Why the Falcon 4 Engine needs help!
-
Just to make things clear (one more time) … let me kindly repeat that there is no plans nor intensions to deeply simulate F-35, F-16V and co. nor to externalize cockpit/avionics stuff. Maybe few goodies for F-18 or M2000 … (?) … but nothing comparable to current F-16 implementation. At least, not for the next 3 - 4 years.
Wants to fly F-35 … ? … better choose another sim.EDIT: BTW, about dual seaters a/c … as also said on other threads, there will be no two seater in MP. At least not before everybody has optical fiber with a VERY low ping internet connection.
Lets move on.
Yeah, That’s a mistake that i did, Because why would you want a f-35 just to fight against J-15’s?
"For 3 or 4 years"Exactly, Instead of making new f-16 implementations, we can get more and wider updates, like bugfixes or something.
And even if someone wants to put a f-35, Atleast you gotta make new enemy planes, Wich at the end, It’s better to do modern war theater instead of adding overkill warplanes into the Ol KTO.
About the avionics of the f-16v it could more eyecandy than detail(well, Until they say something or release something about their avionics) I mean for the lower mfd, I could be a menu, like a normal mfd.
So let’s be realistic, Many of the thing that i said maybe can be fake, But c’mon at least as i say it’s a constructive critic-ish but man! No one told nothing about the greet for the devs, A lot of people(not all) just download it and don’t even dare to the thanks them, I don’t know.Admins please close this if you want.
BTW: Someone could do a thread about what users can post about certain themes or topics, Because as i understand, A forum is a place to comment about themes related to something(in this case, To BMS).
-
Wait… the biggest problem with bms is that it doesn’t have an F-35? lmfao
Can we just stick to improving 80’s/90’s f-16 and campaign.
There are plenty of things left to do. Can the SAM operators behave more intelligently like in Allied Force? Can Buk and SA-10 shoot down HARMs and glide bombs? Why don’t people ask for these kinds of features… -
don’t appreciate anything lol. Sorry nothing against OP or anyone in particular. Go play legend of zelda on super nintendo, LIKE IT ACTUALLY WAS 1991, and stop being all suggesty , YOU HAVE A ****ING f-16, f-18, f-15 in your living room for what? a billionsoft 5.00$ trademark. eat the pie, stop looking into the neighbors windows.
In 1991, your flight sim was top gun on NES.
-
Wait… the biggest problem with bms is that it doesn’t have an F-35? lmfao
Can we just stick to improving 80’s/90’s f-16 and campaign.
There are plenty of things left to do. Can the SAM operators behave more intelligently like in Allied Force? Can Buk and SA-10 shoot down HARMs and glide bombs? Why don’t people ask for these kinds of features…+1
-
****ing kids don’t appreciate anything lol. Sorry nothing against OP or anyone in particular. Go play legend of zelda on super nintendo, LIKE IT ACTUALLY WAS 1991, and stop being all suggesty , YOU HAVE A ****ING f-16, f-18, f-15 in your living room for what? a billionsoft 5.00$ trademark. eat the pie, stop looking into the neighbors windows.
In 1991, your flight sim was top gun on NES.
LOL… The thing is that many people don’t understand that Falcon is actually an F-16 simulator, yes we do have some more planes available but still remains MAINLY an F-16 sim and thats why most of the systems are from F-16. People here, and im talking for the devs, took a 95-96% realistic sim and got it to 101% with improved graphics,mechanics,shaders, and more and more, but it still remains an F-16 Sim , a sim that even some real fighter pilots using around the world for training or for fun. Doesn’t this say something? To my perspective it would be wiser to fix bugs,add other options,enhance certain mechanics,move to a newer DX engine and then not import new fighters that no-one actually knows anything about them but try to make better models for the existing ones. I prefer more Eye-candy than see a new f-35 for example or whatever new aircraft exists out there. Community here is based on each individual that is active in this forum and contributed with the smallest thing or idea NOT to make a “fake” fm or system for a new fighter but to enhance the quality and what BMS has to offer us now…
-
I don’t think the threads with suggestions are a bad thing. There is often interesting information arising from arguments. But its just that these sort things are a little too often not suggestions but demands which must sound absurd and upsetting to those who develop stuff. As stated before, in case of Bms (more than any other sim) it is really useful to think of the whole project the same way as you would about a restoration of actual aircraft and sharing the result publicly. It’s still a game but think of it as restoration of an actual aircraft from a particular era with its systems and adversaries. Are you going to walk in on a bunch of guys digging through the insides of an f16 block 30 in a hangar and say “make ot different era,make it more, gimme” out of it? You know that they’d just shrug at best.
-
@Red:
all these pointless discussions we see nowadays on this very forum are a consequence of a lack of consistency from some parties involved
example
some BMS dev say they won’t implement F-35.
but some other dev post this:
https://i.imgur.com/r5dsIQA.jpgthrust vectoring…
you guys are inconsistentyou should have a clear internal dev strategy before confusing the poor users
same about the Molni / Mortesil debate in the other thread
and now the Arty / Molni same debateSome of you guys are inconsistent in your arguments
imhobeside, all these discussions are pointless
get on the stick rather than piloting the forum, especially on nonsense topicsHopefully your opinion on the matter doesn’t matter for the ones spending endless hours of their time because they like what they do
I do think that the end users have some brain cells and have perfectly understood that some BMS devs have decided to put efforts in the Su27 family
As far as I am concerned (and I am sure noeone matters) i won’t spend 1 minute on developing a f35 , just a personal taste
-
Wait… the biggest problem with bms is that it doesn’t have an F-35? lmfao
Can we just stick to improving 80’s/90’s f-16 and campaign.
There are plenty of things left to do. Can the SAM operators behave more intelligently like in Allied Force? Can Buk and SA-10 shoot down HARMs and glide bombs? Why don’t people ask for these kinds of features…I’m always pinpointing such missing general and global modeling features…
-
:munch: :munch: :munch:
:behindsofa:
-
About the avionics of the f-16v it could more eyecandy than detail
So let’s be realisticlol
-
There is a confusion between game engine and game core. Many things mentioned are not relating to the engine.
Biggest engine limitation in Falcon (and every flight sim I know of) is requirement for synchronous computation which limits performance. Future flight sims must allow asynchronous computation to exploit hardware properly. It’s harder to code but when simulation is not so “uptight” about exact order then processes can be distributed.
Second is variable level of detail modeling. In Falcon the biggest example is between “2D” and “3D” layers passing objects back and forth and the conversion process. Many idiosyncrasies of Falcon and games in general comes from the lossy transition between variable detail environments.
-
One thing which IS generally consistent, is answers from people like DJ stating things in those topics will never happen, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.
Hehe Me trully think that DJ is talking way too much trying to be informative (based on its own individual comprehension of the direction we are visibly taking inside the team) and should remains tight lips like many other devs, considering that BMS has no communication’s policies and no official voice. (Furthermore, I take the risks to have the legs broken by my own team mates lol).
So I guess that Red Dog got a good point here (I am not talking about the fact that thrust vectoring has nothings to deal with radar or avionics so to say) : Rather than giving from time to time few words about what is not to be expected since we can’t advertise on what is to be expected in the future because it is against BMS traditional common practice, I “should” better say nothing at all. At … all. Dam! He is so right after all! I mean … When people don’t like to be told what they don’t want to hear, the best is certainly to let them dream. Then after, good surprise, or less good surprise, after all, who really cares? It is free. There are no customers here.
Have a Falcon day gents.
-
This post is deleted! -
When 2-3 guys top became ppl and the general opinion of the BMS community? We have discussed this many times and I thought we had it straighten out.
Oh and DJ we officially consider you the Anker man of BMS team. [emoji38]
Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
I just want to fly the 16 in VR…. please? Pretty please?? Lol
-
LOL… The thing is that many people don’t understand that Falcon is actually an F-16 simulator, yes we do have some more planes available but still remains MAINLY an F-16 sim and thats why most of the systems are from F-16. People here, and im talking for the devs, took a 95-96% realistic sim and got it to 101% with improved graphics,mechanics,shaders, and more and more, but it still remains an F-16 Sim , a sim that even some real fighter pilots using around the world for training or for fun. Doesn’t this say something? To my perspective it would be wiser to fix bugs,add other options,enhance certain mechanics,move to a newer DX engine and then not import new fighters that no-one actually knows anything about them but try to make better models for the existing ones. I prefer more Eye-candy than see a new f-35 for example or whatever new aircraft exists out there. Community here is based on each individual that is active in this forum and contributed with the smallest thing or idea NOT to make a “fake” fm or system for a new fighter but to enhance the quality and what BMS has to offer us now…
This, I’m often too scared to reply with a comment saying “it’s an F-16 sim!!” because I don’t want to upset those that like to fly the Bug etc, but at the end of the day, it IS an F-16 sim. It would be cool if the team had all the resources to do what they’re doing AND make the other jets as realistic as the Viper currently is, but in reality they don’t. If you want to fly many planes, modelled averagely to good, go fly DCS. If you want a sim that models the F-16 VERY accurately, then stick to the king, BMS.
-
Hehe Me trully think that DJ is talking way too much trying to be informative (based on its own individual comprehension of the direction we are visibly taking inside the team) and should remains tight lips like many other devs, considering that BMS has no communication’s policies and no official voice. (Furthermore, I take the risks to have the legs broken by my own team mates lol).
So I guess that Red Dog got a good point here (I am not talking about the fact that thrust vectoring has nothings to deal with radar or avionics so to say) : Rather than giving from time to time few words about what is not to be expected since we can’t advertise on what is to be expected in the future because it is against BMS traditional common practice, I “should” better say nothing at all. At … all. Dam! He is so right after all! I mean … When people don’t like to be told what they don’t want to hear, the best is certainly to let them dream. Then after, good surprise, or less good surprise, after all, who really cares? It is free. There are no customers here.
Have a Falcon day gents.
Legs? So we have a leg breaker AND a neck breaker on the dev team?
-
Is there an actual roadmap of thing you devs are making or want to make for the next release?
I think you guys should stop answers to thread like this and create a single thread where you put all the WIP work and a “DEVS wishlist”.
This could even help you ease your work, i.e. you want a new detailed Osan air base, people can see it in your wishlist and can work to make it true and donate it.The message should be “You want something new on BMS? Good , work for it!”
-
Is there an actual roadmap of thing you devs are making or want to make for the next release?
I think you guys should stop answers to thread like this and create a single thread where you put all the WIP work and a “DEVS wishlist”.
Oh no, no. BMS is TOP SECRET SQUIRREL STUFF!!! No can do!!!
C9
-
Hehe Me trully think that DJ is talking way too much trying to be informative (based on its own individual comprehension of the direction we are visibly taking inside the team) and should remains tight lips like many other devs, considering that BMS has no communication’s policies and no official voice. (Furthermore, I take the risks to have the legs broken by my own team mates lol).
So I guess that Red Dog got a good point here (I am not talking about the fact that thrust vectoring has nothings to deal with radar or avionics so to say) : Rather than giving from time to time few words about what is not to be expected since we can’t advertise on what is to be expected in the future because it is against BMS traditional common practice, I “should” better say nothing at all. At … all. Dam! He is so right after all! I mean … When people don’t like to be told what they don’t want to hear, the best is certainly to let them dream. Then after, good surprise, or less good surprise, after all, who really cares? It is free. There are no customers here.
Have a Falcon day gents.
Amen mate.
As a moderator i must enforce the forum rules, and one of this rule is that BMS dev doesn’t talk or show pictures about ongoing development, and indeed my moderator feeling is that too many dev talk way too much in here.
It is tolerated somehow, but the added traffic we see lately is starting to get confusing because of lack of common strategy and this is exactly what i wanted to bring with my striking remark before it gets out of handI thank you for your understanding and i hope your usual friends will undertand as well