The future of BMS
-
It takes pratice , knowledge and time to be at that level.
At this point I want to mention that IMHO Radium’s modelling level
and workflow at all is abnormal , and I often think this lad must be sick.
That said, I hope he’ll never call the doctor.On topic …
IMHO, 3 facts …
(A)
The future of BMS is bright and shiny and nothing you need to worry about,
except you want to contribute (code/data/models/manual, etc.)(B)
This sim will never die!
Some prefer beer, some prefer wine, some both and even more, LOL.
A useless discussion, so I’m getting tired reading DCS vs. Falcon BMS all over.Cheers, :yo:
LS -
At this point I want to mention that IMHO Radium’s modelling level
and workflow at all is abnormal , and I often think this lad must be sick.
That said, I hope he’ll never call the doctor.On topic …
IMHO, 3 facts …
(A)
The future of BMS is bright and shiny and nothing you need to worry about,
except you want to contribute (code/data/models/manual, etc.)(B)
This sim will never die!
Some prefer beer, some prefer wine, some both and even more, LOL.
A useless discussion, so I’m getting tired reading DCS vs. Falcon BMS all over.Cheers, :yo:
LS(D) I love LS
-
You can make as nince buliding models as you wish but as long as the city in Falcon is just some large building and rest is texture. In late '90s this was possible if you wished dyn. campaigns. This is a very old heritage of the big old ancestor.
-
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.
…Still thought this was an interesting question from my end - no one will answer?
-
It has been answered many times.
-
I observe, that posts about Falcon future (old, ugly, surpassed) appear before BMS major releases so it is probably part of the Falcon life cycle
-
I observe, that posts about Falcon future (old, ugly, surpassed) appear before BMS major releases
Hmmmm What a coincidence huh?….
I dont think so! -
…Still thought this was an interesting question from my end - no one will answer?
Your idea is exactly what I wish for! More specific callbacks.
-
BMS is in good shape i’d say for a long time to come. I have spent over a year learning the a10c in dcs, and i really like it for the most part. I am nearly finished a 21 mission campaign, and it’s been fun but not in the way it can be with the bms campaign. One of the things that bothers me is there is no incentive to bring the jet home after damage received etc, one recent mission i got hit by a sam, and it killed the airplane pretty much. Both engines on fire, controls damaged etc. So im gliding about in the air deciding what to do when i get the message mission complete (thanks to my wingman) so i just esc out, and not a word said about the fact i was going down in enemy territory lol, and on to the next one. This is the one thing that will bring me back to bms someday, i can feel it in the back of my mind. The one thing i want to accomplish in my short simming career is a falcon campaign win, hopefully someday i will get there.
-
update to the latest directX so we can get VR!
-
update to the latest directX so we can get VR!
bbbuuuuhhhhh
I have a better…
BrainPlug. -
“DCS has much better graphics” …“BMS graphics suck” … “BMS is old…” bla bla bla…
Maybe something is wrong with my eye sight or so but to me there really isn’t anything wrong with the graphics in BMS 4.33?
Sure, some of the models could be improved - like see the awesome work Radium has just done on the AH-1 Cobra!! But 3D models can be replaced and reskinned… but overall, I think it looks just fine really? Sure, DCS is prettier and I also own DCS A-10C and AV-8B as I like to get into those as well as to me, BMS is purely about the F-16C. Which is also one of my all time favorite fighters but that aside.
But of all the things I could have on my wish list for BMS… graphics really isn’t high on my list? Like I would much rather have extensible avionics so that it will be easier for people to create accurate avionics for other aircraft or models like the F-16A/B. That would for me have way more value than applying more lipstick. I’ve had the opportunity to fly in various military simulators, from fighters to boom pod refueling simulators… and generally, the graphics are on-par (or worse) with BMS, but certainly not way better. Prettier graphics do not make for a more accurate simulation.
-
Like I would much rather have extensible avionics so that it will be easier for people to create accurate avionics for other aircraft
This is typically where DCS will always beat BMS. Maybe better graphics in BMS in the future, why not. But module avionics … mmm … don’t hold your breath.
-
well the level of graphics in BMS is super fine. Instead of evolving the details of models and gfx engine in general better improve the tools that import and manipulate those gfx… models textures etc.
If those were easier to handle we would be rubbing our eyes right now.So if we will remain on the same tools and procedures thanx I’ll pass on gfx upgrade… it will be sadomasochistic for creators and developers just cause.
Sure dcs looks nice but doesn’t even have to calculate as much as Falcon does which as we set the bar are crucial for us users and developers.
so if we feed it to bring it to it’s knees with gfx there is no point.maybe a 10% up on gfx details and a 10% better performance from optimization would be nice but the effort will be enormous just for gfx…
sure the optimization is needed to keep hw specs as low and for adding newer demanding features in the platform. -
better improve the tools that import and manipulate those gfx… models textures etc.
I do rather agree here. A replacement for LodEditor is absolutely mandatory cause no longer works in a “close” future. Hoping that Mortesil will be able to finish his project.
-
I do rather agree here. A replacement for LodEditor is absolutely mandatory cause no longer works in a “close” future. Hoping that Mortesil will be able to finish his project.
well I dont think this is an option…
he finishes or we finish him… :lol:
I keep the cement ready 24/7 :rofl::rofl:
-
What a pressure on his and weight on his shoulder!
-
and
:lol:
-
This is typically where DCS will always beat BMS. Maybe better graphics in BMS in the future, why not. But module avionics … mmm … don’t hold your breath.
If I interpret correctly what I read and hear, BMS users mostly enjoy two things at various levels: campaign features and accuracy of the F16 simulation (or accuracy of a given aircraft, which happens to be the F16). Of course, there is work on cosmetics for the simple enjoyment of impoving it. The major areas I would seek improvements in (even though it’s already really excellent), are in the campaigns - interface optimization (little things that would make package fraggers’ life easier), AI behavior expectations, refining of available orders, let’s mention ATC :P… but I wouldn’t hold any pressure on BMS, it’s already so great as it is. Anything more is a bonus to me.
-
“DCS has much better graphics” …“BMS graphics suck” … “BMS is old…” bla bla bla…
Maybe something is wrong with my eye sight or so but to me there really isn’t anything wrong with the graphics in BMS 4.33?
In all fairness, there are not stock BMS graphics, surely??? In any case, how does one go about making BMS looking like this, mine most certainly does not…