Do we develop the F-35
-
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.
-
I just want to add to my previous comments, and say that developing the F-35 simulation to the highest quality level in the publicly accessible simulation field is what is most likely to give BMS staying power in the years to come. Just as the F-35 is intended to eventually replace the F-16 as the primary fighter in use by Air Forces around the world, the F-35 simulation should become BMS’s new “home”. We love our F-16 but reality is reality. Even though the F-16V modernizes the Viper greatly, it’s still not going to be in the future what the F-35 will be. In 30 years the F-35 will still be getting upgraded. Who thinks the F-16 can last that long? When that day comes the only flying F-16s will be retired warbirds working the airshow circuit…if there are even airshows. And I’ll be in my late 80s.
It is the F-35 that will keep BMS a viable and relevant simulation in the years to come. So I say, develop it to such a point that a new user won’t be able to tell if BMS was built for the F-16 or for the F-35 as the core of its existence.
And maybe it’ll be time to talk to the rights holders and see about an F-35 centric release to the general public. “Lightning 4.0”. We’d need that to boost participation.
-
@Buzzbomb So… by your logic…
There should be no RTS games which have a WWII theme…?
Because “in the future” nobody will shoot an M1 Garand…?EVERY copy of Steel Division or Company of Heroes are now irrelevant, and everybody should be playing WARNO…?
We can no longer fly a campaign which simulates 3rd and 4th generation fighters, because… er… simulations are only relevant when they simulate the present…?
“Most likely to give BMS staying power…?” LMFAO.
-
@Aragorn You’re missing my point. Which is, as simply as I can put it: Without moving toward F-35 simulation, BMS runs the risk of becoming one of those sims that only deals with legacy aircraft.
To be a sim that only deals with legacy aircraft is fine, if that’s what you want. But from the very start, F 4.0 was made to simulate state of the art aircraft as its primary role and that has never changed as of yet.
The F-35 is new (well, new by 21st century standards…) and attracts a lot of interest. BMS supporting it (and to a high standard) will help to maintain interest in BMS and help keep the numbers of the active community members up. I believe that it would be a way to make our community larger and hopefully better.
I am NOT suggesting that BMS abandon the F-16, not in the slightest. But as time goes on the focus should shift more toward the F-35 at least until such a time as the sim seems to be focused as much on the F-35 as it is on the F-16.
There is simply more of a future for an F-35 simulation than there is for an F-16 simulation.
-
@Buzzbomb
There’s nothing wrong with sim being focused on non-stealth birds.
5th gen fighters are cool, but hard to model in combat sims might be difficult to impossible due to lots of info gonna be classified for decades. -
@Buzzbomb said in Do we develop the F-35:
@Aragorn You’re missing my point. Which is, as simply as I can put it: Without moving toward F-35 simulation, BMS runs the risk of becoming one of those sims that only deals with legacy aircraft.
To be a sim that only deals with legacy aircraft is fine, if that’s what you want. But from the very start, F 4.0 was made to simulate state of the art aircraft as its primary role and that has never changed as of yet.
The F-35 is new (well, new by 21st century standards…) and attracts a lot of interest. BMS supporting it (and to a high standard) will help to maintain interest in BMS and help keep the numbers of the active community members up. I believe that it would be a way to make our community larger and hopefully better.
I am NOT suggesting that BMS abandon the F-16, not in the slightest. But as time goes on the focus should shift more toward the F-35 at least until such a time as the sim seems to be focused as much on the F-35 as it is on the F-16.
There is simply more of a future for an F-35 simulation than there is for an F-16 simulation.
I can’t stop laughing…
If not even 4++ planes could be modeled.
Countless times I have explained the issues.
Currently the following main items in general are not modeled:- Not even PESA, also AESA radars
- MAWS
- IRST (while in RL there n+1 different type of IRST imaging, non imaging)
- towed decoy
And this is only the avionics, we have not spoken about the RCS char. modeling.
@Buzzbomb said in Do we develop the F-35:
I just want to add to my previous comments, and say that developing the F-35 simulation to the highest quality level in the publicly accessible simulation field is what is most likely to give BMS staying power in the years to come.
I strongly disagree.
Just as the F-35 is intended to eventually replace the F-16 as the primary fighter in use by Air Forces around the world, the F-35 simulation should become BMS’s new “home”.
As long as you can’t provide a real challenging environment for the F-35s it is 100% pointless to have on any level the plane.
We love our F-16 but reality is reality. Even though the F-16V modernizes the Viper greatly, it’s still not going to be in the future what the F-35 will be.
Not even the 4++ jets can be modeled but you wish the OP F-35s? Why?
In 30 years the F-35 will still be getting upgraded. Who thinks the F-16 can last that long? When that day comes the only flying F-16s will be retired warbirds working the airshow circuit…if there are even airshows. And I’ll be in my late 80s.
You know the modeled era has nothing to do with the level of entertainment. Strategy and many other genre is successful regardless they are in the stone age, ancient times, medieval, etc. Pick any of these, EU4, HoI 4, Total War series.
Just because you can have a crap F-35 it does not make popular. Because the HC community wishes at least an OK+ fidelity.
It is the F-35 that will keep BMS a viable and relevant simulation in the years to come. So I say, develop it to such a point that a new user won’t be able to tell if BMS was built for the F-16 or for the F-35 as the core of its existence.
The BMS4 is totally viable without a funny badly modeled F-35. An accurate sim is viable. Because older planes and stuff now are declassified the reality is just the opposite, especially considering the engine of the game. Even just modeling a 35+ year old S-300PT and PS is doable only by “clever hacks”.
-
@Aragorn said in Do we develop the F-35:
@Buzzbomb So… by your logic…
There should be no RTS games which have a WWII theme…?
Because “in the future” nobody will shoot an M1 Garand…?EVERY copy of Steel Division or Company of Heroes are now irrelevant, and everybody should be playing WARNO…?
We can no longer fly a campaign which simulates 3rd and 4th generation fighters, because… er… simulations are only relevant when they simulate the present…?
“Most likely to give BMS staying power…?” LMFAO.
-
@Buzzbomb I understand what you are getting at, dude.
I actually understand WHERE you are coming from.
But… the fundamental issue is that in F4.0, the “F” stands for “Falcon”.
This IS an F-16 simulator.
It is a study-sim; not a sample sim.
The dedicated avionics already show that.I mean… if we haven’t gotten an A-10 or F-18 in the past 20 years, how can you imagine that we would implement a classified 5th gen. aircraft, let alone have THAT as the way forward…?
Again - I get what you are saying, but - you are NOT talking about BMS or F4.0
You are talking about F35.0.
I think it is a case of apples and oranges, and YOUR oranges are GOOD and FINE…!! Your choice of Aircraft is no less valid than mine.
I just feel that you can’t say the next logical progression for the apple is to be sold as an orange.
Cheers, BB.
-
@vyrago said in Do we develop the F-35:
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.
Which are modeled on a so-so level considering fidelity. Because they have mechanically steered radar, they do not have MAWS, towed decoy and they are not stealth.
The BMS4 is lightyear away from modeling even just a subsystem of the F-35 or major feature of it. Not all, a SINGLE one.
-
@Buzzbomb said in Do we develop the F-35:
I just want to add to my previous comments, and say that developing the F-35 simulation to the highest quality level in the publicly accessible simulation field is what is most likely to give BMS staying power in the years to come. Just as the F-35 is intended to eventually replace the F-16 as the primary fighter in use by Air Forces around the world, the F-35 simulation should become BMS’s new “home”. We love our F-16 but reality is reality. Even though the F-16V modernizes the Viper greatly, it’s still not going to be in the future what the F-35 will be. In 30 years the F-35 will still be getting upgraded. Who thinks the F-16 can last that long? When that day comes the only flying F-16s will be retired warbirds working the airshow circuit…if there are even airshows. And I’ll be in my late 80s.
It is the F-35 that will keep BMS a viable and relevant simulation in the years to come. So I say, develop it to such a point that a new user won’t be able to tell if BMS was built for the F-16 or for the F-35 as the core of its existence.
And maybe it’ll be time to talk to the rights holders and see about an F-35 centric release to the general public. “Lightning 4.0”. We’d need that to boost participation.
One more note. Regardless the “we know what” sim was expanded with countless planes it does not have any “staying power”. Because its environment is dead and empty. While we know what the heart of the F4/BMS.
So from my POV what provides the staying power that the BMS has weather affected IR sensors, which has effect both for AD and air combat. You can customize quite quickly a campaign to have 80s or 90s environment than the show goes on.
This kind of environment upgrade and the assets keeps alive the BMS and Falcon. Not a plane what cannot be modeled and which would be totally OP. To me the F-35 is a who cares thing. Because it does not have a real opponent and theater for it and 0% of the real capabilities of the plane can be modeled currently.
The best era for the engine of the BMS is until late 90s. Yes, many advanced weapons and thing were integrated but I simply do not use them.
-
@Buzzbomb said in Do we develop the F-35:
@Aragorn You’re missing my point. Which is, as simply as I can put it: Without moving toward F-35 simulation, BMS runs the risk of becoming one of those sims that only deals with legacy aircraft.
To be a sim that only deals with legacy aircraft is fine, if that’s what you want. But from the very start, F 4.0 was made to simulate state of the art aircraft as its primary role and that has never changed as of yet.
The F-35 is new (well, new by 21st century standards…) and attracts a lot of interest. BMS supporting it (and to a high standard) will help to maintain interest in BMS and help keep the numbers of the active community members up. I believe that it would be a way to make our community larger and hopefully better.
I am NOT suggesting that BMS abandon the F-16, not in the slightest. But as time goes on the focus should shift more toward the F-35 at least until such a time as the sim seems to be focused as much on the F-35 as it is on the F-16.
There is simply more of a future for an F-35 simulation than there is for an F-16 simulation.
BTW haven’t you noticed the line of the the “we know what” sim?
F-15E
F-16C
F-4E (WIP)
F-5E
F-14A/B
AV-8B
Viggen
Mirage-2000
Mi-24P
MiG-21BISand so on.
Even the $$$$ eater ED does not plan F-35. Can you guess why?If you ask me, late Cold War and fictional 90s is the sweet spot for ANY HC sim.
Docs are available to model planes or give the capability for every legacy SAMs and even some dobule digits…Bro, in reality even the most basic submodes* of the SAMs are not modeled but you dream about F-35s. LOL
Half-leading vs three point guidane, optical guidance ect.
-
Yes the fact that real documentation is sparse to non existent is obviously a problem. Nevertheless there is still an extreme ammount of public information available to work with, especially when it comes to the general capabilities of the F-35, its sensors and its PCD menu’s. And although we have no acess to accurate performance numbers, these are anything but impossible to reasonably estimate with some good research and cross referencing.
As a proof of concept i would really encourage people to take a look at what Dino Cattaneo has achieved with his F-35’s for P3D and MSFS. Whilst they may not be what many would consider full fidelity or study level, they till this day are the most accurate F-35 representations we have in any sim and would provide anyone with a good headstart of already conducted research.
And even if there is no possibility of making a one to one representation of the F-35, it would still serve the purpose of being the drive to improve BMS in some key areas (especially radar modelling and EW). And with the aircraft modding/development in BMS being stuck at porting F-16 avionics into pretty much anything, and the F-16 itself being modeled to almost perfection, there really isn’t anything that will bring meaningfull progress other than to develop an aircraft with clean sheet avionics.
So whats the worst that the F-35 being developed could cause? Progress, advancements in rather underrepresented areas and lessons for the future?
-
I would say for those talented individuals go ahead as I would love to have a version of the F35 pit like in FreeFalcon I tried years ago by Halismojab, The F22 pit does not cut it for the F35 found in BMS needs its own at some point., going by the video I found for the Nordic theater below.
Hope someone pulls out a 3D pit soon!
-
@MRTX Since the F16 isn’t yet “modelled to perfection” I, for one, wouldn’t want to take our developers’ eyes off the F16 ball. And if ever it is ‘perfect’, I would rather see a focus on developing similar generation aircraft- including Soviet and PRC models. The fact that F16s aren’t the newest kids on the block shouldn’t be a negative; after all there’s still lots of interest in WW1 and WWII sims.
After “perfection”, there remains plenty of room for developing other aspects of Falcon 4 BMS such as skyscapes, graphics, sound, terrain, busy air bases and so on. And of course, nothing stops “private development” of F35 models .
-
Good Day, All. With OFMKTO 1.4 out we have time to do other things, and we made a lot of progress yesterday with the F-35 and the 5G Pit. When working with a cockpit our baseline goal is ramp starting the jet without the keyboard. We’re a lot closer to that today then yesterday. We, or rather Brother Eddie, figured out the OSB issue with the center MFD’s. That gives us something to work with with things like IIF functionality, which is fixed. There is more to do. TCN functionality is something to be figured out. We did some work with the gunpod and that seemed to cause an issue with AG master mode. We think we’ve made progress with that.
-
@Reaperdog1 Wow, very decent legacy cockpit !
-
It’ll be really nice to just have a F-16V cockpit and radar model. Also there are still some missing features systems wise in the new verison F-16’s that is kinda of a bridge into the F-35. If these systems are not developed For the F-16V than it’s kinda of pointless to develop the F-35 in game.
-
This post is deleted!