Future of Falcon BMS
-
For the dynamic campaign, its MicroProse you need to thank, but otherwise I agree.
Sure, that’s true. But without BMS, it would already been forgotten that such a great thing existed…
I wonder why nobody ever brought that up again- DID had one with EF-2000, and Microprose did have it with F4. But all of the newer titles rely on scripted missions. And on a large multiplayer base- which can be a good replacement for a dynamic campaign.
Generally, I think we will see a general move to the multiplayer side in the next years in all types of gaming/ simming. -
Ya I hear ya. Graphics were pretty primitive and blocky…
It was mind blowing in its day and for the hardware we had at the time. It pushed the envelope back then, as do top end sims to this day.I remember my first 3D (3DFX and D3D were fighting for dominance) sim, A10-Cuba! Eye candy finally started coming into its own…
regarding MP campaign engines as a trend in the future…
WHile I hope so, Im not seeing it: IL2-COD, IL2-BOS, ROF, DCS…
By the time the basic sim engine, single player, cockpit and graphics are done, typically MP is last to be developed. They have been better at getting stable MP code out before shipping, but MP Campaign engines I wonder if they will ever have the money before they have to release it on the public to in some unfinished state… then patches for a year or so and they are done. If its relatively decent sim (like IL2-COD), community developers can fix it up but never have I seen a major addition like a campaign engine. Again, I hope things change, but don’t see the evidence yet. -
Those Mavs have got the wrong serial no on them - cant catch me out
-
Ya I hear ya. Graphics were pretty primitive
A-10 Cuba primitive!?
…
That was primitive
… but still a revolution back on 1990!
-
I dont suppose BMS are considering putting some work on this - also from the makers of Falcon - with its own Hollywood movie
-
A-10 Cuba primitive!?
…
That was primitive
… but still a revolution back on 1990!
And we were overjoyed to have it back then, including messing around with finicky modems!
-
Ya I hear ya. Graphics were pretty primitive and blocky…
It was mind blowing in its day and for the hardware we had at the time. It pushed the envelope back then, as do top end sims to this day.I remember my first 3D (3DFX and D3D were fighting for dominance) sim, A10-Cuba! Eye candy finally started coming into its own…
http://www.jogosantigos.com.br/fotos/a/a10-0005.png
regarding MP campaign engines as a trend in the future…
WHile I hope so, Im not seeing it: IL2-COD, IL2-BOS, ROF, DCS…
By the time the basic sim engine, single player, cockpit and graphics are done, typically MP is last to be developed. They have been better at getting stable MP code out before shipping, but MP Campaign engines I wonder if they will ever have the money before they have to release it on the public to in some unfinished state… then patches for a year or so and they are done. If its relatively decent sim (like IL2-COD), community developers can fix it up but never have I seen a major addition like a campaign engine. Again, I hope things change, but don’t see the evidence yet.dynamic campaign has been added to il2 cod although it is still on heavy beta.
-
Fixed it for you. COD already has WW2 covered, or IL2/1946. What a bloody waste.
Mower don’t change what I write otherwise you’ll need to be demoted to FSX fanboy lol. My point with that video is to show how detailed and hard working the people at ED are as far their flight models are concerned and how similar both BMS and ED are in their goals to make the best combat flight sim. With EDGE it will make IMO it possible for a DC in DCS from what I’ve heard it will also allow maps to be placed together expanding the theatre. So perhaps a DC is possible for DCS in the near future and EDGE is possibly in the next patch.(1.3.0) For BMSs future I think they are expanding into carrierops with the F/A-18 so there might be a lot of work there for the devs to make BMS even more awesome. It would be cool if a DCS F-16 were released or made by someone as F-16s are quite awesome but from what I understand the F-86F, FW190D9, Hawk and Mig21 are set for release in the next few months. Maybe after EDGE is released we’ll hear more of the F/A-18C for DCS and it looks as though the DCS world maybe like Arma a bit as you might have WW2 mods, Cold war mods, Korea mod and Vietnam mod. What happened to that South African mod for Falcon?
-
What happened to that South African mod for Falcon?
Funny you mention that. I’ve been doing some research on the conflicts in Angola (been playing a game called Steel Armor Blaze of War with an Angola campaign) and it made me think of that unfinished Africa theater. Man, that was tragic. The author had posted up some screenshots on Freefalcon that were spectacular. He even offered it all up to whoever wanted to mod it but it was so much work to change the formats that I don’t think anybody took him up on his offer.
Anyway, I think it’s natural that any discussion of the future of BMS or DCS will lead to a comparison between the two because they’re really the only games left in town for the modern study-sim market. I certainly think it’s fine to feel one is better than the other; they both certainly have strengths and weaknesses. If I had to guess, I’d say that many of us wish that DCS had the best features of BMS (ie. dynamic campaign and F-16) or that BMS had the best features of DCS (improved graphics, multiple study-sim quality aircraft).
With respect to the future of BMS, I don’t know what to expect anymore. I will say that I’m astounded by the progress theater makers are making towards new, grraphically pleasing theaters with working campaigns. I didn’t think we’d ever figure it out to be honest. I feel confident that we’re going to see some new cockpits by Qawa in 4.33 (hopefully earlier!) that will allow non-hardcore folks like me the opportunity to fly their favorite jet in the Falcon universe. I feel sort of sure that we’re going to see a higher-quality-than-previously-seen F/A-18…no not a study-sim of it, but better than just a re-skinned F-16. I am hopeful but not sure that we will see database work to fix some of the flight model and simulation shortcomings.
I’m actually pretty ok with the graphics. I’d like to see the AI beefed up some and some of these new theaters come to fruition. Give me that and my Phantom and you know, I’m pretty much satisfied and the BMS devs can all take the rest of the year off.
-
Great to see Falcon continuing to evolve. Great work!
-
THe grafix in FBMS are good, not sure why some folks continue to say they are not. FSuX grafics are better but FPS are much worse. At least FBMS is coded to properly leverage the GPU, which FSuX is not.
-
THe grafix in FBMS are good, not sure why some folks continue to say they are not. FSuX grafics are better but FPS are much worse. At least FBMS is coded to properly leverage the GPU, which FSuX is not.
I agree. The graphics it self are great, I only wish for low poly models to become high poly in the future. One can dream
-
I agree. The graphics it self are great, I only wish for low poly models to become high poly in the future. One can dream
F-16s are getting overhauled, as well as many other models in 4.33 !
-
High poly is just no no for BMS.
Better (refined) models … but not High Poly which is FPS killer for nothing.
-
High poly is just no no for BMS.
Better (refined) models … but not High Poly which is FPS killer for nothing.
I think what he said was all relative compared to some 4.32 models (the current An-26 per example)
But high poly is not necessary for sure… what’s the poly limit for a combat aircraft in BMS btw ? -
I think what he said was all relative compared to some 4.32 models (the current An-26 per example)
But high poly is not necessary for sure… what’s the poly limit for a combat aircraft in BMS btw ?Quote from modeling organization topic.
Poly Count
Aircraft
For front line aircraft the upper limit is 30,000 triangles. Also note that the vertex count should be kept reasonable and where possible weld vertices and avoid breaking texture and smoothing groups.VehicleA limit of 4000 triangles is placed on ground vehicles. Exceptions may be made were a good case can be made for extra detail provided efficient use is made of LODs. Reduce the LOD progressively to a point where the 4th LOD is a very basic untextured simple representation of the overall shape.
Feature
Features should aim for fewer than 2000 triangles. Where this number isn’t needed don’t add unnecessary details, this isn’t a FPS.Weapons
Weapons should aim for 2K triangles. -
thanks!
-
THe grafix in FBMS are good, not sure why some folks continue to say they are not. FSuX grafics are better but FPS are much worse. At least FBMS is coded to properly leverage the GPU, which FSuX is not.
Mower - if you don’t mind my asking - do you use the stock Korea terrain, or any modified tiles? Just curious…
-
F-16s are getting overhauled, as well as many other models in 4.33 !
Now you got me really excited :woohoo:
-
THe grafix in FBMS are good, not sure why some folks continue to say they are not. FSuX grafics are better but FPS are much worse. At least FBMS is coded to properly leverage the GPU, which FSuX is not.
I can make FSX look like almost like a photograph with add ons and settings maxxed out, even over NYC in FSX. However it runs like a dog and I get OOM errors even with 3gb video and 32 gb system memory (my rig is no slouch). Imagine running a dynamic campaign like BMS on top of that. IMO stock FSX looks worse than BMS and you have to turn settings down to run most scenery add ons without errors (scenery manuals even tell you turn stuff down).