F-35B Lightning II

[chortles 263]

Oh yeah.

Actually I meaned the actual position of the nozzle. As you may know, it has multiple positions (5?) between the vertical and horizontal position.

Would be a great and logical indication. Shouldnt be hard to make, would it.

Unfortunately I wasn't aware that the game engine is aware of multiple nozzle positions, considering that until the F-35B the AV-8B was the only case of fixed-wing VTOL in the games, so -- especially in light of the recent talk over in the thread for Sakura_Chan's C-130J/MV-22 implementation -- it's possible that the capability for more than one position (much less representing them) just doesn't exist in the engine. :(

BEFORE I RELEASE MY NEXT UPDATE

A question to the community, as I have time to make a last-minute config value change before pushing the next update: is anyone who's using this jet really making use of the vertical take-off capability in the v1.1 version? Would anyone prefer to have conventional take-off/landing (CTOL) and short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) instead of the current STOVL/VTOL? I ask this because, as late as I'm replying, I'm reminded of someone who remarked that the current solution had cost them the ability to taxi...

Besides the above, v1.2's changelog would be small -- a renaming of the displayName for the "CAS" variant to "Strike" (the classname would remain the same for legacy support purposes), and a memory point/dummy animation/user action(s) to support compatibility with the USAF mod's KC-135. :D Since BI didn't model a refueling probe, at least for now the "connecting point" would be the nosetip, as per dezkit's explanation on how to set up refueling compatibility.

[warlord554 2065]

I would stick with the VTOL, its an incredible attribute to the F35 platform, I personally think the loss of vtol wouldn't be worth the gain of taxi capability. However, why not both versions? Not a terrible idea ;)

[corporal_lib[br] 396]

I agree with WarLord554, keep the VTOL and, if feasible, include the C version (just stretch a little the wingtips and disable the animations of the intake doors) ;)

I would still request an optional config armed with John&Sauls NATO Missilebox, the LightningII is a lil wimp when fighting the Superflanker or compared to Superhornet and dezkit´s F15C (vanilla missiles are too susceptible to flares, the moded aren´t that weak)

cheers!

[disco.modder 116]

I would stick with the VTOL, its an incredible attribute to the F35 platform, I personally think the loss of vtol wouldn't be worth the gain of taxi capability. However, why not both versions? Not a terrible idea ;)

Agree. The A variant would probably be a better choice for a CTOL variant.

[p_siddy 58]

I too agree a variant would be more beneficial. Even if the model wasn't edited initially and just had the hover facility removed I think it'd make for a good stand in until the hover function can be played with.

I'm not sure how hard it'd be to get a tail hook function to work with it for the carrier? Again.. even if the model isn't edited initially to actually show a tail hook

[kimi_uy 134]

Why not have both aircraft types? "A and C living in perfect harmony"

[chortles 263]

Hahaha... :) what I was asking by that is simple: at last check, in Arma 2 the "vtol = 1" (or "vtol = true") config value resulted in CTOL when auto-hover is off and STOVL when auto-hover is on; from what I recall this was actually the state of BI's AV-8B Harrier in Arma 2.

In the v1.1 update I changed the vtol value to 3, which is what someone else did back in Arma 2 as a small mod to enable vertical take-off for the Harrier in Arma 2 when auto-hover was enabled -- and for what it's worth, in the BI-released Arma 2 sources the MV-22 config has "vtol = 3"* -- but I don't recall if it resulted in any flight/taxiing differences for the Harrier when auto-hover was off (i.e. did it still support CTOL and taxiing), and in any case after consideration I'm second-guessing my decision from v1.1. :( Hence my request for feedback on this, in particular based on how you play (i.e. how you place my F-35B).

Also, while this didn't occur to me until reading about dezkit's Ivory Aircraft -- has anyone had problems with getting any of the variants to perform a bombing run via the Supports - CAS module?

* That is to say, config-wise the Arma 2 MV-22 "tiltrotor" is just a VTOL-capable fixed-wing aircraft that shares a vtol value with my F-35B's v1.1, so you may consider that when deciding how much you'd actually want vertical take-off capability at the expense of conventional take-off/taxiing capability.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Chortles

[p_siddy 58]

So are you saying vtol will still be available but only as a autohover function? Without autohover enabled it'll just be like any other fixed wing?

[handicap 19]

Having just downloaded and began playing with Chortles' F-35 this weekend I can say that it doesn't function just as any other fixed wing with auto-hover disabled.

Flaps all the way down, gear out, slowing down, you will eventually pass a point where the aircraft shifts into it's hover configuration (IE: All doors open, rear thruster angles down) and can then begin your SVTOL landing and still only require a good 10m or so if you slow it down enough without landing prematurely.

Of course, I'm a rotary guy, not a fixed wing. My preferred method with this F-35 is to approach with auto-hover off, slowing until I enter a VTOL configuration and then continuing to slow to about 50km/h (or whatever measurement method you're using) when I then engage auto-hover so that I can bring the aircraft to a complete stop in the air without having to land/lose altitude by continuing to use my decceleration key.

Playing with the harrier in ARMA 2 this weekend left me with the impression that I vastly prefer the way Chortles has the F-35 set up to the way the vanilla A2 harrier handles, in that the F35 can VTOL in place versus the harrier, even with auto-hover engaged, still pushing forward when the throttle is engaged.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I just don't know what happened, one minute I was doing work as usual, and then suddenly the F(X)-35 dressed up in vintage RAF Dark Sea Grey and Dark Green. Must've been a computer error, because who would waste time on an effort like that. :p

Now, on a serious note: How easy (difficult) would it be to tinker with the BI model to make it like a modern F-35? Extruding a bit here, a soft edge or two there? :p Additionally, as I see it, UV mapping it from the top would allow two 2048-2048 .paas - one for the panel + instruments+assorted gear bay/hydraulic non-paintables, and one for the paintable textures (your "camo"). That'd be no shortage of swell. Either of these feasible?

Like the paint. However, on the serious note... Very difficult. The Modern F-35 is High detail in terms of cruves, edges, and over all profile. To convert this model would be something of... almost one hell of a re design. Heres examples.

Top.

http://www.listofimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii-plane-fighter-aircrafts-and-planes.jpg (1197 kB)

Side

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/US_Navy_111118-N-GR159-003_An_F-35C_Lightning_II_test_aircraft_piloted_by_Lt._Christopher_Tabert_launches_for_the_first_time_from_the_new_electroma.jpg (199 kB)

Side ish top

Underside

http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Asymetric-weapons-load-F-35.jpg (896 kB)

Profile

Now compare those to the X-35 model you have, and its quite easy to tell it would be one hell of a project to convert that into the modern version. It would almost certainly be better to stat a model from scratch.

[handicap 19]

And once you get into beginning an entirely new model.. Would you want to run the A, B or C variant? Lots of options there, with the C being the biggest of the bunch and the B being the heaviest.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

I wouldn't mind seeing an A or B version if he gets to a new model. :D

[Ketchup0434 13]

Maybe we could have a 2 variants of the F35, 1 could be the VTOL variant (the current variant) and another could be a STOL variant

Edited June 11, 2014 by Jonathan0434

[gutiarhero814 2]

is there anyway to turn the cannons rate of fire back to a more realistic rate of fire. its a bit ridiculous now

[Crielaard 434]

Maybe we could have a 2 variants of the F35, 1 could be the VTOL variant (the current variant) and another could be a STOL variant

Haha :lol: :D you mean CTOL.

STOL is for light GA aircraft and ultralights.

[Ketchup0434 13]

Yeah, I think thats what I meant! :)

[ADDgamer45 10]

Is there any possible way you could make it so when you turn auto hover off the jet instead of going into that censor mode rotates directly into forward flight?

[rlex 21]

Nicely done! Was really disappointed by lack of VTOLs in A3, and now problem is fixed! Thanks!

[robj 11]

big fan before i start is there a way to taxi and take off normal?

[skuijs 17]

Cool mods man love it flies great just tried this and the harrier the f35 flies way better.

Hope one day we have Weapons like the f18 mod and retextured outside and inside :)

[galzohar 31]

Hi,

I tried using your mod as part of the All In ArmA High Quality pack, and got the following error:

Picture p:\f35\ui\picture_f35b_ca.paa not found.

Would be nice if it can be fixed!

Thanks.

[XOSPECTRE 40]

would be nice if there will be no external hardpoint for weapons i though f35b lighitng II is stealth fighter bomber and external weapons are not exactly stealth

[galzohar 31]

As far as I'm aware the external hardpoints are actually possible in real life, but yes they would make you lose out on the stealth aspect. I suppose it's all up to the mission requirements. No reason to limit it through the mod, especially if stealth is not actually simulated in the game.

[Ketchup0434 13]

Any chance of making the F-35 have Chainborne's Harrier's STOVL characteristics?

The Harriers STOVL characteristics make it a beauty to fly :)

Edited January 3, 2015 by Jonathan0434

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I think now that the "Real" or well, real life modern versions of this plane have been made, this could (just a suggestion) be formally re-named it's real life name, X-35 JSF, to avoid confusion between the three versions.