I recently listened and enjoyed an interview with Max Waldolf, who did a great job representing both the BMS team and those of us who fly. Then I put together a 3-flight package and did serious damage to an RoK Air Defense Battalion (I know the younger guys enjoy A/A, dogfighting, etc., but I like to ground pound).

I’m regularly making posts about several things, with emphasis on suggestions regarding the User Interface. I think I gravitate to that area because as a programmer I specialized in Windows-based user interfaces (and database programming) for many decades before I retired, so I’m maybe quick to notice little things that could/should be improved.

With the 4.36 and 4.37 releases, I’m happy to see some improvement in some of the UIs, but much more improvement needs to continue. But in other areas, 4.36 an d4.37 are just blowing my mind in the amazing progress you guys have made with the A.I. area of the sim. The Monkeys have obviously made a great leap in evolution, and the improvements in the realism of the ATC operations add nearly as much enjoyment to the beginning and the end of the mission as it does to Steerpoint 7.

More and more, I land and park nearby, open the canopy, and just enjoy listening to ATC and watching the planes come and go for 20 or 30 minutes before I close the mission down.

I also noticed the huge improvements made in the particle.sys files. You guys are doing an amazing job.

I figure since I’m so quick to point out areas that need improvement or clarification, I need to be just as quick to praise for those areas of amazing progress and accomplishments as well. Kudos.

A few days ago, I got the 512Gb Meta Quest 3, along with the elite head strap with its included extra built-in battery (giving a total of 3 to 4 hours of play).

For those of you thinking about getting a Quest 3, it is everything as hyped and more. It is smaller, far more powerful CPU, far better pancake-style lenses, wider FOV, higher resolution, etc. With the elite head strap, it is super easy to take on and off, and the rear-mounted extra battery balances the whole unit well.

The interocular distance adjustment is now infinite instead of a trinary choice of ‘A, B, or C’. The eye/lens distance is now integrated and adjustable (choice of 4), so no more separate spacers, either.

Meta’s emerging approach focuses on mixed reality instead of virtual reality. I think they should have done a better job at educating their potential customers about the huge advantages of this paradigm shift. While I intellectually understood the difference between Virtual/Mixed reality, I had no practical experience in application. Having now worked with both mediums, I have a far better appreciation of just how significant this shift actually is.

With VR headsets, the real world disappears and the artificial world becomes your reality. This is problematic because the real world, although hidden, is still around, so you have funny YouTube videos of people running into walls and smashing their TV’s, etc.

With the Quest 3, it’s a whole new approach. The headset has four high-resolution color cameras on its face that reconstruct a very realistic and accurate view of the real world in front of you. So no more running into walls, bumping into furniture, etc. However, there is a slightly reduced resolution that makes reading small print on your phone or desktop problematic. For me, I can almost make out the print on my phone when I look at it while wearing my Quest 3, but not quite.

Bottom line? It’s important to understand that this feature isn’t just an ‘enhanced passthrough’ feature-- it’s a fundamental shift in how you use and integrate the potential of VR with the real world immersively and cooperatively.

So last night, I used the Quest 3 for the first time with Falcon BMS. I flew an ‘Instant Action/Moving Mud’ scenario.

The difference between my old Quest 2 and the Quest 3 is obvious and amazing. With the old Fresnel lenses, there were prismatic artifacts that are inherent to the lenses. With the pancake lenses, there are absolutely no artifacts.

With the old Fresnel lenses, perfectly clear vision was only available in a very small centered area of the lens. Things immediately got increasingly blurry away from that small center. So with the old lenses, you got into the habit of making small head-motion adjustments to keep the area of interest exactly in the middle of the lenses so you can see them clearly.

With the new pancake lenses, the entire (and wider) FOV is perfectly focused. So instead of having to make constant head-motion adjustments, all you have to do is move your eyes around just like you do in real life.

In the cockpit, the obviously higher resolution is immediate and gratifying. The details of the pit are clear and focused. Even when I “lean back” in my cockpit seat, the MFDs are in focus and easily readable. The outside world is just gorgeous, and 4.38 isn’t even out yet!!!

All I can say is that I had high hopes for the Quest 3 ever since they announced it over a year ago, and it has easily exceeded my hopes. Honestly, devs, I am MORE THAN READY for 4.38 to be released, now more than ever.

After reading a LOT of posts over the past couple of years regarding air-ground munition performance, I decided to dive into an analysis of existing software data.

So I spent about 15 hours yesterday studying the Air-Ground Munition data tables using the Falcon editor and the tables available in the BMS Threat Guide manual.

It’s easy to lose yourself and go cross-eyed studying the rows and columns of data, cross referencing the data with the Threat Guide, recalling posts and comments from both pilots and devs regarding possible issues, etc.

It seemed apparent to me that certain munitions were NEVER reported as problematic, whereas others were constantly the subject of complaints about being nerfed.

I finally went to bed and let my sleep-state work on it (all my life, I’ve taken problems to bed and woke up with a possible solution). Sure enough, when I woke up I had a plan:

Looking at munitions that were NEVER the subject of complaint, I analyzed their relative properties and more importantly, their commonalities. It soon became apparent to me that there was a formulaic relationship among munition weight, explosive weight, blast radius, and other data. After quite a bit of experimentation, I was able to derive a formula that, when applied to the non-problematic munitions, showed very consistent damage values from one munition to another across the board.

This is where it became interesting: When I applied that formula to munitions whose damage values seemed to be under-modeled, the formula immediately confirmed that the existing damage values were indeed under-modeled, sometimes extremely under-modeled, and this under-modeling tended to occur among certain common groups of munitions.

Interestingly, there were three individual instances (the GBU-12/22, GBU-24, and GBU-39) where the formula indicated that the damage values for those munitions were spot on. Others, not so much.

Using the Falcon editor, I applied my formula to all of the problematic munitions to bring damage value data in line with what the formula indicated. I’m going to be flying missions for the next several days to evaluate the results of my modifications.

If my experience validates my research, I’ll publish the formula, how I derived it, and the updated damage values I will use until BMS makes adjustments in a future version update.

If my experience does NOT validate my research, I’ll blame the psilocybin.
*

In 2019, I got a pretty hot computer, and at moderate graphic settings, it got pretty good frame rates (nominally 35-75fps, depending on how “busy” things were around me).

But all this caution about 4.38 coming up, I was thinking… "four-year old computer, major terrain update coming… How much am I going to have to dumb down the graphics to stay around 50fps when 4.38 comes out? And if 4.38 is all about graphics, why would I want to dumb anything down???

I decided that if I’m going to make the most out of 4.38, it’s time to get a new computer.

So I did. Had it built and picked it up yesterday. I put everything together today. Took 10 hours. When I got to the point where I could start the sim for a test run in the Training-Landing (which is where I always go to get a consistent comparison when I tweak settings) I clicked the Fly button.

First thing I noticed is that it took only a couple of seconds to jump into the pit from 2D. I hit Alt-C/F to see how much more than 65fps (nominal for me on my old computer) I would get. I was hoping maybe double? Maybe even a little more?

What I DIDN’T expect was to see was: ~460fps!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!??? When I got up off the floor, I maxxed out every setting there was to max out, and it settled down to about 150-175fps.

So once again, ImaHappyCamper. Can’t wait to see what 4.38 looks like when I install it on this setup.

AMD Ryzen 7700X w/ cooler
32Gb DDR5 6000 RAM
3 x 1Tb NVMe PCIe SSDs
AMD Radeon RX6700 w/ 12Gb VRAM

Updated sig below.

I highly recommend it. Waiting on you, devs… Remember I’m old so sooner is always better for me.

@Bowser said in to the 'dev’s:

This one’s not gonna be positive but I feel its necessary. I’ve mostly refrained from flying 4.36 since its release due to the incredible amount of bugs present and now, even after the 3rd update there are still so many, SO MANY bugs present in every part of the game that it’s absolutely not fun to fly anymore. It’s really beyond my imagination why you guys put out releases like this.

I’ve been flying this game since it’s creation and I really have to ask, why do you people insist on making every new release WORSE than the previous one??
4.33 completely messed up the AG ordnance delivery, 4.34 messed up AI fuel management. 4.35 messed up SAM behavior, 4.36 has completely messed up AI’s being able to attack and ruined the campaign behavior in general. Just watch a simple unopposed strike in 2D from AI’s and look at the complete ineffectiveness.

You keep adding a thing here and there but the very core of the game is rotten. Not a single weapon system works as it should, neither do other parts of the game. And improving one system in a new release while simultaneously making another system worse is NOT an improvement! TEST someting before you release it!!!

I understand why testing is severly limited, cause all of the squadrons that used to do that have left BMS. Why? Cause you give them sh!t. Not only what you put out as a release but also your behavior on the forum. All the sarcastic, negative, non-productive comments. Especially from MAVJP but others as well. Also all the other besser wisser forum pirates that think they have any clue what’s going on.

There have been soo many bugs for soo long, very serious KNOWN ones even and you still release it?! Many of them are not even noted by anyone. Why? Cause no one flies this game anymore. And the very few that do, fly arcade style and have no clue how messed up this game is.

Most of the serious reported bugs on this forum are completely ignored or met with the usual unproductive comments.

If you keep on going like this, every new release will bring BMS closer to its grave. I won’t be there cause I’ve given up already.

Troll Rating: 8
Normally, I’d give a 7, but it took a lot of negativity to have nothing better to do on Christmas Day, so I upped it a point.

@SoBad - Okay, I’m ready to post an update of my testing thus far, but because 1) I just had an amazing flight mission, and 2) I’m old and love to tell stories, this will be an entirely, and unnecessarily, long report.

3 1/2 days ago, I started an evenly matched Rolling Fire in KTO with Veteran skills set. The moment I started the campaign, I selected and took over control of the 35th Fighter Squadron in Gunsan Airbase, deciding and fragging all of the missions. It’s been going well-- I spent the first 15 hours or so gaining control of the sky, and I’ve been supporting ground units near the DMZ ever since. The campaign is doing very well, slowly & steadily.

I had shut down Kwail Airbase early in the campaign. In the last couple of missions, however, my packages had been harassed by red air in southwestern North Korea. I discovered that Kwail had been repaired and was 100% operational again. So…

I put together a multi-flight package and did a little experimenting. For me, this was an opportunity to test my updated damage values on certain munitions AND a test of challenging mixed objectives within our flight.

I fragged a 4-ship OCA Strike, Mako1, with the following loadouts:

Mako 11, GBU-39 SDB x8, taking out various targets around the airbase
Mako 12 & 13 - each GBU-38 (500lb) HE x 4, to take out larger targets.
Mako 14 - GBU-31v3 2000lb AP x 2, to take out the runway.

On the Recon/Targets windows,
Mako11, I assigned myself designated targets to Spt. 91-98
Mako 12 & 13, I assigned ONE larger building to each one (because you can only assign ONE target to the other planes in your flight)
Mako 14, I assigned the middle of the runway.

I worried that they would put all of their ordinance into the ONE target they each had been assigned. But like I said, I was experimenting, so let’s find out!

Accompanying us was Mustang 1, a 2-ship ESCORT flight out of Osan Airbase, and Hawkeye 1, a 3-ship TARCAP flight. Early in the campaign, I had decimated Air Defense Battalions along the DMZ, so I didn’t need a SEAD flight.

The amazing Campaign Brain put together a scheduled flight, and coordinated us marshalling around a common steerpoint 3, after which we headed out-- TARCAP in front about 20nm, ESCORT ahead of us about 15nm, and our flight acting like we owned the sky.

When we got 30nm out from Kwail Airbase @ 20,000ft, I was within release parameter with my SDBs. So I issued, “Flight, Weapons Free Air-to-Ground”. They went into attack mode while I Target Steerpoint designated 91-98, dropping a SDB on each, one after another within the space of 30 seconds from 20nm away. I then set my auto-pilot for my Egress point and went outside to watch everything.

First, my amazement of how well, and how flawlessly, BMS’s campaign AI processed EVERYTHING. My SDBs, of course, hit each of their designated targets. Mako 12 & 13 each hit their designated target with ONE munition each, and then proceeded to go repeatedly in and out dropping ordinance on DIFFERENT large targets on the airbase, like they knew what I had intended and hoped they would do.

Mako 14 dropped his first GBU-31v3 right on the runway at the designated spot, and then came around and dropped his second AGAIN on the runway, but about 300 yards away from the first one, again, like he understood my intentions.

In the meantime, my escort is shooting down fighter planes, and even strafed a prop plane into the dirt (I happened to see it). The TARCAP also shot down two fighter planes.

The sophisticated coordination just blew my mind. It was a complex mission, and it went flawlessly BEYOND my expectations. The amazing work that BMS has done with the AI is just beyond my ability to praise it.

Now, about the munitions whose damage values I had adjusted. The debrief was as reasonable and realistic as I had hoped. No munitions behaved like they were over-modeled because of my adjustments. Overall, I had about 66% ‘destroyed’, and 33% ‘damaged’ being reported. More importantly, I did NOT have any instances of 100% kills or 0% kills.

I still want to test further, but I think that the damage values that I modified and use are much more realistic.

Hope everyone enjoyed this brief report.

Let me be the first to say that my videos don’t have that professional polish-- dramatic music, impressive perspective changes, and so on. I’m learning as I go with just basic free video editing software. But I’ve had fun doing this-- this is my third video now.

Stock KTO, Rolling Fire, Day 4, South Korea on the offensive. I run the 35th Fighter Squadron out of Gunsan, and we’re now pounding DPRK ground battalions in support of the coming offensive. I tasked an Air Interdiction, using Panther 4, 4-ship loaded with GBU-12s, and escorted by Cajun 5, a 2-ship flight. The weather started out poor, but cleared up shortly after we got to the target area, thankfully (see commentary in the video for insight).

The mission was very successful with 31 ground units destroyed, only a handful survived.

@kyros - Like FEW before you, I bid you farewell.

The most disrespectful and ego-driven character I’ve seen here authored this topic.

My serious questions and bug reports have always been met with courtesy and patience. Strange and mystifying how your experience seems so different.

But I do kind of understand why you should rail against something that has cost you so much to use.

The main thing I’m wondering about is your factual data source to support the notion that the Falcon BMS community is “rapidly shrinking”, if you care to share. How much and over what period of time? Just wondering, because my take is just the opposite.

For the past several days, I’ve been converting my ancient ASCII text file to a more organized MS-Word document. I thought maybe others would benefit from this document as a ‘data resource’. Probably the best way for me to explain it would be to just copy/paste the Introduction section of the document:

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This document is designed as a ‘Version Upgrade Assistant’. It originally started out decades ago as my personal scratchpad ASCII text file that contained the various configurations and settings that I used for my Falcon 4 BMS simulator. My old text file data was very helpful when I had to upgrade to a newer release of Falcon 4 BMS.

If Benchmark Sims’ next release will be 4.38.0, it will be completely new install. It will be very important to prepare in advance with a one-stop comprehensive document that contains all of your existing configs & settings. This ‘upgrade assistant’ is intended to help you transition from an older version to a newer version of Falcon 4 BMS as smoothly as possible, especially when that upgrade is a completely new install from scratch.

INTRODUCTION

With each version upgrade release of Falcon 4 BMS, a certain number of changes must be made in certain files and settings. Some upgrades are very minor with a minimum of adjustment; others are more substantial and complex, and involve updating and reconciling many *.cfg, *.ini, and other files and settings.

More often than not, new keybindings are introduced and need to be adapted as needed.

Sometimes entirely new airframe systems are introduced or substantially improved (such as exterior lighting panel, IFF, ECM panel, etc.). And then sometimes major new paradigms are introduced (VR capability, the ‘Launcher’ being integrated into the program startup, etc.). The Falcon BMS developers never cease to amaze everyone in their steady progress over the many years.

Having an ‘upgrade assistant’ such as this document can be a tremendous help in moving to newer versions as they are released. I’ve been using my personal documentation for decades, and it certainly has saved me countless hours and eliminated guesswork.

Much of the specific data/settings initially contained in this document pertain and apply to me only, sometimes with explanations regarding certain choices. However, there will be many instances where the information contained here does not apply to your particular installation, or you have different preferences.

That’s why this document is designed to be easily edited and adapted to your particular installation upgrade needs and preferences. That is, this document is kept in an editable MS-Word compatible *.docx format with encouragement to ‘make it your own’. So, if you go through this comprehensive document and replace the existing settings with your settings before version 4.38 is released, you will have a powerful ready-to-use reference when you upgrade, re-install, etc.

I am making this ‘public version’ of this document available to everyone who might benefit from the hand-holding guidance this ‘upgrade assistant’ offers. It can be downloaded anytime at

www.metagaia.com/download/falcon-bms-upgrade-assistant-4.37.2.docx

This is my first attempt at making a video and posting it.

I honestly don’t think it’s particularly exciting to watch. It’s a rather plain vanilla OCA mission targeting an Early Warning Radar installation. But it gave me the opportunity to learn a lot about a lot of different things, such as using AMD’s ReLive to record my desktop, and using OpenShot video editor to edit and mix.

I was so anxious about doing this for the first time that I spoke in a strangely affected voice, forgot to activate my ECM consent switch during ingress, accidentally released my landing hook on the egress, and had a stuck front landing gear forcing me to airbrake as long as possible before my nose finally fell and hit the runway.

Good learning experience for me. Hope it’s somewhat entertaining for others. I wish now that I had used more external views for cinematic value, but I’m learning.

@Xeno said in Unexpected CTD:

@SoBad be aware that for Ryzen CPUs using 4-sticks of ram forces you to disable any EXPO/XMP profiles and run mem at CPUs stock clocks, which in turn hurts general performance. Can’t tell how fast you can go with latest AGESA (BIOS) on Zen4 but from day one 6000MHz provided optimal performance and was achievable on any CPU.
See Hardware Unboxed Zen4 memory scaling test video:

The wealth of esoteric and useful info in this forum is amazing. Thank you.

@airtex2019
@Seifer

Doesn’t it just figure? I flew 3 full complex packages over ~3 hour period this afternoon. Everything went flawlessly.

Now I think I’m going to install the replacement RAM modules IN ADDITION to my ‘flawed’ ones and see how long I can run w/ 64Gb of RAM!

@Seifer said in Unexpected CTD:

@SoBad the faulty pointer is:

0x10 00 00 06 c1 c4 54 60

the first byte, 0x10 is the faulty one, which is 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.

So I guess the answer to your question is that it is the 5th bit, from lower to higher.

Okay. I just ran the MemTest86 for the past 1 hour+.

See the results yourself:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e8miZgjijGrabOrDeeeEprGU3PlMfClk/view?usp=sharing

Thousands of single bit errors, either one value lower, or one value higher. In every case, the 3rd bit (or maybe 5th bit depending upon which direction you are counting, right?).

If not for your help, I would have never tracked this down. I’m going to contact the business that built my computer to see if my warranty is good for the RAM, but either way, I’ll get this set right. Thanks again.

@Seifer - By any chance, could you tell if it was the 3rd bit of 8 that was flipped?

@Seifer said in Unexpected CTD:

@SoBad it means “sounds good to me”.

lolol-- Okay. New to me. I’ll get back with you in a couple of hours when I get home.

@airtex2019 said in Unexpected CTD:

@SoBad said in Unexpected CTD:

I do not ever overclock or otherwise fiddle with any such settings. With my specs, I don’t need to. Everything is default.

When it comes to RAM freq and timings, sometimes the “default” is overclocked… check your BIOS for “XMP” or for AMD maybe “EXPO” settings.

Tell us about your RAM … what speed, what timings. (TaskMgr shows the RAM frequency at the bottom of the Memory tab.)

idk if there’s such thing yet as RAM timings that are “too fast” for a 7700X but … maybe?

I understand all of your concerns, but I’ve been running over a hundred different missions with this gaming computer since I got it about six months ago, and I’ve never changed any setting, or experienced any crashes (with Falcon BMS or anything else, for that matter) until very recently. So I don’t think it’s an issue of O.C. speeds, timings, etc. because they have NEVER changed.

@Seifer - I have no idea what “sgtm” means. Sorry.

@Seifer said in Unexpected CTD:

@SoBad thanks, just double checking some basic stuff. I usually recommend running https://www.memtest86.com/ for memory testing.

The reason I am asking is because the pattern I see in your CTD looks like a bit flip (a perfectly valid memory address with just one bit flipped wrong). It is very rare for code to screw things like that (usually, a corruption caused by code generates a lot of garbage, which is not the case here).

Do you have other DMP from this crash you could share? I want to see if it’s crashing in the same spot.

I’ll run the memtest this evening when I get home and let you know.

The second crash didn’t generate a DMP file, so I can’t help you there.

I can run the mission again tonight and if it crashes and creates a DMP, I’ll send it to you.

@Seifer said in Unexpected CTD:

@SoBad any overclock on your side? Can you check the memory as well?

------ AMD Radeon RX6700 w/ 12Gb VRAM
------ 32Gb DDR5 RAM

I do not ever overclock or otherwise fiddle with any such settings. With my specs, I don’t need to. Everything is default.

Tell me how to “check the memory” and I will do it this evening.

@Mav-jp said in Unexpected CTD:

@SoBad said in Unexpected CTD:

@Seifer said in Unexpected CTD:

@SoBad please share the mission as well.

I think seifer would like the saved cam so he can try to reproduce the bug

Do you have the saved campaign file ?

Oh! Sure. I’ll do it when I get back home this evening.

@Seifer said in Unexpected CTD:

@SoBad please share the mission as well.

Sure–

Stock KTO on local drive, Rolling Fire, Day 2, Single Player -
I controlled the 35th FS out of Gunsan, and created a 3-flight package as follows:
Air Interdiction 4-ship F-16 with me in the lead, preceded by
ESCORT 4-ship F-16, preceded by
TARCAP 4-ship F-15 (another squadron also stationed at Gunsan)

TARCAP headed out first, then ESCORT, then my flight. After marshaling, TARCAP was about 25 miles ahead, ESCORT was about 20 miles ahead, and my flight being the last group to ingress.

Target area was at Stp. 5, just north of the DMZ. As my flight reached Stp. 4 (about 50 miles south of Stp. 5) we went FENCE IN. After that, it was quiet for a few minutes. I was in my cockpit, regular view, and I had not touched any buttons, about 40 miles away from the DMZ. Then suddenly and unexpectedly, the screen (and sound) froze and CTD about 3 seconds later.