Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
Ive done that scenario in CMANO often enough that its not a case of understanding or not.
-
…try it in RL.
-
Procedural ID. If it walks like a valid target, and squawks like a valid target, and (fails to) talk like a valid target, its a valid target.
-
I wish it was that simple…would make life and death a lot easier.
-
With smart ROE drafters, it is that simple.
Command has the benefit that the mission designers also set the ROEs, so you end up with a level of sanity checking.
Anyway, the point I was making is that in a warzone (which is what BMS simulates) you have folks on permissive ROEs, and a lack of maritime shipping. If your NK patrol boat saunters up to a CVG, its going to get sunk. How do you know its a NK patrol boat? So many measures… what does your air surveillance say? What emissions have we got from it? Which way is it motoring, what is its probable point of origin…
-
With smart ROE drafters, it is that simple.
Command has the benefit that the mission designers also set the ROEs, so you end up with a level of sanity checking.
Anyway, the point I was making is that in a warzone (which is what BMS simulates) you have folks on permissive ROEs, and a lack of maritime shipping. If your NK patrol boat saunters up to a CVG, its going to get sunk. How do you know its a NK patrol boat? So many measures… what does your air surveillance say? What emissions have we got from it? Which way is it motoring, what is its probable point of origin…
Once again, you hit the nail on the head with “smart”…
But your point brings us back to my original point about cracking the AI nut for shipping in BMS…right now we don’t really have a “maritime battlefield” like the great one we have ashore…and that’s totally understandable. All of the AI wrt how the shipping behaves and how any war at sea would progress - in conjunction with the land Campaign - would have to also be worked out. And that would be a lot of work.
-
How do you get patrol boats into range of the CV without them being dealt with by the CV escort?
That’s what the US Navy thought too. Until they held the Millennium Challenge 02 exercise, where shockingly almost the entire carrier battle group was sunk by a swarm of small planes and boats armed with anti-ship missiles.
Chinese Silkworm-type cruise missiles fired from some of the small boats sank the US fleet’s only aircraft carrier and two marine helicopter carriers.
(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/06/usa.iraq)Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces’ electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002) -
Seems like they didnt have enough of a screen there. For a less recent conflict this is quite significant.
-
Any chance of changing the focus distance of the HUD and HMCS so that they are usable with stereoscopic headsets? Is there an easy way for us to fix it without needing the bms source code?
-
Buildings and ground clutter for every ground tile, not just trees.
More ground activity at air bases.
Things like that to liven up the world.
-
More than anything else we could possibly get, I would love to see performance optimizations.
-
Theres a few areas that could use improvement, but Im not sure how likely it is (or even how possible it is, seeing as Im thinking of picture in picture stuff like FLIR).
-
Theres a few areas that could use improvement, but Im not sure how likely it is (or even how possible it is, seeing as Im thinking of picture in picture stuff like FLIR).
My main curiosity is this - what changed with 4.33 that made the TPG/WPN/FLIR so abusive to the FPS? In 4.32, I could have Mavs on one MFD and the TPG on the other, and still get a perfect 60 FPS. Now I can’t do that with just one of those on.
-
FPS drops with FLIR/TFR/MAV/TGP is minimal here, less than 2-3 fps…
-
FPS drops with FLIR/TFR/MAV/TGP is minimal here, less than 2-3 fps…
Really? Damn, mine goes down with 20-30FPS (from 60 capped to 25 average) when TGP goes on :s
-
FPS drops with FLIR/TFR/MAV/TGP is minimal here, less than 2-3 fps…
I think you must be the 1st person I read who doesn’t encounter an fps drop. What kind of system do you have ?
-
Really? Damn, mine goes down with 20-30FPS (from 60 capped to 25 average) when TGP goes on :s
Not only this…
Yesterday I came back from a Tiger Spirit mission and on the ground I had 22 FPS (at ramp start ~36 FPS)… That is shocking. -
FPS drops with FLIR/TFR/MAV/TGP is minimal here, less than 2-3 fps…
I think you must be the 1st person I read who doesn’t encounter an fps drop. What kind of system do you have ?
I don’t have much a drop either. Average frames here during the campaign are 60+ even with TGP and WPN pages on. Typically 5-10 FPS loss at the FLOT on day 1 of a campaign, sometimes up to 15. The only thing that reduces my frames significantly is recording with Bandicam.
As you can see from my system specs in my sig it is a VERY modest system. A lot of it is just keeping things clean. Regular virus, malware, & adware scans, removed all Win8.1 bloatware, and I physically clean my case at least once a month.
-
Well obviously there will be a performance drop. The tile resolution has increased. I imagine that if one goes back to the old tiles, he would get his old performance back. The RTFM says as much. This thing just looks so good now that I could never go back no matter how much my old iMac now struggles. And let’s be real–BMS simply sings compared to anything else out there. I can run DCS with only one unit in the bubble (me). I can’t run IL2 Stalingrad at all. ARMA runs well but my visibility is set to about 5KM. So performance-wise, I couldn’t ask for more from BMS.
-
Need correction to current modeling of Idle Cutoff for throttle hard detent users (push throttle FORWARD to light off the engine). See here for example:
The problem with the current model of this methodology is “Idle Detent” and Engine OFF are the same setting. This of course is not RW (engine shuts down when throttle is moved a TINY amount past Idle Detent). In the RW, the throttle is moved a significant amount past “Idle Detent” before the engine shuts down. As currently modeled with the throttle fully to the rear against the shell casing, there is either inadvertent in-flight shut down of the engine OR slightly fast idle while on the ramp depending on how user sets it up in the controller settings.
A separate setting for Engine OFF needs to be created:
Similarly, a banded single setting Idle Detent/Engine OFF setting approach can be used:
F1