Santa's wishlist for BMS
-
- Multi frustum rendering for external view : proper multi-screen/projector display
-
@molnibalage said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
If you ask me always the tactical environment should get the priority.
Here are some examples.- AI is be able to set correctly the RP and other bomb settings.
- Being able to perform terrain following flight it is needed and ordered.
IT seems you didn’t fly 4.36
AI is able to perform terrain following when needed
And if you are leader there is a new command « go deck » in wingman menu
-
@Mav-jp said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
@Logic said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
Things like the 4.36 ext lighting implementation (although impressive) adds zero value for me.
i think you miss some important gameplay that goes with it
not only you are now able to see who is who based on the number of strobe flashes
but as lights are detectable by Enemy, fying covert gives you a tactical advantage
pos ligthings are also a plus for formation flying
detectable by ennemy : very interesting!
-
@Mav-jp said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
@molnibalage said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
If you ask me always the tactical environment should get the priority.
Here are some examples.- AI is be able to set correctly the RP and other bomb settings.
- Being able to perform terrain following flight it is needed and ordered.
IT seems you didn’t fly 4.36
AI is able to perform terrain following when needed
And if you are leader there is a new command « go deck » in wingman menu
I read the new 500 ft min. But TFR capable planes can do that on 200 ft even at night. If non TFR and non NVG capable planes do this at night it means magic.
Also, for ATO. Is there any weather / day / night restriction for the old planes without any advanced avionics? J-5/6, Il-28 etc.?
If they fly and strike at night also it would mean magic…
-
This post is deleted! -
@suhkoi69 said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
@Mav-jp said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
@Logic said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
Things like the 4.36 ext lighting implementation (although impressive) adds zero value for me.
i think you miss some important gameplay that goes with it
not only you are now able to see who is who based on the number of strobe flashes
but as lights are detectable by Enemy, fying covert gives you a tactical advantage
pos ligthings are also a plus for formation flying
detectable by ennemy : very interesting!
Supposedly this has been a thing discussed even back in the RP days, maybe original F4.0, but it’s been a long time since I’ve seen it confirmed.
-
@Mav-jp - I was hoping for this…fantastic!
-
@b0bl00i said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
-New renderer that actually looks like something from this century while support VR. Good and realistic lighting, proper height maps (sharp mountain peaks and ridges) crisp and sharp textures, ground decals, volumetric clouds, plenty of forests and buildings, huge draw distance, scalable spotting, updated plane models (Doesn’t have to be UE5 good looking but a heck lot better) ** highest prio
You are probably confusing us with M$ or that other sim which keep delivering unfinished alpha versions while the game itself stays unfinished and actually sandbox, forever (Yes forever, you read correctly).
BMS will do the graphical jump but don’t expect it to be a-la M$FS. We aren’t there and even if assuming we can get close, it’ll take time (i.e years, so things will improve but not as fast as you think). We don’t have teams of Devs to develop every small graphical feature. What we can offer though is a graphical improvement that will come on top of an already working sim.
Regarding the 3D models: On what models are you talking really?
Our ugly F-16s? https://i.imgur.com/T56B7jd.png
Ugly B-52? https://i.imgur.com/DbAPGtl.jpeg
Ugly Rafal?: https://i.imgur.com/9AWm4C3.png
Ugly Flanker maybe? https://i.imgur.com/3CPZcOQ.png
Ugly EF? https://i.imgur.com/lB0Rj0e.png
Ugly F-4s maybe? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/263474413909835776/968185715353608192/2022-04-25_192347.pngReally I need to know, because our 3D modelers are doing awesome work and you should show some respect for getting all that, for free…
I’d be willing to chip in on the dev costs through Patreon.
Ha no - We don’t take money, and for sure we don’t work for anyone. This is a hobby for us and we do it for the fun and challenge.
-
Full JTAC
A-A SAM human control.
F-16 MFD - Moving map -selectable from avioncs config
FULL LINK16 implementation-PDLT
F-16D shared cockpit (New 3d D model Cockpit with details for each variant)
Autoupdate (hotfixes) function.
Repair option without dance!
NEW UI -But keep the buttons and menu orientation from legacy Falcon4.0 like it is now! (it is very important as “user friendly marketing” to keep things for users simple as it was many many years before, like every old Falcon 4.0 -BMS simmer used to have with previous releases ,but renew them with new interface and images but keep UI orientation the same. Or
Total from scratch new UI -(VR &4K) friendly but we need sometime to used too ) -
A shared f-16D would be awesome.
-
@Geraki said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
A-A SAM human control.
Forget it. You could not model even an S-75M Volkhov properly it has so many function and submodes. If you wish to get ANY enjoyable SAM modeling simply the current EW - radar modeling part of the game can be rewritten to 0 to such way that the engine should be able to model the following mai radar types from the 50s just the reach the S-300PT/PS…
pulse radar (SA-2 Dvina)
coherent pulse radars (SA-2 Volkhov)
CW radars (SA-5, SA-6, HAWK)
quasi CW radars (first PESA) PATRIOT, S-300PT,PSAnd you need such model to defined TOTALLY different fire control and targ. ac. radar. And these were only some SAMs. Just imagine the lots of other stuff, SA-8, SA-15, SA-19, and just because SA-6 is CW it is not identical with the SA-5 etc.
Even the SAMsim just scratches the surface of the topic.
If you ask me it would be great to have at least a well modeled deployment time for old and towed/deployed SAM vs real mobile SAMs. To model a real skilled opponent what can’t be killed with some HARM launches
-
Aside from the obvious long standing request for VR. My second most desired feature in BMS would be a more capable mission builder. The ability to add “triggered event” would be a huge step forward for BMS mission builders.
-
@I-Hawk said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
@b0bl00i said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
-New renderer that actually looks like something from this century while support VR. Good and realistic lighting, proper height maps (sharp mountain peaks and ridges) crisp and sharp textures, ground decals, volumetric clouds, plenty of forests and buildings, huge draw distance, scalable spotting, updated plane models (Doesn’t have to be UE5 good looking but a heck lot better) ** highest prio
You are probably confusing us with M$ or that other sim which keep delivering unfinished alpha versions while the game itself stays unfinished and actually sandbox, forever (Yes forever, you read correctly).
BMS will do the graphical jump but don’t expect it to be a-la M$FS. We aren’t there and even if assuming we can get close, it’ll take time (i.e years, so things will improve but not as fast as you think). We don’t have teams of Devs to develop every small graphical feature. What we can offer though is a graphical improvement that will come on top of an already working sim.
Regarding the 3D models: On what models are you talking really?
Our ugly F-16s? https://i.imgur.com/T56B7jd.png
Ugly B-52? https://i.imgur.com/DbAPGtl.jpeg
Ugly Rafal?: https://i.imgur.com/9AWm4C3.png
Ugly Flanker maybe? https://i.imgur.com/3CPZcOQ.png
Ugly EF? https://i.imgur.com/lB0Rj0e.png
Ugly F-4s maybe? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/263474413909835776/968185715353608192/2022-04-25_192347.pngReally I need to know, because our 3D modelers are doing awesome work and you should show some respect for getting all that, for free…
I’d be willing to chip in on the dev costs through Patreon.
Ha no - We don’t take money, and for sure we don’t work for anyone. This is a hobby for us and we do it for the fun and challenge.
Hello I-Hawk
Glad you read my comments!
I’m very happy with BMS except the graphics and some quality of life things, like key mapping woes and some minor immersion things. I know you are not Asobo or ED. But still, modern graphics an UI should be highest prio for sure. BMS is so far ahead on everything, except graphics. It should be the 100% focus for 4.37.
The ground textures with the satellite map looks very dated, buildings need to be all 3d! Forests are not dense enough, the grey wall (view distance), poor height map… If you improve on this, the sim would truly come alive!
When it comes to models, I agree that they look great but in-game everything is bland, perhaps it’s due to the overall engine limitations (lacking proper lighting, shadows etc?)
This comment " (Doesn’t have to be UE5 good looking but a heck lot better)" does not relate to the models, it’s the overall graphics look.
BMS need to get a modern graphics engine and UI… everything else is really good! Please don’t forget VR, and don’t be afraid of increasing the performance impact, it’s 2022.
The sonic boom effect is in need of update too!
-
@b0bl00i shhh buddy the V-R is a touchy subject I heard the devs lost their VR guy. Legend has it he was dragged away from his desk by hooded men from the Simpit Mafia at 2 in the morning
-
@spotdott
Lol to be honest, I can live without VR but I love the immersion levels it adds. I think it’s time for BMS to get that new graphics engine in place and add on VR. If the new engine supports it, I would be thrilled to use it! -
All those wishes are cool. I would love to see all this.
But then we need more good developers in the team who are constantly working every day and week (as we do). Go for it and please make your dreams come true https://www.falcon-bms.com/join-bms-development/ -
I dont understand all this talk about better graphics. Is it that you are just taking the F16 up for a “spin” to do some sight-seeing?
If that’s the case I dont think this is the Sim for you.
My two cents. -
@Jaycee said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
I dont understand all this talk about better graphics. Is it that you are just taking the F16 up for a “spin” to do some sight-seeing?
If that’s the case I dont think this is the Sim for you.
My two cents.Well, let me disagree. There are few things where improved gfx could have serious impact on improved realism of the sim.
- First, extended terrain rendering distance would be closer to what you can see in rl under clear sky condition
- Second, high-res, more dynamic terrain mesh would improve ability to use terrain masking which could both make your life easier or much harder (enemy setting low-alt ambushes, ground units hidden in the valleys etc …)
- Proper, highly populated cities would make you reconsider your attack profile on units inside (unless you’re playing red side, which have no issues with dropping cluster munition and and such on urban areas )
- more of distinct ground objects can help with navigation or might be used as reference for locating targets on the ground.
- Improved light sources behavior (blinding effect when something is much brighter than ambient light) would make all the instrument dimming knobs useful. Nobody would fly at night with HUD/MFDs etc… on full brightness.
- volumetric clouds than doesn’t rotate when you fly under/above
I guess the list could just go on and on. So nope, better visuals are not just for eye candy.
-
@Micro_440th Hello my friend i had made an application and still i am wainting for feedack.!?
Actualy not as developer but DB edit’s and QA beta testing and advisor .
Kind Regards
-
@Xeno
Thanks for the reply.
Those are all very fair points which would probably make the Sim look more realistic visually but most of my in-game time in the 3D world is spent checking all the different Sensors mostly my MFDs apart from making sure to keep visual on my wingman or lead or checking for nearby bandits.
Same goes for when I go for the deck or inbound.
My priority is to keep the jet in the air without crashing to the nearby ground and I mostly rely on the on-board sensors for that.
When I’m flying low I’m usually looking forward through my HUD and or keeping visuals with my flight.
Attacking ground targets…more of the same.
Better graphics is always a good thing but for me this Sim is already full of good things.
Best regards.