Forum: General F-35 Forum

tacf-x wrote:

Oh yeah, don't get me started on the number of people that yell various things over the microphones about how the F-35 is garbage and that the US should buy the JAS-39 Gripen or the Eurofighter Typhoon. Oh jeez the stupidity of some people...

Stealth and situational awareness are apparently hard things to incorporate into fighter combat video games -- because I've yet to see one where they make any significant difference in play. As such, said games probably give the impression that the only thing that matters is turn rate and missile load.

F-16.net Sponsor

LOL, people complaining about the F-35B in a video game is somehow LM's fault Smile

I bet they did not even get EODAS right Wink

SpudmanWP wrote:

LOL, people complaining about the F-35B in a video game is somehow LM's fault Smile

I bet they did not even get EODAS right Wink

Well... most often, those video games have to get permission from the manufacturers before they can feature the planes, which could be used to gain some editorial control. Blame the PR department?

The funny thing is, most games give every fighter, no matter how old, the "look through the floor" viability and the ability to continuously track targets that only the F-35 has at this point.

Um, no.

The planes are technically public property and their likenesses can be used freely.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Um, no.

The planes are technically public property and their likenesses can be used freely.

Are you sure? The games always have disclaimers that the aircraft (or at least their names) are used with the permission of the companies that produce them.

Very sure.. I'll have to dig it up but the US Trademark Office has already ruled as such.

Just like in real life exercises, it would make for a very boring game.

Found it (for the most part).

In June 2011 the Supreme court ruled that Video Games enjoy the same 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech protections as movies, books, etc. As you are aware, books, movies, articles, etc to not have to get permission or license anything. Often, manufactures will pay to have their hardware shown in movies. This is known as product placement (or did you think that every Transformer is a Chevy) Wink

http://kotaku.com/5795472/video-games-d ... ideo-games

In Jan 2012 EA filed a preemptive lawsuit against Bell Helicopters due to Bell trying to charge money for Battlefield 3's use of three Bell designs (Cobra, Huey, and Osprey). This will hopefully put the final issue to bed when it is decided.

http://kotaku.com/5874076/ea-invokes-fi ... pter-maker

SpudmanWP wrote:

Um, no.

The planes are technically public property and their likenesses can be used freely.

Try selling pictures of any Boeing products and watch how fast their lawyers come running. Laughing

And I don't mean stuff like 747s but P-51s, F-108, XB-70 etc.

I think the above court cases will put most of these issues to rest.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Found it (for the most part).

In June 2011 the Supreme court ruled that Video Games enjoy the same 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech protections as movies, books, etc. As you are aware, books, movies, articles, etc to not have to get permission or license anything. Often, manufactures will pay to have their hardware shown in movies. This is known as product placement (or did you think that every Transformer is a Chevy) Wink

http://kotaku.com/5795472/video-games-d ... ideo-games

In Jan 2012 EA filed a preemptive lawsuit against Bell Helicopters due to Bell trying to charge money for Battlefield 3's use of three Bell designs (Cobra, Huey, and Osprey). This will hopefully put the final issue to bed when it is decided.

http://kotaku.com/5874076/ea-invokes-fi ... pter-maker

Ah, so this is a new development. Maybe that explains it.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Um... spend any time on Youtube (and this is just from this month).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz6uF7Jkodk

WOW so it can do a roll while still going straight. Thats exciting.

SpudmanWP wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouT1qtgY ... ure=relmfu

And more 1G rolls.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Newsflash, the F-35 has already pulled 9.9Gs which they certainly did not do flying "straight and level" Wink

Sweet show me the video.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Before you say "That's new stuff that it just started doing!", here is some stuff (set to music) that AA-1 did over 4.5 YEARS ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7uADiSlqI

And even more rolls with a little formation flying for good measure. Exciting stuff. So has anyone ever seen this thing doing a high G turn? I'm sure its perfectly capable of it but every video so far has been boring with lots of loud obnoxious music.

There has not been a vid of the 9.9g stuff. That info came out in testimony at the AU Parliament.

As far as turns, there are plenty of >1 g turns in those videos, it's just the chase plane keeps up with the F-35 so it is not as easy to see.

sewerrat wrote:

Does anyone else doubt that the -35 will cruise above mach 1, cosidering how much military thrust is available?

Wasnt there statement from pilot about that? Sustaining >M1 on low aferburner? I think I read it couple months ago.

There's also the definition of supercruise to worry about. Some say it's at least mach 1.5 or it doesn't count. At that mach number you're well outside the transonic regime with all of the normal shock formations and stuff so that means you are legitimately cruising at supersonic speeds. In that sense I am not sure even with all of the MIL thrust F-135 gives. Higher bypass ratio and larger fan diameter translates to higher tip speeds so shocks will start forming on the compressor face and fan blades at lower RPMs. I really really don't know if the F-35 can supercruise or not especially if using LockMart criterion.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35C High Speed Fly-by VIDEO