DCS Mirage 2000 politically sensitive question
-
@bill_3810:
Just some thoughts I wanted to jot down after reading this thread all my opinion of course.
IMHO
The comparison of BMS (non F16 based) Flight models to their real aircraft counterpart should be taken with a grain of salt.
As I understand it the programmers are able to base the other flight models after available RW data but the Flight Control System is still based off of the F16 due to the simulation so the actual performance will be off a bit from the real thing.
Ok this is no problem, this is an F16 simulation that boasts it’s flight modeling based on real world data and real world F16 Pilot consultation during the original development of Falcon and continual development of BMS.I am not in the know other than what the developers post here but i’m quite sure that the level of fidelity put into the F16 is not matched in the other flight models so again comparing BMSs additional flight models to the real thing or other simulations that base their flight models off of the real thing might not be the best comparison. Enjoy the additional flight models, be happy we have them and expect them to improve as further updates*…come out.
Now for DCS
DCS is not a non profit organization so they are going to operate based on the bottom line. They need cash flow and they will do what it takes to get that cash flow. Right now it appears that based on their new DCS world update and Nevada they have gotten the message concerning their current scenery/performance and the ability to expand down the road. This seems like a huge move forward and opens the doors for other things.
This continual Beta release BS is simply getting the model out there to generate cash flow and an immediate return on investment which may be of some concern but I think it’s simply so they can then take that cash flow and use it to operate until the next Beta version comes out and repeat.
I’m guessing they have a small group that works behind the scenes getting these beta versions up to speed for the final release but not as important as generating the next new Beta model for sale. Remember once you have purchased the beta model the final version is yours for free so why use up manpower and resources for something that’s not going to net you any additional cash flow. They use the Beta release as a way to toss a model out there that may have some issues and then when you complain …hey it’s a beta release…you knew this when you purchased it…the final version will be out soon …
As far as the fidelity of the flight model I can’t comment as I don’t know which is to say that most don’t know either. If you aren’t a developer and know FOR A FACT what information they are using and how they are programming it…your comments are just opinions as are mine.
My biggest concern about DCS and the other flight models is how they all will play together in a campaign or Tactical Engagement Scenario.
There are many 3rd party developers making different aircraft for DCS and just how accurate are their flight models? So if we get into a PVP scenario and Joe Pilot is using the SU27 which defies the laws of physics, how does this play in a real world scenario? Same thing with the arcade like Radars and other things with some of the aircraft that is available?All models are not created equally nor does there seem to be a benchmark by Eagle Dynamics for doing so other than how much time, money and effort do the developers want to put into realism and real world flight characteristics…
This could be wrong I don’t know but it doesn’t seem that there is… even from the developers of DCS. Take a look at the F15 for example. A very big update performance wise from the original and we still have arcade avionics.I like the fact that DCS has all of these different flight models but I think down the road with the lack of fidelity put into some of these aircraft you are more than likely going to run into an issue of one model being far superior to another in performance and this isn’t necessarily the case in the real world. This could be argued in BMS as well but again BMS is an F16 simulation, not a simulation for anything and everything.
I am not pro one or the other in this post, just some thoughts that maybe some in the know can comment or correct.
Thanks
Bill
The FLCS has nothing to do with the 2D data / i.e performance data. This is 100% indepenant.
what Topolo means is that if the FM does not match real Performances, this is pointless to even think about FLCS accuracy.
The importance is always the SAME
FIRST : Performances in term of Accel / decel / Turn Rate / Energy management
SECOND : Pitch / roll / yaw handling => this is where FLCS plays a role.If one FM miss the FIRST point, the SECOND one is useless…
What TOPOLO says is that for Performances, BMS OFM are better modeled
-
@bill_3810:
This could be argued in BMS as well but again BMS is an F16 simulation, not a simulation for anything and everything.
this is complete URBAN LEGEND STOP SPREADING IT !!
Take A10_AFM in BMS, this does not share a single line of code with F16 flight model. This is a complete Non FLy By wire modeled with local computation, while F16 is Global Computation with Loockeed MArtin FLCS !!!
F18 next iteration will feature a dedicated F18 FLCS
-
Now for DCS
@bill_3810:
This continual Beta release BS is simply getting the model out there to generate cash flow and an immediate return on investment which may be of some concern but I think it’s simply so they can then take that cash flow and use it to operate until the next Beta version comes out and repeat.
Indeed this is a valid concern, but keep in mind the community they do this for. The amount of work put into a full fidelity aircraft vs. the cash you get from potential buyers is in no relation to, for example, Call of Duty.
I dare say they have no other choice to financially survive. Consider roughly 3 years of developing or even more, without seeing a penny. (This is BTW why I am humbled even more by folks from BMS or team fusion. they never see any monitary reward).@bill_3810:
I’m guessing they have a small group that works behind the scenes getting these beta versions up to speed for the final release but not as important as generating the next new Beta model for sale. Remember once you have purchased the beta model the final version is yours for free so why use up manpower and resources for something that’s not going to net you any additional cash flow. They use the Beta release as a way to toss a model out there that may have some issues and then when you complain …hey it’s a beta release…you knew this when you purchased it…the final version will be out soon …
Well yea. it IS beta. Don’t buy a Ford and hope for a Ferrari. simple as that.
A lot people actually don’t buy the stuff until it’s out of Beta.
3rd party devs mostly are little teams of maybe a dozen or so employees, maybe less, maybe more. My personal opinion is that some bugs and errors take an exceptional amount of time to eradicate, even find in the first place. IMHO if that cash keeps them above water to further work on the module past beta, which contrary to popular belief they actually do, then by all means, take the cash before you shut down and are forever lost as a hope for a module that never will be.@bill_3810:
My biggest concern about DCS and the other flight models is how they all will play together in a campaign or Tactical Engagement Scenario.
There are many 3rd party developers making different aircraft for DCS and just how accurate are their flight models? So if we get into a PVP scenario and Joe Pilot is using the SU27 which defies the laws of physics,How so?
@bill_3810:Same thing with the arcade like Radars and other things with some of the aircraft that is available?
Though few people actually know of the real life capabilities of the Radars, including me, i wouldn’t call it arcade like. Stuff like beaming to lose lock (against m2k) or ground and weather clutter in the fishbed seem rather realistic, though again, I wouldn’t know.
@bill_3810:
Nor does there seem to be a benchmark by Eagle Dynamics
They actually do have one. Not every dev is permitted to create modules. And EFMs (External flight modules, FMs created by 3rd party devs to match or come CLOSE to the AFM from ED) are scrutinized by ED as well.
@bill_3810:
I like the fact that DCS has all of these different flight models but I think down the road with the lack of fidelity put into some of these aircraft you are more than likely going to run into an issue of one model being far superior to another in performance and this isn’t necessarily the case in the real world. This could be argued in BMS as well but again BMS is an F16 simulation, not a simulation for anything and everything.
Exactly, so who is to say those AA encounters over Korea with soviet AI jets are close to the real world if it is only a handful of airframes that BMS models accurately.
While indeed I share your concerns to a certain degree, I wouldn’t go so far as saying that the avarage FM could differ widely from real life. And even if that were the case. Once the FM is out there, it is not written in stone. It can be changed.
I for one am far more concerned with the overall balance of airframes. Right now we only have 4th gen fighters and WWII warbirds from BOTH sides that are modelled. Su27/F15, P51/Fw190, etc).
The m2k is good step in the right direction, but unless we see the F4 phantom or skyhawk anytime soon, the MiG21 will always be the underdog compared to the SU27 or F15/F18. No matter how accurate all those FMs are. -
this is complete URBAN LEGEND STOP SPREADING IT !!
Take A10_AFM in BMS, this does not share a single line of code with F16 flight model. This is a complete Non FLy By wire modeled with local computation, while F16 is Global Computation with Loockeed MArtin FLCS !!!
F18 next iteration will feature a dedicated F18 FLCS
Nice to hear but the name is still BMS 4.33 and it is still an F16 Simulation as Primary
-
@bill_3810:
Nice to hear but the name is still BMS 4.33 and it is still an F16 Simulation as Primary
I think the point to be taken is that F-16 being primary or not has nothing to do with the fidelity of other aircraft modeled in BMS. Unless other sims have access to classified documents that are unavailable to BMS, BMS is likely the closest to RW flight characteristics than any other.
-
-
@bill_3810:
Nice to hear but the name is still BMS 4.33 and it is still an F16 Simulation as Primary
BMS means Benchmarksims.
There is a reason why this is not falcon 4.33 but BMS 4.33yes primary AC is F16 but that does not mean all the code is f16 oriented.
This is especially true for fm code
-
-
Thanks for all the replies and discussion guys. In the end I havent’t bought and will not buy the 2000 in the foreseeable future (unless they have a 70% discount).
Most of all, I am glad to see how constantly amazing this forum is, and the Falcon community in general. A thread like this would have been censored, locked and people banned in a matter of hours (or minutes) on the ED boards.
Great inputs by Topolo.
Thanks. -
Just one other question concerning AC in DCS.
Im thinking of buying the Huey from DCS
How does it compare to flying choppers in FSX, -
Most of all, I am glad to see how constantly amazing this forum is, and the Falcon community in general. A thread like this would have been censored, locked and people banned in a matter of hours (or minutes) on the ED boards.
Mmmm…. well, considering how agitated DCS discussions can be here, I have to say the thought of locking them once and for all crossed our minds
-
Just one other question concerning AC in DCS.
Im thinking of buying the Huey from DCS
How does it compare to flying choppers in FSX,https://www.helisimmer.com/articles/transitional-flight-from-fsx-to-dcs/
Not a very detailed read, but still from someone who has experience in both.
I never used FSX. For helis only X-Plane and DCS. Never heard a bad word about Huey in DCS. Heard lots of bad words about helis in FSX in general. I don’t know how far can custom helis go with FM, but the base in FSX is pretty poor.
Keep in mind thought that for Huey in DCS you need a good stick. Small precise movements are required all the time to keep it flying straight. Either a long stick (e.g. warthog with extension) or non-linear settings for the stick with heavy trimmer usage. -
FYI, Razbam just announced the implementation of IFF for the mirage, along with some pictures on their Facebook site.
Should be released soon. -
Is BMS currently working on a separate FA18 module of some sort? DCS is supposed to come out with a FA18C later this year. Time will tell.
I really am impressed with the BMS 4.33U1! The training manual and BMS 4.33U1 Manual Ihave been reading in their pdf format. It is pretty hard to beat! The F16 flies most impressive! I have much to learn. I also just upgraded to a I76600 8 core 120mm plasma cooled CPU. 32 Gigs of RAM. Gforce 980TI 6 gigs DDR. I also have ordered those Warthog mounts from Germany made by Monster featuring “Olsen” in his machine shop. I also ordered a set of MFG Crosswinds. TrackIR 5.
I have much schooling to do. Now my first preference has always been a FA18 E super Hornet. I always wished that Falcon 4.0 was really Hornet 4.0! But that’s just my preference. As far as the sim working and functioning this BMS gig rocks! And I really enjoy a F16! All I’m saying is or hoping for is if BMS could some how use that magic they have done that kept this sim alive and even better than it ever was today in the present, if they could create a solid Hornet platform. I thought I heard that they were.
It is hard to believe that BMS 4.33U1 is actually a free download, and the way those manuals are laid out! Awesome! -
Uh……you know the hornet is in the sim right?
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
-
Is BMS currently working on a separate FA18 module of some sort? …. if they could create a solid Hornet platform. I thought I heard that they were. …
Uh……you know the hornet is in the sim right?
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
@Drillin’ …. Are you serious?!?! GTFO!! :rofl:
-
ROFL flounder I swear you have a ‘drillins posted’ mod……
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk