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 …
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!
-
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).
I just did a measurement and I can confirm that Falcon “world size” is fine. I mean that the distance from 1 point to another measured by the F-16 speed in the sim is same as real world distance. So the “problem” of sense of speed isn’t that.
“Sens of speed” given by a wide angle camera in low level flight.
Hell, checking again now I’m even sure if we have a problem at all… 1 thing I can see though, there is a real difference even between 100 and 400 feet AGL, I mean 100 feet feels MUCH faster.
I guess this point of sense of speed will need to get public feedback when the time comes, for me it’s hard to judge. -
ah, yes i remember that one!
You guys are slow
-
My dream is BMS with DCS popularity.
There is at least a chance that your dream comes true, depends on the people.
Or DCS with what’s good on BMS…
There is no chance at all, but well, … you can dream.
Cheers :yo:
LS -
I just did a measurement and I can confirm that Falcon “world size” is fine. I mean that the distance from 1 point to another measured by the F-16 speed in the sim is same as real world distance. So the “problem” of sense of speed isn’t that.
Hell, checking again now I’m even sure if we have a problem at all… 1 thing I can see though, there is a real difference even between 100 and 400 feet AGL, I mean 100 feet feels MUCH faster.
I guess this point of sense of speed will need to get public feedback when the time comes, for me it’s hard to judge.Field of view = sense of speed.
That’s how it works, IMHO -
Yeah that sense of speed i’m talking. Detailed ground gives feeling of speed.
-
Field of view = sense of speed.
That’s how it works, IMHO+1. Peripheral vision is where speed sensation comes from.
-
well, the rumor is just a rumor…but I hope more active BMS user if 4.35 brought new terrain engine.
BTW, Reading the original Reddit post:
This is really true.
I can’t count how many times I read “I am away from BMS because of VR” from so many different persons at Hoggit.I might even be so bold as to say that they’re not serious simmers if they’re willing to overlook all the extremely accurate and detailed features of BMS simply because it doesn’t have VR support.