WIP: F-35A
-
Molni,
Your very own and respectable vision of BMS demands new MiG 21as a major priority, but please understand that it is not the same for some others…
So…
Why don’t you do it yourself? These remarks of yours trend more and more compulsive, when someone initiate a project…
And if you tell me you are not talented for it, let me reply that before knowing, we don’t…
Let’s create your dreams instead of expecting and being not satisfied by others.
MiG-21 was just random example, you could select any AC or ground vehicle from the '70s to mid/late '90s.
-
MiG-21 was just random example, you could select any AC or ground vehicle from the '70s to mid/late '90s.
So does my answer for any other model!
Please start building BMS compliant objects, it would be great for everybody!
-
So does my answer for any other model!
I tried to make 3D models about 7 years ago and I failed… It was too hard to create even a texture map and I had to idea about moving part, DB importing, etc. Is literally no help for any 3D modeller who wish to learn. Repvez complained n+1 times because of this. He asked my times help in PM and as I know NOBODY ever respoded to him… He offered his half made Gripen 3D model still no aswer… So, good luck for learning 3D model to Falcon… I would happily do it in case I had the slightest idea how can be done…
So rather learning 3D modeling I did what I was able to do. I made DB changes, etc and released a totally different 3rd party theater 3D models what I was able to integrate and rearranged some 3D models with different skins.
I simply do not get it. What is the point creating 3D models for units which cannot be placed well in any tactical enviroment? Why is so hard to understand this. Nobody ever replyed on this… Can you guess why I recyclde the tons of garbage in DB?
-
I’m excited to see these new aircraft in Falcon (F-35 & F-22) ….There is enough Info out there to make these aircraft enjoyable to fly and fight in BMS…The F-35 has some apparent shortcomings,but,it’s a state of the art system…and it’s strengths will prove valuable in many situations presently and in the future…
Very nice model Hayab,looking forward to flyin it… -
Repvez complained n+1 times because of this. He asked my times help in PM and as I know NOBODY
Sorry,
You absolutely don’t know
anything. I have been exchanging mails with Repvez, and, I was the last one to send a mail, but, I really, reallydo not want to blame him, as internet communications are sometimes complicated to established and keep.Please avoid talking about stuff you obviously don’t know.
-
I simply do not get it. What is the point creating 3D models for units which cannot be placed well in any tactical enviroment? Why is so hard to understand this. Nobody ever replyed on this… Can you guess why I recyclde the tons of garbage in DB?
Because when people start a 3d model (especially for free), they want to model stuff they like and not feel they are obligated to do something. After all, we are talking about several dozen of hours of sometimes tedious work.
-
Sorry,
You absolutely don’t know
anything. I have been exchanging mails with Repvez, and, I was the last one to send a mail, but, I really, reallydo not want to blame him, as internet communications are sometimes complicated to established and keep.Please avoid talking about stuff you obviously don’t know.
Hm… He forgot to mention this…
-
But ….is BMS trying to reproduce the 70’s to 90’s era ? … i do not think so. The avionics of the F-16 currently simulated and what we can expect in the future is to my opinion different from what earlier blocks had topropose.
If i follow your reasoning about BMS …then it is pointless to have a Sniper TGP modelled … or datalink … or HMC … NVG’s … AIM-9X … colour MFD’s …INS coupled with GPS … because all those stuff have no place for the F-16 during the timeframe you constantly refer too.
If we want to focus on an era … then defenitively not the one you refer to. No MLU, no CCIP F-16’s, no Block 52+ … just F-16 A and early block 25 to 32 models … or up to Block 52 without CCIP.
-
Excellent model, thank you!
-
But ….is BMS trying to reproduce the 70’s to 90’s era ? … i do not think so. The avionics of the F-16 currently simulated and what we can expect in the future is to my opinion different from what earlier blocks had topropose.
If i follow your reasoning about BMS …then it is pointless to have a Sniper TGP modelled … or datalink … or HMC … NVG’s … AIM-9X … colour MFD’s …INS coupled with GPS … because all those stuff have no place for the F-16 during the timeframe you constantly refer too.
If we want to focus on an era … then defenitively not the one you refer to. No MLU, no CCIP F-16’s, no Block 52+ … just F-16 A and early block 25 to 32 models … or up to Block 52 without CCIP.
This is not true.
NVGs became available in late '90s.
Datalink also was available in '90s also for a part of F-16C fleet. During AF and F-16 downed a MiG-29 without turning on the radar on the Viper…
I’m not sure in color MFD. I do not know when got and which F-16 colod MFD but F-15C got in '90s but what a luck you can turn off the colod MFD so this is not a problem.
INS was even in F-16A as I can remember and of course in Block 25 which got the classical cockpit arrangement and in that time GPS also was available.
Before Sniper F-16C had LANTIRN and LITENING which at least had some features of Sniper of course with smaller res and zoom.From my aspect even AIM-9X and similar missiles are bad because as I know there is no real thrust vectoring model in BMS4… Of couse R-73 has TVC and came much earlier but this should not mean that you apply and extrapolate the same inaccuare base model for more and mor missiles…
-
From my aspect even AIM-9X and similar missiles are bad because as I know there is no real thrust vectoring model in BMS4… Of couse R-77 has TVC and came much earlier but this should not mean that you apply and extrapolate the same inaccuare base model for more and mor missiles…
Boaf, thrust vectoring is mostly useful to get quickly to a big AOA.
In BMS, if AOA limits are big, the missile will get quickly to a big AOA during thrust, and barely use the big AOA afterwards because of G limits and since it is already nearly in a collision course.
Ideally, we would want to deax slightly the thrust and change AOA rates depending on thrust on/off…. but current missile FM is not too bad for such missiles. One might even argue that it is better for the 9X than for multistaged missiles with different ISP with each stage. (ie : most russian SAMs).
All considered, there are a lot of missiles with a lot of custom features and we just cant have 100 hardcoded FM with all features unique with each missiles. Because it would be too time-consuming to debug and maintain. So all missiles have to fit in a single model : yes there will be inaccuracies, but that is the price to pay.
-
+1 here, even if i hate this shape of aircraft…
But “Hayab” makes it to seemed very nice :p.
Thank you for your hard efforts “Hayab”, Respect!
Nikos.Whenever I hate the shape of the F-35 I go take a look at the Boeing X-32
-
More of this:
Excellent model, thank you!
Less of this:
….
I simply do not get it. What is the point creating 3D models for units which cannot be placed well in any tactical enviroment? Why is so hard to understand this. Nobody ever replyed on this… Can you guess why I recyclde the tons of garbage in DB?Please.
@Pops1stVFW:
:tjacked:
+1
-
I think you have related the second quote to the wrong person.
In general nice model and thanks for the effort!
@Molni
you should accept that not everyone is sharing your views on what era should be modelled. Going by the F-16 itself as it is modelled within Falcon 4.0 and BMS 4 in particular we are looking at a Block 50+/52+ variant these days, with the original version simulating the original Block 52 model. That means we are more looking at a 90s to early 2000s era. Simulating the 70s/80s era would be easily as much off as simulating the modern era (2000+ up to today). As an F-16 simulator that F4 is the simulation of other planes is always compromised and I don’t think that this is going to change. Simulating an earlier F-16A variant would be an overkill as far as avionics capability is concerned, even if you remove certain features as is possible through the data base. The other way round you won’t be able to properly model more advanced designs, including newer F-16 variants due to the lack of LINK16, phased array radars, sensor fusion and other capabilities inherent to these designs.
At the end of the day everyone has his own preferences. While I like the F-16 for example, I’m somewhat bored by it and while I recognize the limitations of the Falcon engine in terms of aircraft customization, I also recognize that there is up to date no comparable combat flight simlator out there, if you consider the entire package. The campaign engine in particular is unique and unmatched! So people may accept the compromise of flying a different aircraft in what is essentially an F-16 simulation. Why? Because there are few if any reasonable alternatives. That’s why I have modded the Eurofighter for F4 for many years (some of the older users may remember my former nickname Viking[128th VFS]). I knew it would never be a “Eurofighter” simulator or provide the same experience as when flying the F-16 in that sim, largely due to the restrictions imposed by its engine. Nonetheless what has been achieved, not solely by myself only, was a much better experience of the aircraft even as the sim itself was not specifically designed for it.
At the end of the day we should be grateful that there are people out there who continue to support this sim and if there is something that you dislike, then don’t use it or do it “your way”. I argueably understand your concerns wrt polluting the DB with too many unused or incomplete entries. It was quite often a reason for crashes and it probably still is a source with a lot of potential for messing up your install. Argueably if I haven’t done so with my own installs for many years I would have never arrived at the point that I reached a few years ago modifying more and more aspects of the entire sim and if it was minor tweaking to suit my personal taste.
-
-
What a beauty!
-
Exactly my words!!
Lets hope to see the VSTOL version too sooner or later…
-
-
In terms of preference, I agree with Molni. Visions of the ideal Falcon aside, however, that is one sh*t-hot mesh. Beautifully done!
-
Wow!! Good luck!!