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!

@SOBO-87 said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:

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

one more thing how do you push buttons in vr? how do you control the plane besides throttle and stick ,and how much time
you can stay with vr without loosing your eyes and head? can you stay for 5 hours for example?

Push buttons = PointCTRL finger tracker, mouse emulation. That currently works with DCS, X-plane, P3D and MSFS. As simple as pointing at a button with your finger and clicking a button on the side of your finger.

Flight time = 5hrs. Yes no problem, I regularly (2 times a week) fly 3-5 hours in VR, and have done as much as 10hrs in a day, I have been doing this for the last 7 years - in that time I’ve had 6 eye tests and have had no negative effects on my eyesight or anything else from VR. I also fly high performance RC aircraft and have noticed no eyesight issues from VR impacting my RC flying. There are absolutely some people who are sensitive to VR, however I get on with it extremely well. This is largely due to tuning my setup to maintain smooth FPS etc.

Honestly, I’m so tired of the general anti-VR sentiment and the feeling that VR can only be for short, non serious experiences. And that you cannot fly seriously in VR for any length of time, this is frankly bulls!%t. I and many other ppl fly seriously in VR, I use an IRL Kneeboard and modified VR headset so I can easily read it in VR. The hardware is out there to allow direct manipulation of cockpit in an extremely intuitive and quick way. Modern headsets are comfortable, light weight, high resolution and offer image quality comparable with monitors. The problems have been solved, it’s not 2014 any more.

I don’t understand the pushback against VR. Would I like a full F-16 simpit, with 270 deg screen and triple projectors etc? Yes absolutely - but I cannot afford it, and I don’t have space for it. VR + PointCTRL gives me 90% of the immersion of a sim pit for 5% of the price and 99% less space footprint. Plus it’s not fixed to one aircraft. I totally understand why some people don’t get on with it. But it does work for a great many people. Quit yucking my yum!

Yes us VR supporters are a tiny niche of the BMS community, but that’s because BMS doesn’t support it “if you build it, they will come” as they say.

I have no problem with BMS devs saying they have no interest in VR. I think it’s unfortunate and they are missing out but it’s their free time they are spending to bring us this sim, so they will work on what they want. It does make me sad that the dev who was working on VR is MIA though. Hope they are ok.

This! PointCtrl makes a 3d cockpit almost as immersive as a fully 1:1 3d cockpit for a fraction of the cost. It beats anything that isn’t a 1:1 simpit. Right now I can’t get it to work in the Vorpx VR workaround for BMS VR, but since it crashes ~ 90% due to the UI, I can really test it well. But BMS is still very stable when you are in the 3D environment, getting there/getting out is the issue.

If you don’t want to pay/wait for a PointCtrl (which it is pretty simple, we should be able to get it to work in BMS at some point), one other solution is to remove some of the underside of the facial interface foam, or maybe even some of the plastic like Bergison has done here: https://bergisons.simpit.info/making_of_other
That works exactly like NVG look under works in real life. I modified my Pimax 8KX with just the facial interface and not the irreplaceable plastic of the headset and can see all of my ICP or one MFD at a time.

Also I am currently using a 180 degree 3x55" 4K TV setup and would go back to VR if I could, but it is an ok makeshift solution. Nothing beats 1;1 headtracking, especially in BFM.

For kneeboard, I am currently using VRK, a virtual kneeboard that shows up in VR with a drawing tablet to write, such as 9 lines, and saved graphics/pdfs for reference. This could in theory work with with BMS since it is inserted into your SteamVR view no matter the VR app although it’s developer seems to have stopped supporting it. However there is a simialr replacement program in the works that is very similar.

I think it would be nice. We’ve trying to keep the BMS in VR thread to be the main VR clearing house, but ones like the Vorpx crashes, are in other sections like tech support. It would be nice not to have to bounce around.

I would start more individual threads too for other stuff like PointCtrl attempts, look under hardware mods, etc. I would also volunteer to find threads that could be moved there for the mods.

@viper-0 but using menus for ATC is not realistic on the first place and not all of the menu items are as intuitive as actual comms. Voice control like Voice Attack with @SemlerPDX’s profile is the more realistic option and will still allow you to screw up. If I have to actually resort to the menus these days it’s because something funky is going on and the filtering is then handy.

Definitely, Weapons hold is key to keep them supporting you, but on the flipside I don’t hesitate to sacrifice AI then too because they will make some poor decisions that could get me in trouble as long as aircraft supply in the campaign is good. Of course, that completely changes for MP.

I wish AI gave better contact/spike/nails calls, especially when they have a visual target.

@airtex2019 said in "Tips & tricks" / Tactics to be used with AI:

In a different thread I remember someone mentioning “Flex” commands AI wingmen to anchor and circle … ending up in ~5 mile trail position.

Seemed like it might be useful for approximating a grinder separation, for barcap. (But I haven’t tried it.)

Get IDM going in continuous-mode, and play around in the TR mission for barcap…

Flex might make that work for Barcaps, but there is an actual grinder command for AI for BVR tactics. One of the problems with that though is that often Barcap are only tasked as 2 ships in BMS and I think most of the time it is a 4 ship that will do grinder tactics on CAPs.

One thing I use Flex for is if I have to go into a higher threat A-G run and I’m not ready for the AI’s to engage.

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

In my opinion, the sims that survive and the sims that will be left in the dust will be divided by a single factor: The terrain database. Specifically, a global terrain database that is derived from real world data, satellite imagery, and the like, and procedurally generated, as per the world in MSFS, and now in Meta’s NOR platform, will be an absolute requirement.

I’m TIRED of only flying around the Korean theater. I want to be able to pick a spot, any spot, and fly from it or to it or around it.

I get it and I get the impression that 4.37 will be big with terrain and theaters. 2 counterpoints though.

1. There are several well done theaters that are pretty close to Korea level and there are a many more that are still serviceable if you can deal some of the repetitive tiles, etc. 2. You can have very detailed areas but that doesn’t make it a good simulator. In the DCS sense, that means it has a very pretty but overall sterile “combat zone” and still a lack of fidelity. In the MSFS sense, it is amazing I can now use true local area pilotage, but there is still a lot in systems/flight model detail that is left to be desired.

Porting over to Unreal Engine is probably also a really good idea since Meta’s NOR demo video has already shown that it’s easily capable of delivering near photorealistic imagery, easily equal to and superior to the best that BMS’s chief competitor, DCS, has to offer. Plus the support for UE is unmatched. VR is natively supported in UE, as well.

The VR work is already being done (see the 4.35 EULA), I don’t know if it is worth it to switch to UE5 to check that box too. The other question which I haven’t done any research on, it looks great but how does it perform? That has been the issues with DCS for a long time too, it looks pretty but brings your system to it’s knees in VR (see my system’s specs, it’s what I had to run to get the Pimax usable and even then there were trade offs and MP/Supercarrier would still bring the 3090 to it’s knees.)

I’m certainly a BMS supporter, above all challengers, because of the simulation fidelity BMS promises and which is the cumulative work of 24 years of development. But it must be upgraded to technological currency in order to remain viable. A full world database coupled with a transition to the UE environment are the cornerstones of that necessary evolution.

Overall, for the big picture that may make sense but being a community team, it may not be viable to jump onto a new engine this early and not just due to Falcon 4.0 base code being so old. Yes, UE maybe a good engine to transition to be cutting edge, but another part of the reason BMS took so long to get to “even” DX11, it still takes coder experience/time. I believe @I-Hawk was the lead guy on that with years of work on it (EDIT: not @I-Hawk actually )

Yeah, I have no idea how anyone could make a world terrain system and a dynamic campaign work wherever you wanted, including the still gold standard BMS engine.

<blockquote>@Xeno <br /><br />Doesn’t the breathing sound already change based g? <br /><br />What you need is a device strapped around your chest that tightens when g increases, that would be more immersive g, but I’d hate there to be a power cut in the middle of a high g manoeuvre <br /><br />I tend to ignore the breathing as it disconnect from my experience. <br /><br /><br />Now, that would be a cool project! Definitely needs a manual quick disconnect, lawl, but probably wouldn’t even be an expensive project. Could get a small air compressor designed for a motorbike, and maybe modify a tire innertube into a belt that can latch tight around the chest with velcro so any inflation could be based on degrees of G’s sent through shared memory into a microcontroller like Arduino. Would want to be able to inflate to a specific pressure with little latency, and go between inflated and deflated states swiftly and in a controlled manner. Surely will have some challenges, compromises, and failures, but would be damn immersive! …a man can dream…</blockquote><p>Already possible. I use a TN 3rd Space Vest via PS Cockpit in BMS and my own crappy program for DCS. Rear bottom bladders inflate first at lower G threshold, then uppers at the higher. Right now 4.5 and 7.0. Then the front bladders inflate for negative Gs, top first (simulate shoulder straps digging in first) at -1.0 and bottom at -2.5. With the Jetpad and bass pucks, I get a lot of great tactile feedback.</p>

<blockquote>and i guess they invented bubble for better performance? why you cant have 3d models and units not aggregated and maths all over the map? if i understand correctly<br /><br /></blockquote><p>Yes. Get on a DCS MP server/lots of units SP mission and watch the difference in CPU usage (why DCS can be both CPU or GPU bound depending on what you are doing), and you will appreciate the genius of the Falcon bubble.</p>

@haggishero said in New Audio feature request:

@snake122 however my hardware is already capable of them feelings however gets unrealistic when bitching betty screams altitude or when RWR bleeps new air contact,or when awacs calls up, as all this audio is still be present in one stream and not separated and will activate the buttkicker, RWR ,COMMS and betty should be routed to headset as per real life…

That’s exactly what I’m saying it does for you. SimShaker Wings will only output events you would want to activate to your Buttkicker channel and NOT play the regular audio that is going through your normal sound speakers into the Buttkicker like RWR. It is also better because it gets some events that are hard to pick up by sound alone by reading the shared memory.

@Ahmed Agreed with hazy clear skies! @MaxWaldorf Flight instructor hat on, this weather phenomenon is usually more often by the visibility restriction called mist (coded BR, short for French “brume” in the international METAR system). Laypersons often call drizzle “misting” but it is not the same thing. Usually mist is a 3-5sm mile visibility range, but technically it can go down to 1km.

One other thing is that real life aviation systems max out at 10sm visibility, where actual visibility can be and usually is much further than that.

Slowly getting my install updated and where I liked it in 4.35. Any changes to tiles in 4.36 that would prevent using this?

@MnMailman are you sure you haven’t selected -nomovie with command line edit or selecting it with the Alternative Launcher?

@airtex2019 I may be wrong, but like noplayer-play, I want to say these have been around for a long time. I’m away from my computer so can’t look at the tech manual, but are they listed in the .cfg lines with a rev bar next to them on the left margin (the way in tech writing you know if this has been changed since the previous manual revision). I think what @MaxWaldorf is saying is that especially in a new release where there is some bug smashing going on it will cause the devs to chase their tails a little with a bit recommended setting. So if you change it since all of their testing was with 10, you have to state that when making big reports and you could be inducing GIGO.

If I’m remembering correctly one reason this setting fell by the wayside is that it could cause a massive performance hit too.

@CriticalMass well and as a collective when in DCS helicopters. But the base switches and dials are used for most of the left side engine/comms stuff. The throttle buttons are mapped and labeled too.

@Icer not sure, but my understanding is since you have to turn on DX128 with a .cfg I think it’s all either 128 or 32. I don’t think this is @chihirobelmo’s fault, it’s a BMS limitation. But honestly I haven’t read much in the technical manual because as soon as I saw DX128 support I put the brakes on fully transitioning until AL supported it since I also have a lot of life stuff going on. Agreed though in my case, there is only one device I would prefer to have as DX128 which is my X65F. But it’s also the one I use the most and would be most convenient to mapping to have DX128.

I will probably still go forward with DX128 and have my 4 devices the X65F, MFDs, and ICP as long as I can still program axes and not DXs to my AV8R for volumes. If not, I probably stay DX32.

@chihirobelmo just pushed 2.1.0 at GitHub. For those of us waiting for the DX128 support, note that you will have a 4 device limit now for that since BMS still has a 512 max DX support. Away from my computer so I assume/hope you can still assign axes to other devices than those 4 and of course can always bypass by using your traditional device mapping software. I away from my computer right now so trying to wrap my head around what is now best when I use X65F HOTAS, 2 TM MFDs, ICP, TM TPR pedals, Saitek AV8R modded to be buttons and volume axes, Saitek X56 throttle as buttons, and G13 (although that will stay mapped by Logitech software).

If you already have Voice Attack (even plus Vaicom) for DCS, @SemlerPDX’s profile is the way to go. It works with all the callsigns and a lot of other features. You can also make your own catchphrases.

FoxVox is good though and glad to see it as an option.

This is why I never mind thread necros. I missed this was a thing and one of my random fun flying challenges is just carrier traps in DCS with Supercarrier module to see the best grade I can swing. It’s another thing I don’t have to bounce back to and stay in BMS.

I haven’t tried with 4.36, because of life stuff and waiting for Alternative Launcher DX128 support so I only have to map once, but I would assume the problem is still the same. It’s UI related crashes
If you are dedicated enough about 20% of the time you can get into the 3d world, but then it still crashes 80% of the time on exit to UI so now chance to save progress/debrief TE.

But while you are in the 3d world it’s very stable. Unlike if you have a DCS VR level machine, you make no compromises for BMS VR graphics unlike DCS. Granted there is still no stereoscopic support but the 1:1 headtracking and immersion with the headset is still there.

I’ve posted over at Vorpx tech support forums to see if anyone else has seen this in other games to attempt different strategies, but I have not received a reply.