BMS 4.33
-
Oh man, always that whining about Falcon’s Licence …. that’s how economy in the 21st century works! Someone has buyed the company which holds the licence, now they own it. What’s wrong with that? I didn’t see one small indication that the new licence holders have the intention to bring BMS down. Looks like they are serious business man because they take care of their aquired property and whats made with it. They talk to the BMS guys in a good manner as it seems so get over it. And if you don’t like it buy the licence and hand it over to BMS.
Well, unlike before when that was recommended crowd funding is now more of a thing…
The thing is this time I’m not really concerned as in the past, this time it is a more mutually helpful situation for both parties. BMS has said they are actively developing a release and sounds like with the IP owners request.
-
Also for what its worth - you couldn’t call your creation Falcon V, either. Its not just the code that is theirs, that naming convention for flight simulators is a trademark.
Vice versa, intelligent people understood this issue long time ago and created a fully open-source platform where to develop their flight simulator. Would you like a name ? FlightGear . Completely free, based on the GNU platform and with very nice developers and users ready to constantly work hard and improve little by little their sim and community. You can use it on Windows, Mac or Linux platform.
If instead to waste our time with the new owners, we would start a migration and a new project (in 5 years we will be at a level right now we can just dream), we would have saved a lots of headaches and we will be here to talk about the next updates in lieu to close all the download links, trying to talk on our knees with the new owners, knowing that even if we get a good agreement tomorrow we will start once again with another bunch of people who has decided to buy the license and has the copyright.
Well, I look forward to seeing your project. I would recommend GitHub as a good place to host an open source project, especially for their version control. It helps that all open source works are free to host there as well.
I note that FFosc hosted a build of their work there, but nothing really happened with it. I think they were expecting a massive outpour of community assistance in building their new Dream Simulation.
-
I’ve dabbled with FlightGear before…it’s interesting, for a freebie. And it’s multi-platform. It’s not a combat sim though - think FSX…for free.
I haven’t grabbed a copy for some long time, still looks worth a look…
-
I’ve dabbled with FlightGear before…it’s interesting, for a freebie. And it’s multi-platform. It’s not a combat sim though - think FSX…for free.
I haven’t grabbed a copy for some long time, still looks worth a look…
I’d really like to see a military sim in the depth of BMS based on flight gear. FSX@war looks promising too.
-
Not bad, eh?
The latest version is dated 01.2016, and it has many interesting features. I think the simulator was originally designed to fly civilian aircraft, that’s why they are probably best modelled of all, Cessna 172p, for example, and some big passenger liners. Of the military aircraft, F-14 and F-15 are nice in terms of both looks and FM. No aerial combat, unfortunately…
-
Designing and building the combat part of a Sim is hard. You have AI, weapons, avonics to launch those weapons, ground units, campaigns. I mean DCS still can’t get a dynamic campaign going after all these years (because it is not easy!).
-
The most interesting thing in turning a civil flight simulator into a combat simulator is that it is very close to the “real thing” in terms of the actual flying procedures and the tasks of airforces in peacetime.
Nowadays, air policing has become a thing more than ever.
There is more action in the world going on as north korea invading south korea at 0900 in the morning and I would enjoy flying missions throughout the whole world without worrying of leaving the square world I’m living in.
But none of these does have a decent F-16 (or maybe EF-2000) with actual combat, so I’ll keep on simming with BMS. Let alone be a dynamic campaign which no one ever did complete yet except Falcon 4.0.
And flying an airliner was never that much of fun for me.I am really interested in FSX@war and would buy the FSX + F-16 + EF-2000 for it if it comes at least somehow close to BMS in terms of moddeling.
However, I could not find what is required for FSX@war (FSX Gold + TacPack?) and which airplanes are included right now.As far as I understand it, I buy FSX Gold + Tacpack und there we go?
-
The most interesting thing in turning a civil flight simulator into a combat simulator is that it is very close to the “real thing” in terms of the actual flying procedures and the tasks of airforces in peacetime.
Nowadays, air policing has become a thing more than ever.
There is more action in the world going on as north korea invading south korea at 0900 in the morning and I would enjoy flying missions throughout the whole world without worrying of leaving the square world I’m living in.
But none of these does have a decent F-16 (or maybe EF-2000) with actual combat, so I’ll keep on simming with BMS. Let alone be a dynamic campaign which no one ever did complete yet except Falcon 4.0.
And flying an airliner was never that much of fun for me.I am really interested in FSX@war and would buy the FSX + F-16 + EF-2000 for it if it comes at least somehow close to BMS in terms of moddeling.
However, I could not find what is required for FSX@war (FSX Gold + TacPack?) and which airplanes are included right now.As far as I understand it, I buy FSX Gold + Tacpack und there we go?
maybe you should look closer on prepar3d instead of FSX.
vrs superbug, vrs tacpack, prepar3d and prepar3d is a good combination -
maybe you should look closer on prepar3d instead of FSX.
vrs superbug, vrs tacpack, prepar3d and prepar3d is a good combinationWhich license do I need? As far as I understand, P3D is not meant to serve the “personal consumer entertainment”?
-
Which license do I need? As far as I understand, P3D is not meant to serve the “personal consumer entertainment”?
Accademic license.
The problem with fsx+tacpack(or prepar 3d + tacpack) is that it is very unclear what you need to download and install in order to do missions and campaigns.There is no tutorial or guide, i can only understand how to fly the Superbug and fire some weapon against drones(the default fsx objects), but not real ai opponents. Or maybe i am not too good on searching on vrs or fsx@war sites. -
Well, the future isn’t that bright for upcoming combat flight sims. DCS is so far the only real sim that attracts enough people to actually fly some larger multiplayer events, has a commercial development and might see some more modules in the future.
Flight gear does not really have a combat module besides bombable (which is hardly a combat sim mod) and FSX is as I understand no longer developed by Microsoft, sold to lockheed martin and no longer designed for the “end customer” as it is with P3D. The academic version is for students only- nobody cares, but they seem to exclude simming as we know it from their use.
XPlane might be worth a try but so far all I have seen is some kind of “hack” which lacks a really bright future.I really do want to know what happens with BMS. Well, 3 to 4 weeks and we all know
-
IHMO it is pointless to talk about leaving F4 and build something new. Tons of times I have explained why this is totally impossbile as long as you do not have tens of million dollars and years. This is why DCS1.5 and 2.0 still based on old LOMAC partially and this is why never was released Fighter Ops, Jet Thunder or Seven-G which models only a single airframe without any environment. You/we simply do not have resource to build EVERYTHING fron scratch regardless it would be good even for Falcon.
Falcon has to live on. Period. This is the only way currently for a jet sim with such dynamic campaign and 3rd party option what good old F4 base can provide to the developers and the community either.
-
This post is deleted! -
IHMO it is pointless to talk about leaving F4 and build something new. Tons of times I have explained why this is totally impossbile as long as you do not have tens of million dollars and years. This is why DCS1.5 and 2.0 still based on old LOMAC partially and this is why never was released Fighter Ops, Jet Thunder or Seven-G which models only a single airframe without any environment. You/we simply do not have resource to build EVERYTHING fron scratch regardless it would be good even for Falcon.
Falcon has to live on. Period. This is the only way currently for a jet sim with such dynamic campaign and 3rd party option what good old F4 base can provide to the developers and the community either.
Exactly.
The sad thing is that right now no one is developing a modern age combat flight simulator besides of DCS. So, just in case F4 would stop right now there would be nothing left over to compete with that and nothing on the horizon that would be able to compete with it after it is released.
-
Yep, yet hopefully bringing clarity to the licensing status will benefit greatly BMS and its users (assuming it goes the right way)
-
Yep, yet hopefully bringing clarity to the licensing status will benefit greatly BMS and its users (assuming it goes the right way)
I think so. Well, asking for just the *.exe might be too simple actually. I’m very confident that there will be a solution for it.
I think whoever does not own a real F4 CD yet should buy it from GOG as long as it is still that cheap Mine is from 1999, and I think this should live on as long as possible.
-
….
Be a little bit smarter and read again last Boxer’s post.
The entire community thank you for your self-control and your understanding.
-
For the moment Mower, the ppl who has tendencies to ruin BMS’s future is rather you by now.
Be a little bit smarter and read again last Boxer’s post.
The entire community thank you for your self-control and your understanding.
100% agree with you.
It’s been said over again again that talks are ongoing and it can easily be infer from update on the discussion that this whole situation would culminate in a win win situation.
Please let moderate words which may flare up more fire and harm BMS at the end.
I really love the BMS mod to F4 and wish nothing terminal happens to this mod.
Let equally think of so many out there waiting on the list to have the downloaded link reopened.
I have come to know this community to be that of good guys.
Let hope for a bright future for bms F4.Cheers.
-
I don’t understand how there can be legal trouble to begin with? Maybe I’m wrong but I think that normally no one can stop you from releasing a mod for a game for free. I’m guessing that BMS, unlike many mods for other games, redistributes a lot of the original Falcon 4 content that they do not own the rights to with the BMS installer?
What I’m thinking is they can’t stop the BMS team from releasing their content (models, binaries etc), the problem must be the fact that they’re distributing a lot of Falcon 4 stuff as well (I guess this is the case since only the executable is required by the installer). So, if we could create a “diff” or a “patch” that requires a specific version of Falcon 4 installed (say the GOG version) that actually uses the original files where possible, would that solve the problem? I realise that it may not be easy to do this with lots of binary files involved, especially if all of the original files has been modified, but it’s a thought. Then maybe I’m completely wrong since I haven’t done any research.
Either way, thanks to the BMS team for your hard work on this amazing mod! Hope there’s a solution soon :).
-
Youve got the right idea as to why BMS is different Bluestream. Unfortunately a core part of BMS is that it edits the Falcon 4 executable. It would be technically possible to install falcon 4, and then install a mod like BMS over the top of it, but it would also be a lot more prone to error in the install process.
Also, converting BMS to that method would be a behemoth effort. Ultimately yes your line of thinking is correct, but its one of those ideas that sadly works better in theory