Dcs World Viper and Falcon BMS
-
In my opinion the name of the game is expectations.
I personally expect DCS to be exactly what ED has made it factually and not declaratively/ PR.
It is my opinion, based upon my analysis of ED’s past actions that DCS is a sandbox testing grounds for sim technology to be tested by paying beta testers.
While the general public contribute quite a lot to ED’s revenue I suspect that contracts with big organizations (eg foreign air-forces and the likes) are the majority of the revenue and where ED eventually aims at.Again, this is based upon what they have been doing and not what they have been saying.
I do not see them making any “perfect” module unless it shall eventually be bought by a big organization.
So, when I take ED at face value I have no grievances with them.
I also don’t expect them to change their strategy.
My response as a customer is simple: stop buying anything but what truly interests me and only at a price that I deem fit.
More than that, I see alpha products made by ED as no more than a pyramid economical plan with its huge risks and most chances such a product will take 2-3 years to reach some kind of a beta stage, maybe.I bought the DCS Falcon only at a price that equals going out to a simple movie and beer with friends.
I do not expect it to be even remotely similar to the real aircraft in the next 2 years regarding avionics and aerodynamics.As for campaigns…there are individuals who like and specialize in mission editing.
They are able to write and use scripts in order to make ongoing and dynamic missions on a regular basis.
It is not a task for everyone and you can find these missions only on dedicated servers.
But, it is part of current DCS.So…please take DCS at face value.
It is what it is and what has been for a long time.
If you enjoy it then have fun.
If you are frustrated with it then it’s your fault.
You expect them to be what you want them to be or what they tell you they are and not what they actually are… -
In my opinion the name of the game is expectations.
I personally expect DCS to be exactly what ED has made it factually and not declaratively/ PR.
It is my opinion, based upon my analysis of ED’s past actions that DCS is a sandbox testing grounds for sim technology to be tested by paying beta testers.
While the general public contribute quite a lot to ED’s revenue I suspect that contracts with big organizations (eg foreign air-forces and the likes) are the majority of the revenue and where ED eventually aims at.Again, this is based upon what they have been doing and not what they have been saying.
I do not see them making any “perfect” module unless it shall eventually be bought by a big organization.
So, when I take ED at face value I have no grievances with them.
I also don’t expect them to change their strategy.
My response as a customer is simple: stop buying anything but what truly interests me and only at a price that I deem fit.
More than that, I see alpha products made by ED as no more than a pyramid economical plan with its huge risks and most chances such a product will take 2-3 years to reach some kind of a beta stage, maybe.I bought the DCS Falcon only at a price that equals going out to a simple movie and beer with friends.
I do not expect it to be even remotely similar to the real aircraft in the next 2 years regarding avionics and aerodynamics.As for campaigns…there are individuals who like and specialize in mission editing.
They are able to write and use scripts in order to make ongoing and dynamic missions on a regular basis.
It is not a task for everyone and you can find these missions only on dedicated servers.
But, it is part of current DCS.So…please take DCS at face value.
It is what it is and what has been for a long time.
If you enjoy it then have fun.
If you are frustrated with it then it’s your fault.
You expect them to be what you want them to be or what they tell you they are and not what they actually are…Good point, Polaris, especially your last one. You also raise one point for me that’s not been brought to the table. I personally have spent a lot more then the “cost of a movie” on DCS, unless you buy 5-6 tickets-lol. The point being-How much have we had to spend on BMS? Heck, in the past the Dev’s have actually refused donations!
-
Good point, Polaris, especially your last one. You also raise one point for me that’s not been brought to the table. I personally have spent a lot more then the “cost of a movie” on DCS, unless you buy 5-6 tickets-lol. The point being-How much have we had to spend on BMS? Heck, in the past the Dev’s have actually refused donations!
Man, I hate this point “BMS is free”. BMS is not a poor-man simulator!
BMS is NOT very good simulator BECAUSE it is free.
It is very good (best imho) simulator AND it is free. -
In my opinion the name of the game is expectations.
I personally expect DCS to be exactly what ED has made it factually and not declaratively/ PR.
It is my opinion, based upon my analysis of ED’s past actions that DCS is a sandbox testing grounds for sim technology to be tested by paying beta testers.
While the general public contribute quite a lot to ED’s revenue I suspect that contracts with big organizations (eg foreign air-forces and the likes) are the majority of the revenue and where ED eventually aims at.Again, this is based upon what they have been doing and not what they have been saying.
I do not see them making any “perfect” module unless it shall eventually be bought by a big organization.
So, when I take ED at face value I have no grievances with them.
I also don’t expect them to change their strategy.
My response as a customer is simple: stop buying anything but what truly interests me and only at a price that I deem fit.
More than that, I see alpha products made by ED as no more than a pyramid economical plan with its huge risks and most chances such a product will take 2-3 years to reach some kind of a beta stage, maybe.I bought the DCS Falcon only at a price that equals going out to a simple movie and beer with friends.
I do not expect it to be even remotely similar to the real aircraft in the next 2 years regarding avionics and aerodynamics.As for campaigns…there are individuals who like and specialize in mission editing.
They are able to write and use scripts in order to make ongoing and dynamic missions on a regular basis.
It is not a task for everyone and you can find these missions only on dedicated servers.
But, it is part of current DCS.So…please take DCS at face value.
It is what it is and what has been for a long time.
If you enjoy it then have fun.
If you are frustrated with it then it’s your fault.
You expect them to be what you want them to be or what they tell you they are and not what they actually are…Your statement just baffled me!
What country do you live in? I have in Russia for the money that I spent on the F-16 module - this is 1/6 of the salary of an experienced electrician.
5200 rubles for one undermodule)) with an average salary in the country of about 25,000. Do you think Russia lives richly? Richly lives only Putin. Everyone else just lives))But my friend has a Bentley … You do not go to Bentley for ice cream? And he is driving. But he doesn’t play DCS.
Funny yes)).
But where does the money come from?
We talked about DCS and Falcon. If you have “extra” money, then you yourself probably decide where to throw it. Many do not have extra money. And they, when they pay their money, expect a good product. Do you want me to sell you at a discount what I bought at the DCS? I will give you personally for 80% of the cost. For beer and for the movie will definitely stay. -
Man, I hate this point “BMS is free”. BMS is not a poor-man simulator!
BMS is NOT very good simulator BECAUSE it is free.
It is very good (best imho) simulator AND it is free.You’re right ! This is the best I have on my computer. Falcon is not a simulator of the poor - no. Falcon is a simulator of smart, generous, noble people who respect those who came to Falcon.
Falcon is the best tradition. There are no rich or poor.
Here are those who love the Falcon.And money doesn’t solve everything. You cannot buy love or health for money. For money do not buy friends.
You forgive me, maybe a lot doesn’t look like I said - I write through Google a translator and it’s not very accurate yet.
-
Your statement just baffled me!
What country do you live in? I have in Russia for the money that I spent on the F-16 module - this is 1/6 of the salary of an experienced electrician.
5200 rubles for one undermodule)) with an average salary in the country of about 25,000. Do you think Russia lives richly? Richly lives only Putin. Everyone else just lives))But my friend has a Bentley … You do not go to Bentley for ice cream? And he is driving. But he doesn’t play DCS.
Funny yes)).
But where does the money come from?
We talked about DCS and Falcon. If you have “extra” money, then you yourself probably decide where to throw it. Many do not have extra money. And they, when they pay their money, expect a good product. Do you want me to sell you at a discount what I bought at the DCS? I will give you personally for 80% of the cost. For beer and for the movie will definitely stay.DCS Falcon was sold for $80 US.
I bought it at $40 US.
Movie ticket for about $10 and another $30 for beer and snacks.
Sorry for the pricing in Russia.
I completely understand you.
Where I’m from it’s an average cost of going out for a movie and something to bite afterwards.
And we are not rich here.
We chase our tail for another buck like everybody else. -
DCS Falcon was sold for $80 US.
I bought it at $40 US.
Movie ticket for about $10 and another $30 for beer and snacks.
Sorry for the pricing in Russia.
I completely understand you.
Where I’m from it’s an average cost of going out for a movie and something to bite afterwards.
And we are not rich here.
We chase our tail for another buck like everybody else.Do not be offended. I do not want to offend you. All who are on the forum are respected people.
Just do not talk about money, this is a mistake.
Probably better to talk about the game. -
Man, I hate this point “BMS is free”. BMS is not a poor-man simulator!
BMS is NOT very good simulator BECAUSE it is free.
It is very good (best imho) simulator AND it is free.It’s not a cheap hobby no matter what you use, between controllers , trackers, PC hardware etc. BMS just lets you spend for the toys rather than the software. Also DCS needs to write as paycheck every month, BMS doesn’t (and i suspect not being tied to the money is one of their main reasons to refuse contributions).
I tried the DCS F-16, the scenery looks pretty ( the colors are way too saturated imho BMS has a much more realistic palette ) , I cannot discuss flight model because I’m not an aeronautical engineer, but it feels different, DCS feels “springy” while BMS feels more “smooth”
What got to me was the damn MFDs, I can’t read them at all in DCS. I hope when BMS changes engine they will maintain the current readability of all text (MFDs, HUD ), which is awesome.
-
In my opinion the name of the game is expectations.
I personally expect DCS to be exactly what ED has made it factually and not declaratively/ PR.
It is my opinion, based upon my analysis of ED’s past actions that DCS is a sandbox testing grounds for sim technology to be tested by paying beta testers.
While the general public contribute quite a lot to ED’s revenue I suspect that contracts with big organizations (eg foreign air-forces and the likes) are the majority of the revenue and where ED eventually aims at.Again, this is based upon what they have been doing and not what they have been saying.
I do not see them making any “perfect” module unless it shall eventually be bought by a big organization.
So, when I take ED at face value I have no grievances with them.
I also don’t expect them to change their strategy.
My response as a customer is simple: stop buying anything but what truly interests me and only at a price that I deem fit.
More than that, I see alpha products made by ED as no more than a pyramid economical plan with its huge risks and most chances such a product will take 2-3 years to reach some kind of a beta stage, maybe.I bought the DCS Falcon only at a price that equals going out to a simple movie and beer with friends.
I do not expect it to be even remotely similar to the real aircraft in the next 2 years regarding avionics and aerodynamics.As for campaigns…there are individuals who like and specialize in mission editing.
They are able to write and use scripts in order to make ongoing and dynamic missions on a regular basis.
It is not a task for everyone and you can find these missions only on dedicated servers.
But, it is part of current DCS.So…please take DCS at face value.
It is what it is and what has been for a long time.
If you enjoy it then have fun.
If you are frustrated with it then it’s your fault.
You expect them to be what you want them to be or what they tell you they are and not what they actually are…DCS = digital combat simulator
OK…Only problem it does not provide to you the combat (environment). It does not matter in some area is better the simulation*. Everything has to be done by players…
The “updates” many times just screw MP, the crated mission or anything…*Except anti-ARM ans ASM capability IMHO general BMS modeling is way above DCS…
For BMS you can find n+1 3rd party theater.
You can easily modify any campaign or TE with ME.
You can modify even the DB of the game.
It is free.DCS is good for one thing. You can make nice movies with fake sounds to sell the modules. Modules are not = combat environment.
And you do not need a nuclear power plant to run BMS while in DCS a freaking screw has 4096 res text. and 4000 poly. For what…?
-
Guys
I played Dcs world f_16 and falcon bms
There are many differences between them
Like FCR and IFF
Which one is more realistic ?Who cares about DSC in our forum? What’s the problem?
More realistic is RL only. -
You’re right ! This is the best I have on my computer. Falcon is not a simulator of the poor - no. Falcon is a simulator of smart, generous, noble people who respect those who came to Falcon.
Falcon is the best tradition. There are no rich or poor.
Here are those who love the Falcon.And money doesn’t solve everything. You cannot buy love or health for money. For money do not buy friends.
You forgive me, maybe a lot doesn’t look like I said - I write through Google a translator and it’s not very accurate yet.
falcon is my lawfully wedded simulator. it’s way of life. the reason to live. I ain’t gonna betray my soulmate who taught me how to walk how to eat how to live. falcon gave me the opportunity to experience the jet for which 80% of MEN around the world would give away almost anything. haven’t we dreamt since childhood to touch F16 for once.?? and now just because some ****in fancy gold wearing whore (DCS) shows up doesn’t it mean u r gonna betray the soulmate (BMS) who still gives better boner than a pussy???
sorry for being so dramatic but this comparison is a disgrace.
suriken saloot to u man.
falcon BMS is beyond the ****in worth of dollar. but kids won’t understand that… -
The ai in bms is ok and probably better than other sims, and better than dcs I understand. But the ai still needs a lot of love. I love bms and think it’s amazing what you guys have done. But Dee-Jay was talking about things that are showstoppers for him in DCS. For me seeing a lot of ai aircraft getting shot down when they go up against even basic level of air defenses is taking away a lot of realism for me. Recreating large missions as described in books like Vipers in the storm is also not possible in bms without having most of the strike package shot down. Of course this has been an issue in every sim I have flown so far. So yes, bms ai is probably better than other sims, but still not great.
on the subject of other aircraft, I was able to shoot down the Eurofighter for the first time in my life in dogfight option. I did have rear aspect winders, wasted one and the last one got him then gunned him. The situation with the Eurofighter reminded me of how the F-16 was in the old F4 CD when dogfighting a MIG-29.
-
If bms is is more realistic , so tell me things or systems in bms that match F_16 in real life
as far as avionics are concerned, there is too much to mention. i can give a rough estimate based on percentage:
DCS F-16: ~20% complete. based on what i’ve seen. don’t own it. what few systems are implimented, most don’t work correctly. waypoints move permanently with targeting pod? pathetic. many system switches are placebo and dont actually do anything. (try going inverted with the fuel pumps off in BMS)
DCS F/A-18: ~50% complete. …and that’s after two years. I own this. seeing it convinced me to never buy from them, again. uninstalled DCS shortly after buying. flight model was good, but it was like flying a vietnam era fighter with a modern coat of paint and flashy lights. too much stuff was missing.
DCS A-10: ~90% complete. cant comment on flight model, but avionics are solid. had a lot of fun with it.
BMS F-16: ~90% complete. there are very few things that are not implemented. many important systems that are not are still classified. ECM being a prime example. the modern Link-16 datalink is absent, unsure if that is because of security or sheer difficulty to implement. there is an older iteration of radio datalink in BMS that still functions very well. They added IFF not that long ago, and that was one of the last remaining absent combat systems. BMS now does that far better than DCS ever did.
the official modules made by eagle dynamics have taken a sharp drop in quality. i’m not buying anything from them again until they are on par with earlier products. F-14 module looked decent from a layman’s eyes… but i just don’t like the turkey, and i still feel like i’ve been scammed by the hornet. personal gripes: BMS/Falcon has had a working AA radar with very accurate modeling of the majority of features for literal decades. neither DCS 16 or 18 have that, yet. skeletonized RWS and TWS, no VS no RAID/EXP. BMS falcon has had a working AG radar, again, for decades. no aircraft in DCS has a working modern AG radar, yet. i think the viggen is the only one, and that barely counts. its a lot harder to find targets in DCS than it should be.
/endrant
-
If you enjoy it then have fun.
If you are frustrated with it then it’s your fault.
You expect them to be what you want them to be or what they tell you they are and not what they actually are…that’s a bit rich. I could agree with this statement… so long as ED were advertising in good faith, rather than making claims they have no intention of fulfilling, actively making statements about the future they cannot, or will not, fulfill.
Is it the average simmers fault they are frustrated with ED for expecting them to do what they say they will? In my country, it is illegal to falsely advertise, but apparently not so where ED is…
BMS F-16: ~90% complete. there are very few things that are not implemented. many important systems that are not are still classified. ECM being a prime example. the modern Link-16 datalink is absent, unsure if that is because of security or sheer difficulty to implement. there is an older iteration of radio datalink in BMS that still functions very well. They added IFF not that long ago, and that was one of the last remaining absent combat systems. BMS now does that far better than DCS ever did.
avionics wise, it’s not 90% done… just seems like it compared to DCS. There are a lot of unimplemented functions in BMS yet. Some examples of missing combat systems… RCR, missile to missile datalink, mutual interference mitigation for the FCR. ECCM, as you noted, ECM… SMS is only 10% implemented, FIX and ACAL aren’t done, lots of things. they aren’t easy things to do, either - need underlying improvements to the engine for a lot of this.
unlike with ED, I have confidence that one of the devs has noticed the discrepancy, and it will annoy them as much as it annoys me, and eventually they will fix it
-
so long as ED were advertising in good faith
this.
i payed $60 for the ****ing hornet. that was two years ago. i want it ****ing finished before you move out with your next even crappier product.
-
One of the main difference to me (made makes IMO a big difference) comes from the fact that:
- DCS is programmed by professional programmers who are coming from video game industry.
- BMS is not programmed by professional programmers (except very few of them), and among the few professionals programmers, most of them does not comes from the video game industry. The other “amateurs” comes from “somewhere else”.
I do not speak about the others Dev who are also coming from “somewhere else” which can be valuable in Combat Flight Simulation department. This is something most of our DCS friends do not understand and/or don’t want to accept when we are speaking about respective FM (among other subjects).
-
as far as avionics are concerned, there is too much to mention. i can give a rough estimate based on percentage:
DCS F-16: ~20% complete. based on what i’ve seen. don’t own it. what few systems are implimented, most don’t work correctly. waypoints move permanently with targeting pod? pathetic. many system switches are placebo and dont actually do anything. (try going inverted with the fuel pumps off in BMS)
DCS F/A-18: ~50% complete. …and that’s after two years. I own this. seeing it convinced me to never buy from them, again. uninstalled DCS shortly after buying. flight model was good, but it was like flying a vietnam era fighter with a modern coat of paint and flashy lights. too much stuff was missing.
DCS A-10: ~90% complete. cant comment on flight model, but avionics are solid. had a lot of fun with it.
BMS F-16: ~90% complete. there are very few things that are not implemented. many important systems that are not are still classified. ECM being a prime example. the modern Link-16 datalink is absent, unsure if that is because of security or sheer difficulty to implement. there is an older iteration of radio datalink in BMS that still functions very well. They added IFF not that long ago, and that was one of the last remaining absent combat systems. BMS now does that far better than DCS ever did.
the official modules made by eagle dynamics have taken a sharp drop in quality. i’m not buying anything from them again until they are on par with earlier products. F-14 module looked decent from a layman’s eyes… but i just don’t like the turkey, and i still feel like i’ve been scammed by the hornet. personal gripes: BMS/Falcon has had a working AA radar with very accurate modeling of the majority of features for literal decades. neither DCS 16 or 18 have that, yet. skeletonized RWS and TWS, no VS no RAID/EXP. BMS falcon has had a working AG radar, again, for decades. no aircraft in DCS has a working modern AG radar, yet. i think the viggen is the only one, and that barely counts. its a lot harder to find targets in DCS than it should be.
/endrant
thanks for the review, I did fly inverted and the engine was shut down, I guess because siphon works with gravity on. According to what you described a person used to BMS will find himself in dark alley when flying DCS F-16. But no AG radar? that’s too primitive
-
One of the main difference to me (made makes IMO a big difference) comes from the fact that:
- DCS is programmed by professional programmers who are coming from video game industry.
- BMS is not programmed by professional programmers (except very few of them), and among the few professionals programmers, most of them does not comes from the video game industry. The other “amateurs” comes from “somewhere else”.
I do not speak about the others Dev who are also coming from “somewhere else” which can be valuable in Combat Flight Simulation department. This is something most of our DCS friends do not understand and/or don’t want to accept when we are speaking about respective FM (among other subjects).
I have to say I did not find any indication considering the quality of the end product in DCS that pros are doing that…
-
- DCS is programmed by professional programmers who are coming from video game industry.
Let me please laugh at that… Professional programmers don’t leave such huge bugs in their (commercial, may I remind everyone) software without answer for so long time.
I know you mean good, but TBH, and even though you may want to believe that BMS coders are somewhat “amateur”, but I’m sorry to disappoint you, I prefer a BMS coder over almost anyone, I prefer a BMS coder over most of my co-workers (And yes I work in a SW company). In my opinion (And others may disagree), SW development is more about will, motivation and hard work, than anything else.
I’m always amazed of what our team achieve, and I don’t think there is a room for even a bit of underestimation, no matter the reference.
-
The word “amateur” is not synonym of “less good” to me. It means just what it means
Lately, I had to repair a water line in my bathroom from water tank heater to my bath. This lines was initially intalled by a professional who probably had a given amount of time to do it … let say about 15min (?). It tooks me 30min to unmount it then about one hours to replace it and reconnect the tank.
I took all my time to do it as good as possible with no time constrains … and without being a plumber, I can tell you that, now, it is much better made than ever. I am still not a professional plumber.