Santa's wishlist for BMS
-
@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. -
@Geraki I don’t know. That’s Max business.
But I believe developers have priority right now. -
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.
what means its 2022?
what means dont afraid to increase performance impact?
you mean make it uplayble ?
that sentence is unacceptable
if you want to show your admire about new graphics you have to have a measure to your words
you see that a lot of ppl here comment the performance even 10 fps is a matter of joy for them anyway i think the team knows betterone more thing how do you push buttons in vr? how do you control the plane besides throttle and stick ,and how much time
you can stay with vr without loosing your eyes and head? can you stay for 5 hours for example? -
@Aragorn said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
On the grounds of Buckingham Palace.
LoL…
Alll jokes aside would really love to see bugfix and stabilization first and then all these amazing feaures that peeps are quite rightly asking for.
436 is the best i have ever seen the sim but if we could have a really fixed AI and everything in the campaign engine working as intended that would rock.Then features galore.
-
- More naval assets most of which can be civilian, junks, trawlers, maybe even a cruise ship. Maybe some code to go along with the assets to make it seem more lifelike.
1a) also if there’s sea traffic, just know we’ll use it to boresite mavericks so ya know…be aware.
- Kinda piggybacking off of #1, maybe some more civilian assets too, personal trucks, maybe a train or two, or at least a train yard.
-
@Buttons
+1 on trains, it’s very important tool for moving supply and war materials. -
Add a PKG communications page to the AI Communications set?
Though I LOVE the new AI comms output, it frustrates me just a bit (to negligible effect), when flying a single-player TE, to hear all the other flights in my PKG announcing “departing push point”, etc., when I can’t coordinate similarly.
In the furthest extreme, such functionality would disallow the AI flights in the PKG from departing the holding point until you announced your readiness to do so…
Of course, being able to coordinate with all flights in your PKG could open the door to all sorts of new coordination tactics (e.g., “SEAD, please stay on station just a bit longer”) but that’s just pipe-dreaming.
-
@Slothrop said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
Add a PKG communications page to the AI Communications set?
Though I LOVE the new AI comms output, it frustrates me just a bit (to negligible effect), when flying a single-player TE, to hear all the other flights in my PKG announcing “departing push point”, etc., when I can’t coordinate similarly.
In the furthest extreme, such functionality would disallow the AI flights in the PKG from departing the holding point until you announced your readiness to do so…
Of course, being able to coordinate with all flights in your PKG could open the door to all sorts of new coordination tactics (e.g., “SEAD, please stay on station just a bit longer”) but that’s just pipe-dreaming.
That would be the huge game changer. I’d call it a dream too, but after what was done with JTAC/FAC(A), I’m not so sure.
-
@vfp said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
one more thing how do you push buttons in vr? how do you control the plane besides throttle and stick ,and how much time
you can stay with vr without loosing your eyes and head? can you stay for 5 hours for example?Push buttons = PointCTRL finger tracker, mouse emulation. That currently works with DCS, X-plane, P3D and MSFS. As simple as pointing at a button with your finger and clicking a button on the side of your finger.
Flight time = 5hrs. Yes no problem, I regularly (2 times a week) fly 3-5 hours in VR, and have done as much as 10hrs in a day, I have been doing this for the last 7 years - in that time I’ve had 6 eye tests and have had no negative effects on my eyesight or anything else from VR. I also fly high performance RC aircraft and have noticed no eyesight issues from VR impacting my RC flying. There are absolutely some people who are sensitive to VR, however I get on with it extremely well. This is largely due to tuning my setup to maintain smooth FPS etc.
Honestly, I’m so tired of the general anti-VR sentiment and the feeling that VR can only be for short, non serious experiences. And that you cannot fly seriously in VR for any length of time, this is frankly bulls!%t. I and many other ppl fly seriously in VR, I use an IRL Kneeboard and modified VR headset so I can easily read it in VR. The hardware is out there to allow direct manipulation of cockpit in an extremely intuitive and quick way. Modern headsets are comfortable, light weight, high resolution and offer image quality comparable with monitors. The problems have been solved, it’s not 2014 any more.
I don’t understand the pushback against VR. Would I like a full F-16 simpit, with 270 deg screen and triple projectors etc? Yes absolutely - but I cannot afford it, and I don’t have space for it. VR + PointCTRL gives me 90% of the immersion of a sim pit for 5% of the price and 99% less space footprint. Plus it’s not fixed to one aircraft. I totally understand why some people don’t get on with it. But it does work for a great many people. Quit yucking my yum!
Yes us VR supporters are a tiny niche of the BMS community, but that’s because BMS doesn’t support it “if you build it, they will come” as they say.
I have no problem with BMS devs saying they have no interest in VR. I think it’s unfortunate and they are missing out but it’s their free time they are spending to bring us this sim, so they will work on what they want. It does make me sad that the dev who was working on VR is MIA though. Hope they are ok.
-
Don’t think it’s possible but improving the sense of speed down low would be nice
-
@SOBO-87 said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
@vfp said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
one more thing how do you push buttons in vr? how do you control the plane besides throttle and stick ,and how much time
you can stay with vr without loosing your eyes and head? can you stay for 5 hours for example?Push buttons = PointCTRL finger tracker, mouse emulation. That currently works with DCS, X-plane, P3D and MSFS. As simple as pointing at a button with your finger and clicking a button on the side of your finger.
Flight time = 5hrs. Yes no problem, I regularly (2 times a week) fly 3-5 hours in VR, and have done as much as 10hrs in a day, I have been doing this for the last 7 years - in that time I’ve had 6 eye tests and have had no negative effects on my eyesight or anything else from VR. I also fly high performance RC aircraft and have noticed no eyesight issues from VR impacting my RC flying. There are absolutely some people who are sensitive to VR, however I get on with it extremely well. This is largely due to tuning my setup to maintain smooth FPS etc.
Honestly, I’m so tired of the general anti-VR sentiment and the feeling that VR can only be for short, non serious experiences. And that you cannot fly seriously in VR for any length of time, this is frankly bulls!%t. I and many other ppl fly seriously in VR, I use an IRL Kneeboard and modified VR headset so I can easily read it in VR. The hardware is out there to allow direct manipulation of cockpit in an extremely intuitive and quick way. Modern headsets are comfortable, light weight, high resolution and offer image quality comparable with monitors. The problems have been solved, it’s not 2014 any more.
I don’t understand the pushback against VR. Would I like a full F-16 simpit, with 270 deg screen and triple projectors etc? Yes absolutely - but I cannot afford it, and I don’t have space for it. VR + PointCTRL gives me 90% of the immersion of a sim pit for 5% of the price and 99% less space footprint. Plus it’s not fixed to one aircraft. I totally understand why some people don’t get on with it. But it does work for a great many people. Quit yucking my yum!
Yes us VR supporters are a tiny niche of the BMS community, but that’s because BMS doesn’t support it “if you build it, they will come” as they say.
I have no problem with BMS devs saying they have no interest in VR. I think it’s unfortunate and they are missing out but it’s their free time they are spending to bring us this sim, so they will work on what they want. It does make me sad that the dev who was working on VR is MIA though. Hope they are ok.
This! PointCtrl makes a 3d cockpit almost as immersive as a fully 1:1 3d cockpit for a fraction of the cost. It beats anything that isn’t a 1:1 simpit. Right now I can’t get it to work in the Vorpx VR workaround for BMS VR, but since it crashes ~ 90% due to the UI, I can really test it well. But BMS is still very stable when you are in the 3D environment, getting there/getting out is the issue.
If you don’t want to pay/wait for a PointCtrl (which it is pretty simple, we should be able to get it to work in BMS at some point), one other solution is to remove some of the underside of the facial interface foam, or maybe even some of the plastic like Bergison has done here: https://bergisons.simpit.info/making_of_other
That works exactly like NVG look under works in real life. I modified my Pimax 8KX with just the facial interface and not the irreplaceable plastic of the headset and can see all of my ICP or one MFD at a time.Also I am currently using a 180 degree 3x55" 4K TV setup and would go back to VR if I could, but it is an ok makeshift solution. Nothing beats 1;1 headtracking, especially in BFM.
For kneeboard, I am currently using VRK, a virtual kneeboard that shows up in VR with a drawing tablet to write, such as 9 lines, and saved graphics/pdfs for reference. This could in theory work with with BMS since it is inserted into your SteamVR view no matter the VR app although it’s developer seems to have stopped supporting it. However there is a simialr replacement program in the works that is very similar.
-
I think a 128*128 Germany battlefield will be great! We can go back to 1980s ,1990s and experience a imaginative middle-class conflit between NATO and USSR。
-
@luochenyang
IIRC there was a central Europe theater.
'80 campaigns need proper F-16A, which I really’d love to be simulated in BMS.