What's up with those rumors

[Planehazza]

@chihirobelmo:

well, the rumor is just a rumor…but I hope more active BMS user if 4.35 brought new terrain engine.

BTW, Reading the original Reddit post:

This is really true.
I can’t count how many times I read “I am away from BMS because of VR” from so many different persons at Hoggit.

I might even be so bold as to say that they’re not serious simmers if they’re willing to overlook all the extremely accurate and detailed features of BMS simply because it doesn’t have VR support.

[lazystone]

@I-Hawk:

I just did a measurement and I can confirm that Falcon “world size” is fine. I mean that the distance from 1 point to another measured by the F-16 speed in the sim is same as real world distance. So the “problem” of sense of speed isn’t that.

Hell, checking again now I’m even sure if we have a problem at all… 1 thing I can see though, there is a real difference even between 100 and 400 feet AGL, I mean 100 feet feels MUCH faster.
I guess this point of sense of speed will need to get public feedback when the time comes, for me it’s hard to judge.

We have seen many differently terrains in the history of this sim,
and regardless how high the mountains or how deep the valleys are in RL,
insim it always felt like flying through a tiny valley.

In conclusion I (still) think there is anything to huge in size,
and it has been that way from the very first Falcon 4.0 release.

Some have tried to play with FOV values, with slightly better results
regarding sense of speed.

Anyway, while in the cockpit (Smart scaling disabled), I feel I’m fat and huge
compared to the surrounding terrain, … whereat I would rather feel like a tiny dot
in a big big world.

Now imagine the cockpit view would be scaled way smaller, to be that tiny dot in the world,
… would it change the feeling of flying through deep valleys and the sense of speed positive?

Not sure if above can be accomplished by FOV values only.
Maybe just a stupid approach, and I can’t explain better, but hope it helps.

Cheers, :yo:
LS

[lightswitch94]

@Planehazza:

I might even be so bold as to say that they’re not serious simmers if they’re willing to overlook all the extremely accurate and detailed features of BMS simply because it doesn’t have VR support.

Could not agree with this more. I don’t really see how I could effectively fly BMS in VR as I use MFDs and lots of keyboard commands in flight. VR works in IL 2 and DCS because most in aircraft your hands don’t need to leave the HOTAS.

[Eghi]

@lazystone:

Not sure if above can be accomplished by FOV values only.
Maybe just a stupid approach, and I can’t explain better, but hope it helps.

Cheers, :yo:
LS

Excellent explained here (not flight simulator, but works the same):
Fix Your Field of View & the Sense of Speed "Lie" (Sim Racing Tips) – 14:39
— Empty Box

[Naima]

@lightswitch94:

Could not agree with this more. I don’t really see how I could effectively fly BMS in VR as I use MFDs and lots of keyboard commands in flight. VR works in IL 2 and DCS because most in aircraft your hands don’t need to leave the HOTAS.

Yeah, I don’t see the point in having VR in falcon. To many knobs and switches to actuate.

[sunrrrise]

@Naima:

Yeah, I don’t see the point in having VR in falcon. To many knobs and switches to actuate.

I do not have any VR set, but Viper does not have more knobs or switches than Hornet, Tomcat, Harrier or Warthog…

[oakdesign]

This post is deleted!

[Icarus]

This post is deleted!

[chihirobelmo]

@Planehazza:

I might even be so bold as to say that they’re not serious simmers if they’re willing to overlook all the extremely accurate and detailed features of BMS simply because it doesn’t have VR support.

Everyone starts from there, not a serious simmer but just flying is fun, but then how can they notice there is a more serious aspect of simming if the simulator they only play doesn’t feature them? and notice there are extremely accurate and detailed features in BMS if they haven’t touched BMS by chance?

I was just lucky to touch BMS because when I started BMS there was no VR and no other sim that features F-16. Plus DCS was also DX9 too. I then realized BMS has more serious detailed features as I play it deeply. If I didn’t touch BMS, I believed that DCS was the only accurate and detailed combat simulator.

@lightswitch94:

Could not agree with this more. I don’t really see how I could effectively fly BMS in VR as I use MFDs and lots of keyboard commands in flight. VR works in IL 2 and DCS because most in aircraft your hands don’t need to leave the HOTAS.

F/A-18C requires more often “leave HOTAS and click panels” as they even can’t change MFD(DDI) page with HOTAS like F-16 can do. Hornet is “less HOTAS” than F-16. Still, they fly them in VR. F-16 in VR should be more effective then Hornet or Tomcat.

[Sting]

@Planehazza:

…serious simmers…

Thats kinda of a funny term. I Sim/Game for enjoyment, not to be serious, that’s my work life….

[I-Hawk]

@Eghi:

Field of view = sense of speed.
That’s how it works, IMHO

Yes I assume that is true.

@lazystone:

We have seen many differently terrains in the history of this sim,
and regardless how high the mountains or how deep the valleys are in RL,
insim it always felt like flying through a tiny valley.

In conclusion I (still) think there is anything to huge in size,
and it has been that way from the very first Falcon 4.0 release.

Some have tried to play with FOV values, with slightly better results
regarding sense of speed.

Anyway, while in the cockpit (Smart scaling disabled), I feel I’m fat and huge
compared to the surrounding terrain, … whereat I would rather feel like a tiny dot
in a big big world.

Now imagine the cockpit view would be scaled way smaller, to be that tiny dot in the world,
… would it change the feeling of flying through deep valleys and the sense of speed positive?

Not sure if above can be accomplished by FOV values only.
Maybe just a stupid approach, and I can’t explain better, but hope it helps.

Cheers, :yo:
LS

Maybe I’m missing you here Lazy. I actually thought that the traditional Falcon FOV is too large, i.e gives you a feeling that the world is huge and you are tiny, and so sense of speed is missing. Actually for good sense of speed, I guess you need to not be that tiny dot, but you need to be “large” relative to the world, no?

But afer yesterday’s tries I’m not even sure that we have a problem really, I won’t know until someone else tries it. Maybe Falcas can give some feedback, as he also has that RL view of things.

Cheers!

[Arty]

@Lazy
I believe this also looks fat and slow (Maybe cruise speed?):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1cWvHcL2to

This on the other hand isn’t (Maybe attack speed?):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQL0BrBSaps

Ohhh we know u r fat and huge… we still love’ya… :lol:

//Arty runs and hides… :rofl:

Edit: Noticeable the intense shaking… hmmmm.

[Dee-Jay]

@I-Hawk:

But afer yesterday’s tries I’m not even sure that we have a problem really, I won’t know until someone else tries it. Maybe Falcas can give some feedback, as he also has that RL view of things.

Cheers!

I am used to fly NOE IRL … in ops from 50 to 150ftAGL and peace time from 330 to 500ft AGL. Speed range from 180 to 240kts on my current a/c and 360 to 450 back in the time I was on Ajet. To me, the only issue we have in BMS relative to the sense of speed is certainty because of some of our buildings 3D models and their textures making them oversized compared to their texture details (windows, doors …) this is being updated by Nove’s new models and textures … auto gene would (will?) certainly improve it also. But except this fact, the lack of speed sensations is IMO mostly because of ppl wrong expectations … Before doing it in real, I thought that flying a jet would be like an X-Wing in the death star valley … I was somehow disappointed. … but as I said … what makes the difference is the workload. BMS users would have the same workload if they were flying with a real TPC navigation chart like in real in low level in BMS simulating all mandatory radio contacts avoiding every restricted areas and cities …

[Dee-Jay]

@Arty:

Edit: Noticeable the intense shaking… hmmmm.

Due to relief and wind in low level … makes the air mass very bumpy and turbulent.

[lazystone]

@I-Hawk:

Maybe I’m missing you here Lazy. I actually thought that the traditional Falcon FOV is too large, i.e gives you a feeling that the world is huge and you are tiny, and so sense of speed is missing. Actually for good sense of speed, I guess you need to not be that tiny dot, but you need to be “large” relative to the world, no?

Your actually thoughts ain’t wrong regarding the FOV, but I agree to one of your former post where
you said you think something is wrong.

For the sense of speed we would need to be “large” relative to the world, yes,
and in same situation I want to be that tiny dot.
So I’m feeling fat and huge in the cockpit relative to the world.

You see the conflict here?

We may want both when flying low level through deep valleys, sense of speed as a tiny dot.

Dunno if/how this could be accomplished or if that’s to contradictorily at all.

@Arty
Both vids are fine for me, but the feeling insim is differently, IMHO.

Cheers, :yo:
LS

[Falcas]

Beside what DJ already wrote the only extra thing I would like to add here…
the camera make bumps and shaking look much much worse than you experience yourself.

Gr Falcas

[Xeno]

@lazystone:

Your actually thoughts ain’t wrong regarding the FOV, but I agree to one of your former post where
you said you think something is wrong.

For the sense of speed we would need to be “large” relative to the world, yes,
and in same situation I want to be that tiny dot.
So I’m feeling fat and huge in the cockpit relative to the world.

You see the conflict here?

We may want both when flying low level through deep valleys, sense of speed as a tiny dot.

Dunno if/how this could be accomplished or if that’s to contradictorily at all.

@Arty
Both vids are fine for me, but the feeling insim is differently, IMHO.

Cheers, :yo:
LS

My main gripe with F4 terrain is not the sense of speed as it comes from ultra-wide views + points of reference (objects/terrain details). It’s rather world feeling way too small. Looking at videos and screenies from other sims I got the feeling sthere’s something wrong with distance perception in F4. Maybe it’s F4 terrain resolution is too small. maybe it lack details that help player to judge the distance, maybe ground tiles are too big in relation to textures (ie for ground textures we have tiles should be 500x500m or 250x250m). Dunno.

Here’s few vids for comparision. Looks tad different than F4 and I think that ones got it right.

Saudia 747-400 crash into mountain at Innsbruck – 00:18
— runsame

Aerofly FS2: Innsbruck – 01:47
— palamud

Cockpit A320 landing at Innsbruck ++ Aerofly FS 2 – 02:09
— runsame

X-Plane 11 -Fast and LOW Olympia Regional Mountain Run – 18:26
— Luna's World

also few static screnies (sorry for referencing other forum) https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?307009-Aerofly-FS2-Innsbruck

[lazystone]

@Xeno:

It’s rather world feeling way too small. Looking at videos and screenies from other sims I got the feeling sthere’s something wrong with distance perception in F4.

This describes my feeling as well.

The world (terrain) feeling way to small and in comparison the 3D objects are to huge in or visa versa.
(there is an old thread on this topic somewhere on this forum)

While it has been already proofed that terrain distances and AC speed and timings are
correct (as possile with the current terrain projection) insim, there must be something else …

Thanks a lot for posting vids of Innsbruck, because I started to tile that area for an (now long time)
abandoned project years ago and IIRC the feeling was not close to those Aerofly vids you’ve posted.

IMHO, it would be very nice if we could get Aeroflys feeling.
Btw. dunno why I dislike the x- plane vid.

Cheers, :yo:
LS

[I-Hawk]

@Xeno:

My main gripe with F4 terrain is not the sense of speed as it comes from ultra-wide views + points of reference (objects/terrain details). It’s rather world feeling way too small. Looking at videos and screenies from other sims I got the feeling sthere’s something wrong with distance perception in F4. Maybe it’s F4 terrain resolution is too small. maybe it lack details that help player to judge the distance, maybe ground tiles are too big in relation to textures (ie for ground textures we have tiles should be 500x500m or 250x250m). Dunno.

Here’s few vids for comparision. Looks tad different than F4 and I think that ones got it right.

Saudia 747-400 crash into mountain at Innsbruck – 00:18
— runsame

Aerofly FS2: Innsbruck – 01:47
— palamud

Cockpit A320 landing at Innsbruck ++ Aerofly FS 2 – 02:09
— runsame

X-Plane 11 -Fast and LOW Olympia Regional Mountain Run – 18:26
— Luna's World

also few static screnies (sorry for referencing other forum) https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?307009-Aerofly-FS2-Innsbruck

Yes of course everything you mentioned is a factor for sense of speed:
Mesh resolution
Textures resolution (Mainly measuring meter/pixel)
Ground objects density and possibly also size (Although I do want to believe that new 3D models of features are built with correct size)

Falcon world size “feeling” is indeed a combination of all of those.

BTW I felt like the XP vid is a bit slow actually, maybe the jet was indeed pretty slow, but maybe also sense of speed isn’t “as we think” and as D-J confirmed above from his RL experience.
Also, I’m a bit surprised to see XP11 has such exaggerated “bump holes”, I think it’s a bit too much and breaks the feeling of natural land a bit. Don’t know maybe the vid lie but in the snow period at ~5:40 it feels none-natural, like they tried too hard create extra extra details. But maybe just my feeling.

I’m sure however that things for BMS will improve in the future, we are already in better state now and it’ll only get better.

[Xeno]

My guess is it’s not about size of the objects/terrain per se, but how presented on the screen. As far as I can understand our eyes are like wide angle cameras, things very close seems to be huge, scaling down quicly with the distance growing but as distance grow tempo of scaling goes down.
Just for experiment I was looking at the back of my car and stepped back from about 1 to 50 meters. For first 3m reductin of relative size was huge, above 10m of distance till the final 50, relative size of the car was quite similar.
So maybe algorithm of on display size as a function of physical object size related to distance from POV should be reviewed.
It’s kinda related to the video EGHI posted but kinda reversed. I mean we shouldn’t think in terms of how large in screen pixels object should be but rather how many miliradians of our FOV it should take at given distance.