F-35B Lightning II

[FudgeMakerAllDay 10]

Any sort of update soon?

[Stekelenburg 10]

Hello, the F35 has a lot of very cool things like the cockpit screen:

It would be realy nice if this was in the ArmA 3 F35. Maybe if you like that idea, you should contact NodUnit, Franze or Peral, they have a lot of experiance with those advanced cockpits

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Hello, the F35 has a lot of very cool things like the cockpit screen:

It would be realy nice if this was in the ArmA 3 F35. Maybe if you like that idea, you should contact NodUnit, Franze or Peral, they have a lot of experiance with those advanced cockpits

Keep in mind that Arma isn't a flightsim. Infact, many of those features would be pretty useless in Arma, let alone the fact that most people don't really care to much.

[ice_age0815 37]

hi are you still working on this addon ?

[Stekelenburg 10]

@Tuna, the Apache of Nodunit and Franze in Arma 2 also had a lot of options that aren't realy necessery, but it was pretty popular mod and good fun to fly

[Crielaard 434]

Except for the A-A capabilities I don't think the F35's systems are useless at all. There are quiet some squads in the ArmA community that play very realistic, large scale, missions. I can see great use of the F35 (and any other aircraft worked out in great detail) for the A-G role.

Im working on a system my self which I like to call 'Enhanced PiP' which will give us some better working MFDs with regards to sensors.

[chortles 263]

Im working on a system my self which I like to call 'Enhanced PiP' which will give us some better working MFDs with regards to sensors.

I imagine that you're working on this for more than just the F-35B, right?

When the pylons and gun pod are added the loadouts would be revised: the current plan is that the weapon bays would hold a pair of GBUs and a pair of longer-range Zephyr AAMs, with a pair of short-range AAMs being on the outermost pylons; on the CAS loadout the other four underwing stations (midboard and inboard) would hold AGMs (matching the To-199 for guided air-to-ground), GBUs (for a total of six, matching the prior Arma games' AV-8B LGB loadouts), or a pair of each (for a total of two AGMs and four GBUs), while on the AA loadout they'd all have Zephyrs, resulting in a total of six Zephyrs, a pair of short-range AAMs, and a pair of GBUs... or should I "assume the Block 3 standard"* and have the AA loadout replace both GBUs with two more Zephyrs?

Admittedly the above question and ideas are in lieu of having a Service Menu, but I can actually get one set up... to quote the devs, "no promises." ;)

* I say this in the sense that I don't want to play "oh hey read a Lockheed Manual pamphlet and treat that as if it's happening", but at the same time I recognize how odd it must sound to have a pair of GBUs on an AA loadout, even if only so that a F-35B (AA) isn't completely useless (besides its gun) at ground attack/CAS. Also, the four AAMs on the CAS loadout are mandated (the outermost pylons are only capable of carrying Sidewinders or ASRAAMs in real life, and AMRAAMs or Meteors on the inner doors -- it's uncertain what if any action was taken on getting a so-called "trapeze" to get Sidewinders/ASRAAMs to be usable in the bay) but having a pair of GBUs in the bays' outer stations is not (supposed to be).

[Crielaard 434]

yes it will be for any mod maker who wants to coop with me.

[Stekelenburg 10]

For the dutch people here: http://www.rtl.nl/rtl-late-night/#!/314324/video/bc98efbc-0f03-a4d2-7dd3-97769b53d72a-de-jsf-is-als-een-splinternieuwe-auto

[chortles 263]

A current dilemma: while attempting to use the show/hide method that the Buzzard/sample jet use for having different loadouts on the same model (that is, while using only one jet .p3d), the weapon proxies aren't appearing in the correct 'stations'/positions...

[Crielaard 434]

Isnt it possible to get in touch with John-Spartan and or the guy who made the A10? These have a neat weapon loading system.

[chortles 263]

Isnt it possible to get in touch with John-Spartan and or the guy who made the A10? These have a neat weapon loading system.

As it turns out, over the weekend I have been preparing my F-35B for just such a weapon loading system, with the (I won't presume to say direct) help of both John_Spartan and the direct help of dezkit, who you may know for Ivory Aircraft.

SITREP on the next update:

• Release is imminent, credit to John_Spartan, mankyle, BusterBlader, and dezkit for what they've brought forward!
  
• Will feature both the existing AA and CAS loadouts -- albeit augmented -- and a new third loadout. Hint: what loadout was exclusive to the AV-8B? ;)
  
• Will feature plenty of classname changes for loadouts (albeit adding a CHO_ prefix to their classnames), weapons, and magazines -- if any of you are reading this and have created missions utilizing my F-35B port, please take care to update your missions accordingly! Once I am more able to properly support a service menu (read: knowing what the heck I'm doing :rolleyes:) I may roll things over into a single F-35B, changing the classnames for a hopefully final time.
  
• Besides wanting to further fix up the HUD (really not my strong suit here), I have to admit that for some reason I've got quite a bit of muzzle flash and missile firings lighting up the cockpit at night... this is the issue holding me up from going ahead with a release. (That, and I haven't set the collision/positional lights up... :o )

Have a pair of preview screenshots, even...

[eymerich 11]

As it turns out, over the weekend I have been preparing my F-35B for just such a weapon loading system, with the (I won't presume to say direct) help of both John_Spartan and the direct help of dezkit, who you may know for Ivory Aircraft.

SITREP on the next update:

• Release is imminent, credit to John_Spartan, mankyle, BusterBlader, and dezkit for what they've brought forward!
  
• Will feature both the existing AA and CAS loadouts -- albeit augmented -- and a new third loadout. Hint: what loadout was exclusive to the AV-8B? ;)
  
• Will feature plenty of classname changes for loadouts (albeit adding a CHO_ prefix to their classnames), weapons, and magazines -- if any of you are reading this and have created missions utilizing my F-35B port, please take care to update your missions accordingly! Once I am more able to properly support a service menu (read: knowing what the heck I'm doing :rolleyes:) I may roll things over into a single F-35B, changing the classnames for a hopefully final time.
  
• Besides wanting to further fix up the HUD (really not my strong suit here), I have to admit that for some reason I've got quite a bit of muzzle flash and missile firings lighting up the cockpit at night... this is the issue holding me up from going ahead with a release. (That, and I haven't set the collision/positional lights up... :o )

Have a pair of preview screenshots, even...

That's a great new!

;)

[corporal_lib[br] 396]

Lovely screenshots! With a full armed and improved F-35B I should pilot it more (instead of only using it to CAS with MCC)... BTW, is the third loadout (exclusive to AV-8B) a AT loadout (with mavericks or brimstones?)

anxious for the immininet release! =)

[chortles 263]

;2684784']Lovely screenshots! With a full armed and improved F-35B I should pilot it more (instead of only using it to CAS with MCC)... BTW' date=' is the third loadout (exclusive to AV-8B) a AT loadout (with mavericks or brimstones?)[/quote']Another hint, if you haven't already figured it out: the AV-8B had that loadout in ArmA as well.

dezkit has since helped me with the muzzle flash and the "lighting up of the cockpit" (though I've since been informed that even the Wipeout and Neophron aren't immune to that, they weren't having the degree thereof that the F-35B did), but the HUD is still going to be misaligned for the time being (and unfortunately possibly the foreseeable future*)... you'd better go with game HUD (crosshair) enabled!

As far as STOVL capability goes, right now the old vtol = 1; or vtol = true; setting doesn't work correctly with this F-35B in that it somehow gets stuck for a while in place before erratically, eventually accelerating forward into a short take-off. Therefore, I'm using vtol = 3; instead, which will cause a short take-off (like, I don't think a conventional takeoff is actually possible in this!) but seamlessly allows the performing of a vertical take-off by enabling auto-hover before applying thrust, albeit with a rearward tilt (nose pitches up)... and a really noticeable banking/lurching leftward!

* It turns out that the pilot proxy in the Arma 2 sources is actually tilted leftwards (pilot POV), but making the proxy vertical by changing the uppermost point's positional X value (to that of the bottom two points) just results in the pilot essentially being pressed up against the right side of the cockpit with his view (and therefore the game crosshair alignment) moved accordingly, while moving the bottom two points leftward (their X point matching that of the uppermost point) that he's actually out of place altogether, with his hands no longer holding the throttle and stick!

[chortles 263]

I'm sorry to admit that apparently "imminent" translates to "four days"... but nevertheless, the v1.1 release is available and the link and changelog may be found in the OP, as well as a new link (filename changed) for the old v1.0 release.

[Guest]

Updated version frontpaged on the Armaholic homepage.

F-35B Lightning II v1.1

==================================================

You are not registered on Armaholic, or at least not that we are aware of. In the future we offer the possibility to authors to maintain their own pages.

If you wish to be able to do this as well please register on Armaholic and let me know about it.

This is not mandatory at all! Only if you wish to control your own content you are welcome to join, otherwise we will continue to follow your work like we have always done ;)

When you have any questions already feel free to PM or email me!

Edited May 10, 2014 by Guest
readme properly copied to our pages

[chortles 263]

Thanks for the Armaholic update, but please note that there's now a LGB loadout as well (CHO_F35B_LGB), that the AA and CAS loadouts are both expanded, and that the credits are updated, all as per the readme.

[dezkit 28]

awesome release!

[x hunter33 10]

Great aircraft! The only downside i found is the fact i can barrel roll super fast but the rest of the movements are quite slow. Also, is there a line of code i can put in the init field so it starts in conventional takeoff mode instead?

[Victim9l3 11]

I love it! I have been wanting someone to add the outer armament forever. I don't know any game that has done it yet. Thank you. I was just making a retex to make it look more like the ones now so thank you for adding an ability to add retextures. Hopefully you can make it for all of them.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

Very high quality mod man, keep up the nice work!

Edited May 11, 2014 by Nightmare515

[.kju 3239]

New update v1.1 available at withSIX. Download now by clicking:

@ Chortles

Soon you will be able to manage the promo pages of your content on our web platform and publish new content yourself.

To do so, please hit 'this is me' button on the page while logged in and you will get connected to your work.

For now you can send new content or releases our way through withsix.wetransfer.com or add your notification at getsatisfaction.withsix.com.

[Crielaard 434]

I'm really starting to like it! Also like the transition from conventional flight to hover.

But I'll repeat what I said in yesterday's PM:

- there is no way for the pilot to tell the position of the engine nozzle. Make some sort of indication in the cockpit or HUD to show what it's position is.

- The AGM65 is a poor (old) weapon. It is in fact dangerous in CAS missions for various technical reasons. In a type III CAS it is just plausible to use it as the most. The GBU-12 nowdays is the weapon of choice for CAS.

- In the 'CAS' variant of the aircraft, GBU12's still fall from the bays, while they are taken by AIM120 missiles. The bombs fall out of nowhere. Looks weird.

- The Lrange missiles (AIM120) don't really make sense in the ArmA environment. The maps are 25x25 km at the most. While BVR enagements are at 15 miles at the very very least. An F35 enganged in ground combat would 'bug out' allready and start firing them from 25 miles out. I'd say leave them out as whole

- If you DO want to leave them in, let's make it right: When you launch they should fall from the bay and activate a second later.

- The Helmet mounted display as it's implemented now, is not how it works IRL. The bigest thingy is the Flight Path marker moving allong with your head movement. That makes it simply useless unless you look straight forward.

Idea: use a 3D symbol that is projected somewhere at the end of the speedvector of the aircraft. That will make it relyable, realistic and practical.

Edited May 11, 2014 by 87th_Neptune

[scajolly 14]

Apparently the F-35 picture is being looked for with "picture="P:\F35B\UI\picture_f35b_ca.paa";"

May want to adjust that ;)

The presence of AIM120s is extremely natural. People who produce addons must generally decide if they want to try to balance their addon for gameplay. To me, Neptune's comment is made purely in the interest of balancing a series of gameplay concerns that he perceives are at odds with real issues. Arma's lack of scale is in my eyes not sufficient grounds to attempt to remove a capability that is both realistic to begin with, and fundamentally important when the addon is balanced against other addons (like say the Su-35). If an internal standard was developed for Arma addons that laid out new rules for air to air combat, then we might have a framework from within which to work. Currently we don't really have anything but vanilla. Therefore I reckon it best to leave it to the users to decide how they want their servers to handle air to air combat, and afford them enough options to choose. Ie, leaving the AIMs in. =)

edit: There are currently no heat haze effects in the exhaust, in case you wish to work with that.

I too am hoping for some other fashion of taking off.

Edited May 11, 2014 by SCAJolly