… its just a phishing site , and now all ur credits belong to us. bwahaha :evil:
Lol I take it you’re joking but for everyone else’s, It’s a legitimate site. The site even links to the owner’s twitter account.
… its just a phishing site , and now all ur credits belong to us. bwahaha :evil:
Lol I take it you’re joking but for everyone else’s, It’s a legitimate site. The site even links to the owner’s twitter account.
Maybe I’m late, but is this why this thread originated?…
Lmao… I just want the best of the best. You guys have the best Sim. MS now potentially has the best sim engine and would have the resources to back you guys up.
I went in guns blazing knowing got damn well I was going to get shot down in a heartbeat. It was worth a shot though.:lol:
Imagine if you could incorporate BMS into MSFS2020… that scenery blows my mind.
Would be cool if the BMS Devs team up with MS to make something like this happen. It may not currently have all the bells and whistles needed for a combat sim but if they continue to support it, it will one day. The biggest hurdle would be to make a business case to support the effort.
With that said what are the complexities and limitations for the BMS team to create a new sim with everything we love about falcon onto a new game engine?
I can already guess some limitations…
What are the pros/cons of this?
What if MS backed you guys to give you the appropriate funding and resources to make this happen?
I know I’m not the only one thinking about this so I’ll be the first to ask the loaded questions.
Mortesil was involved in the USAF studies he mentioned and knows exactly what he is talking about - there is a big difference it turns out which is what Dee-Jay is getting at. They are not arguing with you for the sake of it - for operational simulators read not the same as the training they are using VR for in those videos.
I wasn’t going to argue the fact they were the same because I understood what he meant when he said trainer not simulator in the first place. I know they have different types of trainers, simulators, System Integration Labs for different objectives. When I was asked if it it made that much of a difference it was kind of rhetorical. I understand there are differences but for our purpose of use in bms I’m assuming most of us don’t have a full up F-16 cockpit to use. I brought it up to more so get at the point that he was making it seem like the military had no interest in the technology for military pilot training. Iknow he said simulators but I viewed it as him talking about pilot training in general because most people use the word “simulators” on a broader scale. I.e. we refer to Falcon bms as a simulator)
Don’t get too tired with that. Devs will never develop or not develop VR because the community tell them to or not to.
Truthfully, I’m not that pressed if the developers want to create it or not. I just wanted to put some positivity on the subject around here as I’ve seen a lot of negativity as to why it shouldn’t be done.
@Arty: That’s fair and understandable. A valid trade off and a valid point.
@TwanV:
Another week another VR crusade… even in the games that really shine with VR (did some hours of IL2 yesterday) I still have to use labels because at 200m I still can’t sort friend from foe. Even at twice the resolution, 3D projection will mean the picture will never be as sharp as a 2D projection.
In pilot training let’s be honest, a cockpit simulator with a wide angle (or 360) screen basically kills the need for VR in the first place. If VR is being considered it’s to avoid the cost of buying additional simulators, not because it’s better.
Believe me I’m tired of talking about it too… but I’m also tired of seeing people come up with reasons why they don’t want it because they don’t think VR would benefit them right now and therefore the developers shouldn’t be focusing on it. At least that’s my impression on what a lot of people on here are trying to do.
Nobody said that VR is going to be better. It really boils down to personal preference.
There are some definite trade offs and limitations as with any technology. Having actual hardware brings its positives as well as some negatives just as VR brings its own list of pluses and minuses. So to argue and say the developers shouldn’t implement VR right now because it can’t do what hardware can do is just improper imo.
There will always be drawbacks in trying to simulate flying a real aircraft. We’ll never get it perfect. That’s just a fact. So whatever great and amazing technology that comes out to increase our immersion will never be same as the real thing and it will come with own trade offs as well.
I get the whole idea that people don’t want to see development time get used to integrate a technology like this, but think about all the other positives outside of VR that would come by default because of the required DirectX update to make VR possible in the first place.
And before someone jumps on me about developers don’t get paid. I understand that as well. I’m very thankful for what the developers have done to create a sim like this in the first place and it’s perfectly understandable and reasonable for them not wanting to put the time and effort into this and I’m okay with that. But it is frequent requested and I think it’d be a worthwhile feature for this sim.
Edit: The argument that the technology is not there yet is also not a good enough reason to not implement it to me. The technology is maturing and as I said before, I’m no developer but by the time the bms guys would probably be able to finish integrating a feature like this, the technology will most likely be better than what it currently is now. If it isn’t, the technology will almost certainly contunue to mature and eventually reach that point where a lot of the current technical issues and limitations will be resolved.
As trainers … Certainly not as simulator.
And…
I see what you are trying to say with Trainer vs. simulator but is it really that much of a difference to matter? I feel like you made your original comment to prove your point that VR wasn’t even considered as an option for military pilot training. The video clearly shows that they are evaluating its potential in being implemented in real pilot training.
The military pays 10s of millions of dollars for their simulators, so money isn’t an issue in that context, and they won’t even consider a VR solution as a serious path because the technology just isn’t there…
Edit: Didn’t see post above, someone beat me to it, but yes the military does see potential in the technology.
I’ve been running into this issue as well. I have a i5 6500, GTX 970, 16GB RAM, WIN 10. I had my BMS on my start menu and unpinned it and this didn’t change anything.
@Todd1215:
I did the extract reverse of what you did. I found DCS first, fell in love with VR then realized that it was too clumsy with controls and visuals being fuzzy and hard to read labels and such. After switching back to flat screen from VR in DCS I heard of Falcon BMS and feel the exact opposite about DCS. I paid a crap load of $$ for some of those modules and there is less immersion in DCS IMO than Falcon BMS for which I only paid like $9 for the licensed original.
I think between SteamVR making constant updates and changing the way things work and DCS trying to battle that along with Rift and Windows MR its a loosing battle until VR stabilizes and a clear picture of control ability for doing things outside of stick and throttle. There are other parts that are left untouched in DCS and are super hard to use or very clumsy at best.
Don’t get me wrong though, VR is super cool and sitting in a cockpit is the next best thing to being there, but DCS has to fix some of their basic systems to actually be a combat simulator like the name implies. Just my 2 cents
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes, DCS doesn’t give the same flight sim experience as Falcon BMS but that’s a different story.
The point is VR will only get better with time. I don’t know how long it would take to implement VR in Falcon BMS (3-4 weeks that Mac-jp stated just sounds like BS but I’d love to be proven wrong lol) but it’d be nice to get ball rolling on the feature sooner rather then later. That is if the developers feel like it, if they don’t we can’t complain because Falcon is already a great sim and it’s free.
There are other reasons beyond software. There a lot of people having built their own cockpit at home, they’re not likely to give that up easily, especially when they’re dev. Just with my screenless MFD and my second monitor, I already know VR would bring problems that would keep me stuck to conventional display. VR gloves and vanilla built-in, flexible datacards would be a necessary “pain”.
I understand this, but I don’t think it should prevent developers for adding features that would enhance other players experience. I would assume you would have the option to enable/disable VR so it wouldn’t be forced on to people who want to continue to fly their home built pits.
Also, based on what Malc has said, VR support would require a major framework overhaul that would benefit everyone. The graphic and terrain updates I’m sure would be appreciated by us all.
It also sounds like implementing a feature like this will take a while. I’m guesstimating 2-3+ years. By that time there may be some useful work arounds already out.
I cannot speak for BMS officially, but… There are no limitations - if VR gets put on the to-do list it will be done. Challenges - please bear in mind VR support would be a massive undertaking to implement and given BMS is a team of volunteers it would take a heck of a long time to do whats required. We do what we can to the best of our abilities in our spare leisure time, we do not do this financial reward but instead we do it for our love of the simulator. VR support will require a ground up rebuild of the graphic/terrain engine which in turn will require major surgery on the campaign engine too (no point in having beautiful terrain to fly over if the TEs and Campaigns no longer work). We are lucky to have some extremely talented coders and developers within the team, but as mentioned, they do this in their spare time and all (well, huge majority) have day jobs to attend to first. Patience is the key here.
Thanks this is kind of what I was looking for. I honestly didn’t care if the answer was the developers didn’t feel like implementing it because I know they have been doing all this great work for free already. I just wanted to know if it was genuinely thought about because based on what I read, it gets negative feedback when brought up.
Yes.
Already discussed several times on some various threads.
Good to hear, thanks. Did a quick search but did you have any links pertaining to DirectX and VR?
EDIT: Just saw post above you can disregard or delete this.
Dee-Jay answered the best way possible to the first question. About perspective, as far as I know, it requires the use of another DirectX than what BMS currently uses.
I see, that makes sense. Thanks.
:lol:
assumptions are more than opinions… and we all know what follows opinions… :lol:
You’re right, my previous post was an assumption based on my perception of how it is talked about everytime it is brought up. It is wrong for me to assume so I’ll just rephrase the question…
Is VR support in bms seriously being considered, if no then why not? Also, from a high level perspective what does it take to bring VR support in BMS and what are the challenges and limitations?
I know that this has been discussed about heavily on here but I believe vr would be a huge addition to BMS. From a technical perspective, I just wanted to know if this is possible and if so what are the challenges to make this happen?
I read a few of the post discussing vr support on this forum and it receives a lot of negative reaction. Yes, it’s early and somewhat pricey technology but a lot of people on here have invested a ton in hardware already and the technology is maturing. Prices are already starting to be reasonable.
Someone called it a fad and said mixed reality is the future. I tried google Hololens the other day and it is nothing like vr, not even close. Mixed reality is a long way before coming to the average consumer and I don’t believe it will ever be as immersive as virtual reality. VR literally puts you in the game. Mixed reality creates 3D renderings in your environment by projecting the renderings on a lens. It just doesn’t come close, at least not now and not for a while.
That same day I tried VTOL VR with oculus (yes I know it’s nothing like a simulator) but the vr experience was incredible, it really feels like you’re in the cockpit flying and hitting switches.
Imagine a similar feeling in falcon. VR gloves are already in work so I wouldn’t be surprised if we were able to interact with the VR world with our hands in the next year or 2. I’m sure developers will find ways to incorporate vr with physical hardware (like a HOTAS) as well. Theses issues will most likely be addressed and a decent solution will come eventually.
Bottom line, like it or not VR is here now and will only get better. So with that said I guess it boils down to one question… Why isn’t VR support for bms seriously considered?