What about BMS?

[NineLine]

Someone has.

 

Where? Not surprised I missed it, we are in announcement nirvana right now, I cant keep up, and I love it :)

[159th_Viper]

VTAI.

 

Post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1480271&postcount=87

 

Thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=73864

[NineLine]

Thanks Viper, I hope the go for the all out DCS tag :)

[SUBS17]

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 My second post was saying you couldnt compare them because the engine was extremely outdated, however the talent in ED I think is much higher than the BMS folks simply because of all the other aspects they have mastered, i.e. weather, seasons, terrain,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.

 

Just to point out here prior to the latest BMS Falcons graphics and FM in most other versions were no where as good as what they are in BMS at the moment. The FM was vastly improved on, people often said with previous versions of Falcon that the FM was like flying on rails. The FM in BMS now is based 100% on the FM data from NASA wind tunnel testing. Its FM is actually better than a real F-16 sim on an Air Base. Now for the graphics F4 was improved alot in this area with that and also stability. No one should be comparing who is better ED or BMS or what is better. This thread is about asking BMS to do an F-16 addon for DCS. BMS work on Falcon4 is one of the greatest acheivements in jet combat flight simming, they've managed to make the sim still playable and worth flying eventhough the sim is 13 years old. And there is no way they would ask for money as I've already brought that up on their forums. IMO there is talent in both ED and BMS, they have both done alot for flight simming over the years and no the latest BMS is not the only work BMS has done for Falcon 4. There were several versions of BMS prior to the one we have now.

[SUBS17]

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.

 

Actually both CA and Falcons TE are of a similar nature. I have in the past participated in an online war with another Clan(thats Air, Ground and Sea). In Falcon the same is acheived by both Squadrons/Air Wings selecting their assets and placing them on the map. One for Red and one for Blue. Then each side makes their ATO which is the difficult part for the people in charge in my case we were using Panama for our war and there were about a total of 25 participants or less. So by placing CAP and SEAD flights and based on Intel provided both me and the Red side created our ATOs then briefed our Air wings/Squadrons. After the last man landed we then went into the editor again and created our next move for each side. In CA my impression is the same is possible although instead of the brief pause in between flights the dude in charge is working in real time. Either way its a fun conflict and a big learning curve for the CAG to make the flights do the right amount of offensive and defensive work to destroy the enemy. BTW you can contol ground units the same way in Falcons TE and DC.:thumbup:(with the exception of actually operating weapons etc but you canmove them)

BTW end result was a victory in the Air unfortunately the other Divisions in SVN did not do quite as well.:D

[SUBS17]

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!

 

To do the DC you do not need to know everything just basic A/G, SEAD and A/A. Also to win the DC you need to influence the ground units. To do that you should check out the DC guide to win.

http://www.lead-pursuit.com/downloads.htm

 

Download mission campaign planning guides and when you start the DC just follow the guide to get the victory over the AI.

 

http://www.lead-pursuit.com/downloads/contrib/guide_part_1.pdf

 

http://www.lead-pursuit.com/downloads/contrib/guide_part_ii.pdf

 

For missions the first flights are best done as both SEAD and DCA to gain control of the air. It does not take long to accomplish that and then go after the enemys airbases and ground units. At the sametime support your own ground units and advance on objectives capturing air bases and enemy assets. A DC can be won in a couple of days but it depends on the AI level and scenario. If you get stuck you can ask friends to help you as you can do that in MP and they can help you win as well.:thumbup:

[Teapot]

Thanks for the tips Subs, I really appreciate it.

[SUBS17]

Theres a great sense of acheivement after winning a DC and its very impressive in Falcon in MP when people check your logbook and see more than one campaign medal etc.:joystick:

You also technically have won your own war, I haven't beaten BMSs campaign yet but I have won one in F4AF.:pilotfly:

[WildFire]

IMO there is talent in both ED and BMS, they have both done alot for flight simming over the years and no the latest BMS is not the only work BMS has done for Falcon 4. There were several versions of BMS prior to the one we have now.

 

I was just implying that I believe there is more talent here because ED tackled not only an accurate flight model for 3 aircraft but also advanced net-code built in house, their own environment with effects, ground vehicle models, terrain and weapons.. A lot of different aspects.

 

It was simply a observation of what has been done totally by both producers, not to discount what BMS has done.

[Sierra99]

I think F4/BMS fans cling on to DC and they won't let it go regardless if ED were to make a much better study sim of their beloved aircraft, and that's a shame

 

I'm inclined to agree. Some people seem to believe since it was first... its always gonna be the best. Kiddies thats simply not the case. I still have Falcon 4.0 and Falcon 4 Allied Force, neither have ever worked as well as DCS A-10C did first time out of the box.

 

When the latest patch of BMS came out I installed it specifficly to compare it with DCS:A-10C. There simply was no comparison. DCS A-10C smoked Flacon. Period. As a study sim Falcon was OK but look at how many things in the Falcon Manual are listed as "Not Functional in Sim" Compared to the A-10C manual.

 

Yes, Falcon had some military input... A-10C has been used to ACTUALLY TRAIN AIRCREW MEMBERS...Something Falcon will never be able to say... unless ED comes out with an F-16...

[Teapot]

I'm inclined to agree. Some people seem to believe since it was first... its always gonna be the best.

 

Well, I'm looking at the debate another way now, so I seek to clarify my current thoughts on what can appear a rather turbulent issue.

 

Initially when I raised the original topic on BMS, it was because I truly am impressed with the strides that the BMS crew have taken converting the original Falcon 4 to the jewel that is BMS F4.32.

 

They have done a stellar job, there's no doubt about it. It's easy to see that with a work of such exquisite attention to detail, that the devs approached the task as a labour of love. I too would be defensive I guess that the sim that I pour my soul into should be assumed some way to be inferior ... and as a study sim of a fast mover (the F16), it is most certainly NOT inferior.

 

Using the metaphor of the production of fine wines, they (BMS and DCS) share a common product base from my view. The flavour's though are subtley different, while being equally engaging. If you write off either BMS or DCS, you're missing out on some fantastic flavours ... as long as your perception isn't blinded by "oh it's dated graphics" or on the other side "oh it has no Dynamic Campaign" etc. When you burn through the barriers, each sim will entertain within the world of immersion that each creates.

 

Invariably in debates like this type, the conversation gets somewhat bogged down in the DC or a lack of one. Personally DC was never my thing as I would often see something weird during the campaign and think to myself that that wasn't very realistic. However, my recent foray into DC on Subs suggestion is proving to be very immersive and far better than it ever was in the past. Let's face it, there probably always will be anomalies in BMS DC just as there are anomalies that we live with in DCS: World.

 

My wish is simply that one day, DCS: World will attract the calibre of 3rd party devs that were driven to weave the magic of their imagination in BMS, when the time comes for the Viper to be crafted within DCS: World.

 

A life without passion is a life poorly lived. On that score I tip my hat to the BMS team and want them to know that I truly enjoy and appreciate their labour and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

 

I hold the very same sentiment toward the DCS devs as well. All of you guys fuel my hobby and I want the very best outcome for all concerned .. especially for me :D.

 

Cheers!

Edited June 21, 2012 by Teapot

[Kuky]

BMS is still quite good, it has depth in avionics and really only terrain graphics is letting is down since that's simply old engine limitation.

 

One day BMS and DCS fans will learn to live in peace :D

[Cali]

Kinda hard to compare 2 sims that came out a decade apart. The newer one will look better everytime, have better features (hopefully) but it will also cost more to run it. The DC in F4 is nice, but there is not like multiplayer, at least in my eyes. I enjoy flying both sims, they both have pros and cons, no need to argue over which is better.

[EtherealN]

I enjoy flying both sims, they both have pros and cons, no need to argue over which is better.

 

Truth right there. I haven't flown BMS beyond a couple test flights, but that's not about it being "worse" than DCS, just that I'm more involved with DCS and spare time is limited.

[Sceptre]

It's a shame for me that I can't install BMS... I have it on my hard drive but I own F4 Allied Force not the original Falcon 4.0.

Oh well! I am sure oneday we will see DCS: F-16 Falcon. One can only hope:)

[NineLine]

Truth right there. I haven't flown BMS beyond a couple test flights, but that's not about it being "worse" than DCS, just that I'm more involved with DCS and spare time is limited.

 

Never understood the arguments between this sim or that sim, I personally have never been a fan of FSX, but I wouldnt trash them because you can never have enough sims out there. Personally I have plenty of HD space for DCS, BMS, IL2... they all have their benefits, they all have things I wish were better, but they are all good in what they are (well IL2 needs some more tweaking, but I still love what it could be).

 

I would love if the BMS guys tackled the F-16 over here, but if thats not their thing I will continue to enjoy their work wherever they care to share it.

 

So knock something like Call of Duty, but lets leave our sim brothers alone! :)

[Corsair]

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.

Sure not. First, BMS devs have a lot of experience (more than ED) and know what to do/what do not do. Per exemple i think ED is making a big mistake about opening DCS to 3rd party addons (a Raptor ? c'mon !!), while BMS prefer focusing on a single aircraft: the Viper (however BMS features a Mirage 2000 to but less average). Also you say DC is not a must but try to launch a campaign in DCS... all that I have to say is that's it is monotonous, not like BMS where the comms are dense and realistic.

Also BMS is much more optimized than DCS.. in DCS you have 15+ air units and it's laggy as hell (even with my really great rig) !

 

And finally i know that the next version (4.33) will feature EVERY version of the F-16C (Block 25 to Block 52+) plus the F-16AM. I don't think ED will make all those versions..

[VTJS17_Fire]

And if I look out of the F-16 Cockpit, I could puke. The grafics outside the cockpit are so 90's. :music_whistling:

 

And sorry, but only one aircraft for years? No D(ACM), no real scenarios and so on.

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

[sobek]

First, BMS devs have a lot of experience (more than ED) and know what to do/what do not do.

 

And this is based on what? For your information, Eagle Dynamics has released its first product (Flanker) in 1995, that was 5 years before the Falcon community got the 1.07 source of F4. :music_whistling:

 

Per exemple i think ED is making a big mistake about opening DCS to 3rd party addons (a Raptor ? c'mon !!), while BMS prefer focusing on a single aircraft:

 

So your point is? ED is focusing on one aircraft as well, the 3rd parties are separate dev teams that get support from ED, but it's not like ED themselves are making their planes.

 

Also BMS is much more optimized than DCS.. in DCS you have 15+ air units and it's laggy as hell (even with my really great rig) !

 

It's not more optimized, first it uses 3d models with way less polygons. 2nd, it aggregates units that are not close to the player. This has nothing to do with optimization, it is rather the level of abstraction the sim goes to when the player is not close. In this regard, DCS is way more realistic, albeit at the price of performance.

 

And finally i know that the next version (4.33) will feature EVERY version of the F-16C (Block 25 to Block 52+) plus the F-16AM. I don't think ED will make all those versions..

 

Link? The last i read from the actual devs was that they want to focus on the 50/52 because they didn't have the ressources to do all versions.

[mmaruda]

First of all BMS has the upper hand because it focuses on one aircraft, but look at just how many years it took to get there. As for the rest - terrain looks bad, 3d models apart from the Falcon are poor and my biggest pain - training! You really have to learn everything yourself, it's not like you have the nice tutorials of DCS to show you the basics. And the way the manual is written it's really hard to digest.

 

As for dynamic campaign, IMHO it's always been an overrated feature. I'd rather fly a well designed scripted mission than dozens of generated ones, even with all the comms and stuff. Though one has to admit, Falcon really has a good dynamic campaign engine which cannot be said about other sims (IL-2 Sturmovik being perhaps the worse).

[NineLine]

First of all BMS has the upper hand because it focuses on one aircraft, but look at just how many years it took to get there. As for the rest - terrain looks bad, 3d models apart from the Falcon are poor and my biggest pain - training! You really have to learn everything yourself, it's not like you have the nice tutorials of DCS to show you the basics. And the way the manual is written it's really hard to digest.

 

As for dynamic campaign, IMHO it's always been an overrated feature. I'd rather fly a well designed scripted mission than dozens of generated ones, even with all the comms and stuff. Though one has to admit, Falcon really has a good dynamic campaign engine which cannot be said about other sims (IL-2 Sturmovik being perhaps the worse).

 

 

There is plenty of training vids on youtube for BMS, that said, what are we arguing about again? That we have more than one choice for our flightsiming pleasure?

 

Really, there is plenty room on my hard drive for both these... not so much for time in the day, but hey :)

[Corsair]

So your point is? ED is focusing on one aircraft as well, the 3rd parties are separate dev teams that get support from ED, but it's not like ED themselves are making their planes.

Well the goal of DCS is to provide realism and hardcore sim, but if 3rd party devs begin to developp arcade stuff into World, the community is going to divide -one part with arcade/midcore planes, and the other one only with hardcore stuff-. From now there is not a lot of people on DCS, it's going to be worse if they introduce arcade stuff.

 

Link? The last i read from the actual devs was that they want to focus on the 50/52 because they didn't have the ressources to do all versions.

There is no official announcement due to the fact that 4.33 is not finished at all. However I know this from a developer, who gave me some renders about MLU cockpit (with Carapace system working, hehe). BTW the 50/52 is almost fully developed, except some stuff (SPI, IFF, incomplete TGP...)

 

And this is based on what? For your information, Eagle Dynamics has released its first product (Flanker) in 1995, that was 5 years before the Falcon community got the 1.07 source of F4. :music_whistling:

Flanker is about Su-27, LO/FC is about 6 aircraft (that are arcade !) and DCS is 4 y/o. I don't see any common point between all of them, except the engine.

 

It's not more optimized, first it uses 3d models with way less polygons. 2nd, it aggregates units that are not close to the player. This has nothing to do with optimization, it is rather the level of abstraction the sim goes to when the player is not close. In this regard, DCS is way more realistic, albeit at the price of performance.

That is true with ground units, but not with air units.

 

First of all BMS has the upper hand because it focuses on one aircraft, but look at just how many years it took to get there.

...just compare the avionics between F4 old (even AF) and BMS.

 

The grafics outside the cockpit are so 90's.

Really ?

 

:music_whistling:

 

my biggest pain - training!

Join a squadron, visit BMS forum, watch Krause's tutorial, i don't know why you find training hard.

BTW, about BS2.. there didn't included any training. It didn't prevent to become a quite good pilot on the Ka50.

 

But don't think i hate DCS. Even if it has a lot of bugs (invisible trees for AI, slow fps, stupid AI, MANPADS/short range SAMs that spot you at 5km after a 1 sec popup....) i really like this sim and it's really fun to play it online (with a squadron), however i really wish ED to take care of all those bugs, regulate the 3rd party addon development (if all those addons would be like the Beclz's one it would be wonderful), and developp a russian jet (Su-24M :cry:) it will be even better.

[Dejjvid]

BMS is fun to fly MP. But the only reason I play is because of the afterburner. When fast jets is released in DCS:W I don't think I'll ever fly BMS again.

 

I have only one thing to say to the BMS fanboys: how many OSB buttons are labeled but not working? And how many OSB buttons isn't even labeled?

 

And don't get me started about MP stability, worst controller mapping in the gaming industry and ground handling.

 

It's time to get realistic, we've moved on from Win98, it's time to move on from F4 as well.

[PlainSight]

F16 is the best (looking) single seat multitasker out there. And if one comes for DCS, i'll buy that too. I love this plane. Its versatility makes up for the lack of other planes in F4, so "only one plane" argument doesn't really count with me.

 

No point in arguing which sim is better either, everybody must play both, end of story.

[EtherealN]

I would like to remind everyone of this:

 

1.12. - While general news and updates on other simulation projects are allowed in the Other Sims section, this is a privately run forum for Eagle Dynamics projects. General discussion and product support of other titles does not belong here and should be moved to the appropriate publisher/developer website.

 

There is no point arguing about which simulator is "better". Both are good, and each individual will prefer one or the other based on their personal attitudes and desires. Now let this thread return to it's purpose, which is to deliver news.

 

Thankyou.