Devs real question
-
I am sorry that you feel that way I-Hawk. Everytime either a newbie or a troll start a thread like this, there are always a small number of people putting a little oil on the fire. However, this is in my view always a very small part of the community. So, please dev team; don’t translate the voices of a small number of people into an overarching ‘assessment’ of the community at large. There are a great many people that enjoy the awesome work you are doing with BMS.
No worries mate, Grown up in this (Great, don’t doubt that!) community I have a thick skin. I’m part of a VFS myself (Although I didn’t really flew in the last year much, for good reasons, I hope :)) and enjoy flying very much. What we do internally, I belive we do for that reason, that we enjoy this smazing sim ourselves
-
Yes DB will improve. I’m not the guy to give any details because I’m honestly pretty far from DB data development areas, but I know that work has been done to improve.
Rgr + thx.
No it’s not, you aren’t familiar with the engine really, so you can’s tell the limitations.
I feel the same.
-
Thanks I-Hawk again for description.
Sorry, I still wonder if FPS hit is really because of the ground has many buildings to draw. Because even 100ft low-pass flying won’t hit FPS but touching the ground hit FPS.
Why I concluded Janhas model not insane is because in my experience it was working flawlessly except touching on the ground. However, what kind of TE/Campaign I flew should be biased toward my preference. From the coding point of view those poly counts and texture size should be insane for current engine considering more wide variety situation BMS have to render. I am not knowing about that I gotta admit.
-
For many ppl, even here, we are the bad guys. Seriously.
I don’t believe that.
The majority thinks otherwise.
Don’t drive conclusions from the few guys posting here, and even few that might thing that you are the “bad guys”.
There are zilion other members that don’t post or don’t express their thoughts on such matters or they don’t have anything to complain about.Some are even driven by jealousy or other factors that are just void causes.
-
Sorry, I still wonder if FPS hit is really because of the ground has many buildings to draw. Because even 100ft low-pass flying won’t hit FPS but touching the ground hit FPS.
OK then this is becoming interesting. Do you have a proof that touching the ground as you say cause a FPS hit? Because I flew Falcon a lot and I do have a feeling for FPS and I never remember seeing such a difference between on ground or slightly above it.
Generally, take into account that at current status of the sim, unless you are in a VERY crowded area in campaign, it will usually be the rendering code that take a lot of time (not necessarily GPU itself, as unfortunately GPU isn’t working too hard with BMS currently). So if you are testing an empty TE, it’ll be mostly the rendering, that’s why I find it hard to believe that there is something else lurking. Also note that for FPS comparisons you should test apples against apples because even slight changes in view angle or position may affect a lot. Due to cullling, many objects may be denied from rendering if you are at that angle or the other, so strict testing must be done in order to conclude anything.
-
I don’t use JanHas models because of the FPS hit triggered by the jet on land. I’m not surprised to hear of it elsewhere.
Lorik, member of the many satisfied ones.
-
I reported this once. I think I also had Janhas wall model and pylons too, so I will start from Clean Install than only install Janhas F-16 to compare to pure stock one later.
“TOPGUN VIEW” setting might also help to fix angle to a specific degree. -
As a (Java) developer I can guarantee you that open source is not the solution … At all
Check the leaked 1.08 source code … Try to understand the architecture of the different layers …
IMO a massive refactoring has been made by BMS before 4.32 and 4.33.
A such task of refactoring is too huge … And IMO impossible in Open Source.
How many of u guys are mastering C++ ?Typical java programmer attitude
-
Hi guys,
I will express my opinion, in this matter so written lately.
We have to have fun with FALCON BMS, be a community, or if you prefer a brotherhood, but always stay active and united, here we have people from the four corners of the world !!!
And leave the decisions, to be taken for those who understand the subject, I am sure that the decisions taken, will be the most successful !!!
And like I said, let’s have fun, that’s the purpose.Best Regards,
malpaso
-
Five corners, don’t forget us down under chaps !
And I think its time for an open source …… :grouphug: and some :kumbaya:
-
I reported this once. I think I also had Janhas wall model and pylons too, so I will start from Clean Install than only install Janhas F-16 to compare to pure stock one later.
“TOPGUN VIEW” setting might also help to fix angle to a specific degree.OK Now I remember this thread of yours. I saw the vid now again and a few observations:
1. The Hit with the Janhas model is MUCH more critical - 60 to 30
2. With default model it feels like there is a very minor hit and actually as you get away from the center of the AB you are getting away from the stack of features and have less objects in view so you gain 6-7 and later 10-11 FPS, that makes sense.
3. I honestly don’t know to explain the hit with Janhas model without doing some dedicated debugging. Maybe he has something crazy in the Gear, but it’s hard to tell without serious profiling for that…
-
I believe the JanHas models use a lot of transparencies. That may be the cause of a lot of draw calls.
-
Because even 100ft low-pass flying won’t hit FPS but touching the ground hit FPS…
I’ve already seen tow other ppl reporting for big FPS drop as soon as they touch the ground but on my side I’ve never had such issue.
They’ve never managed to find why. One of them had the issue vanished after updating to up3 if I remember corectly. The other one solved after full re’install.
http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=281&t=200437&p=1646453&hilit=FPS#p1646453
You are the third person talking about it.
EDITED after check related thread in French forum for correct informations.
-
Wow I seem to have contributed to kicking the hornets nest a little (haha)
For the record, I was in no way suggesting that what BMS is doing is wrong or should be changed.
You guys rock, and I wouldn’t want to try to mess with perfection. Seriously.My suggestions were in no way meant to be applied to any modification of any existing Falcon code (1.08, sp4, whatever).
I was talking blank sheet design. And I think my post was fairly realistic about the downsides involved.Just throwing that out there.
Good fun, everybody :lol:
-
VR…
lol
-
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.
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.
I would say that’s somewhat true regarding being more dependent on gauges. I don’t have the Huey but I do have the L39 which has and uses many gauges and hard to see radio dials and it works fine. In fact I had a harder time seeing everything with TIR than I do with the Rift. What’s made me hopeful are the videos I’ve seen and discussions on Reddit where guys like us are trying different things and getting pretty damn good results without rewriting code and instead using available programs and probably some hacks. In the videos I’ve seen, the inside of the pit looked fine for the most part. It was getting it to sync with the outside aircraft textures they had issues with and many others I’m sure.
For me, I don’t need a whole new sim. Falcon is more complete now than I ever thought it would be when I started and for that I’m grateful. In fact I really don’t see anything else that needs to be added to it other than making the few remaining systems not enabled in the jet function and adding VR support. Once done it will be a perfect F-16 with dynamic campaign simulation. It was never an F/A18, F15 or any other jet sim. To those of you that say the graphics in VR are bad, how long have you flown Falcon? It’s still on the ass end of visual quality compared to other sims apart from the pit so who cares? The immersion makes up for shitty resolutions. Besides, how many people flying BMS have a system that allows them to crank all settings and get even 60FPS? So it’s not like anyone is getting visual ecstasy as it stands now. Lastly, the code in DCS is still not optimized completely for VR. Put on an HMD and fly the new IL2 Sturmovik and then get back to me on VR graphics hardware limitations. -
You can try and revive Open Falcon…that should get you where you want to go…yeah…
That’s what happened last time there were a couple different teams working on Falcon…
-
To those of you that say the graphics in VR are bad, how long have you flown Falcon? It’s still on the ass end of visual quality compared to other sims apart from the pit so who cares? The immersion makes up for shitty resolutions.
when your resolution gives you a quarter mile tally range, you have to start recognising that the resolution is too low.
-
I have a number of commercially produced flight sims on my shelf that are no longer supported and I can’t run on my current system. BMS still runs, gets better all the time, and has not cost me a cent. I kind of like the way things are.
-
when your resolution gives you a quarter mile tally range, you have to start recognising that the resolution is too low.
Ok, ok, fair enough lol.