Do we develop the F-35
-
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).
-
Frankly, knowing the very little bit I do know about the F-35, I think “improving” it is next to impossible at this time using information available…in BMS or RL.
I’d much rather see the effort put into the Hornet…at least there’s a bit of light in the tunnel on that one.
+1
-
Hello drtbkj, would be nice if you focus on F-18, you made a BIG AND GOOD JOB with F-18 until now, keep going! you are on the right way,the F-35 has classified FM and Avionics
-
…you know, I’d forgotten about the Harrier. As alternate jets go, the Harrier is probably the easiest one to get a pretty decent workup on. Personally, I prefer the Night Attack one to the II+.
-
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).
Ok, that’s a clear explanation why things are as they are. I never heard this before, only that BMS never was meant to be anything else than a F-16 simulation and that’s the reason there is no interest in fixing those things already started. That’s also a reason why I was very disappointed, cause I didn’t understand why the Hornet and the Harrier were even in the official BMS trailer, but then said that BMS is and always was an F-16 only simulator, so there is no interest in fixing things not related to the Viper.
As said, I startet to built a whole homepit for it (which cost me a lot of time and money) and especially for the other aircraft I was interested in (the time I started the project DCS wasn’t a real alternate option, cause of the lack of interesting modules) and with 4.34 most of it was really useless, cause even simple things like eg. the analoge gauges in the pit of the Hornet did not work anymore.
If someone else started all those things and then had left the team, it’s understandable why it wasn’t possible to fix those things.
-
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).
Hi, Guys,
If you will allow me to get “on the Soapbox” for a minute, I’d like to respond to this , specifically. The BMS Mafia originally formed because the 4.35 hotspots got messed up in other jets. We know “in a few years it will be broken again” . The Mafia plans to still be here fixing them as best we can.
In post#22 I laid out the parameters the Mafia has to work with. Allow me to put the “these are my views, not the Mafia’s” disclaimer here. We don’t have code access, and I don’t expect we ever will. I provided the hotspot fix to the Devs for U1, and they weren’t implemented, due to time constraints. The Dev’s don’t communicate with me much, if at all. Now, what I’m writing probably seems to the Group to be very direct. It’s meant that way. It may also seem negative or angry. It most definitely is not, repeat NOT, meant that way. I am , and will always will be, grateful to the Dev’s for what they’ve given us in BMS. I don’t know, or even particularly care, if the lack of Other Jet focus is lack or interest or lack of time. I choose to believe it’s a lack of time. But, it doesn’t matter. We are here to help. If the Dev’s want us to work with them, we’re right here. If they don’t or can’t, then we’ll keep proceeding independently. That, btw, is the real reason for the Project Bug thread, etc.
Dee- Jay, I don’t know if your “other jets are a waste of time” statement includes the Hornet, but I respectfully disagree. We appreciate them. I just did a little testing for a friend’s Tornado and had a ball.
Anyway, sorry for “preaching” I am, believe it or not, a laid back guy. I just happen to be passionate about things that are important to me. Like BMS
Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand…
Stevie and Viper-Yep, the Harrier is a great example of a jet the Mafia would like to help develop. It’s also a great example for the cockpit question. Do we fix the stock pit as best we can, generate DOCS, etc.? Or, do we just “plug in” the Hornet pit. The Group seems to be going for the latter. It should be mentioned that the Fighters Manual U1, current WIP, will include how to put the Viper pit in other jets, not just the Hornet’s. So, to use our earlier example:F-35A, plug in Viper pit.F-35C, plug in Hornet. -
We are here to help. If the Dev’s want us to work with them, we’re right here.
If you find some BMS Dev willing to invest time, well … go … lets see. I’m fine with it. (I won’t be part of them, I have so many other things to do … and If I had relevant 3D modeling capabilities (better than my Sketch-up/3DSMax basics) , I would invest it on old model of ground vehicles).
May I suggest to focus on F-18 first.
-
May I suggest to focus on F-18 first.
May I suggest to focus on the F-16 first and always. But I’m old-school…
-
Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand…
Stevie and Viper-Yep, the Harrier is a great example of a jet the Mafia would like to help develop. It’s also a great example for the cockpit question. Do we fix the stock pit as best we can, generate DOCS, etc.? Or, do we just “plug in” the Hornet pit. The Group seems to be going for the latter. It should be mentioned that the Fighters Manual U1, current WIP, will include how to put the Viper pit in other jets, not just the Hornet’s. So, to use our earlier example:F-35A, plug in Viper pit.F-35C, plug in Hornet.The Harrier is a good one because there is information available on it, and it has a fairly simple cockpit - there are enough callbacks (in number) included for the Viper that they could be cross-mapped into true Harrier functions - particularly the HOTAS. The flight model could use some work - from what I read from folks that have been flying it, the current Harrier model is grossly over-thrusted in hover…but this could be fixed. It would also be cool if the departure modelling could be addressed - a Harrier comes apart pretty swiftly and violently when mis-handled.
It could be possible to also do a fair radar Harrier once the Night Attack was cleaned up, but I’m not really familiar with that variant - would think it would be more work than doing a Night Attack - but the Harrier is one that could be modeled to a goodly extent from info in the NATOPS and Performance manuals alone. And you’d need to address a real Harrier cockpit - simply sticking a Viper pit in another jet just don’t cut it…unless you don’t know anything about the jet and don’t mind keeping it that way.
-
-
Imho, it is pointless to work on cockpits for other a/c without dedicated avionics. Either do it like DCS, or dont bother at all.
-
Imho, it is pointless to work on cockpits for other a/c without dedicated avionics. Either do it like DCS, or dont bother at all.
+1.
-
Strong agree with the two above.
Voted no because I think non-f16 airframes in BMS are really a point of diminishing returns. I would love for them to be in there, but the modeling is so unrealistic that’s it’s not worth it, if you had to choose between two developments.
-
If you find some BMS Dev willing to invest time, well … go … lets see. I’m fine with it. (I won’t be part of them, I have so many other things to do … and If I had relevant 3D modeling capabilities (better than my Sketch-up/3DSMax basics) , I would invest it on old model of ground vehicles).
May I suggest to focus on F-18 first.
Dee- Jay,
What do you feel needs work on the F-18? I assume you mean the Legacy. I know what the Rhino needs. And specifically, what can we of the Mafia do, without the aforementioned code access?
Sobad,
Just to be clear, we’re not ignoring the Viper. As mentioned, I’m in the process of documenting how to put the Viper pit into another jet, as mentioned. We would be happy to help with anything Viper that we can. But , the point is , the Dev’s got the Viper covered. Our whole point is to help with the other jets.
Mystic, I’m sorry you feel the Hornet and such are “pointless” in BMS. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. Let’s talk dedicated avionics for a moment. Would I want it in BMS? Sure, to a degree, though my personal opinion is sharing Viper avionics is a plus for those who like to fly more then one jet. The point is, though, that we have to face the reality that dedicated Hornet avionics is a real long shot in BMS. The Dev’s could do it, but the whole point is they don’t have the time to.
Stevie, let’s talk Harrier. First, I’d love it if a really good FM Guy(s) would join the Mafia. Want to volunteer? I emphatically agree wiht you about the launch comms modeling. As for the cockpit, that raises 2 points. First, “tweaking” the stock pit takes time, not to mention having to provide docs on cockpit diagrams, checklists, and such. . That’s the whole point of this “plug in 'pit concept”, right? The second point is that us changing the 'pit , making hotspots, and such, is not an easy thing for us to do. Heck, we looked at something seemingly as simple as changing a F-35 display, and found it wasn’t simple after all. But, we’re not against the concept at all. We just need help to accomplish it…