Some suggestions for improvements for the next versions -4.5 ?
-
This thread is quite interesting… at first I thought: this is so far from what we have or intend to do… but then, other people came in and gave other ideas.
Why do I think this is interesting? Because it shows that each person loves a different aspect of the sim. Some people want thermals, other want ground crew, other want to fly other planes and so on. And this is something I noticed internally as well, as I have shared some ideas which I though: hey this will be very cool, and reaction was not even close to what I expected!
Anyway, I will share no illusions: as others already mentioned, we are a small team and we do what we can. But since this is like a brainstorming/dreaming list, I will add mine (which I consider not very hard to implement):
-
For planes with WSO, have a menu where we can ask for help. For example: WSO, calibrate mavs. WSO, attack target and so on. I know, not totally realistic, but having anything in that sense would already give a different sensation of flying, say, the SUFA.
-
In the UI map, have some signaling mechanism. This happens very often, before a MP flight: hey let’s attack that battalion? Which one? Where is it and so on.
-
Limit the avionics of other plane types (the ideal world would be a truly modular system, but capping avionics so that other planes feel at least different would already be a start).
-
Add rear view mirrors so that planes with mirrors have them.
-
Civilian casualties: IMHO JSOW like weapons take half of the fun away from the game. If at least we had some collateral damage computed depending on where it is used, would be a nice start.
-
I also would love to see improved aspects in the UI: for example, see how many stores are available instead of simply HIGH/LOW. Have squadrons in the UI have a checkbox where it says: human controlled. I know, this can be done with external tools, but I’d love to see this in the game.
See, each person has different perceptions I bet mine are very different from yours!
-
-
@gadfly said in Some suggestions for improvements for the next versions -4.5 ?:
If possible (and I understand that’s a big ‘if’ given the modeling involved), it would be great to have some “default” ground/landing-gear handling for the planes that don’t have AFMs. I don’t mind that they’re not full fidelity, but every once in a while I have the desire to fly, e.g., a Tornado in the sim, and it’s a bit of a bummer when it sticks to the runway on takeoff and landing.
Let me stress that this is a very minor complaint/suggestion, as I love BMS (4.35 U3 is incredible) and I understand that it focuses primarily on the F-16, but thought I would bring it up.
it’s already done little patience needed
-
@seifer Hi Seifer, we just wanna BMS to be the best in every aspect, mav-js response is good enough for me wrt weather-terrain interaction I wasn’t sure how much could be done with old terrain engine.
Having avionics packs for different frames would be sweet, with my top wish would be F-16A (imho it’s almost waste of great sim engine to simulate just Viper in BMS, its potential is soo great)Civil casaulties would take dynamic campaign to next level esp when we’d get proper cities. With high level of collateral damage, some western allies could withdraw their support, captured cities revolting and producing basic infantry units as guerilla/insurgents due to hostile attitude of local population and so on.
Such thing would make player take some tactical considerations more carefully.Another thing would be too high relative brightness of light sources ( hud/displays, external lights) blooming and blinding player.
Maybe some postprocessing effect that could simulate eyes light accommodation where light source much brighter than overall scene brightness makes everything else much darker and difficult to see. An opposite, when the sun is in position close behind HUD make it symbols feint and harder to read.
I always loved how sun works in IL2 1946. sometimes it was worth to deviate slightly from course just to place the sun behind canopy frame, because it would make your eyes hurt when you stared on the screen with virtual sun directly in front of your face.There’s thousands of cool things we can dream of being implemented in BMS but be sure we’re all very gratefull for what we got already
-
@mav-jp the first point would not be how to use it, but where to get the world weather forecast data source in GFS. I have a way to do this. I was trying to upload from a weather server that gets these sources from NOAA it consults the sources at this link below
the best way to use this data in the BMS is to generate weather forecasts every 4 hours (I think it’s the GFS standard) and generate via geographic coordinates the conditions in the chosen theater of war, this would generate a weather map. There is already a way to manually include the weather conditions but not all the effects. It would be interesting to choose via GFS or manual, in GFS it would be automatic by real conditions including ground temperature and temperature/height with skew-t to generate the icing problems on the aircraft. In addition to high, medium and low clouds. Winds is basic, but orographic winds would be desirable for thrilling landing approaches.
If it’s useful I’ll leave the link here the server
RASP -
@mav-jp I am also a glider pilot here in Brazil and I also participate in condor championships, my idea was not to have thermals for the F-16 to look for, but rather turbulent effects at low altitude with hot days or more favorable places for that, everything logical based on GFS sources. Winds that cause convective effects are more interesting for landings/takeoffs and low altitude flights.
As it’s a brainstorm, it’s a wish list and your idea of going around implementing clouds without too much detail based on GFS data sources is a start. The case of improving or refining the weather comes with the maturity of implementing winds that generate orography, turbulent by thermals, storms and all the wonderful cloud formations caused by the various effects of the weather.
In the past I had seen that there is a study that jets with larger wing area have a lower incidence of turbulence at low height with transsonic or supersonic aircraft. This being implemented is a very good reality leap.
-
@seifer For planes with WSO, have a menu where we can ask for help. For example: WSO, calibrate mavs. WSO, attack target and so on. I know, not totally realistic, but having anything in that sense would already give a different sensation of flying, say, the SUFA.
**I love you ideia, i go ahead look this topic below**
In the UI map, have some signaling mechanism. This happens very often, before the MP flight: hey let’s attack that battalion? Which one? Where is it and so on. Limit the avionics of other plane types (the ideal world would be a truly modular system, but capping avionics only that other planes feel at least different would already be a start). Add rear view mirrors so that planes with mirrors have them. **Nice Idea!** Civilian casualties: IMHO JSOW like weapons take half of the fun away from the game. If at least we had some collateral damage computed depending on where it is used, would be a nice start. **The Falcon 3.0 have collateral damage, and i suggest with bomb drop everybody run after explode!**
-
@gusva said in Some suggestions for improvements for the next versions -4.5 ?:
@mav-jp the first point would not be how to use it, but where to get the world weather forecast data source in GFS. I have a way to do this. I was trying to upload from a weather server that gets these sources from NOAA it consults the sources at this link below
the best way to use this data in the BMS is to generate weather forecasts every 4 hours (I think it’s the GFS standard) and generate via geographic coordinates the conditions in the chosen theater of war, this would generate a weather map. There is already a way to manually include the weather conditions but not all the effects. It would be interesting to choose via GFS or manual, in GFS it would be automatic by real conditions including ground temperature and temperature/height with skew-t to generate the icing problems on the aircraft. In addition to high, medium and low clouds. Winds is basic, but orographic winds would be desirable for thrilling landing approaches.
If it’s useful I’ll leave the link here the server
RASPI don’t understand what you mean sorry
We already have the tool to import all data from GFS servers into BMS every hour
It already includes wind aloft
Wind gusts in force and direction are also modeled
-
@gusva said in Some suggestions for improvements for the next versions -4.5 ?:
@mav-jp I am also a glider pilot here in Brazil and I also participate in condor championships, my idea was not to have thermals for the F-16 to look for, but rather turbulent effects at low altitude with hot days or more favorable places for that, everything logical based on GFS sources. Winds that cause convective effects are more interesting for landings/takeoffs and low altitude flights.
As said
Convective turbulences are already in bms weather model , based on ground type and sun power
In fair you will find those turbulences under clouds , but not all of them
In sunny they are here as well but blue conditions
-
BTW as it happen to be next “Links16 things nice to have” list can we get rid of those squared taxiway corners ang have nice rounded ones
I know very minor thing, but still
-
@mav-jp I will concentrate the two answers here
It’s good to know that there is already a tool that does this GFS data import, I didn’t know it was already implemented. The Item (Season) that is in the graphics configuration could be in the Weather part of the BMS following the local date time, it’s another idea that also came up.
If all these data effects are already implemented, I haven’t seen them, forgive me. I hope the graphical improvements of the weather effects get more mature with the next versions.
it would be nice in the next trailer or promo video, when it’s implemented, to say clearly
“new climate generator with real data sources via GFS”
or something like that, for us who fly it has a bigger creditThanls
-
@xeno yes these things are in command, refinements are welcome, I hope they fix it.
-
@gusva said in Some suggestions for improvements for the next versions -4.5 ?:
@mav-jp I will concentrate the two answers here
It’s good to know that there is already a tool that does this GFS data import, I didn’t know it was already implemented. The Item (Season) that is in the graphics configuration could be in the Weather part of the BMS following the local date time, it’s another idea that also came up.
If all these data effects are already implemented, I haven’t seen them, forgive me. I hope the graphical improvements of the weather effects get more mature with the next versions.
Thanls
Yes go and see here
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/8267/f4wx-real-weather-converter/420
As far as seasons are concerned , yes this is already implemented in weather with automatic date and so on but it’s for next versions
-
- Is it possible to develop BMS with DirectX 12?
- Another question will have the use of these features of these new boards such as RTX?
- In the cloud development will the cumulus shadow be included like the image below?
-
BMS 4.35 is already magnificent and Thanks to all BMS Dev!
I suggest a small improvement, that is to make sure that the option “Setup, Controller” can ensure to write a valid .key file (keystroke file) which conforms to the needs of the simulator.The main difficulty for those who do not have a good command of computers is to modify the configuration of their HOTAS so that it is functional.
Currently, the SAVE or APPLY option generates or induces some errors in the keystroke file!
I sincerely believe that forcing users to write directly to this file via a text editor rather than relying on the original module included in the simulator is a bad direction which undermines the user experience and should be corrected in a way priority.This is my personal opinion, but I know that here I have to constantly troubleshoot users who may lose interest with a semi-functional module. Already playing in a .key file requires good technical knowledge. I really hope this annoyance will be corrected in a near future.
-
@gusva
Well BMS 4…35 is first release ported to DX11 not even really using much of its features, no point to move to nex-gen apis like DX12/Vulkan.
It was discussed many times, you see, MSFS 2020 first release was DX11. DX12 port is here for just a week or two.
It’ll take years before DX11 won’t be enough for BMS.
As for raytracing and other stuff, well it’s my personal opinion, but too small gain in visuals for huge perf hit, not worth it at the moment.
Pretty water reflactions are not so important in combat flightsims and clouds shading can be done quite efficiently in different ways. -
@xeno or consider your answer to Saifer here as well.
My question about using the most of the new features of this RTX line cards, for example, goes against this lighting feature that “blinds” the screen by the excess light when the sun is at your back.
Thanks for the clarification on DX11, good to know how the script for features like DX12 / Vulkan is doing.
About the shadings I have a slightly different opinion from yours, these are details that added up greatly improve the combat experience, yes the shadings require resources from the video cards, but currently we have cards with more than twice the resources of those that were top-of-the-line in the graphical version of the BMS in its latest version. Just as lighting on panels degrades visibility, shadows on buildings, trees or clouds are very important.
The Idea is rather to make a Braimstorm so that we can have a wish list that in the near future can be implemented or discussed.
In fact, we have a lot to thank these heroes who develop and we’ve already reached a very high level in the BMS.
This post is not a critique it is a wish that always takes this great project to one level.
-
@gusva
I believe none of the features we’re talking strictly requires raytracing.
Yes RT lights and shadows would be of highest fidelity, but both can be done using other techniques with quite plausible results for much less perf hit, which for even todays strongest GPUs is still a problem. -
@101-spyder said in Some suggestions for improvements for the next versions -4.5 ?:
BMS 4.35 is already magnificent and Thanks to all BMS Dev!
I suggest a small improvement, that is to make sure that the option “Setup, Controller” can ensure to write a valid .key file (keystroke file) which conforms to the needs of the simulator.The main difficulty for those who do not have a good command of computers is to modify the configuration of their HOTAS so that it is functional.
Currently, the SAVE or APPLY option generates or induces some errors in the keystroke file!
I sincerely believe that forcing users to write directly to this file via a text editor rather than relying on the original module included in the simulator is a bad direction which undermines the user experience and should be corrected in a way priority.This is my personal opinion, but I know that here I have to constantly troubleshoot users who may lose interest with a semi-functional module. Already playing in a .key file requires good technical knowledge. I really hope this annoyance will be corrected in a near future.
Hello pilot use Falcon BMS Alternative Launcher (Easy Setup, Keep Joystick Assignments) and all your problems will be solved, wonderful tool created by the hand of the master @chihirobelmo
-
Good to know that there is a good alignment of the development team with this feature.
Raytracing would be of use with what effect on BMS? -
16 years ago, when I was coding with FF team, people were pushing for Dx9 (at the time, we were at Dx7). It was a similar reaction to what we see here, ppl thought that simply upgrading the API would make all magic happen.
By then, the lead coder told me: we barely use Dx7 features. It is useless to go DX9 now. We better use the full power of DX7 and only then worry about upgrading.
This guy was wise, one of the best coders I have seen in action. Even today, after 16 years, I still remember his advices. In fact, I learned a lot from him.
The main point, again, is: going DX12 will do no magic. To really have ray tracing and other features, we must fully rewrite graphics engine. This is a HUGE task, believe. BMS team barely finished the move to Dx11 (and took us a lot of effort to fix the issues caused by that, as you saw in U2).
So, don’t expect this move anytime soon. OTOH, you can expect great things from Dx11 engine currently in place.