Santa's wishlist for BMS
-
If that’s the only way… no, thx!
-
@Dee-Jay said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@BVT_9 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
I would wish for better taxiway lines. They are too angular, whilst the rest of airbase markings are so nice and realistic these days.
Are you ready to sacrifice 20 to 50% FPS for this?
If yes, easy to do, instead of a 20.000 poly model you redo all the airbase models et 200.000 poly.@BVT_9 While I haven’t installed them in 4.36, I believe there are some higher resolution textures here that helps the lines be less blurry and don’t seem to effect FPS that much. Granted BMS rarely makes my GPU be the bottleneck (thanks to whomever added the extra lines of sim and render to the FPS counter BTW)
-
@Snake122 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@Dee-Jay said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@BVT_9 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
I would wish for better taxiway lines. They are too angular, whilst the rest of airbase markings are so nice and realistic these days.
Are you ready to sacrifice 20 to 50% FPS for this?
If yes, easy to do, instead of a 20.000 poly model you redo all the airbase models et 200.000 poly.@BVT_9 While I haven’t installed them in 4.36, I believe there are some higher resolution textures here that helps the lines be less blurry and don’t seem to effect FPS that much. Granted BMS rarely makes my GPU be the bottleneck (thanks to whomever added the extra lines of sim and render to the FPS counter BTW)
It is not texture. Markings are 3D objects. It is not possible to have enough resolution to use texture for this on an entire airbase footprint.
-
@Dee-Jay
Then I guess that’d be valid case for tesselation … I’d love to see those curves smoothed someday too -
@Dee-Jay good to know, it’s been a since March (4.35 days) so I guess any difference I thought I saw on the lines was placebo
-
Hey all.
I’m getting back into my sims now that summer is winding down. Last I heard the dev that was working on VR integration for 4.37+ had disappeared?
I don’t suppose there has been any word on VR progress while I’ve been away over the summer? Is there a dev working on it?
Cheers
-
@SOBO-87 to my knowledge, that hasn’t changed with the dev status, but I don’t think there has been much really updated on that with the BMS team.
Also no change of the Vorpx crashes in the Falcon UI that 4.35 had to 4.36. Still works great when you make it into the cockpit though. Frustrating since unlike DCS, with my system you don’t lose any visual quality going with VR and can still maintain a usually full refresh rate. But the UI will eventually crash with Vorpx and I don’t know why. I tried Virtual Desktop but it’s super laggy due to it for some reason not rendering to the headset at even half refresh rate.
-
Visual Hand Signals
Adjustable Violent Gun Shaking effect
TGP Mask Zone Display
Cluster Raid
Edit: topographic map in 2D so I can visualize the terrain a little better
-
@AviationPlus Good suggestions, esp. that TGP mask zone display.
If the real-life Viper has a mask zone display, that would be a godsend, especially for self-lasing.
-
@Snake122 I didn’t actually know it worked with Vorpx? Is it in full 3D? Is there a thread anywhere outlining how to get it to work?
-
@SOBO-87 again saying it works isn’t 100% accurate, I only get into the cockpit 20% of the time before the UI CTD and I may have had it make back into the UI after the flight maybe once it twice. But u get to see BMS in VR better than any of the other work arounds.
There was one user that reported stereoscopic 3D with Vorpx, but I’m more trying to get 1:1 heading with the more immersive view even without it. Plus Falcon has always had HUD depth in stereoscopic problems, but it is possible the switch to DX11 fixed that. If you into just stereoscopic and no headtracking, there is a working solution here that someone has reported working but requires 3rd party drivers for RTX30xx cards so I haven’t tried it.
Here’s a couple threads, the big BMS in VR
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/post/333662VORPX issues:
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/post/296586 -
First, there is a thought about air defense… In reality SAMs are combined into one system. The Falcon seems not to be. For example, two Patriot batteries can fire four missiles at the same target at the same time, which is a waste of missiles and not realistic. Or, for example, have two sa-17 batteries, your element fires eight AGM-88 at one, and the second battery won’t help the neighboring one shoot them down.
SAMs in fact only attack the missiles that target only them. That is, detecting a 12x JASSM, the S-300 will do nothing.
I would suggest networking them with some sort of command post, meaning they should know which jets are already under attack, and not waste missiles, and be able to help other batteries defend against ARMs. It would also be nice for SAMs to be able to shoot down all types of A-G missles, protecting infrastructure and troops. And if you destroy the command centers, the air defense will be disorganized.
Second, the AI Missions. I don’t understand why aircraft, after launching stand-off weapons, fly to the target instead of turn and flying back. That is why the flights get shot down, because after launching HARMs, they do not come back, but fly to the target, and other SAMs shoot them down. It is the same with attacking ships. And even more so when a stratagic bomber fires cruise missiles and flies to the target.
In my opinion, these two things made the game more realistic. Maybe I’m wrong, or maybe some of these things are difficult/impossible to make. Or no one just doesn’t want to take the time to do it. Devs will do what they want anyway.
-
@Kavelenko said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@drtbkj Thank you for the files, fixed the taxi/landing lights a treat. Where abouts is the hot spot for the Oxy Supply?
The AV-8B Harrier already had a few switches missing (green arrows) in the cockpit but now there’s another one missing in 4.36. (red arrow)
Hi, K. I concur that the Harrier pit can use some love. That’s we we’ve kind of been torn about putting the stock pit or the Hornet’s in. It’s somewhat a matter of there “being only so many hours in the day”.
In the meantime…
https://www.mediafire.com/file/5qjvs9l5y9p9c1y/BMS_Fighters_Manual_%25282%2529.pdf/file
and
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/98dz4uoku1g13/Hotspot+Visualizer
may help. -
@drtbkj Ah man please dont remove the Harrier cockpit, why cant the switches be added back?
-
@Kavelenko said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
@drtbkj Ah man please dont remove the Harrier cockpit, why cant the switches be added back?
They can, it’s just time consuming. The harrier pit is something we’d like to tweak at some point
-
My biggest wish for the next few BMS updates would be NO new features. Just for the next two updates or so, no new features and certainly no work on other aircraft. Just focus on perfecting the original F-16.
Also put the effort in reworking the GUI. Why can’t we have a decent GUI that works with modern monitors instead of the 1980 style GUI?
Along with the GUI a really good interface for assigning joystick, throttle, rudder and all switches. One that makes it easy to assign everything. And keeps all settings! I know there are other tools to do this. But why not build it into the simulator in the first place?
Once that all works flawless, then direct attention to other features.
-
@SN00PY said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:
Why can’t we have a decent GUI that works with modern monitors instead of the 1980 style GUI?
Because it is extremely difficult and long to rewrite everything in order to make it work with existing architecture.
Not impossible though … -
A camera with which, as a pilot, we can freely walk around the plane. Thus, the feeling of walking around the plane before the flight, like a pilot, making the final checks would be perfect.
-
@buraktunahan
Only if final check serve to something … such as finding/removing forgotten covers, tools on the nozzles that crew chief would not have seen during his own final check … etc …
If not, ppl will play with the feature during one week, then never again.So … would it worth the effort? … I am not sure (?)
-
It may seem silly but I would like to have a more explicit weather generator to allow the generation of weather cases on “demand” for TE buiding for example. In other words, allow to have a quick rendering of the weather in the 2D UI or via a simple external tool…