Another F16 entry coming "someday"?
-
@buzzbomb said in Another F16 entry coming "someday"?:
The USAF uses Lockheed-Martin’s Prepar3d simulation software as the basis for its portable mission simulators. Prepar3d is available for commercial and student usage, and they apparently don’t really track your usage very closely so you can get it if you want it. Unofficial use is not officially supported, of course.
As for Meta’s new offering, I have sent them a message asking specifically about individual usage and request for specifics. I will post the response I get, if I get one.
Yes, they use Prepar3D for UPT 2.5 I believe. FWIW, at least the 355th Training Squadron also uses DCS with VR and PointCtrl, maybe all of the 355th Ops Group and other A-10 units. The updates they requested were the source of A-10C II update that ED released (and made you buy again). So overall, the USAF is embracing OTS VR sim solutions. This new simulator could be their next solution. Maybe it will trickle down to recreational simmers, much as Prepar3D did. But that was also because there was a vacuum in the civilian sim market with the period of time between MSFS versions (despite XPlane still being a good solution).
-
@maxwaldorf
So “something” to take care of in future of course, then?
What do you (all) think?With best regards.
-
@snake122 said in Another F16 entry coming "someday"?:
. But that was also because there was a vacuum in the civilian sim market with the period of time between MSFS versions (despite XPlane still being a good solution).
With regard to realism, immersion and system depth, XPlane 11 is still miles ahead of anything MSFS has to offer at the moment. If you take a peek at the xp12 preview screenshots I’d say it won’t be too far off from MSFS “good looks”.
Also, XPlane’s multi platform support is a godsend to those of us who haven’t booked a one way trip on the Microsoft bandwagon, looking for a viable alternative to an OS that gets ever more encroaching on the user’s privacy and control over his / her own hardware with every new “release”.
So calling the time between FS releases a “vacuum” is a wee bit off the mark IMHO, to say the least In the same vein please don’t forget “flightgear” either which has come along nicely in the last couple of years.
All the best,
Uwe
-
@icarus
lol nice one -
@hoover I agree completely Uwe! XPlane has always been my favorite civilian sim for many of the similar reasons BMS is over DCS. I meant vacuum in MS release sense only. But since it’s the bright and shiny object, it’s what people pay attention to. They wanted a release in-between to use their add-on etc. and somehow got LM to sell to individuals. I was always surprised the Prepar3D became the “professional grade” sim despite Austin pursuing his own FAA certified XPlane version. I think that comes down to LM vs. Austin ultimately. That vacuum did bring many more people to XPlane at least, I hope 12 makes some of them come back.
-
Very well.
All of us have discussed the topic and left his own opinion.
But it has to be back straight to “our” business now, I think.
Is, or which part of , it you like more, the new Unreal engine is fit for us? Maybe in the next future or in a very next version (4.38 or even 4.37)?
I realize that it really is a hard question to be answered at this present moment, but the same I would point out to the fact that our (simulated flight of any kind) world had to be expected to change significatively, or it would die due to the lack of purchases, thus of developing.
So it is. As always, gold mines appealed the most spending capable buyers, ad contractors consequently. it would not makes anyone to wonder that they have to be created instead of being unvealed only.Back to us: what’s for us of BMS?
With best regards.
-
@hoover I think exactly the opposite !
-
hmm, care to elaborate on your point of view a bit?
If I read my post above and go “exactly the opposite” on any point made, there isn’t a lot of sense left IMHO
All the best, Uwe
-
@hoover Hello Hoover
That’s very simple. I’ve tried everything that deals with flight simulation. There is no software that gave me the feeling of my past real life flights than MSFS
Cheers,
Radium
-
In my opinion, the sims that survive and the sims that will be left in the dust will be divided by a single factor: The terrain database. Specifically, a global terrain database that is derived from real world data, satellite imagery, and the like, and procedurally generated, as per the world in MSFS, and now in Meta’s NOR platform, will be an absolute requirement.
I’m TIRED of only flying around the Korean theater. I want to be able to pick a spot, any spot, and fly from it or to it or around it.
Porting over to Unreal Engine is probably also a really good idea since Meta’s NOR demo video has already shown that it’s easily capable of delivering near photorealistic imagery, easily equal to and superior to the best that BMS’s chief competitor, DCS, has to offer. Plus the support for UE is unmatched. VR is natively supported in UE, as well.
I’m certainly a BMS supporter, above all challengers, because of the simulation fidelity BMS promises and which is the cumulative work of 24 years of development. But it must be upgraded to technological currency in order to remain viable. A full world database coupled with a transition to the UE environment are the cornerstones of that necessary evolution.
-
@buzzbomb said in Another F16 entry coming "someday"?:
In my opinion, the sims that survive and the sims that will be left in the dust will be divided by a single factor: The terrain database. Specifically, a global terrain database that is derived from real world data, satellite imagery, and the like, and procedurally generated, as per the world in MSFS, and now in Meta’s NOR platform, will be an absolute requirement.
I’m TIRED of only flying around the Korean theater. I want to be able to pick a spot, any spot, and fly from it or to it or around it.
I get it and I get the impression that 4.37 will be big with terrain and theaters. 2 counterpoints though.
- There are several well done theaters that are pretty close to Korea level and there are a many more that are still serviceable if you can deal some of the repetitive tiles, etc. 2. You can have very detailed areas but that doesn’t make it a good simulator. In the DCS sense, that means it has a very pretty but overall sterile “combat zone” and still a lack of fidelity. In the MSFS sense, it is amazing I can now use true local area pilotage, but there is still a lot in systems/flight model detail that is left to be desired.
Porting over to Unreal Engine is probably also a really good idea since Meta’s NOR demo video has already shown that it’s easily capable of delivering near photorealistic imagery, easily equal to and superior to the best that BMS’s chief competitor, DCS, has to offer. Plus the support for UE is unmatched. VR is natively supported in UE, as well.
The VR work is already being done (see the 4.35 EULA), I don’t know if it is worth it to switch to UE5 to check that box too. The other question which I haven’t done any research on, it looks great but how does it perform? That has been the issues with DCS for a long time too, it looks pretty but brings your system to it’s knees in VR (see my system’s specs, it’s what I had to run to get the Pimax usable and even then there were trade offs and MP/Supercarrier would still bring the 3090 to it’s knees.)
I’m certainly a BMS supporter, above all challengers, because of the simulation fidelity BMS promises and which is the cumulative work of 24 years of development. But it must be upgraded to technological currency in order to remain viable. A full world database coupled with a transition to the UE environment are the cornerstones of that necessary evolution.
Overall, for the big picture that may make sense but being a community team, it may not be viable to jump onto a new engine this early and not just due to Falcon 4.0 base code being so old. Yes, UE maybe a good engine to transition to be cutting edge, but another part of the reason BMS took so long to get to “even” DX11, it still takes coder experience/time. I believe @I-Hawk was the lead guy on that with years of work on it (EDIT: not @I-Hawk actually )
-
@buzzbomb said in Another F16 entry coming "someday"?:
But it must be upgraded to technological currency in order to remain viable. A full world database coupled with a transition to the UE environment are the cornerstones of that necessary evolution.
IMHO Your opinion of what’s “viable” might be somewhat different from a lot of others.
-
That could very well be true. My opinion of what’s viable is MY opinion and I can not present it as being the majority opinion of the BMS community without putting that question to a general vote and getting a supportive result.
I’m certainly no programmer, either, so I’m not qualified to speak to the technical difficulties that would involve a platform change. However, I have to say that UE5 is built to be a very easy environment to develop games in, and in fact there are tutorials that can have a total novice making fully functional games with substantial world detail in a matter of hours. And, I cite Meta’s NOR demo video as evidence, that clearly the UE engine is fully capable. It may well be that the simplest way to make a large leap forward for BMS would be to redevelop it under UE. I’d be surprised if the in-game assets of most importance can’t be ported into UE with little difficulty.
In truth I’d be willing to PAY for an upgrade of BMS that checks just these two boxes: UE5 engine and the global terrain database.
-
FWIW, BMS isn’t aiming towards global terrain. That is let’s say “an additional level of complexity” compared to using “flat” theaters. However, as we aren’t an airliner sim, I don’t really find much sense in breaking our heads on having a global theater, the 1024x1024 theaters are already large enough for any combat simulation, and if needed 2048x2048 theaters will be supported as well.
Regarding photorealistic terrain - Yes I agree, but don’t forget resources. We aren’t M$ who can store and stream zillions of textures in high res to anyone, so our DB will need to be stored locally on HDs of the users. So, I wouldn’t expect FS2020 detail/resolution levels, not at all, but considering the user has enough HD space, it should be good enough.
UE5? Honestly I have no idea, never even tried to really dive into stuff like that. I’m not sure how hard or easy it’ll be to use a UE engine for BMS and what would be the consequences? And I’m talking about stuff that is special for flight sims like visible range, long range effects (Atmosphere, fog, terrain etc). That META vid looks a lot like DCS and I really doubt it can handle stuff like streaming photoreal textures, for example. The terrain looks nice and detailed, but same colors, boring… Like DCS.
And BTW, just to correct something that was mentioned here: I confirm that I work on terrain, but not DX11 in general, that was the work of someone else within BMS team.
-
did you get a response from them?
-
Hello,
What I feel positive, after feeling some antipathy towards NOR is that it looks that we will have a Typhoon as a base model, alongside with classic F-16 and Mig-29.
It’s a great new for European who are proud of their local wings !
Cheers,
Radium
-
@vfp I have not yet received an answer, which I must admit bothers me ever so slightly. I expect courtesy and professionalism out of all people and all organizations, and that means that, among other things, if a person makes a polite inquiry about a product, it deserves an answer even if that answer is simply “No.”.
-
i understand and i expected that
its predictable behavior -
If you expect BMS to become a Simulator based on GFX up to modern standard then you will be disappointed
Things will improve , yes
But when I read that « the sims that will die will be the sims that don’t have a photorealistic global terrain » my only answer would be: yes sir , but only if those other sims have a high level of fidelity for a COMBAT sim in a global war .
And the only simulator for now that matches this definition is BMS.
Îm not saying it is bad or not I’m just stating facts
-
I don’t disagree with that assessment. However, if BMS is to maintain its user base, or have any chance of expanding it, my belief is that it will have to address its shortcomings and become best in class in all categories or at least be fully competitive in all categories.
We have the high ground when it comes to simulation fidelity. But not for graphics realism and not for terrain modelling. We don’t have VR support, either. Those are factors that work against growing our user base or even retaining it.
With a global terrain database, the opportunity for more wargames scenarios obviously becomes wide open. And let’s be honest about it, who here wouldn’t want to participate in wargaming against Russia or China?