The future of BMS
-
This post is deleted! -
Now, since you mentioned DCS, let’s talk about DCS, OK? You know something that I found out about DCS (Or more like “It was there since ever but I just realized it not so long ago”) ? DCS is a CAS simulation!! That’s it… tell me please? what’s the purpose of having such nice features and detailed graphics, and JDAMs and LGBs, and (in the future?) SLAM-ERs and all that, if ALL you can really do is kill trucks and tanks?? what’s the purpose of all that? Today you destroy and enemy factory and shoot in on film, wow great explosion effects, but does that factory have any effect on the war? No… so what’s the point, really?
More or less I fell the same. DCS is good for video making but as a HC tactical sim is way too few. You have to create manually all missions = 0 surprise factor and needs lots of work any and “bugfix update” can ruin all of your work. In Falcon you just click on launch campaign button and have fun. This is why still alive F4.0 and by many players simply ignored / ingnore LOMAC / DCS.
The point of DCS for ED selling more and more modules which many times are unfinished and have tons of bugs after years of release Regardless of these “issues” ED initiates new projects and sells in pre order state for 80 USD (!) a “product” in alpha stage. As long as lots of users accept this kind of behavior we cannot expect much from ED. A working dynamic camp module does not produce money because you can enjoy it even with currently available airplanes and helos.
About you factories you mentioned. In F4 camapaign red side attack mostly them while they do not have any real impact in campaign even long time ago was designed to have impact on supply. So with some sarcasm I can say similar things about F4.0. When comes the time when red side won’t be prue idiot and select targets more wisley with good packages?
(Many times I have explained how can be improved these things but so far has not been applied.)And more… you know what’s the DCS theater size?? I was shocked when I found out (Really), 200x200 KM ? or 300 x 300 ?? Come on now!! How you want to make a jet sim war zone by such a small area? You driver 1 hour to any side and you already gone to the end of the theater! Does that makes sense to you??
Yes, theater size is a joke.
So… while we (Falcon/BMS) have a lot to catch up regarding Graphics (And don’t worry about it…), DCS also have a lot to catch up regarding Game play, war environment etc etc etc…
DCS in many ways does not reach the level of original F4.0 which is 20 year old.
And you think its easier than implementing Graphics? I tell you that it’s not… Graphics (With all the complexity of it, and I’m not saying its easy) is easier, Dynamic campaign, 2D war, comnnect it to 3D, then see how things start to break all over you and you need to fix and work for endless hours to get MP to run, and then its failking on you again…
Exactly this is why it does not have dyn. campaign DCS.
Do you think DCS will ever go there??? I don’t! why? because they keep sucking money from everyone just for their nice GFX, so why to work countless hours on complex Gameplay features? Let’s make another useless Jet and pre sale it, let’s make another beautiful but useless 200x200 KM warzone.
100% agree. And they choose very wisely (sarcasm ON) what modules they develop. For Normandy you have 0% historically accurate aircraft types…
And all that said… I REALLY think they made a GREAT GREAT work on the GFX area, really beautiful. But nice GFX isn’t enough to make a sim.
I have to say GFX is not even in top 5 on my “what makes a good sim” priority list…
-
Jumping in here……
GFX is a part of any simulation. With Falcon,. GFX can improve many of the features we use and need when flying a combat jet. The GFX we have now isn’t as bad as many people say (IMO). But when looking at realism and the effects of “weapons on target” effects, GFX could use some updating. Things like “shock wave” effects of bombs and terrain effects and weather effects need upgrading IMO. So, to think that the GFX is not that important to this (or any other) sim would not be accurate. A lot of the models we see in BMS are excellent. Some could use updating. But the GFX is a major aspect of the overall BMS experience. So, in time, I believe that the GFX will be updatable (if not already in work). There is much more updating to BMS needed as well. Since we are all discussing “the future” of BMS again, I would have to say that the AI is one of the biggest updates needed for BMS. I’m sure otheres here agree that updating the AI is a major need. The GFX of terrain, weather and other effects are a major need as well, but there is other aspects of BMS that also need attention IMO.
-
I think it is 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other. The fidelity of the F-16 in BMS is great, for the time it was created and modeled after. But the avionics are aging. There is enough data out there to facilitate some serious upgrades with a little research and poking the right people for a bit of help. If those upgrades were done ina rather specific way, it would benefit ALL the aircraft in BMS, not just the F-16. The flight model is great for the F-16 as well, but sorely lacking for other aircraft–and non-existent for AI. A study sim is only as good as the environment, and being able to press all the buttons and run through the checklists are great, but if the AI is not limited (or enabled) by the same limitations as the human pilot, it isn’t really a true study sim because you don’t really have to learn how to FIGHT, only how to FLY. I’m NOT trying to be negative, only realistic. People tend to focus only on what they see as the good, but fail to look at it in the context of the bigger picture.
What sets Falcon apart is the campaign. It has always been the campaign. And it will likely always be the campaign. Achieving the same level of clickable cockpit fidelity, FM, and avionics functionality is (relatively) easy for professional developers–IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO DO SO. The same cannot be said about the campaign. For a game like DCS, it would require a complete redesign from the ground up to facilitate a dynamic campaign, which to them is not worth the money. For a new startup company, it would be possible, but the sim community is not large enough to provide adequate ROI for a project like that in today’s market. So you can safely assume the campaign will always be the one thing that sets Falcon apart.
What is interesting to me, is how few people champion a graphics update. Most people who defend BMS to the core say it is already the best, most realistic, high fidelity, etc… sim available. Then they turn around and say I don’t need more graphics I want more features. If the DEVs stopped working completely TODAY and never put out another update, would you keep playing? If the answer is yes, then you should be in favor of changing focus to updating things like graphics and avionics and improving other aircraft. Because a graphics update does not TAKE AWAY from the existing game. It just enhances what is currently available. What’s more, a graphics update impacts EVERY aspect of the game. It doesn’t add a single feature to a single scenario or MFD page. It is a universal upgrade that enhances every aspect of play, for every player.
The same applies to avionics upgrades. I’ve been suggesting a modular approach to avionics for some time. I know it’s hard in the back end, and I know it would take a lot of time and energy to do if someone chose to do so. But the end result would be a (Falcon) decade worth of improvement in the big picture. Not only would it allow the F-16 avionics to be upgraded to modern standards, it would be applicable to EVERY pit and airframe in the game. Which means again, it impacts EVERY player, even those who like to fly things other than just the F-16.
Again, I don’t intend for that to sound negative. Just trying to be realistic. In the end, there is absolutely NO reason why Falcon could not LOOK just as nice as DCS, and maintain all the other fidelity that everyone enjoys. And there is nothing stopping the sim from expanding that fidelity to other aircraft, aside from habit and hard work.
-
I use DCS a lot, here’s my experience in 6 steps:
1. I start DCS and join an MP server (the ONLY way you can be less than bored and have any unpredictability). Note: it takes at least 10 minutes to load and enter a populated server. Thta’s because it CTD’s at least twice every time you try to join.
2. It’s great to go through 10 minutes of start-up, do all the checklists as real as it gets, INS alignment etc. Finally I engage the NWS and taxi out, that’s usually when a ****ing humoungous lag spike freezes the game for 10 seconds or more, airplanes start to warp everywhere, next thing I know I’m a flaming pile of scrap in what seems to be the flight-sim verison of the Human Centipede.
3. So I rejoin in a new slot, re-do the stratup. At this point I have already invested (and lost) ~ 30 precious minutes of my life JUST to start taxiing to the runway! But my passion is big. I shall not desist.
4. Somehow I manage to avoid a few other lag spikes and freezes, I take off into the blue, I even manage to get to my target while I watch Su-27s and F-15s (the world’s best BVR platforms) merging into low-level dogfights 'cause their medium range missiles are as useful as a waterproof towel. I launch a couple of Mavericks, hit a bunch of trucks, and start my RTB route. That’s starting to feel good!
5. I feel somehow proud of my achievement, of my perseverance, I look forward to the pleasure of greasing that landing while my mind populates the side of the runway with cheering girls in sweatpants. I whisper “mission accomplished” at the back of my mind, I sit back a little and start to relax but…
6. The server crashes.
-
Please keep in mind that all that we have in BMS is free. I’m sure that if it was charged that things would be better but BMS is not a company like DCS. BMS has developers who have their own lives and jobs and take time away from other things like family. I just wanted to make that point for all you guys who want better things. Things will get better but not as fast as DCS. It takes a lot of time, personal and programming to make all this stuff work.
Would I like to see better graphics, virtual reality, better weather, more theaters, link 16, etc….yes definitely…but keeping in mind that this is all for free…what we had in 1998 is nothing compared to what we have now.
Be patient!!!
-
What is interesting to me, is how few people champion a graphics update. Most people who defend BMS to the core say it is already the best, most realistic, high fidelity, etc… sim available. Then they turn around and say I don’t need more graphics I want more features. If the DEVs stopped working completely TODAY and never put out another update, would you keep playing? If the answer is yes, then you should be in favor of changing focus to updating things like graphics and avionics and improving other aircraft.
I do not understand this part. like graphics and avionics? They are totally on the opposide sides of developent. If next BMS remains on the same grapicsh level I do not care as long as it gets much better DB, better AI for ATO, etc.
A part of “bad graphics” in BMS4 caused by the limited qty. of objects and available buildings (3D models) for them. The ground units can have higher poly but tracks moving and wheel rotation as I can remember are still not modeled. A part of them can e fixed easily - more 3D models - but objective limitation is very hard and objectives are pre defined. This makes possible the dynamics campaigns…Because a graphics update does not TAKE AWAY from the existing game. It just enhances what is currently available.
???
What update take away from any game…?What’s more, a graphics update impacts EVERY aspect of the game.
This is simply false the “every” word is a very hard over statemennt. Better shaders, heat blur or 100k+ poly F-16 does not add anyting to better tactical modeling which is the heart of a HC sim…
In the end, there is absolutely NO reason why Falcon could not LOOK just as nice as DCS, and maintain all the other fidelity that everyone enjoys.
This is also not true because of map-objectives-DB-battalion-etc. feature links by exe and DB.
-
Molni you’re looking picture. I’m looking picture.
From a development perspective, everything I said is true. Shaders, heat blur, or 100k poly are only 3 VERY specific, and small pieces to graphics. Better tree generation? Terrain texturing? More detailed models so you can tell what vehicles are what without having to zoom in with TGP? Realistic ground structures? UI enhancements? 2D Map? Moving Map? Higher resolution MFDs? But those are all aesthetic, DX11/12 vs DX9 has orders of magnitude better performance when done correctly. DX12 especially because the queue system is specifically designed for multi-core/multi-proc systems. Imagine if you could remove the graphics processing currently being shared between CPU and GPU to only the GPU, while simultaneously improving the graphics…which eliminates much of the need for limited texture slots in theater, or forcing objectives to be pre-defined to a limited number, or forcing all ground units to be defined in a DB. Because the extra CPU cycles that were dedicated to helping the graphics engine are now free for program use. What about being able to actually see a ground vehicle from above 1500 feet, regardless of the underlying terrain? Would that be better for tactical modeling in an HC sim? Being able to differentiate similar looking buildings on the ground by a visual cue instead of only using pre-planned targets? Accurate low level terrain generation and appearance regardless of altitude? All graphics related.
As I said, if you think big picture and not specific instance, it enhances EVERY aspect of gameplay…including the DB which I know you would like to see improved. Many of the DB limitations are only the result of trying to limit indices and counters to BYTE or CHAR sizes for performance reasons. If the performance were less impacted by graphics, those limitations go away. No longer limited to 255 in many cases, short integers can become floats for better modeling and accuracy, etc…
As for the linking mentioned in the last statement, graphics has nothing to do with any of it. How I render a model to a screen, and the underlying format of the model or the API I use to do it, have nothing to do whatsoever with how I correlate objects in the back end.
EDIT: Again, I want to stress, not trying to sound negative. I agree with Cougar, a lot has been done. For free. And it’s come a long way. I’ve just adopted the mentality over the years that just because something is good, doesn’t mean it can’t get better. And being the best is never good enough if you can still get better. Some say “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it…” I say “If it can get better, get to work…”
-
I agree that GFX is a VERY important part of any simulator. Graphics is most of the environment, the feel of it. I find it hard that people feel like they must choose side between avionics/gameplay/campaign and Graphics, like if you want better graphics, then you have less thinking about Hardcore simming. It reminds me the old days when there was SP4 and FF3, SP4 was the “Hardcore” and FF3 was the “Eyecandy”
Anyway, I did the travel to be on both sides of development, and I simply can’t prefer one over the other, all is important, so as dev, it’s all a question of how much time you can put into it, and which area you choose to work on.
-
Here’s a noob question which someone might be able to answer.
We are all aware that BMS uses F-16 avionics and bits for every aircraft in some fashion - this is not at all uncommon in flight simulators. General sims to combat sims, from X-Plane to Hornet, share similar constructs. The key is tweaking things to make the systems seem authentic for the individual airframe.
Let me give an example - I loved working the armament control panel of the A-10A in A-10 Attack! - I know a few of you here flew that one. However, a manual ACP is hard to do with the MFD-type controls used in the F-16. If it was possible to separate the individual menus from the aircraft’s computer, and “paste” only the specific functions to the manual ACP in the A-10… you might actually get a fairly realistic set-up.
That to me sounds like a key step in the modularizing the sim from the perspective of basic avionics… do we know how far off that is? I have to assume it’s harder than it sounds, but I also wonder if it’s easier than we think.
-
… I find it hard that people feel like they must choose side between avionics/gameplay/campaign and Graphics, like if you want better graphics, then you have less thinking about Hardcore simming…
This is the point I was getting at. There is nothing that says it can only be one or the other. And more often than not, improving one enhances the other. I just took it a step further and said if one (functionality) took a back seat for a few updates and the other (graphics) got a big overhaul, the functionality piece would still be above and beyond the other sims available, and the graphics would be on-par or better with them.
-
This is the point I was getting at. There is nothing that says it can only be one or the other. And more often than not, improving one enhances the other. I just took it a step further and said if one (functionality) took a back seat for a few updates and the other (graphics) got a big overhaul, the functionality piece would still be above and beyond the other sims available, and the graphics would be on-par or better with them.
The ‘graphics’ change that could benefit BMS the greatest IMO is a terrain/building overhaul. We need high resolution terrain and more 3D buildings. There are still plenty for me to lawdart into at present having said that
-
I agree. Unfortunately I also believe it would be the hardest to implement. It isn’t necessarily the textures or “graphics” per se that need an update when it comes to terrain, it’s the underlying mechanics of height calculation, line of sight, smoothing, etc… which have far reaching impacts to the rest of the game engine. Finding a practical and efficient way to re-enable terrain LODs appropriately would do a LOT for the visual “eye candy” factor of the sim.
-
People who like football nowadays, prefer either Fifa 18 or Football Manager 18. The former has great graphics, but the latter is hard core football sim. I believe you can’t have both worlds. BMS is the best when it comes to avionics, FM etc. If AI and IADS could be improved a lot, that would be a huge step towards perfection in military sims. GFX enhancements are always welcomed.
-
-
-
Well, I’m a total newb here, but I have been playing around with this sim on and off since it came out. This will be the first BMS install I have done and from what I can see, I can’t wait ! It looks to me like they have done an absolutely amazing job at keeping this Falcon flying. Thank you all. :bowd::clap2::thumb:
-
Well, I’m a total newb here, but I have been playing around with this sim on and off since it came out. This will be the first BMS install I have done and from what I can see, I can’t wait ! It looks to me like they have done an absolutely amazing job at keeping this Falcon flying. Thank you all. :bowd::clap2::thumb:
Welcome back then, after todays troll this is a welcome read, even more so for a first post. Enjoy!
-
Molni you’re looking picture. I’m looking picture.
From a development perspective, everything I said is true. Shaders, heat blur, or 100k poly are only 3 VERY specific, and small pieces to graphics. Better tree generation? Terrain texturing? More detailed models so you can tell what vehicles are what without having to zoom in with TGP? Realistic ground structures? UI enhancements? 2D Map? Moving Map? Higher resolution MFDs? But those are all aesthetic, DX11/12 vs DX9 has orders of magnitude better performance when done correctly. DX12 especially because the queue system is specifically designed for multi-core/multi-proc systems. Imagine if you could remove the graphics processing currently being shared between CPU and GPU to only the GPU, while simultaneously improving the graphics…which eliminates much of the need for limited texture slots in theater, or forcing objectives to be pre-defined to a limited number, or forcing all ground units to be defined in a DB. Because the extra CPU cycles that were dedicated to helping the graphics engine are now free for program use. What about being able to actually see a ground vehicle from above 1500 feet, regardless of the underlying terrain? Would that be better for tactical modeling in an HC sim? Being able to differentiate similar looking buildings on the ground by a visual cue instead of only using pre-planned targets? Accurate low level terrain generation and appearance regardless of altitude? All graphics related.
Yes. But they have 0 impact on IR sensor modeling, bombs does not have random inaccuracy effect by random wind, etc just because of better graphics. Using of the “every” word was an over statement. Or what about weather? It looks amazing comparing to old times but AI simply see through fog and rain and can kill you with IR MANPAD. (Even in DCS is just eye cand the weather as I know.
-
Sigh… yes you are correct. It does not enhance every individual feature of every individual aspect of gameplay. Only every aspect of gameplay. Which is awfully close to what I said before. Does weather enhance the flying portion of gameplay? Do better explosions enhance the combat portion of gameplay? Would better ground effects and smoke trails make a better MANPAD engagement experience? I never said they enhance every feature. Only every aspect of the game, which means the general aspects of the game at large.