Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
Would you have the kindness to give us a break for a few weeks ?
-
engine sound is much much better in external views but the graphics of the jet is the same as before. Hopefully one day the team works on that to match the DCS F-14
-
The engine cant support nor properly display PBR textures so they could not match the quality of visuals of HEATBLURS F-14 not to mention money to pay artist to produce extremely high quality assets however ….
What she lack in Beauty she has in brains…Or like Han Solo said…
She aint pretty to look at but shes got it where it counts kid.
BTW graphics did get an update its very nuanced but they are some places that have changed.My new requset is to find a way to make those clouds stop spinning
-
My new requset is to find a way to make those clouds stop spinning
MavJp also
-
I can’t compromise on the jet’s graphics, it MUST match whats going to be available soon.
-
Is it my impression or fps got better?
I was on multisampling 2 and now on 3 and looks awesome.Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
My new requset is to find a way to make those clouds stop spinning
MavJp also
I was always for 3D clouds as well. But I just had EMF flight in TE from Souda bay to Lybian raffinery and back (F19 style!) and I have to say clouds with reflections look just beautiful over Mediterian. It works nice even now (of course 3d is 3d). Maped cloud soft shadows would be great tho….these would add so much dept to whole scene. I guess its doable to map blured shadow with some offset under each cloud (dependent on sun direction + cloud high).
rough example now:photoshoped shadows:
Then I have tried Kuz SU-33/39 naval ops as observer….its amazing…and whats there?
you know I am joking
-
Is it my impression or fps got better?
I was on multisampling 2 and now on 3 and looks awesome.Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
Indeed fps goes better due some code optimisation and some db mistakes and inconsistencies that were fixed in 4.34
-
Would you have the kindness to give us a break for a few weeks ?
AGREED!
The features and additions to the sim overall is FANTASTIC! I have been very busy with RL so I am looking forward to sitting down and GOTS soon. I was surprised to see IFF included in the latest release. Plus so many other features added. I do think the next be update will be the GFX engine. But one never knows with what is in the works! Give a good break on this guys, but I do hope the next major release will be improved GFX. 3 to 4 Falcon years maybe a long wait, but worth it in the end as this release was. For now, looking forward to flying this latest version and experience all of the new features as we go. That should take a few good years in itself!
-
They REALLY need to consider adding VR support. There are a lot of us who have bitten the forbidden fruit of VR and can’t go back to 2D. You’re going to keep losing the player base as VR gets more refined……
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I can’t compromise on the jet’s graphics, it MUST match whats going to be available soon.
Go play pretty dcs then if bms is not good enough for your standards
-
They REALLY need to consider adding VR support. There are a lot of us who have bitten the forbidden fruit of VR and can’t go back to 2D. You’re going to keep losing the player base as VR gets more refined……
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Loosing players is okay, gaining hardcore guys is better. Bye !
-
Loosing players is okay, gaining hardcore guys is better. Bye !
Dude, you are so short sighted with that attitude…… you remind me of one of those guys who clung to horses after the automobile was introduced. We’ll see if you are still so smug in 5 years…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Dude, you are so short sighted with that attitude…… you remind me of one of those guys who clung to horses after the automobile was introduced. We’ll see if you are still so smug in 5 years…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did i hurt your feelings ? Tissues ?
-
They REALLY need to consider adding VR support.
They REALLY are considering adding VR support; it’s just not a simple task, nor a quick one. And it’s been discussed to death several times.
-
@Bad:
Indeed fps goes better due some code optimisation and some db mistakes and inconsistencies that were fixed in 4.34
Seems very smooth maxed out - have been running Linux in a VM the past 2 days alongside it as well.
-
I disagree about VR, its not the be all end all. many of us have built custom hardware that is useless in VR. Vr is not high fidelity as a dome projector, or a more simple angular paint based corner build using finite edges. Vr is cool don’t get me wrong, until you need to read or use peripheral vision. Vr is simply exclusionary for too many people, by price or handicap, just think everyone you know who uses corrective lenses and can’t use contacts cant use VR. Occlusive head mounts, which is the patent terminology, thus oculus, are not seen as a development centerpiece. Visual and optical retina tracking based pass throughs, like are used in HMCS and in surgical head mounts are the development root focus. Many gamers at the high end actually steer away from VR, and use bezel less mutli arrays, domed projections, or other alternatives.
I can put every digital display in the pit on an external custom mounted display, and have built a wall corner using the right paints and angles to simulate 170 degrees of wrapped peripheral. I did this for considerably less money than the oculus consumer or dev kits, and I’ve had this and been maintaining it for some years. It’s capped to max res of the native software, and then you use the onboard plug ins on the hardware to wrap the image and size it. The result is I have unlimited optic zoom, to whichever length, be it the programing or limitations of the software. This is all coming off relatively conservative GPUS whose architecture, brand, and configuration is so common it is not worth mentioning other that it is easily attainable.
I’m not saying, this guy is wrong for wanting VR, it would be a nice feather in the cap. But BMS is a levithan without it, flight sims by no means ARE NOT flight sims without VR support, and VR support in gaming is by my opine misdirected and stagnated in its currently attainable format. I think adding high definition aircraft, by focusing on creating DEV tools to allow the addition of High res 3d models, open source pit building, and even avionics, flight models and systems is the logical and most beneficial, legacy insurance move possible by the BMS team. I am absolutely sure this has entered their perceptions already, and albeit from me to speculate openly but I would say that is a far more complicated matter than creating Vr support.
So I look forward to squinting while I read with a hot uncomfortable screen strapped to my face in 3-4 weeks
-
many of us have built custom hardware that is useless in VR. …, by price or handicap, just think everyone you know who uses corrective lenses …
Not that I disagree completely…
VR is just at its beginning. Not hifi… not yet.
But:
Works perfectly fine with glasses.
And price point is waaaay lower than building an hardware cockpit simulator.And BMS devs spent so much time and dedication to give us the wonderful detailled in–game cockpit, so why would one want to dismiss this and try to re–create an own (in most cases less detailled) in hardware if VR is such a great, acessable and cheap way to experience the virtual cockpit?
VR is not yet where it is supposed to be, but you can already see and feel where it is going to be.
For someone who whats to fly rather than to fiddle, VR is already a great way to get into the simulation rather than just watching it. And for most that ever tried it, its hard to go back. They just want to go forward, wanting more and better of what they just tasted.
Still I am with you in that Falcon BMS is the best combat flight sim. And at this point in time VR support is not yet that critial just because it is not there yet.
We‘ll see whats coming down the road…headset wise and bms wise. A marriage of both would be a kick–ass event in flight sim history, no doubt! -
I have yet to do any extensive flying with 4.34, but reading the manual on expanded radio communication has me thinking. Here is a typical flight communication sequence described in the manual:
- #2, #3, #4 for communicating with the home airbase as you fly out
- #5, #6 for communicating in flight on the tactical net with AWACS for instance (with #13 if doing an AAR)
- #4, #3, #2 for communicating with the home airbase ATC upon your return.
That’s a lot of frequency preset switching. I understand that it’s for realism, but we now have to do MORE work than the real pilots do. First it’s necessary to change to the right frequency, and then navigate the pop-up menus for ground/tower/departure/approach communications. A real pilot can just use his voice. I wonder if we could consider an option (disable/enable through config) where the correct UHF channel is selected automatically when choosing a menu command.
-
Use a voice command software.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk