Developers, please read.
-
I think if this were true, there wouldn’t be a need for someone to say it every few hours. Obviously there is a ton of interest in other platforms, from a lot of people–who keep mentioning those other platforms, which causes someone to say something like this. Browse the Community Mods thread and see there are literally dozens of other air frames with just as much interest and love as the F-16.
I honestly think that if people want to fly other jets, there is DCS. If you want to fly the Viper VERY accurately and want to study and learn lots, there is bms. It’s an F16 sim and my opinion (and hope) is that it always will be. I’d rather developers keep attention on F16 avionics, comms and AI etc., rather than implementing other aircraft, personally.
-
BMS is first and foremost a F-16 sim. Everything else is just gravy.
I personally love flying the other aircraft, but I don’t get bent when they’re not up to the same level as the Vipers. Would I love the Tomcat to be fully developed for it? Sure! But at the cost of the core system lagging behind or not getting more improvements in avionics, etc…?
Not a chance in hell.
-
I think if this were true, there wouldn’t be a need for someone to say it every few hours. Obviously there is a ton of interest in other platforms, from a lot of people–who keep mentioning those other platforms, which causes someone to say something like this. Browse the Community Mods thread and see there are literally dozens of other air frames with just as much interest and love as the F-16.
If I want the F/A-18C i’ll wait for the DCS version. BMS shines for the F-16. If the BMS F/A-18 was accurate it might be different.
-
I honestly think that of people want to fly other jets, there is DCS. If you want to fly the Viper, VERY accurately and want to study and learn lots, there is bms. It’s an F16 sim and my option (and hope) is a that it always will be. I’d rather develop attention on F16 avionics and comms and AI, rather than implementing other aircraft, personally.
I don’t disagree that it’s an F-16 sim first. However, it has been discussed before, and I wholeheartedly agree, that in order to continue to develop the F-16, you inherently have to develop the other aircraft as well, from an architectural perspective. Improving the AI helps all things, not just the F-16, but avionics is one of those things that would benefit everything in the game, including the F-16, if it was removed from code and extracted to an external source like the flight model code is. Hard coding avionics changes is too labor intensive to keep up with the real-world pace of changing technology. In the time it would take to modify the code to enable the current M-series tapes, you could write the engine to extract the data from a file twice over. And once the engine is done, you can write the files for any and every other aircraft out there, and by you I really mean YOU, or ME or anyone with a text editor, not just the devs. It takes nothing away from the F-16, improves sustainability, and provides an avenue to open the depth and complexity applied to the F-16 to all the other aircraft out there. At the end of the day, most of the avionics on different aircraft all DO the same thing. They just look different, and have a little functionality from the user’s perspective. But the underlying operation is still going to be the same. A RADAR will always display returned RF, regardless if it’s in an F-16 or an F-22. The difference is how it gets displayed to the operator. The differences in range and sweep rate and beam are all already there in the db, so the model-to-model functionality differences have already been removed from code. That display piece should be extracted as well. The same applies to the HSD, or SMS. They still DO the same thing regardless of the aircraft. They just look different and may have different names, but in the end, they just allow you to manage your flight plan or stores, respectively. Removing the way they LOOK from the code, and externalizing it to a file, allows rapid development of changes in the future by anyone with the knowledge and desire to make the change.
-
If I want the F/A-18C i’ll wait for the DCS version. BMS shines for the F-16. If the BMS F/A-18 was accurate it might be different.
I seem to recall that the BMS Hornet is actually very accurate for what they’ve had to work with…
-
I seem to recall that the BMS Hornet is actually very accurate for what they’ve had to work with…
It’s not.
-
I don’t fly BMS because I love the F-16. I respect the F-16. I appreciate its prowess, performance and visual appeal. In terms of love, as a matter of expression for a metal war machine, I love the F-4, F-14 and F-15… Big, bold and beautiful.
Why do I fly BMS? Because, for me, it’s the best military flight and war simulator there is. Other simulators may offer better graphics, perhaps better flight models or may even have better systems, but to me BMS is the only simulator that covers all the bases I want. The most realism you can expect a home PC to deliver and a dynamic, fluid combat environment as one can expect a fighter pilot to operate in.
I’ve flown Falcon from its early days on the XT, but I’ve also tremendously enjoyed other sims like Janes F-15, Longbow, F-15 Strike Eagle series, F/A-18 Korea, Fleet Defender, EF2000, TAW, Tornado, etc.
I fly BMS because it fits what I want best, and DCS just doesn’t. If BMS would be a Hornet sim I’d love it just the same. I don’t perceive a great deal of difference between these two aircraft anyway. Both were born out of the same fighter competition, both are excellent multi role fighters yet both aren’t the very best in any one area.
-
Both were born out of the same fighter competition, both are excellent multi role fighters yet both aren’t the very best in any one area.
sorry to interupt but F16 won , F18 lost, this makes a big difference
F18 is and will remain a looser
-
sorry to interupt but F16 won , F18 lost, this makes a big difference
F18 is and will remain a looser
I think Tazz meant the F18 lost to the F16, which is not really a bad reference to loose to.
And what wouldn’t people do for a second engine…
-
uh oh
the gauntlet has been thrown down
-
There are only two types of aircraft … Hornet and targets.
:blowpar:
-
And the F-16N lost to the YF-18…
So…they’re both losers, depending on who you ask.
-
sorry to interupt but F16 won , F18 lost, this makes a big difference
F18 is and will remain a looser
The YF-17 Cobra lost the Air Force competition but the F/A-18A Hornet won the subsequent Navy’s choice to replace the F-4 and A-7. The F/A-18 also won the procurement competitions for the Swiss, Spanish, Finnish, Australian and Malaysian air forces.
The Hornet is definitely not a bad aircraft. But the F-16 isn’t the holy grail of combat aircraft either. Depending on your criteria the F-22 and F-15C are far superior interceptors and air superiority fighters. The A-10C is a much better CAS platform. The F-15E is a much better strike aircraft. The AV-8B will beat any fighter in an environment devoid of suitable airfields. The F-35 will be far superior in a sophisticated IADS environment. And the Hornet is vastly superior operating out in the middle of the ocean.
-
-
I seem to recall that the BMS Hornet is actually very accurate for what they’ve had to work with…
It’s not.
How do you know?
-
-
You a hornet pilot?
Im sure you know what im getting at.
And Mav……its ‘Loser’
Do you think the Hornet is modeled as accurately as the F-16 in BMS? I don’t have to be a real Hornet pilot to understand that. The reason I like the F-16 in BMS is it’s accuracy. I feel the same about the A-10c in DCS which is why I fly it too. I’m fussy about details and have no interest in compromise to make something easier to use. The F-16 in BMS isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot closer to perfect than the F/A-18.
I’ll wait to fly the DCS F/A-18C. BMS means F-16 for me. BMS is built around the F-16 and it shows. I was simply pointing that out to the OP so he won’t wonder why the F/A-18 is getting as much attention.
-
The YF-17 Cobra lost the Air Force competition but the F/A-18A Hornet won the subsequent Navy’s choice to replace the F-4 and A-7.
…which the primary spec request was that the new Navy variant should (ALWAYS) be a two-engine bird…
Accidentally the Viper had only one engine…
The Hornet is definitely not a bad aircraft.
No its not.
-
No its not.
https://img13.deviantart.net/d501/i/2010/262/9/d/f_14_drop_tank_logo_by_shelbs2-d2z1wnu.jpg
Nice one, in which MUSEUM did you took that photo? :blowpar:
-
There are only two types of aircraft … Hornet and targets.
:blowpar:
…Super Hornets and targets.