The future of the sim..?
-
As MorteSil nicely explained, porting BMS to OpenGL would be a huge task. Let me also add something from my own view, from my (Relatively short) experience, dealing with Graphics problems isn’t easy, many times you do everything “right” (or more exact, you think you do) but things not working and you need to start debugging and spend a good amount of time just to find what gone mad. Let’s say that is happening while dealing with DX and trying some new/different techniques. So… I can’t even imagine the issues that may arise if we will go and try to pair BMS with OpenGL, if you ask me it’s simply not practical to achieve with the time constraints that we work with.
-
Well, looks like I got my answer and then some!
-
Dear MorteSil and I-Hawk,
thanks a lot for your quick answers. I appreciated them because they are well detailed and helped me to begin understanding a little the hard developers’ job.
With best regards,
-
Mav, Technical debt is a phrase describing the concept of where existing code prevents you from easily doing something. Generally it means that instead of planning your code in advance to have a useful structure, you went with whatever came to mind quickest so as to get results fast. Any time you say something would require significant rewriting even to make small incremental changes, you are talking about technical debt.
-
…I’m going to have to carry this one to work and put it on the shelf next to “spaghetti code”.
-
Spaghetti code is a leading cause of technical debt, and the opposite is ravioli code, which can happen when you try to avoid technical debt without a clear understanding of what the final picture should look like.
-
While win10 may or may not have its technical merits, for me personally the problem lies at a much deeper level. I’m not willing to accept an ever-more intrusive Microsoft that decides for me how (and more importantly, what) my computer should run.
I’m not going to repeat the countless arguments-turned-into-flamewars from the net (and I hope we can avoid this here in our cozy little subgroup of sim enthusiasts), but if you’re interested I can drop you a PM which elaborates on and lists numerous reasons why one should stay away from win10 for the time being until Microsoft fundamentally changes its attitude toward their customers (not very likely to happen I’ll sadly agree unless we, as consumers, fundamentally change as well).
Thanks for the insights on the DX11 / DX12 topic!
All the best, Uwe
-
While win10 may or may not have its technical merits, for me personally the problem lies at a much deeper level. I’m not willing to accept an ever-more intrusive Microsoft that decides for me how (and more importantly, what) my computer should run.
I’m not going to repeat the countless arguments-turned-into-flamewars from the net (and I hope we can avoid this here in our cozy little subgroup of sim enthusiasts), but if you’re interested I can drop you a PM which elaborates on and lists numerous reasons why one should stay away from win10 for the time being until Microsoft fundamentally changes its attitude toward their customers (not very likely to happen I’ll sadly agree unless we, as consumers, fundamentally change as well).
Thanks for the insights on the DX11 / DX12 topic!
All the best, Uwe
Not only Microsoft, but Google, and tons of others have decided that they are just going to sell your information if you use their service. For example, I looked at a Warthog in Amazon. My wife get’s Warthog advertisements in her Facebook now. So I shop for a Valentine’s gift for her, she knew what it was going to be before it arrived. IMO this sort of behavior is wrong. All of this ought to be opt-in, not opt-out. Then you opt-out, and they go behind the scenes and make you opt out again in a new way. I hope Linux and GNU and those that truly respect privacy and freedom – not just give it lip service – keep growing and are able to put an end to the madness. Not likely to happen with corrupt governments around the world and here in the U.S. but yeah I’d love to see more games and sims for Linux. There’s a lot out there and tons of titles that have been ported, but it would be nice for developers to include Linux at first release. But you know what Microsoft will do? My guess is it will make life miserable behind the scenes for any company that tries it. Lot’s of corrupt, rotten eggs in the world.
-
Go to google setting and disable sharing info and adv
sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
Spaghetti code is a leading cause of technical debt, and the opposite is ravioli code, which can happen when you try to avoid technical debt without a clear understanding of what the final picture should look like.
I’m going to have to take that one to work too…and all the rest of the pastas…
Once overheard - “if we don’t know what we’re going to do,and we don’t know how we’re going to do it…I’d like to do that today”.
-
Go to google setting and disable sharing info and adv
True. We (you and me and many others, at least) got it.
But also ‘they’ did the same, I must be afraid.With best regards,
-
Who knows… ? Remember the time (before its release) FalconBMS (also called DarkFalcon by some people) was a qualified as vaporware …
About the future of Falcon4, since BMS team has the source code and now, the support of Tommo … everything is possible. It is just a question of motivation and time.
However, concerning other aircraft than the F-16, do not expect any miracles. There is too much left to fix, do and implement properly on the venerable F-16 : delivery modes, IFF, L16, HTS, various more realistic technical details, systems or ops constrains … etc… (on which we do have valid information and which are not sensible) and I am not even talk about global AI, radar, SAM, EW … behaviors.IMHO, (personal feeling and not the official voice of BMS) the only a/c you (maybe) might hope for improvement and dedicated avionics (maybe one day) is perhaps the F-18 (?). But to bring it near the level of our curent F-16 … you will probably have to wait another decade.
So I won’t expect BMS to become something close to DCS in the area of multi-aircraft simulation. Maybe some 3Dpit slightly improved (hotspot fixes, textures … etc …) maybe … it is not impossible … But certainly not a accurate F-22 nor AN-3 simulation.Is it reasonable to hope for some good and appreciated features in the future : YES … definitively. Do I believe that Falcon will always be a reference in 2027 … ? Yes, I truly believe so.
Live and enjoy the present. We are dealing with “the future”.
You know, Dee-Jay, while I would enjoy a more functional Hornet cockpit, I recently surprised myself when I realized I preferred the Viper avionics. Maybe it’s just my personal tendency to “make lemonade”, but rolling in a a SAM site,just TMS-ing,DMS-ing,cursor enabling, and pinky switching to beat the band, is where the most fun is for me. “Flying Viper” in a Hornet is not a drawback, it’s an opportunity.
Vandal, what you wrote about drones had previously occurred to me. I mean, if RL is “videogame-like”, would it be fun for us? For me, personally, I like what we have here.
What I would like to see in BMS is, wherever possible, to bring in new tech to our flying. AESA(I know this has been discussed, but in 10 years???),ALE-50, IFF, comms,cutting edge weapons, etc. Perhaps we could look at it this way…The USAF will never field a Block 60 Viper…but, WE can.
The other thing I would like to see if increased ease of setup and operation of the sim itself. Take what we have to the point where the bugs are gone. -
-
-
Rybo, Frankly I’d be very happy to be proven wrongon that.
Mav, :lol::lol::lol::headb:
Be that as it may, and no matter what RL is like, our opportunity remains… -
You know, Dee-Jay, while I would enjoy a more functional Hornet cockpit, I recently surprised myself when I realized I preferred the Viper avionics. Maybe it’s just my personal tendency to “make lemonade”, but rolling in a a SAM site,just TMS-ing,DMS-ing,cursor enabling, and pinky switching to beat the band, is where the most fun is for me. “Flying Viper” in a Hornet is not a drawback, it’s an opportunity.
Vandal, what you wrote about drones had previously occurred to me. I mean, if RL is “videogame-like”, would it be fun for us? For me, personally, I like what we have here.
What I would like to see in BMS is, wherever possible, to bring in new tech to our flying. AESA(I know this has been discussed, but in 10 years???),ALE-50, IFF, comms,cutting edge weapons, etc. Perhaps we could look at it this way…The USAF will never field a Block 60 Viper…but, WE can.
The other thing I would like to see if increased ease of setup and operation of the sim itself. Take what we have to the point where the bugs are gone.I, my self, would love to see different avionics modeled for each jet. BIG undertaking, but it would give the VP a good basis on the variations of different combat aircraft. The Super B definitely has a different set up. So, I would look forward to different avionics for different jets. Don’t know if that can be done, but I would think that in time, all things are possible. Also, AESA would be difficult to model due to lack of any real world data on it. But a good educated guess would do well I think. As for more advanced weapons, the slammer D would be a nice addition, along with other advanced weapons that are fielded now. Also, the slammer B and C variant would be great to see modeled. Right now AFAIK, only the B is modeled in BMS (even for the C). So, lots of stuff here to look into. I think this sim is just getting warmed up!
-
I don’t think I’m expressing my idea properly. My own enjoyment of “The Great Viper HOTAS Dance” aside, I’d love a fully modeled Hornet, Super Hornet, etc. I’d love to see Flight Sim X with the BMS campaign engine. If BMS gave me that, I’d just fly the Viper when I’m in a mood for “TGVHD”!
The point is, I don’t see that happening-ever. That most emphatically is NOT a criticism of the Devs. I see it as a simple fact, though I wouldn’t mind being proved wrong on that.
That being the case, how cool would a BMS be with the tech/avionics/weapons stuff enhanced , “polished” to where the user bugs have been solved, and maybe things like Voice Command integrated into a new comms program?
Call it Super BMS. Just like the Rhino is an enhanced Bug,Super BMS is at it’s core the same, just-more.
That to me is a Vision that CAN be achieved, and without increasing the Dev divorce rate. -
I agree here. But I believe that all things are possible in dues time, so patients has paid off so far (BIG TIME IMO), and I am willing to wait for it. But while were waiting, enjoy another SEAD flight. Cheers. :drink:
-
Vandal, what you wrote about drones had previously occurred to me. I mean, if RL is “videogame-like”, would it be fun for us? For me, personally, I like what we have here.
I can’t imagine enjoying a game like that. I don’t see Falcon going that way either. I was just reflecting I guess that in a lot of ways we are already flying in a historical setting and the future is pretty bleak when it comes to humans being needed in the cockpit. So, yeah I think the future of this sim is being the authority on the jet fighter pilot age of flight. So working backwards through all of the retired jet airframes makes a whole helluva lot more sense to me than going forward. But that’s just this fellas opinion, mileage may vary.
-
So is it better Avionics or Visuals or Sound or A.I or Campaign or Online play. there’s a lot of input from a lot of people with some thought about the time to get it done and the direction to take the sim so maybe there’s understanding as to the reason that patches
take so long and why they concentrate on getting it right over getting it fast. it’s easy to ask for this and that and complain about what’s missing but some one will always want the one thing that’s not there not just be happy with what is’
If it was you building a sim that you would give to the world for free how much would put into that sim. How deep would it bee. as good as what’s in Falcon ??? or not.