What's up with those rumors
-
the thing terrifies me: topic with all the bugs, malfunctions wishes and rtfm that will not find place in the official site will end up here …
-
ED devs feedback handling;
-
It was posted this image in DCS topic as I can remember.
Bah this is too small, There is a larger version somewhere in this forum
-
Rumors?
Cheers, :yo:
LSOn my little own, I’m more on this POV, Gentlemen…
I expressed my own wishes and expectations about the future of BMS at its time and in the proper topic.
After having done it, I’m leaving all the decisions to the devs., as due. It’s the BMS policy, as I learned, so I will wait patiently.
Also this time the wait will be worth of it, I believe.
Rumors? I positively never care of them.
Just my own little quarter here, but straight and clear.With best regards.
-
Whenever it’ll come true or not I hope it’ll bring two things: proper sense of scale(to me, even with tremendous efforts from BbMS team F4 world feels small) and provide data for interaction with weather /air mass model.
OTOH I wouldn’t mind it looking more like Aerofly FS2/X-Plane 11
-
proper sense of scale(to me, even with tremendous efforts from BbMS team F4 world feels small)
There is something which I still feel like checking regarding that. Sense of speed still lacks (Even with some more details…), I don’t know if it’s a matter of real world-object proportions issues (Low chances though as if true, it means we were living in a lie all these years). The other option is that FOV is too large, that I know may have a huge effect on scale feeling and also on performance (Smaller FOV --> Higher performance).
-
Yep, sense of speed too. For world scale, maybe BMS terrain lacks proper resolution/dynamics (relative height differences), ground textures being at wrong scale or ground objects are too small I don’t know it just don’t feel right. Just take a look at videos from any other flightsim , be it FlightGear, Prep4r3d, X-Plane, Aerofly FS2, DCS, Il2 (maybe original 1946 lacks a bit sometimes), hell even 7g Hornet sim. Each one got the right feeling of vast area, massive mountains etc…
I just watched FS2 and X-Plane 11 videos from Innsbruck airport area. Damn it feels so fine…
Here just for tease
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fs2+x-plane+11+innsbruck+ -
the thing terrifies me: topic with all the bugs, malfunctions wishes and rtfm that will not find place in the official site will end up here …
Well we got answer ready. Does it look like this?
https://u.osu.edu/sabreelab/2014/06/04/bmsb-symbiont-paper-out-in-environmental-entomology/Then it’s not BMS bug.
-
Meh. New terrain engine is honestly not really important to me at all. If it happens fine, but I really do not care about it that much as I do not fly BMS to look at the scenery. If I want to fly a milk run to look at pretty scenery I’ll fly my P3D or DCS installs. Even after I do that, I do not worry at all about scenery in BMS, so it therefore is not a big deal to me. Thanks devs for making a sim so good that high end scenery is not important to me!!!
-
Meh. New terrain engine is honestly not really important to me at all. If it happens fine, but I really do not care about it that much as I do not fly BMS to look at the scenery. If I want to fly a milk run to look at pretty scenery I’ll fly my P3D or DCS installs. Even after I do that, I do not worry at all about scenery in BMS, so it therefore is not a big deal to me. Thanks devs for making a sim so good that high end scenery is not important to me!!!
I disagree. A much higher res terrain engine can serve the following goals:
1. More smoother terrain can make more effective the low level flying because the LOS modeling.
2. You can have whatever wonderfully looking helos as long they do not have any terrain cover…
3. In case of AG weapon usage you have to consider more carefully how you release weapons because the trajectory of the weapon can cross the terrain before the impact = miss
4. If it will allow more 3D object they also can provide cover for helos or even GUs as the terrain.It is not the point to get more scenery but it also could provide as a side effect. It depends how you look on a HC sim…
-
Yep, sense of speed too. For world scale, maybe BMS terrain lacks proper resolution/dynamics (relative height differences), ground textures being at wrong scale or ground objects are too small I don’t know it just don’t feel right. Just take a look at videos from any other flightsim , be it FlightGear, Prep4r3d, X-Plane, Aerofly FS2, DCS, Il2 (maybe original 1946 lacks a bit sometimes), hell even 7g Hornet sim. Each one got the right feeling of vast area, massive mountains etc…
I just watched FS2 and X-Plane 11 videos from Innsbruck airport area. Damn it feels so fine…
Here just for tease
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fs2+x-plane+11+innsbruck+Yes I understand that Falcon terrain lacks details and so sense of speed will be REALLY limited. But the problem is that I’m already checking a “different” animal, but even there I feel still that something is wrong, somehow.
-
I disagree. A much higher res terrain engine can serve the following goals:
1. More smoother terrain can make more effective the low level flying because the LOS modeling.
2. You can have whatever wonderfully looking helos as long they do not have any terrain cover…
3. In case of AG weapon usage you have to consider more carefully how you release weapons because the trajectory of the weapon can cross the terrain before the impact = miss
4. If it will allow more 3D object they also can provide cover for helos or even GUs as the terrain.It is not the point to get more scenery but it also could provide as a side effect. It depends how you look on a HC sim…
Those points are valid, and I would welcome them, but not so important for me.
-
I’ve heard a few things too, but, nah, it’s nothing, nevermind!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
C9
-
Yes I understand that Falcon terrain lacks details and so sense of speed will be REALLY limited. But the problem is that I’m already checking a “different” animal, but even there I feel still that something is still wrong, somehow.
You’re talking about lack of details on ground?
Yes lack details on ground gives pilot somehow limited view about speed his traveling. 1000 km/h doesn’t look fast in cockpit if terrain isn’t modeled well. -
Indeed, if isn’t…
-
@M79:
You’re talking about lack of details on ground?
Yes lack details on ground gives pilot somehow limited view about speed his traveling. 1000 km/h doesn’t look fast in cockpit if terrain isn’t modeled well.When I flew my first flights on fighter jet in low level (mmm … 17 years ago. :???:), what gave me the speed sensation wasn’t the ground details, but the rate of radio contacts traveling through the successive CTRs, the fuel & timing management … and the low wind drift compared to the single prop TB-30 which I was flying before. This is what I recall. Not the details of the ground.
-
When I flew my first flights on fighter jet in low level, what gave me the speed sensation wasn’t the ground details, but the rate of radio contacts traveling through the successive CTRs, the fuel & timing management … and the low wind drift compared to the single prop TB-30 which I was flying before. This is what I recall. Not the details of the ground.
I done my first aar after 6 long beers:) You probably don’t did it like me.
Details on ground still give me best offset to how fast I’m flying better if they look better. Maybe it’s just feeling on sim and it’s hard to describe. -
“Sens of speed” given by a wide angle camera in low level flight.
-
Me, Im just disappointed I didnt download those videos when I had the chance.
okay, okay, spill the beans fella, you got me interested!
-
It was posted this image in DCS topic as I can remember.
ah, yes i remember that one!