Shows what you can do with with a team, when you have a more focused objective. ED are a bit of an odd company, it's rather difficult being a small-medium sized comapny, in a niche within a niche.
@@ClintThrust-e8r yea all these people, not realizing that Ed works on way more things than just planes. I mean basically everything in this game besides the modules is from ED and probably only a small amount of developers work for them on the planes. Most of their people do other things, like the weather system and so on.
@@possiblyadickhead6653 Wich this is the problem!They Shoudnt!Hornet got delayed twice already both for fw190 a8 and currently for f16 and its complete bullshit ! A 70DOLLAR MODULE THAT IS IN EARLY ACCES FOR ALMOST 2 YEARS stil dosent have a2g radar,all of its weapons,tws,sadl complete,tgp and so on
OMG, I cannot believe that we forgot to include the PL-5E in the video, Orz. Regarding the IFF, the int/trs with configured codes works in MP for player controlled JF-17 only. For other aircraft or AI, it will tell you friend or foe regardless the M code. Our current IFF design is quite simple and due to the limitation, we only enable one mode activated at the same time, and we will improve it later or wait for ED's design. Now, for M1-M3, if either INT/TRS mode mismatches, it will return UNKNOWN, only when both modes matches, it will check the code: match? friend; otherwise enemy. For M6, current design is that when mode or code mismatch, no response, so you can only check whether a contact is friend, but cannot figure out enemy or not (We are still thinking to improve the M6).
Typical Chinese behavior. They have to please the CCP so they dont get arrested and of course have some sort of propaganda value to the video so making a burn towards a western aircraft while talking about glorious Chinese aircraft is safest way.
Regarding the IFF and multiplayer. I think the best option would be to let the server admin make the call. On the one hand you could do amazing scenarios and missions with this feature, but on the other hand side, looking at public servers that run the same mission for longer periods of time, players will know the codes and will find a way to abuse the system to ruin the fun. Dont get me wrong, thank you so much for going the extra mile and developing features that go beyond the original game.
Holy shit! That cockpit looks amazing! I think this will be a first day buy. The Viper is not a first day buy for me. It’s nice to see a non western jet getting modeled.
Sweeet. Can't wait for it...specially now that DCS released it's rival..the F-16...looks a lot like it but a totally different approach as the JF was developed closely in conjunction with the pilots that had to fly it. The Pakistan Air Force's proud machine.
Gruman did play a part in the initial design process of the Super 7. Ironically, they were asked to redesign it because it looked too much like the F-20 and not the F-7/MiG-21.
I know that there will be comments jeering at ED. I am not here claim ED is perfect, but I want to point out that if not for ED's effort to sustain DCS platform, all the great skills and talent of entities like Deka and Heatblur would have been all for naught because there is no other platforms out there to meaningfully support high fidelity modern combat flight simulations like F-14 and JF-17. ED has been holding the torch for consumer level high fidelity modern combat flight sim for almost two decades now. Everybody else all washed their hands saying there's not enough money in it. ED could have done the same and switch to steady government contract work. They were perfectly capable of that. Yet they chose to take the risk and kept going. Sure, call it a monopoly if you wish. As far as I am concerned, they deserve praise for all the passion and work they invested in DCS. The entire genra would have perished otherwise. The road to turn software originally meant for single aircraft simulation into a modern simulator that supports a complex battlefield and rich game experience is long and hard. ED has to do that and maintain the current platform. They also have to continuously make new modules to exacting standards in order to stay financially sustainable. It's not surprising that a small company has to make some difficult choices in terms of resource prioritization when it has to do all of these difficult tasks at the same time. I, for one, have deep respect and admiration for both Deka and ED; and I wish them every success. May their labor always be fruitful, however long and thankless it may be.
cool didnt know all that stuff. Well i guess this pretty much explains why i get hard locked by hornets most of the time when they want to sent a 120 my way. Thanks for the inside. Because i m fairly new to the game i thought it was similar to the eagle.
Couldn’t agree more there is no other option so we may as well support ED I have the F-18 I’m not fussed it’s half done and the F-16 is coming as long as it gets done that’s all that bothers me! Also worth pointing out that labour is cheaper in China that could of had a large effect on the number man hours that’s been sunk into the JF-17
@@breeze9076 I understand your misgivings. On the other hand, it's fine to let the module grow until it's worth $80 for you before making the purchase decision. Either way, it doesn't fundamentally change everything I said in the original comment. Perhaps, we just see things differently. You see DCS and its modules as commercial products, I see them as parts of a vision to create a modern combat flight sim more detailed and comprehensive than anything we have seen before. It's a lofty and difficult goal for a company the size of ED with the resources available in a tiny niche market. I can see cracks and strains, but I do not see ED abandoning this vision. If ED is really just in it for the money, they are much better off giving up and just go do something else altogether. You may argue some other companies would have done better than ED at realizing the vision. Maybe, maybe not. I do know that ED is the only one who dare to try. Many are eager to point out the sophistication of Falcon BMS. I agree that bms devs achieved great things, but ultimately it's life extension of ancient software. There is a limit to how far it can go. Remember also that bms inherited the gift of a complete dynamics campaign engine and associated AI assets. The original developer openly said if the knew beforehand how difficult and costly those were, they never would have tried. Now they are things DCS has to build from scratch. BMS is a gem already polished and set. DCS is a much larger crystal still buried in hard rock, with only a few facets showing on the surface. It will take hard work and persistence to extract and polish it for the full brilliance to shine through. Sorry about the long winded reply. We probably still disagree, and that's fine. I respect your opinion.
Another impressive video. Looking forward to release. I know that you have made videos demonstrating several aspects of the FCS and flight model. Nevertheless, I would love to see a aerobatics or dog fight video in the future showcasing the flight model throughout the entire flight envelope, especially edge of envelope behavior in combat conditions. For almost every module released in DCS, even the venerable Tomcat, there is perennial debates about the flight models in the forums. JF-17 is your first module, and it's a unfamiliar aircraft for many. It's all the more important for you to demonstrate clearly that the flight model is realistic in terms of data, and convincing in terms of the feeling of flight. P.S. I have seen a lot of threads in the forums complaining about how simplistic the IFF is in DCS. Now here is the first attempt to make a more realistic IFF, and immediate response is to worry about how much chaos such realism will cause in game. Not saying either argument is wrong, yet one can't help but notice the irony.
I'd welcome the custom iff settings but could you make it like INS alignment settings so you can switch one you want or the server operator could force it to be one or the other
@@mm6316 m8 i understand realism but I myself wouldnt mind if they restricted the iff for multiplayer. Marking yourself as the enemy is against the Geneva convention anyway. Realism can only go so far before trolls can abuse it to their advantage.
Seems your sense of humour sharpened even more for this one. Was fun to watch. I am not too fussy about the topic of the next one, but laser-guided munitions would be cool.
To be honest I'd like to see some of the basic stuff, start up, taxi, take off and landing - these videos are nice, but I'd like to see something more than just flipping through menus 😉
Although the IFF ghosting would be a cool thing it would end up causing too many problems in multiplayer. Please make it so the enemy cannot ghost as a friendly aircraft and save us all a huge deal of trouble when flying online :D
@@mm6316 its not that simple. This will work if you play with your friends or within a closed group. If 2 people join a public server and start on different sides with the JF-17 they now have codes to identify as either side at will. Now both join the same side and start messing with people. Thats neither realistic nor fun. Also due to this all the codes will be known by everyone all the time anyways for public servers. Bonus points if you now identify as enemy to provoke your own team shooting you down, just for the fun of getting people banned/kicked for teamkilling. Yes this is a nice feature, but not for public multiplayer. There needs to be an option to turn it on/off by the mission builder/server admin.
@@ray4lsd so there are some people that are going to troll ... does that mean deka shoudnt make jf17 as close as possible to the real deal? also you dont know what is going to happen you are just assuming And Giving potential trolls the idea.
Hi, I run the Growling Sidewinder DCS server. I've reached out to you on facebook but got no response. To answer your IFF question. if I'm understanding correctly you need to input a code to get the JF-17s on ur team to show up as friendly and for you to show up as friendly to them. and if the enemy knows this code they can pretend to be on your team. I can tell you 100% this will be abused online and makes it very difficult for server admins to constantly change those codes and players to find them. and player side IFF would bypass this issue entirely. maybe if there is an option in the mission editor where the server admin can choose "realistic iff" or "player side IFF" when they are building the mission. if realistic IFF method is implemented, admins might have to put it on only 1 side to avoid the IFF code abuse.
F99th Vader regardless of how I implement it on the server it becomes a rather large limiting factor missions down the road. There will always be a group of people who will abuse this.
Hello Growling Sidewinder, Big fan of your work. A question from you please as you're an experienced operator; having watched the video, how do you rate the SD-10 BVR range-wise(as the video didn't have a maneuvering target) against the other BVRs available on DCS, i.e. max range, no-escape zone etc. Would appreciate your input. Regards
Looks like you guys are going to be launching, into direct competition with the F16. Hopefully your high quality work and more feature complete product, will get you the sales you deserve. The module really does look very impressive.
I think it just might. Also the Viper is only really appealing to viper fans. I for one am not all that interested in spending my money for a less capable analog to the Hornet. But seeing how the other side dose it is something I am very interested in.
This aint No TomCat ! Stop peeping down at all times ! .... Multiple Planes were hurt in the making of did!!!!!! Damnnnnnn girl ur one Cold Killer :D Nicely explained vid.
For IFF: Introduce two modes, similiar to simple/complex communications: One where the IFF is fore-correlated to actual blue/red coaltion, and one where the code is changeable. Standart for MP servers should be the force-correlated mode, as a IFF without setup is what players except in DCS. IDK if it's possible, but could you also make it so that a server can automatically handoff the IFF codes to the aircraft, so that you have complex IFF but with the right codes applied?
First I like to congratulate to a most complete A/A mode at early access. TWS from the start is really, really nice. IFF keep the more realistic version and make a mission designer option to enforce Red/Blue coalition IFF for certain Servers in MP (prevents "cheating"). Next video I would love to see the LGB / TGP in action, but the D/L and RWR is fine, as well.
Just out of curiosity, by the time is module is released, the PAF will be (hopefully) flying the JF-17 Thunder Block 3. Or at least have it in the final developmental stage. With additions like an improved engine, AESA radar capability, HMD, IRST and improved avionics, not to mention an in-flight refueling probe that was introduced in Block 2, how will those changes translate here with this module? Finally, this is an amazing job being done by you guys.I'll be getting my hands on DCS soon and this will be my first aircraft for sure.
Wishing to see those 90mm laser guided rockets, it's gonna be one of the most unique weapons on the sim. On the IFF topic, I would rather see a option for the server to enforce that mode, otherwise use the simple model in the game, I just hope to not see the teamkill mess that was caused by the hornet IFF system over the last year again. Last, thanks for the videos so far, those little bits of humor here and there are perfect, good job.
A mode that would be highly welcomed is a simplified IFF that was for multiplayer only and was determined by coalition. As a server admin for the Growling Sidewinder DCS servers, having an IFF that just works would save us so much headache. If we could in the mission configurator just set an option for the JF-17 so that it just IFF based on coalitions that would be very helpful.
Always a fan of realism so I love that you guys did an actual IFF, but if it could be an option to enable or disable when placing a JF-17 in the mission editor I think that would be the best practice. Really hope it’ll light a fire under ED’s ass to start doing IFF justice.
It looks like the plane accelerates too fast? It looks like it goes M 1.3 at 26k ft and it could keep accelerating without problem? It was clean but still with full fuel.
Datalink and RWR please! Loving the videos so far. Unless I'm misunderstanding, an enemy JF-17 that switches to the proper IFF code and mode (M1-3) will appear friendly when interrogated? That seems really cool, and opens up a lot of options, but for mixed side MP servers it would be quite heavily abused. Assuming it's even viable, (and it doesn't have to be one or the other) has there been any talk about adding a simplified version that simply checks coalition as a special option or mission setting? That way we could take advantage of the awesomely detailed IFF systems as intended, but still give mission developers some options. If it has to be one way or the other though, realistic IFF all the way! We'll figure out a way to work around it (EWR/AWACS to declare, context, communication, or VID if necessary.)
Datalink, RWR and MWS sounds like the sort of thing I'd be interested in, as for the IFF, it's kind of a tough call, if it's an option it should probably be server enforceable to be either way, because us Falcon drivers are kinda used to IFF like that now, but I'd hate to think how hard it is/will be for those not used to it
Keep realistic IFF, see if it's possible to add a special option for simplified and/or pre-set IFF (like how other planes can have navigation pre-aligned, thinking about M-2000, AV-8B Harrier)
as far as IFF I think it would probably be best to do it in a more "simplified" way for multiplayer, just to prevent the terrible team killing that is really annoying for people.
Good luck. We don't even get an aesa on blue aircraft. Unless the powers that be are willing to release the information they have on them then it's probably not going to happen. Honestly the missile detection is a luxury compared to what we have in other aircraft in DCS. And really. One aircraft having an aesa in this game would probably make it the best in the game.
As much as I prefer realistic systems, the IFF will at least need a "simple" option for multiplayer. If we look back at the Early Early Access Hornet and recall the vast amount of Blue on Blue or friendly fire kills that took place, that alone is enough to verify the need for it. For the next video I will add my vote for Datalink. Keep up the great work!!
the hornet is my baby because it had everything for me, a great SA page, easy to read radar screen, aim 120s, on hud rwr. this plane will be a real test against f18 pilots. once this comes out, blues on ddcs server will bend their knees down to the jf 17
Hello Fortinero (Hope you're the same guy flying with Grim Reapers). A question from you please as you're an experienced operator; having watched the video, how do you rate the SD-10 BVR range-wise(as the video didn't have a maneuvering target) against the other BVRs available on DCS, i.e. max range, no-escape zone etc. Would appreciate your input. Regards
@@mahbubazamkhan well is that true that the targets were non-maneuvering targets, in hot, angels 24, 700kts of closing speed, the first splash was quite fast at almost 11nm, but anyways, it is hard to know just looking on a video, you must perform tests , about the SD-10 all info that we can gather is public info, like specs about the AIM-120B/C, we never will have the real performance, it is all guessing, what I see is a module of a plane that has serious development on it, and that it is something for celebrate
RWR/Datalink for next video please. On the topic of IFF, the problem is always the added complexity and chance of failure on the part of the player to configure it properly. This is also one of the reasons I'm not a fan of doing any kind of encryption of radios (voice and/or data) either. Get it wrong, and the thing won't work at all. While this is added realism on the part of the player doing proper procedures, and it's great for the full milsim players, a vast majority I think of the playerbase isn't that hardcore and neither are the servers. As an admin on a public server, we have a hard enough time getting people to even READ THE BRIEFING much less what is in it, which includes SRS info, our discord address, and a multitude of information about the mission. If I had a dollar for every "What's the SRS address?" or "What's the TACAN of the carrier?" in chat and the response being "Read the Briefing", I'd have a bajillion Xenon server and three bajillion gigabit connection paid for. To keep everyone happy: Server/player menu option for "Easy IFF" which operates like current ED model (system on and interrogation set as appropriate to airframe). Otherwise, the "harde mode" as you guys are implementing in the JF-17 and then whatever future system ED decides to implement which I'm sure will arrive in the same timely fashion ground radar has for the F-18/F-16. owait.
its not for sale yet. They overshot their expected october release because one of them was at the hospital. There hasn't been any update regarding a new release date.
im a new player in DCS only play for casual flying etc, my plan was to buy 1 map the FC3 pack and possibly only 1 or 2 high fedelity planes i want to make sure this is one of them when will this release?
I think it should be the server admin to decide which kind of IFF ought to be used, and I wish the IFF settings in the server background should be encrypted to prevent the situations like "my friend on the other side will send me their code".
tbh i think there should be some kind of code implemented as i think players would abuse the system or people who wouldnt know how it works may show up as enemy by accident
Yea this is looking killer dcs has really in the last 2 years turned into a legendary piece of software never has their been a time we’re civilians can participate in a fully realized air war. Just need to get the dynamic campaigns stuff off the ground
About the IFF, if you can develop a switchable mode for it(one realistic one simplified), it would be good. If not, please keep the realistic one. If someone misused the IFF function, that their mistake, and you are not responsible for that.
Please please please include realistic IFF. The option to turn yours off and not respond to queries as a training aid in MP is too big to miss out on. The existing DCS simulation of either "Hostile" or "freindly" is just nuts. RWR next please!
Showing a perfectly working TWS is a big flex on ED. And I love it!
How is it. If u don't modelle it correctly or at all it could be very simple
ED is a shame
Shows what you can do with with a team, when you have a more focused objective. ED are a bit of an odd company, it's rather difficult being a small-medium sized comapny, in a niche within a niche.
@@ClintThrust-e8r yea all these people, not realizing that Ed works on way more things than just planes. I mean basically everything in this game besides the modules is from ED and probably only a small amount of developers work for them on the planes. Most of their people do other things, like the weather system and so on.
@@possiblyadickhead6653 Wich this is the problem!They Shoudnt!Hornet got delayed twice already both for fw190 a8 and currently for f16 and its complete bullshit ! A 70DOLLAR MODULE THAT IS IN EARLY ACCES FOR ALMOST 2 YEARS stil dosent have a2g radar,all of its weapons,tws,sadl complete,tgp and so on
ASMR, damnnn LoL. Sweet, professional voice. I didn’t realize how awesome the cockpit is in this jet, so looks like I’ll be buying a new jet soon!
OMG, I cannot believe that we forgot to include the PL-5E in the video, Orz. Regarding the IFF, the int/trs with configured codes works in MP for player controlled JF-17 only. For other aircraft or AI, it will tell you friend or foe regardless the M code. Our current IFF design is quite simple and due to the limitation, we only enable one mode activated at the same time, and we will improve it later or wait for ED's design. Now, for M1-M3, if either INT/TRS mode mismatches, it will return UNKNOWN, only when both modes matches, it will check the code: match? friend; otherwise enemy. For M6, current design is that when mode or code mismatch, no response, so you can only check whether a contact is friend, but cannot figure out enemy or not (We are still thinking to improve the M6).
I'm in Love with u two😍
your Voice and the JF-17 Thunder
I literally watched the last 2 Videos about 12-15 times
Great!
@@LuftManu huh?
@@schweizerluchs7146 The way the IFF works, I like it.
"And we're not Tomcat so we are not gonna be looking down all the time." In a straight face voice....
That was the greatest DCS burn lmfao
Watch your mouth spelling tomcat kid
Typical Chinese behavior. They have to please the CCP so they dont get arrested and of course have some sort of propaganda value to the video so making a burn towards a western aircraft while talking about glorious Chinese aircraft is safest way.
@@mailman35419 Good, nothing wrong with some smack talk LOL
@@mailman35419 Typical %random country name% behavior. Nothing wrong woth it.
Regarding the IFF and multiplayer. I think the best option would be to let the server admin make the call.
On the one hand you could do amazing scenarios and missions with this feature, but on the other hand side, looking at public servers that run the same mission for longer periods of time, players will know the codes and will find a way to abuse the system to ruin the fun.
Dont get me wrong, thank you so much for going the extra mile and developing features that go beyond the original game.
附议+1
I think the same about it.
But it is very good seeing that kind of implementation though, which is even better than ED's work. lol
Having options is always the key. The mission designer / server admin should be able to decide.
Holy shit! That cockpit looks amazing! I think this will be a first day buy. The Viper is not a first day buy for me. It’s nice to see a non western jet getting modeled.
non western and non russian. I love the jf-17.
Sweeet. Can't wait for it...specially now that DCS released it's rival..the F-16...looks a lot like it but a totally different approach as the JF was developed closely in conjunction with the pilots that had to fly it. The Pakistan Air Force's proud machine.
I must say
I start to like this thing more & more
It's like a modern retake on the F-5
Cheap but Highly effective & to the point
Ground attack is better than su 25t
Gruman did play a part in the initial design process of the Super 7.
Ironically, they were asked to redesign it because it looked too much like the F-20 and not the F-7/MiG-21.
No, jf 17 comes in blocks. Upcoming block 3 is on par with the latest blocks of f16s.
That is exactly thought as well. Sexy little jet
I know that there will be comments jeering at ED. I am not here claim ED is perfect, but I want to point out that if not for ED's effort to sustain DCS platform, all the great skills and talent of entities like Deka and Heatblur would have been all for naught because there is no other platforms out there to meaningfully support high fidelity modern combat flight simulations like F-14 and JF-17.
ED has been holding the torch for consumer level high fidelity modern combat flight sim for almost two decades now. Everybody else all washed their hands saying there's not enough money in it. ED could have done the same and switch to steady government contract work. They were perfectly capable of that. Yet they chose to take the risk and kept going. Sure, call it a monopoly if you wish. As far as I am concerned, they deserve praise for all the passion and work they invested in DCS. The entire genra would have perished otherwise.
The road to turn software originally meant for single aircraft simulation into a modern simulator that supports a complex battlefield and rich game experience is long and hard. ED has to do that and maintain the current platform. They also have to continuously make new modules to exacting standards in order to stay financially sustainable. It's not surprising that a small company has to make some difficult choices in terms of resource prioritization when it has to do all of these difficult tasks at the same time.
I, for one, have deep respect and admiration for both Deka and ED; and I wish them every success. May their labor always be fruitful, however long and thankless it may be.
Totally agree, well said.
cool didnt know all that stuff. Well i guess this pretty much explains why i get hard locked by hornets most of the time when they want to sent a 120 my way. Thanks for the inside. Because i m fairly new to the game i thought it was similar to the eagle.
Couldn’t agree more there is no other option so we may as well support ED I have the F-18 I’m not fussed it’s half done and the F-16 is coming as long as it gets done that’s all that bothers me! Also worth pointing out that labour is cheaper in China that could of had a large effect on the number man hours that’s been sunk into the JF-17
ED needs to finish the modules BEFORE CHARGING 80 DOLLARS
@@breeze9076 I understand your misgivings. On the other hand, it's fine to let the module grow until it's worth $80 for you before making the purchase decision. Either way, it doesn't fundamentally change everything I said in the original comment.
Perhaps, we just see things differently. You see DCS and its modules as commercial products, I see them as parts of a vision to create a modern combat flight sim more detailed and comprehensive than anything we have seen before. It's a lofty and difficult goal for a company the size of ED with the resources available in a tiny niche market. I can see cracks and strains, but I do not see ED abandoning this vision. If ED is really just in it for the money, they are much better off giving up and just go do something else altogether. You may argue some other companies would have done better than ED at realizing the vision. Maybe, maybe not. I do know that ED is the only one who dare to try.
Many are eager to point out the sophistication of Falcon BMS. I agree that bms devs achieved great things, but ultimately it's life extension of ancient software. There is a limit to how far it can go. Remember also that bms inherited the gift of a complete dynamics campaign engine and associated AI assets. The original developer openly said if the knew beforehand how difficult and costly those were, they never would have tried. Now they are things DCS has to build from scratch.
BMS is a gem already polished and set. DCS is a much larger crystal still buried in hard rock, with only a few facets showing on the surface. It will take hard work and persistence to extract and polish it for the full brilliance to shine through.
Sorry about the long winded reply. We probably still disagree, and that's fine. I respect your opinion.
Another impressive video. Looking forward to release.
I know that you have made videos demonstrating several aspects of the FCS and flight model. Nevertheless, I would love to see a aerobatics or dog fight video in the future showcasing the flight model throughout the entire flight envelope, especially edge of envelope behavior in combat conditions.
For almost every module released in DCS, even the venerable Tomcat, there is perennial debates about the flight models in the forums. JF-17 is your first module, and it's a unfamiliar aircraft for many. It's all the more important for you to demonstrate clearly that the flight model is realistic in terms of data, and convincing in terms of the feeling of flight.
P.S.
I have seen a lot of threads in the forums complaining about how simplistic the IFF is in DCS. Now here is the first attempt to make a more realistic IFF, and immediate response is to worry about how much chaos such realism will cause in game. Not saying either argument is wrong, yet one can't help but notice the irony.
I'd welcome the custom iff settings but could you make it like INS alignment settings so you can switch one you want or the server operator could force it to be one or the other
If its not like in the real aircraft i hope not
@@mm6316 Why, it's an option. You don't have to fly on MP servers that would like to avoid constant blue on blue and other IFF related trouble.
@@mm6316 m8 i understand realism but I myself wouldnt mind if they restricted the iff for multiplayer. Marking yourself as the enemy is against the Geneva convention anyway. Realism can only go so far before trolls can abuse it to their advantage.
Datalink and RWR next week, please.
It is here now.
I think this mode is preferred :) IFF is needed and I want RWR,MWS!
Well...this is a sure buy! Thank you DEKA!
Seems your sense of humour sharpened even more for this one. Was fun to watch. I am not too fussy about the topic of the next one, but laser-guided munitions would be cool.
I love the reflection on the HUD. Great detail
Well Deka, you certainly have my attention now! Looks like you are kicking plenty of goals. Well done
To be honest I'd like to see some of the basic stuff, start up, taxi, take off and landing - these videos are nice, but I'd like to see something more than just flipping through menus 😉
until we finish the cockpit texture ;)
Although the IFF ghosting would be a cool thing it would end up causing too many problems in multiplayer. Please make it so the enemy cannot ghost as a friendly aircraft and save us all a huge deal of trouble when flying online :D
Yeah no i hope they implement it so we get the most realistic experience
@@mm6316 its not that simple. This will work if you play with your friends or within a closed group. If 2 people join a public server and start on different sides with the JF-17 they now have codes to identify as either side at will. Now both join the same side and start messing with people. Thats neither realistic nor fun. Also due to this all the codes will be known by everyone all the time anyways for public servers. Bonus points if you now identify as enemy to provoke your own team shooting you down, just for the fun of getting people banned/kicked for teamkilling.
Yes this is a nice feature, but not for public multiplayer. There needs to be an option to turn it on/off by the mission builder/server admin.
the server admin should have the choice to make it FULL UP realism!!
@@SDsc0rch yes, choice is always good :)
@@ray4lsd so there are some people that are going to troll ... does that mean deka shoudnt make jf17 as close as possible to the real deal? also you dont know what is going to happen you are just assuming And Giving potential trolls the idea.
That air craft shot down Indian MIG 21 and SU 30 wow nicee..
This is not ur propaganda channel go spread it somewhere else
@@Mrv9019 its ok. don't cry
Hi, I run the Growling Sidewinder DCS server. I've reached out to you on facebook but got no response. To answer your IFF question. if I'm understanding correctly you need to input a code to get the JF-17s on ur team to show up as friendly and for you to show up as friendly to them. and if the enemy knows this code they can pretend to be on your team. I can tell you 100% this will be abused online and makes it very difficult for server admins to constantly change those codes and players to find them. and player side IFF would bypass this issue entirely.
maybe if there is an option in the mission editor where the server admin can choose "realistic iff" or "player side IFF" when they are building the mission. if realistic IFF method is implemented, admins might have to put it on only 1 side to avoid the IFF code abuse.
If it's not an option just keep JF-17 to only 1 side. F-16 should be released around same time so that could be on the other team.
F99th Vader regardless of how I implement it on the server it becomes a rather large limiting factor missions down the road. There will always be a group of people who will abuse this.
@@GrowlingSidewinder cant wait to see u rock the jf-17 fam 👊
U have got a fan from pakistan 🇵🇰
Hello Growling Sidewinder, Big fan of your work. A question from you please as you're an experienced operator; having watched the video, how do you rate the SD-10 BVR range-wise(as the video didn't have a maneuvering target) against the other BVRs available on DCS, i.e. max range, no-escape zone etc. Would appreciate your input. Regards
Would the JF17 join the blue or red side? What do you think?
9:50 what plane is this?
Awesome! Love the working TWS, IFF, and radar. And the actual usable ACM modes. About the question, datalink and RWR!
Looking forward to this release. This is one of those aircraft I didn’t know I wanted. I’m glad to see the amount of effort and detail put into this.
Every video looks better and better! thanks for you hard work
Definitely keep realistic IFF , this is awesome!
Looks like you guys are going to be launching, into direct competition with the F16. Hopefully your high quality work and more feature complete product, will get you the sales you deserve. The module really does look very impressive.
I for one will most definitely be buying both.
I think it just might. Also the Viper is only really appealing to viper fans. I for one am not all that interested in spending my money for a less capable analog to the Hornet. But seeing how the other side dose it is something I am very interested in.
Tea was Fantastic....killer of MiG-21
Awesome work deka, really love it. Keep it up!!!!
This aint No TomCat ! Stop peeping down at all times ! .... Multiple Planes were hurt in the making of did!!!!!! Damnnnnnn girl ur one Cold Killer :D Nicely explained vid.
Simply fantastic work as always. I look forward to more.
For the next video, can you make a startup, taxi and take off video and also use cinematic cameras?
whispers "we can be an awax" that gave me a laugh
This is an excellent model please keep updating it.
Thunder is getting AESA in block 3 , will you guys upgrade that in game as well ?
at this moment, not.
Please make multiplayer IFF 'auto' based on sides as inability of many pilots to properly setup IFF will cause issues
For IFF: Introduce two modes, similiar to simple/complex communications: One where the IFF is fore-correlated to actual blue/red coaltion, and one where the code is changeable. Standart for MP servers should be the force-correlated mode, as a IFF without setup is what players except in DCS. IDK if it's possible, but could you also make it so that a server can automatically handoff the IFF codes to the aircraft, so that you have complex IFF but with the right codes applied?
First I like to congratulate to a most complete A/A mode at early access. TWS from the start is really, really nice.
IFF keep the more realistic version and make a mission designer option to enforce Red/Blue coalition IFF for certain Servers in MP (prevents "cheating").
Next video I would love to see the LGB / TGP in action, but the D/L and RWR is fine, as well.
"We are not Tomcat so you won't be looking down all the time." LOL
Just out of curiosity, by the time is module is released, the PAF will be (hopefully) flying the JF-17 Thunder Block 3. Or at least have it in the final developmental stage. With additions like an improved engine, AESA radar capability, HMD, IRST and improved avionics, not to mention an in-flight refueling probe that was introduced in Block 2, how will those changes translate here with this module?
Finally, this is an amazing job being done by you guys.I'll be getting my hands on DCS soon and this will be my first aircraft for sure.
simply put: they wont translate into this module.
And improved load carrying and fuel capacity too
A lot of that technology is still classified so no translation.
Wishing to see those 90mm laser guided rockets, it's gonna be one of the most unique weapons on the sim. On the IFF topic, I would rather see a option for the server to enforce that mode, otherwise use the simple model in the game, I just hope to not see the teamkill mess that was caused by the hornet IFF system over the last year again.
Last, thanks for the videos so far, those little bits of humor here and there are perfect, good job.
A mode that would be highly welcomed is a simplified IFF that was for multiplayer only and was determined by coalition. As a server admin for the Growling Sidewinder DCS servers, having an IFF that just works would save us so much headache. If we could in the mission configurator just set an option for the JF-17 so that it just IFF based on coalitions that would be very helpful.
This plane is so fun, you guys did good.
Great video ! I will happily buy this module
I'll be honest during a national holiday I'd be 100% taking a break. Looking good :) As for the question at the end of your video - Datalink etc.
Multiple planes were hurt in the making of this video...loloooo!
That one almost made me spill my coffee across the screen :D
Will you guys be adding the Hatf-VIII Ra'ad ALCM to the JF-17?
Always a fan of realism so I love that you guys did an actual IFF, but if it could be an option to enable or disable when placing a JF-17 in the mission editor I think that would be the best practice. Really hope it’ll light a fire under ED’s ass to start doing IFF justice.
Lets see datalink, would be a great way to compare with DCS: F18C.
Any Release Estimates? Looks like a instant Buy for me - good job!
Lasing Bombs! And pls show more external views!! I am in love with this module
It looks like the plane accelerates too fast? It looks like it goes M 1.3 at 26k ft and it could keep accelerating without problem? It was clean but still with full fuel.
Datalink and RWR please! Loving the videos so far.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, an enemy JF-17 that switches to the proper IFF code and mode (M1-3) will appear friendly when interrogated? That seems really cool, and opens up a lot of options, but for mixed side MP servers it would be quite heavily abused. Assuming it's even viable, (and it doesn't have to be one or the other) has there been any talk about adding a simplified version that simply checks coalition as a special option or mission setting? That way we could take advantage of the awesomely detailed IFF systems as intended, but still give mission developers some options.
If it has to be one way or the other though, realistic IFF all the way! We'll figure out a way to work around it (EWR/AWACS to declare, context, communication, or VID if necessary.)
the server admin should have the choice to make it FULL UP realistic
Deka coming out the gate guns blazing. Not a bad little project you got going here. :)
At 1 bar VS mode it didn't alternate between high and medium prf. Stayed on medium.
Datalink and RWR would be fascinating!
Datalink, RWR and MWS sounds like the sort of thing I'd be interested in, as for the IFF, it's kind of a tough call, if it's an option it should probably be server enforceable to be either way, because us Falcon drivers are kinda used to IFF like that now, but I'd hate to think how hard it is/will be for those not used to it
Keep realistic IFF, see if it's possible to add a special option for simplified and/or pre-set IFF (like how other planes can have navigation pre-aligned, thinking about M-2000, AV-8B Harrier)
Datalink next please - fantastic work on these videos !!!
How would...they know your settings? Are you teasing advanced electronic warfare simulation coming soon?
as far as IFF I think it would probably be best to do it in a more "simplified" way for multiplayer, just to prevent the terrible team killing that is really annoying for people.
I think a faction-side IFF is enough to be honest.
And MWS would be nice. :)
the server admin should have the choice to make it FULL UP realism!!
I want a block 3 thunder with aesa radar and voice recognition.
Buy voice attack and get to cracking after release and at least you can have the second bit.
Good luck. We don't even get an aesa on blue aircraft. Unless the powers that be are willing to release the information they have on them then it's probably not going to happen. Honestly the missile detection is a luxury compared to what we have in other aircraft in DCS.
And really. One aircraft having an aesa in this game would probably make it the best in the game.
@@PatrickRatman Haha! True! The module will be an improvement over existing ones and if they add air-refueling later that will be good.
1. I'd keep IFF as it is (i.e. your version, not EDs)
2. My vote for next video is a short PL-5 demo with the datalink/RWR tutorial
As much as I prefer realistic systems, the IFF will at least need a "simple" option for multiplayer. If we look back at the Early Early Access Hornet and recall the vast amount of Blue on Blue or friendly fire kills that took place, that alone is enough to verify the need for it.
For the next video I will add my vote for Datalink. Keep up the great work!!
JF-17 Thunder Pride of Pakistan.
And Pakistan doesnt have much to be proud of so good for them!
Определенно jf-17 куда лучше будет чем f-16, остаётся только ждать выхода ))
looks like it has working Dynamic Launch Zones not like the Hornet
the hornet is my baby because it had everything for me, a great SA page, easy to read radar screen, aim 120s, on hud rwr.
this plane will be a real test against f18 pilots. once this comes out, blues on ddcs server will bend their knees down to the jf 17
I don't understand but i really proud on our iron brothers China pak true friendships long live China pak friendship
Need jf-17 cockpit view of high manuaver
my new main fighter in DCS, thank you guys
Hello Fortinero (Hope you're the same guy flying with Grim Reapers). A question from you please as you're an experienced operator; having watched the video, how do you rate the SD-10 BVR range-wise(as the video didn't have a maneuvering target) against the other BVRs available on DCS, i.e. max range, no-escape zone etc. Would appreciate your input. Regards
@@mahbubazamkhan well is that true that the targets were non-maneuvering targets, in hot, angels 24, 700kts of closing speed, the first splash was quite fast at almost 11nm, but anyways, it is hard to know just looking on a video, you must perform tests , about the SD-10 all info that we can gather is public info, like specs about the AIM-120B/C, we never will have the real performance, it is all guessing, what I see is a module of a plane that has serious development on it, and that it is something for celebrate
how to setup and use datalink sounds good to me.
RWR/Datalink for next video please.
On the topic of IFF, the problem is always the added complexity and chance of failure on the part of the player to configure it properly. This is also one of the reasons I'm not a fan of doing any kind of encryption of radios (voice and/or data) either. Get it wrong, and the thing won't work at all. While this is added realism on the part of the player doing proper procedures, and it's great for the full milsim players, a vast majority I think of the playerbase isn't that hardcore and neither are the servers. As an admin on a public server, we have a hard enough time getting people to even READ THE BRIEFING much less what is in it, which includes SRS info, our discord address, and a multitude of information about the mission. If I had a dollar for every "What's the SRS address?" or "What's the TACAN of the carrier?" in chat and the response being "Read the Briefing", I'd have a bajillion Xenon server and three bajillion gigabit connection paid for.
To keep everyone happy: Server/player menu option for "Easy IFF" which operates like current ED model (system on and interrogation set as appropriate to airframe). Otherwise, the "harde mode" as you guys are implementing in the JF-17 and then whatever future system ED decides to implement which I'm sure will arrive in the same timely fashion ground radar has for the F-18/F-16. owait.
Great video, you could zoom a little bit more on the screens just to a little bit more clarity
You did great job.
Is this an upcoming module or a mod? Really awesome design btw, great work👍.
laser guided stuff next please !
I can't find JF-17 on official website of DCS
its not for sale yet. They overshot their expected october release because one of them was at the hospital. There hasn't been any update regarding a new release date.
@@Positrons95 thanks
Will there be Chinese cockpit?
What is the number inside the box?
why do i only have 60 degrees azimuth max ?
Can a 30 mm twin barral cannon be attached
im a new player in DCS only play for casual flying etc, my plan was to buy 1 map the FC3 pack and possibly only 1 or 2 high fedelity planes i want to make sure this is one of them when will this release?
I think it should be the server admin to decide which kind of IFF ought to be used, and I wish the IFF settings in the server background should be encrypted to prevent the situations like "my friend on the other side will send me their code".
D/L and RWR next, please! :)
Laser guided weapons please, i like moving mud.
tbh i think there should be some kind of code implemented as i think players would abuse the system or people who wouldnt know how it works may show up as enemy by accident
Im excited for this. yǒu qián jiù shì rèn xìng!
壕做友。。。
@@torbai 我是朋友
Nobody likes my screenshots in wechat only my fat cat
Yea this is looking killer dcs has really in the last 2 years turned into a legendary piece of software never has their been a time we’re civilians can participate in a fully realized air war. Just need to get the dynamic campaigns stuff off the ground
RWR+D/L next, please.
How many rounds does the gun have ??
230
Is it releasing today?! on steam
Super ... Best Air to Air Modes than the DCS M 2000 C ...
#JF-17 No Baked Reflection in HUD Glass !!!
IFF... keep realistic!
I like what you're doing!!
is there an ETA and price tag on this bird?
Previously they said that the EA would be within several months
Hey deka, we miss you guys, can you give us another badass tutorial of for this beast?
About the IFF, if you can develop a switchable mode for it(one realistic one simplified), it would be good.
If not, please keep the realistic one. If someone misused the IFF function, that their mistake, and you are not responsible for that.
Please please please include realistic IFF. The option to turn yours off and not respond to queries as a training aid in MP is too big to miss out on. The existing DCS simulation of either "Hostile" or "freindly" is just nuts. RWR next please!
You should make IFF a server option. One to have it like current dcs and one to have it more realistic. For the next video you should do datalink.