@MaxWaldorf
Regarding 4.38 with new terrain and stuff… when do you think the time has come to call it BMS 5?
Happy new year!
@MaxWaldorf
Regarding 4.38 with new terrain and stuff… when do you think the time has come to call it BMS 5?
Happy new year!
@Aragorn said in 4.36 In case of No-Eject:
Correct simulation of erection is important.
Err… just a typo. … stimulation …
Who gets the final post? ???
Just having had a short read about it, I still fail to understand to which extend this feature needs driver-side support and if the gfx drivers need specific support for individual games and to which extend there is a (driver specific?) api to be implemented in the game code?
up to you, continue with your onanism…with such way of speaking is better you stay offline…
OMG, … see what‘s left of this forum and the Falcon-spirit. Merely a (dark) shadow of one’s former self.
Problem with DX11.3 is that it sets a must on Windows 10, and that is a no-go.
Hey Hawk!
I was like this as well until I was convinced there is really no reason to stick with win 7. So eventually I upgraded to 10 and there is no looking back. No problems whatsoever.
Especially looking in the future - months or even years ahead, I think Blue is right: Win 7 support should be no constraint.
keep sharp!
Just follow procedures and everything will be fine
I don’t understand what you are doing
Well, he intentionally hot–starts the engine, then tries an abort/restart–procedure as described in the quote above: Throttle to cut–off, let temp cool down while keeping jfs running, once temp goes below 200 attempt a restart by moving throttle up to idle again. JFS is supposed to maintain RPM throughout this whole cool–down / restart process.
As I understand, his complaint is that this procedure doesnt seem to work in BMS because the JFS doesnt keep the engine RPM above 20% long enough for the engine temperature to come down below 200 degrees.
There is always something… ;–)
Owning the orig. Rift (CV1) biggest culprit in using DCS in VR for me is lack of performance on my PC. Hardware requirements are quite strong. Still fun and its the closest experience short of actually flying in real life that you can possibly create without leaving your home. I’d argue anytime that the sheer experience of flying (and landing) an aircraft in VR beats the flying-experience using flatscreen(s), big screens, projectors (with or without TIR)… any time, hands down.
As for the guys building physical cockpits - now thats another hobby on its own. Not for me anyways. But nobody is going to be forced to give up on that and to use VR instead. Noone is trying to take away a thing from cockpit builders.
Most folks however do not dedicate space, time and money for building physical cockpits. Thats the reason why sims in general come with beautiful detailed built in virtual cockpits. Unfortunatly on a monitor you only can “look at” those. The only currently available way to actually take seat in a virtual cockpit is VR - no question the best way to truly enjoy and admire all the work that has gone into cockpit development!
Prices are dropping. Convenience is getting better. Looking at Rift-S (which is said to be quite better than orig. Rift for DCS), they already use inside-out tracking, so no need for external sensors anymore and the price is already very competitive when compared to other flightsim equipment.
But I agree, current vr tech is not mainstream yet. Maybe also still lacks some quality and resolution… didnt try Index or Rift-S … maybe its just on the edge from stunning site-seeing equipment to becoming fully mission ready.
But looking at the future… I think it’s coming.
It’s coming, guys.
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!
There are funnier things than the picture in the OP. Like the register date of the three first posters. What happened in September 2011? Could have been a release date itself, or they could have been in the same squadron and started BMS at the same time back then. Or these forums were created in September 2011, maybe.
Whatever the reasons, it probably means they read the forum rules a while before us
Heh. Probably. Lol!
In first step day/night diff would be a huge step forward.
+1
This could enforce a new tactical element, making flying at night more meaningful.
In the late nineties I had the opportunity to test the SNS (stinger night sight), basically a thermal vision equipped sight for the MANPAD stinger.
Maybe better than nothing, but I dont think the standard operation procedures could be applied to it and I am not even sure if it ever entered large-scale service.
Resolution was verly low and field of view was very narrow. Target acquisition very difficult.
And of course it was not available to the north koreans of 80/90s.
Thus, MANPADs in general should have no night-fight abilities. They are not even on duty at night.
The folder is separate. I made another folder in the Falcon install folder and installed it there.
Hi there,
Ok, I am still in doubt of your folder structure. In your first post you said, you installed BMS “over” the original Falcon 4.0 install. Now you said, you created a separate BMS subfolder within the orginal(?) installation folder.
if that means here is a common Folder “x:\…\MyFalconInstalls” with separate “.Falcon4.0” and “.FalconBMS” subfolders, this would seem ok to me. But if you installed BMS within the original installation folder (i.e. “x:\MyFalconInstalls\Falcon 4.0\FalconBMS”) you again might have defeated the BMS installation check by modifying the original Falcon 4.0 install - depending on how this check is implemented.
By following the mentioned guide you should be able to avoid such pitfalls.
Other than that, it would be worth checking the purchased and installed Falcon version. If it is the original Falcon 4.0, it should be possible to get you up and running.
Greets!
Hi there,
I don’t think you’re supposed to install BMS “over” an original Falcon install. You should install it to a speparate folder, so both installations coexist side by side.
So if you have indeed overwritten your original install, that may be the problem.
Greets.
… to use Falcon BMS on your system, a licensed copy of Falcon 4.0 must also be installed and present on that system. You do not need to have run Falcon 4.0 after installing it before you try installing or running Falcon BMS; simply completing Falcon 4.0 install successfully is sufficient. Note that presence of a CD [or ISO] copy of the original game will not help you: Falcon 4.0 must be installed correctly and completely on the system for the checks to succeed. For the avoidance of doubt, only copies of the original Falcon 4.0 game will work for use with Falcon BMS (any other later variants such as Allied Force are not compatible)…
some code should be written so that the ATO can understand they can use them to plan a mission before their despawning.
The mission planning would need to take the despawn time into account to avoid the problem of having to re-group and to re-arm in 3D.
Despawn time should remain reasonable anyways to save frametime.
Anyways. Great post(s).
Keep going!
@Red:
Yep. that works pretty fine, problems for ppl start to arise as soon as they want to push that to the next step which often is … shifter layers with DX. and then ppl get confused a lot…
Yes, there still are some nut’s n bolts. Suffered from those as well.
Greets
In any case, whats great about BMS is, that you just map the virtual HOTAS Functions to the stick and then the behave correctly depending on the current mode (i.e. AA/AG) and simply do what they are supposed to do.
Even sticky dogfight mode was eventually supported.
That allowed me to get rid of so much Cougar programming using a pure DX setup instead. No complex profiles anymore that always work only so good before something gets out-of sync with the sim…
Always was a fan of that!
There is a bubble that surrounds the player which extends a given distance (In this case 50NM).
Is the bubble radius really a fixed value?
I have in my mind that there were different values used for different types of targets… so that A-A threats maybe deaggregate further out than ground assets… also could different types of SAM units have different bubble values assigned to it, depending on their effective range.
Wow that’s been quite a while, but I seem to remember that this concept carries away from the image of one single bubble around the player with aggregated units intersecting the players bubble (hereby deaggregating) … to an image of the player being in a world of bubbles around all the different units with the player intersecting their bubble, hereby deaggregating them.
Greets!
I work at a desk too and only recently we’ve had a briefing on the potential dangers of staring at monitors all day and things you can do to minimize the risk.
LOL, the only thing you can really do to minimize risk is to quit this job and do something else. Of course that is not really an option. But as a matter of fact, staring at a monitor all day long is not the greatest thing for your eyes and probably will lead to some degradation over time. Looking away every so often might help a little but probably wont change the situation.
Coming from the holidays having been out in the open the whole time, I clearly notice improvement in my vision as opposed after continued weeks of computer work, I can feel the strain of the eyes.
VR might still not be good enough for prolonged sessions, especially with flight sims. Mainly the angular resolution is too low. (which doesnt mean it isn’t actually a lot of fun already). Improving the angular resolution (without compromising the FOV) will reduce eye strain especially in complex scenes such as flight sims. But easier said than done, because it is not only a matter of the HMDs, but also on the required processing power.
I for myself cannot notice any special or additional eye strain from using VR. But I also dont use it daily and individual sessions typically dont exceed an hour, so…
But really, the constant staring at a monitor at work gives me more concern regarding my eyes than occasionally enjoying VR experiences. It’s just nothing compared to having to stare on a monitor for 8+ hours a day…
Cheers
Interesting…
Is someone able to explain as to why such a powermanagement setting is neccessary for some, but not all Nvidia users?
I would expect a desktop gpu to always default to maximum performance, since it auto-adjusts clock speed anyways.
greets!