Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…

[Stevie]

@macieksoft:

In Poland we say that “point of view is based on where you sit”.

…I’m keeping this one.

[fairlycertain]

the HTS is touchy because of ether physics, and like many point out, the radioactive side of things.

I was thinking, how hard would a HUD only view that worked with trackIR be?

[Stevie]

@fairlycertain:

the HTS is touchy because of ether physics, and like many point out, the radioactive side of things.

I was thinking, how hard would a HUD only view that worked with trackIR be?

Pretty sure that’s been done…because that’s what you need if you’re building a cockpit. I have a little utility stashed called “Set HUD Only” that I’m pretty sure does that.

OTOH, I’m building a cockpit with a working HUD…so I don’t want a HUD or anything but OTW. Which can be done too…

[Dee-Jay]

@jhook:

Also I got some great IP stuff here…

Damn Jhook!!! You’ve made collateral casualties … your have rickrolled me!

[Raptor]

@jhook:

http://imageshack.com/a/img922/2842/E8w3Z5.jpg

Heeyyy… this is from WOPR!! This is highly classified data there!!

[Ninja]

shall we play a game :mrgreen::mrgreen:

[Arty]

Oh yes nuclear warfare! Shall we? Shall we? [emoji38]

sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk

[fairlycertain]

WOPR was a hater, you just need to put netflix on there and let him play Falcon.

[dawgboy]

@MorteSil:

Haha. I think I’d rather just get the CPD and call it 6.1-lite. But all the way to 7+ AND an ATD? Ambitious… What would people do with all that information presented so neatly at a glance? Besides I think the people here might not be able to handle a true color RWR, it would throw everything in a tizzy.

And the problem is???

[Fox3TwoShip]

@MackM2:

Maybe not a big thing but sometimes it feel like when communicating with AWACS, Tower etc. it feels like I should be verbally acknowledging things they tell me. Maybe add a option for responses such as, (Viper1 Copy, etc) and if you don’t respond they keep repeating. Yes maybe it would drive you nuts but in real world situations, the person transmitting information always looks to hear a response that you acknowledge their transmission of information. Similar to your wing man responses when you give them a command, most of the time you get an acknowledgement they heard and are complying with your command. (Flight Lead:" 2 Close it up"/ Wingman: "2, Closing up). Of course this is alot easier using voice command programs thats why I mention it could be a option in the config settings.

As a wingman, if lead can see you move your jet you don’t acknowledge. Some things you won’t acknowledge. And some things you’ll just say “2”. I’d never answer “2, closing up”. I’d just go to where they told me (e.g. “2, go tac right side”, [go to tactical] or “Venom, new joker, bingo two-five, two-oh”, “2”, “3”, “4”).

[jhook]

@Fox3TwoShip:

As a wingman, if lead can see you move your jet you don’t acknowledge. Some things you won’t acknowledge. And some things you’ll just say “2”. I’d never answer “2, closing up”. I’d just go to where they told me (e.g. “2, go tac right side”, [go to tactical] or “Venom, new joker, bingo two-five, two-oh”, “2”, “3”, “4”).

There is also the double “clip”. Often just a double “clip” to respond to simple request from the flight lead is used as well. Just thought I would mention that.

[Redlight]

BMS is awesome as it is, the better visual stuff I would like would cost FPS big time so I’d say ‘Its great as it is’ without a total code rewrite.

[jhook]

@Redlight:

BMS is awesome as it is, the better visual stuff I would like would cost FPS big time so I’d say ‘Its great as it is’ without a total code rewrite.

I agree that BMS is fantastic the way it is. But improving GFX and code mods would not necessarily “slow down” the CPU. In fact, making use of newer/modified code can actually improve FPS overall by streamlining the code process. GFX improvements are also more efficient due to the newer GFX cards and there processing power. So, BMS ultimately can become faster through improved coding and GFX upgrading. The bad part about that approach is that the end user (the community) would have to upgrade there rigs to be able to utilize those features. Even if BMS does upgrade the GFX engine to DX 10, 11 or 12, most everyone here would be able to run it on there rigs. A few would have to upgrade there PC’s to get BMS running to a better standard though, but your not talking a lot here.

For those who are running BMS with dated hardware, a newer version of BMS would push these people to upgrade there rigs. As BMS came about, the rig requirements bumped up a bit from the previous versions. Currently, a 2 Ghz or better CPU plus at least 4 Gig of RAM and a DX 9.0c GFX card or better is the minimum. “IF” BMS does progress the GFX and code engine, the requirements would not be that much higher. A 2 Ghz or better CPU would still most likely work. But to get the smoother FPS (anything above 40 FPS) you will have to upgrade the CPU. A 3 Ghz CPU would be fine for example. Since multi core CPU’s are now the standard, a 3 Ghz 4 core could take advantage of new code processes as much as a single core 4Ghz CPU, or even higher. BMS does utilize multi core processing. But, as “Boxer” has said, the multi core processing is not as efficient as it could be. Rewriting code takes huge amounts of time! But in the end, you have a more modular streamlined process that actually creates more FPS with the same amount of data being computed. This would mean more features and processes that you can add. This is called “Headroom” or “CPU Overhead”. So even a 2 Ghz 4 core could run these newer processes and achieve smoother FPS. The GFX code with BMS started at DX 6. It has been rewritten to DX 9.0c. DX 10 (which had issues when it first came out) would require another rewrite of the GFX engine code. DX 11 and 12 would require yet another rewrite of the GFX code, so it would be better to rewrite to DX 11 and/or 12 than to just rewrite to DX 10, only to rewrite it again. The GFX improvements with a higher DX code would be similar to the explanation for the code engine upgrade. However, a higher DX GFX engine would allow for GFX processing shaders and tessellation features that would push BMS GFX to use multi core GPU support. Yet again, better FPS with better GFX. DX 11.3 would be my choice to use as DX 12 is primarily a Windows 10 feature. Not just better FPS with better GFX, but I hole new approach to things like “explosions” and “terrain” improvements. Imagine when the bomb hits the target, you see explosion shock waves emanate from the blast area. Pretty cool stuff actually, but there is a lot more to it that BMS could do. All with a good FPS count.

So, I thought I would share a little bit about what might happen in the future. It is not up to me. But it is a logical step further in the evolution of BMS.

[Ernestwinslow]

@jhook:

I agree that BMS is fantastic the way it is. But improving GFX and code mods would not necessarily “slow down” the CPU. In fact, making use of newer/modified code can actually improve FPS overall by streamlining the code process. GFX improvements are also more efficient due to the newer GFX cards and there processing power. So, BMS ultimately can become faster through improved coding and GFX upgrading. The bad part about that approach is that the end user (the community) would have to upgrade there rigs to be able to utilize those features. Even if BMS does upgrade the GFX engine to DX 10, 11 or 12, most everyone here would be able to run it on there rigs. A few would have to upgrade there PC’s to get BMS running to a better standard though, but your not talking a lot here.

For those who are running BMS with dated hardware, a newer version of BMS would push these people to upgrade there rigs. As BMS came about, the rig requirements bumped up a bit from the previous versions. Currently, a 2 Ghz or better CPU plus at least 4 Gig of RAM and a DX 9.0c GFX card or better is the minimum. “IF” BMS does progress the GFX and code engine, the requirements would not be that much higher. A 2 Ghz or better CPU would still most likely work. But to get the smoother FPS (anything above 40 FPS) you will have to upgrade the CPU. A 3 Ghz CPU would be fine for example. Since multi core CPU’s are now the standard, a 3 Ghz 4 core could take advantage of new code processes as much as a single core 4Ghz CPU, or even higher. BMS does utilize multi core processing. But, as “Boxer” has said, the multi core processing is not as efficient as it could be. Rewriting code takes huge amounts of time! But in the end, you have a more modular streamlined process that actually creates more FPS with the same amount of data being computed. This would mean more features and processes that you can add. This is called “Headroom” or “CPU Overhead”. So even a 2 Ghz 4 core could run these newer processes and achieve smoother FPS. The GFX code with BMS started at DX 6. It has been rewritten to DX 9.0c. DX 10 (which had issues when it first came out) would require another rewrite of the GFX engine code. DX 11 and 12 would require yet another rewrite of the GFX code, so it would be better to rewrite to DX 11 and/or 12 than to just rewrite to DX 10, only to rewrite it again. The GFX improvements with a higher DX code would be similar to the explanation for the code engine upgrade. However, a higher DX GFX engine would allow for GFX processing shaders and tessellation features that would push BMS GFX to use multi core GPU support. Yet again, better FPS with better GFX. DX 11.3 would be my choice to use as DX 12 is primarily a Windows 10 feature. Not just better FPS with better GFX, but I hole new approach to things like “explosions” and “terrain” improvements. Imagine when the bomb hits the target, you see explosion shock waves emanate from the blast area. Pretty cool stuff actually, but there is a lot more to it that BMS could do. All with a good FPS count.

So, I thought I would share a little bit about what might happen in the future. It is not up to me. But it is a logical step further in the evolution of BMS.

Very interesting perspective. I personally would go for upgrading pc systems for a better GFX and rewritten code if it was to be put to a vote. Assuming the bms developers would go for rewriting the codes for a better bms, expending a huge amount of time and effort, I would definitely make plans for an upgrade. Speaking for myself here.

IMHO, the fact that many would have to sacrifice their old rig for a better Bms f4 should not throw a wedge is the development of BMS.
Upgrade would cost us {users} far less compare to the cost of a GFX and coding upgrade.

Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk

[rmax]

Stagnation, compressor stalls etc.

[Stevie]

@rmax:

Stagnation, compressor stalls etc.

…overtemp, bleed air leak, VEN failure, overspeed, FOD, etc.

[Vyper37]

@Stevie:

…overtemp, bleed air leak, VEN failure, overspeed, FOD, etc.

Yes we need more failures implemented to increase our pain we could rename it Falcon BDSM :drink:

[Dee-Jay]

@Stevie:

…overtemp, bleed air leak, VEN failure, overspeed, FOD, etc.

… bird strike.

[Stevie]

@Dee-Jay:

… bird strike.

…insidious O2 failure, hypoxia, cabin depressurization/air leak.

[Mike_Bravo]

… motion sickness, barf bags…