Do we develop the F-35
-
@Stevie Hornet and A10 would pretty much get me off DCS completely so I’ll second this…
-
@drtbkj said in Do we develop the F-35:
So, we can easily make the 35 pure Stealth, the question remains do we want to?
What’s the point of spending time to model an aircrafts that has stealth as one of its primary attributes if you’re going to nerf that attribute?
If it’s a balance question, that feels a bit silly in a sim. If you want to fly as or against an F-35 it’s going to be pretty pointless if it’s modelled without a good approximation of its actual attributes. Otherwise it’s just a skin…
-
Without data… the F-35 is just a shell…
There is nothing serious about such project or some people would be in serious troubles…
-
on the note of someone mentioning the f18, here’s something
still a wip but hopefully i can complete it before 4.38 -
I would entirely agree that the A-10 and F-18 would be far better to develop further however not to cause dissent here but I also enjoy some flight time in MSFS.
Personally would love to see a quality A-10C pit and model put out
I like to think in future someone might introduce a working model of the F-35 pit knowing I have seen a F-35 model posted in the BMS screen shots to have a pit working with at least the F-16 avionics would be still enjoyable
for those that haven’t seen MSFS F-35
-
@MaxWaldorf said in Do we develop the F-35:
Without data… the F-35 is just a shell…
There is nothing serious about such project or some people would be in serious troubles…
Re: Do we develop the F-35
To devs: Don’t bother to develop it at least until the F15 is done and most of F35 is unclassified. If I want to fly a toy F35 I can get that elsewhere. Cheers and thaks for all your hard work. -
As we are talking about the roots of F4…
Who knows that F4 was the first (and only) part of the Electeonic Battlefield Series? The EBS was supposes to become a series of interconnectable combat sims, much like what DCS has evolved into. In a 1999 interview the developers said that the next part of the series would introduce the F-15E as a flyable aircraft and that the Balkan Theater would be added. F4 was discontinued, MPS fired and the EBS never came into live, with exception of… Falcon 4.0.
F4 included the provisions to add new theaters and additional flyable aircraft and the community exploited these to some extant as is evident by the large number of addon theaters and the fly any planes option which has been there ever since the RP series in 2000! All aircraft have been flyable by then and if we simply compare the number of aircraft included in the DB (30 in the original F4 DB) and the 100+ we have now, it’s not solely owed to new theaters.
Other aircraft contributed to keep this sim alive, despite of the limitations. Nevertheless we have seen a couple of well optimised non F-16 aircraft. I don’t really understand the harsh opposition, you don’t need to ly any aircraft, if you don’t want to do this for your personal reasons, whatever these might be. The BMS team is focussing on the F-16, and more recently on the F-15C and I think it’s good, because F4 always had much more to offer than “just” a high fidelity simulation of the F-16. It’s these other features that keep players of non F-16 aircraft interested.
-
@Scorpion82 I am all for developing high fidelity aircraft for BMS. Since the F35 cant be done high fidelity due to lack of publicly available information, I just dont want to see the devs wasting their precious and limited time on a toy aircraft.
-
@Dee-Jay - these are all perfectly valid reasons why I think the Harrier is the most suitable on for the devs to concentrate on. Not only is it the simplest, but the NATOPS/Performance/and even TAC-000 are out there on the net, as I recall.
I can’t think of much else you’d need in terms of references to do a very nice, passable model set for the Harrier - if/when there are time and resources available. Otherwise, BMS is a VIPER sim and that’s good enough for me.
-
@MCDeedle said in Do we develop the F-35:
@drtbkj said in Do we develop the F-35:
So, we can easily make the 35 pure Stealth, the question remains do we want to?
What’s the point of spending time to model an aircrafts that has stealth as one of its primary attributes if you’re going to nerf that attribute?
If it’s a balance question, that feels a bit silly in a sim. If you want to fly as or against an F-35 it’s going to be pretty pointless if it’s modelled without a good approximation of its actual attributes. Otherwise it’s just a skin…
Hi, McDeedle. You have asked the question I ask myself, a lot. In my personal install “Amy” has realistic stealth. I enjoy flying with Stealth AND flying 4-Gen jets, to develop tactics to counter it. That’s just the wacky kind of stuff I enjoy But, that’s not really the question we ask the membership. We are a Community where everyone has their favorite jets. And, we try to please everyone( yes, that impossible but who says we can’t try?) . Thus, we realize some would not enjoy constantly getting splashed by a jet they can’t even lock up.
So, the real question is not whether or not to do it, but whether the Membership wants it in our OFM Theaters-stock. -
@drtbkj I’d be interested to know how many people playing Falcon BMS think that your preference is “wacky”
Surely people that want to play “balanced” aircraft have a raft of prettier, more accessible games to consider.
I’m pretty new to BMS, so I don’t know what the relationship between the main devs and OFM is like, whether there’s a rigid design ethos, whether OFM aircraft are migrated to the base theatres after certain amounts of review/testing etc, but I’d honestly be a bit disappointed to find out that the planes, weapons and systems modelled in BMS are balanced.
-
@drtbkj said in Do we develop the F-35:
@MCDeedle said in Do we develop the F-35:
@drtbkj said in Do we develop the F-35:
So, we can easily make the 35 pure Stealth, the question remains do we want to?
What’s the point of spending time to model an aircrafts that has stealth as one of its primary attributes if you’re going to nerf that attribute?
If it’s a balance question, that feels a bit silly in a sim. If you want to fly as or against an F-35 it’s going to be pretty pointless if it’s modelled without a good approximation of its actual attributes. Otherwise it’s just a skin…
Hi, McDeedle. You have asked the question I ask myself, a lot. In my personal install “Amy” has realistic stealth. I enjoy flying with Stealth AND flying 4-Gen jets, to develop tactics to counter it. That’s just the wacky kind of stuff I enjoy But, that’s not really the question we ask the membership. We are a Community where everyone has their favorite jets. And, we try to please everyone( yes, that impossible but who says we can’t try?) . Thus, we realize some would not enjoy constantly getting splashed by a jet they can’t even lock up.
So, the real question is not whether or not to do it, but whether the Membership wants it in our OFM Theaters-stock.Greatly appreciate the efforts that OFM are putting out, but since you asked, my €0,02 is to work on the aircraft that exist within the original Falcon 4.0 world. A10s, F5’s, Mig 29\21, SU 27’s, and on and on. So many aircraft that would benefit from your team’s work!
-
@Dee-Jay said in Do we develop the F-35:
that worked already perfectly in the preceding version.
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).
Are these planes in current BMS broken? What do not work on them as should be?
Regarding the F-35A the case is very simply. None of the main feature of the plane can be modeled. Even the far less complicated PESA radar is modeled not even for AI controlled units. And that is only the radar. To make on a sim level modeled the advantage of the F-35 we would need a following:
-
even the AESA radar alone is so complex that raises the question even the feasibility of modeling it…
-
stealth (RCS is just estimation but its aspect dependency if there is such thing cannot be verified well), as I know the code can handle this, a characteristics can be defined with aspect value, but I do not know…
-
towed decoy (which does not have universal effect because against optical tracking does not work, while in BMS ATM there is no optical tracking as I know.)
-
close to 0 data is available for AFM, only educated guesses can be made, but I would not call modeling compared to the FM of even 2nd tier planes (Even in 2012 I was able to reproduce the climb records of the Streak Eagle if I set lower empty weight and -10C atm. temp.)
-
DAS which acts as a MAWS + short / med range secondary recon tool, it is also a so complex system, and nothing similar exist in the code, even afar, far, far more primitive IRST is not modeled ATM
-
the HMD system which has such function if you turned on the labels
So speaking about a flyable F-35 is simply a pure fantasy from my POV. Even if it was possible what would be the point of the F-35? Even if you just fly an F-16 with over powered FM and you set stealth even with current F-16C avionics you simply kick the ass of EVERY other plane.
(In FF5.x with guys just for fun we flew with F-22. It was a childplay, you simply did not have care, you could do whatever you wanted.)
Flying with F-35A against ANY 4th gen plane in the game would be just a walk in the park and even double digit SAMs would be harmless unless you fly closer than 15-20 km. When you can loft SDBs from 50 km+…
If you ask me it is pointless to model such plane which is literally a “press the I win button” on the battlefield in the environment what you could have.
I vote on any day to model older planes because they simply can be modeled which are at least partially declassified.
-
-
Spend the development time on audio and visuals instead. With new and upcoming. 38 there will probably be plenty of possibilities waiting for development time.
That’s my humble opinion.
-
@drtbkj I understand you guys are interested on new toys like the F-35 or F-22. But did you consider developing highly detailed pits for cold war planes?
I am personnally very interested on late cold war/post-soviet era 90s. If the community could deliver a couple of them, the avionics for them could be developed. There are tons of information available about their avionics and they would be very compatible with our theaters and DB.
-
@Dee-Jay - I still think that the Harrier is the lowest hanging fruit. FOREX - the difference between Hornet HOTAS and Viper HOTAS is like the difference between a game of chess and a game of tic-tac-toe…especially if you are going to do the back seat. You flat don’t have enough Callbacks to do a lot of what you need to do. Plus so much of what a Hornet does is done on the DDIs vice the Vipers switches.
But with the Harrier I think you have far more than enough Callbacks available right now from Viper modeling and it would be a simple matter of remapping to do a very nice and complete cockpit - for the sim, and for cockpit builders. The only “problem” is a realistic controller for the throttle/nozzles, and I’ve seen some very great 3D printed solutions for that. Other than that, the Harrier flight model is also currently pretty gooned - particularly for hover and VSTOL -, but since the Performance manuals are out there, that’s also not unsolvable.
I have yet to see what I would consider a passable Hornet sim - from anyone - once I take a deep look. The best all-around one was actually the old Graphsim F/A-18 Hornet (but it had a crappy thrust model for single engine operation), and the best flight model was /is in MSFS (and I’ve heard that MCAIR actually helped with it, and that’s why) though it is VERY sensitive to what controllers you use with it - it likes a heavy stick. I’m hoping for big things from VRS and their (supposedly) pending release for MSFS 2000+, as far as Hornets go.
I have no idea how you’re making forward progress on an F-15E sim…but I seriously endorse that effort! But honestly, I’m ok with BMS being a Viper sim if that’s what things all come down to.
-
@tiag said in Do we develop the F-35:
@drtbkj I understand you guys are interested on new toys like the F-35 or F-22. But did you consider developing highly detailed pits for cold war planes?
I am personnally very interested on late cold war/post-soviet era 90s. If the community could deliver a couple of them, the avionics for them could be developed. There are tons of information available about their avionics and they would be very compatible with our theaters and DB.
Hi, Tiag. First, we want to be clear that any further F-35 development will not be at the expense of other jets. But, to answer your direct question-Yes, we would love to make more stock pits that work. Our practice of using the Viper or Hornet or 5Gen or other in other jets is not a preference. it’s a practical solution to getting a ramp-start-capable pit.( which you could say is our “basic” goal).
What we need to make this work is for a good cockpit builder to “join the mob” We would LOVE that. -
@MCDeedle said in Do we develop the F-35:
@drtbkj I’d be interested to know how many people playing Falcon BMS think that your preference is “wacky”
Surely people that want to play “balanced” aircraft have a raft of prettier, more accessible games to consider.
I’m pretty new to BMS, so I don’t know what the relationship between the main devs and OFM is like, whether there’s a rigid design ethos, whether OFM aircraft are migrated to the base theatres after certain amounts of review/testing etc, but I’d honestly be a bit disappointed to find out that the planes, weapons and systems modelled in BMS are balanced.
Hi, McD. What I mean by " wacky" is that I enjoy tinkering with things. It’s something a lot of the Mafia seems to share. As opposed to the people who just want to fly the game!
Your statement about balance is very pertinent, and I feel is a big “part of the process” . What is “balanced”? I have spoken to a long-time member of the BMS family who absolutely will not fly the BMS Hornet. It has Viper avionics and hence is “not balanced”. What we try to do is provide the BMS members with the best Other Jets we can. Can they be improved, sure. Would we welcome support to make them better,you bet!
I can emphatically answer your question about the OFM relationships to the BMS Devs. We, and I personally, are and always will be extremely grateful to the Dev’s such as Mav-JP for developing the Hornet and others. They gave us the foundation to do what we enjoy doing. When the Mafia first formed, one of the first things did was directly contact the Dev’s and offer our support and offer to help. Those offers still stand. As for what they think of us, you’ll have to ask them . -
@Icer said in Do we develop the F-35:
@drtbkj said in Do we develop the F-35:
@MCDeedle said in Do we develop the F-35:
@drtbkj said in Do we develop the F-35:
So, we can easily make the 35 pure Stealth, the question remains do we want to?
What’s the point of spending time to model an aircrafts that has stealth as one of its primary attributes if you’re going to nerf that attribute?
If it’s a balance question, that feels a bit silly in a sim. If you want to fly as or against an F-35 it’s going to be pretty pointless if it’s modelled without a good approximation of its actual attributes. Otherwise it’s just a skin…
Hi, McDeedle. You have asked the question I ask myself, a lot. In my personal install “Amy” has realistic stealth. I enjoy flying with Stealth AND flying 4-Gen jets, to develop tactics to counter it. That’s just the wacky kind of stuff I enjoy But, that’s not really the question we ask the membership. We are a Community where everyone has their favorite jets. And, we try to please everyone( yes, that impossible but who says we can’t try?) . Thus, we realize some would not enjoy constantly getting splashed by a jet they can’t even lock up.
So, the real question is not whether or not to do it, but whether the Membership wants it in our OFM Theaters-stock.Greatly appreciate the efforts that OFM are putting out, but since you asked, my €0,02 is to work on the aircraft that exist within the original Falcon 4.0 world. A10s, F5’s, Mig 29\21, SU 27’s, and on and on. So many aircraft that would benefit from your team’s work!
Compadre, I can promise you that any future 35 Dev will NOT interfere with the “baseline jets”
-
Just a quick opinion, I have a dedicated F16 cockpit.
Like the guy above, audio,visual. More cockpit functions maybe. FOV enhancements for wider views ?
IE , I have triple 55” TVs, is it possible to look at the left or right Tv and actual see your 3 or 9 o’clock? Without Tir.
Visibility of AAA tracers? I don’t even know I’m getting shot at lol
I don’t know if it’s possible,but some of the AI comms are hard to understand.
Also would be nice if they were delivered in a quicker fashion.
Resume Campaign development and Theatres. Taking bridges out for example has effect.
Just a few of my uneducated opinions.
If any other model, I like the F18
Mud