Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
Yes I was talking about no more random spawning at an airbase. The pilot will spawn where the ground crew is working on the plane but the airframe never spawns is persistant if your are doing a RAMP START.
However for those who are not ramp starting you can still keep persistant planes hear me out.
Airframes should be persistant in the campaign. Resupply’s should be renamed to reserves. US has only so many reserve airframes and how long it could take to get those reserves into
Korea and in the air is a lot long than it is in the BMS campaign same for any side of the campaign.Airframes should be in the hanger and or the ground and this would make OCA strikes have more meaning. At the moment OCA strikes tend to hurt you more than help as they cause a mass spawning all of a sudden when the airbase is back up and giant Star Wars tie fighter like waves out of the blue.
You should not be able to alot to an airbase more airframes than you have maintenance crews or hangers. This would increase the immersion and realism of a campaign and the OCA strikes.
I propose in order to mitigate the network traffic having airframes which are dynamic all spawned at once could cause is to only have the airframes with pilots in them actually issuing packets.
If you say for example land the plane and spawn out wherever you exit the game falcon would than revert that plane back to the hanger automatically assuming it is not destroyed / damage.
Someday would be nice to keep persistant damage and down time for a specific airframe if you damage the airframe but one thing at a time.So for example you hit Commit button Taxiway: -> Plane is parked in hanger . -> PLayer spawns Engine removes the plane you are flying from hanger and on to runway.
Mission Case 1: You die and plane also -> Plane is never return to hanger -> Player exits and is sad.
Mission Case 2: You survive and plane also -> After landing you exit the game at somewhere on the airbase -> Engine returns plane to open hanger instantly.
Mission Case 3: During mission sometime player exits -> Ai does its things -> after mission is declared over -> Engine returns plane to open hanger instantly.When the engine returns the plane back to an open hanger what its doing is actually just showing an airframe model and setting a flag to activate the object back to static same as a building so as to keep network traffic usage low. So airframe parked without pilots are static objects same as buildings and are always in the same place but once a pilot spawns one is taken from inventory etc… I think I have explained that well enough to have gotten the point across as to how it could potentially be implemented.
Of course if this were ever to be implemented I would love to take this concept to the next stage …
Ok the airbase spawning is not random at all
The spawning is done at the shortest distance from the takeoff active runway . If parkingpt is not available it looks at the next one in the branch .
Large aircraft are spawning on large parking pt
Some improvement can be done like sorting by width And by distance
The revamping of airbases , spawning and general traffic needed some love
Agreed with this
However , spawning and despawning will remain dynamic else the fps on crowded airbases will be crawling
Imagine an airbase with 6 squadrons with all aircraft spawned all the time ? !!
About the number of hangars and aircraft
We should first revamp all airbases to put the accurate number of parking pt and hangars
Then , assuming we could make the code use of all hangars like in real ( which is not the case since we didn’t support taxinbranches ) , we could then make sur to put accurate squadron numbers on each airbases
-
Edit: Didn’t see post above, someone beat me to it, but yes the military does see potential in the technology.
As trainers … Certainly not as simulator.
-
As trainers … Certainly not as simulator.
And…
I see what you are trying to say with Trainer vs. simulator but is it really that much of a difference to matter? I feel like you made your original comment to prove your point that VR wasn’t even considered as an option for military pilot training. The video clearly shows that they are evaluating its potential in being implemented in real pilot training.
-
And…
I see what you are trying to say with Trainer vs. simulator but is it really that much of a difference to matter? I feel like you made your original comment to prove your point that VR wasn’t even considered as an option for military pilot training. The video clearly shows that they are evaluating its potential in being implemented in real pilot training.
Another week another VR crusade… even in the games that really shine with VR (did some hours of IL2 yesterday) I still have to use labels because at 200m I still can’t sort friend from foe. Even at twice the resolution, 3D projection will mean the picture will never be as sharp as a 2D projection.
In pilot training let’s be honest, a cockpit simulator with a wide angle (or 360) screen basically kills the need for VR in the first place. If VR is being considered it’s to avoid the cost of buying additional simulators, not because it’s better.
-
I have always liked coding but too lazy to learn it.
You can always start small and work your way up from there as you see fit or as your interest in s/w development changes. It might just be a small python / ps script that starts your BMS environment, automates cleanup or whatever, you don’t have to start with a full blown QT5 GUI app. Start small, get instant rewards / error messages / scratchings of head, I think that’s the best way to learn.
With tons of code snippets available for free I really don’t recall anymore how we did it back then in the olden days. (I started with BASIC on a GeniE-16 / Trash-80 / ZX-81, then graduated to Pascal and Assembler on the Dragon 64 [first machine I ever owned] followed by a long spell of C, some more Assembler and AREXX on the Amiga; today I mostly do my stuff in Python but it always ends up looking like Perl, no matter how hard I try :))
All the best,
Uwe
-
Then , assuming we could make the code use of all hangars like in real ( which is not the case since we didn’t support taxinbranches ) , we could then make sur to put accurate squadron numbers on each airbases
Just a q Mav,
I know that code-wise one can do anything
but, bms-codewise, would it be possible one day to actually simulate the full squadron roster? Meaning declare how many aircrafts of the given type the sq has, their unique serial numbers to trigger licenses plates, even park them at their specific hangars assigned to the sq for rampstart /off, also thinking of keeping the aft “health” on a db based on battle damage, over-g’s etc, to affect sq availability.
Would be also extremely interesting to declare in the db 2 types of aft in the sq, for having both single-seat and two-seat airframes interact together. I’ve managed to do it in the past manually, but a more flexible solution - approach would be needed.
-
@TwanV:
Another week another VR crusade… even in the games that really shine with VR (did some hours of IL2 yesterday) I still have to use labels because at 200m I still can’t sort friend from foe. Even at twice the resolution, 3D projection will mean the picture will never be as sharp as a 2D projection.
In pilot training let’s be honest, a cockpit simulator with a wide angle (or 360) screen basically kills the need for VR in the first place. If VR is being considered it’s to avoid the cost of buying additional simulators, not because it’s better.
Believe me I’m tired of talking about it too… but I’m also tired of seeing people come up with reasons why they don’t want it because they don’t think VR would benefit them right now and therefore the developers shouldn’t be focusing on it. At least that’s my impression on what a lot of people on here are trying to do.
Nobody said that VR is going to be better. It really boils down to personal preference.
There are some definite trade offs and limitations as with any technology. Having actual hardware brings its positives as well as some negatives just as VR brings its own list of pluses and minuses. So to argue and say the developers shouldn’t implement VR right now because it can’t do what hardware can do is just improper imo.
There will always be drawbacks in trying to simulate flying a real aircraft. We’ll never get it perfect. That’s just a fact. So whatever great and amazing technology that comes out to increase our immersion will never be same as the real thing and it will come with own trade offs as well.
I get the whole idea that people don’t want to see development time get used to integrate a technology like this, but think about all the other positives outside of VR that would come by default because of the required DirectX update to make VR possible in the first place.
And before someone jumps on me about developers don’t get paid. I understand that as well. I’m very thankful for what the developers have done to create a sim like this in the first place and it’s perfectly understandable and reasonable for them not wanting to put the time and effort into this and I’m okay with that. But it is frequent requested and I think it’d be a worthwhile feature for this sim.
Edit: The argument that the technology is not there yet is also not a good enough reason to not implement it to me. The technology is maturing and as I said before, I’m no developer but by the time the bms guys would probably be able to finish integrating a feature like this, the technology will most likely be better than what it currently is now. If it isn’t, the technology will almost certainly contunue to mature and eventually reach that point where a lot of the current technical issues and limitations will be resolved.
-
Don’t get too tired with that. Devs will never develop or not develop VR because the community tell them to or not to.
-
Edit: The argument that the technology is not there yet is also not a good enough reason to not implement it to me. The technology is maturing and as I said before, I’m no developer but by the time the bms guys would probably be able to finish integrating a feature like this, the technology will most likely be better than what it currently is now. If it isn’t, the technology will almost certainly contunue to mature and eventually reach that point where a lot of the current technical issues and limitations will be resolved.
This maturity will mean that in every maturity step and major change the dev will have to update and implement changes and additions…
Just saying… -
Don’t get too tired with that. Devs will never develop or not develop VR because the community tell them to or not to.
Truthfully, I’m not that pressed if the developers want to create it or not. I just wanted to put some positivity on the subject around here as I’ve seen a lot of negativity as to why it shouldn’t be done.
@Arty: That’s fair and understandable. A valid trade off and a valid point.
-
3-4 falcon years. Not weeks
Btw I am consider buying edtracker pro wireless is like vr:D
Arty do you have edtrcker or something else? I saw Koukis video and he is happy with it
also raptor has it -
And…
I see what you are trying to say with Trainer vs. simulator but is it really that much of a difference to matter?
Completely different.
A young pilot on his new a/c needs a real cockpit with real switches to be accustomed to his new environment.
A regular pilot can use a trainer to be trained on a specific task. -
You can always start small and work your way up from there as you see fit or as your interest in s/w development changes. It might just be a small python / ps script that starts your BMS environment, automates cleanup or whatever, you don’t have to start with a full blown QT5 GUI app. Start small, get instant rewards / error messages / scratchings of head, I think that’s the best way to learn.
With tons of code snippets available for free I really don’t recall anymore how we did it back then in the olden days. (I started with BASIC on a GeniE-16 / Trash-80 / ZX-81, then graduated to Pascal and Assembler on the Dragon 64 [first machine I ever owned] followed by a long spell of C, some more Assembler and AREXX on the Amiga; today I mostly do my stuff in Python but it always ends up looking like Perl, no matter how hard I try :))
All the best,
Uwe
I appreciate the very encouraging words Hoover.
Yes I played with python tutorials on my andriod phone at a time and was making some progress but distraction here and there wouldn’t let me concentrate.
I should get back and get on with it at those leisure time.Sent from my H3223 using Tapatalk
-
And…
I see what you are trying to say with Trainer vs. simulator but is it really that much of a difference to matter? I feel like you made your original comment to prove your point that VR wasn’t even considered as an option for military pilot training. The video clearly shows that they are evaluating its potential in being implemented in real pilot training.
Mortesil was involved in the USAF studies he mentioned and knows exactly what he is talking about - there is a big difference it turns out which is what Dee-Jay is getting at. They are not arguing with you for the sake of it - for operational simulators read not the same as the training they are using VR for in those videos.
-
Mortesil was involved in the USAF studies he mentioned and knows exactly what he is talking about - there is a big difference it turns out which is what Dee-Jay is getting at. They are not arguing with you for the sake of it - for operational simulators read not the same as the training they are using VR for in those videos.
I wasn’t going to argue the fact they were the same because I understood what he meant when he said trainer not simulator in the first place. I know they have different types of trainers, simulators, System Integration Labs for different objectives. When I was asked if it it made that much of a difference it was kind of rhetorical. I understand there are differences but for our purpose of use in bms I’m assuming most of us don’t have a full up F-16 cockpit to use. I brought it up to more so get at the point that he was making it seem like the military had no interest in the technology for military pilot training. Iknow he said simulators but I viewed it as him talking about pilot training in general because most people use the word “simulators” on a broader scale. I.e. we refer to Falcon bms as a simulator)
-
This post is deleted! -
Yes I was talking about no more random spawning at an airbase. The pilot will spawn where the ground crew is working on the plane but the airframe never spawns is persistant if your are doing a RAMP START.
However for those who are not ramp starting you can still keep persistant planes hear me out.
Airframes should be persistant in the campaign. Resupply’s should be renamed to reserves. US has only so many reserve airframes and how long it could take to get those reserves into
Korea and in the air is a lot long than it is in the BMS campaign same for any side of the campaign.Airframes should be in the hanger and or the ground and this would make OCA strikes have more meaning. At the moment OCA strikes tend to hurt you more than help as they cause a mass spawning all of a sudden when the airbase is back up and giant Star Wars tie fighter like waves out of the blue.
You should not be able to alot to an airbase more airframes than you have maintenance crews or hangers. This would increase the immersion and realism of a campaign and the OCA strikes.
I propose in order to mitigate the network traffic having airframes which are dynamic all spawned at once could cause is to only have the airframes with pilots in them actually issuing packets.
If you say for example land the plane and spawn out wherever you exit the game falcon would than revert that plane back to the hanger automatically assuming it is not destroyed / damage.
Someday would be nice to keep persistant damage and down time for a specific airframe if you damage the airframe but one thing at a time.So for example you hit Commit button Taxiway: -> Plane is parked in hanger . -> PLayer spawns Engine removes the plane you are flying from hanger and on to runway.
Mission Case 1: You die and plane also -> Plane is never return to hanger -> Player exits and is sad.
Mission Case 2: You survive and plane also -> After landing you exit the game at somewhere on the airbase -> Engine returns plane to open hanger instantly.
Mission Case 3: During mission sometime player exits -> Ai does its things -> after mission is declared over -> Engine returns plane to open hanger instantly.When the engine returns the plane back to an open hanger what its doing is actually just showing an airframe model and setting a flag to activate the object back to static same as a building so as to keep network traffic usage low. So airframe parked without pilots are static objects same as buildings and are always in the same place but once a pilot spawns one is taken from inventory etc… I think I have explained that well enough to have gotten the point across as to how it could potentially be implemented.
Of course if this were ever to be implemented I would love to take this concept to the next stage …
Jumping in on this one. I have mentioned this in this thread many moons ago. Static jets that become “active” when a player “spawns” into a specific jet for a mission. An air base (especially in war time) is a VERY busy and active place. Since we spend most of our time at the airbase for TO and landings. The rest is in the air in flight. I agree with Mav and Raptor here. The airbases need to be rebuilt or modified for a more accurate way to position all aircraft types. And, not just for parking but for taxi and evolution (launch and recovery) of said aircraft. I also love the idea that a jet needs “turn around” time. Say, once you have landed, it would take an hour to 2 hours to perform maintenance on the jet (even if no damage has taken place). And a good damage repair time for each catalog jet. This means that squadron availability become reduced as time permits. Same should be made for the red side as well. An algorythum in place for them. First, the airbase makeover. Then, maybe, an attrition system for a squadrons compliment.
-
Jumping in on this one. I have mentioned this in this thread many moons ago. Static jets that become “active” when a player “spawns” into a specific jet for a mission. An air base (especially in war time) is a VERY busy and active place. Since we spend most of our time at the airbase for TO and landings. The rest is in the air in flight. I agree with Mav and Raptor here. The airbases need to be rebuilt or modified for a more accurate way to position all aircraft types. And, not just for parking but for taxi and evolution (launch and recovery) of said aircraft. I also love the idea that a jet needs “turn around” time. Say, once you have landed, it would take an hour to 2 hours to perform maintenance on the jet (even if no damage has taken place). And a good damage repair time for each catalog jet. This means that squadron availability become reduced as time permits. Same should be made for the red side as well. An algorythum in place for them. First, the airbase makeover. Then, maybe, an attrition system for a squadrons compliment.
There is already a turnaround time in the campaign engine, the aircraft are not immediatly available in the squadron scheduling.
you can also choose how much time you want the Aircraft to stay in 3D before de spawning, there is a cfg entry for that as well.
keep in mind that aircrafts need to despawn to be back in the squadron with proper resupply of weapons etc….
so most of what you are asking is already in.
What you all forgot is the FPS impact of keeping aircraft spawn on airbases for a few hours
-
This post is deleted! -
About the number of hangars and aircraft
We should first revamp all airbases to put the accurate number of parking pt and hangars
Then , assuming we could make the code use of all hangars like in real ( which is not the case since we didn’t support taxinbranches ) , we could then make sur to put accurate squadron numbers on each airbases
Yep … but …
Do we really want something like this?:
IRL, a/c are prepared/towed to aprons …
We will still have to de-spawn/re-spawn a/c on their apron lines anyway.
…
IMHO, the only thing we could reasonably imagine would be to define a “hosting capability value” for each hangers and subtract that value from squadron/roster when it is destroyed (vs the one that are in flight or spread out on other hangars) … and … for each a/c size. mmm … I don’t what to be the guy who will have to feed those data correctly for each of them, each a/c type and mixed among all a/c type.
Prk point’s Wing span/length/height is already tricky enough to correctly set.IMO, we have much more critical to do before such as ensuring that AI’s can actually properly strike those hangars : https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?35026-Human-pilot-contamination-of-AI-command-structure