Do we develop the F-35
-
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… -
So, if you can’t do anything more about the F-18, what is the pan for F-35? (for which, you will need even more code edit to be able to do something relevant other than a simple 3D model) … Unless you are only speaking about 3D model only?
In that case, rather than suggesting on F-18, I would suggest to focus on any ground vehicle or ship that are already existing in 3DDB but using a obsolete 3D model from 98’ era.This is what is needed => refreshing what is currently no longer descent in 2020. Take a look in tactical reference in Ship or Vehicles tabs, there are lot of examples.
-
On the F-35 subject… Im abstaining.
Id love to vote yes. Id love an F-35 modelled well, in BMS. I would have to vote no, because I dont think it could be done in any reasonable amount of time, and certainly not without more documentation than is currently available in the open source - as far as I am currently aware.
I tend towards being an F-16-centrist - I think BMS is an excellent F-16 sim, and that nothing should be permitted to interfere with that. I also love looking at making improvements that make BMS a more accurate air warfare simulator, and the F-35, accurately implemented, would be a very interesting addition.
In the immediate future, I think Molni is right. Without an overhaul to the radar and EW environment, an F-35 doesnt make a lot of sense, if its only difference will be the payload and having a different flight model.
I’d love it if a really good FM Guy(s) would join the Mafia. Want to volunteer?
What do you need, there? I wouldnt call myself a really good FM guy, but possibly I could help depending on what you need?
-
Given the reactions and the existence of the poll, I think it’s just having a cosmetic sight of the F35 cockpit and seeing the plane move when you move the stick. Otherwise, yes, making war in a F35 with F16 avionics makes as much sense as using an arrow simulator to shoot bullets.
-
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?
Its possible in theory to develop a code ecosystem that could do that. In practice it would be a great deal of work on the part of the BMS devs… with lots of parts that could break easily, and with little guarantee that there would be (m)any third parties interested and capable of developing those callbacks, graphics, avionics, etc to any standard - and even less guarantee that breakages could be easily attributed to the mod aircraft.
I suspect this arrangement would also not be multiplayer compatible with anyone not also using the same mod aircraft… which is like to make the arrangement anathema to the devs. Their major reasoning for not allowing source access, if I recall correctly, is not wanting to split the BMS community into multiple different forks, all incompatible with each other.
I think Ive suggested a similar arrangement in the past, limited to avionics, to allow definition of avionics by config files - similar to RPM for Kerbal Space Program. Still has the issue of it being a lot of work - not exactly low hanging fruit. With a small, self-directed team, it seems a big ask to have them implement a feature which there is not massive community calls for.
-
So, if you can’t do anything more about the F-18, what is the pan for F-35? (for which, you will need even more code edit to be able to do something relevant other than a simple 3D model) … Unless you are only speaking about 3D model only?
In that case, rather than suggesting on F-18, I would suggest to focus on any ground vehicle or ship that are already existing in 3DDB but using a obsolete 3D model from 98’ era.This is what is needed => refreshing what is currently no longer descent in 2020. Take a look in tactical reference in Ship or Vehicles tabs, there are lot of examples.
My question was what you, obviously knowing BMS, think the Hornet still needs. We’ll do what we can. I just wanted your expert opinion, as I’m not sure what is needed. What I mean is, you yourself pointed out the FM has been done by the Dev’s. We have the cockpit sorted out, and even more functionality added. So, except perhaps for including Wheelchock’s work, that seems done. Things like the launch bar, AAR probe, flaps, and such are well modeled visually. In the Legacy, at least. As for dedicated Hornet avionics, as we’ve been discussing, I’d have to talk to my Mafia brethren to see if that’s something we’d like to tackle. But, I don’t see how we could do that without Dev collaboration, as we’ve previously discussed. Hopefully, I’ve made it clear that door is very open to the Devs.
While we have obviously been focusing on the other BMS jets, your suggestion to " I would suggest to focus on any ground vehicle or ship that are already existing in 3DDB but using a obsolete 3D model from 98’ era" is interesting. We would need to bring a really sharp 3DDB person in, something I would LOVE. Any volunteers?