BMS 4.33 question
-
main forum page…
-
Ahhhhh…. same old sh!t just a different day.
-
-
Two seater with full a/c control and shared gauges/MFDs, it has been already discussed internally.
Answer is: No, not gonna happen. Common bandwidth will not allow this. First limitation is Internet BW.Maybe something to be discussed again in several years when “everybody in the world” will have the optical fibre at home. (?)
-
Even better: What if there actually never was anymore 4.33 threads?
I think it would be good to only have 4.33 threads.
-
I think it would be good to only have 4.33 threads.
Aye!
I’d simply prefer one or the other.
-
thanks guys for answering my questions, didnt think i would get this many replies O_o
-
thanks guys for answering my questions, didnt think i would get this many replies O_o
You said the magic word , 4.33 , that’s why !
-
Two seater with full a/c control and shared gauges/MFDs, it has been already discussed internally.
Answer is: No, not gonna happen. Common bandwidth will not allow this. First limitation is Internet BW.Maybe something to be discussed again in several years when “everybody in the world” will have the optical fibre at home. (?)
its already done mate. bandwidth was not a limitation.
Only problem is control of the aircraft cannot be switched between seats correctly.
Pretty sure you commented in the thread about it, too…
using top gun views on the nearest friendly aircraft, and host/client settings on lightnings MFD extractor.
You said the magic word , 4.33 , that’s why !
Hmm. I wonder if prefacing every thread title with [4.33 question] would increase forum traffic.
[4.33 question] Can 2 seaters be flown in BMS 4.32?
[4.33 question] How to steer on the ground?
[4.33 question] long time lurker saying hi!in exemplar.
-
:munch:
-
-
Just the possibilty that i could have a “passenger” on my jet would be a cool feature IMO. I imagine a second pc, equipped with a Oculus Rift, hooked up on the flight pc’s network. Just sitting in the back during a mission would be a great experience for non-flyers.
Edit: thinking about it i see some other capabilities connected, e.g. observer station at KOTAR, tower crew checking ground ops ….
-
Two seater with full a/c control and shared gauges/MFDs, it has been already discussed internally.
Answer is: No, not gonna happen. Common bandwidth will not allow this. First limitation is Internet BW.Not want to continue the conversation regarding this feature, nor comment to the thread, but to just add that if not tested in practice you cannot safely support bandwidth limitations with specific data upload/download numbers.
-
hey guys been playing for awhile now and I was wondering if there was any update on the new 4.33 and I also had another question
would it be possible to fly two pilots per aircraft(two seaters)? I know you cant do that now but would it be possible in anyway on a future patch, if you guys have to teach me to code i seriously might take it up
“Time available to a developer” = “Time to develop” + “Time for explanations of development”
That means:
“Time to develop” = “Time available to a developer” - “Time to give explanations of development”A balance is important, but too much explanation implies slower development. Especially when some explanations have been given again and again.
My admiration, respect and full confidence in the team Benchmarksims, which time and again shown its seriousness and passion for this project.Patience
-
its already done mate. bandwidth was not a limitation.
Only problem is control of the aircraft cannot be switched between seats correctly.
…
Ok … bandwidth wasn’t maybe the right explanation. The question asked was about a real WSO or backseat feature (shared cockpit) not just using a tweak to have a copy of the pilot front view.
Anyway …
_OK, hold your horses.
Back seat/Front Seat co-op is really hard and probably not worth even trying. Two people having the same seat in the front with the same degree of control (as in seeing radar and being able to flip switches and provide control inputs etc.) ALSO really hard and probably not worth trying
…_
View - Doable, already was there by accident.
I’d say doable. Stretch goal might be to have a rudimentary cockpit structure for the view (non-functional switches and indicators) and a very basic HUD view (think like ACMI but perhaps we could get airspeed/altitude readings there at least…forget gun sights and more sophisticated weps stuff though).
Cockpit switches and controls - Doable via MP messages?? just curious, if we build a family of such messages that will be shared only when the WSO is operating something, it won’t be that big of load, no?
Latency alone not to mention variability thereof will kick your *ss if you try this. MHO it’s too much work for a result that will be disappointing and the ultimate bug generator.
Displays and avionics - Here I have no idea really if stuff is really “sharable”, I mean things like radar cursors, locks, SPI, Maverick missiles, TGP and on and on… many things which are player’s dedicated.
_BWAHAHAHAHAHA. I mean: In Falcon4, NWF. Seriously.
If I really wanted to do this I’d start over and make a new game that’s designed around 2 player, or maybe 4 player setups at the outside, and probably forget the dynamic campaign.
… and it would be LAN-only game too!
Regarding FPM: that may be trickier…I don’t think we get all the data required for remote entities (alpha/beta in particular come to mind) … and again, latency might be an issue (deceptive/laggy)._
…
So whatever you might think my friend Blue3wolf … on our side, we will not put the finger into this (yet) as you might have understood.
Now you know our POV, feel free to debate (in the air) together if you want.
-
@Joe:
“Time available to a developer” = “Time to develop” + “Time for explanations of development”
That means:
“Time to develop” = “Time available to a developer” - “Time to give explanations of development”A balance is important, but too much explanation implies slower development. Especially when some explanations have been given again and again.
My admiration, respect and full confidence in the team Benchmarksims, which time and again shown its seriousness and passion for this project.Patience
Time for explanations of development = 0
Great post but ……
-