What about BMS?

[Wolfie]

that looking back at falcon is very hard to do.

 

I tried and immediately came back. I forgot how ANCIENT that sim is. Its time is done. I hope the BMS, etc. teams will change their minds and come over to DCS.

[Boberro]

I'd like to see F-16 in DCS. I like this plane and mostly this keeps me in BMS. This game has few aspects I love as advanced comms, VoIP but has the most tragic and epic FAIL GUI and mission editor. I like to make missions by my own with occasional help of some dynamic campaign engine.... but pure DC all time is not for me.

 

I think DCS F-16 will superior BMS eaisly - if some aspects like advanced cooms are made. DC is not a must.

[Smokin Hole]

We are all fans but we are not monolithic. I go back to BMS because of the Dynamic Campaign. It's a big deal to me. Playing in a homemade sandbox is OK but what I really want is a game. I want a world full of stuff. I want to lock the sniper pod on all the dozens of planes flying around my little bit of airspace. I don't really want to be married to the dozens of triggers and scripts required to make a DCS mission feel alive. As a pure sim, BMS is very dated. But as a game, it is ahead of its time. If I had to choose one sim for the rest of my life (and fortunately I don't), it would be A-10. But it would be a choice made with plenty of regret. I would forever miss that active world that only falcon has ever managed to covincingly bring.

 

Oh and don't overlook that Falcan fans can enjoy the game on a budget. It doesn't require constant upgrades and tweaking. It's a relative poor-man's game carefully developed and improved by hundreds of dedicated VOLUNTEERS around the world. That alone means it has earned its continued existence even if it is a little ugly and clunky.

[EtherealN]

Speaking purely for myself, I'm interested in seeing the people that advocate a Dynamic Campaign to get working on one for DCS. I'm not involved in this type of thing at all, so this is me speaking purely as a customer, but I'd love to see some skilled people approach ED and say "look here, we can do this, and we want to do it for DCS as a 3rd party".

 

Given that the DC is such a selling point for a lot of people with BMS, I think it could be a good business. Basically - you could have both DCS and a DC, but it might require paying for it. Which, imo, it might very well be worth. I love scripted, detailed, campaigns and missions for the fidelity they offer, but I do understand that people like the continuity that DC's offer. What I'm waiting for is someone to put their moey where their mouth is, so to speak, and make it happen.

 

After all, if it's such a good thing towards attracting customers, it can only be a success. :)

And I would buy it myself, as long as the price is sane. I'd go with 20 to 40 dollars for a DCS World DC, easy, as long as it doesn't sacrifice realism and good strategic and tactical control just towards being "dynamic". Which of course is the problem. That's just extremely difficult to do and in my own personal opinion there is no DC ever that has managed this. That is my own personal bias though, others will have a different outlook.

[leafer]

Yeah I remember those days when falcon fanatics tout F4 clickable pit like it cured polio, well now we have that so I'm sure jet wash will come when it is good and ready. I have never played a single campaign in any sim, ever, because after having spent 2 years playing Warbirds Online, there is no AI on this earth that can give me that competitiveness or the adrenaline at the merge or the fear of losing to another human.

 

On a larger scale we are going to have Combined Arms which just threw dynamic campaign back to stone age, and it is just the beginning. CA will get better no doubt about that. Seriously, ED is taking us forward where no sim has gone before. Why would we ever want to play in a bubble?

[Smokin Hole]

We've heard these hopes for multiplayer before. It just never happens. Sure, the first week after a product is released there is some MP participation but it never sticks. I mean I hope I am wrong but I've got many years of thinking "x" will light a fire and we will finally have a significant turnout. So far it's been mostly crickets. But if someone could come up with a persistent server that worked, I'd definately pay for it.

[SUBS17]

Surprised I havent seen them mentioned yet. As for all the third parties jumping on board I would think Benchmark Studios would have come up... They did quite a job reinvigorating the falcon field, and they know some radar stuff... Seems like a lot of people want an F-16 in here too.

 

You would think that might be helpful to ED, although I doubt at all they would need it. I'd still take an DCS F-16 over anyone.

 

You never know with such things, BMS is probably buisy resting after all the hard work they've done in making this awesome mod. If they were to make a DCS addon F-16 it would no doubt be 100% modelled their work on the BMS latest F-16 matches most of the stuff in the real F-16 manual except the IFF. If they were to make one though it would be freeware and it would rock but for now BMS is their thing that they are working on.

[SUBS17]

From what I've read in bms forums I dont think this will happen (unfortunately!).

There seems still to be some avionic stuff in development for the next major release and also their F-18C will be upgraded etc.

So there is no time for modding in DCS. (And IMO they werent satisfied with working only on a SFM ;))

 

But their F16 is a good reference for all DCS jets coming. :thumbup:

 

What SFM? They could make a full AFM FM for DCS if they wanted to their FM guy has done an awesome job with BMS F-16 FM is unmatched as far as F-16s go and no doubt if they were to make an F-16 I'm sure ED would help them make it at AFM/BMS level or better.:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

Yes I got that impression as well :cry:. I think it was my initial post on the BMS forums that drew a lot of ire.

A subsequent thread started by SUBS17 is having a much more receptive audience and generating some useful discussion.

It's a real pity from my opinion that the "DC" of Falcon becomes the lynchpin for continuing development in the BMS environment because I rarely use it, much prefering individually crafted T.E.s. It's just my opinion, so don't waste you breath flaming me!

Look, IMO the BMS devs have done (and are still producing) stellar work w.r.t. avionics, systems and flight modelling.

I'm no mathematician or aeronautics expert, but I *feel* that their advanced flight model for the F16 is still not as fluid as the *simple* flight modelling for FC2 and certainly can't hold a candle to the feel of flight in the dedicated DCS series. But then there's nothing factual in my opinion there, it's just the consequence of a gut extrapolation of my own flying experience as a grunt; read *baggage* in Hueys, Kiowa's, Nomad's and Pilatus Porter's (waves on the miniscule chance that there's ppl from 8/9 Bn Royal Australian Regiment circa 1980's here - I was Pyro from Recon Pl, Spt Coy btw).

But Falcon 4 still feels dated, although the Dynamic Campaign is much better than it's previous incarnations, I feel that the efforts would be better applied to DCS: World than to reviving a tired old war-horse. F4 was great until relatively recently, but it's now time to let it rest in peace .... *in my opinion*.

 

You need a thick skin and a good sense of humor in the BMS forums. BTW most jet combat simmers use both BMS and DCS.:thumbup: The DC rocks you should try it out just one week of it and you'll understand why F4s DC rocks. As for FMs check out videos of F-16 Hud tape and its similar to how a real F-16 handles also the FM for BMS is actually better than a RL F-16 sim.:megalol: And vastly better than all the previous versions so FM in DCS would be about the same if one was modelled. Its a good idea to ask for a DCS F-16 from BMs though and I have brought it up a few times as I agree they are the best choice to model an F-16.:joystick:

[SUBS17]

P.S. I got the impression that VRS weren't too receptive either after sending them an email about recent DCS developments.

 

As I stated BMS are the best choice for an F-16 addon and to add to that VRS would be the best choice for a Superhornet addon.(if ED were to buisy) But in VRSs case they are buisy developing a combat sim out of FSX so not only are they to buisy but they are building something that is competition to ED. They may even do a Tacpac for Prepare3d which would rock so it differs alot from what ED are doing because the SDK will allow FSX aircraft to be modified to full MP combat capability.

[Teapot]

You need a thick skin and a good sense of humor in the BMS forums. BTW most jet combat simmers use both BMS and DCS.:thumbup: The DC rocks you should try it out just one week of it and you'll understand why F4s DC rocks. As for FMs check out videos of F-16 Hud tape and its similar to how a real F-16 handles also the FM for BMS is actually better than a RL F-16 sim.:megalol: And vastly better than all the previous versions so FM in DCS would be about the same if one was modelled. Its a good idea to ask for a DCS F-16 from BMs though and I have brought it up a few times as I agree they are the best choice to model an F-16.:joystick:

 

Thanks for the good advice Subs. Will make every effort not to let it get under my skin lol.

I entirely agree that BMS are well placed to make a killer F16 for DCS.

[SUBS17]

Anyhow I just figured I'd ask. I thought maybe they'd be interested. Guess not...

 

Well I see where this went. Its kind of an unfair advantage cause if im not mistaken the DCS engine is much more recent than the falcon engine?

ED has a ridiculous team and to be able to sift through god knows how much data and create an AFM for BS or A-10 in only a few years says a lot. Im sure the boys at BMS are quite talented but honestly they didnt build falcon from scratch. It was built for them. They only had to improve upon a framework and for sure reprogrammed the whole thing.

 

Also BMS did some cool stuff with terrain, explosions lot of graphics updates, models and all that again improving upon an existing framework. DCS made FC1, FC2, DCS:BS, DCS:A-10C, and soon DCS:CA, DCS:FM, FC3 and some day Nevada.... Plus a holy bejesus amount of patching that I doubt I'll ever see matched by any company ever, all happening while they are pushing products. Plus all their ground models look damn good stock, the weather engine is tops, the night day scale is hot shit and the terrain changes per season all rock.

 

So yeah BMS has done some cool stuff. But holding a candle to ED just wouldnt fare. These folks do it all, and they dont half ass anything(You wont get a super bugged release of civilizations here). Obviously if DCS were to produce an AFM F-16 you could guarantee it would blow the socks off whatever falcon brings. Its not even fair, there are some pretty talented people at ED.

 

All in my opinion and the point of this is not to flame anyone its just to point out how even entering a debate about the comparison and contrast of these two is redundantly ridiculous.

 

Whats happened with DCS is the engine has been made modular to make it easier to allow addons and mods. Falcon4 was originally going to be similar like Falcon 3 which had Mig29 and Hornet addons. Janes were also planning something similar but they got bought out so we are very lucky ED has released DCS World and made it with mods, SDK and addons in mind. You cannot compare DCS to BMS as BMS is a mod made as freeware to the community. DCS is made by ED which is a company that makes money from releasing software. A community mod group works in their sparetime and have jobs and life outside their modding. A commercial company that makes software does so for a living. If BMS were to make an F-16 addon for DCS and ED were to make one and you were to park them together they would be identical.

[winz]

On a larger scale we are going to have Combined Arms which just threw dynamic campaign back to stone age, and it is just the beginning. CA will get better no doubt about that. Seriously, ED is taking us forward where no sim has gone before. Why would we ever want to play in a bubble?

Does it? For me CA is not comparable with DC, because it improves a different aspec of sim. Combined arms adds a human factor to ground troops, that's it. It's a great addition for DCS world, especially for organized MP (i'm kinda curious how it will feel in SP, will be fun to experiment with, for sure). But it wont allow you any larger scale battles, then the ones you currently experience in DCS Missions. You're also tied to predefined scenarios, as you were before. Yes, they will be more dynamic and random thanks to the added human factor in ground troops. It will shine in MP the most.

 

DC is great for persistence and replayability. Especialy for the SP folks (yes, we do exist). And no custom mission can achieve the level of unpredictability a DC can. Sure the mission aren't the most realistic, but lets be honest, 90% of the mission we have for DCS are not that realistic either.

[Eihort]

One of the big buzzwords in game development over the past few years has been emergent game play. A DC is precisely that and one of the reasons so many people, myself included, love it. You have -no- idea what's going to happen, ever. Sure. There are ways to include randomisation in DCS' mission editor, but there are limits, and there are only so many contingencies mission creators can plan for.

 

The multiplayer aspects of CA will help a lot, but there's still the perpetual problem of making sure there are people to actually play with that know what they're doing. I'd certainly hate to go fly an awesome mission just to find that the hole I punched in an armored battalion has no follow through because our commander is sending unescorted tanks into a city full of enemy SF. Or worse yet, log on to find servers that are empty.

 

I don't really buy some of the arguments that a DCS F-16 would be inherently 'worse' than the BMS one. I think a lot of people have their opinions clouded too much by their personal preferences. If the previous products are any indication, a DCS incarnation would be just as good in terms of cold hard features.

 

I do feel it's a bit of a missed opportunity as the BMS team could actually make some money utilizing their resources making an excellent Falcon for DCS, and open people up to the BMS DC in the process. Same with VRS and their Super Hornet for FSX.

 

I suppose in the best of all worlds, with cross-pollination of players, DCS would find value in implementing a DC and ironing out multi-pit.

[Teapot]

I do feel it's a bit of a missed opportunity as the BMS team could actually make some money utilizing their resources making an excellent Falcon for DCS, and open people up to the BMS DC in the process. Same with VRS and their Super Hornet for FSX.

 

I suppose in the best of all worlds, with cross-pollination of players, DCS would find value in implementing a DC and ironing out multi-pit.

 

I like your style :D

[WildFire]

You cannot compare DCS to BMS as BMS is a mod made as freeware to the community. DCS is made by ED which is a company that makes money from releasing software. A community mod group works in their sparetime and have jobs and life outside their modding. A commercial company that makes software does so for a living. If BMS were to make an F-16 addon for DCS and ED were to make one and you were to park them together they would be identical.

 

Talent is not measured in revenue. Combat helo is a solid testament to this, which also blows falcon away. My second post was saying you couldnt compare them because the engine was extremely outdated, however the talent in ED I think is much higher than the BMS folks simply because of all the other aspects they have mastered, i.e. weather, seasons, terrain, graphics, and models.

 

Keep in mind a lot of the stuff BMS improved upon already existed in the engine they adopted. Where as ED built everything from scratch from lock-on and before. So BMS upgraded some stuff and added some effects. ED created an entire universe. Granted ED had the revenue and time to do so, but there is nothing stopping BMS from becoming a revenue generating production either. I think the argument is mute.

[EtherealN]

To be fair, if ED people are more "talented" (or "skilled" perhaps is a better word?), it is probably in no small part precisely because they work fulltime on this while the BMS devs do this specific type of things in their spare time. (With varying degrees of overlap to their day jobs.)

 

The word "talent" is generally understood to be some intrinsic quality of a person - something you either have or don't - while "skill" is something that is acquired. It stands to reason that an individual that spends 8+ hours a day doing a given type of development is probably acquiring more skill than someone who works on his spare time.

 

Further, Wildfire, note that working with someone elses code, and modifying it, is actually extremely hard. When working with in-house code, and a codebase that was developed by people you still have on staff (though of course there has been some staff rotation at ED over the years, as there always is in development companies), your code is very much a known quantity. You are basically navigating your own neighborhood. When you're told to please figure out and develop on someone else's code, like the BMS people have done, you're plopped down in the wilderness somewhere with a vague map and a compass and a cheerful "good luck mate". ;)

 

So basically, the whole argument is indeed moot. None of us here are able to make any inferences about which development team is "better" in a skill/talent sense since there simply is no way to compare. So people shouldn't even try.

[leafer]

Have you ever played Warbirds Online, winz? I keep referring to it because of its massive scale of players online at any one time. I know the fighting spread out all over the map, but on a good day when our squad actually followed a given task, say, protect bombers or capture an airfield, it just cannot be beat. Also, I've never ran from AI, but against humans I've done countless 180. Even when we lost I still felt like we've done something right. There is no way a DC can give me a sense of camaraderie.

 

I know CA is going to give us that. Maybe not on a massive scale, yet, but one step at a time and the next will get you there, right?

[winz]

@WildFire

There is one thing preventing them from charging $ - BMS is based on a leaked source code, and they have no legal right do distribute, or sell it. That's the reason BMS still requires an original Falcon exe.

 

Tbh, we don't know what parts of the original code were improved and what parts just had to be scrapped and reworked from scratch. i.e. the FM in BMS feels so much different from original F 4.0 that it's hard to believe it's based on the original Falcon code. Sure, there are parts that are just updated, but that's true for EDs product aswell, i.e. the graphical engine.

 

Considering the amount of updates done to BMS and the level of robustness (stability) achieved it's fair to assume that their knowledge of Falcon source code is exceptional. They are in different position, than the standard modder groups i.e. IRIS, who work around a 3rd party engine without any control over its features. BMS can implmenet features they require i.e. they redesigned the whole control scheme. They have control over the engine.

 

By moving to DCS they would loose all this control. +they would be moving to a totally unfamiliar platform and would have to take all the baby steps all 3rd party developers are taking. And I don't see what would they gain...a newer graphical engine?

 

Have you ever played Warbirds Online, winz? I keep referring to it because of its massive scale of players online at any one time. I know the fighting spread out all over the map, but on a good day when our squad actually followed a given task, say, protect bombers or capture an airfield, it just cannot be beat. Also, I've never ran from AI, but against humans I've done countless 180. Even when we lost I still felt like we've done something right. There is no way a DC can give me a sense of camaraderie.

 

I know CA is going to give us that. Maybe not on a massive scale, yet, but one step at a time and the next will get you there, right?

DC, CA has nothing to with camaradines. You feel camaradines because you play MP, period. DC can work, and is working, in MP enviroment aswell, and would give you exactly the same sense of camaradine.

 

And no, I haven't played it, but I don't see how it's valid. Basicaly CA is giving you the option to control groud troops + play as JTAC. It will not generate you tasks as guard tanker, escort bomber, capture field etc... Tbh those tasks are entirely possible with current system, so I cannot see how CA will affect/improve that. CA will allow players control the ground battle.

Edited June 11, 2012 by winz

[Teapot]

There is a certain jenesequa about knowing that there's very little AI involved on the 'other' side (pardon the French heheh). I know exactly where Leafer is coming from!

Conceded that I think that a DC done well could be a valuable asset, although the feeling of *real* is qualitatively more intense on a MMOCFS than when flying with a LAN squad in my experience (mind you LAN squad can get pretty intense as well).

The jury's out again on that one from my perspective (only) because I hated the experience in the early versions of Falcon 4.

I'll do as Subs has suggested and give the DC a weeks jaunt in BMS 4.32. :o). Of course that means I'll have to go through some of *tanit's* BMS tutorials and that in itself will probably take me about a week (wife, family, job etc). However, always nice to have a mission to accomplish :D!

[winz]

But DC doesn't define who you are facing. In bare bones, DC is just a persistent combat theatre with dynamicaly generated tasking. Your opponents could very well be human players (PvP servers). DC and CA are not mutually exclusive, in fact they could very well coexist without problems. :) I in fact think that ground-air war integrated high fidelity sim in a dynamic persistent theatre is a simmers wet dream :D

 

Sure that MP will allways feel better than SP. But that has nothing to do with DC and/or CA ;)

[Teapot]

But DC doesn't define who you are facing. In bare bones, DC is just a persistent combat theatre with dynamicaly generated tasking. Your opponents could very well be human players (PvP servers). DC and CA are not mutually exclusive, in fact they could very well coexist without problems. :) I in fact think that ground-air war integrated high fidelity sim in a dynamic persistent theatre is a simmers wet dream :D

 

Sure that MP will allways feel better than SP. But that has nothing to do with DC and/or CA ;)

 

Right. You've cleared that up for me in your first 2 sentences (ta for that!). Well in that case ... bring on the Dynamic Campaign addon, as long as it's a good-un. :)

[sungsam]

I read all the thread, and analytics about simulation engine advantages / disadvantages of both DCS/BMS, as long as all the philosophy about why the Falcon community persists on .... etc.

 

A lot of people in this forum, have years of experience on both DCS/BMS as I do, and I'm sure this talking of comparison has became boring to death .

 

The answer is so simple.... IT IS THE F16 FALCON THIS COMMUNITY WANTS TO EXPERIANCE ... IT IS THE MULTIPLE THEATERS OF WAR THE WANT TO FLY.

 

... And to be honest the lower resources needed of this old engine compared to the modern PCs.

 

The question is:

 

IS ENYBODY READY to hold on the responsibility of creating the Desperately needed DCS F16 in Hi fidelity? Cause he must be prepared to support the FALCON community!

Edited June 11, 2012 by sungsam

[NineLine]

If I was one of those types to read into stuff and assume and guess, I would find it mighty weird that nobody has tackled or come forward saying they are doing an F-16, almost like the F-18 it seems that it isnt being touched, now I am not one of those types to read into stuff, so I will just say its interesting that these two birds have no concrete plans...

 

On that note, am I wrong in thinking that an F-16 has a ton of info available out there that it would be a great 3rd Party Project?

 

Anyways... just saying ;)

[159th_Viper]

I would find it mighty weird that nobody has tackled or come forward saying they are doing an F-16....

 

Someone has.