RKSL 3 - A new start... Discussion

[Ckrauslo 12]

@RKSL-Rock hi i love your work could you please check a pm i sent you? Cheers

[rksl-rock 1300]

Nice nice... though I imagine by "its landing gear" that the tailhook is already complete and you're speaking of the dampers?

No I mean its landing gear. Not "arresting gear".

Each of the F-35 versions has different landing gear.

@RKSL-Rock hi i love your work could you please check a pm i sent you? Cheers

I've seen it. The recent Gripen C WIP Wednesday has elicited a large number of PM requests. I will reply as soon as I can.

In general though what i am going to do for most of the aircraft is pretty much the same as we did with the Typhoon. A core file and then issue templates for 3rd Party Plugins. If you need something specific over and above the RKSL release we can discuss that.

[chortles 263]

In general though what i am going to do for most of the aircraft is pretty much the same as we did with the Typhoon. A core file and then issue templates for 3rd Party Plugins. If you need something specific over and above the RKSL release we can discuss that.

As a curiosity, I'd like to wonder if the F-35 core config(s) are going to be according to the RAF/RN configurations, the way the 'basic' Typhoon FGR4 was representing the RAF's? I'm interested in how the templates for 3rd party plugins will be set up for A3.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I've seen it. The recent Gripen C WIP Wednesday has elicited a large number of PM requests. I will reply as soon as I can.

In general though what i am going to do for most of the aircraft is pretty much the same as we did with the Typhoon. A core file and then issue templates for 3rd Party Plugins. If you need something specific over and above the RKSL release we can discuss that.

Been asking for a Brazilian paint scheme for the Gripen has he?

If you remember I made a Brazilian skin for the Typhoon for shits and giggles, so there's a fair chance I could be convinced to do one for the Gripen C even if it's not the exact NG/JAS 39E version that Brazil are buying :D

[p_siddy 58]

F-35 and Eurofighter.... NICE! Will there be a 2-seater trainer version of the Eurofighter or just Single seat fighter variant?

[rksl-rock 1300]

As a curiosity, I'd like to wonder if the F-35 core config(s) are going to be according to the RAF/RN configurations, the way the 'basic' Typhoon FGR4 was representing the RAF's? I'm interested in how the templates for 3rd party plugins will be set up for A3.

Well the RAF/RN plugins will be based on the proposed UK loadouts.

Other plugins will depend on who makes them. ;)

Been asking for a Brazilian paint scheme for the Gripen has he?

If you remember I made a Brazilian skin for the Typhoon for shits and giggles, so there's a fair chance I could be convinced to do one for the Gripen C even if it's not the exact NG/JAS 39E version that Brazil are buying :D

Yup and Yup. Although i dont really have plans for the Gripen NG/E at this time.

F-35 and Eurofighter.... NICE! Will there be a 2-seater trainer version of the Eurofighter or just Single seat fighter variant?

v3.00X will only have the Single seater.

v3.100 may have both.

[p_siddy 58]

Good to hear! Can't wait! European GUs will be very happy :)

[chortles 263]

Well the RAF/RN plugins will be based on the proposed UK loadouts.

Other plugins will depend on who makes them. ;)

Makes sense -- though you seem to be saying here that the RAF/RN side of things will be a plug-in instead of a core config default?

By the way, speaking of the proposed UK loadouts... what are you thinking insofar as the interior weapon bay choices? It doesn't seem to be publicly stated how Western air forces' F-35 AA loadouts would use the other (outer?) internal stations, and what I found on the UK proposals was uncertain (to say nothing of outright pessimistic, but to elaborate on that would be to digress...) so I was wondering if you might shed some perspective here insofar as the game.

Yup and Yup. Although i dont really have plans for the Gripen NG/E at this time.

Well, so long as the Brazilian modders don't mind declaring that their Brazilian forces received -C's instead of -NG/E's, I don't see anyone else objecting, it's still a RKSL airframe! :D

[corporal_lib[br] 396]

Well, so long as the Brazilian modders don't mind declaring that their Brazilian forces received -C's instead of -NG/E's, I don't see anyone else objecting, it's still a RKSL airframe! :D

IN FACT, Brazil is receiving C versions (on a Leasing basis) to provide proper adaptation/familiarization to the 4th generation fighter (NG won´t be available ´til 2018, so we need something to help the F-5EM defend Brasilia, our DC), so it is not unrealistic to have JAS-39C in our mod... and as you´ve wisely put, Chortles, it is a RKSL airframe afterall!!!! yay!

Besides, JohnHansen (the solo worker and mastermind of BrAF, I´m just a PR/supporter for his endevour) has already negotiated a retexture of GranQ´s GrippenNG, so why not have both (one for this timeframe, another for 2035), right?

Cheers to all!

Edited May 6, 2014 by Corporal_Lib[BR]

[Ckrauslo 12]

Correct lib....but no people i only asked permission for john to use it as he wants

[da12thMonkey 1943]

As a curiosity, I'd like to wonder if the F-35 core config(s) are going to be according to the RAF/RN configurations, the way the 'basic' Typhoon FGR4 was representing the RAF's? I'm interested in how the templates for 3rd party plugins will be set up for A3.

Makes sense -- though you seem to be saying here that the RAF/RN side of things will be a plug-in instead of a core config default?

That's how it was with the Typhoon too. You didn't have to install the RAF config if you didn't want the RAF loadouts in the editor. There was nothing core or default about the aircraft being an RAF FGR.4 other than the fact that development was mostly geared towards an RAF-spec aircraft, with things such as "bitching betty" speaking in English (as opposed to Spanish, Italian etc.), PIRATE IRST (in real life, German and Austrian Eurofighters do not and will not have it, apart from a couple of the German development aircraft) and a more extensive array of British munitions and loadouts available from the air weapons pack, even though there were plenty of munitions in there that aren't in the RAF's inventory at all.

The plugins literally just contain diffuse texture files for the external colour scheme of the aircraft, and a config file. Hypothetically you could have written your own plugin config and not used any of the provided RKSL Typhoon classes at all.

From a technical point of view you don't even need to include any texture files in the .pbo because you can setobjecttexture them from a mission folder if you want to make life difficult, or fly around in a semi-invisible Typhoon with no valid texture defined for the hiddenselection.

[rksl-rock 1300]

Makes sense -- though you seem to be saying here that the RAF/RN side of things will be a plug-in instead of a core config default?

As Da12thMonkey has already said and since he made most of the plugins I’d take his word for it. The RAF/RN side will be a plugin just as it was for the Typhoon.

By the way, speaking of the proposed UK loadouts... what are you thinking insofar as the interior weapon bay choices?

I’m thinking of conforming to the publically available guides.

Internal bays loading will depend on the version due to size restrictions:

• F-35A
  
  • 2x up to 2200lb Inboard fixed pylons
    
  • 2x up to 390lb AAMs on Self Rigging doors
    

  [*]F-35B

  • 2x up to 1100lb Inboard fixed pylons
    
  • 2x up to 390lb AAMs on Self Rigging doors
    

  [*]F-35C

  • 2x up to 2200lb Inboard fixed pylons
    
  • 2x up to 390lb AAMs on Self Rigging doors
    

It doesn't seem to be publicly stated how Western air forces' F-35 AA loadouts would use the other (outer?) internal stations, and what I found on the UK proposals was uncertain (to say nothing of outright pessimistic, but to elaborate on that would be to digress...) so I was wondering if you might shed some perspective here insofar as the game.

External Pylon Loads vary depending on the source. But the F-35C has the largest external payload characteristics thanks to the enlarged wing area. Meaning it should be able to carry up to 2x 400lb AAM outboard and 4x 2500lb mid and inboard loaded pylons. Rather than the A’s 2x 400lb AAM outboard 2x 1500lb mid and 2x 2500lb inboard loaded pylons. The B has an even lower capability according to latest sources which suggest it would need to operate without either the outboard or mid pylons to remain underweight for STOVL operations.

Correct lib....but no people i only asked permission for john to use it as he wants

Well that may be the stumbling block here. I am not willing to hand out the source files to people outside of our team and immediate partners. I am happy to assist people to create plugins. Or work with people to provide mutually beneficial solutions. But I’ve been bitten too many times by people abusing our good will for profit. Which is why we are using the plugin system.

[R0adki11 3949]

Good to see the plugin system returning, i can use the Nogovan scheme from Arma2 :)

[chortles 263]

As Da12thMonkey has already said and since he made most of the plugins I’d take his word for it. The RAF/RN side will be a plugin just as it was for the Typhoon.

Thanks for this reply, although his bit about how "development was mostly geared towards an RAF-spec aircraft" (i.e. PIRATE IRST) also answers my question.

I’m thinking of conforming to the publically available guides.

As was I... the problem was, from what I saw I'm not sure if UK MOD even knows what exactly to stick in there for AA! :eek: For example, I haven't heard anything recent about the "canted trapeze" proposal for getting rail-launched (AIM-9X/AIM-132) in there (for anyone wondering, that's how the F-22A takes Sidewinders... plus a blast shield) nor would I just stick the CUDA concept in there, but then that just leaves me without any real idea of what anyone has in mind for those two specific stations (not the "self rigging doors" stations) if not air-to-ground/surface stores or leaving them empty in an all-AAM loadout...

[rksl-rock 1300]

Thanks for this reply, although his bit about how "development was mostly geared towards an RAF-spec aircraft" (i.e. PIRATE IRST) also answers my question.

Well when i proposed downgrading the model to the F2 spec for German, Italian and Spanish versions I got a load of nationalist abuse so I couldn’t be bothered making the extra effort.

As was I... the problem was, from what I saw I'm not sure if UK MOD even knows what exactly to stick in there for AA! :eek: For example, I haven't heard anything recent about the "canted trapeze" proposal for getting rail-launched (AIM-9X/AIM-132) in there (for anyone wondering, that's how the F-22A takes Sidewinders... plus a blast shield) nor would I just stick the CUDA concept in there, but then that just leaves me without any real idea of what anyone has in mind for those two specific stations (not the "self rigging doors" stations) if not air-to-ground/surface stores or leaving them empty in an all-AAM loadout...

What are you reading that makes you think that?

Its always been AIM-132 or AIM-120 for the UK since day one. There was some discussion about dropping the internal carriage of the ASRAAM (AIM-132) due to Lockheed's inability to get the software to work because of the way the seeker head worked. But I am led to understand that was resolved in Q4 2013. Since then the UK Mod has re-instated the ASRAAM internal carriage requirements. But at the time the case was made for permanently using the external pylons anyway, atleast in UK use. The RN determined that the desire for stealth was greatly outweighed by the need to have the enhanced capability of 2x Short Range and 2x Medium/Long Range Missiles so fitting the pylons semi-permanently would improve the F-35B's marginal weapons carrying capability if the weight issues could be resolved.

So there never was a need for F-22 style launchers. Whomever is telling you different is full of it. The Self Rigging pylon on the doors is designed to place the missile far enough out of the turbulence of the cavity and angled into the airflow to assist separation. The recent test firing of bay mounted weapons including the AIM-9X, AIM-120 and static tests of the AIM-132, IRST etc. have proved out the concept. Using the heavy load internal stations requires far more sensor/software integration than is possible in the current budget. it requires either:

1. A lock on after launch missile - Which is possible, a number of semi active homers fit the bill but cannot be integrated due to software limits.
   
2. Greater fusion with the EOTS and RADAR system which costs more money than the already over stretched budget allows.
   

There is no "all-AAM" loadout that sees the internal bays being full AAMs. Currently the heavy load carriers on the internal bays do not support any AAMs after the cost reduction package carried out in 2009/10. I will guarantee that any picture of the loadouts you find on the net will be from 2006 or earlier. Currently none of the models in production are wired for it. In the post 2012 loadouts available on either the Lockheed or BAES intranets i have seen the CAP/Air Superiority loads include either 2x internal fuel packs with an external "stealthy" dual AMRAAM carrier plate for the mid pylon. Or a more conventional load of: 2x SRAAM, 2x MRAAM, 2x Droptanks with a further 2x MRAAMs carried internally. Which is far more probable.

Again I'm told that these fuel packs were just a design proposal as I understand it but one that could add another 60% range. So it’s something the USN/USMC and RAF/RN would like to see. But from what I’ve read the USAF's power bloc isn’t interested in funding them so we may not see them as they are the largest "customer". I know BAES were considering funding the development privately at one point.

- Addition for the CUDA Concept.

This one has been kicking around since the 50's. there was a similar design for the F-111, Blackburn Buccaneer, BAe Nimrod (circa 1985), TSR2, Rockwell B-1A/B its not a new solution. Historically the problem has always been one of target aquisition. Especialy for IR or IIR guided weapons. Now with greater sensor/radar integration it is possible but that costs money which is short since the F-35 programme is so far over budget.

The other historic issue has been ejecting the weapon safely into the airstream. But that was solved again in the 50's by pushing the weapons off the racks. in the same way the Typhoon and Tornado F-3 launch their conformal missiles.

Edited May 6, 2014 by RKSL-Rock
correcting the cost reduction dates.

[Ckrauslo 12]

Rock you miss understood me, we just wanna be able to retexture the plane when it comes out, no need for the source files, all due credit for you and your mod will be a requirement

[scajolly 14]

Well, I am always happy to hear of progress from you, Rock. There's no one's content we (I dare speak for a number of people) look more forward to than yours, simply for the high quality finish and detail. I am loathe to ask about ETAs because I know how that has been answered by the entire community for all these years, but here's a variation of it: Is it worth it for us who desire (passionately need) a Tornado to spend time on dezkit's Tornado to raise it (particularly the cockpit) to certain standards aesthetically and functionally, or do you think we're better off waiting - that you will finish work before this kind of labour will bear fruits? :)

[rksl-rock 1300]

@Ckrauslo - Ill PM you back later.

Well, I am always happy to hear of progress from you, Rock. There's no one's content we (I dare speak for a number of people) look more forward to than yours, simply for the high quality finish and detail. I am loathe to ask about ETAs because I know how that has been answered by the entire community for all these years, but here's a variation of it: Is it worth it for us who desire (passionately need) a Tornado to spend time on dezkit's Tornado to raise it (particularly the cockpit) to certain standards aesthetically and functionally, or do you think we're better off waiting - that you will finish work before this kind of labour will bear fruits? :)

Its always worth developing alternatives. I've always said this, if you want to make anything on our list just go for it. We dont guarentee anything. We dont give out dates so if you want something "now" go make it for yourselves. And if/when we release ours then people at least have a choice. :)

[SGT Fuller 856]

Hey rock can you check your PMs for me brother

[rksl-rock 1300]

Post bake low poly Cockpit DX Render in Object Builder/O2.

[slatts 1978]

God daaayum that is one sexy looking model

[b00ce 160]

Well, it WAS made by Rock. ;)

[p_siddy 58]

Does looks the business!

[p_siddy 58]

Will the Eurofighters pilot have the HUD in the visor like being developed (not sure if it is in use yet), Where the pilot looks is where the aircraft will target? Don't know the technical fancy name for this technology. Just the looky pointy clicky helmet thing... that's what it sha'll be known as

[corporal_lib[br] 396]

HMD (Helmet Mounted Display or even HMCS - Helmet Mounted Cueing System) is already possible in ArmA3 but the off-boresight capacity to missiles is being worked on (by John_Spartan & Saul, and I hope Rock is trying something too) ;)

As it´s being already stated, the boresight in A3 is locked to 30º in Vanilla, lets hope the modders can improve it to 100º !!!