I agree, and do you think the sensationalism around the F 35 is just maybe what they're trying to go for for popularity? It could be a good cash grab that people are talking about. Thanks for the input 👍

[@nelogger]

@@AIRWARFAREGROUP absolutely. I believe this was a sales decision, not an artistic one.

[@Boots3862]

Clearly can't be full fidelity. Not sure what this means for the direction of DCS. Just have to wait and see what they are trying to tell us...

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Beautifully said 👍

[@mesobean]

Personally I love the F-35, but it really doesn’t make sense to add it. The F117 would make much more sense to add as a stealth aircraft, while the F18 super hornet should of been added before a 5th gen aircraft. Either way I’m still buying fat Amy when she comes out

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I don't see myself getting it as I've got other stuff on my to do list and don't tell anybody, but I am looking at traveling more and being out in the world in retirement. 👴 uncle JUICE.

[@TheRaptorXX]

DCS seem to have opened the relative 'can of worms' with this one don't they? Great piece this Juice and PH so thanks for this. 👍👍👍

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Hey, thanks Raptor! Most of the rumbling will be in people's thoughts of it. I'm sure some people will buy it and some people won't but I don't see myself picking it up with other stuff that I already have planned.

[@bird.9346]

CubanAce is apparently working on a AI Felon with plans to submit it to ED officially. Though obviously the F35 will be restricted to more creative scenarios. I've been hearing wildly different opinions on it, and I'm no expert, so I'll just wait and see what actually happens for now. I have noticed though that there's a lot of folks that speak with authority, but actually have no idea what's actually available, and are there just to join the dramatic bandwagon. I'm already tired of the drama. There's always something... I've also noticed most of the time it's the community that says a module is too "classified" to do, rather than ED. Though of course if you have specific feature requests they want you to provide data, and I'll imagine it'll be the same for Amy. Also, though ED has many faults, I don't think they've forgotten what's been keeping them in business for the last 30 years. They know high fidelity is their niche. Neither are they a public company, or have a brutal blackrock owned publisher that's dictating their decisions.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍

[@MK84]

Speaking of touch-panel interaction, one proof-of-concept I did a while back for VR interaction was to have a flat piece of wood with a haptic puck attached at the back. It was pretty much MacGyver-ed together to simulate operating touchscreen panel. Works pretty well, albeit a bit rough from a spectator point of view.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍

[@M.K.123x]

In F-16 ED had to change Link 16 because it is classified. And what about F-35?

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 Bring on the F - 15EX!

[@bag-eye]

The issue of not having full doco for a module has always been overblown, this is true for EDs statements in the past as well. Many elements of all aircraft in dcs cannot be true to life especially things like radar cross section, sensor performance, flight model and so on. This is true even for a 3rd gen aircraft. Added to that is that whilst the underlying way the jet performs a function (eg datalink) is what’s classified, the mere fact it exists is not. I’d say the largest area of risk will be the f35 hmi since it probably evolves very quickly and isnt detail that would be published even if unclassified. It’d be helpful to know they had some unclassified manual available that maps out the various displays, functions, etc.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Well said...thanks!

[@ziepex7009]

Gonna be interesting, but im still happy if we get it, even if its not fully modeled to ultra realism

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Definitely gonna be eye candy, sexy 😉

[@Hosscoller]

P-38J... A-20G..... A-1D..... A-7E..... A-6E..... F-8....

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Good ones all around and I would love to just build a dream sheet for a Vietnam pack.

[@Hosscoller]

@AIRWARFAREGROUP I'm a retired USN Avionics tech... 77-97. And 24 more years with Boeing Avionics Repair Facility... yeah, BARF..... at NAS Lemoore. If it doesn't have Sea legs, I'm not that interested in it. WWII, Korean Era, Vietnam, Cold War.....

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Lots of people are, however, interested in all of that.

[@Pricklyhedgehog72]

A-6 and A-7, and definitely the F-8

[@marcosavila8215]

I think ED is taking the same direction of Jaguar "even the bad publicity is good publicity" ED did it, everyone is talking about it.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Interesting, I can see that as they have become comfortable in the negative and positive attention.

[@phantomraven5044]

"Our F-35A will not be based on guesswork, watching air shows, Wikipedia or anything like that. Rather it is being designed in relation to credible data that we feel very confident will provide a good representation of what it is to operate this aircraft in the context of a study-level flight simulation game for the entertainment market." - ED

[@solidkreate5007]

THANK YOU AWG FOR THE F-15C! It was the first plane I ever flew in FC before I bought any modules. I wish they'd make an Su-25 FF module. I'd scoop that up in a heartbeat. I have a stange love for that plane. It is like flying something out of the Fallout universe (to me at least).

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Same here! I also worked on the F-15C for 4 of my 20 years in the USAF and it's my first love! Here's to getting all our wishes in DCS! Cheers ~ Juice

[@superflyguy4488]

This will kill off every other 4th gen module on MP servers.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

That should be accurate 😉

[@EvansRG78]

Dan Pedersen had some very specific opinions on this in his Top Gun book.

[@Vike1121]

F35 lets go

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍

[@Elvinsilvester]

On the TOMCAST there is a video about the F-14D combat systems; maybe Heatblur can now develop the F-14D

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Reminds me of the F-4XYZ model poster we had in the 80s...had everything bolted onto it!

[@kentyannayon3741]

It's crazy, but it's clear that they're deciding to relax standards a little to meet what customers are asking for. I'm going to be a pre-order F-35A customer, not because I really want to see it take over the multiplayer environment, but because like many others I'm very interested in the experience of flying an aircraft I'll never get to touch in real life. As long as it's on par with the IFE F-35s, I don't think many people are going to be seriously questioning it other than wondering why something so powerful has entered the sim. I find it strange on the FAQ that they suggested it will arrive before the EF2000. This is at least the second year the EF2000 has appeared in "202X and Beyond" so it's gotta be further along unless the F-35A has been in development for a few years already without the public knowing. However, they also mentioned there are others in the process that we don't know about that should present a threat to the F-35. So, let's start speculating. What else isn't currently known to be in development that could be a threat to the F-35? Preferably redfor, but traditionally redfor countries are much more difficult to get information out of.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 I feel part of the realism is when it won't start you reboot the computer just like they had to do on the documentary. I watched 🤣

[@SQUID_2259]

It was said and I think ultimately it's the bottom line, ED gives us what we need to do the things in DCS that we want to do. That's all anyone should really be concerned about. Eagle Dynamics you haven't let me down yet and I don't see it getting any worse from here. Excited for what the future of DCS holds. But.. I will say why did it sound like there was so much confusion about how you'd interact with the cockpit and displays? Remember when people moved their mouse and just clicked stuff? Why do you have to touch it because it's touch in the jet? ha! crazy.. Besides its only gonna take 8 months after release for WINWING to make a "DISPLAY of F-35" for people to buy anyway lol. We'll all be just fine!

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

🫡Exactly!

[@Blizzard303-w2w]

I may be a bit confused here about the potential touchscreen interface issues... I don't have VR yet, and because of my set up, maybe its's easier for me, but my mouse is by my knee and I have never had to look down to find it, as it became muscle memory after the first time.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

That was my fault. I should've clarified that we have cockpit builders in DCS, which is how I play and I have the full up F-18 hornet set up from WINWING and really love the speed and ease of getting set up for all kinds of combat with a finger on a button. In real life, the F 35 has a touchscreen and having to reach over and grab the mouse and fly with one hand while you're trying to manage the throttle and other systems it's not realistic should be able to reach up and look up and touch something to activate it. That's all it's gonna be fine. It's for the gamers anyway the ones that came over from war thunder.

[@Blizzard303-w2w]

@@AIRWARFAREGROUP Same, I was thinking that people who are into that could use a large touchscreen monitor for mixed reality or just use a board or Lexan with hand tracking for full VR. I am envious of how easy it will be for them to build a full 1:1 cockpit, with the minimalism of the design. I am on the fence of weather I want to go Fulcrum or Phantom with my 1:1, lots of work either way!

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Right on Bliz...Prickly and I talk about true pass-through and it's still to far off to dream about it.

[@dannowak6468]

F35? Why? What is it going to fly against? Definitely will not be buying it. ED has so many holes to fill in its historical match ups why a 5th generation plane?

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I agree, I don't see myself getting it either.

[@tondara0]

Yay. why not?

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Oh, you can do it… It's just that it wouldn't be real. It might be real fun though 😀

[@kmcnelley1981]

Elephant in the room is indeed - full fidelity. Edit: ED in general has done a pretty amazing job with DCS. Can’t help but ponder that the JSF could undo what positive credibility they have built over the years. Flip side if JSF is amazing. Having a 5th gen aircraft in the DCS lineup, should expect we would be able to have more 4th gen blue/red aircraft. Particularly if able to create a full fidelity of very limited recourses. Interesting times, good chat.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Thanks Bonkers...I wonder if we'll see the JSF spread of A - B - C variants. Did you like my use of IRL footage to highlight/accompany our discussion?

[@kmcnelley1981]

@ Get the JSF spread? I hope so, as a personal preference anything in DCS that is “Carrier Certified” I’m obligated to buy 🤣. I wonder if Magic Carpet (Precison Landing Mode - PLM) will be modeled with the C variant? Kind of exciting.

[@Zackwpilot]

The thing that is scary is the slippery slope. Right now, even with all the issues, we have a good thing going in DCS, when they start lowering the bar for cash grabs they learn they can keep doing less and making more..... before you know it we'll have a ton on jets in DCS but most will be MSFS quality. Take a look at Captain Sim, back in the day they made some pretty good stuff for FSX and P3D but then they discovered with MSFS they could reskin a 747-8 to look like a 777 and sell each variant for like $30, the "simmers" were pissed and the gamers kept giving them money so they kept on doing it. I think my and others fear is that when you start making concessions to chase money, it could be the beginning of the end for the true combat flight sim. The gamer community is always going to be bigger and have more market cap, true full-fidelity simmers are niche and if DCS leaves that niche....we really have nowhere to go. Just one mans opinion.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Good point, it would be sad if they sabotage themselves with something like that...I hope they don't!

[@mtnmist1]

Completely agree it's a cash grab on non-traditional expectation of "full fidelity". I have zero interest in using it or being in servers that host it. That said, I'm happy for those that want it, but be careful of managing expectations.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I'm feeling it could be...or at a minimum seem to be perceived as a cash grab. Part of me is feeling with the Dynamic Campaign that we are entering the third phase of ED...the Gamer phase were the folks that complain the most get their toys. I joined when the community was full of nerds and short-attention-span kids didn't like it because it was "too hard to learn" and I loved those days.

[@canconservative8976]

I'll never forget a RL F16 pilot flying DCS, pulling 9G and saying "well that's good but not real (not authentically modelled) because "I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN REAL LIFE! for THAT LONG!"...although the blackout feature addresses this to some extent. So we can't go overboard in our purists attitude with these modules because the "Human Factor" in aviation cannot be modelled. Model all the systems as best you can.... fully clickable....i'm good with that. They should also have a running Poll in the community on what module to build next.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

My wife used to choke me to simulate the G's..I agree, DCS is moving to the enthusiast-gamer field. I guess I always took it too serious. Thanks for the words...J

[@canconservative8976]

@@AIRWARFAREGROUP HAHAHA...You know we can still take it serious, because we have Modules like the F16/18 and more that are Full Fidelity and they ain't going anywhere but better! Even if they F35 enters the Simulation, give it 5 years minimum and think of how improved (and possibly systems un-classified)... The F16 is still getting updates to its flight model...and avionics.

[@hunter-c3r]

I think F-35, and Eurofighter for that matter, is a good thing for DCS because it opens a doorway to other modern jets, this will show other nations and companies that ED can make civilian version of military flight sim without giving away crucial info and maybe encourage them to participate in this beautiful sim. So in the future we maybe see Rafale or Gripen, maybe some Chinese or Russian modern aircraft. After all if you look at Top Gun movie and how many pilots they attracted with it, well this is no different just a different platform. So if young people can see how a fighter jets look like inside and they can fly them in a sim it will attract more to join their respected airforces. Time will tell, but I'm glad they pulled this off.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍

[@Wrootplonk]

I'm really curious as to how ED plans to pull off the sensor-fusion that the F35 has, as well as just how well they can model it in general. As I've said in other places, it's not a module I'll buy due to not having an interest in it *within DCS*. Yeah, it's a mindblowingly interesting aircraft due to the systems it has, but for DCS? Eeeh....not so sure about that. If it is a cash-grab for the WT-crowd and if it's only made in order to help pull people into the sim, that's not all bad. More money means more modules and hopefully a deeper simulation in general. Where I think the benefit of developing the module for DCS comes from is if it results in a better radar- and EW-model that can be expanded into the DCS-core. Being able to sell it as a module is just icing on the cake.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Excellent points I have changed my ETA from two years to five years from now on this module 🤣

[@TuposAviationChannel]

Time to say something potentially really controversial, but the decision behind F-35A in DCS makes much more sense when you consider the fact we are likely going to get predominately block IIB based F-35 (which was stated in their FAQ, but was removed afterwards because ED plans to put AIM-9X in it, which is a weapon IIB didn't have), which is not a frontline aircraft, but the old and "outdated" F-35 that Aggresors use. So very likely we will get a F-35 that is far from its frontline variant (3F and now 4) capabilities, but rather a "gimped" one. I will say that ED needed to communicate that better, it's been unclear. Whether or not do you support that choice is up to you, but it at least makes some sense. As for the choice for modules, while I see a lot of demands for REDFOR aircraft, I will argue that there is still legitimacy regarding limitations of implementing aircraft. After all, it's still at the mercy of governments/companies. The fact that we got likes of Mirage 2000 (Dassault is very protective of its aircraft, which includes to real life aviation as well. Dassault is the reason why F-16 is named Fighting Falcon, not Falcon after all) and especially Eurofighter (German one) is kind of a miracle. While this would absolutely mean that, yes, someone did actually allow F-35 to be put in DCS (to what extent will be it allowed is a different story) and that is bizarre, it still holds true. REDFOR aircraft are just unfortunate they were made by a country with insanely strict security laws (and to make matters worse, is in the active state of war at the moment). Meanwhile Americans seem fairly lenient regarding flight simulation, considering how many US aircraft are in game, with some being government contracts as well (A-10C). Don't expect F-22 any time soon though.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 it's also a good way to bring younger people into the community as well. I hear 😀

[@andrewjackson673]

i kinda want it in the sim, but i dont really wanna fly it or make many modern missions with it, it sort of forces you to install the f22 and su57 mods to go with it, so it feels anyway. I have a bunch of modules, more than most, and i still contend that combined arms is the best of them for its potential, and it along with dynamic campaign should be the immediate priority...alongside the PTO stuff, hellcat, ai zeroes ect

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 i've got a short video of all the WWII stuff we saw in 2025 and beyond coming out in about 27 minutes from now.

[@aztec0112]

The F35 is at LEAST two years away. They show a smoke shrouded teaser and a single image, and the community explodes like a pinched abscess.🙄

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I bet more...I'll be retired or dead perhaps!

[@aztec0112]

​@@AIRWARFAREGROUP Ditto👍

[@solonemanuelwhitetigernava571]

I would love an F-35 in DCS but it doesnt have sense if the aircraft will not be simulated unless or 90% accurate...but this make me a reason to ask for an F-15EX in the future...

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Interesting you say that, I haven't shared this before, but I was given access to the F-15EX back in July but I couldn't view or record in the cockpit. I did a follow-up visit a few months ago and toured the fighter squadron and aircrew equipment shop but I asked if I could visit a jet and I was told, sorry but we can't. Imagine that aircraft...totally new inside with Eagle lines and MudHen's passenger capacity. I'll take one, but maybe not now with the F-15C coming!

[@mobius7089]

That's the thing, most people have no idea home much is missing or faked in our current DCS modules. If the Hornet was 90% complete tomorrow, most people would have to learn the jet all over again.

[@user-cs3qh1uv5y]

At 6:00 minutes when your talking about not needing to be at the merge? Wasnt that the point of MiG-25 and look how that went...

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 true we've always assumed that beyond visual rage was the norm and that enclosed dog fighting was the thing in the past, and pilot should train for that, but the architecture of the integrated battle space now is so complex in advanced that even history over the last 30 years has shown us how many times that knife fight in a phone booth happens. 😉

[@davido1953]

I don't think it's a big deal...they can update it just like they update every other a/c, a little at a time.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 + 😉

[@EvansRG78]

I'm sure the F-35A will be a fantastic module... but the bulk of the DCS community has been asking for a lot modules, maps, assets and overall platform/experience additions and enhancements, which do not include the F-35. I'm not sure where ED is going with this. Hopefully we'll learn more about the direction.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I can tell you that it is to answer the call from the younger crowd that's been asking for one for a few years now. Management and leadership got together and asked. Can we do it with the open source information that we have and apparently they think they can. Not everything we want is a priority right now because the development team has limited resources that they can use and we have to realize that DCS is not a simple video game with photo realistic collect glamour… It's a complex digital combat simulator that has to be built around when it comes to modules, terrains, and campaigns.

[@EvansRG78]

@@AIRWARFAREGROUP agreed... I've read the above points on the F-35 as well. The more module options certainly are to everyone's benefit. I just hope this doesn't erode at the high standard of fidelity that the DCS core have come to love and are passionate about. I suppose we'll have a couple of years before this transpires though, and plenty to be released in the meantime. 🙂

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

It's going to be grand...I initially felt that the realistic mission set it performs, and the general disinformation about the jet in the media along with the complete lack of true warfare by the average taxpayer creates misconceptions about it's capabilities would hinder acceptance within DCS...but it's going to be fine. I don't plan on getting it...I have my F-15C on order...happily waiting!

[@olereidar]

I’m looking forward to it; it was on the top of my wishlist. For me, high tech is more fun than analog gauges and propellers, although I fly those too. I’ll probably be the closest most of us ever will get to fly one anyway. It’ll be fun flying the Viper and having someone assist you from an F35. Yeah, this is gonna be great 👍🏼

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Now you're talking realism 😉

[@ВладимирКосалапов-щ2ч]

F35 is not particularly mysterious, perhaps because it is a joint program that was jointly funded by the United States and Great Britain (2.5 billion dollars), Italy (1.0 billion dollars), the Netherlands (800 million dollars), Canada (440 million dollars), Turkey (175 million dollars), Australia (144 million dollars), Norway (122 million dollars) and Denmark (110 million dollars) and are they available in 22 countries? In any case, it will be interesting to get one on the Su-27)

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

🫡

[@RobVargas-uk6lo]

It was just announced - so I think realistically it will be in development for at least a few years. I don’t think they would have been able to announce this without approval from the USAF. Now with that in mind the AF may give DCS information on the flight model (and this is a big maybe). But absolutely NO information is going to be shared about the radar, avionics, or weapon delivery systems. So perhaps we will get a Flaming Cliffs type F-35. The DCS video did not say this was going to be a full fidelity model. Let’s all pump the brakes on this one.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Or two weeks

[@RobVargas-uk6lo]

@ Hahaha. Yes 👍

[@jedijc5411]

The perfect F-35 Mission..... Based on its Sensors and Data Link...... That's now happened Twice, at least, in Real Combat. One Air Force Squadron of F-35s is on Strike Mission and Destroys their assigned Targets but, uses all their Air to Ground Weapons to complete their Mission. However, while originally RTB (Return To Base) is then credited with Air to Air, Air to Ground, Surface to Surface, and Even Surface to Sea Targets Destroyed. Lastly, when the Squadron Finally Lands they Still have All their Air to Air Weapons and Canon Rounds. So in English and DCS, if they fully model the F35's Sensors and Data Link, the F35 will act like a Mimi AWACS / JSTARS. Except all NATO Weapons (Aircraft, Man Pad, SAM Site, Warship) in range Will Shoot at Everything that appears on the F35's Sensors...... So, I hope they do not Fully Model the Sensors and/or Data Link.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 that's the part that I'm kind of talking about is the average DCS players gonna wanna do all of that integration stuff???

[@grifnizzle7197]

My overriding gripe with this is inconsistency. This is the same company that won't put stingers on the Pooch, fought for years about putting 4 HARMS on the Viper, doesn't update the Bug FM when it outrates everything under the Sun, all because of 'mah documentation', but they're gonna make Fat Aimee, the blackest of black holes as far as actual documentation and still call it 'Full Fidelity'. Even if they came out and said "we're gonna do the best guess we got cause we thing it'll be cool/sell well" I wouldn't be so sour if they stopped having such a stick up the ass about when it comes to the other stuff.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Perhaps they got better at finding open-source info...we'll see.

[@WardogDCS]

Now, Im not much of a fan of Fat Amy, but IFE did release a statement that there is far more than enough source-able data for ED to make a Full Fidelity F35 module.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Agreed, a lot of what prickly and I were talking about was the need for it as far as actual employment techniques and strategies, outside most of the DCS players desires. But the kids want it so bring it on 👍

[@WardogDCS]

I think what some of the communities should do, is just wait and see what comes to light. Nobody is holding a gun to any consumer heads to purchase said module and not all servers will have it in the rosters either.

[@RagsHSC-7]

🤔🤔🤔. Super Hornet, I do know the parameters in which you speak or don't..... I don't know how the f35 would fit in being a liability as in the past. One went off the deck on a bolter Wheels extended and they had to stay on point until it was retrieved. I believe with a super hornet they would have left it. Just bailed the pilot out unless it's a 5 Texaco per se. Grab the front and backseater and call it a day. Get another one. I don't know how in the world to be able to do that with the f-35

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Oh, it was just always an excuse of why we wouldn't get a super hornet among the community members because everybody speculated that it was too classified or still to modernly relevant in the current warfare environment. In a lot of this, no we can't do that with the community not ED or anybody in particular on the development site. Just one of the rambling excuses of why we can't do something that used to go through the community years ago and still does sometimes.

[@RagsHSC-7]

@AIRWARFAREGROUP 🫣🕊️🕊️🕊️

[@canconservative8976]

99% of DCS Pilots wouldn't know FF if it hit them over the head....really? what are you comparing it to?, unless you are "Mover and Gonky" who flew F16/18 and their comments are in approval of the current FF flight models.... the lack of G-Forces on the person rules out FF anyway!.... Fully clickable is my yardstick, I can't stand modules with INOP. I say bring it on, as best you can (again it's going to have 5 years of tweaks to the FM anyway)... Make sure that C130 makes the cut... And don't even bother making another Video (ED) unless it's about the DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN !... a persistent world is needed...ASAP.... My $49.99 for the Dynamic Campaign Module is waiting.....

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Did I say that? Sorry this morning was so long ago. I don't even remember what we said. Thanks for the feedback though.

[@ambientlightofdarknesss4245]

I take the opinion that it's just a marketing stunt. Get ppl talking about DCS bad and good. Keep in mind, it's been what 5+ years since they showed off the Corsair and it's yet to come out. ED will definitely keep it in development hell, only showing progress if hype for DCS dies down.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Wow, has it been that long?

[@veespike]

I honestly thjink if they are going ot do this, they should let Grinneli update his F22 mod as well.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Contact Joe directly and encourage him! Good idea...Thanks.

[@ayylmao1558]

I really hope it will have the towed decoy

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

>-------------------I'm towing it now! Does our F/A-18C have it?

[@simba1113]

@@AIRWARFAREGROUP the F-18C that was implimented in the game never had a towed decoy.

[@michaeldwyer3466]

My thought is that if it appears on a PVP server no one on the Red side is going to be remotely happy about it. It will be mostly irrelevant to my my small group as we do an even mix of missions from WWII to modern, but i doubt anyone will get it or seriously consider it full fidelity.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

True, good comment! Thanks!

[@dougford7568]

I say F-35A yay all day long.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

🫡

[@AlfonsoFigueroa]

I just don’t believe ED is being honest here. They just see the commercial opportunity and want to grasp it.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I think you're absolutely right. And it's been confirmed by ED.

[@332FG-Pitman]

I think i inderstand what kind of state theyll release it in... the CH47 has the most broken flight model at this time, you can literally fly the thing like youre in ARMA3. This is going to be some more of that i feel, god bless the EF and Heatblur

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

🤣 you just reminded me why I left ARMA3 👍

[@november5945]

At the end of the day it's just an airplane. People talk, the info is out there!

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍

[@danielkarlsson7021]

The F-35 will be developed to normal DCS standards. All DCS modules are based on public data.

[@SlangJeezy]

Everyone complaining about ED making an F35 DCS are taking this too seriously. This is a game. It may be attempting to be as realistic as possible, but this is still a video game. If you don’t want to fly the plane, don’t buy it. If you don’t like that it will be in the game, don’t play it. It’s really that simple. ED gets to decide what is in the game. If that causes backlash and a drop in sales and player count, so be it. Let ED learn that way. But stop knocking it before it’s even out. There are tons of different players out there. Not everyone delves into multiplayer. I play DCS and mostly make my own mini missions and play those. I don’t have time to cold start a plane, fly to an area and complete a mission and return to base. That’s not how I play DCS. An F35 is very welcome for me. It’ll be cool to play with and the fact it comes straight from ED means it’ll be very high quality. No more janky mods of an F35. It’ll be cool as hell. Games move on. They can’t stand still forever. Wait until it releases and then make a decision. Stop complaining before it’s even out. It won’t even release until 2026 at the earliest. So much drama for nothing.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

That's a good point… It's moved away from the simulator that I joined into 10 years ago and it's becoming more of a video game.

[@YETI-99]

F35 before a super hornet? I'm just not seeing the need for a 5th Gen airframe nothing in any mp server is prepared for this smells like a 100 cash grab.

[@predattak]

Well.. the mig majority of players play offline and/or coop. So only pvp servers will be affected, that is if they won't balance it.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Many agree, I'll hold that theory until more is known...actions speak loudly.

[@theceruleandolphin2829]

Guys, so much negativity. Let's just be happy the F35 will arrive sometime, with some degree of authenticity that rates way above not having the F35 at all. Pushing DCS forward in any direction ought to be applauded, but especially in a direction that firms up their finances so that this and other things are possible. Give them some praise and encouragement. I speak as a game dev well versed in the difficulties of pushing projects forward in trying circumstances.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍

[@_DANZIG_]

Arnold Schwarzenegger says: WHHRROOONGGGGG!

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

And he'll be back.

[@Pricklyhedgehog72]

It's not a tooma

[@karelmachala4835]

I'm not a hardcore gamer and I don't see anything wrong with this module and I don't mind that it won't be full fidelity, for me DCS is fun. I play with F-14, F/A-18, SU-27/33 and I don't know these modules in detail, I play for fun. F 35 will also bring new players to DCS.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

AMEN! Yep, it's going to be modeled well but not the latest tech I feel...but good for newcomers to the community. Have you tried the Flaming Cliffs 2024 jets at all?

[@karelmachala4835]

@@AIRWARFAREGROUP I started with Lock On in 2005; Lock ON Flaming Cliff ; DCS FC, then F/A-18 and F-14. Thank you for your work and support.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Hey, thanks! Honestly, my mission has always been to provide an alternative to the other content already out there, as well as our twist as past military professionals. Just here to make a difference in the community.

[@pieterburger976]

This module CANNOT be true full fidelity because the public isn't going to get access to full manuals and study-level material to master flight characteristics, weapons and systems.. At most we're going to get "crash-course" summaries on how everyone thinks or suspects the systems and avionics are supposed to work. Just my thoughts.. could be mistaken...

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

That's kind of how I feel...yet someone pointed out to me that even the aircraft we do have aren't totally full capable and mostly full-fidelity modules.

[@pieterburger976]

@ True. It just contradicts EDs previous statements about other highly requested modules which they declined and why they "can't" make those modules. Why not have the same approach to eastern bred aircraft? Surely they can apply the same processes to aircraft like the Su-30, or other even older machines? This is a cash grab and I will only change my mind if they start adding eastern aircraft with the same kind of thinking as with the F35. (Talk to pilots, take into from airshow displays etc.)

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

At the end of the day, they know what they want to take on and what they can't at the moment. Opportunity may have landed in their lap with the JSF.

[@johnwicks4936]

They're months behind on halfghanistan so you can talk about this until we're blue in the face. This won't be out in 2026.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

That's a 2062

[@mjuloski]

Definitely I don’t see the point to add that aircraft in the dcs eco system.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Unless somebody's actually going to use it like it's used in real life.

[@mastersheff37]

I don't know what anyone is talking about (being all upset about this, that is) because i NEVER see anyone posting about how the Jeff.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

The Chinese/Pakistan project?

[@mastersheff37]

Yup. The JF-17 module is absolutely NOT full fidelity in the way of the A-10 or the F/A-18.

[@retxxrns2436]

Some people who create mods can creat touch screen really easily

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍

[@DrSQUIRRELBOY12]

Feels like a cash grab to me. Maybe instead of releasing a shiny new toy to distract us from all the missing features and issues with the game they should start fixing things. But that would cost money that Nick has to borrow from the company to fund his WWII airplane collection instead of putting it into the game. The final straw for me was finding out 3 of my favorite modules are going to be paperweights going forward. Switched to BMS and enjoying myself there.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 I think also it's going to bring younger people into the community and it's moving towards the "game" level and away from the detail simulator product that I started with 10 years ago. The entire community has changed over this. And it's more and more turning into war thunder.

[@Lambda420]

my biggest question is why they didnt pick the b model when thats the one everyone knows

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I don't know, perhaps they're going to eventually expand to have all three models.

[@Twelve.O.Clock-High]

They need revenue and younger player base. The level off details what HB and Razbam delivere, they cannot so simple is that. Eagle needs maintain core of dcs, adding new stuff like dynamic campaign, weather, fulkan and more. Let be honest it’s not a big gaming company like ea, or Ubisoft. That’s my take on it.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Excellent comment and I was just thinking of 10 years. This is the third phase that we may be going into that I've seen DCS change since I got into it back in 2015 early on.

[@TomP-148]

I would get "black listed" if I said what my thoughts are.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

OK Tom, you've peaked my interest… How do you feel about it?

[@kon1351]

What’s next 10th generation Chinese Mig.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

🤣 it's a chocolate aircraft but when you break it up, it's hollow inside like an Easter bunny.

[@speedbird8326]

Ah yes, more unfinished modules and unfinished features coming to DCS. Not one more cent until they fix the F-15E Razbam issue.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

👍 that's actually up to raspberry to fix it.

[@jarllunde]

If they can make an f-35 dispite all the classificacion, then they can make an su-35 or su-57

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Good point!

[@patrikstrandquist1875]

I am looking forward to the F-35. I see no reason for ED to release something else then a full fidelity model of this plane. To be fair, this planes first flight was in 2006, its 20 years old. This type of plane ages quickly, its key features are its sensors and electronics, and those are 20 years old as well. Imagine playing DCS on a 20 year old PC =) Finally for those who don't like it, don't buy it when it arrives.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Good point and I think I should clarify that what I mean is is it really gonna be full Fidelity or is it gonna be a mix of stuff because there's some things in a touchscreen that you can't make real without either using a mouse? And I guess I also should've clarified that having a panel or control or peripheral that's modeled after that in the jet is gonna be something it's gonna be needed. I should get with Wayne now on releasing the F 35 panel.

[@Ecthaelyon]

Horses for courses. I have no interest in the F-35 but I can understand why ED are touting it and, well... Meh. Just a shame it couldn't have been an F-8 Crusader, F-105D or G, F-111E or F, RAF Tornado Gr.1, Sepecat Jaguar Gr.3a, H.S. Buccaneer S2, etc. Certainly good news on the F-15C and Saab Draken though.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

🫡

[@markbteeps]

There seems to be a big negative reaction to this, but I think there's a big chunk of people who are feeling negative towards ED and react negatively to everything they do at the moment. That's fine I guess, but people seem to take it personally, as if the F-35 is a specific insult to them, rather than ED making s business decision to develop a module they think will sell well. I've seen people calling this a cash grab, but that's a foolish criticism as ED and every other business does indeed need to make money. Why can't we all just get along? If you want an F-35 buy it, if you don't don't.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

I've got a positive attitude towards ED but I'm not gonna buy this module. It doesn't fit into my mission set. 👍

[@Runway_Models1987]

It’s probably going to be the indiafoxtecho f-35 from msfs2020, I’m pretty sure all of the buttons are clickable.

[@AIRWARFAREGROUP]

Yes, most likely with a mouse for the touchscreen too, but I would like to have the real panel that I can reach up and touch in my cockpit like I do my F 18 MIP

[@bird.9346]

That's not how development works. This is ED's very separate product.