Dcs World Viper and Falcon BMS
-
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. -
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.I think you shouldn’t hate this point at all .
On the contrary !!!
It’s free = It’s shared
It’s shared = it’s a gift -EDIT- No, I not a Communist ….
I really love what it means . I have no problem with that, as I love and respect the word "amateur" . As I said before, amateur mean that someone does something because he truly loves it .The real “amateur” isn’t motivated by money , but by love (at least at first . Some ppl earn money while doing what they love , but thoses are few).
Amateurs are more than often experts in their area of knowledge .
Nothing to do with underestimation . Nothing better than a motivated true “amateur” to have smg done .
But nowadays, words are often perverted … it’s sad .
-
…
To make a Formula1 simulation, I prefer trusting McLaren engineers even if they are amateur programers than professional video-game programmers whom core job is to master Vulkan API. -
In todays software world there is only one difference between amateur and professional - a professional earns money directly from the skill.
That doesn’t mean better at all, but does imply more risk and more limitations on what can be done. Other than that - learning resources, software, everything can be found for free. You just need to win capitalism and have free time and energy -
Let’s be proud to be real amateurs !!!
:headb:
I thank BMS team and all u modders and BMS enthusiast to be true amateurs . And to share that love .
Cheers,
BMS rules .
-
Well the trends… to sum it up…
Bms side asks for gfx (vr among those) and different aircraft.
Dcs side asks core things and completion.this is what i get from reading on the subject over the years.
Years ago i thought dcs would go for a monthly fee kind of thing. I don’t see it coming in the near future but at the pace they release modules and the prices it’s almost about the same.
2-3 modules per year? 50-70 per module based on stock and early access pricing. So you get it.
They have an enormous amount of employees for such still users complain for completion and fixing or implementing core things over significant amount of time. This is not gonna happen in the near future verified by them, their ceo and coo and their released roadmap. Still the focus is on new modules as they clearly state.
So they have the money they have the time they have the team… looks like nothing is missing so what’s the hold up all those years?
Only one aircraft almost completed A-10, only one or two helo’s, only one good scripted campaign, only one coder hired for the DC, only one team for F-18 and F-16.
This just doesn’t make sense and i don’t think they are stupid.
What i come to think of lately, and maybe is already said elsewhere?, they have military contracts (one for sure)… for me yes it puts all the pieces in to place.
This is my money generator, this is my focus, don’t pay for quality and beta testing, let em pay, get their feedback and satisfy my main focus which is the military contract. We even save some more bucks from the whole deal for future development.
They see that they jeopardise their name and professionalism on retail, but why care? Their focus seems to be elsewhere. So you can bark as long and as loud as you want, i give you some bites to get satisfied and get off my back and continue working for me and paying me at the same time and let me do my main job.
Clever.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
The probablem is that actually , people are paying
Why should they stop ???
People complains, but people feed them in the same time .
-
If I were them , I would raise the prices ! As long as it works, why not ??? If you are logical , if your goal is only to make money .
-
They chose a smart way : Modules . Like other sells DLC .
And people pay for this , and even for unfinished products !!! that’s crazy .
People have what they deserves .
-
20 or 30 years ago , NO ONE would ever have paid for an unfinished product . NO-ONE .
-
It’s only an indepht form of capitalism .
it’s just like Wall Street or, like to pay via credit , applied to simsoftwares . because it’s sells very well , not even talking about derivative products ….
You pay for smg you don’t fully possess .
It’s a bet . So 95 % times, If you pay blind, you’ll lose . It’s poker .
They only have to make their reputation on the 5% winners . And here come advertising and marketing !!!
Cheers,