Jump to content

Suggestion for graphics of SB Pro 4.1


mpdugas

Recommended Posts

 

1 hour ago, BigBadVuk said:

They are using cheap joysticks -  Thrustmaster T-Flight HOTAS: too few buttons, no separate left and right thrust etc... :) DCS can be configured to work with this ( i used same config for 2 years ) but when i switched to X55 i felt reborn :D

 

P.S> dont even try to use T-FLIGHt with SB - it has so bad sensitivity curve that you will in 95% of cases either lead too fast in front of target or you will drag behind...

 

heh well it is used as "Familiarization" sim via dekstop.

 

Although in the case of the National Guard they may not have had to do that since these already trained ( or even combat experienced) A10A pilots who needed the sim to just familiarize themselves with the new avionics of the C model, the base flight controls have remained the same to my knowledge, and the feel of the handling was also unchanged from what i understood.

 

eventually pilots eventually obviously advance to  run simulation  in a replica  cockpit of the A10, before of course qualifying and getting to get into the seat of the real thing. This probably goes for any aircraft.

 

120514-F-NT337-052.JPG

 

AS  there similar equivalents replica tanks compartment for training Tankers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Well, I gotta confess; all of this discussion has finally made me see that I've been a damned fool all along.

 

I mean, I admit it, I am a slow thinker, even if I eventually get to where I need to be long after the doors have closed and the cows have gone home.

 

Of course there will be no graphics improvements!  Why should there be?  SB has no competition; it is a virtual monopoly and can pretty much do whatever it pleases.

 

For instance, ED has some competition with 1C Publishing, so they gotta keep up with them.  That's why I chose videos from each of them.  They work hard to keep up their place in their space.

 

And of course, the one who does all of this for free, as a pure labor of love, makes by far the most faithful, beautiful and accurate simulator of them all!!

 

I feel like an idiot, spending over $100 bucks for SB, and suffering the indignity of a dongle, all so I can enjoy the product of a company who can do whatever they please, without fear of anyone beating them at their game.

 

So after this, my mea culpa, I apologize to all of those whom I dragged along on this fool's quest, a regular modern-day Don Quixote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have gladly paid much more for this.  I feel that it is a privilege to be able to use this software that was primarily designed for use by national military organizations.  If they require me to use a dongle so they can protect their investment, so be it.

 

It offers a sense of realism that eye candy just doesn't bring to a situation.  I know what it is like to sit for days inside a turret with the only view outside, the vast majority of the time, either through a gun sight or unity window.  I am more concerned that it operates and reacts right than if it looks pretty.  I would hope that one day a user wouldn't be able to tell the difference between SB on a monitor and real life but I'm not going to hold my breath.  It will get there when it gets there.

 

If you feel that badly about spending that amount of money I am sure that you can recoup some of the costs by selling the dongle on ebay.  I understand they go quite quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

I guess it depends when you served, or where you were posted, because for training it seems the AF do have the necessary computing power to run a modern simulation.

 

 

'90s. Back when we were going paperless and only needed three hard copies... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flight simulators and ground simulators differ quite a bit. For instance, polygon count on ground units, buildings, foliage and such are lower in flight sims. Way points are easier in uncluttered three-space, which in turn makes AI easier to program. Aircraft cockpits are usually from a single, pilot view. Aircraft models are easier to model as they are built to be aerodynamic, meaning fewer polygons.

 

Those are just a few. Anyway, please do not get upset, everyone would love to have a realistic looking AFV sim, but as Herr Nils said, there are priorities. Also, it is not like things are not improving. It may seem a bit slow to some, but Steel Beasts continues to get better as time progresses, graphics included.

 

Also, considering what all you get with Steel Beasts, map editor, scenario editor, ability to change vehicle skins, the variety of vehicles, realism of vehicle properties, hardware compatibility, et cetera, this is still a great looking AFV ground sim, in my humble opinion anyway.

Edited by Azure Lion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mpdugas said:

The entry price for BMS 4.33 is a copy of Falcon, 150 mb, installed on your machine.  At GoG, that is available for around $10.  No dongle required.

 

Once that is complete, you can install the BMS mod and play the Korean, Balkans or Israel campaigns.

 

The dynamic campaign simulates an active war going on in the theater of your choosing.  Trying flying north into Korea and see how many AI units react to your presence.

 

For a clear picture, watch the BMS video I offered to it's completion; it will give you an excellent idea of what an active campaign is like, as opposed to a player-created scenario.

you did not answer my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, mpdugas said:

I apologize to all of those whom I dragged along on this fool's quest, a regular modern-day Don Quixote.

 

There's nothing wrong with wishing for better looks. I just don't know however what your expectation was - that the eSim teams slaps their hands on the forehead, exclaiming "Better looks! My, why haven't we thought about it before?" and then we go to work and a few days later, all of a sudden the butterfly emerges from its unassuming pre-4.0 cocoon?

 

I don't think that this was your expected outcome of the debate. To put things a bit into perspective: Most of the other examples that you gave have a much bigger team at their disposal. Last I heard from a Bohemia manager, the VBS development team has 250 people, 150 of them programmers (and they don't even work on the engine, they have another entire company just for that). The DCS team is probably much smaller, I'd guess somewhere around 50. eSim Games can afford five programmers.

In the light of this SB Pro is still quite an achievement. And I think that we're still around after 17 years despite the small team size precisely because we have our priorities the way they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main wish for SB graphics in the future would be improved shadows ..... the obvious omission from the current model is the lack of true deep shadows under tanks and vehicles and maybe trees , we need true HDR lighting .

This is the area that makes the otherwise great sim look dated .

 

Cant wait for 4.0

 

Sabot up !!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TSe419E said:

I would have gladly paid much more for this.  I feel that it is a privilege to be able to use this software that was primarily designed for use by national military organizations.  If they require me to use a dongle so they can protect their investment, so be it.

 

It offers a sense of realism that eye candy just doesn't bring to a situation.  I know what it is like to sit for days inside a turret with the only view outside, the vast majority of the time, either through a gun sight or unity window.  I am more concerned that it operates and reacts right than if it looks pretty.  I would hope that one day a user wouldn't be able to tell the difference between SB on a monitor and real life but I'm not going to hold my breath.  It will get there when it gets there.

 

If you feel that badly about spending that amount of money I am sure that you can recoup some of the costs by selling the dongle on ebay.  I understand they go quite quickly.

 

It was not originally designed for any such thing.  You don't know its history.  I spent lots of time trying to get Al Delaney an audience with the military training establishment here, but he did not want to pursue that.  He can speak for himself, however.

Edited by mpdugas
additional materials
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

There's nothing wrong with wishing for better looks. I just don't know however what your expectation was - that the eSim teams slaps their hands on the forehead, exclaiming "Better looks! My, why haven't we thought about it before?" and then we go to work and a few days later, all of a sudden the butterfly emerges from its unassuming pre-4.0 cocoon?

 

I don't think that this was your expected outcome of the debate. To put things a bit into perspective: Most of the other examples that you gave have a much bigger team at their disposal. Last I heard from a Bohemia manager, the VBS development team has 250 people, 150 of them programmers (and they don't even work on the engine, they have another entire company just for that). The DCS team is probably much smaller, I'd guess somewhere around 50. eSim Games can afford five programmers.

In the light of this SB Pro is still quite an achievement. And I think that we're still around after 17 years despite the small team size precisely because we have our priorities the way they are.

 

I think we can have an exchange of ideas without mocking one another, don't you agree?  By that I mean I try to keep my comments as objective and non-personal as possible.  I might fail in that, and I am willing to take accountability for it if I do.

 

People train so that when the real need to perform comes to be, then they are as ready as possible to do the task under difficult circumstances.  The military aches for ways to include the stress of fear in their training curriculum, because they know full well that training collapses when the emotions begin to flow; that is why practice, practice, practice reduces tasks to muscle memory as much as it can.  If anyone looks at the training curriculum of the more specialized forces, you can see that they push their candidates to the limit, physically and psychology.

 

It would be a great service to the military to include in your software the emotional elements of warfare.  Yet you are simultaneously dismissive and condescending of any suggestions to make the simulation more realistic, visually.  Wars are not fought from an Avalon Hill game board.  They are fought amidst the blood and mud-soaked gore of the modern battlefield.  SB has so little in the way of the fog-of-war in it.  There is no rain-turns-roads-to mud in it.  No fog-reduces-infantry-to-huddling-masses.  No glare of lightning.  No wind-blown, swaying branches that hides traces of movement.  Not much of the grit of the real world.  When played from the map, it is just another TacOps.

 

You keep talking as if these graphics elements are there for purely visually delight, as mere eye-candy.  How utterly disingenuous.

 

You can cease to posit lack-of-resources, I never mentioned this VBS software; I pointed you to BMS, who show a grand way of drawing upon the relatively unlimited resources of your obviously-devoted fan-base, to facilitate your growth.  The whole metamorphosis of Falcon 4.0 should guide you and enlighten you.  Look at the final product; 4.33 is a wonderful example of ancient software forced to perform at it's best.  I suggested this to you before: talk to that team.  They work under the constraints of licensing and ownership issues.  Yet they accomplish miracles.  Falcon's realism count is off-the-chart; it makes SB Pro look like the minor leagues.  And it was done from a group of volunteers who loved their craft and are devoted to their product.

 

If nothing else, you could research the costs of licensing a third-party graphics engine, like the Unreal Tournament one, or any of a host of others.  You could even sell that as an upgrade.

 

I think that trusting your fans to help eSim is the way to go.  Talk to the BMS management and learn how they did it, in the midst of copyright and licensing issues no different from your own.  You should not fear your users.

 

You may have to get out of your personal comfort zone, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, it might be a path to growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Grenny said:

you did not answer my question.

 

If you don't know what that simulator is, then you should lift your mouse and have a look.

 

I'm guessing, however, that the whole of the North Korean army, for example, is larger than your battalion example.  Just a wild guess on my part; I could be wrong.

 

Like I said, if you can get your bird off the ground, (no easy task in-and-of itself), then have a campaign open and just fly north.

 

Or easier still, watch the video that I included all the way to its end.

 

You'll see what true, cooperative, professional-level multiplayer missions are like when the simulator generates active AI opposition for you, on-the-fly, so to speak.

 

You will also have an appreciation of what player-written simulator enhancements can look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Azure Lion said:

Flight simulators and ground simulators differ quite a bit. For instance, polygon count on ground units, buildings, foliage and such are lower in flight sims. Way points are easier in uncluttered three-space, which in turn makes AI easier to program. Aircraft cockpits are usually from a single, pilot view. Aircraft models are easier to model as they are built to be aerodynamic, meaning fewer polygons.

 

Those are just a few. Anyway, please do not get upset, everyone would love to have a realistic looking AFV sim, but as Herr Nils said, there are priorities. Also, it is not like things are not improving. It may seem a bit slow to some, but Steel Beasts continues to get better as time progresses, graphics included.

 

Also, considering what all you get with Steel Beasts, map editor, scenario editor, ability to change vehicle skins, the variety of vehicles, realism of vehicle properties, hardware compatibility, et cetera, this is still a great looking AFV ground sim, in my humble opinion anyway.

Thank you for your polite reply.

 

One of the examples I gave you is for DCSW; it is a flight simulator first, of course, but it also has a module for land warfare (Combined Arms) that works in the same environment that the air simulator does; therefore, the visual accuracy for ground vehicles is the same as for the airborne elements.

 

It is a better landscape, visually,  than SB pro presently uses.

 

DCSW is a free simulator; have a look and give it a try.

 

I think the video that I offered to you for IL-2 Battle for Stalingrad demonstrates that the flight simulator uses ground elements far superior to SB Pro.  Watch it all the way through; you might be impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

 

If you don't know what that simulator is, then you should lift your mouse and have a look.

 

I'm guessing, however, that the whole of the North Korean army, for example, is larger than your battalion example.  Just a wild guess on my part; I could be wrong.

 

Like I said, if you can get your bird off the ground, (no easy task in-and-of itself), then have a campaign open and just fly north.

 

Or easier still, watch the video that I included all the way to its end.

 

You'll see what true, cooperative, professional-level multiplayer missions are like when the simulator generates active AI opposition for you, on-the-fly, so to speak.

 

You will also have an appreciation of what player-written simulator enhancements can look like.

Ok, I'll try again in simple words: In this case, "North Korean groundforces"...do they manouvre in a sensable way against opponents? I'm asking you because you played this game and you used it as an example, so please be so kind to provide enough info needed to evaluate your argument, and not just say: "get it yourself".

It is not such abig challenge to get air units AI to a standard, doing the same for a ground force on sensable terrain is quiete different.

 

Again from videos I've found on BMS, the terrain from nap of the earth looks like a billiard table. Maybe there are other examples around? But so far i do not see an improvement...

 

Also again a simple question: How big are the mapsizes and unit counts for the WWII game you linked the video of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alas.. Each of this things has some flaws:

For example: BMS wont even work on my PC - it keeps messing up my input settings and axis. Pedal input was suddenly throttle, throttle was brake axis, and so on... I tried for 3 full months and then finally i decided i had enough.

DCS series are soooo slow and lagging behind with development and devs are breaching even deadlines they set them self - Nevada map was planned to be released like 3 years ago, right after A10 was released, but they managed to "release" alpha version just 6 months ago. Same goes for new engine. I will not even start to speak about whole bunch of bugs and issues with this or that version of game in progress, driver incompatibilities and so on.

 

Compared to them SB is stable and rock solid ( im yet to have a single crash for God knows how many years of use... 15-16 i dont know). FPs is always good and believed or not graphics are actually upgraded constantly. 

I agree that eye candy can be HUGE reason to enjoy some sim. I would love to have Dx11 graphic and mud simulated ( as in Spintires for example ); However if immersion is good and game can create good atmosphere lot of player will not even bother with graphics. it is called simulation for reason :)

 

P.S. why multiple posts one after another, it looks like spam and you may make Hommer angry..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Ok, I'll try again in simple words: In this case, "North Korean groundforces"...do they manouvre in a sensable way against opponents? I'm asking you because you played this game and you used it as an example, so please be so kind to provide enough info needed to evaluate your argument, and not just say: "get it yourself".

It is not such abig challenge to get air units AI to a standard, doing the same for a ground force on sensable terrain is quiete different.

 

Again from videos I've found on BMS, the terrain from nap of the earth looks like a billiard table. Maybe there are other examples around? But so far i do not see an improvement...

 

Also again a simple question: How big are the mapsizes and unit counts for the WWII game you linked the video of.

I'm sorry, Grenny, I know you want me to do your leg-work for you, but I respectfully decline.  All of the information you are asking for is readily available to you; you need only lift your hand to seek it out.

 

When you look for videos, like the one I gave you, be sure to search for BMS 4.33.1; that is the most current version, so I will give you that much.  Go to their website if you will.  See how they were able to transform an ancient-looking flight simulator into the best-of-the-best.

 

I stand by my original assertions, which your replies are distorting; I did not assert that BMS ground warfare units were the equivalent of SB Pro; I said that BMS is an ancient graphics engine raised to stellar heights by the dint of the hard work of many volunteers.  The BMS model of the F-16 is light-years ahead of any SB pro armor unit, externally, actively interacting with the aerial environment and internally by way of cockpit controls.

 

Did you actually watch the IL-2 video to its end?  Did you watch any of them all the way to their conclusion?

 

All of these simulators have entry points far less burdensome, in terms of cost, than SB Pro.  DCSW is free, and involves some classic, high-quality aircraft to fly so that you can experiment without risking a penny.

 

That said, however, I think you will be impressed with the way the Falcon AI handles ground combat, and the carryover effects from missions having an impact on succeeding ATOs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

I'm sorry, Grenny, I know you want me to do your leg-work for you, but I respectfully decline.  All of the information you are asking for is readily available to you; you need only lift your hand to seek it out.

 

When you look for videos, like the one I gave you, be sure to search for BMS 4.33.1; that is the most current version, so I will give you that much.  Go to their website if you will.  See how they were able to transform an ancient-looking flight simulator into the best-of-the-best.

 

I stand by my original assertions, which your replies are distorting; I did not assert that BMS ground warfare units were the equivalent of SB Pro; I said that BMS is an ancient graphics engine raised to stellar heights by the dint of the hard work of many volunteers.  The BMS model of the F-16 is light-years ahead of any SB pro armor unit, externally, actively interacting with the aerial environment and internally by way of cockpit controls.

 

Did you actually watch the IL-2 video to its end?  Did you watch any of them all the way to their conclusion?

 

All of these simulators have entry points far less burdensome, in terms of cost, than SB Pro.  DCSW is free, and involves some classic, high-quality aircraft to fly so that you can experiment without risking a penny.

 

That said, however, I think you will be impressed with the way the Falcon AI handles ground combat, and the carryover effects from missions having an impact on succeeding ATOs.

So you say: "I claim it, suck it up. I do not answer straight request for information."

I see that as a very impolite way to do a conversation and does not help your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigBadVuk said:

Alas.. Each of this things has some flaws:

For example: BMS wont even work on my PC - it keeps messing up my input settings and axis. Pedal input was suddenly throttle, throttle was brake axis, and so on... I tried for 3 full months and then finally i decided i had enough.

DCS series are soooo slow and lagging behind with development and devs are breaching even deadlines they set them self - Nevada map was planned to be released like 3 years ago, right after A10 was released, but they managed to "release" alpha version just 6 months ago. Same goes for new engine. I will not even start to speak about whole bunch of bugs and issues with this or that version of game in progress, driver incompatibilities and so on.

 

Compared to them SB is stable and rock solid ( im yet to have a single crash for God knows how many years of use... 15-16 i dont know). FPs is always good and believed or not graphics are actually upgraded constantly. 

I agree that eye candy can be HUGE reason to enjoy some sim. I would love to have Dx11 graphic and mud simulated ( as in Spintires for example ); However if immersion is good and game can create good atmosphere lot of player will not even bother with graphics. it is called simulation for reason :)

 

P.S. why multiple posts one after another, it looks like spam and you may make Hommer angry..

 

dcs is pretty smooth as long as you dont have ancient or low end hardware. In fact when they upgraded to the DX11 rendering engine, it actually runs better on newer hardware.  I didnt have to upgrade despite higher requirements, i got better FPS. I have AMD 280X not the highest top of the line nor no longer the newest card, and still run most settings on high. I never had any major issues with DCS. i may have experienced an occasion crash or lagging but only on Multiplayer servers back on the old engine. the New engine is much better. 

 

And not ED never has official release dates, so they cant technically breach 'deadlines" its done when its done. Also thier development model is different. SB PRO essnetially has base content, DCS has modules, added on and sold seperatley.  Aircrat systems avionics and physics anre more complicated to model. Military combat aircraft, especially a modern ones are more complex to learn than any tank.

 

 

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

dcs is pretty smooth as long as you dont have ancient or low end hardware. In fact when they upgraded to the DX11 rendering engine, it actually runs better on newer hardware.  I didnt have to upgrade despite higher requirements, i got better FPS. I have AMD 280X not the highest top of the line nor no longer the newest card, and still run most settings on high. I never had any major issues with DCS. i may have experienced an occasion crash or lagging but only on Multiplayer servers back on the old engine. the New engine is much better. 

 

And not ED never has official release dates, so they cant technically breach 'deadlines" its done when its done.

 

 

So a Dx11 upgrade does seem like a good CoA after all. Hope it I'll happen here too (some day :-P ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Grenny said:

So a Dx11 upgrade does seem like a good CoA after all. Hope it I'll happen here too (some day :-P ).

 

yes proably but were slowly getting there, before complaing too much about graphics i think we should wait and see how 4,0 will look with updaed tank models new terrian and new weather.

 

I think they went with DX9 for now, because thier primary clients are military forces, that  uses older hardware and dont upgrade as often as a consumer would. TBH i think when they do get that point of upgrading the rendering engine,  they might end up going go with DX12 in the future, since already available. DX11 has been out since 2010, but I think Dx11  is more likely because Dx12 is only usable with windows 10, however possibility exists to introduce dual rendering options. for those with newer systems, and also to cater to those with Windows 7 machines.

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

yes proably but were slowly getting there, before complaing too much about graphics i think we should wait and see how 4,0 will look with updaed tank models new terrian and new weather.

 

I think they went with DX9 for now, because thier primary clients are military forces, that  uses older hardware and dont upgrade as often as a consumer would. TBH i think when they do get that point of upgrading the rendering engine,  they might end up going go with DX12 in the future, since already available. DX11 has been out since 2010.

Having seen it, the jump in graphic quality is not epic. But the new/reworked model look nice and the particle effect get arty/smoke effects closer to the real thing.

Still, Polygon count is under disciplin and therefor will not look as great as e.g. ArmA3. Also the fact that the terrain will have to remain editable mean that we will not get high detail maps with lots of objectvariations (wood still come in 2 flavor and not with 10^x diffent tree types as IRL, same goes for building and other stuff)

So it will still be the "old beast".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grenny said:

So you say: "I claim it, suck it up. I do not answer straight request for information."

I see that as a very impolite way to do a conversation and does not help your point.

 

So you say: "I claim it, suck it up. I do not answer straight request for information."

 

I gotta admit, I do not understand what you are saying.  I did not say any such thing, so please do not put words in my mouth.

 

If you want specific answers to specific questions, I am sure you can find them yourself, since they are readily available...

 

...but since you are so stur, I'm going to cut you some slack...

 

Here's a gimme for you:

 

1.  search for IL-2, which is the flight simulator that I chose for my first example; then

2.  the first search result is for http://il2sturmovik.com/

3.  the module that the video portrays is from the Battle of Stalingrad; look for

4.  the 'project' link which gives you all of your answers; so

5.  do you really require more?

 

It's not like I was sending you to Siberia to make you look for a needle-in-a-haystack.  Do maps of 358 by 230 km compare favorably to SB Pro's 80 by 80?  How about the whole of the Korean peninsula?

 

So, now that I have given you EVERYTHING for that search, can you comment on the quality of the land vehicles, their animation and graphics in the IL-2 video as they compare to SB Pro?

 

I mean, you are asking all kinds of follow-up questions, but you never have conceded that IL-2 does a bang-up job on the graphics and animation their land vehicles and 3D environment (trees, moving grasses, explosions, etc.), and they are a flight simulator!

 

It's not gonna hurt to concede that IL-2 does a better job than SB Pro.

 

You did watch the video all the way through, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BigBadVuk said:

Alas.. Each of this things has some flaws:

For example: BMS wont even work on my PC - it keeps messing up my input settings and axis. Pedal input was suddenly throttle, throttle was brake axis, and so on... I tried for 3 full months and then finally i decided i had enough.

DCS series are soooo slow and lagging behind with development and devs are breaching even deadlines they set them self - Nevada map was planned to be released like 3 years ago, right after A10 was released, but they managed to "release" alpha version just 6 months ago. Same goes for new engine. I will not even start to speak about whole bunch of bugs and issues with this or that version of game in progress, driver incompatibilities and so on.

 

Compared to them SB is stable and rock solid ( im yet to have a single crash for God knows how many years of use... 15-16 i dont know). FPs is always good and believed or not graphics are actually upgraded constantly. 

I agree that eye candy can be HUGE reason to enjoy some sim. I would love to have Dx11 graphic and mud simulated ( as in Spintires for example ); However if immersion is good and game can create good atmosphere lot of player will not even bother with graphics. it is called simulation for reason :)

 

P.S. why multiple posts one after another, it looks like spam and you may make Hommer angry..

 

Most of BMS peripheral's problems were the result of W10 re-assigning USB device numbers each time the simulation started.  BMS have solved that problem; now all devices stay as you map them, and the setup is stable.

 

It was a W10 problem.  Give it a try, I mean version 4.33.1, which fixed the Microsoft problem.

 

I agree, DCSW is visually appealing, much better than SB Pro, but I really am getting tired of re-activating my modules; I'll stick with the SU-25T for a while.  It's tough enough to master.  Fly it with Starway's terrain mod; you'll love it.

 

Have you given any of the IL-2 series a shot?  They are remarkably inexpensive to get into, no 'dongle' required!!  Beautiful graphics, for sure.

 

Of course, SB Pro is going to be stable; it hasn't changed much since Gold, lol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, mpdugas said:

I pointed you to BMS, who show a grand way of drawing upon the relatively unlimited resources of your obviously-devoted fan-base, to facilitate your growth.  The whole metamorphosis of Falcon 4.0 should guide you and enlighten you.  Look at the final product; 4.33 is a wonderful example of ancient software forced to perform at it's best.  I suggested this to you before: talk to that team.  They work under the constraints of licensing and ownership issues.  Yet they accomplish miracles.

 

You realize the irony that four out of five programmers at eSim Games worked on Falcon 4, including BMS... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

Of course, SB Pro is going to be stable; it hasn't changed much since Gold, lol!

 

So much for your attempt to argue fact based and without emotional bias. You know nothing, John Snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...