Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
Loosing players is okay, gaining hardcore guys is better. Bye !
Dude, you are so short sighted with that attitude…… you remind me of one of those guys who clung to horses after the automobile was introduced. We’ll see if you are still so smug in 5 years…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Dude, you are so short sighted with that attitude…… you remind me of one of those guys who clung to horses after the automobile was introduced. We’ll see if you are still so smug in 5 years…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did i hurt your feelings ? Tissues ?
-
They REALLY need to consider adding VR support.
They REALLY are considering adding VR support; it’s just not a simple task, nor a quick one. And it’s been discussed to death several times.
-
@Bad:
Indeed fps goes better due some code optimisation and some db mistakes and inconsistencies that were fixed in 4.34
Seems very smooth maxed out - have been running Linux in a VM the past 2 days alongside it as well.
-
I disagree about VR, its not the be all end all. many of us have built custom hardware that is useless in VR. Vr is not high fidelity as a dome projector, or a more simple angular paint based corner build using finite edges. Vr is cool don’t get me wrong, until you need to read or use peripheral vision. Vr is simply exclusionary for too many people, by price or handicap, just think everyone you know who uses corrective lenses and can’t use contacts cant use VR. Occlusive head mounts, which is the patent terminology, thus oculus, are not seen as a development centerpiece. Visual and optical retina tracking based pass throughs, like are used in HMCS and in surgical head mounts are the development root focus. Many gamers at the high end actually steer away from VR, and use bezel less mutli arrays, domed projections, or other alternatives.
I can put every digital display in the pit on an external custom mounted display, and have built a wall corner using the right paints and angles to simulate 170 degrees of wrapped peripheral. I did this for considerably less money than the oculus consumer or dev kits, and I’ve had this and been maintaining it for some years. It’s capped to max res of the native software, and then you use the onboard plug ins on the hardware to wrap the image and size it. The result is I have unlimited optic zoom, to whichever length, be it the programing or limitations of the software. This is all coming off relatively conservative GPUS whose architecture, brand, and configuration is so common it is not worth mentioning other that it is easily attainable.
I’m not saying, this guy is wrong for wanting VR, it would be a nice feather in the cap. But BMS is a levithan without it, flight sims by no means ARE NOT flight sims without VR support, and VR support in gaming is by my opine misdirected and stagnated in its currently attainable format. I think adding high definition aircraft, by focusing on creating DEV tools to allow the addition of High res 3d models, open source pit building, and even avionics, flight models and systems is the logical and most beneficial, legacy insurance move possible by the BMS team. I am absolutely sure this has entered their perceptions already, and albeit from me to speculate openly but I would say that is a far more complicated matter than creating Vr support.
So I look forward to squinting while I read with a hot uncomfortable screen strapped to my face in 3-4 weeks
-
many of us have built custom hardware that is useless in VR. …, by price or handicap, just think everyone you know who uses corrective lenses …
Not that I disagree completely…
VR is just at its beginning. Not hifi… not yet.
But:
Works perfectly fine with glasses.
And price point is waaaay lower than building an hardware cockpit simulator.And BMS devs spent so much time and dedication to give us the wonderful detailled in–game cockpit, so why would one want to dismiss this and try to re–create an own (in most cases less detailled) in hardware if VR is such a great, acessable and cheap way to experience the virtual cockpit?
VR is not yet where it is supposed to be, but you can already see and feel where it is going to be.
For someone who whats to fly rather than to fiddle, VR is already a great way to get into the simulation rather than just watching it. And for most that ever tried it, its hard to go back. They just want to go forward, wanting more and better of what they just tasted.
Still I am with you in that Falcon BMS is the best combat flight sim. And at this point in time VR support is not yet that critial just because it is not there yet.
We‘ll see whats coming down the road…headset wise and bms wise. A marriage of both would be a kick–ass event in flight sim history, no doubt! -
I have yet to do any extensive flying with 4.34, but reading the manual on expanded radio communication has me thinking. Here is a typical flight communication sequence described in the manual:
- #2, #3, #4 for communicating with the home airbase as you fly out
- #5, #6 for communicating in flight on the tactical net with AWACS for instance (with #13 if doing an AAR)
- #4, #3, #2 for communicating with the home airbase ATC upon your return.
That’s a lot of frequency preset switching. I understand that it’s for realism, but we now have to do MORE work than the real pilots do. First it’s necessary to change to the right frequency, and then navigate the pop-up menus for ground/tower/departure/approach communications. A real pilot can just use his voice. I wonder if we could consider an option (disable/enable through config) where the correct UHF channel is selected automatically when choosing a menu command.
-
Use a voice command software.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
That’s a lot of frequency preset switching. I understand that it’s for realism, but we now have to do MORE work than the real pilots do. First it’s necessary to change to the right frequency, and then navigate the pop-up menus for ground/tower/departure/approach communications. A real pilot can just use his voice. I wonder if we could consider an option (disable/enable through config) where the correct UHF channel is selected automatically when choosing a menu command.
Even though I very much like the split comms, I have to agree that without VAC or similar software (which not everyone can or wants to buy, set up correctly, or have it work properly for whatever reason(s) they may have), it isn’t easy to find the correct page and select an item, while I’m also busy doing other things.
E.g. Actually speaking the phraseo for my fellow human pilots requires both hands (one hand on stick to fly properly, other on throttle to push UHF/VHF transmit and control speed; I don’t have a third to touch the keyboard),
Standard cockpit manipulation,
Flying an instrument dep/arr to the numbers,
Turning short final from downwind leg in a relatively steep descending turn, close to the ground near stall speed,
…All of this, I’ve only done in a fully working jet so far. Damage could increase workload tenfold, so the adage of “aviate, navigate, communicate” definitely comes to mind, but it seems as if not communicating the right steps could result in more issues for BMS (as an environment simulator) than before, especially in busy situations with high-load traffic flows.
Granted, the comm menu navigation will probably improve once I get more familiar with the layout, but it would be nice if BMS could simplify it somewhat. I’d suggest the other way around of zerg’s suggestion, personally. BMS should be able to detect the frequency you’re on, and then shift the menus so that the page linked to that ground station (which is the one you’ll most likely need) is the first one to come up.
-
That’s a lot of frequency preset switching. I understand that it’s for realism, but we now have to do MORE work than the real pilots do
It’s not more work, it’s the exact same amount of work.
the difference is that pilot don’t use a mouse and a keyboard.
With a button box for your ICP and a VAC profile, the experience is very close to real world flying where you do push a lot of different frequencies…There is no doubt in my mind that the futher BMS progresses, the further our tools and our ways to interact with the sim must progress as well
In this case, I never used VAC before with any version of BMS, but 4.34 requires it. IMHO
default profiles are supplied in the \Docs\01 Input Devices\04 VAC & TIR folder -
Only downside with VAC, to my knowledge, is the absence of DX control on activation, which can be achieved in VA - as in pushing DX VHF on HOTAS to talk to flight members. If there ever is a VA profile made by someone who absolutely needs to make, and would share it, or if there is any way to convert between vap and xml, I’d definitely be a taker (I’m not such a user that I personally need to do it though).
EDIT: worked it around simply by attributing a key rather than DX on VHF. Now, to be honest, until I realize what I’m doing wrong, VAC is terrible at recognizing me
-
The ability to fly helicopters.
-
agreed, DX VAc would be even better, but with TM ptogramming capabilities, you can have the UHF PTT and the VAC listen key to the same button
Not ideal, but works in the interim -
Only downside with VAC, to my knowledge, is the absence of DX control on activation, which can be achieved in VA - as in pushing DX VHF on HOTAS to talk to flight members. If there ever is a VA profile made by someone who absolutely needs to make, and would share it, or if there is any way to convert between vap and xml, I’d definitely be a taker (I’m not such a user that I personally need to do it though).
Voice Activated Commands, Voice Attack, Livrot’s tool, etc etc; it’s all the same really as they all use Windows voice recognition afaik, only the User Interface is different. A VAC Profile is included just because that’s what I use, based on Dee-Jay’s 4.32 VAC Profile from way back when. We can easily add similar profiles for other tools, or just share them on this forum.
-
Is it my impression or fps got better?
I was on multisampling 2 and now on 3 and looks awesome.Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
Unfortunatelly not in my case, but I have to conduct more tests. But I was kinda dissapointed seeing 40-something FPS in dogfight without enemy with clouds set to “fair”.*
OK, I have maxed out everything.
OK, my rig is not a high-end (i5 [email protected], 16GB RAM, GTX1070)but I have (almost) constant 60FPS in any single player mission in F-14, also maxed out.
But as I said - I have to make more tests.
*great feature!
-
@Red:
agreed, DX VAc would be even better, but with TM ptogramming capabilities, you can have the UHF PTT and the VAC listen key to the same button
Not ideal, but works in the interimThis, and whilst I’m an advocate of using DX whenever possible, sometimes you have to use keystrokes here and there. Thankfully, you’re not typically pressing many other keys whilst chatting on the radio, and any that you are on your HOTAS should be dx anyway.
It is sooo easy to bind multiple keys to one physical dx button using foxy
-
Only downside with VAC, to my knowledge, is the absence of DX control on activation, which can be achieved in VA - as in pushing DX VHF on HOTAS to talk to flight members. If there ever is a VA profile made by someone who absolutely needs to make, and would share it, or if there is any way to convert between vap and xml, I’d definitely be a taker (I’m not such a user that I personally need to do it though).
EDIT: worked it around simply by attributing a key rather than DX on VHF. Now, to be honest, until I realize what I’m doing wrong, VAC is terrible at recognizing me
You can assign the dx AND keystroke to the vhf button; no need to remove the dx function.
-
Unfortunatelly not in my case, but I have to conduct more tests. But I was kinda dissapointed seeing 40-something FPS in dogfight without enemy with clouds set to “fair”.*
OK, I have maxed out everything.
OK, my rig is not a high-end (i5 [email protected], 16GB RAM, GTX1070)but I have (almost) constant 60FPS in any single player mission in F-14, also maxed out.
But as I said - I have to make more tests.
*great feature!
Try to set “set g_bExportRTTTextures 0” in your config file, you could save some fps
-
Afaik, enabled or disabled (rttexport) doesn’t affect fps in 4.34, as it did in 4.33
-
Aknowledged, yes I edited my post to reflect the change, which works well to enable, in my case, VHF with the END key. I’m really surprised how VAC barely recognize what I’m saying while VA does it perfectly though, as, AFAIK, they’re supposed to use the same engine. Or I missed something.
EDIT: PlaneHazza, having both in TARGET, one disables the other (last one in script is key bind, takes over). But just key bind is good to me, anyway.