Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
I finally realized 1 glaring need for improvement for the next chapter in FBMS,
AI needs improvement. I know it has been said that the AI would be difficult to address but one can wish for it. I am referring to AI at just about every level. A lot of work involved to be sure, but that is something I would like to see done. Maybe someday……
-
A wider variety of OPFOR modeling/cockpits.
-
Please line up the HUD in the non-viper cockpits. For instance altitude and speed is obscured by the frame in the f-18 HUD
-
UHF vs VHF distance modeling and clarity differences, haven’t noticed a difference in big mp events yet but maybe it is already modeled, but subtle.
-
My 2 cents would be to hold off on IFF for now and instead slowly start implementing Link 16. It would eventually cover some of the same ground but also add a huge amount of extra SA and functionality compared to IFF.
To fully implement it would still be a monstrous effort but you could do it piece by piece, e.g. Start with just implementing the ability to have your 4 ship on link and see their positions.
Of course I don’t know what real world documentation the team has available (any pilot guides past M3?) in order to get it right (nor do I know how they acquired it but that’s not my problem ).
I’m sure this discussion has been had before without me, I don’t want to offend anybody, just saying what I think would be hugely awesome in the long run
-
Its been discussed on this forum. In terms of getting it right, enough public documents exist to piece it together. Enough unclassified and leaked documents exist to do it correctly.
The problem is that to make it work, you have to alter the behavior of the AI. If you dont, its basically the same as flying with labels on. IRL, its a massive boon to SA - but its drawback is that its not perfect. IRL you still need to follow your ROEs.
Implementing TDL J without all its functionality would basically just be copying the current datalink, the IDM. You would have to do it right. To do it right, you would need to make changes to lots of things. Radar modeling, AWACS, the 2D map, the DTC save format, lots of things in lots of places. To do it right, and make it not just be the same functionally as turning labels on, would be even harder (but not I think, impossible. It could be done, it would just be a massive effort that would make changes everywhere).
-
1. Fully clickable F-16 cockpit (like the DCS A10 fidelity)
2. Better haze and ground haze
3. Terrain self shadows - e.g. mountains that produce shadows
4. Open Falcon - make the source code open source so the community can help in development.
5. Building / City autopen - includes roads models, lamp posts, trees, parks, buildings etc…
-
F-16 pit is full clickable…
-
F-16 pit is full clickable…
I mean all buttons/switches working (or at least pretend to be working)
-
1. Fully clickable F-16 cockpit (like the DCS A10 fidelity)
2. Better haze and ground haze
3. Terrain self shadows - e.g. mountains that produce shadows
4. Open Falcon - make the source code open source so the community can help in development.
5. Building / City autopen - includes roads models, lamp posts, trees, parks, buildings etc…
N°4 would mean the death of falcon 4
just in case you didnt notice we dont seek help… and when we need help we have no problem to find some…
-
1. Fully clickable F-16 cockpit (like the DCS A10 fidelity)
… make the source code open source so the community can help in development.I’m genuinely surprised this hasn’t happened by now. My body is ready… to submit pull requests.
-
Well, Im pretty sure that the leaked FF code is still on github. Fork that and PR away.
Not gonna be a lot of support for that after the stunt FFosc pulled, though.
-
Oh. Wasn’t aware you’ve had drama problems in the past. Even with someone being an asshat you don’t have to actually accept pull requests.
-
My apologies for the misunderstanding - the code on github has nothing to do with me, and I do not have the authority to accept/deny PRs to it.
I was just pointing out that there is a falcon variant with public source code, even if it isnt strictly open so much as public.
-
I believe that’s a fork of Open Falcon or some such which is completely outclassed by BMS at this point. I mean that if you open sourced BMS you, or whoever the project lead is, still maintains control over the repo and is not required to accept any and all submissions that come from the community.
-
Its a copy of FreeFalcon. Given the amount of people flying FF vs BMS, its pretty safe to say BMS has outclassed it.
If you make your work open, it doesnt matter if you accept PRs or not. If your work can be forked, other repos can continue the work in their own way. Indeed I have done this previously with a mod for a different game - NARMod for Factorio.
If your work can be forked and that work is never branched back into the main repo, there is a community divide between users of the master repo and users of the downstream repo. Take a look at Linux. It is a fractal community - the closer a look you take at it, the more divisions you can divide it up into.
-
Ergo, it doesnt matter if you refuse PRs. Your work gets forked, and others create their own release. The benefit of getting code submissions is more than overridden by the drawback of losing control of the codebase. Or so I assume it is seen as. Id likely be a vote for open source falcon, but I dont know that it is ever likely to happen - and if it did, I think it would effectively ruin the multiplayer community.
-
Oh, well… that’s it, and these are just and only my two cents, be clear.
I waited a reasonable long time, in my own opinion, spent in learning “what is and how it works” this awesome reality BMS before talking.
IMHO, BMS has grown up and up since its first release - and also all the following, if for this, until the current one.
With no offense to anyone of the elder members of this Community, I see that a top rank military flight simulation, the most close to the “real thing” as BMS firmly wants to be, more than to become, since its virtual birth, can’t afford any longer to limit itself to be a F-16 only oriented sim. This is the natural update, the real one indeed, and at the same time the true reason of its outstanding success even if the fans, let’s say so, are restricted in their number nowadays, but not for their age, but more simply because we “aficionados” (a nice Spanish term I like) are real expert in flying, if not real pilots in many cases, and the majority of them don’t fly Vipers.
This is what I think to desume.
Proof of my own assertion, to me, are the discussions almost anywhere in these same Forums.
My attention went close to one in particular: the realism of the flight models of all the airplane. And thanks godness for that, because this is the “new frontier” really of our beloved sim, and just that makes the the great difference with all the their similar products - those very few remained, to be honest.
So, at the end of this long speech - my apologies to all of you for this - my wish, and my not exclusive proposal at the same time, is to have well tested and realistic flight models for all the planes in the database, and not for the Tornado only, my favourite one as you know well.
Not to mention new and dedicated 3D cockpits, it would be a godsend if they could be the more possible close to most of their 2D originals released for FreeFalcon, good old times gone I’m afraid.If this proposal would be accepted, I would volunteer for deep testing very, very gladly.
With best regards,
-
UHF vs VHF distance modeling and clarity differences, haven’t noticed a difference in big mp events yet but maybe it is already modeled, but subtle.
It is modelled, to test, find a mate and fly in opposite directions with a big enough altitude delta between the two of you.
-
Easy way to demonstrate its effectiveness, get your friend to join you in RD’s AGM-65 training mission and fly down low through two valleys next to each other after you leave the primary target area.
Or just keep flying apart and you will notice the quality of reception deteriorates with distance.