Wednesday, November 14, 2012

F-35 Lightning II - Suggestions for further updates?

As I wrote in the previous post, I have withdrawn the F-35 from sales at SimMarket. It will be re-released as freeware soon.
I'll take the chance of the freeware release to make a further (minor) update...

Specifically, at the moment I have:
- Changed the .air file to reflect the latest public reports and statements from the test team. It appears that the F-35 is not capable of proper supercruising: it requires the A/B to get through the sound barrier, but then can maintain M1.2 for a relevant distance without the use of A/B. Transonic performance will also be better.
- Solved the autothrottle bug...of course it was a trivial mistake in the aircraft.cfg.
- Removed the MFD and "wide" views of the cockpit - which were just an annoyance for most users.

Should you have any suggestion for improvement, please let me know - adding a comment on this post would be teh preferred way.

I am also thinking of a P3D specific version, although I have not tested P3D yet - but it seems a very interesting development of FSX, and this is definitely a good thing for developers.


Anonymous said...

Will your F-35 have eventual support for the VRS - Tacpack, once the product has been released with its developer tools?

ScimmiaSpaziale said...

VRS - Tacpack is a very interesting addon, IMHO and I'd really like to support it with both the F-35 and the F-14 (not sure if it makes much sense for the T-45).

I had no time to test it so far, and I do not know what is the time and complexity required to integrate it - that would be the main constraint.

Jenson said...

How about a ferry loadout for the British F35B and a broader choice of weapons loadout.

Anonymous said...

This thing needs a real-time weapon and fuel manager.

I personally think that your F-35 is a bit underated in T/W. It should be as manueverable as
'legacy' fighters however we simply do not know. Since the T/w is similar to the F-16 I'd expect it to go Mach 2.Remember that there is no real hard facts on its performance. Since it does have a wing area(from wikipedia) of an F-18 it should be similar flight dynamics. We just don't know. Pratt and Whittney said the F135 actually produces over 50,000 lbf instead of 40,000 mil power. In one of my books it says that it can supercruise up to Mach 1.4. Most 5th generation fighters do have supercruise so I'd imagine this one does.You just kinda have to guess.

ScimmiaSpaziale said...

The main problem is that at the moment each loadout is a different 3d model (and a different cockpit model)... I've tried to implement a "parametric" model (visual loadout changes as you "load" weapons onto stations) but it does not seem to work as expected. the moment is a no-go due to the time it would require. But I many change my mind later on.

As far as I can read on Pireps and statements from LM employees and test team, the flight model is not that far from the real deal - and probably is overrated in terms of acceleration (if you compare it to the VRS Hornet, and assume that VRS did their homework as I did).

There are clear statements that the F-35 cannot supercruise: it need A/B to break the sound barrier. There are less clear statements which seem to indicate that it can disengage the A/B above the sound barrier and still fly at 1.2M fro 150 miles (not supported by my current flight model).

As for the top speed the question is much more complex, and depends on the overall design. As far as I know the F-35 is designed to operate at transonic speeds (M0.9) and it is not designed for high speed supersonic flight (which is not as important in modern air combat). I tend to believe that the figures of M1.6 are correct (this is not achievable in the current flight model as it depicts a loaded bird).

As for the engine figures, official figures rate the F-35 at 40,000lbs (some at 42,000) for F-35A and C versions. The F-35B has slightly less thrust due to a different nozzle design. It is surely and engine that has "growth potential" over the years.

At there is a very rich and interesting forum on the F-35. There are lots of trolls and speculations there, but it is also full of very interesting official documents and competent people.

Ryan Cox said...

The government will never publish true facts about their fighters for a long time.I've read up where they say the F-22 could only go Mach 1.8.It's probably what happened here but who knows.This bird does need a different flight dynamics for each model.I think that would be all you could do.

Honeycool said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Honeycool said...


Glad to know updates are coming. Apart from performance tweaking, this bird also needs a working radar with simulated weapons lock at targeted ai traffic displayed on the existing hmd hud. This will surely make it a kick-ass combat aircraft. :) p/s hope this is no to much of a request. Thanks.

ScimmiaSpaziale said...

Ok, yesterday I have:
- Tweaked the flight dynamics on all models, so that the A/B is required to break the sound barrier but then supersonic flight can be maintaned for a (little) while without A/B. Supersonic and transonic performance is generally slight better.
- Tweaked A/B dynamics on -B model, so that produces less thrust than the other versions
- Solved bug that prevented pilot animations on -B model

Now, I believe the flight model is better - although I am not yet happy on two things: ceiling is still lower than a real deal guesstimate and acceleration is overrated IMHO. Better than the previous vesions, still not perfect... anyway I think it is OK.

@Ryan Cox
You may be right, and surely data will be classified for a while...but as far as I know, long gone is the era of "the faster, the better" philosophy of the cold war era. M1.6 / 1.8 is a very resonable design top speed - and very unlikely to be reached during actual deployment.

Actually, I lack the knowledge and skill to make a working radar... It would be cool, but I definitely do not have the time to implement this (volunteers welcome!).

Honeycool said...


Pursuant the new flight dynamics, will the bird be able to reach 40000 ft? The current v2.08 struggles to maintain less then 175 kias at high altitudes.

ScimmiaSpaziale said...


Even with updated dynamics it does not. I'll see what I can do when I'll have the time (I need to focus on the F-14 RIO cockpit...)

Ryan Cox said...

After flying the IRIS F-22, is it possible to put night vision in the F-35?I guess you could use the night vision in the freeware IRIS PC-9 night vision and maybe model the EODAS system in the real F-35. That would be cool.

Eric Halvorson said...

dino have you fixed the bug that actually allowed the external fuel tanks to carry fuel? we had to modify the .cfg to accurate load the fuel but not the aircraft wont rotate til 160knots.

Anonymous said...


please will you consider the EA-6B Prowler for your next project ?



Honeycool said...


Thanks for your earlier replies and hopefully not distracting you away from the F-14.

One last thing if you would consider to integrate the F-35B downward looking camera within the glass cockpit panel for enhance realism. I'm aware you've mentioned somewhere that might cause FPS. Nevertheless, it can be an option for those of us who wants to use it rather of opening another window at the top right corner. :)

Javier said...

Dino.....I have the F35A model only...using it for carrier ops....can you post launch assitsnce codes from the "C" model so I can use the "A" model to launch from carriers.

ScimmiaSpaziale said...


The F-35C has launch assistance code embedded in the model... so I do not have the aircraft.cfg entries at hand...

Anonymous said...

Dino - will you release the updates before making it freeware?

Dino Cattaneo said...


No. I am making small changes to the project from time to time (whenever I am not working on the Tomcat). All changes will be collected into the freeware release.

Dino Cattaneo said...

I have been noticed by the company I work for I will need to take some days off in January - it is likely that I will release the freeware F-35 in one of these days.

Anonymous said...

HI Dino

I think it might be a bug, the tailhook on the C model looks like it is un-textured. Mine shows up in plain white (unless this is how it is in real life?)

Thanks for the great aircraft.

Anonymous said...

Hi Dino

Found a pic of the hook detail on the C model, don't know if you have it.

Link :


Johnny Kegaly said...

I really appreciate what you are doing as I frequently use your T-45 and can not wait for your F-35, it looks beautiful!

Anonymous said...

Have you any plans to add a 2d version of the glass instrument panel which could be undocked and positioned on a dedicated monitor leaving the other or others for the outside view. I would very much appreciate this and would be happy to buy it.