[BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team
-
@MCDeedle said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@MaxWaldorf Eh I only bring it up because it would add a lot of variety without needing to model a lot of complicated avionics and computer systems.
Wouldn’t it?
Hi, McDeedle. You need to keep in mind that in BMS is bound to the Viper avionics. So, what specifically are you seeking? You’re looking for real old school maybe try the A-10C without radar, TACAN, etc. If you specifically want WWII, then that’s an issue.
-
@drtbkj said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@MCDeedle said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@MaxWaldorf Eh I only bring it up because it would add a lot of variety without needing to model a lot of complicated avionics and computer systems.
Wouldn’t it?
Hi, McDeedle. You need to keep in mind that in BMS is bound to the Viper avionics. So, what specifically are you seeking? You’re looking for real old school maybe try the A-10C without radar, TACAN, etc. If you specifically want WWII, then that’s an issue.
this is false information !!
BMS is NOT bound to f16 avionics at all , best proof beeing the f15 that is currently under development with totally different avionics
-
@drtbkj
i think these two mfds say otherwise -
@Mav-jp said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@drtbkj said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@MCDeedle said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@MaxWaldorf Eh I only bring it up because it would add a lot of variety without needing to model a lot of complicated avionics and computer systems.
Wouldn’t it?
Hi, McDeedle. You need to keep in mind that in BMS is bound to the Viper avionics. So, what specifically are you seeking? You’re looking for real old school maybe try the A-10C without radar, TACAN, etc. If you specifically want WWII, then that’s an issue.
this is false information !!
BMS is NOT bound to f16 avionics at all , best proof beeing the f15 that is currently under development with totally different avionics
Well, when the Eagle comes out, and is refined, then I will happily amend that statement. .However, it’s a moot point. I was answering McDeedle , who asked about other, possibly specific to WWII, avionics. And, whether he used Viper or F-15 avionics, he still would not have the old-school/more austere avionics he asked about. So, with all due respect, my statement was not false. My hope remains that in the future that won’t be the case.
-
@drtbkj said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@Mav-jp said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@drtbkj said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@MCDeedle said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@MaxWaldorf Eh I only bring it up because it would add a lot of variety without needing to model a lot of complicated avionics and computer systems.
Wouldn’t it?
Hi, McDeedle. You need to keep in mind that in BMS is bound to the Viper avionics. So, what specifically are you seeking? You’re looking for real old school maybe try the A-10C without radar, TACAN, etc. If you specifically want WWII, then that’s an issue.
this is false information !!
BMS is NOT bound to f16 avionics at all , best proof beeing the f15 that is currently under development with totally different avionics
Well, when the Eagle comes out, and is refined, then I will happily amend that statement. .However, it’s a moot point. I was answering McDeedle , who asked about other, possibly specific to WWII, avionics. And, whether he used Viper or F-15 avionics, he still would not have the old-school/more austere avionics he asked about. So, with all due respect, my statement was not false. My hope remains that in the future that won’t be the case.
BMs team can implement whatever avionics and system they want.
The day BMs wants to implement a ww2 plane there will be no issue to implement all systems related
Your statement is not valid , period
-
@drtbkj as mav said, its just a matter of interest and time, anything is possible with the advent of the f15c
-
@Mav-jp Interesting it is. But I fly Falcon BMS mainly becouse i love the Falcon. Not the Eagle, even if that is a machine i admire. Perhaps the developers are in the wrong course when they prefere to use time on the Eagle instead of developing F16 to its up to date standards, and forget Link16 and further looking into the new era of F16V and Block 70/72. In Nordic Theater i defend Norway together with the Finnish and Swedish Air Force, and we have been cooperating with Link16 in many years in RL. Exept in BMS. My sugestion is to stick to the Viper, and let others find another suitable simulators they can fly if they prefere anothers planes. But they will regret, the dynamic scenarios in BMS is so good that every serious Pilot will sooner ore later seek back
-
@Killroy I dont think we as users are in a position to lecture the devs on the direction they are taking. I for one am incredibley excited for the F15.
I would imagine that development of more modern systems for the F16 are still heavily classified and if implemented would be mostly ‘guessing’
-
@1508AD said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@Killroy I dont think we as users are in a position to lecture the devs on the direction they are taking. I for one am incredibley excited for the F15.
I think we as users are certainly entitled to have an opinion, and voice that opinion, about the relatively recent re-direction of the Falcon F-16 simulator, and I 100% completely agree with Killroy, as I’ve made more than one earlier posts about precisely what his concerns are. In line with his rationale, every minute spent on developing the Falcon F-15 simulator is one minute spent away of improving and refining the F-16 and other aspects of this F-16 simulator. Further, there is not a doubt in my mind that 4.37.3 would have been released many weeks ago if not for this preoccupation with the F-15 coding.
The fact that you are “incredibly excited for the F-15” goes a long way to explaining you wagging your finger at Killroy for daring to voice his opinion. Believe it or not, there are many users who remain loyal to the original premise of this amazing Falcon story, and are not that interested in developing some other plane in this Falcon F-16 simulator.
-
Yes of course entitled to an opinion as am I.
If the Devs wish to focus on VR or the F15 or a spaceship then that is their perogitive. It is not my free time nor is it a paid product. We are all free to apply to join the team and commit time to the product or create our own.
The original product released in 1998 from memory so the original premise would be a Falcon consitent with with this general time period which i believe relatively is what we have here today.
Thanks for the reply
-
There are so many aspects of the BMS sim :
Campaign, ground objects, ground/sea vehicles.
Graphics & newest things to add to the realism.And above all, the F-16.
All those should get 1st priority and should get updated, enhanced to aim of prefection.
Other aircrafts then the F-16 should be a separated from BMS DEV team and should be created by “private” pepole.
U3 could have being out long ago and with more features & updated.
This F-15 is taking to much energy from the DEV guys and delays other important things.Again, kudos to those great DEV team, but we can also share our thoughts.
-
@regev said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
Other aircrafts then the F-16 should be a separated from BMS DEV team and should be created by “private” pepole.
How does that happen without the BMS devs coding for it?
Why not have a prototype that “private” people can build from, that shows a fully fleshed-out example of independent avionics in action? Wild example, off the top of my head: F-15C.
-
so… instead of saying “what is best thing to do for us” why don’t you create an alternative team for the “infinitely” implementation of the F16 ? … goodluck
look here, and think about what most of us have done for this sim and for the Falcon community for almost 20 years:
https://sites.google.com/site/falcon4history/home
… we can share our thoughts right ?
-
The link 16 and the Viper model of the F-16 have been discussed many times in this forum. The devs have already made it clear that until proper documentation for them is publicly available, they are not going to be implemented based on guesswork and magic. It is not a matter of interest.
-
@SoBad said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@1508AD said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@Killroy I dont think we as users are in a position to lecture the devs on the direction they are taking. I for one am incredibley excited for the F15.
I think we as users are certainly entitled to have an opinion, and voice that opinion, about the relatively recent re-direction of the Falcon F-16 simulator, and I 100% completely agree with Killroy, as I’ve made more than one earlier posts about precisely what his concerns are. In line with his rationale, every minute spent on developing the Falcon F-15 simulator is one minute spent away of improving and refining the F-16 and other aspects of this F-16 simulator. Further, there is not a doubt in my mind that 4.37.3 would have been released many weeks ago if not for this preoccupation with the F-15 coding.
The fact that you are “incredibly excited for the F-15” goes a long way to explaining you wagging your finger at Killroy for daring to voice his opinion. Believe it or not, there are many users who remain loyal to the original premise of this amazing Falcon story, and are not that interested in developing some other plane in this Falcon F-16 simulator.
So many wrong assumptions again
The fact that you write Falcon F16 simulator in bold reveals a bias in your falcon series history.
Remember falcon 3.0 MIG 29 module ? Why do you think our glorious dev ancestors have done a mig29 in falcon series ?Because PvP is a very important part of the game and BMS is meant to die if we don’t offer multi platform to play with in MP. It would die by lack of users and it would die by lack of developers.
————
You are convinced that f15 has slowed down U3 ?
Two answers-U3 wouldn’t even exist if we didn’t develop the F15 , see the paradox ?
- yesterday RC was delayed because of one ATC bug , one potential anti ice bug and one lighting flickering bug. That does not sound F15 issues to me
After all those years (> 20 years ) you should trust us better
-
@Mav-jp said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
You are convinced that f15 has slowed down U3 ?
Two answers-U3 wouldn’t even exist if we didn’t develop the F15 , see the paradox ?
- yesterday RC was delayed because of one ATC bug , one potential anti ice bug and one lighting flickering bug. That does not sound F15 issues to me
After all those years (> 20 years ) you should trust us better
According to info in this subject, the F-15 in U3 will not be a “finished work” and it will be a WIP in next updates.
So make it a separate process and release it when it will be finished.And about the not related bugs you mentioned, you could have fixed them earlier -
-
@regev said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@Mav-jp said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
You are convinced that f15 has slowed down U3 ?
Two answers-U3 wouldn’t even exist if we didn’t develop the F15 , see the paradox ?
- yesterday RC was delayed because of one ATC bug , one potential anti ice bug and one lighting flickering bug. That does not sound F15 issues to me
After all those years (> 20 years ) you should trust us better
According to info in this subject, the F-15 in U3 will not be a “finished work” and it will be a WIP in next updates.
So make it a separate process and release it when it will be finished.And about the not related bugs you mentioned, you could have fixed them earlier -
Again you don’t know what you are talking about . You really believe we develop things in series and not in parallel ? You really believe that the same devs develop f15 and other sims aspects ?
Let me repeat though : no F15 -> no U3. You would have to wait for 4.38
I have a good answers for you guys that complain that F15 is slowing down BMS dev
Just don’t wait for U3 , don’t download U3 and wait for 4.38
-
Guys, as I wrote some avionics in the past (Well, most of it was very long ago but still), let me tell you a couple of things, more from a Falconeer POV but using my Dev knowledge.
The F-16 is still and probably always will be the #1 platform for us. All small fixes/changes/upgrades we are giving it through the years, those aren’t obvious and I think we are already at a point where we have some saturation with the avionics potential. I mean, how far we can still go to make it better.
The most “urgent” areas we need to upgrade at some point are probably:
- Link-16 - That will happen at some point, not sure when or how exactly though
- GBU-24 and CCRP upgrades
Other than that there are many MANY other tiny fixes and changes and updates and what not that can be done. F-16 is an endless story and always will be. And we will keep upgrading it probably for as long as BMS exist.
The focus on other platforms is a bless for BMS, so many people are excited for the potential, so many are excited about the option to fly a different platform with serious avionics, even if for now it’s “just” the F-15C. It’s a huge thing and the potential is even more of a big story here.
If you think that development of the F-15C takes dev time from the F-16 then you simply don’t understand how things work. It’s TOTALLY not related. People who work on the F-15, they wouldn’t necessarily work on the F-16 avionics if the F-15 didn’t exist. It doesn’t work that way.
And last, my personal POV, During 4.33 I spent 100% of my dev time upgrading F-16 systems, mainly A-G related (SPI, Sniper, IAMs, Mavericks, MITL, Harpoon, Mark points and probably some others I already forgot), since 4.33 I’m mostly focused on Graphics, the new Terrain engine, and other related stuff, but no more F-16 avioncs (almost none, I did some tiny stuff here and there). Do you think I should drop Graphics and focus on F-16 systems? BMS as a flight sim is a whole package, and if devs decided to focus at one area over the other right now, then it means they have passion for that now and they think it’s more important.
-
@I-Hawk said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
Guys, as I wrote some avionics in the past (Well, most of it was very long ago but still), let me tell you a couple of things, more from a Falconeer POV but using my Dev knowledge.
The F-16 is still and probably always will be the #1 platform for us. All small fixes/changes/upgrades we are giving it through the years, those aren’t obvious and I think we are already at a point where we have some saturation with the avionics potential. I mean, how far we can still go to make it better.
The most “urgent” areas we need to upgrade at some point are probably:
- Link-16 - That will happen at some point, not sure when or how exactly though
- GBU-24 and CCRP upgrades
Other than that there are many MANY other tiny fixes and changes and updates and what not that can be done. F-16 is an endless story and always will be. And we will keep upgrading it probably for as long as BMS exist.
The focus on other platforms is a bless for BMS, so many people are excited for the potential, so many are excited about the option to fly a different platform with serious avionics, even if for now it’s “just” the F-15C. It’s a huge thing and the potential is even more of a big story here.
If you think that development of the F-15C takes dev time from the F-16 then you simply don’t understand how things work. It’s TOTALLY not related. People who work on the F-15, they wouldn’t necessarily work on the F-16 avionics if the F-15 didn’t exist. It doesn’t work that way.
And last, my personal POV, During 4.33 I spent 100% of my dev time upgrading F-16 systems, mainly A-G related (SPI, Sniper, IAMs, Mavericks, MITL, Harpoon, Mark points and probably some others I already forgot), since 4.33 I’m mostly focused on Graphics, the new Terrain engine, and other related stuff, but no more F-16 avioncs (almost none, I did some tiny stuff here and there). Do you think I should drop Graphics and focus on F-16 systems? BMS as a flight sim is a whole package, and if devs decided to focus at one area over the other right now, then it means they have passion for that now and they think it’s more important.
Not to mention the #1 principle of BMS dev team : each dev is free to work on the project he wishes
If at some point no devs are interested in the f16 anymore that would stop any f16 development
After 20 years of experience I can tell you that the development is by phases , when one aspect of the sim goes too far this creates a desequilibrium in the game and we need to catch up quickly
We are in the phase where GFX , Terrain and new aircrafts need a push
-
@regev said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
@Mav-jp said in [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team:
You are convinced that f15 has slowed down U3 ?
Two answers-U3 wouldn’t even exist if we didn’t develop the F15 , see the paradox ?
- yesterday RC was delayed because of one ATC bug , one potential anti ice bug and one lighting flickering bug. That does not sound F15 issues to me
After all those years (> 20 years ) you should trust us better
According to info in this subject, the F-15 in U3 will not be a “finished work” and it will be a WIP in next updates.
So make it a separate process and release it when it will be finished.And about the not related bugs you mentioned, you could have fixed them earlier -
It’s even more interesting , the fact we push the F15 for U3 give time for other devs to push some of the 4.38 features in u3. So at the end YOU will benefit from early access on some 4.38 features thanks to F15