Would you consent to send information to BMS server?
-
Following the discussion in this thread: https://forum.falcon-bms.com/topic/23482/who-is-falcon-bms-loosing-popularity/17
I have a question for you: would you consent to send the following information to BMS server?
My proposal would be to add something like this to our installer:
Do you agree to send the following information to BMS Server on Start up? Notice we also will have the region implicitly due to IP geocoding.
- CPU model
- Gfx card
- Memory
- VR set if any.
- Controller
- BMS version.
YES
NO <- default checked
This would set a variable in your BMS config file, which Falcon would read and send this information to our server. The reasons for collecting this:
- Popularity: we want to understand our user base: do new people try it after a new version? Which version caused an increase or decrease in users? When people play? Do we have a significant user base which are not present in this forum?
- What is the average, or 90th percentile of user hardware? This is crucial for taking decisions about new (costly) features.
- how many VR users, which VR sets are popular.
- what kind of controller do people play with? Should we support more features?
The reason I am asking this is to get an idea of how you would react. If it is viewed as negative by the community, I will not even waste time coding it. But if people think it’s a good idea, I will go for it.
-
@Seifer As I mentioned in the other thread I think this is a great idea.
-
I agree completly with this idea. It is a very important tool to help the devs to delivery a better product.
And I don’t believe privacy is an issue here (for me at least) because BMS is not a company interested in profits. This is a HUGE difference.
We are a community and if BMS is made for us, I just see as natural to help the devs to do something that fits better to what the community needs, and the only way to know is through a tool like this.
IMHO fo course.
cheers -
Personally have no problem with it, but feel it would need to be like “most” other software does it.
Optional checkbox to provide non-personally identifying information to be shared.
Or ask users to participate in an online hardware survey that links to the site.Otherwise you run the risk of people claiming BMS is stealing personal data etc…
-
@Seifer Maybe crash-logs too? But more redacted than they are today… no user-names or environment-vars.
Just the stack-frame location of the crash, and key context like what TE/camp or SP vs MP etc. (combined with the system specs above)
I think there are some free/open software libraries for collecting crash logs, bucketizing them and show you a dashboard of top crash locations… and how/if it aligns statistically with other fields like OS version or GPU etc.
Not sure which work best for Win32/C++ so I don’t have a concrete recommendation… Just a thought.
(altho crashes seem under control lately so this suggestion would’ve been more helpful maybe 2 years ago. :P)
-
@Seifer I do open Falcon BMS sometimes to do planning in 2D with my controllers plugged (and I assume some might do the same to create TEs/Packages).
I hope this won’t skew the results - maybe phoning home at the point of going into 3D might be more representative.
-
The only reason I would want this is to influence the support of VR. However…
Gathering information on VR kit, in an effort to gauge if it is popular enough to proceed would be… problematic.
My VR headset (and I assume most VR users headseats) are (obviously) not plugged in unless playing a VR game.
Thus - you would be getting false (depreciated) data on the number of VR users until BMS was ALREADY a VR-supported platform; thus prompting one to plug in the set which would then be detected.
I mean - you could not use this feedback to decide on how popular VR is (and whether to support it) until you ALREADY had VR (which would prompt me to fire up my headset).
If VR was going to be supported anyway, then - I would participate. However - this is the last thing I would want if it would (falsely) indicate that nobody is using VR simply because nobody plugs in their VR (because BMS is NOT a VR game), thus having my ping DIMINISH the probability of VR support…!
Hee hee…
-
I don’t think you have to worry about that. It has been publicly stated many times that the team is working hard to bring VR compatibility to BMS.
-
I’m not sure but all this is in my signature… and more!
-
@Aragorn
so… hiding VR in a closet? … draws a question of other type of equipment is found there
…jokes aside, I don’t have any opinion 'bout phone-home, since 90% of software I run already raises outgoing fw alert (and getting silenced)
…but since you asked nicely … have my vote therep.s. Just don’t want to be accused of not wanting to learn how to land in near future
Cheers
-
@Aragorn said in Would you consent to send information to BMS server?:
The only reason I would want this is to influence the support of VR. However…
Gathering information on VR kit, in an effort to gauge if it is popular enough to proceed would be… problematic.
My VR headset (and I assume most VR users headseats) are (obviously) not plugged in unless playing a VR game.
Thus - you would be getting false (depreciated) data on the number of VR users until BMS was ALREADY a VR-supported platform; thus prompting one to plug in the set which would then be detected.
I mean - you could not use this feedback to decide on how popular VR is (and whether to support it) until you ALREADY had VR (which would prompt me to fire up my headset).
If VR was going to be supported anyway, then - I would participate. However - this is the last thing Iwould want if it would (falsely) indicate that nobody is using VR simply because nobody plugs in their VR (because BMS is NOT a VR game), thus having my ping DIMINISH the probability of VR support…!
Hee hee…
This exactly. Add another layer to it even, my Oculus Quest 2 is my “daily driver” that stays plugged in so it stays charged, but my sim headset is the Pimax that only gets plugged in for simulator stuff. Most starts with BMS would say Quest 2 when I would prefer much more to run the Pimax in BMS.
-
@Seifer I agree to all, however, as mentioned, maybe VR and controllers should be a manually-selected option and perhaps even have a Primary and Secondary entry. CPU/GPU/RAM can be pulled automatically.
Perhaps also have it so that it only sends info every 30 or 90 days. Surely there is no need to update this info on a daily basis.
How would this work for people who use VPNs though?
I only back this 100% if used for dev support and guidance of upcoming feature development, NOT FOR GAUGING POPULARITY or any other pissing contest. Having said that, getting a monthly/quarterly update of the number of users who have started up BMS at least once in that timeframe would be cool. As this number would fluctuate based on a number of factors and would not indicate the total number of BMS players nor the frequency of their activity (has someone flown BMS weekly over that quarter or just once?), then it’s not really a useful metric aside from just looking cool
I fly the TBM and CL 650 in XP11 and I have to manually “check in” to update the license every so often so I just view this as something similar, and if automated, less bothersome.
-
Finally you got your answer @Seifer. There are 50 active users including 2 who don’t want to say they are .
-
I’m saying: Go for it; good idea, but leave VR out of the equation and please move ahead with development of VR, being confident that the VR community do fly other sims because of VR.
I’m also saying: Watch me…! I can use “VR” four times in a single sentence.
Ara’
-
@Aragorn said in Would you consent to send information to BMS server?:
I’m saying: Go for it; good idea, but leave VR out of the equation and please move ahead with development of VR, being confident that the VR community do fly other sims because of VR.
I’m also saying: Watch me…! I can use “VR” four times in a single sentence.
Ara’
Impressive VR usage there… but I agree, I think maybe having a drop down box in the launcher where you can let the devs know what VR headset you use might be good, so they know if their users are more OpenXR, SteamVR or Oculus based would be good?
-
@Seifer My vote would be for uploading my system specs optionaly on installation. I start up BMS quite regularly and my hardware doesn’t change often enough to make every startup send this info.
Dave -
@DaveB said in Would you consent to send information to BMS server?:
@Seifer My vote would be for uploading my system specs optionaly on installation. I start up BMS quite regularly and my hardware doesn’t change often enough to make every startup send this info.
DaveMight not just be about the system specs of users but also of the number of users and the ebb and flow of the actively flying members. How that info may be useful may not necessarily be obvious but I can think of a few instances.
-
Yeah, runtime maybe important. Previously, the BMS EULA has both SteamVR and Oculus in it. I’ve played zero OpenXR games, not sure if it’s worth it for them to go down that road if they already have code for the other two. Seems like those two would cover the bases of all the headsets (even Oculus you can run in just SteamVR if you need too). I think the HP Reverb is most happy in OpenXR but can be ran with SteamVR too.
Already spent 30 minutes with my VR workout today with the Quest 2, but now I want to fire up the Pimax and torture myself with UI crashes to get into VORPXed BMS today
EDIT: that was fun while it lasted, got one VORPXed match dogfight mode in (BFM is where the 1:1 headtracking shines) and CTD on reentry to UI after the match. Also dropped a single CBU-105 in Instant Action and then CTD on reentry to UI. Started to get UI CTDs too before entry and gave it up for the day. But it gives a taste of what it could be!
-
How about getting some sales numbers from Tommo over time? That would show what the influx of players is like. Like around a new release, around the introduction of VR, new terrain etc. Would obviously not show if or how players use BMS but could still be interesting
-
@Atlas Maybe a simple runtime headcount as well?