BMS 4.33 question
-
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 ……
-