Santa's wishlist for BMS
-
@Xeno said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@molnibalage
It was 4.33. BMS 4.35 and later are much more performant. One of the goals of converting BMS to newer D3D was ability to handle such detailed scenery. IIRC some devs said geometry (tris-count) is not much a factor anymore, so vastly more populated cities could be a possibility in 4.37 or later. Also better usage of trees autogen to cover with trees all the places where they should be (ie no more trees and forests painted on ground textures) would tremendously help with visual quality.
> Tom did awesome job here, just BMS engine wasn’t ready for such a push.Exactly.
-
After using L16 in DCS, I find it extremely useful and a mandatory feature for the next update.
-
@b0bl00i
You mean DCS Link16 or USAF Link16, because I’m not sure they are the same
IIRC Mav-JP after reading docs on that matter came to the conclusion is so complex people without rl fighter pilot training won’t able to use it properly.
So it might be implemented at some point, but not anytime soon. -
@Miron The perennial conundrum with tech sims, it seems to me, is where to draw the line in time- given that the line tends to creep anyway. I personally would rather have a ‘100 %’ realistic block 50 than a guestimate of a 70. If the developers work on the latest SAMS, to take another example, they have to upgrade the F16 weapons and sensors, by informed guessing , to the most modern ( not to mention struggling with the F35 and its ilk) and then all the 80’s era tech becomes confused with 2022 tech.
-
@b0bl00i said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
After using L16 in DCS, I find it extremely useful and a mandatory feature for the next update.
We had in the past the same feature in Falcon4.0 original and later SP updates. It has been removed lonnnng time ago. This feature looking roughly the same as what is called “L16” in DCS was called “Esay Avionic” in Falcon4.0 realisme setup.
-
Block-60/70/72 …ish
-
-
SR-72 Darkstar
-
Link16 and VR.
-
-
@Xeno I don’t really care but it’s better than nothing.
-
@b0bl00i said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@Xeno I don’t really care but it’s better than nothing.
If you don’t care … and if bullshit features are better than nothing, then display labels. Same effects, same results.
-
@Dee-Jay said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
Provide documents.
Is a passport and driver’s license okay…?
-
@Dee-Jay
Labels? No not at all, that’s not at all the same thing.
Even if the real system is classified, doing what DCS has done is far better than nothing. -
F-16 (it’s in DCS, even half-baked I want this aircraft).
-
I want 120’s I can shoot from the Ramp that will take down all enemy within a 50nm radius… all by themselves. maybe call them 150’s…
-
@b0bl00i said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@Dee-Jay
Labels? No not at all, that’s not at all the same thing.
Even if the real system is classified, doing what DCS has done is far better than nothing.Same as labels.
-
AI-controlled gunship like AC-130, could have dedicated code for circling / flypass tactics, with bursts of gunfire tracers pouring at targets.
-
@Xeno said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@bstar07 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
Graphical damage modeling like torn out fuselage or wing.
Does BMS supports multiple hitboxes per object? That would be needed first and iirc it was mentioned in some thread by devs that code is there, 'tho I don’t know if it’s enabled.
Then damage visuals, it shouldn’t require too much of compute power, all in al Il2 sim did it twenty years ago.Yes it does
-
@Bad-Boy
So for enchanced damage visuals what would be needed are:- updated 3D models with proper damage lods
- some code to trigger damaged lod, parts breaking off animation,
- code to allow punctured aircraft skin effect
- code to allow spawning broken of parts.
I guess the first point being most time-consuming as models would have to be much more detailed than the ones we have.
Is my guess correct?
That’d be one of those features nice to have, but can live without it.
I think guys who do lots of BMF would really appreciate it.