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.
-
@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! -
Regarding a potential F-35 and it’s avionics and sensors, wouldn’t it be possible to use for the F-35 in BMS the Arcade avionics of Falcon 4 or a derivative of it?
I still remember a bit about the Arcade avionics of Falcon 4, namely it’s “radar” which was basically the TSD which showed all contacts more or less on 360 degree around the aircraft with the enemies being marked on red and friendlies on green (or blue?) and it showed both aircraft and ground targets.
This is actually and basically how the real F-35 presents the sensor/target information to the pilot.Actually and everytime, I watch the real F-35 simulator I think something like:
- That’s like playing a “realistic” simulator on arcade settings.
-
So, I read through all 131 posts on this topic because I’ve been thinking a lot about the F-35. There is a lot of passion, and in some cases heat, on this topic.
Here’s my thoughts: Three things set Falcon BMS apart from the rest of the combat flight sim market:
- The level of accuracy in the F-16 simulation
- The sim’s TE and campaign simulating capabilities, which in my view already makes Falcon BMS more than an F-16 simulator.
- The dedication and unpaid contributions of the Falcon BMS community.
Falcon 4.0, and it’s development into Falcon BMS, has led to what is surely the most accurate F-16 simulator for the civilian flightsim market. There is a niche and demand for this level of realism and the BMS team has been right to focus on this goal. As such, I think the BMS F-16 focus should remain and hopefully expand into the Block 70 etc. That is supporting to one of the Falcon BMS product’s strengths.
At the same time, many in the community come to fly the Harrier, Hornets/Rhinos, Mirage, and more and many have contributed according to their interests and talents to improve these planes. I enjoy flying the F-16 and taking satisfaction of knowing the level of accuracy that has been achieved in the sim I’m flying. But I also enjoy flying other jets, even if they are not modeled to the same level and I enjoy flying them in the TE/Campaign environment that BMS offers. That is part of the value proposition with BMS. I think the BMS devs should do what keeps them motivated to keep working on BMS. And I think others that can contribute should also keep working on whatever jets or toher game aspects that motivate them to do the work and contribute to Falcon BMS. I have no idea what the recent news with Microprose will bring, and I won’t speculate. As it stands right now, so far as I know, nobody is here for a pay cheque. We’re here to enjoy Falcon BMS and ALL it has to offer. So if a group of people are passionate about the F-35 and want to build it up, I see no harm, only benefit. I would count myself among them. Many have said that the F-35 can’t be modelled accurately (classified systems, game engine limitations, etc.), or that there would be no point as an F-35 would dominate. I agree with the first argument, but not the second (that there would be no point). I like flying the F-4 Phantom II in the Vietnam theatre. That the F-16 could dominate it does not stop me from flying Phantoms. If I’m flying the Phantom in Vietnam, I’m fighting SA-2s, MiG-19s and MiG-21s, not SA-10s and Flankers. Invent the conflict parameters you want, and enjoy.
Can the F-35 be accurately simulated? Almost certainly not to the extent of the F-16. All these jets are on a spectrum of realism. If the F-16 can be developed from 90% to 95%, go for it. If the F-35 can be developed from 20% to 25%, go for it. (Please don’t argue about percentages, their illustrative to my point, not meant to be an actual fidelity metric).
With the F-16, the BMS devs set a high goal: “As Real as it Gets!” and they continue to have amazing success on the road to that goal. As I said in my 3rd paragraph, I think they should stay the course. It’s a pillar of Falcon BMS’s success.
But as I said in my 4th paragraph, for those more motivated to contribute in ways not related to the F-16, those contributions should not be turned away. In the case of the F-35, I would look at the “low hanging fruit” and start there. A lot of work has already been done on the F-35, and while we will almost certainly not get an F-16 level of accuracy, building it up to its own next level can start without massive effort I think.
F-35 Tweaking and Development Ideas
The real world F-35 has the following systems the can be replicated to some degree in BMS in the manner described in parentheses. Some systems I’ve grouped together as they are fused from the pilot experience perspective.
EOTS - Enhanced Optical Targeting System
(OFM F-35 has internal TGP)SEAD/DEAD/Electronic Warfare Capabilities
(OFM F-35 has internal HTS/HAD)
(Possibility? Upgraded OFM F-35 jammer to growler level. Do not require jamming steer points to use jamming. Turn on and off as per normal?)Radar - AN/APG-81 AESA
(Possibility? Enable constant full forward radar coverage to full limits of F-16 radar gimble limits?)
(Possibility? Enhance radar senstiivity?)Radar Cross Section
(Could not find OFM F-35 data on this?)IR Detectability
(OFM F-35 appears to have 30% the IR signature of the F-16 and F/A-18C, so IR masking seems to be implemented)Terrain Following Radar
(OFM F-35 appears to have this. Have not tried it.)DAS - Distributed Aperture System, Networked Sensor Data Fusion and HMDS
(OFM F-35 already has internal LANTIRN built in)
(Turn on full screen NVGs in settings)
(Turn on labels in settings, activate “label near” and “labels far” in 3d. This would be a cheat in most planes, maybe not so much so in an F-35)
(Turn on “Infobar”, “Engine Display” and “Flap Display” in 3D)
(Possibility? Augment the HUD information on JHMCS to replicate HMDS?)
(Possibility? Internal data link pod. Haven’t worked with IDM or Link 16, so can’t say much here)Cockpit
(Possibility? Remove F-22/5th Gen HUD frame)
(Possibility? Arrange 3 standard MFDs horizontally into a Panoramic Cockpit Display PCD-EU arrangement. Use “touch screen” hotspots instead of physical button hot spots.)These are the things that have been done, can be done through standard settings etc, and might be possible without (hopefully) too much effort. They won’t make a high fidelity F-35 simulator, but they might be a quick start to improving the F-35 experience.
-
@lfortanet - the Harrier is probably the single best subject for an “improved” higher fidelity BMS sim. I’ve found quite a bit of NATOPS documentation for it online, and it’s a pretty simple airplane in most respects. Even the Harrier avionics and cockpit could be done more correctly, without simply putting another dress on a Viper. Not to mention it’s performance - which is totally out to lunch in VSTOL currently.
-
In reviewing the original subject matter and all of the comments in this thread, it is very clear that the majority of people now, both users and clearly some devs as well, lack the personal historical perspective of the apparently few who have been with this simulator from its very beginnings decades ago.
The name ‘Falcon’ should explain it all. This started out as an F-16 simulator, period. Every minute and every resource spent developing other flyable airframes are minutes and resources taken away from further development/refinement/improvement of the F-16 Falcon airframe.
I know this old-timer’s comment will receive little support, because most of you have no personal knowledge of this simulator’s roots, and have little or no loyalty to the original Falcon simulator concept. The comments made in this thread make it clear that there are few purists left. In my opinion, this is a big reason that there are still today many areas/issues of the simulator’s F-16 that have been in urgent need of addressing/improving/fixing.
-
While your comments weren’t directly directed to me, they were a response to my post and I was expecting to catch some heat on this topic, so I’ll just say that to the degree that I may lack personal historical perspective, have no personal knowledge of the sim’s roots, have little or no loyalty to the original Falcon simulator concept and may even somehow be part of the reason there are areas of the F-16 sim leaving room for improvement, I apologize.
I’ll admit that while I’ve been flightsimming for a little over 30 years, I only started with the Falcon series in 1998 when 4.0 was released (beautiful spiral bound manual!). Before that, Back to Baghdad (1996) was my F-16 sim. I never flew 3.0 or earlier.
That said, I think I agreed with you that the BMS devs SHOULD focus on the F-16. “Falcon 4.0, and it’s development into Falcon BMS, has led to what is surely the most accurate F-16 simulator for the civilian flightsim market. There is a niche and demand for this level of realism and the BMS team has been right to focus on this goal. As such, I think the BMS F-16 focus should remain and hopefully expand into the Block 70 etc. That is supporting to one of the Falcon BMS product’s strengths.” “With the F-16, the BMS devs set a high goal: “As Real as it Gets!” and they continue to have amazing success on the road to that goal…I think they should stay the course. It’s a pillar of Falcon BMS’s success.”
But, not everyone in this community is going to work on the F-16. Some will want to work on and fly other planes. They can do that here or they can do that elsewhere. They chose to be here.
As for the F-35, the question was asked, I contributed my thoughts, paid respect to the history, strengths and work put into Falcon BMS and the F-16, highlighted some work already done for the F-35 and offered some hopefully easy and non-disruptive ideas that could be done outside of the BMS dev team work and that might satisfy those interested in the F-35, myself included.
I recognize it’s a divisive issue in this largely passionate community, and I respect where you’re coming from in wanting to keep the F-16 focus or exclusiveness. I think without that focus, Falcon BMS would not be where it is today.