Do we develop the F-35
-
Let me troll that: you mean, fixing it IRL?
To be effective in trolling one has to know what he’s talking about.
-
To be effective in trolling one has to know what he’s talking about.
It is also said that to be trolling, warning in advance is not very effective. Am I trying to be an effective troll?
-
Since seriousness has to be on the table in spite of my attempt to remain away from that, I don’t expect a realistic sim mostly used by realistic users to reach its goal, and thus time to be given, on a project about probably one of the most secret aircrafts (speaking of the way it operates and how it is controlled from the pit) in the world, and one of the last “on the market”. Even ECM in F16, as far as I heard from BMS, is not modeled in details, so a F35 from inside??….
-
Why do you care so much ? if someone wants to develop F35, why blocking his motivation ?
Mods Arent real for 100%, and I believe F35 would never be official recognised by BMS, but - thats shouldnt stop him from working on it - if it would be awesome to fly - then why ? If you want super realism, stick to the F16.
Sometimes flying agianst something that stronger then you by far and defeating it, is way more satisfying then just equal fight.
In multiplayer i think you can deny the ability to mount F35 cockpit for balance terms -
I would say I agree with Steve, put more (external to Devs) effort into the Hornet since it’s getting so much better. Personally I wish the Mig-29 was 100%… then again I wish for the Mig-15 and F-86 Sabre to be a reality for a 1950’s theater too!
-
Anyway, you can at least expect a hi-detail 3D external model and 3D cockpit from JanHas later on to work as a basis.
-
We have a 3D model (I think we have the sources) from Hayab of the F-35. But only LOD0 … no lover LODs and not fully finished.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?22643-WIP-F-35A&highlight=Hayab
-
That being said … if a talented 3D modeller would like to contribute to the global effort, before considering an F-35, there are PLENTY of vehicles in DB that needs love/overhaul.
New a/c is nice … but IMHO, BMS need more the replacement of 1998’s 3D model we still have in 3DDB quite often seen in game … for instance, HMMV, … SA-15 … etc …
EDIT:
I think I can make the missing LOD from Hayab F-35 3DSMAX source file. At least I can try.
Not a priority.
-
Why do you care so much ? if someone wants to develop F35, why blocking his motivation ?
Mods Arent real for 100%, and I believe F35 would never be official recognised by BMS, but - thats shouldnt stop him from working on it - if it would be awesome to fly - then why ? If you want super realism, stick to the F16.
Sometimes flying agianst something that stronger then you by far and defeating it, is way more satisfying then just equal fight.
In multiplayer i think you can deny the ability to mount F35 cockpit for balance termsWhat to start with mate. There’s a poll, I answer. There’s a conversation, I participate. If that’s too much to handle, I’m not too sure how to help you, apart from refraining to intervene if you disagree. Not what you’re expecting, is it?
-
What to start with mate. There’s a poll, I answer. There’s a conversation, I participate. If that’s too much to handle, I’m not too sure how to help you, apart from refraining to intervene if you disagree. Not what you’re expecting, is it?
it wasnt directed only for you, but to anyone who oppose initiatives.
BMS is based on people who want to invest their time into the sim with things they love, any help may create better BMS to my opinion, for me its ITO, for Dee-Jay its star system :D, for you is might be Balkans special Campaigns ETC -
Ha, if that is the question, then it’s a yes every time, no need for a poll.
-
Ha, if that is the question, then it’s a yes every time, no need for a poll.
IMHO, initiators are the core of BMS growth- examples - Kaos and Radium models, your theater, Japan, Taiwan, Nevada, Georgia, baltics…. Rypley’s - F16A\B cockpit, mrkline - VHS faster complier, Micro sound improvments project, Dema skins and more and more, community is the growth source
-
I would like to super cruise in a block 50
GE 129 F 16XL -
Hi, Guys,
Thanks for the replies.
Firstly, vaiCom, I didn’t take Lorik’s question negatively in any way. It was a legitimate question . I should have spelled that out better My inspiration is not blocked. The Mafia is having fun doing “Our Thing”, but an underlying purpose is to payback to BMS. Hence this poll. What makes the greater number of you loons (;) ) happy?
Ifortanet- the Harrier is on “The List”. Plus, your statement brings up a point I’d like to share. We’ve been working with the people working on the extra theaters. If you check these theaters out , there are a lot of jets other then the Viper, and some of the 'pits are pretty sad. There is an option, at least in the cockpit-In the Mafia Fighters Manual there’s a way to put the “Mafia Hornet Pit” in your jet of choice. In Our Humble Opinion, that’s a good option, especially for naval jets. I’ve also been thinking about documenting the same procedure to put the Viper Pit where you want it. What started out, way back when, as a way to help the Rhino pit, could pay big dividends.
Molni- you make a good point, that I’ve been thinking about , too. Any of our non-Viper BMS jets is by definition a compromise. And in the case of a 5th Gen, a big one.
Stevie/Icer- Icer, I think it was you who called me the “Bug Whisperer”, so you know I’m definitely a Hornet Guy. So, let me ask you and Stevie a question. What would you like to see further developed on the Bug?
As mentioned above, my original concept for the Mafia was to get the Rhino to at least BMS Bug standards. To do that I simply drop in the Hornet pit. What if we did that with the other BMS jets?. So, instead of us having to work on lots of different pits, we perfect the Hornet pit(perhaps including Wheelchock’s work), and with the Viper pit you’d have 2 really good pits to choose from. So, for example, a F-35A Guy could use the Viper pit, and a Charlie Driver could use the Hornet. You’d have the pit and the documentation. What does the Group think of that concept?
Dee-Jay, and All- Dee-jay knows this, but the Mafia does not have code access. Also, personally, I still suck at the LOD/3ddb type stuff, and Brother Smartaxe can only do so much. So, there are limits to what the Mafia can do. The point I’m trying to make is: If anyone out there who’s good with this stuff wants to “join the Mafia”, you would be most welcome. -
instead of us having to work on lots of different pits, we perfect the Hornet pit(perhaps including Wheelchock’s work), and with the Viper pit you’d have 2 really good pits to choose from. So, for example, a F-35A Guy could use the Viper pit, and a Charlie Driver could use the Hornet. You’d have the pit and the documentation. What does the Group think of that concept?
Imho it would definitely be keeping with the spirit of BMS to focus on depth, not breadth. Especially since it’s (mostly) all Viper avionics anyway.
This is probably a newb question, but (apart from the visuals/cockpit and avionics) how well modelled are other fighters, from a physics and aerodynamics pov?
things like center of gravity (incl. fuel and stores) vs center of lift … range of motion and aerodynamic forces on control surfaces … engine power and fuel consumption … landing gear and suspension, etc
Is the Hornet modelled at the level of the Viper, in all those respects? (I gather the Mirage may also be close, in those regards?)
Do we have any of that, for the various F-35 variants, or would it all be educated-guesswork?
-
Hi, Guys,
Thanks for the replies.
Firstly, vaiCom, I didn’t take Lorik’s question negatively in any way. It was a legitimate question . I should have spelled that out better My inspiration is not blocked. The Mafia is having fun doing “Our Thing”, but an underlying purpose is to payback to BMS. Hence this poll. What makes the greater number of you loons (;) ) happy?
Ifortanet- the Harrier is on “The List”. Plus, your statement brings up a point I’d like to share. We’ve been working with the people working on the extra theaters. If you check these theaters out , there are a lot of jets other then the Viper, and some of the 'pits are pretty sad. There is an option, at least in the cockpit-In the Mafia Fighters Manual there’s a way to put the “Mafia Hornet Pit” in your jet of choice. In Our Humble Opinion, that’s a good option, especially for naval jets. I’ve also been thinking about documenting the same procedure to put the Viper Pit where you want it. What started out, way back when, as a way to help the Rhino pit, could pay big dividends.
Molni- you make a good point, that I’ve been thinking about , too. Any of our non-Viper BMS jets is by definition a compromise. And in the case of a 5th Gen, a big one.
Stevie/Icer- Icer, I think it was you who called me the “Bug Whisperer”, so you know I’m definitely a Hornet Guy. So, let me ask you and Stevie a question. What would you like to see further developed on the Bug?
As mentioned above, my original concept for the Mafia was to get the Rhino to at least BMS Bug standards. To do that I simply drop in the Hornet pit. What if we did that with the other BMS jets?. So, instead of us having to work on lots of different pits, we perfect the Hornet pit(perhaps including Wheelchock’s work), and with the Viper pit you’d have 2 really good pits to choose from. So, for example, a F-35A Guy could use the Viper pit, and a Charlie Driver could use the Hornet. You’d have the pit and the documentation. What does the Group think of that concept?
Dee-Jay, and All- Dee-jay knows this, but the Mafia does not have code access. Also, personally, I still suck at the LOD/3ddb type stuff, and Brother Smartaxe can only do so much. So, there are limits to what the Mafia can do. The point I’m trying to make is: If anyone out there who’s good with this stuff wants to “join the Mafia”, you would be most welcome.Hornet - cockpit layout/graphics doesn’t match NATOPS depiction, can’t operate the cockpit per NATOPS because of that, needed callbacks don’t strictly map Hornet to Viper, HOTAS certainly doesn’t map, Viper displays don’t match the Hornet…all this makes me just stay away. But it doesn’t mean that the Hornet isn’t low hanging fruit.
Actually, I’d like to see BMS have a more modular and standardized interface that would let people develop add-on aircraft to the same extent that the Viper is fleshed out. Yeah - there is some commonality in that they are all aircraft, but after that I’d like to see some documentation for adding my own callback set, graphics, interfacing, flight modeling, etc. specific to a jet in a way that would be to the standards and degree of excellence as the Viper. There is far too much wrong with the current Hornet that simply can’t be crammed under the Vipers skirts…forex. I should think this could be implemented in a “library” sort of manner…or sets of libraries and calls to them specific to a type A/C. This would allow developers to code for themselves without requiring access to core BMS code. Jets would essentially become “subroutines” that can interface with core code.
People can build great, compliant campaigns…why not jets?
-
Airtex,
I’m not a FM expert, so all I can give are seat of the pants views. I’ve compared the Legacy Hornet to the DCS version(whatever that’s worth) and IMHO the 2 are very close. Our Devs clearly put some good effort into the Bug, way back when.
Without RL experience, of course, it’s tough for me to judge other jets. However, I’ve flown the BMS Viper, Hornet,Rhino,Growler,F-35,F-22,Phantom,A-6,A-4,A-10,Rafale,Tornado,even AWACS, tankers and drones. In no case did I get a feeling of “this is just not right for this jet”. How “polished” they are is a guess for someone “beyond my pay grade”. But they all work.
Stevie,
Interesting concept, and kinda what I thought you’d say. So, Group, how do we make that happen? Do we want it to happen? I know Brother Stevie would like it. However, I for one actually like the fact I can jump from jet to jet without “changing avionics gears”. What does the Group think? -
Anything but F-16 are half backed stuff. F-18 is the only non F-16 a/c that has a dedicated FLCS but still, no dedicated avionics.
-
Half baked or not, but it is fun to fly something other than only an F-16, even if it’s not perfect. I think the Hornet and the Harrier are really good “fake-aircraft” (until many things were broken with 4.34 - never mind if those things fixed again).
I joined BMS with the 4.33 release, as I saw the trailer with the F/A-18C and the AV-8B. I’m for sure love the F-16 also, but it is not and never wasn’t my favorite fighter jet. So I really was happy to see the improvements made with 4.33 for other “fake-jets”, especially the Harrier and the Hornet. I also looked forward to the improvements for the F-15E, the A-10 and the announced WIP F-14D. But as 4.34 came out many things were messed up and as I asked if there are any plans to fix this, I only get the answer BMS is an F-16 only sim and if you want something other, go anywhere else.
Nice if you have started to built a fully functional “universal” homepit based on BMS, which was meant to play the “fake aircraft” also, not only the F-16. I never had the expectation that those other jets will ever be perfect and for me it was ok that all is F-16 under the hood, but I didn’t expect that there even isn’t an interest to get things fixed again, that worked already perfectly in the preceding version. This was the reason I left BMS and changed to DCS.
I think other aircraft could add so much to BMS, even if they never will reach the perfection of the F-16. But that’s only my opinion and I accepted the point of view the BMS team has. That’s why I decided to change the sim, even I really love BMS, cause it has so much features the other sim doesn’t have.
-
that worked already perfectly in the preceding version.
They didn’t worked perfectly at all. And reasons they have been even more broken is because of the lack of support (following code enhancement allowing more switches positions for example TAXI/OFF/LANDING, of JFS STARTER 1/2) of the guys who started them then left the place.
We don’t have enough manpower to handle those additional a/c by our own. Otherwise they would be already fixed.
Develop a flyable F-35 is you want. Nobody can (nor want) prevent you to do so if you like.
But I can already tell you that in few years it will be broken again and I bet nobody will actively take care of it anymore. Just like for M2000, F-18, Viggen, A-10 … Meantime, we have to maintain those a/c on some areas (which take times and effort delaying some other tasks on some other areas) while they are almost unusable. This is not an opinion, it is simply a ascertainment.As a matter of fact, I consider them as a waste of time (this is yet a personal POV).