The future of BMS
-
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…
-
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.
Dee-Jay,
I have never seen the code, but what about EBS project? It was even on Falcon 4.0 box. And Falcon 3.0 was extended with Hornet and Mig-29 modules. -
“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?
https://s20.postimg.cc/3jzxhro4d/2017-10-02_232717_-_Copy.jpg
https://s20.postimg.cc/4asnnjqhp/2017-10-12_235721.jpg
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.
For the normal play style (At altitude, looking at models, focused on the AA stuff), you are correct: the graphics are great. Low level terrain detail, CAS operations, building details, quite a few of the non-flyable aircraft, and ground vehicle models is where it needs some work. I think most (myself included) who comment on the need for a graphics update are taking a holistic approach and examining every aspect, not just looking at a nice model of an F-16 at 25k feet. Regardless, IMO, the graphics update is not necessarily for “graphics” per se, at least not in the traditional sense of what looks pretty on the screen. It’s about performance, enhancements certain effects within that performance, ability to develop and enable new effects and features, etc… Nobody would say the primary models for the fly-ables don’t look good, that would just be false.
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 will. I’ve been out of the country since January, and I’m not scheduled to be back until late this year. Unfortunately my GF was trying to be helpful and shut down everything she could at the house to save power before she came out to meet me for the summer, so I’m kind of cutoff from accessing anything for a while. On the bright side, there isn’t that much more to do once I get back. Mostly UI stuff. I haven’t done a full slew of tests on the model tools yet, but from the initial/early tests I did, everything seems to be working as desired. The last thing I did before I left was combine 4 models into 1 250k poly model and load it into the editor. Took a little time, but it loaded. So as far as I can tell, if your rig can handle it (IE The Falcon Engine on your rig), there should no longer be any issues with >100k poly LODs.
Since I haven’t been able to work on the main tool while I’m here, I’ve been working on some other features. Currently developing a tool to search LODs for inefficiencies and reorder nodes to increase load times and vRAM seek times. Looks promising, but I only have 7 LODs on my laptop to play with, so it’s hard to tell how effective it will be across the full spectrum.
EDIT: Also been toying with the idea of a “Drag and Drop” style editor for objectives and airbases. I haven’t started working on it yet, but it’s definitely something I’m considering.
-
“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?
https://s20.postimg.cc/3jzxhro4d/2017-10-02_232717_-_Copy.jpg
https://s20.postimg.cc/4asnnjqhp/2017-10-12_235721.jpg
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.
BMS looks largely great up high…
However…now bring it down to the deck.
The biggest, most revolutionary change to BMS would be a new terrain engine, disposing of HiTiles.
-
@Deathmaze:
The future of bms? Lmfao. You think as time passes and with dcs actually making the f16 and other planes fully functional that people will stick to a 20 year old game? Not saying its bad , but at its corrent state and age and with dcs having 1000 times better graphics and overall gameplaying experience , I don’t know who will actually keep falcon bms. It just got old. Graphics suck for 2018 and everyone needs to move on.
….from my perspective agree 100 % with this comment !!!
As far as DCS (–> other Sims too I have, but mainly DCS) goes on it’s current road of development (involving all the upcoming features) BMS becomes more and more obsolet on my hard drive.
O Man, it’s graphics really sucks; I must confess that I can’t play this game if not modded with SweetFX or something like that first. Now I found the right setting, but as stated before: For my needs it becomes more and more boring comparing to all the other sims out there !
We are luckily to live in a " Golden Age " of flight simming comparing to all the years before. And some decent (payware) companies out there seem to be determined to push the limits of their products beyond of current boundaries more and more.
Comparing to them the recent epoch of Falcon seems to be in a subsistence of hibernation.
All the best
-
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.Hi Arty,
I think that when people want better GFX, they are not necessarily talking about the eye candy. Does BMS need a new GFX engine, well… yes, and not specifically for the eye candy. DX11.2 offers those tools you mention that bring the atmosphere closer to reality. Sure, more objects and model improvements, but the weathering effects and occlusion tools in DX 11.2 are vastly superior to DX 9.0c. Thus making modeling easier and more life like. Just pointing out that I think the more GFX tools you have on hand, the better approach you can have when dealing with model complexity and integration. Photo terrain and realistic cities look fantastic, but require a hard GFX engine to run them. I do think BMS will eventually (some day) have to move forward with integrating a new GFX engine at some point. I look at REX and other add’ons for other simulations and wonder if maybe BMS could port anything like this over. Don’t know if it would be worth it, but using 3rd party software could take a lot of work off your hands. Just don’t know. But a new GFX engine would provide tools for reaching many of the goals BMS is aspiring for. The advantages are clear.
-
For the normal play style (At altitude, looking at models, focused on the AA stuff), you are correct: the graphics are great. Low level terrain detail, CAS operations, building details, quite a few of the non-flyable aircraft, and ground vehicle models is where it needs some work. I think most (myself included) who comment on the need for a graphics update are taking a holistic approach and examining every aspect, not just looking at a nice model of an F-16 at 25k feet. Regardless, IMO, the graphics update is not necessarily for “graphics” per se, at least not in the traditional sense of what looks pretty on the screen. It’s about performance, enhancements certain effects within that performance, ability to develop and enable new effects and features, etc… Nobody would say the primary models for the fly-ables don’t look good, that would just be false.
I will. I’ve been out of the country since January, and I’m not scheduled to be back until late this year. Unfortunately my GF was trying to be helpful and shut down everything she could at the house to save power before she came out to meet me for the summer, so I’m kind of cutoff from accessing anything for a while. On the bright side, there isn’t that much more to do once I get back. Mostly UI stuff. I haven’t done a full slew of tests on the model tools yet, but from the initial/early tests I did, everything seems to be working as desired. The last thing I did before I left was combine 4 models into 1 250k poly model and load it into the editor. Took a little time, but it loaded. So as far as I can tell, if your rig can handle it (IE The Falcon Engine on your rig), there should no longer be any issues with >100k poly LODs.
Since I haven’t been able to work on the main tool while I’m here, I’ve been working on some other features. Currently developing a tool to search LODs for inefficiencies and reorder nodes to increase load times and vRAM seek times. Looks promising, but I only have 7 LODs on my laptop to play with, so it’s hard to tell how effective it will be across the full spectrum.
EDIT: Also been toying with the idea of a “Drag and Drop” style editor for objectives and airbases. I haven’t started working on it yet, but it’s definitely something I’m considering.
As previously mentioned…. SPOT ON!!!
GFX update would be used to enhance the atmosphere and provide better GFX tools to use., not necessarily the eye candy (although that would be great too).
-
O Man, it’s graphics really sucks; I must confess that I can’t play this game if not modded with SweetFX or something like that first. Now I found the right setting, but as stated before: For my needs it becomes more and more boring comparing to all the other sims out there !
If you need pretty graphics and SweetFX to make the “game” playable, you’ve obvioulsy missed what BMS is about. It’s a flight simulator for ****s sake! I could elaborate, but I sincerely believe I’d be wasting my time and no doubt yours.
-
….
O Man, it’s graphics really sucks; I must confess that I can’t play this game if not modded with SweetFX or something like that first.One more time …
.:dhorse:
-
The future of BMS, to rearm an F-16 in a solo or multy mission. If possible a simulation of a rearm, not a realistic rearmament which lasts 1 hour or more.;)
-
Well guys we have talked about all this and what we actually do is educate the youngest members that read all those for the first time.
A new gfx engine could take what? 10 years or more?
All theaters from scratch.
99% of models from scratch…
Sure we all want it, but…Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
The future of BMS, to rearm an F-16 in a solo or multy mission. If possible a simulation of a rearm, not a realistic rearmament which lasts 1 hour or more.;)
What makes it so easy to turn around an attack helo regarding rearming, but a fast jet in comparison must take so much time?
-
The future of BMS, to rearm an F-16 in a solo or multy mission. If possible a simulation of a rearm, not a realistic rearmament which lasts 1 hour or more.;)
You should leave BMS buddy. You will not be happy with it. Why not DCS? … much better … lot of objects on the ground. Plenty of buildings, everywhere. AND YESSSS … under DCS you can rearm the same time you refuel. IMHO, your future there : https://forums.eagle.ru/
… please.