Do we develop the F-35
-
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? -
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.
What do you need, there? I wouldnt call myself a really good FM guy, but possibly I could help depending on what you need?
Blu,
I completely agree with your and Molni’s assessment of the F-35. That was precisely what sparked this thread. I think the F-35 is fun, and I like the cockpit(if we could tweak it). But, without major changes it’s (IMHO) basically a somewhat souped-up Rhino. I’m not even sure to what extent stealth is modeled. You seem to concur.
In your other post you wrote" 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." This kind of relates to your question, what does the Mafia need?
You could say that the Mafia’s 'mission statement" is to “make BMS better by helping the Devs , especially with things beyond the Viper”. What started out as a project to fix some hotspots could become a lot more. What it could become depends on what people will get involved, and what they want to do. This is, after all, a game (gasp!) and supposed to be fun. And, you are very accurate in calling us a “small and self-directed group”. So, if you , for example, joined the Mafia( and I would love that) you would help us decide where to go. You being a “F-16 centrist” doesn’t interfere in that in any way. BTW, if you’d love to discuss this privately, let me know. -
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.
Fair point about multiplayer…but given that the BMS core would also have to be redrafted to accommodate the aircraft related changes, I should think that would be addressed at the same time. And I could see it being more a matter of deletions than additions - really all that need be passed for multiplayer are coms (which should be platform independent anyway), and relative motions within the environment. From what I read, BMS seems to spend time checking a lot of “compatibility” parameters that aren’t truly relevant to the task at hand.
As pointed out, DCS does it - and I’ll add MSFS, Prepar3D, and possibly X-Plane (I haven’t looked or tried) - so it’s possible. How big a job it is, is a matter unto itself!
-
Stealth planes are pretty boring after a while you just blast everything easily I prefer the non stealth jets like F-16, F/A-18. A good Super Hornet would be better than F-35 IMO.
4.33 Aegean and Polar Vortex already have an OK F-35A, B, C has F-16 MFDs but is OK for a bit of fun. As others have said there is no way you’re going to do a realistic F-35, all classified and too hard to implement.
-
a super modern f16 before a stealth jet that will make the campaign unbalanced.
-
I think, in time, that other jets will be highly modeled and added to BMS. Over time, we could see many flyable jets that could actually perform well in BMS. The biggest problem now is avionics. Need to be able to load a “specific” avionics package for the jet your flying. That would be a 'game changer" for BMS. But, as with all things here, adding different modules to the sim would be time consuming (if even possible). We will see in time if that can happen.
-
Hello all,
i think this is one of the “core” threads of this forum and Falcon BMS at all. With permission i also would like to say my opinion here.Gentlemen, i think everybody would want to implement more aircrafts to BMS, that is natural of course. Like in many other jet games and sims.
Me myself also put much efforts to improve that somehow and it has been months of works of editing/improving, mainly in F/A-18C and naval ops area. Far away not everything i disposed to download here until i was sure it will worth it. Some of you knows very well (for example Joe from Nevada - drtbkj). I would like to greet him and also much appreciate his unbreakable efforts to help by that. Like many other guys/modders i have been still encountering to some obstacles and basic questions and issues. Until now…until i finally got it. Somewhere deep inside myself i must accept now i just went against the walls. If i want or if i don’t want anyway. Sooner or later it would show up also anyway.
I had to really realize what to expect actually from BMS ?! I found out i have been straying in some maze. Now i’m quite clear with that. I know some of you will probably not like it to hear that but this is just a matter of fact and you have to realise it and accept it. Back to the roots and go the right way again. Even if you will disaggree with me or don’t like me or my post. This is really F-16 sim only. Don’t expect anything more from that. You guys want more aircrafts there. Ok,cool. Me too of course. At first you must realize and keep in your minds this is Unreal. (technically is that real ofc).Don’t wanna be skeptic or negative but let’s pour in a cup of pure wine. This can done maybe after 5-10 years with issues what lies in front of another Falcon development and what the group of these developers must face to right now. Also important to mention here, it is not so much number group. Their free time is limited and they relying on some donations only. At least as far as i know nobody pays them from that.
It is holy nonsense, wasting of time and getting off track is to focus for any tries to implement other aircrafts there based on F-16 avionics. That has no logic and it is really fake enjoy only. Somebody used term “fake aircrafts” here.
Dee-Jay has right, Mystic_J has right, many others has right with that.
Very pretty said by my chosen and excellent teacher Krause:“I think non-f16 airframes in BMS are really a point of diminishing returns.”
- 100% true, definitely. Hardly ever it will worth it some work about another aircrafts. If ever. Right now absolutely not in my holy opinion, this path is leading into the dark somewhere. With no support, just on your own…
Please take off from that airbase and keep flying this course right now.
I think we all have to consider it and think about that important point. I think there are very good aircraft models of Falcon/Viper and it’s awesome multirole jet fighter. Mostly JanHas,TomCatz and many other guys did fantastic awesome work about models for BMS! Like Dee-Jay mentioned about ground models, yeah, nice point, many of them done and they are awesome good looking. Keep going! Nice job last but not least. Benefit from that and enjoy that. Also enjoy many 3d objects at the database. Eventually add more of them in Falcon Editor to your airbase and make the airbase more realistic. Consider other aircrafts as decorations. This is just an F-16 sim, it is what it is and just be aware of that. This is how it is necessary to take it.I think at first it is needed to focus mainly to terrain and collisions. We need some high polygons textured terrain, not just these tiles where they repeating and from around 10000 feets and above it doesn’t look so good, mainly monotone rivers.
Another issues what i get on my mind right now…
- elevated some water tiles
- improve even much more AI at all [ground forces(GF), air forces(AF), sea/naval forces(NF)]
- AI overall intelligence is still poor
- often crossing hitboxes, more vehicles standing or riding through themselves (aircrafts/ships/tanks)
- hitboxes also going through themselves - on the ground,sea or in the air, no matter where
- GF/NF going off the path, riding uncontrolled round and round sometimes and GF going over water like as it would be just battleground
- crossing runways unawared you taking off or just landing
- AF is sometimes also difficult to convince them to cooperate, they often deciding to do their own
- as far as i know ships missing ability to shoot long range missiles in 4.34 (maybe it’s been fixed in 4.35? not sure right now)
- more weapons doesn’t work at the same time (already fixed in 4.35?)
- improve NF AI and make them cooperate more in dynamic campaign, or even better - in general
Like i said, just improve AI much more in general.
…and many many similar kinds of issues which overlasts years unsolved.
Probably many guys is tired from still editing something on their own what is at the end actually wasting of free time.Like somebody in some thread here said (can’t find that right now who):
Play that game and don’t play with that game. That’s holy true unless you have some relevant and promising results and visions in entire dev team. Anything else is just waste of time.I finally realized i want to play that sim, not install it and spend weeks by editing and “likely finishing” works on something what is uncertain future with next release and will be most probably incompatible.
So in conclusion i would recommend to some guys one important thing. If you want to ride more aircrafts… either buy Ace Combat (a bit trolling, sorry for that) or more serious virtual pilots go somewhere else. Most of you will most probably know where to go…
I think in Falcon BMS there are other “primary” priorities to work on. So yes, Dee-Jay is right about that. Many more guys probably also sharing similar opinions.If some of you guys want to keep this course anyway, i mean keep focusing on another aircrafts… and although you sure it is the right thing and it has sense, then nobody can’t break your intensions and even don’t want of course. Keep enjoying what you like and if you like it.
Special dedication to Viper1970 who said perhaps hundred times here about flying other aircrafts:
For me personally it matters really much if it is half baked or not! I definitely prefer rather fully baked cakes. Rebuild your cockpit either from scratch (easy to say i know)…or make some reinstallations and compromises to fit for your needs. Try to reap the benefits from your invested money and free time if possible…if not, keep rather shifted on another sim you playing just now. Just my advice, i did the same thing for now or playing both from time to time. You know what i’m talking about. My hardware configuration can handle that changes easily, no any problems with switching. Just to get use to a bit different flight model, so i suggest no switching sims actually… Nothing but the configs and profiles.Cheers guys, flying safely and please don’t get offended or take it anyhow offending, just my “shitty” opinion.
I wish you how much take offs, so much safe landings!