Gee, why not just use WarThunder?
The cockpits are configured like modern combat jets, shell and all. Wouldn’t fit the look, I think. They were all disabled when we went, the MFDs an internal displays. We were told the advance controls on the stick still work but he wouldn’t tell us what they were.
So…try to provide as much detail here as I can:
I’m running 4.35 with both updates. I have 4.34 with all it’s updates and the Alternative Launcher (both 4.34 and 4.35 versions) installed. The problem persists in all of them.
I have updated my Logitech drivers, and DirectX (to DX 12 and Logitech 8 point something) and tried reinstalling both games (and testing with only one game running). I’ve restarted my computer and plugged in/unplugged my stick and throttle more then once. The problem persists.
I’ve tried changing my curves in the Logitech software (no effect) and the saturation controls in BMS (almost imperceptible effect). The problem persists despite any combination of setting changes.
The specific problem that I’m having: In the game controllers menu, when I map my throttle axis to the proper throttle settings in the advanced controls, my physical throttle moves from 0% to 98% and in game on the display it shows my throttle only moving from 0% to 50%. Moving my throttle the rest of the way (2% physical throttle) moves the in game display from 50% straight to 100%.
This problem only seems to occur in Falcon, other games that I play using my joystick (Including, but not limited to Star Citizen, ARMA 2/3, and X-Wing Alliance all respect the full range of my throttle correctly. I only seem to have this problem in BMS and it’s related software. If I test the throttle range in the Logitech software, I get full smooth range of motion. If I test in the Windows Game Controller menus, I get full smooth range of motion. Both show the throttle is reporting the numbers correctly from 0 to 1023.
I’m not technically savvy at grabbing videos, especially of things not on the computer screen (like my joystick movement) but I can try if it’s absolutely necessary.
Is there anything I can do to address this issue?
I’ve confirmed with friends who play this is not the behavior of their gear in game, though I don’t know anyone with an X-56 setup.
Necroing a semi dead thread, but with good reason: I can confidently confirm for you that they are no longer running BMS and have switched to DCS and the Mirage 2000. They’ve also dumped their advanced courses and controls and ‘gone casual’ with just a free for all dogfight with whoever happens to be in the shop at the same time.
No. There’s not scripting like that available in BMS. The best that you can do is have all the units pre-existing in some sort of staging area, and then simulate a user ordering them about via some sort of Macro, which is something I have looked at.
@Cloud:
I’m sure there is 0% chance of that.
The BMS team has lots of things on their plate that they are focused on without even giving a second thought to something like this.
C9
I have already had one wish list item from them fulfilled (a while ago, in fact, and that is more then many people can say) and I would rather they were working on some of the other things they have going on, anyway.
While I do think the Falcon community would benefit from an extended API, it’s not in the cards for the BMS project, and that’s quite all right.
The big difference between ARMA and Falcon (and thus, the issue with linking them) is that Falcon is simulating an entire Theater, while ARMA is really just a vertical slice of that theater. What this means for projects like this is that Falcon has to be much more careful with how it uses and stores and processes units then ARMA does because the scale will just never be the same. A Tank group in ARMA is three tanks. A Tank group in Falcon can be 20 vehicles clustered together. They just don’t compare.
There are some tricks we looked at (like single unit battalions) that might let us do more with the coordination, but honestly that’s not really where I would want to take the project and I don’t have the skill with unit manipulation to get this to work (anyone want to volunteer?). It’s much easier to use Falcon for what it is good at - adding SEAD items, ships, and Aircraft to counter the aircraft trying to support the ARMA unit, and leaving the infantry where it belongs (in ARMA). This means you miss out on things - like visual attacks and strafing runs - but the combat power of bringing a GBU-12 or a Cluster Bomb from a high altitude protected unit with a high loiter time (and very increased Time on Station with a tanker, which is how we usually setup ARMA support missions) more then offsets the limitations.
It’s a bit OP to be honest. We had some issues in the first few runs with the bomb glide time/slopes being different because of different engine mechanics, so we changed it to a timer based on altitude and the expected drop time, and then it explodes with pin-point precision right on a Laser Designated mark. Every time. And the A/G bombs we hand coded based on weapon specs are far more powerful then what ARMA put into their CAS birds.
It was not a joke, and interestingly enough…the project was dead until recently.
Someone else asked me about reviving it (They want more realistic CAS in ARMA) and I’ve been looking into it. The issue is that Falcon BMS has changed dramatically since my last good build, and I have to update the software to keep pace with the current BMS builds. Almost every BMS build has changed the memory hard points.
I’m a cockpit builder myself. Trust me, I understand the intricacies of getting hardware interfaced to the game…up to and including actual MILSPEC flight hardware, some of which I have in my set up. I’ve been working on this since 2003 and I have yet to encounter a problem that even suggested a need to write to shared memory. I’m not saying assertions that such a capability are wrong, but my experience suggests otherwise. Since I’m not going to claim that my experience is exhaustive, however, what is it that you think I may have missed??
The IDM/L16 thing is kind of an aside but to address that: there’s no work planned for IDM even, much less L16 at this point and if there were, opening up to arbitrary input from 3rd party tools would likely not be near the top of the list.
I would like to be able to pass ground-based Laser Designation into Falcon from ARMA 3 so that Falcon pilots can provide Laser Guided air support to ground troops in ARMA 3, and there is not a good way to pass that information into Falcon.
In the absence of being able to do that - it would be nice to be able to pass steerpoints to pilots from the ground, but again, I suspect I am asking for things that most people here just won’t care about.
The IDM isnt really open to that kind of thing, though. L16 is, but as its not implemented its not really useful to have a feature for making it more accessible.
I know this is a philosophical difference between me and the BMS team, but in the absence of full L16, I would rather be able to do something then nothing.
+1…I really wish I could write to SM as well as read it. Would solve some problems.
I would really love to be able to externally send in Datalink data to the game. That would be a shit ton of fun for someone playing AWAC’s coordinator (and there is an an entirely [weird] subset of people who enjoy doing this).
Nice to see someone using the search button for once
I don’t really appreciate this comment. I searched for “Next AA Weapon” on the forums and could find nothing - as I was instructed to use the in-game key-binding system wherever possible, and it does not show the callback names, so I had nothing else to search on.
