Do we develop the F-35
-
@ricnunes What kind of people are you ?
First, this is an open forum, I say what I want.
Second, I wasn’t rude to you, so, please stay polite.
Third, It’s because such people here like you behave like consumers and never look to what then can do themselves that more and more devs just leave this community.
Do you realize that some devs here (including me) worked all their weekends, holidays and freetime to offer you 4.36 ?
15 years ago, I wasn’t capable to make a model. 20 years ago, I wasn’t able to code. With time and motivation, everything can be learned.
Your behavior is disgusting.
Btw, you say I don’t add anything meaningful, but I offer models for free for years in BMS. I think, when it deals with 3D models, I have the right to say something.
-
@ricnunes timeout…
Not the first time we offer people to participate if they want.
BMS is based on community contributions. I think radium has no lessons to be taught on that part…MaxWaldorf out!
-
No.
-
@ricnunes Hi. The Panther is not a dead issue in BMS, though there are challenges. AESA radar is one, as is getting flight dynamics data to refine the FM . The cockpit is another issue. The stock cockpit is really cool, but could use some love. For now we get around that by putting the Hornet pit in the naval versions, and Viper’s for land based.
But, I’m not being a nee-sayer, and there is good news. A lot of the other Theaters have it in them. Plus, check out the BMSOFM Journal Thread, hopefully within a day or 2, for a little KTO surprise -
@lfortanet said in Do we develop the F-35:
Hi drtbkj, I want to give you thanks for to think improve a model so interesting as F 35 but as are saying some friends, nowtoday we don’t have real documentation,it’s difficult…something that yes we have with the Harrier.
The Harrier is a great aircraft needed of love…Could be interesting to work in it, there are a lot of vpilots flying with it.
Enviado desde mi Mi A3 mediante Tapatalk
Hi, Ifortanet. This is an older post, but it raises a good point. We of the OFM like all the jets of BMS, but it’s a matter of time management. For that reason, we try to put the jets that most people want on top of our To-Do List. That’s why we may seem like “Hornet-guys” at times. Right now the Harrier is being worked on, in fact is toward the top of the List, Probably higher then the F-35, in fact. The Tornado is another example.
But the good news is, the Panther is on the List -
@drtbkj
Thanks for the heads up! -
@Radium said in Do we develop the F-35:
@ricnunes What kind of people are you ?
First, this is an open forum, I say what I want.
And this works both ways…
@Radium said in Do we develop the F-35:
Btw, you say I don’t add anything meaningful, but I offer models for free for years in BMS. I think, when it deals with 3D models, I have the right to say something.
I said that you didn’t add nothing to THIS discussion and I stand by it!
I never said that you didn’t add anything to BMS!
And whatever you added to BMS has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion at hand (F-35 for BMS), capiche? -
-
@ricnunes Keep capiche for yourself,
no need to insult me, I always stayed polite to you.
You want something ? Then do it.
BMS only relies on volunteers.
If we all wait for each other, nothing will happen.
Radium
-
@drtbkj of course we’re gonna want to see the F-35 developed but what about the F-22? IMO that needs some work too, we need something to combat the J-20 which is kicking our butts.
-
@Kavelenko said in Do we develop the F-35:
@drtbkj of course we’re gonna want to see the F-35 developed but what about the F-22? IMO that needs some work too, we need something to combat the J-20 which is kicking our butts.
K, The F-22 is like the F-18E/F/G. The Rhino will grow from what we learn about the Hornet, and the Raptor will “learn” from the Panther.
-
Hello,
For F22, I am on it
Regards,
Radium
-
@drtbkj Excellent news. I noticed it doesn’t seem to come with a TGP, will that eventually happen? Seems like it already has a ton of grunt that will enable it to compete with the J-20 speed but current weapons systems seem a bit limited. Not complaining btw. I was able to launch it from the WASP without catapult lol.
-
@Radium You the man, top stuff Radium.
-
@Kavelenko said in Do we develop the F-35:
@drtbkj Excellent news. I noticed it doesn’t seem to come with a TGP, will that eventually happen? Seems like it already has a ton of grunt that will enable it to compete with the J-20 speed but current weapons systems seem a bit limited. Not complaining btw. I was able to launch it from the WASP without catapult lol.
Hi, K. The RL F-22 doesn’t have an IRST, but it looks like the USAF is looking into that. https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/14223915/infrared-sensor-jet-fighter.
The good news is, if we decide to model that, there are ways to achieve it. Have you tried putting something like this in the F-22 Acdata? -TGP
#-----------------------------------------------------
#Switch: 0 - No TGP, 1 - Internal TGP, 2 - External TGP
TGP_Type 2 #Added Falcas 14/06/2014
TGPCameraXOff 0.00
TGPCameraYOff 0.00
TGPCameraZOff 0.00(This is from the F-18c)
Brother Eddie has been working with the TGP that could be useful in several jets -
@drtbkj I had a quick look at the F-22 but didnt know what I needed to edit to get the TGP working. Will try this though thanks!
-
@Kavelenko said in Do we develop the F-35:
@drtbkj I had a quick look at the F-22 but didnt know what I needed to edit to get the TGP working. Will try this though thanks!
K, stand by. We may have some good news for you. Update, I pm’d you.
-
It is my opinion that developing the F-35 model is desirable and will be beneficial, maybe even necessary, to keep interest in BMS up for the foreseeable future.
However, it’ll have to be, just as with Falcon 4.0 in its original intent, the best representation of the F-35 that is possible with the limited non-classified data available. I’m sure I didn’t have to say that. Nobody here wants BMS to turn into War Thunder.
BUT…to be quite honest about it, if I had to pick and choose between the F-35 being developed, or having the F-16V Block 70/72 developed, I’d pick the F-16V to be developed FIRST.
I think that would be the development path that is most true to the spirit and intent of BMS. F-16 above all things.
As long as I’m here and ranting, I have a development suggestion to make as well:
BMS is still kind of complex to manage with regard to some things that really should be simpler. Such as…being able to quickly select the version of F-16 to be used, via a drop-down menu, with skin selection being available in another drop-down menu below it.
In general the fact is that the entire menu system/user interface is quite dated. Even the look of it looks like many generations of computer software past. I think it’s due for a big update as well. Simply going into video settings tells the age of the foundation code.
VR support. Need I say more?
-
@Buzzbomb said in Do we develop the F-35:
It is my opinion that developing the F-35 model is desirable and will be beneficial, maybe even necessary, to keep interest in BMS up for the foreseeable future.
However, it’ll have to be, just as with Falcon 4.0 in its original intent, the best representation of the F-35 that is possible with the limited non-classified data available. I’m sure I didn’t have to say that. Nobody here wants BMS to turn into War Thunder.
I fully agree with you above!
And I would like to add the following:
(for some like it or not) the F-35 is here to stay and is the future (and already is the present) so having the F-35 in BMS is IMO mandatory (even if only as an AI model for the time being) and even more so than the F-22 (afterall there are already much more F-35’s than F-22’s).Having a playable/flyable F-35 is IMO a must because it’s not only the future (like I mentioned above) but being an extremely easy aircraft to fly and to fight in then I think it will bring more people to the genre (combat flight simulations). For instance everytime I watch videos from a real F-35 simulator I fell like it’s like flying a “realistic” flight simulator (like BMS or DCS) in arcade mode!
I think that what BMS currently lacks the most is having other aircraft (besides the F-16) with proper avionics and sensors (not a clone of the F-16 ones) but here I digress - IMO this is the only “big advantage” that DCS has over BMS.
Obviously I would like to have all the skills, time and honestly the will to help making that happen but unfortunately I don’t. As such I’m with the majority here (I think) and “rooting” for these things to actually happen.
BUT…to be quite honest about it, if I had to pick and choose between the F-35 being developed, or having the F-16V Block 70/72 developed, I’d pick the F-16V to be developed FIRST.
I get what you’re saying and here I also tend to agree.
But I would say that there are things that both the F-16V and the F-35 have in common or at least are very similar such as for example the AESA radar (the F-16V radar is based on the F-35 radar). So developing stuff for the F-16V would benefit a F-35 and/or vice-versa. -
Still a LOT of work has to be done… Figuring out how all parts look and work takes time… a LOT of time… Nowhere near ready for release but Rome wasn’t build in one day either.