Do we develop the F-35
-
-
@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.
-
@JanHas said in Do we develop the F-35:
Still a LOT of work has to be done…Rome wasn’t build in one day either.
Exactly!
-
That model work looks fantastic! And it gives me an idea, one that probably wouldn’t lead to anything but I’ll throw it out there anyway. The ability to walk around the exterior of the jet and interact with it. For example, though I’d probably get shot if I ever actually touched them on a real F-16, I know where the canopy open/close switches are and where their access panel is on the F-16. And the equivalent exterior panels for the F-35. To be able to walk up to the F-35, open the requisite panels, extend the built-in ladder, and climb in would be kind of neat, as part of an extended cold ramp start sequence. Actually being able to simulate the preflight walkaround complete with pulling the arming pins would appeal to some people. A few times, anyway.
There’s a great deal I DON’T know, particularly about the F-16V, and I hope to learn some of it. For example, have its control laws been updated to be more F-35-like? The F-35 essentially has “where you point it, I go” autopilot active all the time. Take your hands off the controls and it maintains the current direction, pitch, and roll values. So if you’re wings level you can just let it fly itself but it’s not a true autopilot. It’s just flight automation. The V might have that. Or maybe not.
I’d also be interested in seeing if the V currently or later will get the DAS of the F-35. (Distributed Aperture System)
-
@Buzzbomb said in Do we develop the F-35:
I’d also be interested in seeing if the V currently or later will get the DAS of the F-35. (Distributed Aperture System)
Sort of …If you buy a V now you will likely get access to the F-35 down the road.
Even if there was space, power, cooling etc you would need a customer with more money than sense (UAE) to get it integrated. Forget the US paying for it every radical F-16 upgrade ever was never funded.
The new F-16V (Block 70/72) is a relatively modest upgrade to what was the current production model (50+/52+)…just like the F-15EX is a slightly modified production F-15QA.
-
I think it would be a good thing, pushing the bar to fith gen AC’s. I say “Go for it”…
-
I say definitely develop the F-35. I’m one of those weird BMS players that almost never flies the F-16. I fly Rhinos and Harriers from boats, and I love doing that. So having F-35B and F-35C would be right in my wheelhouse.
-
@Buzzbomb said in Do we develop the F-35:
That model work looks fantastic! And it gives me an idea, one that probably wouldn’t lead to anything but I’ll throw it out there anyway. The ability to walk around the exterior of the jet and interact with it. For example, though I’d probably get shot if I ever actually touched them on a real F-16, I know where the canopy open/close switches are and where their access panel is on the F-16. And the equivalent exterior panels for the F-35. To be able to walk up to the F-35, open the requisite panels, extend the built-in ladder, and climb in would be kind of neat, as part of an extended cold ramp start sequence. Actually being able to simulate the preflight walkaround complete with pulling the arming pins would appeal to some people. A few times, anyway.
There’s a great deal I DON’T know, particularly about the F-16V, and I hope to learn some of it. For example, have its control laws been updated to be more F-35-like? The F-35 essentially has “where you point it, I go” autopilot active all the time. Take your hands off the controls and it maintains the current direction, pitch, and roll values. So if you’re wings level you can just let it fly itself but it’s not a true autopilot. It’s just flight automation. The V might have that. Or maybe not.
I’d also be interested in seeing if the V currently or later will get the DAS of the F-35. (Distributed Aperture System)
Hi, Buzz. An external walk around capability could be lumped to ground crew modelling. That would be quite the process in BMS, but you never know.
The thing about developing cutting-edge systems is you have to have accurate performance data to model it. Like AESA radar, for example. There’s been talk in the Forum for years about that. That’s going to be even more pertinent when developing 5th gen stuff , especially classified 5th Gen Stuff!
Another thing to consider is it’s effect on BMS as a whole. As it’s safe to say the majority of the BMS membership flies the Viper, what effect would having a lot of fully modeled F-22’s and/or F-35’s and/or J-20’s have on it?
So, there are questions to be answered ,but I’m not being a nee-sayer here. There seems enough interest for us to pursue it. Besides, it will be fun .
And, any volunteers to help would be most welcome.
So, what can we do? That’s the question. I can tell you that right now we are working to develop the 5th Gen F-22 pit created by Metalhead. Right now we have the Viper and Hornet pits. That’s why you see them plugged into other jets in BMS. A “5th Gen Pit” could be used in the F-22,-35, J-20, etc. Also, the recent work Musurca and Falcas did on the Tornado pit shows that even austere stock pits have potential. It just takes time and effort.
Flight models can be adjusted, if needed. However, even at present the people that created the Raptor and Panther FM’s did a really good job, IMHO. The the F-22 for instance. I don’t know how accurate it’s FM is, but it sure is fun to fly!
Also, could the radar be enhanced? How about radar cross section? That can be adjusted. Could padlocking be a “poor man’s” DAS?
Time will tell. -
DCS - F-35 - Community Mod
I would thoroughly enjoy this in BMS but would also like to have some trainers like a Cessna 172, T-45 Goshawk and an E-2 Hawkeye fully working pits happy to go with F-16 avionics.