The future of the sim..?
-
Let’s see:
DX7 –> DX9 - Done in the past (Including a move from Fixed Function pipeline to shaders, which is not obvious)DX9 --> DX11 - Why you think can’t be done?
I never said it CAN’T be done. I know for a fact it CAN be done, I just think it SHOULD be done. DX9 is wildly, crazy inefficient compared to DX11, and more so to DX12, especially on modern GPUs which can leverage the newer ISAs. But the GFX engine would have to be re-written from the ground up, and not just adapted to the new API functions and calls.Models and textures are being reworked last time I checked…
That’s good news. And I’m sure it takes a lot of work. But without the previously mentioned upgrade and the one below this, this is kind of a moot issue. Even great models look iffy at 20FPS.Terrain is a huge PITA yes, will it take time to modify? sure, will it happen? Yes it will, I only don’t know to tell you when… but at some point we will have to tackle it.
This is the point I was really trying to make with everything I said before. It’s all hard, time intensive stuff. I never said you wouldn’t tackle the things on the list, in fact I said almost word for word what you did–at some point it will have to be done.Also a PITA, but not as terrain…
Same as above…I do understand these are all new techs in terms of Falcon, but why do you think that the engine can’t handle it currently? I mean what’s the difference between IFF and TGP/IAMs/MITL/TFR/Mavericks/YouNameIt ? The stuff here doesn’t require a new engine or framework, and actually only depend on someone that would like to do it and take the time for that.
If this is the case then great–but this is contradictory to several posts from team members in the past. I agree with your statement, it’s just coding. As I said before, from a game play perspective the sky is the limit.Agree, but… You could say the same about:
DX7 --> DX9 upgrade
The best ****ing F-16 Flight Model you can find for a none-military simulator (and all the physics that comes with that)
Stable MP (In oppose to the original product)
State of the art Dead Reckoning
Particle system instead of Falcon original crappy GIFs
All the avionics upgrades that were implemented throughout the yearsAnd last but not least - Endless cleanup (Still and always On going) of zillion of hands that touched the code over the years and at some cases left code which may make you sometimes wanna jump from the highest building you can find
I deal with this on a daily basis so trust me, I know this is a pain.
Do you think anyone was ever payed for anything?
I know nobody has. And I know it’s all volunteer on your own time. I never said anything to the contrary. I have said it time and time again, despite my “suggestions” sounding negative, I do enjoy the game. And just like many others I want it to continue. But I want it to improve as well, in ways that expand beyond just new game play features.I tried to clarify before that I wasn’t being a negative nancy in my post but it seems I still offended nonetheless.
-
So are you also saying that if someone coded something into FF and it seemed useful, there could be potential interest in importing that piece of code to BMS? I am aware that on some levels FF and BMS are very similar, but BMS went further and did more with it. So, is it still similar enough today to actually be viable? I don’t know, seems like a whole lot of risk for little reward, i.e. hours of coding for it not to be used by anyone to me lol.
Well… what you talk about is a much higher resolution than what I meant. What I talked about is more like the idea, or concept to implement something, not necessarily the actual lines of code that will make it work.
As a nice example I’ll give you something which is close to me: During 4.33 development, I wanted to implement Man-In-The-Loop weapons support, something that was never done in Falcon before, so I started to play with it, first obvious issues were how to put a camera on a weapon, so this was a kind of a new-thing if you like. Then based on that I could proceed to the other problems of how to control the weapon, then the easiest stuff of coding the MFD symbols, the different flight modes etc etc. That is an example (even if a relatively “local” one) for something that could be useful. And BTW if you let alone the small details and think about it, the base idea could probably be implemented same way on any other leaked Falcon source code out there.
Now if you think further a head, people that want to, can demonstrate many many concepts by using some existing version of a leaked Falcon code to prove that it could be useful for the sim. Examples?
UI
GFX
Terrain
Damage modelingNot even talking about deeper stuff like improved efficiency of multi-core usage, VU management etc… There is practically an ENDLESS number of items that can be improved for Falcon, we do our best to work on a mix of what’s important and what we want.
Hope that helps, Cheers!
-
I tried to clarify before that I wasn’t being a negative nancy in my post but it seems I still offended nonetheless.
Maybe I sounded a bit too defensive (I was accused in the past to be too defensive at times, so I guess I have that, if I like it or not :)), but I wasn’t offended.
We all want to improve, and we are doing that all the time, so even when there is no news posted (You can say it’s a kind of policy), things behind the scenes are evolving all the time. That is all I can say at this point.
-
So are you also saying that if someone coded something into FF and it seemed useful, there could be potential interest in importing that piece of code to BMS? I am aware that on some levels FF and BMS are very similar, but BMS went further and did more with it. So, is it still similar enough today to actually be viable? I don’t know, seems like a whole lot of risk for little reward, i.e. hours of coding for it not to be used by anyone to me lol.
Could not have said it better. Every person remotely related to the project cites how much work has been done and the evolution of the sim over the past few years. I-Hawk’s response to me earlier states a handful of MASSIVE changes that have been done since those code bases were leaked/released/made available or whatever you want to call it. Not to mention he stated there have been so many hands in the cookie jar that even are still cleaning up messes from years ago.
Without a LOT more information about what’s going on underneath and what has changed or is still viable, this would be a huge waste. Even if you developed a proof of concept and everyone liked it and the team wanted to implement it themselves based on your code, there is constantly talk of how busy they are with other stuff they are already working on so it would likely die a slow forgotten death in the corner of someone’s mind. You don’t need to Open Source the code however. You could put out an SDK-style document that describes the interfaces and functionality for different pieces of the sim. The shared memory stuff is a decent attempt and not a terrible start, but it could use about 200 more pieces to the puzzle. But everything from MFD pages to radar system functionality, to ATC, or logistics, or the avionics on different aircraft would require some rather in depth knowledge of how things are CURRENTLY working in the background in order to code. With the right direction, nothing on that list is terribly hard to do from a coding perspective. But as you mention, dumping 20-30 hours into writing the functionality and overlays for F15 MFD pages is pointless if the game isn’t able to apply specific avionics to specific air frames, or without knowing if there have been changes to how the SMS interacts with the weapon objects in the code (Which I’m almost positive there have), etc…
-
Maybe I sounded a bit too defensive (I was accused in the past to be too defensive at times, so I guess I have that, if I like it or not :)), but I wasn’t offended.
We all want to improve, and we are doing that all the time, so even when there is no news posted (You can say it’s a kind of policy), things behind the scenes are evolving all the time. That is all I can say at this point.
I believe that. I know that we will be graced with 4.34 one day, the BMS team thus far in 6 years has not failed to deliver and the surprise of finding what’s in the latest update is part of the fun. I do miss very much the “3 to 4 weeks” jokes in regards to 4.33, it was almost a community identity for a loooong time. Can we get that going again, I-Hawk?
Please sir, tell me when 4.34 will be released tounge in cheek
Oh, 3-4 weeks you say?
-
The FF source code is open. It is not free. There is a big distinction. Unless the details of the agreement between BMS and Tommo are public information (I had thought they were not), you cannot say for sure whether BMS could or could not make the code open source. Without permission from Tommo, they could not relicense it under a FOSS license.
Terminology is important, especially when discussing matters of ownership and legalities.
Exaclty the thing is the original poster slapped his own license to something leaked and put it on github , that doesnt make it “open”
-
Maybe I sounded a bit too defensive (I was accused in the past to be too defensive at times, so I guess I have that, if I like it or not :)), but I wasn’t offended.
We all want to improve, and we are doing that all the time, so even when there is no news posted (You can say it’s a kind of policy), things behind the scenes are evolving all the time. That is all I can say at this point.
Stop chatting here and hurry up on the next impossible falcon move else I will finish mine before you (and I am closer already )
-
-
Very good point! Wonder what ever became of that sim? Probably in perpetual development just like Jet Thunder and the Seven G F18 sim
Not sure Fighter Ops (FO) is still under active development. Many of its sim concepts have been (are being) incorporated into other sims (like DCS) faster than FO could develop them. FO is a great example of how difficult it is to develop a new flight sim. It probably reached a publishable stage of about 75%, entailing tens of thousands of effort-hours, before collapsing. Its Achilles heel was, IMO, the inability of its core group to create a functioning team-oriented development organization.
-
So are you also saying that if someone coded something into FF and it seemed useful, there could be potential interest in importing that piece of code to BMS?
Of course … and/or even would rather be invited to join the team if its personality fit with the team’s general view (remember that it is not a commercial entity, goal is to have pleasure doing it together and enjoy the achievement together.)
Look … Crusader has been invited to join the team on my request after some information’s exchanges about SP4 missiles and radar via PM on the public forum. After some discussions on TeamSpeak he became a real friend and showed that he can work in a team, being smart, open minded, pleasant (note that efficiency is not the most important quality, the paramount quality is on the human and relation side) … now he one very active dev.
Such good guys are probably here and there … and will probably join one day the team if we notice them. But it is on invitation … in fact, no need to ask to join => refer to BMS F.A.Q.:Contribution:
Q: I’m inspired by what you have done and I have more time on my hands than I know what to do with, and I think I have the same screw loose that you all do. Can I join the BMS team? I’ve been a beta tester before…or I’ve been involved in OpenFalcon development…or I’ve been flying F4 since the beginning…
A: So have we. Short answer - NO! Long answer - we do add people to the team periodically when it seems like a good idea, if they’re interested. Please do not ask us to join. There’s plenty of scope for folks to get involved in the future development of the BMS community add-on, even if they aren’t ‘on the team’. In particular though if you have skills as a texture artist you could get to work right away! Past that, make a suggestion of what you’d like to work on, or where you think you can make a solid commitment to deliver. Realize we’re not going to adopt the “come one, come all” approach though. As you can imagine, a huge influx of new hands working on the problem would be tough to manage in a way that everyone comes out happy.
Q: What do I do if I want to make some mods and contribute them to the BMS team?
A: BMS encourages modding as this will benefit the community in general. However, please don’t expect support for bugs that are reported from modified installations as a “right”; it is likely beyond the resources of the BMS team to try to pinpoint all possible problems on anything other than a clean install. We’ll make best efforts to help but please bear in mind that there are real limits on what we can reasonably do outside the materials that are part of a release.
… However, even if integrated to the team, this guy will have to be VERY patient before having access to the code and this is why we have to be friend first because it is, above all, a question of confidence, trust and friendship. Many other have the same story … Hayab, Lazy, Polak … etc …
For the ppl who think the open source is the way to go … search for “FreeFalconOSC” … and see their progress since 2013.
-
maybe a little focus on the “Red” side, some people like to fight for the guys with a cause.
QUESTION:
are we stuck with the f16 MFDs?
-
Just get that VR support so i can get back to BMS
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Not sure Fighter Ops (FO) is still under active development. Many of its sim concepts have been (are being) incorporated into other sims (like DCS) faster than FO could develop them. FO is a great example of how difficult it is to develop a new flight sim. It probably reached a publishable stage of about 75%, entailing tens of thousands of effort-hours, before collapsing. Its Achilles heel was, IMO, the inability of its core group to create a functioning team-oriented development organization.
Once again, Fighter Ooops is dead. AFAIK, NONE of the work done with FO made it into any other sim, unless some went to DCS under guise and fed them unfinished work. It was never at 75% published. Also, what killed FO was far more than “the inability of its core group to create a functioning team-oriented development organization”. I will leave it at that.
-
This post is deleted! -
dx9 - dx10 is a major change actually. When I made that transition on my graphics engine I had to rewrite most of it. The issue is one of synchronous graphics calls in dx9 and asynchronous graphics calls in dx10. For example in dx9 you can update positions and shader variables up to the point you call draw. In dx10, if you do that your engine will be slow as a dog. This is due to the use of shader constant buffers in dx10 which when changed cause a pipeline stall. However, if the dx9 code was written to update all values then do the rendering in sequence without changing those values in between then it would be more trivial. Now , dx10 - dx11 is a small change. dx12 is ridiculously complicated.
-
dx9 - dx10 is a major change actually. When I made that transition on my graphics engine I had to rewrite most of it. The issue is one of synchronous graphics calls in dx9 and asynchronous graphics calls in dx10. For example in dx9 you can update positions and shader variables up to the point you call draw. In dx10, if you do that your engine will be slow as a dog. This is due to the use of shader constant buffers in dx10 which when changed cause a pipeline stall. However, if the dx9 code was written to update all values then do the rendering in sequence without changing those values in between then it would be more trivial. Now , dx10 - dx11 is a small change. dx12 is ridiculously complicated.
Agreed. A DX 11 update, though being a GFX code re-write, would be the best way to go. And, DX 12 has no major GFX enhancements from DX 11. It allows different GFX cards, with different instructions, to work with each other AFAIK. So, a DX 11 would be ideal IMO. But getting BMS to even DX 10 will be a big undertaking. I think this team is up for that. Time will tell.
-
Exaclty the thing is the original poster slapped his own license to something leaked and put it on github , that doesnt make it “open”
Well actually it does. Putting it on a public repo on GitHub makes it open source. Why is it open source? Everyone can see it. Its not free open source (although the readme claims otherwise, saying it is released under the BSD2). If I had a copy of the BMS source and leaked it, BMS (whatever version was leaked) would be open source. Without a license that permits people to do something with that source, it would not be free open source (and thus would not be overly useful).
Yes FFosc is open, no, despite their claims to the contrary, it is not FOSS.
For the ppl who think the open source is the way to go … search for “FreeFalconOSC” … and see their progress since 2013.
Actually I agree with Vyper on this one. Anyone who would normally contribute to FOSS would look at the license for FFosc and turn and walk away. Open source yes, free no.Big distinction.
One area that your example is counter-intuitive: people can do that. We can look up and see every bit of progress on FFosc (none since 2014). As mentioned above we can fork the repo, make our own changes, and if the upstream was still active, pull request those changes in the upstream repo. Being able to see and assist development… even if it attracted only one more line of code than would have been done otherwise, that alone makes it the way to go.
-
The issue is one of synchronous graphics calls in dx9 and asynchronous graphics calls in dx10. For example in dx9 you can update positions and shader variables up to the point you call draw. In dx10, if you do that your engine will be slow as a dog. This is due to the use of shader constant buffers in dx10 which when changed cause a pipeline stall.
Well, I’ll admit that I’m almost totally not familiar with DX9, but DX11 I do know to some level of knowledge, and I don’t understand what you refer to by saying that it would be slow to update CBs before draw calls.
For all I know, if you structure CBs in a way that makes sense according to the update frequency - e.g IMMUTABLE CB for stuff that never change, perFrame CB for stuff that may change every frame (e.g sun position) and perObject CB for stuff that changes per object (e.g World matrix) - Then you should be fine. Of course it’s better to keep number of draw calls as minimal as possible, but that’s a generic rule… If you need to draw many objects that cannot be batched/instanced then I don’t know other way to draw than updating the required per object CB and launch the draw call. Is there any magic?
What I did heard though is that DX10/11 are much more sensitive to Render states changes, so unlike DX9 one should be careful when designing large engines to take care of this stuff specifically.
-
Agreed. A DX 11 update, though being a GFX code re-write, would be the best way to go. And, DX 12 has no major GFX enhancements from DX 11. It allows different GFX cards, with different instructions, to work with each other AFAIK. So, a DX 11 would be ideal IMO. But getting BMS to even DX 10 will be a big undertaking. I think this team is up for that. Time will tell.
This is not really correct. DX12 is the first and only DX API that allows you to leverage multiple CPU cores during the render stage. The pipeline is a little more clustered from the developer standpoint, but in the end it results in a much more efficient transition through the pipeline stages. It also has some native buffer replication functionality which improves performance during the swap. The problem with DX12 right now, is that most developers are still writing the back side like it’s 11, which results in a performance hit, instead of gain.
-
Well, I’ll admit that I’m almost totally not familiar with DX9, but DX11 I do know to some level of knowledge, and I don’t understand what you refer to by saying that it would be slow to update CBs before draw calls.
…
What I did heard though is that DX10/11 are much more sensitive to Render states changes, so unlike DX9 one should be careful when designing large engines to take care of this stuff specifically.This is why I said earlier it would require a complete GFX rewrite and not just an adaptation to the new API. It’s tedious, but well worth the effort in the end.