I-Hawk
@I-Hawk
Best posts made by I-Hawk
-
RE: [BMS Roadmap 4.37 U3] News from the BMS Team
Guys, as I wrote some avionics in the past (Well, most of it was very long ago but still), let me tell you a couple of things, more from a Falconeer POV but using my Dev knowledge.
The F-16 is still and probably always will be the #1 platform for us. All small fixes/changes/upgrades we are giving it through the years, those arenāt obvious and I think we are already at a point where we have some saturation with the avionics potential. I mean, how far we can still go to make it better.
The most āurgentā areas we need to upgrade at some point are probably:
- Link-16 - That will happen at some point, not sure when or how exactly though
- GBU-24 and CCRP upgrades
Other than that there are many MANY other tiny fixes and changes and updates and what not that can be done. F-16 is an endless story and always will be. And we will keep upgrading it probably for as long as BMS exist.
The focus on other platforms is a bless for BMS, so many people are excited for the potential, so many are excited about the option to fly a different platform with serious avionics, even if for now itās ājustā the F-15C. Itās a huge thing and the potential is even more of a big story here.
If you think that development of the F-15C takes dev time from the F-16 then you simply donāt understand how things work. Itās TOTALLY not related. People who work on the F-15, they wouldnāt necessarily work on the F-16 avionics if the F-15 didnāt exist. It doesnāt work that way.
And last, my personal POV, During 4.33 I spent 100% of my dev time upgrading F-16 systems, mainly A-G related (SPI, Sniper, IAMs, Mavericks, MITL, Harpoon, Mark points and probably some others I already forgot), since 4.33 Iām mostly focused on Graphics, the new Terrain engine, and other related stuff, but no more F-16 avioncs (almost none, I did some tiny stuff here and there). Do you think I should drop Graphics and focus on F-16 systems? BMS as a flight sim is a whole package, and if devs decided to focus at one area over the other right now, then it means they have passion for that now and they think itās more important.
-
RE: Another F16 entry coming "someday"?
@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 arenāt competing, youāre not. And that makes your product obsolete.
I realize that adding these things to BMS will be no trivial effort. But itās 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. Itās working now in MSFS, X-Plane, and Prepar3d .
BMS isnāt competing because we donāt need to. We arenāt driven by anyoneās money nor will so we donāt need anyoneās 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 Iām coding for you or for him, Iām coding for myself. I LIKE flying Falcon/BMS, even alone, even SP, even forever (And consider I didnāt actually flew for the last 4-5 years because of my current development journey and itās incompetence with existing state). At this point in time, I can tell you that I will keep coding and developing Falcon/BMS even if Iām the only one in the world using it. So, letās 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:
-
We donāt āspeak loudā in general. Well, I do, sometimes, but still not reallyā¦ if we wanted the world to know where we are, then with a few clicks you will have much clearer answers, but thatās not the point and not how we work. Again we donāt need money, so while hype is nice for keeping interest, itās a momentary thing eventually. We look for the long run.
-
BMS isnāt for everyone. BMS is being developed with the faith that it was meant to be used for āas real as it getsā (i.e dead serious) simulation of a F-16 pilot in a war environment. We donāt mean it to become some āDigital Cinematic Simulatorā. For people with that kind of purposes, there are other products, probably much more suitableā¦
-
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 thatās why you see all commercial products taking care of that first, but when you look under the hood, thatās 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.
-
-
RE: Fixing the Gray Wall
Jp already explained the root cause, if we āremoveā the wall you will see basically ānothingā there.
To the more technical explanation:
The gray wall is actually not a wall, itās the background.
The renderer is currently using a āFog Boxā that covers the entire viewport, then
on top of that then we render sky and terrain.There are 2 critical problems why this canāt be easily fixed:
- The SkyBox of BMS isnāt a full dome but a half dome - That is wrong
- The terrain rendering range wonāt cover enough ground in the distance so even if we would create a full dome, itāll 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 isnāt 10NM but 64KM, thatās not a guess, thatās 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.
-
RE: Santa's wishlist for BMS
@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 (Doesnāt 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 donāt expect it to be a-la M$FS. We arenāt there and even if assuming we can get close, itāll take time (i.e years, so things will improve but not as fast as you think). We donāt 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.pngReally I need to know, because our 3D modelers are doing awesome work and you should show some respect for getting all that, for freeā¦
Iād be willing to chip in on the dev costs through Patreon.
Ha no - We donāt take money, and for sure we donāt work for anyone. This is a hobby for us and we do it for the fun and challenge.
Latest posts made by I-Hawk
-
RE: Updating some 3d models for ground vehicles
Looking good!
How many triangles BTW? -
RE: A golden era ahead for BMS
@Atlas Well, I wonāt lie and I have nothing to hide as I already said it all in the past.
I have nothing against DCS as a flight sim, I have only complains about those that lead it. ED - I donāt like them. I think their way of work is EXACTLY the opposite of what we do here, and thatās why I donāt like them.I think ED way of a work is a lie, a fraud, they promise things that they know they can NEVER achieve and yet they sell dreams to the public. That is what I think and nothing will change that. Dynamic campaign? Yea they can tell those stories to the public who maybe choose to believe in fantasy, but not to me
About DCS? Well I think DCS has a lot of very nice stuff, GFX of course, the full simulation of many different platforms, helos included. Without getting into the EA state of modules etc (Which is a big deal, HUGE deal actually, if you are a customer, Iām not of course).
DCS has potential, but ED instead of investing to depth into each module, not leave it until 100% done, they try to catch a wider pool of customers and so they jump from one module to another and keep spreading bullshit ideas about Dynamic campaigns (We will seeā¦)
Thatās the whole story from my POV. DCS is a nice sandbox eventually, itās a CAS sim in a world full of very high details, but eventually itās dead because GFX isnāt the face of everything, it sells yes and 4.38 will prove that as well, but itās not as deep as gameplay is for a combat flight sim, apparently
Regarding the debate/discussion here - Well donāt be bothered by me, I mostly just came here for the joke I mentioned above, not for a real discussion. Most people using BMS and DCS do not have a real idea of how HUGE is the gap in gameplay between the 2
-
RE: A golden era ahead for BMS
@Mike-0 said in A golden era ahead for BMS:
Everyone quoting me acting like Iām defending DCS or on their side, Iām not.
OK thatās it! Stop defending DCS!
(Just joking )
Donāt get too far with debates guys, itās not worth it. You see how many DCS players are joining in yes? You will see many more when 4.38 will be released
Cheers!
-
RE: VDXR With bms
Hi,
BMS doesnāt support OpenXR yet, but itāll come with the upcoming (Hopefully not too long now) 4.37 U4.
I confirm that VDXR does work great with BMS, so itās just a wait until U4 is released to the public.Cheers!
-
RE: what's everyone's FPS on Campaigns for those who are on a RTX 40 series card?
@john1974 - In order to measure FPS for a purpose that means anything, when we want to do that internally, we either use the Benchmark TE or we create a different ācustomā TE for the specific purpose of the test. So generally I suggest to use one of the 2 options mentioned above and ask users how many FPS they get at different angles/looks. That would be a benchmark test that makes sense.
Cheers!
-
RE: McDD F-15C/D/E New model for BMS
@Manos1981 my friend, congrats on the huge work done here and on other models! We couldnāt ask for better!
-
RE: 3DPIT WISHLIST
@qawa said in 3DPIT WISHLIST:
BMS still working on itā¦
Dear Stefano! Your work is amazing and used by 1000s of people! Like the F-15 cockpit Iām sure this will one day be used in a fully functional simulation of the Tornado!
-
RE: Ram ?
I recommend 32GB for the future as well. If you have 64GB then great but BMS wonāt use most of it.