Chengdu J-20
-
Look who is talking now …. crème de la crème
-
This all topic is absolutely ridiculous.
@Radium - You as DEV should be feeding this kind of post. People indulge you too much, i don’t. Your work is amazing no doubt about it but that not all when it comes to BMS.
You are part of a team that is mostly concerned about other BMS aspects that deserve much more atencion than this new project. I will not point out how much the model will not be fully explored due to lack of AC information, nevertheless there are so many models that need care and dedication that i wonder once more why don’t you channel that creativity to here the community points out.
You can’t say “i do as i please” because you are part of the Dev Team. If you were a 3rd party modeller as i am you would be 100% correct.
What about F1CT that you abandoned?
What about the T-38 beautiful pit?
What about the F2?
What about the F18?You have so much unfinished ( and very useful to the community) projects yet you prefer to start one that will be very hard to come by some sort of IRL data. Even the surfaces work angles/velocities CL and CD tables for the most simple OFM data?
C´mon we are just saying. Focus your mind in the guideline of what the other devs are struggling to do.
My 2 cents…
I’m sorry.
I have absolutely no lessons to receive from you.
I injected 493 LODs into stock DB since I am a dev. How much do you know of this ?
I have no lessons to receive from you about what shall I do and what I shall not do, and your comparison with “Focus your mind in the guideline of what the other devs are struggling to do.” is simply disgusting.
I give your 2 cents back.
@Radium - You as DEV should be feeding this kind of post. People indulge you too much, i don’t. Your work is amazing no doubt about it but that not all when it comes to BMS.
I don’t give a yen about if you like me or not. With friends like you, I would not need any foe. What you see here is a fraction of all I do for our DB.
Happy evening,
Radium
-
Look who is talking now …. crème de la crème
Did i mentioned you?
We need a mod in here please.
-
Did i mentioned you?
We need a mod in here please.
I’m not sure between you and him who would be moderated…
-
You all really need to chill.
What a festival of misunderstanding! -
I’m not sure between you and him who would be moderated…
I was polite to you and just made my opinion didn’t i?
And i reinforce my point. Keep being the best modeler around but focus your strength in what really push the community forward…
-
Gentlemen!
What are we talking about here? The aim of BMS has always been to be creative and pretty, even if that means to release half baked add-ons. Let’s not stop producing stuff just because there is no way to get reliable data. Who wants a handbook nowadays? Actually, I think it is about time it is implemented a single autostart shortcut like Ctrl-E in MS FS.
-
Gentlemen!
What are we talking about here? The aim of BMS has always been to be creative and pretty, even if that means to release half baked add-ons. Let’s not stop producing stuff just because there is no way to get reliable data. Who wants a handbook nowadays? Actually, I think it is about time it is implemented a single autostart shortcut like Ctrl-E in MS FS.
You can’t be serious are you?
BMS was always about having the most reliable data possible and achievable. Sometimes we can make it sometimes we don’t.
-
:munch::yawn:
-
Hi Molni!
I appreciate any effort but I simply do not get the point of J-20
Simply because we are dealing with what ppl offers. And Radium offered (way largely) enough to deserve some liberty to get what is pleasing him. As simple as that.
As you well know, contributors do what they like to and works at the rhythm they like/can. Anything offered (and fitting with requirements) is welcome as long as it will also fit on the main theater or generic enough deserve a place.
Radium is not paid … not committed to work for us. So while I do agree on many points you’ve mentioned (same somehow applies to cruise missiles, anti-missile features, towed decoys, UAVs) , nobody is forced to use them. And not doing something that could be qualified “out of scope” do not mean that Radium will do an F-22, on F-35 or a new set of the Su-27 family.
For the “cost” of one FCK-1 => Radium offered a Ka-52, UH-1 … etc …
Maybe that for the “cost” of one J-20 => Radium will offer a new A-50, Il-76/78 … or SR-71 … or F-22 … or SA-15 vehicle … or …It is a win - win compromise. Almost everything here works that way on Dev side.
Everybody takes benefit from this.
And anyway … the one who is “right” is the one who is working and producing.
Regards to all.
-
I have absolutely no lessons to receive from you.
Your lack of humility is amazing. We all learn and help each other around here.
I injected 493 LODs into stock DB since I am a dev. How much do you know of this ?
Point being? You can make all the DB again for all i care. I just point you out for the many abandoned projects you have around here.
I have no lessons to receive from you about what shall I do and what I shall not do, and your comparison with “Focus your mind in the guideline of what the other devs are struggling to do.” is simply disgusting.
Strong word. There are many devs around here, some that help you out that help also. What i feel is that you are a cowboy that feeds this useless arguments (both sides) it’s everyone’s fault really.
I don’t give a yen about if you like me or not. With friends like you, I would not need any foe. What you see here is a fraction of all I do for our DB.
Strong words again. The only time i speak to you was crystal clear to me that you will never help me out in anyway because i’m a “farse” of modeller that uses sometimes previous used (full granted) work.
What you see here from my side also. I’m quite involving in other 3rd party 3D modeling that you are not aware of. And i suspect you will never even see because im true believe that you don’t give a crap for 3rd party work.
-
Hi Decimalminimal!
Just to give some info (AFAIK):
What about F1CT that you abandoned?
What about the T-38 beautiful pit?
What about the F2?
What about the F18?F1CT: was a project started by Gudule and incompatibilities of UWmaping methods results in a model out of spec or hard to rework.
T-38: Nobody from the coder side (for now) offered his help to implement additional digital displays and nobody offered a support on cockpit button definition. Status is on hold.
F-2: Somehow same as F1CT … model and texture are ready. But as far as I know, Radium is not happy with mapping and need to be redone from scratch. Probably out of scope concerning texturing. No which to restart it for now. Status is on hold.
F-18: WIP … on hold just because he which to make a pause on that one to do something more amusing for him.
Tu-16: Lost in HD crash.Radium, please correct me if/where I am wrong.
-
Hi Decimalminimal!
Just to give some info (AFAIK):
F1CT: was a project started by Gudule and incompatibilities of UWmaping methods results in a model out of spec or hard to rework.
T-38: Nobody from the coder side (for now) offered his help to implement additional digital displays and nobody offered a support on cockpit button definition. Status is on hold.
F-2: Somehow same as F1CT … model and texture are ready. But as far as I know, Radium is not happy with mapping and need to be redone from scratch. Probably out of scope concerning texturing. No which to restart it for now. Status is on hold.
F-18: WIP … on hold just because he which to make a pause on that one to do something more amusing for him.
Tu-16: Lost in HD crash.Radium, please correct me if/where I am wrong.
Hi Dj
Now thats the proper response i was hoping for. Unfortunately you was the one that gave proper awnsers and not the project owner.
Im ok with abandoned or halt projects as long a proper justification is given.
Im tired of fighting here. Slap each other faces is not the way I think.
I war is with my projects and POH development.Thank you
-
Im ok with abandoned or halt projects as long a proper justification is given.
We are probably facing another language barrier issue (?) because I would tend to reply: No justifications are required. (Especially if we compare to what has been completed and integrated).
Could be one more misunderstanding.
-
We are probably facing another language barrier issue (?) because I would tend to reply: No justifications are required. (Especially if we compare to what has been completed and integrated).
Could be one more misunderstanding.
Not at all dj. Of course its not required but desirable so that we outside the project at least know what to expect.
Thanks again
-
Radium,
Your work is amazing, Wish you best luck with this module (which is beautiful),
The implementation of the J-20 would be difficult to my opinion, But i think, it was never about adding the jet into BMS (Right? we really dont have much info about it arent we?).
I have no idea who are those guys who approve or disapprove your work… Ignoring would be suggested in those cases.
頑張って! -
Hi Molni!
Simply because we are dealing with what ppl offers. And Radium offered (way largely) enough to deserve some liberty to get what is pleasing him. As simple as that.As you well know, contributors do what they like to and works at the rhythm they like/can. Anything offered (and fitting with requirements) is welcome as long as it will also fit on the main theater or generic enough deserve a place.
Radium is not paid … not committed to work for us. So while I do agree on many points you’ve mentioned (same somehow applies to cruise missiles, anti-missile features, towed decoys, UAVs) , nobody is forced to use them. And not doing something that could be qualified “out of scope” do not mean that Radium will do an F-22, on F-35 or a new set of the Su-27 family.
For the “cost” of one FCK-1 => Radium offered a Ka-52, UH-1 … etc …
Maybe that for the “cost” of one J-20 => Radium will offer a new A-50, Il-76/78 … or SR-71 … or F-22 … or SA-15 vehicle … or …It is a win - win compromise. Almost everything here works that way on Dev side.
Everybody takes benefit from this.
And anyway … the one who is “right” is the one who is working and producing.
Regards to all.
I understand all of these. These are valid points. I asked simply from technical aspect. Because mostly what can be read from Team communication that:
"If we do not have materials we do not put in it the game this feature/weapon/etc." and similar statements.
And now here is a plane which is a close to black box.My only note was this and what I think is useful. Not because of my taste. Because all of theaters including the stock KTO.
-
@AsafBoy:
Radium,
Your work is amazing, Wish you best luck with this module (which is beautiful),
The implementation of the J-20 would be difficult to my opinion, But i think, it was never about adding the jet into BMS (Right? we really dont have much info about it arent we?).
I have no idea who are those guys who approve or disapprove your work… Ignoring would be suggested in those cases.
頑張って!Hello Asaf,
thank you for your words !
Of course it will be very difficult to make a nice integration of J-20 in the database, but we all love challenges !
We will of course lack a lot of data, but after all, this is already what we do for a lot of aircraft : only very few of them have reliable tables and clear figures for flight models for example, not talking about weapon systems : we always need to establish data files with what we have, which is sometimes, not a lot.
It is basically the case with RCS : for most fighter aircraft including F-16, it is as far as know (but I may be wrong), highly classified. So, we can just take some relative assumptions to have something relevant.
As an example : we have F-22 in the database, which RCS is herself extremely classified. I already tried to gather any public reliable technical sources for this aircraft (not talking about RCS), I found that it is extremely limited, and hopefully for US safety !
So, from what we know, we can make some clean assumption that J-20 RCS is higher than F-22, considering aircraft size, general design and stealth technology used, from public intelligence data (I would also quote the fact that even Chinese official admitted that J-20 is hiding another more advanced project. Propaganda ? Maybe, surely. But if they mentioned it like that instead of telling that it was the best in the world, I would trend to take it as a confirmation that they could still be trying to reach higher level.
For other data, we already have some stuff, especially about electronic warfare and radar system :
- KLJ-5 AESA radar
- EOTS-86 EOTS
- EORD-31 IST
- DAS equipped aircraft
Internet has some nice data about these systems, and we can then see that it’s generally close to latest 4++gen fighters, such as Rafale, Eurofighter and Su-35. As long as we get basic data, it is possible to configure the aircraft : BMS engine will do the rest.
For sure, as Molni rightly mentionned, some stuff like AESA radar will not be implemented yet. It doesn’t mean that we can’t use for now a fail safe solution, especially while radar tracking was never an exact science. It’s not because you have AESA that it will necessarily picture a different solution than mechanical radars for some tactical situations, especially because latest non-AESA are extremely capable systems, especially in multi-target mode. Again, source is only public intelligence, to enjoy our favorite game.
To answer your last comment, nobody approves or disapproves the work performed by our great team of modelers. We chose the best path, from our feelings. Mine is that I wish to work for the next 10 years, this is why I sometimes chose models and projects like this one that may look surprising at first. In 10 years, J-20 will already almost look old… So, I try to change my mind doing models time after time…
If I look at my major projects that I made public (not talking about the smaller, attached of silent ones that I achieved) :
- A-4 (replacement of an old model)
- AAV-7 (replacement of an old model)
- AH-1S (replacement of an old model)
- UH-1 (addition of a new model)
- CH-47 (replacement of an old model)
- DDH Shirane (new model to offer BMS a JMSDF task force)
- LST Ohsumi (new model to offer BMS a JMSDF task force)
- J-7G (replacement of an old model)
- J-8I (partial replacement of an old model : I chose J-8I instead of J-8II to make it quicker)
- Ka-52/K (addition of a new model)
- MQ-9 (addition of a new model)
- Mirage 2000D/-5F overhaul, with all pylons, weapon systems and cockpit upgrade + addition of Mirage 2000-9+weapons, 35 models)
- TAKR Kuznetsov (replacement of an old model)
- TARKR Kirov (replacement of an old model)
- Wasp Class (replacement of an old model)
- Sukhoi Su-7 (replacement of an old model)
- Sovremeny class (replacement of an old model)
- Su-33 (replacement of an old model)
- FCK-1 series (addition of a new model)
- JGSDF vehicles (addition of a new models to give BMS a JGSDF battlegroup)
- J-20 (addition of a new model)
Most of them were made to replace old models, which is also my target, I suppose, I have a good balance.
I would also add that I want to express my biggest thanks my 3D team dev fellows for their kind help, they are extremely talented and friendly ! I would also add Manos, which is a really nice guy I really love to work with.
I don’t want to talk to much but we are here to enjoy our way on this great BMS adventure, and it’s because all 3D modelers have different point of views that our DB is nicely rich and close to be completed.
Thank you to all who support BMS dev team and enjoy our software,
Best regards,
Radium
-
1. BMS4 is not a tank simulator. Land combat is simply more abstracted. This part of your comment is simply irrelevant because of this. Land combat is very, very, very abstracted and simplified because they are “just” targets. Didn’t you noticed in the older version in any Falcon how OP were the artillery? A simple arty battalion eradicated without any effort two full tank battalion. Because of this in my Korea '80s MOD for 4.32 I had to reduce seriously their size and qty.)
ok i found my solution.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?19657-suggestion-lower-SP-gun-accuracy-to-tank&highlight=tankbtw, i never treat BMS as a plane shooting game. i always image those ground moving boxes r my tank comrades, i have to save them before they step in enemy trap. if i was late, they’d have a hard but good fight, maybe win, maybe lose.
we have no reason to delete them due to “unperfect” data. even the wrong data is better than no data. -
thanks Radium, such a fascinating aircraft! I can’t wait to see it in BMS!