Long life Falcon BMS
-
LOL… and that will be the end of this sim
Yep. If everyone gets their “paws” on the code, everything will break and the community will have bits and pieces of what we have now. NOT something I want to see.
-
LOL… and that will be the end of this sim
Yep, as much as I love opensource way, in this case releasing code quite likely would end up in disaster. Mostly due to Falcon 4 intellectual property owners. BMS still could be considered Falcon4 derivative, so any release of the sources could cause clash with Billionsoft.
No good is gonna ever come out of such situation. -
Other than the fact that lots of people think open sourcing BMS is a bad idea there is the history of Falcon in which “almost” such a thing occurred, minus the licensing. Source code was leaked, modders worked on source code and thus multiple versions of Falcon were born, OpenFalcon, FreeFalcon, etc … The code became fragmented with devs/modders working on different versions for different reason until it all came together into one unifying code base which eventually became Falcon BMS. Open sourcing would be the worst thing “next to stopping development on it” one could do to Falcon BMS. History has shown this already.
-
pretty much gets to the point, indeed we need graphics that matches DCS graphics.
-
pretty much gets to the point, indeed we need graphics that matches DCS graphics.
(At the risk of starting up the age old “but DCS has X” war)
Need? No.
Personally, I don’t want it either. But that’s personal preference. I find DCS just a bit too much graphically. It’s not realistic, though it is pretty, and it’s really hard on the eyes when in the cockpit. I find the same with IL2.
Yeah, ground textures could be prettier in BMS. But that’s not, for me, any sort of an issue. The realism of the sim, the community around it, and the campaign engine are just a few of the reasons why I am a BMS fan.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
LOL… and that will be the end of this sim
In other times it was like that and it was not so bad to Falcon, in fact I take a lot of work from third parties. The only thing I mean is that Falcon never be forgotten for a company that does not want or be interested to continue with this project. When that happens, please :hail: ask that the code is released so that others can take the generational relief.
Meanwhile I am happy with the hands on which it is.
-
Falcon BMS code cannot be open for licence reasons…
Even without that, opening the code to public would mean it would be a mess… No more control over what is being injected and if what is injected is good / true…
-
Even without that, opening the code to public would mean it would be a mess… No more control over what is being injected and if what is injected is good / true…
Agree 100%…
-
We’ve been there with FreeFalcon already. And what a hot mess that was…
-
Yes and no.
DCS graphics would likely tank performance, even though it would look slick.
-
pretty much gets to the point, indeed we need graphics that matches DCS graphics.
If for this, wait 3 or 4 Falcon weeks only, and you’ll see.
I’m in the queue, BTW.
With best regards.
-
Falcon BMS code cannot be open for licence reasons…
Even without that, opening the code to public would mean it would be a mess… No more control over what is being injected and if what is injected is good / true…
Totally according to that you are right :doh:
-
I may take a ride in this thread and ask a question I have hold for a long time…. Just Curiosity NOT a request or suggestion.
Regarding the CODE, How far can the Devs go? What are the limits? I ask that because there are a lot of things in the Wishlist in the “link 16 things you want….” thread and I’ve been wondering how many of that wishes are, in fact, feasible (always regarding the CODE, not the Devs willingness). Some crazy exemples that don’t need to be answered, they are just for illustration:
Can the Devs create a F-18 with Full Callbacks and RL cockpit/avionics, like the F-16, if they wish to (perhaps, all aircraft in a theater? Or, perhaps, make an improvement in the Dynamic Campaign and add more active countries in the war? Make you actually WIN a Campaign when flying for the REDs? Or Create a 256 segments Theater? Create a position on ground where a player can be the FAC and illuminate a target with laser? (I know, I pushed this one :D) What is the limit? Manpower, time and willingness or there are limits within the CODE itself that restrain some developments?
Thanks, again, its just curiosity. I am not a programmer but I like the matter.
Cheers :yo:
-
I may take a ride in this thread and ask a question I have hold for a long time…. Just Curiosity NOT a request or suggestion.
Regarding the CODE, How far can the Devs go? What are the limits? I ask that because there are a lot of things in the Wishlist in the “link 16 things you want….” thread and I’ve been wondering how many of that wishes are, in fact, feasible (always regarding the CODE, not the Devs willingness). Some crazy exemples that don’t need to be answered, they are just for illustration:
Can the Devs create a F-18 with Full Callbacks and RL cockpit/avionics, like the F-16, if they wish to (perhaps, all aircraft in a theater? Or, perhaps, make an improvement in the Dynamic Campaign and add more active countries in the war? Make you actually WIN a Campaign when flying for the REDs? Or Create a 256 segments Theater? Create a position on ground where a player can be the FAC and illuminate a target with laser? (I know, I pushed this one :D) What is the limit? Manpower, time and willingness or there are limits within the CODE itself that restrain some developments?
Thanks, again, its just curiosity. I am not a programmer but I like the matter.
Cheers :yo:
As far as I’ve heard so far, matter of time mainly.
-
If for this, wait 3 or 4 Falcon weeks only, and you’ll see.
I’m in the queue, BTW.
With best regards.
I call that good news
edit: by the way how long is one falcon week?
-
I think it lasts 3 - 4 weeks.
Basically it means “no one knows”.
-
Regarding the CODE, How far can the Devs go?
Technically, anywhere
What are the limits?
There are none
Can the Devs create a F-18 with Full Callbacks and RL cockpit/avionics, like the F-16
Yes, basically avionics coding is “easy”. Why I call it easy? Because it’s a relatively isolated “sandbox” that a coder can play with. So e.g introducing a new aircraft avionics will be an isolated task that someone will need to want to do and take on himself. More than anything this is a matter of will and time. As I spent quite sometime on some of the F-16 systems (Especially A-G weapons modes but not only), I can tell you that making a “none-crazy level” avionics for other AC shouldn’t be a big deal. Getting into all the bits and pieces like we did for the F-16 will be more time-consuming.
if they wish to (perhaps, all aircraft in a theater? Or, perhaps, make an improvement in the Dynamic Campaign and add more active countries in the war? Make you actually WIN a Campaign when flying for the REDs?
Campaign management stuff, again someone will need to want to change that and just “do it”. BTW I think work for more balance is being tried all the time, but it’s not an easy task to find balance for dynamic campaign.
Or Create a 256 segments Theater?
Let me say that I wish 128 segment will work “OK” first. 256 seg is IMHO too large for a sim of the F-16. 128 seg is enough.
Create a position on ground where a player can be the FAC and illuminate a target with laser?
Again, can be done, but will require some deeper inspect and changes to the code. Deeper because most parts of the code assume the Player is in an Aircraft, and so in case we want to support Helos, ground units, soldiers etc, it’ll need changes to first even recognize that player can be something else (BTW ejected pilot is a special case…)
(I know, I pushed this one :D) What is the limit? Manpower, time and willingness or there are limits within the CODE itself that restrain some developments?
Thanks, again, its just curiosity. I am not a programmer but I like the matter.
Cheers :yo:
Technically anything can be done, main limitations are (This order):
Motivation - e.g if no one wants to create F-18 avionics, then it won’t happen no matter what
Priorities/time - If 1 wants to make F-18 but he must first finish with some F-16 upgrades he is working on, then things will delayFrom my experience of what I saw during my years (Since mid 2009) in the BMS coders team regarding new features is that almost everything is dynamic and mostly depend on motivation. What I mean by dynamic is that most of coders do work on “Long journeys” stuff, i.e something that may take years to complete, but sometimes can also choose to work on “small upgrades” (small is a relative word here) that will deliver faster. But motivation is the main key - From what I saw of my friends, when someone wants to do something and sets his mind on it, he won’t let go until it is done.
Hope this helps
Cheers! -
A frankly, honest, full, detailed and clear (for those non-experts as just I am), most of all.
Finally!
Thanks a lot, I-Hawk.With best regards.
-
Hope this helps
Cheers!Thank you very much I-Hawk. I didn’t expect a so thorough explanation, what a good surprise! So, the future is promising, I guess.
Live long and prosper BMS :bowd:
-
Thank´s I Hawk and team