Devs real question
-
In my opinion, an open source community collaboration is the ONLY way that a shiny new sim could possibly work.
Just listen friends:
Open source is NOT to be considered … and WON’T happens.
And nope, it is not a good solution … It is certainly the worse and the one that will kill Falcon4. GUARANTIED. Some tried, and if you want, you can even try yourself right now. SP4 code is available. Try to do something major in open source … and report for results.
So just stop speaking about shitty open source stuff, you are simply loosing your time. And even IF it was a good solution, it just won’t happens anyway.
-
I’ve already seen videos of people getting BMS to work somewhat with VR. As to the resolution I can’t see how it would be any more difficult than what DCS has done.
The DCS VR has exactly the same issues as its a hardware limitation, not a software one. The F-16 on the other hand has quite a bit more emphasis on its displays than does the Huey.
Open source is NOT to be considered … and WON’T happens.
Given that you are shooting down b.s. for suggesting a new sim made from scratch open source, its pretty hard to say that making a new sim would kill Falcon 4.
-
This post is deleted! -
Modularity: This is for DCS.
BMS won’t go that way. Maybe few stuff, other a/c could have some love … But it won’t becomes DCS like.
The talent exist in the comunity, I am 100% sure about that. But what I also know, is that BMS won’t try it.I might be wrong (?), but for at least, in the five to ten incoming years, I do not think I will be wrong. (Speaking about BMS, not necessarily about some other Falcon4 projects … (?) but so far, F4OSC attempted to do it using FreeFalcon code, they did’t made it … Cheapshot.)
So let me kindly say : Nay.
And by reading you, with so much talents out there, since it is so “easy” with a good pro management, why not taking your chance (?) … You should be able to catch up BMS level quite rapidly if the OpenSource concept actually works as you advertise it. And even not going that far … If it is demonstrated that OpenSource actually works with Falcon4 code, maybe … maybe it could change some (?) of BMS member’s minds (?)
-
No, I’m talking about modularity. IF a new project were ever to be done from scratch, the team who does it would do well to focus on a framework. Design the underlying functionality required to implement the game mechanics, not the avenue which a player engages in the game. Don’t focus on implementing the specifics of an aircraft, focus on designing the specifics of the systems which an aircraft needs to function. Create a FRAMEWORK that supports MFD pages, not the SPECIFIC layout and function of every possible MFD page. Develop a series of commands which can be associated with a HUD, and the tools to allow modders to implement those functions into a HUD for an aircraft they are designing, instead of designing 3 HUDs and telling everyone they have to choose from one of the 3. Develop the mechanics for how Radar functions, and leave it up to the community developers to determine how a specific radar functions in a specific aircraft. Being tied to the F-16 avionics, formats, displays, and functionality is more or less the ONLY thing preventing unlimited DETAILED development of other aircraft. Think of the hi-res pit for the A-10. The appearance and the external model look great, but you can’t adjust the functionality or appearance of the avionics. Can’t individually turn on the hardpoints in the A Model. Or have the appropriate HUD or JHMCS view. Or integrate the Moving Map for the newer block F-16s, change the MFDs to match newer tapes without 6-12 month cycles. But if a new game were built on a framework, where community developers created MODULES to leverage that framework, you could accomplish all of that.
The argument exists that it lowers the fidelity of the game or the model quality because there is a lack of “QA”, but nobody is ever forced to install something they don’t like or want. No game has ever succeeded by telling the players HOW to enjoy their game, they succeed by providing avenues FOR the players to enjoy the game. When the attitude switches, the game loses traction and the player base shifts to new, short term players because the veterans feel ostracized. Look at any MMO out there. When the development team starts making too many changes to “even the playing field” the player base jumps ship. Whether a game is free, one time purchase, or monthly subscription, I’m investing my time and money to play a game how I enjoy the game. If that means I download a crappy model from a hack team who doesn’t put in the effort, so be it, that’s what I want to do. The idea that it’s a study sim with high fidelity never goes away if the underlying mechanics and the framework are designed force those modules to abide by it. But imagine if the community could apply the same amount of time and energy that goes into refining the F-16 for 10 different aircraft out there, simultaneously. The talent and knowledge exists in the community, so the only thing holding that dream back from becoming reality is the nay-sayers out there (At least in the theoretical game experience being discussed here, other limitations also apply in the current setup).
Yeah I agree like I said thats modding not modularity as a function of DCS style. DCS style are paid modules thats different than allowing free mods. I do not agree with anyone making money off a paid mod ala DCS.
I absoultely agree a new flight sim should be moddable like falcon and a community wants to make mods more power to them those mods should properly be supported by the team by allowing an easy switch back to default non moded version for online play etc…
its old hack stuff we are talking about we have been making modable games since 386 days.
Proper modding support is a must for F5 in my opinion.
Just not “paid modules” its overall bad bad bad. -
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
Just my 2 cents for open source, the best way is to start coding and share , not begging others to share their work. Even if BMS wanted to share, BMS is restricted by a commercial license, and like DeeJay pointed, it’s never going to happen that the IP owner would change the license and lose business. Too many “project managers” don’t help, either
-
Even if BMS wanted to share, BMS is restricted by a commercial license, and like DeeJay pointed, it’s never going to happen that the IP owner would change the license and lose business.
As you said: “Even if”.
It is not (or not only) a problem of IP or licence. It is just that BMS has absolutely no wishes nor any plans to go OpenSource. Whatever the licence says or the IP owner want … -
Will you stop talking about Open source please??? Open source may be GREAT for other projects, but not for Falcon code. Trust me, there are ZILLION ways to ruin everything, and thinking about small discussions here, everyone here has 10 opinions about each subject. Can you imagine how many EXEs you will have floating around if we go open source?? I think it’ll be a number so that everyone will fly MP with himself only because all other version won’t match! :mrgreen:
-
As you said: “Even if”.
It is not (or not only) a problem of IP or licence. It is just that BMS has absolutely no wishes nor any plans to go OpenSource. Whatever what the licence says or the IP owner want …Yeah that’s what i meant, the devs has rejected this ad nauseam so I think the conversation is pointless
-
Will you stop talking about Open source please??? Open source may be GREAT for other projects, but not for Falcon code. Trust me, there are ZILLION ways to ruin everything, and thinking about small discussions here, everyone here has 10 opinions about each subject. Can you imagine how many EXEs you will have floating around if we go open source?? I think it’ll be a number so that everyone will fly MP with himself only because all other version won’t match! :mrgreen:
Thats also the point, to have freedom to do whatever you want and fork if necessary, in the end however its up to the IP holder and the developer to pick a license, not to the community.
-
Thats also the point, to have freedom to do whatever you want and fork if necessary, in the end however its up to the IP holder and the developer to pick a license, not to the community.
That’s total BS
Open source would be the best and quickest way to kill falcon forever
History has proven that the way we go is the right way
You would never have had BMS at the level it is with open source concept
It’s not a question of IP or licence this is only a question of common VISION and COMPETENCE
-
That’s total BS
Open source would be the best and quickest way to kill falcon forever
History has proven that the way we go is the right way
You would never have had BMS at the level it is with open source concept
It’s not a question of IP or licence this is only a question of common VISION and COMPETENCE
Like I said, your software your choice , but it’s quite a grotesque statement being BMS ( initially ) based on leaked software.
-
Just listen friends:
Open source is NOT to be considered … and WON’T happens.
And nope, it is not a good solution … It is certainly the worse and the one that will kill Falcon4. GUARANTIED. Some tried, and if you want, you can even try yourself right now. SP4 code is available. Try to do something major in open source … and report for results.
So just stop speaking about shitty open source stuff, you are simply loosing your time. And even IF it was a good solution, it just won’t happens anyway.
But what about real open source Dee-Jay, not that sticky sweet American BBQ Source or that Smelly Asian Fish Source.
We want plain and simple Tomato Source, the real deal and a fair dinkum meat pie slavered with it.
-
You can try and revive Open Falcon…that should get you where you want to go…yeah…
-
But what about real open source Dee-Jay, not that sticky sweet American BBQ Source or that Smelly Asian Fish Source.
We want plain and simple Tomato Source, the real deal and a fair dinkum meat pie slavered with it.
You can have a choice between DCS (Dinkum Cocktail Sauce) or BMS (Barbecue Mushroom Sauce ) on your dinkum
-
You can have a choice between DCS (Dinkum Cocktail Sauce) or BMS (Barbecue Mushroom Sauce ) on your dinkum
IF the Barbecue Mushroom Sauce (BMS) mushrooms are smoked with a light flavored wood such as apple or cherry, it would yield a superior product! One worthy of a mass produced, plastic squeezable bottle. Add some scorching hot nightshades for heat, and you could call it BMS: Afterburner or VR-AB or Sierra Hotel - promising to keep the consumer riveted for the next 12 hours.
-
Like I said, your software your choice , but it’s quite a grotesque statement being BMS ( initially ) based on leaked software.
What is grotesque ?
You have no idea what developing falcon 4 code source means and you pretend to explain us how it should be done?
What is grotesque here ?
People are talking open source if it was the best way to get development running , this is ridiculous. Falcon 4.0 was open source , guess who stays at the table at the end and delivers ?
For your information the leaked code IS open source , i am still waiting for improvement on that branch
ROFLMAO
BMS is what is it because BMS is selecting people that share the same vision of what a combat simulator should be. This vision can not be shared in open source
-
FYI, here is one example of succeeded open source FS.
http://wiki.flightgear.org/FlightGear_Git
I am still not sure how they manage to maintain one master branch as a mainstream version not to separating MP. Github has “pull request” so repository owner can accept/decline changes someone made. You can also accept or decline contributors. However, each source code can be improved and compiled as its own version.
I am afraid of BMS separating its version, or loosing its vision like DCS does. But I also am interested in its source code. Like instead of doing so I deciphered some binary files and made my own launcher…