Thanks for keeping the dream alive everyone!

It is also about 22 years since I thought it was dead with 12/07/99 being when original team was laid off. But looking back, it was the best thing that could have happened for Falcon, only not for the designers. Thanks to whomever was disgruntled enough with Hasbro to leak the source code!

This years survey is up! Stick through it, it is front loaded with civilian MSFS/XPlane questions but starts to have more combat specific and even BMS as a primary sim choice. Good way to represent the community of both combat flight simmers and BMS:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/flightsimsurvey2022?partner=MSFSAddons

With native VR support coming, I thought it was time to start this thread.

First, let me start with what PointCtrl is. It is a very clever finger tracking unit. Think of TrackIR thats camera mounts on the VR headset and you wear two active dots with buttons on your index fingers. These small active dots’ buttons quite intuitively allow you to click on things in the virtual cockpit. As a long time home cockpit builder, I can tell you this melds VR and virtual cockpits into an amazing symphony. You look around the cockpit and you put your finger on the switch where it looks to be in the headset and hit the clicky buttons to move the switches. Plus it works with any aircraft’s cockpit. I had planned to rebuild a more thorough home cockpit, but PointCtrl stopped me. I determined with it in VR all I needed was a basic button box for the switches/levers I needed to reach often without looking at them (like gear, Master Arm, etc.). It feels so natural to use the switches, knobs, and buttons in every VR cockpit you sit in (in DCS VR).

On the hardware integration side, the very clever thing about PointCtrl is that is works on mouse emulation. No software integration is required, unlike other hand tracking solutions. This 3d world into 2d mouse movement works shockingly well.

I’ve played with the current lots of issues BMS in VR work around of the Vorpx VR wrapper/virtual desktop. There are some big issues there with PointCtrl’s movement being very amplified almost like it is at a much higher tracking resolution/DPI than what is shown on screen, but I really hope that the native BMS VR support may fix these issues.

Another interesting feature Aux button panels that attach to the side of your VR headset and add 6 functions. Originally these were the QWERTY but now with a firmware update with the V2 hardware, these can be DX buttons and do show up in the Alternative Launcher.

Edit to add:
A couple of videos of how it works. The support boards aren’t needed but does give you a physical stop so you don’t feel like you are just hanging out your hand in space if you like and a way to steady your hand if you want:

@qawa please don’t stop! I think it’s a bit of a hurry up and wait. For me, I’m waiting for the full implementation of F-15 before I take a dive into it. I love that it’s a model that DCS doesn’t really do (it’s a FC3 plane so it doesn’t really count). I personally Iwould love to have a F-5E in BMS too. We all I think have aircraft we would like to see and of course there is the OFM group, but again I haven’t taken a deep dive into them yet partly because I know it’s F-16 avionics still. So the whole other full fidelity airplanes in BMS will reach a critical mass and we appreciate you being part of the foundation!!! I think it will be the next major leap in BMS, much like we have seen many new/returning users with VR, I think the other aircraft will have a similar wave of bringing more people to BMS.

@Dee-Jay said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:

@ZoneStalker995 said in Santa's wishlist for BMS:

I wish we had some more of the modern F-16 features like Link-16, missile warning systems and towed decoys, but I’d settle for just having an AWACs datalink like DCS. Its unpleasant fighting SU-35s and J-20’s without modern era upgrades.

• You would certainly not be able to use L16 correctly because of its complexity.
• MWS do not work as you think.
• Towed decoys prevent hard manoeuvres.

Anyone that wants a glimpse into the Link16 setup should watch this, it’s the best explanation I’ve had on it (granted I haven’t really gone looking that much though):

Watch times 46:30-53:00 then especially 57:30-1:03:05

In general what @ZoneStalker995 and everyone else that compares DCS/Eagle Dynamics’ design philosophy to BMS needs to understand that @Dee-Jay and the rest of the BMS design team are not going to give you a cool toy without the real pain of the setup and realistic integration of that system. IFF is a great example and was in these wishlist threads for years. When we finally got it even though most of us wanted just a nerfed interrogation capability (like DCS’s IFF method), the full Mode 4 was added was definitely deeper than most people expected, despite @Dee-Jay and others warned us the whole time. Overall though it is a much better implementation IMO than DCS and one of the reasons I only dabble in that sim and always focus on BMS. That’s what they are doing again with those listed systems.

Viper ECM operation right now is one of the rare systems that DCS is modeling more realistically than BMS and is an example of one of the few Falcon 4.0 legacy systems that still exist in a nerfed format. If BMS probably had their way, we would not have a jammer modeled at all and would have waited until there was more information on how the ECM panel actually works and everyone would be on the same jammerless level (and actually what ED did in their Viper and Hornet at first in a rare case of getting their system mostly right before giving an unrealistic capability). My understanding from posts here is ED only beat BMS to the release punch on this and internal BMS builds have the ECM panel finally modeled more realistically.

The other thing I would close with is that as I’ve gotten older I have became more at peace with my sims not having the latest and greatest “toys” of systems. I’m now ok with a decade+ lag now of when it gets into the jets to when it is modeled in a sim. That is at least what it takes for information on a system’s operation and effectiveness to come out to see how to truly implement it. Despite ED saying their Viper is specifically a 2005 Block 50, they already have mission creep away from that time snapshot into systems that they don’t have enough background information nor simulator engine to truly implement correctly. I really trust in the BMS guys to get it right when it’s time, but everyone should accept if you want true realism due to OPSEC, you have to be simming in the past, not right now. If you want right now, you will be only playing games, not completely simming. Playing games is fun too, don’t get me wrong, and I do it too sometimes in DCS.

@Korbi said in Not looking forward to the VR update:

@Snake122 said in Not looking forward to the VR update:

Pics of my mod to see physical cockpit, removed some foam under my eyes and some plastic that would sit on m/around my nose:

Gonna need to try that!! Nice idea.

Also check out the link from Bergison’s site. Mods like his to the Oculus and Reverb 2 involve removing material of the actual headset. Gets you more FOV, but you are definitely voiding warranties and I get hesitant around my lenses.

Since this is how the thread has gone, my current cockpit for reference minus a FFI I recently added which will be of minor use in VR

!

I also experimented with 3x55" 4K TVs in a U configuration, which I honestly loved. But the main home TV died and one of the got pressed into family use.

@Seifer Thanks again for your updates and happy to see this honest behind the curtain again from you and the rest of BMS!

Hoping for big things for the 25th anniversary (coughcough 4.38) at the end of the year but even then 4.37 is still an amazing thing! Form the dark days of all the source code fights and C&Ds and etc., I would have never imagined when I first bought Falcon 4.0 on 12/15/1998 this is were we would be. Thank you BMS for keeping Falcon a thing for literally my full adult life!

@Coral36 Honestly, BMS users have been very lucky with constant performance improvements through the last couple of updates. I think 4.38 will force some users to come into this decade’s hardware or maybe late last if you like to buy used. That’s a pretty fair upgrade expectation for finally a current generation of terrain engine.

Here is @I-Hawk’s current experience with current 4.38 development build performance and hardware expectations that are subject to change as it comes into release form:
https://forum.falcon-bms.com/post/376076

@Stevie It doesn’t matter to me. Again, I’ve accepted my best zone for combat simming fidelity is 20 years ago, when the Eagle was in its twilight of its prime. Give me full fidelity mechanical scan, primitive to no datalinks, etc. to full fidelity and it’s true challenges instead of guessing at the modern Gee-Whiz easy.

I’m not going to be a modern fighter pilot IRL so the new systems don’t have the draw that they used to, give me the full up complexity when I was in my pilot prime, my vintage, which just so happens where we also have the best declassification and debatable the last of the challenging avionics and pilot’s management of all the aircraft systems. BMS shouldn’t do 4.5/5th Gen IMO, it will lose is hallmark fidelity. But that’s me!

This has been inspiring! I have a lot of old stuff still, looks like most of the eFalcon releases, FF, OpenFalcon, RPs, original HFFM release download, etc.

I’m sure @Aragorn can still give you all the advice, but if you need the pdf circa 2003, I got it!

Here are some of my screenshots from 1999 and 2000:

I’ve set this one up like the original doing the profile switch extra option when giving the “cleared off” command. I just like the idea of keeping the profiles separate so the other commands don’t accidentally trigger the crew chief voice when flying and lees commands for the AVCS profiles to try to match. Downside of this method is the computer voice when the BMS profile initializes but not too bad of a trade off.

I did try one startup last night and experienced an error but seems like it was more of a Voice Attack error than the profiles issue. I hope to give it another run in after work today.

Clear Skies and Tailwinds to Rhino

@Icer I don’t have any experience with the Varjo, but here are some of the comparison videos:

@Archer as a former Pimax 5k and 8k X and a triple screen user, it would be the best of both worlds: the clarity of the Crystal with the FOV of those other two, albeit that BMS is doesn’t support that FOV well yet.

Yes, video card is a concern, but maybe BMS will also support OpenXR and DFR by then because the 12k has eye tracking too. Basically, if the Crystal is a 4k monitor, the 12k is a triple screen monitor setup. Those of us that like triple screen/original Pimax headsets know it is a pay to play kinda thing, but I don’t know if I’ll be in the market for a video card then. I’d like for my 4090 to still be in use as long as its 12vhpwr doesn’t melt I’ve had to pump 8336x3948 with the 3090 to the 8k X because the parallel projections issue. We’ll see what the 12k’s both SteamVR 100% (usually more than native) and DFR OpenXR will be.

I only have tried DCS one session, didn’t do everything to turn on DFR yet. It was 40-50 FPS with the VR graphics preset option. Still reminded of why I BMS pretty much exclusively…

@Korbi not sure if you get the Pimax emails, but they did just open up the 12K trade in program for Crystal at $800USD. Now, the skeptical of Pimax releases side of me thinks this also could mean that the are starting to think the 12K will be delayed per Pimax normal and may need the cash flow now. But their reasoning in the email is that a lot of customers in surveys say they are waiting for the 12k is why they aren’t buying the Crystal, which I said pretty much the same thing in a survey they sent me until I watched the reviews and changed my mind as I described here.

As someone who’s weekly quick “currency flying” pretty much no matter what is:
1.AAR TE to landing
2. 1v1 guns only match dogfight with Ace AI with 4 gen fighter, maybe a BVR match if time
3. IA air to ground weapons employment of each of the weapons on the jet in that

I agree that the Ace AI gunnery skills are plenty good enough once you start turning. I agree that the extreme low altitude is the hack against AI, but overall I feel they are pretty solid, especially when compared to what DCS at least used to be (although supposedly since I’ve played it they have updated AI to make them situationally decide rate vs radius, etc.) I don’t know how you make the AI anymore aggressive at that low of altitude and have a consistent code where they don’t lawn dart a lot.

I feel like it in some ways is the other way around with the low altitude. We tend to get false aggressive that low I think because the 100% PK of fighter vs. ground dogfight is a little skewed since we aren’t really going to die hitting the ground. I know there is a few times I’m scraping the trees that aren’t damaging yet in BMS and thinking in RL where would I have really stayed at. I think the AI’s “hard deck” isn’t that far off from a real life pilot, even with the life or death situation of a low altitude dogfight, there is the practical matter of still only being able to practically get so low.

@Korbi much lower in horizontal, but similar to the 8K X in vertical. We’ll see what the large FOV lenses bring, but even then the 8K X will still win. As I said a little more in this post, I miss the FOV of the 8K X, but I had switched to the Reverb G2 because the extra 8K X FOV was pretty much unusable in BMS and the increased sweet spot clarity over the 8K X impressed me. But if it came down to the Reverb G2 and a fully BMS supported 8K X on “large FOV” setting, I would take the slight clarity hit to get the amazing FOV of the 8K X. But as you know, that’s not really a viable option.

But now with the Crystal’s clarity, BMS VR is mesmerizing!

I too was in a similar boat to you until @Archer’s thread here and then being able to sell my 8k X sealed it (and I’m working on selling my Reverb G2). I don’t know what the 12k will actually bring to BMS. Yes, it looks amazing and I too had long term plans of the trade in program for it. But then I started watching more and more reviews like @Archer’s and realized what I was missing and right now is probably the best headset for BMS if you have the hardware to run it since it has none of the goofy issues that the 8k X has in BMS with the wide FOV. As a former triple monitor guy, I miss the FOV of the 8K X, but I know that with Pimax’s history, the 12K is probably even further out than they say, possibly more expensive, will take another video card upgrade probably to pump those pixels to (unless BMS supports DFR) and I need to get off the bleeding edge of video card upgrades, and BMS still may not work with the large FOV at that point. I couldn’t wait for the unknowns of the 12k and right now I’ve very happy that I did. The Crystal just works with BMS like the other VR headsets

I’ve had my Crystal for a few days and I am very impressed! The clarity and colors are so good! Very near monitor level with it’s PPD. So far I’m very happy with it.

As reported, the DMAS audio upgrade is probably worth it, but I have had a habit of putting my headphones on over my headset for a long time. This was hard at first but then I removed the standard speakers and can fit my G635s over the headband now. But I will probably look at ordering the DMAS soon.

I do have the general pancake lens “night fog” issue. I have played around with the local dimming setting and for me I found that the “highlight” setting seems to be the best. “Extreme” will get darker areas but the transition from lighted to darks makes the fogging even more noticeable because of the contrast and the stars are lost altogether, “balanced” seems just a hair lighter and foggier than “highlight.”

@jayb Yes it does and well used on my X65F throttle view control hat with the VR view recenter.

@I-Hawk said in Please choose your main display system when flying BMS:

@Snake122 Thanx for your feedback! Pimax Crystal must be amazing! Pancake lenses and higher res. Will be interesting to see how VR headsets will develop along with the future GPUs that will be able to deliver even more performance.

In general, BMS itself has a LOT to improve WRT VR:

• We probably need to implement OpenXR at some point
• We probably will have to implement something like FSR/DLSS
• We will need to change the way we draw stuff to be smarter (e.g instancing of obejcts to reduce number of draw calls)
• Maybe also making the internal VR targets smarter, e.g like rendering into 1 target with instancing which will cut the number of draw calls by a half. The actual meaning is that instead of drawing everything twice, one time into each eye, we will draw everything once but to 2 sides of a single texture, with instancing (Which is like 1 draw call to the GPU but 2 (and can be more) renders with some different settings like different matrices etc)

These are pretty far goals, but such improvements will blast VR performance in BMS to new heights.

Good luck with the Pico 4, seems like a great option! Re: pancake lenses, I have definitely seen the “night fog” effect now. Local dimming does help and on the “extreme” setting you can see how it works but it actually causes a wierd of extra dark around the HMCS. Need to try to fly with the realistic option off it off but forgot.
Good to hear with the OpenXR and other hoped improvements! I get the picking a winner of FSR/DLSS is an issues but they are so helpful and unfortunately it seems Nvidia is going to continue to be the winner for the foreseeable future.

Pretty hardcore VR guy here. Honestly got back into flight simming more a little before Covid and then despite lots of years with BMS and Falcon since 3.0, DCS was my primary sim because of VR support. I came back to BMS just because of the general performance and realism issues. When I did that I switched to a 4k 55" curved TV, then went back to my pre VR favorite of triple screens with the two more cheap 55" 4k flat TVs. This is almost as good as VR in my book, but very temperamental with BMS and took up lots of space.

VR BMS has been a dream of mine for a long time if you go back to some old threads. I’m so excited to have it, but I’m also become a bit of a believer that OpenXR would be the best way to go if a BMS team member is familiar enough to implement it. Not only does it seem to have a lot more options and performance, it would open up PointCTRL (which is amazing!), DFR, I think fixing Pimax FOV issues, and other things.

As it goes with VR, I have experience with Oculus CV1, HTC Vive, Pimax 5k pre BMS VR so I’m not going to speak to them. But I will tell you mostly you get what you pay for in resolution but more importantly Pixels Per Degree (PPD) in at least the screen sweet spot, like the HPs higher central PPD but lower to the edges. Lenses do come into play too with sweet spot with face positioning in the headset too. I but have noticed a clarity difference from each step up in PPD even though it may only be a small increase each time. So definitely my BMS experience: Rift S<Quest 2<Pimax 8kX<HP Reverb G2<Pimax Crystal (which I just got yesterday and the hype is real of its clarity)

But I can also see the “night fog” that happens with non-fresnel lenses in the Crystal, but I think it’s local dimming isn’t on in that and didn’t have a chance to fly at night in BMS yesterdaybtobsee how that effects it. The night fog has been reported with the Pico 4 too of course and probably a thing on the Quest Pro and other pancake lenses.

As a former wide screen guy for a lot of years, I do honestly miss the FOV of the 8K X. The Crystal FOV is better than the G2, but nowhere close to the 8K X. If it came down to the Reverb G2 and a fully BMS supported 8K X on “large FOV” setting, I would take the slight clarity hit to get the amazing FOV of the 8K X. But with the Crystal’s clarity, there is really no going back now.

For a basically all of 4.37, I have been chopping the bottom of my VR facial interfaces to mostly be able to use my home cockpit physical switches, MFDs, and ICP, but secondarily see my MFDs monitor occasionally for fine detail stuff like TGP work. I no longer need to see under the VR for MFD display with the Crystal. I think it might be clearer than my 55" 4K, which is a little too close for “retina” distance with its 80 PPI.

I will also throw out there I think there is a usage bias here too. As some who loves outside the cockpit work of BFM, landing pattern work, formation, and AAR, VR with its 1:1 head tracking and stereoscopic view is big for me. I think those that gravitate more to air to ground, instrument work, etc. that require more head down stuff will like the clarity that traditional monitors bring.