New features expected in next release
-
In a simulator modeling the aircraft and its dynamics is one of the most important thing of making it feel like the real thing, but don’t forget that fancy graphics makes it look like the real thing.
Simulation is all about the feel and the look.
Agreed but UI seriously ?
-
Hi, if you know coding I suggest you to start building some tool which can be useful to the sim, just pick something that will be helpful and go for it.
Database manipulation… we have a thread started on it some guy was supposed to work on it but long time no see…
-
Agreed but UI seriously ?
yes in many cases it’s needed… Now WDP and MC are on the correct track to eliminate those needs… still for newcomers the UI is a pita…
Not to mention that those wonderful tools should be integrated in the UI…
And on the bottom line they are UI replacements…
-
Or you could set it to borderless windowed and then it would do neither of those things…
Would that be worthwhile you reckon?
Can you actually do that? I’d love to run windowed 2D and fullscreen 3D Falcon.
I’ve heard a lot of hints about 4.33 that sounded too good to be true so I’m just going to let it be a surprise instead of disappointed it wasn’t the Second Coming of Jesus.
-
Can you actually do that? I’d love to run windowed 2D and fullscreen 3D Falcon.
Well I have been for quite some time now… happened automatically when I turned on cockpit display extraction.
-
Windowed is OK, but made video capture impossible for me. Again, it’s not some kind of deal-breaker, but why hate on people who would like to see UI or usability improved?
-
Can you actually do that? I’d love to run windowed 2D and fullscreen 3D Falcon.
I’ve heard a lot of hints about 4.33 that sounded too good to be true so I’m just going to let it be a surprise instead of disappointed it wasn’t the Second Coming of Jesus.
That would be the third actually , first beeing 4.0 , second 4.32
dont get too excited 4.33 is just 4.32 polishing
-
Who said anything about hating?
You wanna play the victim game, go for it.
You asked for how to do something, you got an answer on how to do it.
You asked whether modifying the UI would be worthwhile effort - if it came at the cost of (for example) any avionics feature… then no.
-
Maybe the sarcastic tone of your reply was unintentionally rude. Maybe the original post about people wanting UI improvements was also unintentionally dismissive. I didn’t ask for help, I provided some rationale for the UI upgrade requests. No point pushing this thread further off topic, I’ll back off.
-
Agreed but UI seriously ?
UI, couldn’t care less, actually wouldn’t mind to have a good UI just for theater and mission briefing and the rest just console input. I quoted roccio as he was saying that ppl were expecting a new graphics engine or would like one that’s why I said that it actually matters some decent graphics in simulation. But I would never sacrifice realism features and flight modeling for better graphics.
-
The reply was in jest, was that not obvious, Sorry if I mislead you.
PS: What ever 4.33 brings I personally will very happy with.
Oh… I thought it was serious. Sometimes it might be difficult to distinguish what is joke what is not for non-native English speakers.
-
Oh… I thought it was serious. Sometimes it might be difficult to distinguish what is joke what is not for non-native English speakers.
Dont worry, it was almost as funny as the 3 to 4 weeks joke…
-
I am still adtonished to read people asking for HD ui….who gives a shit seriously ?
Anyone that has a monitor manufactured from 1994 and beyond. Time to upgrade Mav, time to upgrade.
On a side note, I’ve been attempting to hex edit / assembly injection to unlock the hard-coded RTT resolution (initialized early in the code on launch)
You can easily set the UI to 1920x1080 (or any other supported res) by hex editing the dsp file, but this won’t fix the render size/viewpoint for resources. Ironically if you move a button outside 1024x768 it can still be clicked, but it wont be visible since it’s outside the hardcoded viewport.
-
Agreed but UI seriously ?
Perhaps the crown has not yet understood why UI is difficult to be touched, that’s why so often requests. But it is a logical reaction if most consider the lift-up of a simple UI screen a simple thing to do on this title-upgrade process.
-
Perhaps the crown has not yet understood why UI is difficult to be touched, that’s why so often requests. But it is a logical reaction if most consider the lift-up of a simple UI screen a simple thing to do on this title-upgrade process.
Well, I understand very well why it’s not touched.
I completely re-skinned (and re-worked in some areas) the entire BMS UI from the MAIN UI screen to the most obscure dialog box. 3 months every day, at least 3-6 hours day. (see Falcon Online Redflag UI / Falcon Online Battle for Balkans UI)
It’s a tedious and very exact job as everything needs to be pixel aligned, and there are many work-arounds that were implemented by BMS in order to get the results we see today, so you need to know what going on before being able to modify anything.
That being said, I was in contact with Ninja over a year ago requesting permission to assist with UI development, or at the very least a user defined RTT value for the UI initialization. Since our first contact no more has come from this.
I’ve been through the SP code in this area for like what seems forever now, and it’s not really a good candidate for reverse engineering as back then “Hi-Res” strategy was implemented which was forced from cfg/commandline. As this option is depreciated (UI now by default at 1024x768) all that would be required from the BMS dev team is a user programmable viewport size for the UI display. I’m unaware if there are any other hardcoded dependencies (as I don’t have the BMS source) but logically speaking if I can force the UI and get click responses outside 1024x768, then it would seem logical that the edit(s) would be trivial. Of course theoretically speaking, as I’m no C++ guru.
The tedious work of refactoring (or possibly interpolating via script) could at least begin and new resources could be added in.
-
Guys, a totally new UI is needed in order to get out of the 1024x768 limits. That not happened yet mainly because it’s low priority compared to other stuff, that’s all.
-
Waiting patiently, without UI screens, give me just the buttons and it’s ok.
Regards
-
Guys, a totally new UI is needed in order to get out of the 1024x768 limits. That not happened yet mainly because it’s low priority compared to other stuff, that’s all.
Sure we all understand this. The focus and the core heart is elsewhere we all understand and respect that. No one says stop everything and focus on the UI. But BMS advanced so in many areas and some where left way behind. We are ok with the UI replacements. Maybe a one package install including Falcas apps and reference or better integration in the BMS manual would be more appropriate.
Also comparing Falcas apps features to Falcon UI a few remain… But sure is a hell merging or implementing or whatever.
Finally merging Falcas apps would also be better for user experience like one app for all instead of two, but this is also a minor… and am sure u already know that as the rest. -
Yes Arty I must agree with you, but I also must agree that this is a huge PITA to replace the UI, a lot of work and it’s connected to everything. Believe me I would be the first one to throw babies in the air for a new UI, you know what a PITA it is to add/modify in the code/data even a small drop box with the current one? :mrgreen:
-
I can live with current UI. I provides the necessary functionality. My only issue is distorsion what I cannot solve…