@buzzbomb said in Another F16 entry coming "someday"?:

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 .

BMS isn’t competing because we don’t need to. We aren’t driven by anyone’s money nor will so we don’t need anyone’s support in order to keep do what we do

And speaking for myself (i.e off-record as BMS dev) - You need to understand - Before I’m coding for you or for him, I’m coding for myself. I LIKE flying Falcon/BMS, even alone, even SP, even forever (And consider I didn’t actually flew for the last 4-5 years because of my current development journey and it’s incompetence with existing state). At this point in time, I can tell you that I will keep coding and developing Falcon/BMS even if I’m the only one in the world using it. So, let’s get over that specific point.

Now that we are clear about that let me add a few things about BMS compared to the rest of the world:

1. We don’t “speak loud” in general. Well, I do, sometimes, but still not really… if we wanted the world to know where we are, then with a few clicks you will have much clearer answers, but that’s not the point and not how we work. Again we don’t need money, so while hype is nice for keeping interest, it’s a momentary thing eventually. We look for the long run.

2. BMS isn’t for everyone. BMS is being developed with the faith that it was meant to be used for “as real as it gets” (i.e dead serious) simulation of a F-16 pilot in a war environment. We don’t mean it to become some “Digital Cinematic Simulator”. For people with that kind of purposes, there are other products, probably much more suitable…

3. Considering all the above said, and while we lack in the GFX department (for now, but being practical, probably always will, at some amounts), we compensate on that with other stuff. Graphics sell, and that’s why you see all commercial products taking care of that first, but when you look under the hood, that’s where the things that matter will be, and I believe there we still have a strong word.

If you or anyone else will decide to not use BMS anymore because he think we are too slow, not advanced enough with chasing technology (We are doing this at our free time yes?), then we will be very sorry to hear that but not much we can do more than we are already doing.

Jp already explained the root cause, if we “remove” the wall you will see basically “nothing” there.

To the more technical explanation:
The gray wall is actually not a wall, it’s the background.
The renderer is currently using a “Fog Box” that covers the entire viewport, then
on top of that then we render sky and terrain.

There are 2 critical problems why this can’t be easily fixed:

1. The SkyBox of BMS isn’t a full dome but a half dome - That is wrong
2. The terrain rendering range won’t cover enough ground in the distance so even if we would create a full dome, it’ll look somewhat wrong, squared-shaped probably at the edges

So for now it is what it is, ugly yes sure we know.

And BTW the terrain rendering range isn’t 10NM but 64KM, that’s not a guess, that’s a number we know. Of course it feels less because by nature the fog is eating some of it towards the viewing camera.

Anyway, we intend to fix ALL of those issues for 4.37.

@b0bl00i said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:

-New renderer that actually looks like something from this century while support VR. Good and realistic lighting, proper height maps (sharp mountain peaks and ridges) crisp and sharp textures, ground decals, volumetric clouds, plenty of forests and buildings, huge draw distance, scalable spotting, updated plane models (Doesn’t have to be UE5 good looking but a heck lot better) ** highest prio

You are probably confusing us with M$ or that other sim which keep delivering unfinished alpha versions while the game itself stays unfinished and actually sandbox, forever (Yes forever, you read correctly).

BMS will do the graphical jump but don’t expect it to be a-la M$FS. We aren’t there and even if assuming we can get close, it’ll take time (i.e years, so things will improve but not as fast as you think). We don’t have teams of Devs to develop every small graphical feature. What we can offer though is a graphical improvement that will come on top of an already working sim.

Regarding the 3D models: On what models are you talking really?
Our ugly F-16s? https://i.imgur.com/T56B7jd.png
Ugly B-52? https://i.imgur.com/DbAPGtl.jpeg
Ugly Rafal?: https://i.imgur.com/9AWm4C3.png
Ugly Flanker maybe? https://i.imgur.com/3CPZcOQ.png
Ugly EF? https://i.imgur.com/lB0Rj0e.png
Ugly F-4s maybe? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/263474413909835776/968185715353608192/2022-04-25_192347.png

Really I need to know, because our 3D modelers are doing awesome work and you should show some respect for getting all that, for free…

I’d be willing to chip in on the dev costs through Patreon.

Ha no - We don’t take money, and for sure we don’t work for anyone. This is a hobby for us and we do it for the fun and challenge.

@AWmk1 Yes competition is always there and by nature I think some of us have very competitive personality (I know that’s true, at least for myself). But what I meant here in my words is more in the sense of: We don’t need to compete, cause we already won

And let me explain before I’m being jumped upon: We won because Falcon was supposed to be dead probably 10-15 years ago. I (personally, and speaking as a “Falconeer” here) find myself lucky that Falcon is still alive and kicking, many folks are using and enjoying it, flights are running daily, PVP sessions are executed on different theaters every now and then, and: It’s being flown the way we aimed for! So even though everything I said above about “I’ll keep developing even if I’m the last one using Falcon”, of course it’s warming our hearts to see a big and strong community!

Also yes sure, I agree that cinematics do sell (As I stated above, GFX sell). But we are out of this game, for various reasons. I can talk here for hours but instead I could post a single vid or screenshot which would explain much better where we are currently and where we are headed, but we don’t do that. Things will come when they will.

@Buzzbomb Yes, trust me I totally agree with you that GFX (and sounds) are part of realism and immersion, that isn’t a question. So basically all the things you have in mind, be sure we don’t miss anything and we know where current technology is. So while it doesn’t mean we will release or implement everything in a single version, it’ll probably take more than that, we don’t intend to miss anything that the DX11 API can be used for and which all the great sim engines out there already have.

Regarding VR it was stated more than once by myself and possibly by others as well - We know that VR is the future, and it’s already not a question of “if” but a question of “when”, only.

Hi,

These effects are the result of a bug and not intentional. In fact they were there since “Forever” but noticed just now because 4.36 is the first version where terrain is lit by lights dynamically.

A fix is already in place for the next version.

If you want to fix them in the meantime, it can be done by data edit:

1. Open your Data\Terrdata\ParticleSys.ini file with notepad or any other text editor

2. Search for “gp2000-fire” and find these lines:
   light.falloff[.25]=0
   light.falloff[1]=0
   Delete both and instead write:
   light.falloff[1]=0.0001

3. Do the same as step 2 for “gp1000-fire”.

Basically the idea is that a value of 0 is illegal, in next version it’ll be removed and code will be protected against letting such value flow (Sim will crash with a specific message in the log)

Just to clear what is practical for us let me say that:

• Regarding everything but terrain mesh, we aren’t MS and we don’t see FS2020 as something we can compete with (I don’t think anyone can, I mean not really) - We don’t intend to ever get to that level of details, we don’t have the manpower nor the means to hold/stream this amount of data.

• The way ED are doing their terrain is probably the worse I can think of (Hold chunks of “3D models” and render them)

• In order to create detailed terrain you need DEM data, a flat grid and then use HW tessellation to displace the vertices. That’s the only sane way I know of and literally all engines/samples (And I bet all modern sims/games except DCS) I’ve ever seen are using this way to create a detailed terrain mesh. Of course then when you get into details there are other difficulties to tackle - For example a main one is the tessellation factors that DX support are limited to 1-64. The practical meaning of that is you can only create geometry at scales of 1-64 from the most detailed to the least. It sounds a lot but for a flight sim terrain, this will not be enough and so there are more complications.

• When I started working, I thought the main concern will be the terrain mesh - Well after some years I can tell that the mesh is really just the tip of the iceberg and there are many many more complicated challenges

• Adding details “by hand” to the general mesh can be performed but this isn’t a main goal and will remain a “later work” probably. Maybe also some randomness can be created in order to add even more details when very close, but this is for later.

• There is still time until it is ready for release, but we are working hard to make it happen and I have faith in the team and the excellent guys supporting this work to establish the goals and beyond.

Regarding those “20GB of RAM”, well that was just an illustration I made to let people understand the meaning of holding a 10m mesh data. Of course we aren’t going to hold 20GB of RAM, more like a tenth of that However, loading DEM in chunks isn’t a bad idea, but something that I still didn’t tried. It’ll be a challenge due to view distance, and the ability to “jump” between distanced locations by a key press, action camera etc… I’m not sure how much it’ll worth dividing actually, but that is a low priority for now anyway, there are higher priorities to tackle first

@kyros said in Done:

I’m absolutely done with BMS and the disrespectfull and egodriven characters in this forum and especially in the ‘development’ team. With each new release more bugs than new features are introduced. The fact that there have been (and still are) so many serious bugs in the most basic systems makes me wonder how many people fly this game in a realistic fashion. Actually how many fly this game at all in this rapidly shrinking community. There’s a serious lack of proper testing, wrong priorities and lack of documentation. Serious questions and bug reports are met with sarcasm, rude comments or completely ignored. This community is littered with ego and some individuals are really sick. Like many before me, I’m out.

I took the time to run through your “Nightmare bugs” threads and I’m sorry, but you sim to hang on to tiny details and you aren’t getting convinced when a Dev tells you: “But this is how it’s working”. So in that case I don’t have any sympathy to your post - I honestly expected to read that you couldn’t load the sim, getting continuous CTDs all over, or some showstopper - But if what makes you leave is some “issues” (Mostly in your head) with avionics or AI LGBs falling a couple of seconds longer or some trees at runways… then we can’t help you much.

If you call the BMS Devs “sick” then I suggest you to move on to DCS, I’m sure there you will find everything working as you expect ROFLMAO.

Good luck and don’t let the door hits you on the way out…

@kouzi - Hi, First of all let me say that we integrated your work into the BMS install by default for 4.36 Update 1 that will come sometime in the coming weeks/months. Big thanx for your work!

Regarding the difference between 4.35 and 4.36, the problem was that trail0.dds apparently isn’t part of 4.36, so the effect didn’t show because of the missing texture (PS code won’t run the effect if the texture isn’t defined). Use vapor0/1 instead and it’ll show fine.

Now, regarding the large cloud effect, TBH I didn’t liked it so didn’t integrated it. The code will be in ParticleSys.ini but is disabled (run command commented).
What I do suggest however if you want such effect, is to define it as an additional chain (in .dat file) rather than calling a trail from PS ini. A trail feels very “rough” (IMHO at least) as it “moves by” naturally due to trail behavior, I think a static chains definitions that will be very gentle in alpha and above the wing as a “cloud” (But not too large, means you will probably need more than one) will look better I believe. But anyway I wouldn’t start such effect at level 0, maybe level 1 or maybe even just level 2.

Cheers!

<blockquote>Hi, I would like to know the computer configuration requirements of 4.36 and 4.37.</blockquote><p>4.36 - same as 4.35<br /><br />4.37:<br /><img class=“ql-image” src=“https://i.imgur.com/OUaQBJb.gif” /><br /><br /><br /></p>

@Dee-Jay said in wingtip vortex efftect mod:

@I-Hawk

Confirmed renamed “Vortex.dds” I-Hawk? (that will help future data guys in knowing “what is what” exactly … not diverting usages as it was for years on many other things.)

I called the texture WingtipTrail.dds - I believe that is a decent name.

@kouzi Also just so you know there is no meaning to more than 1 value after trail.randomvelocity, I mean that the code only see the first value because it’s a single value field (unlike color, for example).

Anyway the effect was already adopted and integrated for the next version!
Big thanx!

@kouzi Thanx!

BTW, Are you using emissivecolor by intention? Because that means the trail will glow at night. Should be diffusecolor no?

@kouzi Looking very good effect!

My suggestions:

1. Reduce the texture size from 1024 to 512, tops. Texture size should be derived generally from the area it’s going to cover. Wingtip puffs are VERY small and so the extra details you try to gain with the 1024 size will not be noticed ever anyway

2. Make the texture DXT5 instead of that 32 bit format (Much smaller file size)

3. Create the texture with mipmaps - That is a must for every texture we use, the only exception maybe being cockpit textures

I wish to adopt this for BMS by default please. But will need the texture changed as noted above. I can do it NP but better be done from your none-compressed version (Whatever you have as source, PNG or PSD) than do it from the DDS which is by nature a lossy format.

@arabianjules

Yup!

You can see no “hard edges” on polygons, they are well smoothed now.

@repvez

You will, when the time comes

@Jackal said in Flight Sim Survey 2022- represent BMS:

@I-Hawk said in Flight Sim Survey 2022- represent BMS:

Q: Why you are not flying online?
A: Waiting till next generation Terrain is public

Q. If you are telling so, what am I expected to do then?
A. Just the same.

(Skilled guys with common sense and a nice sense of humour too? So rare, grab them twice until they last)

Thanks a lot, dear I-Hawk.
I was missing a post of yours, and I really know the real reason I’m still flying Falcon also now.

With best regards.

Thanx!

Will take some more time, but it’s coming for sure

@arabianjules

Yes, change Samples to 2/4/8 - The more you choose, the sharper picture you will get, but also a bit heavier performance cost. However shouldn’t be a contest for GTX-1080 at Full-HD resolution, so you can use 4 or 8 NP.

The idea of Anti-Aliasing is to smooth those sharp edges created by triangles in a computer generated scene, you can clearly see them in your screen e.g here:

The HW (GPU) does that smoothing by taking a couple of samples of “neighbor pixels” and kinda average the result to help deciding the final color of the processed pixel. It’s actually not that simple in practice and there are many different algorithms of Multi-sampling and Super-Sampling for achieving the same result, I’m not familiar with all the details either but the idea is very clear. Try it and you will see the differences right away.

@unkindled said in 4.36 Screenshots:

@I-Hawk Concerning that, does Quality make any change? Remember having seen somewhere around here someone saying that only the Samples setting matters and one can leave Quality at zero.

Yes quality at 0 is all I can get as well (And I have a 3090 so it’s not depending on card quality), just put samples at 2 or above according to your GPU power, set Nvidia panel Anti-Aliasing setting to “Application Controlled”, and that should be OK.

@arabianjules said in 4.36 Screenshots:

South of the FLOT, FO TvT Red Air…
John

My eyes!!!

Please use Multi-sampling in BMS Setup Graphics in the UI.