The USAF uses Lockheed-Martin’s Prepar3d simulation software as the basis for its portable mission simulators. Prepar3d is available for commercial and student usage, and they apparently don’t really track your usage very closely so you can get it if you want it. Unofficial use is not officially supported, of course.
As for Meta’s new offering, I have sent them a message asking specifically about individual usage and request for specifics. I will post the response I get, if I get one.
I have nothing to add except that I am aware that there are multiple variants on the HUD symbology that are dependent on block type and software revisions. It may well be that some representations are exact to the genuine article, while others might be slightly inaccurate. And how would I even know, anyway? I’d never think to criticize a minor error regarding such things, considering the complexity of the task and how hard the dev team has worked to make it as good as it is.
I truly don’t know where the dev team gets all its detailed data or how they manage it all but I have to say, I’m continually impressed.
The “launch video” indicates that the level of graphical realism is as good as anything out there. DCS level or better.
It’s based on Unreal Engine 5.
I was at the trade show where it was launched.
From what I heard, I do expect that this will be available to individuals, but perhaps not every module will be. Or modules may be available in both classified and unclassified versions. That was not explicitly addressed in my presence.
1: That “fact” is not verified.
2: YOU may not care, but others are certainly interested if it is a platform that is accessible to individuals which is something I intend to find out. I’ve sent the inquiry and will be posting the response I get, if I get one.
3: Don’t be rude. You may or may not be an officer, but be a gentleman anyway.
It is my opinion that developing the F-35 model is desirable and will be beneficial, maybe even necessary, to keep interest in BMS up for the foreseeable future.
However, it’ll have to be, just as with Falcon 4.0 in its original intent, the best representation of the F-35 that is possible with the limited non-classified data available. I’m sure I didn’t have to say that. Nobody here wants BMS to turn into War Thunder.
BUT…to be quite honest about it, if I had to pick and choose between the F-35 being developed, or having the F-16V Block 70/72 developed, I’d pick the F-16V to be developed FIRST.
I think that would be the development path that is most true to the spirit and intent of BMS. F-16 above all things.
As long as I’m here and ranting, I have a development suggestion to make as well:
BMS is still kind of complex to manage with regard to some things that really should be simpler. Such as…being able to quickly select the version of F-16 to be used, via a drop-down menu, with skin selection being available in another drop-down menu below it.
In general the fact is that the entire menu system/user interface is quite dated. Even the look of it looks like many generations of computer software past. I think it’s due for a big update as well. Simply going into video settings tells the age of the foundation code.
VR support. Need I say more?
I don’t disagree with that assessment. However, if BMS is to maintain its user base, or have any chance of expanding it, my belief is that it will have to address its shortcomings and become best in class in all categories or at least be fully competitive in all categories.
We have the high ground when it comes to simulation fidelity. But not for graphics realism and not for terrain modelling. We don’t have VR support, either. Those are factors that work against growing our user base or even retaining it.
With a global terrain database, the opportunity for more wargames scenarios obviously becomes wide open. And let’s be honest about it, who here wouldn’t want to participate in wargaming against Russia or China?
Of course some good points and explanations have been made. I do see your points and appreciate them being shared with me and others who are reading this topic.
However, I continue to believe that BMS has more of a future if it gets, at the very least, VR support. VR adds immersion and makes the experience more REALISTIC, which is exactly what a hardcore simmer would want.
To get VR support, as I understand it, it’s native in UE5, so switching to the UE5 environment makes sense from the VR standpoint alone, and the visual improvements it can bring to the table would be welcome, and I don’t think anyone is going to argue against that.
We are still an unknown number of years, decades, maybe centuries away from being able to fly combat missions in a Holodeck, at “you are there” levels of realism, indistinguishable to your five natural senses from actually getting in the cockpit of a real F-16 with a mission brief to follow. And that will not be “eye candy”, it will be REALISM.
Call it eye candy if you wish. I say that visual enhancements contribute to realism, and in no small way. If “hardcore” simulation is the goal of BMS, then visuals must not be neglected. They should be as realistic as is practical without incurring a computer performance penalty because there’s nothing “realistic” about flying with lag or dropped packets.
Whatever future enhancements may come, no matter how modest or ambitious they may be, nonetheless I will welcome them. Even if we never get the enhancements I’ve mentioned so far, I still won’t stop enjoying BMS even if it’s just practicing various TEs and trying to pull off the sickest “simulate engine failure on takeoff, land safely on the parallel runway or other stupid pilot tricks” stunt flying anyone has ever seen in BMS.
I’ll be glad for what we are given. But I have high hopes for a global world, VR, and industry leading visuals.
That model work looks fantastic! And it gives me an idea, one that probably wouldn’t lead to anything but I’ll throw it out there anyway. The ability to walk around the exterior of the jet and interact with it. For example, though I’d probably get shot if I ever actually touched them on a real F-16, I know where the canopy open/close switches are and where their access panel is on the F-16. And the equivalent exterior panels for the F-35. To be able to walk up to the F-35, open the requisite panels, extend the built-in ladder, and climb in would be kind of neat, as part of an extended cold ramp start sequence. Actually being able to simulate the preflight walkaround complete with pulling the arming pins would appeal to some people. A few times, anyway.
There’s a great deal I DON’T know, particularly about the F-16V, and I hope to learn some of it. For example, have its control laws been updated to be more F-35-like? The F-35 essentially has “where you point it, I go” autopilot active all the time. Take your hands off the controls and it maintains the current direction, pitch, and roll values. So if you’re wings level you can just let it fly itself but it’s not a true autopilot. It’s just flight automation. The V might have that. Or maybe not.
I’d also be interested in seeing if the V currently or later will get the DAS of the F-35. (Distributed Aperture System)
Yes, it IS a competition. Every time I decide I want to fire up a flight sim, I have to choose: BMS or DCS, or X-plane or MSFS, or Prepar3d, or various legacy sims. Which will give me the experience I want at the moment?
Every person who has more than one sim installed makes this choice, too.
The moment you think you aren’t competing, you’re not. And that makes your product obsolete.
I realize that adding these things to BMS will be no trivial effort. But it’s going to decide how relevant and competitive BMS remains in the foreseeable future.
The flyable world will surely be the biggest effort, particularly when you start adding in 3D constructs. (Buildings, vehicles, etc) Hand crafted areas of interest which will be focus points for future battle campaigns will certainly require extra effort. But even that is getting easier to implement all the time. It was beyond consideration a few years ago. It’s working now in MSFS, X-Plane, and Prepar3d .
I just want to add to my previous comments, and say that developing the F-35 simulation to the highest quality level in the publicly accessible simulation field is what is most likely to give BMS staying power in the years to come. Just as the F-35 is intended to eventually replace the F-16 as the primary fighter in use by Air Forces around the world, the F-35 simulation should become BMS’s new “home”. We love our F-16 but reality is reality. Even though the F-16V modernizes the Viper greatly, it’s still not going to be in the future what the F-35 will be. In 30 years the F-35 will still be getting upgraded. Who thinks the F-16 can last that long? When that day comes the only flying F-16s will be retired warbirds working the airshow circuit…if there are even airshows. And I’ll be in my late 80s.
It is the F-35 that will keep BMS a viable and relevant simulation in the years to come. So I say, develop it to such a point that a new user won’t be able to tell if BMS was built for the F-16 or for the F-35 as the core of its existence.
And maybe it’ll be time to talk to the rights holders and see about an F-35 centric release to the general public. “Lightning 4.0”. We’d need that to boost participation.
@Aragorn You’re missing my point. Which is, as simply as I can put it: Without moving toward F-35 simulation, BMS runs the risk of becoming one of those sims that only deals with legacy aircraft.
To be a sim that only deals with legacy aircraft is fine, if that’s what you want. But from the very start, F 4.0 was made to simulate state of the art aircraft as its primary role and that has never changed as of yet.
The F-35 is new (well, new by 21st century standards…) and attracts a lot of interest. BMS supporting it (and to a high standard) will help to maintain interest in BMS and help keep the numbers of the active community members up. I believe that it would be a way to make our community larger and hopefully better.
I am NOT suggesting that BMS abandon the F-16, not in the slightest. But as time goes on the focus should shift more toward the F-35 at least until such a time as the sim seems to be focused as much on the F-35 as it is on the F-16.
There is simply more of a future for an F-35 simulation than there is for an F-16 simulation.
I just want to add to my previous comments, and say that developing the F-35 simulation to the highest quality level in the publicly accessible simulation field is what is most likely to give BMS staying power in the years to come. Just as the F-35 is intended to eventually replace the F-16 as the primary fighter in use by Air Forces around the world, the F-35 simulation should become BMS’s new “home”. We love our F-16 but reality is reality. Even though the F-16V modernizes the Viper greatly, it’s still not going to be in the future what the F-35 will be. In 30 years the F-35 will still be getting upgraded. Who thinks the F-16 can last that long? When that day comes the only flying F-16s will be retired warbirds working the airshow circuit…if there are even airshows. And I’ll be in my late 80s.
It is the F-35 that will keep BMS a viable and relevant simulation in the years to come. So I say, develop it to such a point that a new user won’t be able to tell if BMS was built for the F-16 or for the F-35 as the core of its existence.
And maybe it’ll be time to talk to the rights holders and see about an F-35 centric release to the general public. “Lightning 4.0”. We’d need that to boost participation.
That model work looks fantastic! And it gives me an idea, one that probably wouldn’t lead to anything but I’ll throw it out there anyway. The ability to walk around the exterior of the jet and interact with it. For example, though I’d probably get shot if I ever actually touched them on a real F-16, I know where the canopy open/close switches are and where their access panel is on the F-16. And the equivalent exterior panels for the F-35. To be able to walk up to the F-35, open the requisite panels, extend the built-in ladder, and climb in would be kind of neat, as part of an extended cold ramp start sequence. Actually being able to simulate the preflight walkaround complete with pulling the arming pins would appeal to some people. A few times, anyway.
There’s a great deal I DON’T know, particularly about the F-16V, and I hope to learn some of it. For example, have its control laws been updated to be more F-35-like? The F-35 essentially has “where you point it, I go” autopilot active all the time. Take your hands off the controls and it maintains the current direction, pitch, and roll values. So if you’re wings level you can just let it fly itself but it’s not a true autopilot. It’s just flight automation. The V might have that. Or maybe not.
I’d also be interested in seeing if the V currently or later will get the DAS of the F-35. (Distributed Aperture System)
It is my opinion that developing the F-35 model is desirable and will be beneficial, maybe even necessary, to keep interest in BMS up for the foreseeable future.
However, it’ll have to be, just as with Falcon 4.0 in its original intent, the best representation of the F-35 that is possible with the limited non-classified data available. I’m sure I didn’t have to say that. Nobody here wants BMS to turn into War Thunder.
BUT…to be quite honest about it, if I had to pick and choose between the F-35 being developed, or having the F-16V Block 70/72 developed, I’d pick the F-16V to be developed FIRST.
I think that would be the development path that is most true to the spirit and intent of BMS. F-16 above all things.
As long as I’m here and ranting, I have a development suggestion to make as well:
BMS is still kind of complex to manage with regard to some things that really should be simpler. Such as…being able to quickly select the version of F-16 to be used, via a drop-down menu, with skin selection being available in another drop-down menu below it.
In general the fact is that the entire menu system/user interface is quite dated. Even the look of it looks like many generations of computer software past. I think it’s due for a big update as well. Simply going into video settings tells the age of the foundation code.
VR support. Need I say more?
Of course some good points and explanations have been made. I do see your points and appreciate them being shared with me and others who are reading this topic.
However, I continue to believe that BMS has more of a future if it gets, at the very least, VR support. VR adds immersion and makes the experience more REALISTIC, which is exactly what a hardcore simmer would want.
To get VR support, as I understand it, it’s native in UE5, so switching to the UE5 environment makes sense from the VR standpoint alone, and the visual improvements it can bring to the table would be welcome, and I don’t think anyone is going to argue against that.
We are still an unknown number of years, decades, maybe centuries away from being able to fly combat missions in a Holodeck, at “you are there” levels of realism, indistinguishable to your five natural senses from actually getting in the cockpit of a real F-16 with a mission brief to follow. And that will not be “eye candy”, it will be REALISM.
Call it eye candy if you wish. I say that visual enhancements contribute to realism, and in no small way. If “hardcore” simulation is the goal of BMS, then visuals must not be neglected. They should be as realistic as is practical without incurring a computer performance penalty because there’s nothing “realistic” about flying with lag or dropped packets.
Whatever future enhancements may come, no matter how modest or ambitious they may be, nonetheless I will welcome them. Even if we never get the enhancements I’ve mentioned so far, I still won’t stop enjoying BMS even if it’s just practicing various TEs and trying to pull off the sickest “simulate engine failure on takeoff, land safely on the parallel runway or other stupid pilot tricks” stunt flying anyone has ever seen in BMS.
I’ll be glad for what we are given. But I have high hopes for a global world, VR, and industry leading visuals.
Yes, it IS a competition. Every time I decide I want to fire up a flight sim, I have to choose: BMS or DCS, or X-plane or MSFS, or Prepar3d, or various legacy sims. Which will give me the experience I want at the moment?
Every person who has more than one sim installed makes this choice, too.
The moment you think you aren’t competing, you’re not. And that makes your product obsolete.
I realize that adding these things to BMS will be no trivial effort. But it’s going to decide how relevant and competitive BMS remains in the foreseeable future.
The flyable world will surely be the biggest effort, particularly when you start adding in 3D constructs. (Buildings, vehicles, etc) Hand crafted areas of interest which will be focus points for future battle campaigns will certainly require extra effort. But even that is getting easier to implement all the time. It was beyond consideration a few years ago. It’s working now in MSFS, X-Plane, and Prepar3d .
I don’t disagree with that assessment. However, if BMS is to maintain its user base, or have any chance of expanding it, my belief is that it will have to address its shortcomings and become best in class in all categories or at least be fully competitive in all categories.
We have the high ground when it comes to simulation fidelity. But not for graphics realism and not for terrain modelling. We don’t have VR support, either. Those are factors that work against growing our user base or even retaining it.
With a global terrain database, the opportunity for more wargames scenarios obviously becomes wide open. And let’s be honest about it, who here wouldn’t want to participate in wargaming against Russia or China?
@vfp I have not yet received an answer, which I must admit bothers me ever so slightly. I expect courtesy and professionalism out of all people and all organizations, and that means that, among other things, if a person makes a polite inquiry about a product, it deserves an answer even if that answer is simply “No.”.
That could very well be true. My opinion of what’s viable is MY opinion and I can not present it as being the majority opinion of the BMS community without putting that question to a general vote and getting a supportive result.
I’m certainly no programmer, either, so I’m not qualified to speak to the technical difficulties that would involve a platform change. However, I have to say that UE5 is built to be a very easy environment to develop games in, and in fact there are tutorials that can have a total novice making fully functional games with substantial world detail in a matter of hours. And, I cite Meta’s NOR demo video as evidence, that clearly the UE engine is fully capable. It may well be that the simplest way to make a large leap forward for BMS would be to redevelop it under UE. I’d be surprised if the in-game assets of most importance can’t be ported into UE with little difficulty.
In truth I’d be willing to PAY for an upgrade of BMS that checks just these two boxes: UE5 engine and the global terrain database.
In my opinion, the sims that survive and the sims that will be left in the dust will be divided by a single factor: The terrain database. Specifically, a global terrain database that is derived from real world data, satellite imagery, and the like, and procedurally generated, as per the world in MSFS, and now in Meta’s NOR platform, will be an absolute requirement.
I’m TIRED of only flying around the Korean theater. I want to be able to pick a spot, any spot, and fly from it or to it or around it.
Porting over to Unreal Engine is probably also a really good idea since Meta’s NOR demo video has already shown that it’s easily capable of delivering near photorealistic imagery, easily equal to and superior to the best that BMS’s chief competitor, DCS, has to offer. Plus the support for UE is unmatched. VR is natively supported in UE, as well.
I’m certainly a BMS supporter, above all challengers, because of the simulation fidelity BMS promises and which is the cumulative work of 24 years of development. But it must be upgraded to technological currency in order to remain viable. A full world database coupled with a transition to the UE environment are the cornerstones of that necessary evolution.