So friend told me we should get Free Falcon cos he wanted to fly F16, and in the process of looking at youtube videos we found BMS.
Now I have downloaded both of them (BSM 4 and Free Falcon 5.5.5, but i'm wondering which one is best? what are the differences, pro's and con's for the 2 cos its quite confusing.

Is it somehow possible to have both mods Installed? how are the 2 in regard to multiplayer, Co-op and PvP as well as online player base?
which of them would you reccommend to get. As of right now the cockpit graphics of BSM has me slightly stunned, but at the same time the prospect of flying Mirage and SR-71 in Free Falcon sounds awesome to say the least.

Try both, they have different registry lines, so you should not have problems.

New BMS is a very stable F4 platform.

Enjoy.

Dirk.

Install both in different folders.

Haven't dove too much into BSM yet, but one of the great things about FF5 is the number of flyable planes (each with their own cockpits (the F-18E is another great one)) and the campaigns.

BMS would be best if you're flying online.

I like the new BMS, no more fiddling around with my install. It works, and so far is very stable.

BMS brings Falcon up to date with new hardware. Inbuilt clickable 3d pit, eyefinity works, dynamic shadows, DX9 - and that's just all for the eye candy not forgetting what's under the hood. All this just from the initial install. No more fiddling about with the install. The only cfg editing I did was for my Eyefinity POV and side panel viewing.

yes, the graphics are quite miles apart between BMS & FF, and BMS is more stable on my pc...

Tried FF5 real quick. not impressed with the graphics unfortunatly, and i couldnt get BMS to run as SuperPAK 4.0 wouldn't install. And then I had to reinstall FF5 cos it wouldnt run with Falcon 4.0 installed (the original game that is)

Taking up the fight with BMS though

Be sure you have the latest BMS 4 !!!


SuperPAK goes back to the FF1/SuperPak/BMS 1 or so days. Very very very old

Not the correct one.

Keep in mind to install BMS,you do not need to have Falcon installed,just use your original F4 CD. It just uses it for verification. Having any other flavor of Falcon on the drive should not affect the BMS install then far as I can tell. I had AF,OF4.7,and installed BMS using that method, no issues

There is Mirages in BMS too, with awesome 3D clickable cockpits (for the 2000) !!
I'd say BMS. You really SHOULD try BMS

Hi, my name is Tom. ATM I use the FF utility called F4XChange available at the FreeFalcon site:

http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php/16377-F4XChange-Released/page14

Creator is Khronik.

I already had 2 FF installs installed and stored via F4XChange. This utility manages Falcon registries.

After having my 2nd FF install ready, I installed BMS4.23.
(Did not even deactivate my with F4CXChange activated FreeFalcon install, just installed BMS4.)

No issues on my rig, I see 2 seperate registry entries for FreeFalcon5.55 and BMS4.23.

BUT: I would rate this question WIP since not many FF teammembers have investigated on the issue and I know of one teammate who could not use his last FF ITO2 install which he installed after BMS4.

I assume F4XChange is the safest way to use FreeFalcon and BMS.
That's not proven, only my experience.

Check above link and homepage for additional info.
Or feel free to ask at the BMS site as well.

Regards

Tom

Disregard, double post!

Cheers

Tom

PS: Before abandoning FF, try at least our new ITO2 theatre, the terrain textures are something you won't get in BMS this way anytime soon. Best Falcon desert theatre ever created IMO..and many fans agree.

BTW love the M2Ks in BMS as well, kickass.
BTW2: I installed BMS in a different drive than FF, just to make sure.

Tom

Tom, those cool Tornados are with 4:3 2D cockpits. Add problems with AA for nVidia users, sorry.
Nice screenshots.

Dirk.

Falcon's diversity reminds me why ice cream shops have more than one flavor.

Right, in my case unfortunately I'm on a widescreen monitor and nVidia card. No one wants the demise of FF, on the contrary, the more the better. But FF should consider newer hardware and OS to make their production enjoyable to the mainstream F4 users on recent hardware.

Cheers,
Dirk.

splendid, thanks for the clarification. I am unable to find the download link on the official BMS website (under downloads is only the Weapon Delivery Planner, nothing else) does anyone have a good link for BMS 4.

BMS requires nothing else than falcon 4 disk in the drive, correct?

Right. Installing the original F4 is not necessary. Just point to the drive with the disc in it during BMS install.

One thing I never see mentioned about the new ITO2 Theater is that there is a new .exe included. To me that's just as much important news. Haven't looked at the change log yet though.

Anyone have a good link to BMS 4?

You'll find a link to the BMS torrent file on this page:

http://dailyairforce.com/791/Best-F16-Simulator-Has-Gotten-Even-Better.html

Cheers,
Dirk.

download here http://dailyairforce.com/moort/Falcon_BMS_4.32_Setup.torrent

Argh, Dirk beat me.

Otherwise if you don't want to use torrent software you can download the zipped installer from here:

http://www.veterans-gaming.com/download.php?view.134

Dirk.

thanks guys.

Torrent is mostly recommended tho, just saying

Unless you're stuck on Comcast and your whole connection goes to crap whenever a torrent application is running.

(Whatever they do, it seems to negatively affect LAN traffic as well, as if the router can't handle it very well...)

Good thing that direct download link worked!

There's no reason why you shouldn't try both. The choice of aircraft in FF is just great (loooove the SR-71). Unfortunately as Falcon is and always has been an F16 sim, the level of detail in the other aircraft in FF is not exactly in the hardcore camp . I keep it around to take the different types out for a spin (the Eurofighter is really cool too!)

With BMS, not only is there the modern hardware and OS support, but also the most detailed F16 sim ever made. From what I gather, it's the closest to the original vision for Falcon, with added stability and awesome graphics to boot! Definitely more of a "study" sim than FF, and if you love F16s, you have a winner!

And as has been said before, the more the better! I'll always support all Falcon variants, because they keep the community alive. In fact, I'm still completing my current AF campaign before dedicating full flight time to BMS. Falcon FTW!

Already digging into BMS with a friend, the graphics of FF turned me off I'm afraid. I'd love to fly the SR-71 but it doesn't really do it for me, when it doesn't resemble Real life enough. BMS however is pretty awesome. especially explosions and fire effects are better than any other flight sim I've seen so far (maybe save for Rise of Flight)

BMS for multiplayer stability - actually stability in general. Haven't had a CTD at all. F4AF is now officially redundant.
BMS for latest hardware support. Playing on Eyefinity 5760x1080, everything maxed and it's glorious.
BMS for widescreen 3D pit that almost rivals ED's. Pretty damn good effort.
BMS for the most comprehensive F-16 avionics suite there is.

FF for flying other aircraft (that's still modifying the underlying F-16)
but you lose out on the above.

Well I'm a FreeFalcon 5 player and recently tested BMS (which looks awesome) and the advantages that both "versions" have over the other are the following:

Advantages of BMS over FreeFalcon5:
-> Much better and improved graphics with the use of DirectX 9 (FreeFalcon and other Falcon 4 versions use DirectX 7) and without loosing any noticable gameplay performance (and my system is quite far from being a "high-end" one).
-> Much better stability. As many experienced here, I also never had a CTD which sometimes happened to me with FreeFalcon 5.
-> The ability to freely arm/equip your F-16 with TGP (Targetting pods) and HARM pods. One of my biggest complains regarding Falcon 4 (and ANY version of it) was that you would only carry the TGP if you armed your aircraft with at least one Laser Guided weapon (such as a Paveway) or you could only carry the HARM pod if you armed your aircraft with at least one HARM missile. In reality the F-16 can carry any or both of those pods regardless of any weapon that it carries. BMS finally fixed this issue!
-> BMS (like Open Falcon before it) features datalink which is basically non existant in FF5.


Advantages of FreeFalcon5 over BMS:
-> Despite BMS being considered "better" or "more realistic" than FF5 regarding avionics, the GPS weapons (such as JDAM) in FreeFalcon5 and it's support avionics are much more realistic than in BMS. The combat flight sim that modeled the most realistic GPS weapons operations that I played (I haven't play DCS:A-10C) is Jane's F/A-18 and the GPS weapon modeling in FF5 is very, very similar to Jane's F/A-18 which is great! I really miss the GPS weapons of FreeFalcon5 in BMS! It's correct to said that BMS almost doesn't model GPS weapons (at least realistically)
-> BMS completly lacks an IFF interregator, a feature that FreeFalcon5 have (and works great!). This is an another plus that FF5 have in terms of avionics over BMS. I also miss the IFF interregator in BMS.
-> IMO, the sounds in the cockpit in FreeFalcon5 are SUPERIOR to the BMS ones. I find the BMS cockpit sounds dull and not interesting at all, specially compared to FF5.


Resuming, for me the "perfect" Falcon sim would be:
- BMS with the GPS, IFF interrogator and cockpit sounds of FreeFalcon 5.

Everybody is missing THE Point of BMS: The new physics engine; No comparison, it is the most advanced and precise FM out there for now (together with A10C and Rise of flight); As for the sounds i disagree, they are very realistic (it sounds the same in real).

BMS is basically of the same level as the real tactical simulator (F-16 pilots are in the beta test team) and even dares to simulates better turbulent flow flight conditions.

Of course everyone has their own oppinions and may agree or disagree with others but one thing is a fact:
- Just because on sim is more modern and uses a more advanced graphic and physics engine it doesn't automatically mean that the most modern sim is better than older ones. Well in fact, what proves this is the fact that newer sims are constantly being compared to older ones like for example happens with Flamming Cliffs 2 or DCS:A-10 which are always and constantly compared to Falcon 4 (including all and every version of it) or also for example DCS:Black Shark gets compared with Jane's Longbow 2 and so on. The reason for this is IMO obvious: there are MANY, MANY features that make a sim excelent (or even the "best") other than just graphics, physics and even flight models (stuff like dynamic or immersive campaigns, modeling of certain avionics, weaponry and aircraft features and so on).

What I also mean is that while I agree that BMS is in general terms a better flight sim than FreeFalcon5, this doesn't mean that the later one (FreeFalcon5) doesn't have better features than the former one (BMS) like for example the ones I posted here before.

Agreeing or thinking that the sounds of one game are or aren't better than the other can in many times be a matter of personal taste, but again IMO the sounds of FreeFalcon5 are way superior to the ones of BMS. For example the afterburner sounds (inside the cockpit) in BMS are way to faint and even it's quality seems inferior to me (compared to FF5). Of course than one can argue that in real life the sounds in the cockpit are faint which I don't know since I've never been inside an F-16, but I've travelled in many Airbus airlines and one thing that's definitly not faint is the jet engine sound specially when sitting near them which is what happens in the fighter aircraft such as the F-16. Anyway being real or not, one must understand that a computer flight sim will never give the same level of feedback that the real aircraft does, so it's understandable that some features must be a bit "exagerated" in order to give the player a similar amount of feedback that the pilot gets in real life.

Man, this was supposed to be a small post...

BMS developers have already responded to in cockpit sounds. They confirmed with Viper pilots that you hardly hear anything with the canopy down. This includes AA, AB. In fact they left in some sounds for us (like gears going up) because they knew it'd be too weird if we didn't have any type of feedback whatsoever. In the real thing you'd feel the vibrations and muffled sound. We only have sound to go by. -

EDIT, yeah you've already said that we need slight exaggerations because we're at our desks but I like the way BMS sounds. Very realistic.

Bushmaster posted up some in cockpit vids - http://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/entry.php?61-External-vs.-Internal-Sounds

I'll try to find the post where one of the devs was talking about in cockpit sounds.

I think you would need to put an F-16 helmet on to get more of an idea.

i dunno whether to laugh or cry......

it's ok to like these features but no need to tag them "realistic"...

WHAT?? Are you saying or implying that GPS weapons and IFF interrogators are not realistic???

Man, now it's me that "i dunno whether to laugh or cry"! Really, there really are some "impressive" posts in internet forums...

He's saying that the way they work in FF5 is not realistic. Actually GPS weapons in FF5 are not that bad, the thing is, the guy who made them is now in BMS so... Expect something even better. IFF and sounds in FF5 are indeed sub-par, you might like them, but they have little connection with reality.

Why do you say that the IFF (INTERROGATOR) in FF5 is not realistic?! An IFF interrogator works the following way:
-> Friendly aircraft interrogated by the IFF returns a signal while enemy or even neutral aircraft don't return any signal. IFF interrogators are associated with the radar and when friendly aircraft are interrogated their simbology in the radar is changed, this is how things work in real life, period! It's not that hard to model this! This is modeled in several REALISTIC/HARDCORE combat flight sim such as F-14 Fleet Defender, Jane's F-15, Jane's F/A-18, etc... This is also how it's modeled in FF5.
It's really curious that you said that IFF in FF5 is sub-par, seeing that FF5 models an IFF interrogator and BMS does not!! I would say with 100% confidence that the IFF in BMS is one that is "sub-par" at least compared to FF5!

In fact and from reading many posts from OF/BMS fans (note that I also enjoy BMS a lot) and people like you I see that many confuse an IFF transponder system with an IFF interrogator system. The IFF interrogator system works exactly how I described above and this is the system that many players including me are asking for!
The IFF transponders uses several channels (military and civilian), codes (which BTW are configured while the aircraft is on the ground) and may have diferent modes of operation -> Honestly this isn't what I'm asking for since a "generic" IFF transponder system is enough for me.

I also find ammusing when I see someone saying that the IFF in FF5 may not be 100% realistic or that's "simplified", etc... but the fact that a simplified system like and IFF interrogator is MUCH MORE REALISTIC that having NO/NONE system at all! What I mean is that it's well known how an IFF interrogator works so having something that works like that is more realistic than not having an IFF interrogator at all!
Besides do you think that everything you have in BMS is realistic?? If yes, than you must still believe in Santa Claus or something like that! For example the "declare" AWACS command that all Falcon 4 sims (stock/FF/OF/BMS/etc...) have is much less realistic and much more simplified than the IFF interrogator in FF5 since in the real "declare" the pilot must state the position and distance of the suspected aircraft in relation to the bullseye and other necessary info! And the list goes, on and on and on...


Regarding the sounds and like I previously said, PC combat flight sims will NEVER give the same amount of feedback that real pilots get in real aircraft so PC combat flight sims must have "extra" features in order to compensate for the lack of feedback that PC simmers don't get. For example, in real aircraft you clearly feed the landing gear extending or retracting but the real sound of the landing gear is faint (even more faint when the pilot is wearing a helmet) but since in PC sim it's impossible to for example feel the landing gear this feeling must be modeled with a "bit of exageration" on the sound part! So yes, IMO the sounds in FF5 not only "looks" better in my heards but also gives the feedback that I would get in a real aircraft but I can't get in a PC (except by sound).


Fortunally you admit that GPS weapons are great and realistic in FF5 but unfortunally it seems that's only probably due to what you said, that the guy that made the GPS weapons for FreeFalcon now works with BMS! But since I'm not that "fanatic specific Falcon 4 - XX version" and I enjoy both versions (BMS and FF5) I don't let myself affect with such things...

As MiGBuster says, I think it takes a few hours in an F-16 before you can start arguing the realism of a lot of items, such as cockpit sounds. To be able to assess IFF functionality, you need some classified training and experience that you wouldn't be able to share here anyways.

What about his point that the *total* absence of the function is less "realistic"?

Perhaps a stretch, but consider an F/A-18 carrier-based "sim" whose missions simply end when you accomplish the pre-set goals, versus a sim that models landing on the carrier? Leaving out landing entirely would be more realistic than modeling carrier landings, even if those are not truly realistic relative to actual carrier landings?

I believe the point here is that playing GPS weapons and IFF interrogator in FF5 and/or JF/A-18 don't place these flightsim games yet in the same league with the newest BMS's F-16 simulation. They are good games though, I still play JF/A-18 once in a while and get all my gps/iff fix out of it (unfortunately I can't say the same about ff5 as it is quite shallow vs. bms and there are no carrier landings for F-16, lol), but still I believe gps/iff "animations" there are not even a talking point for comparisons with the current systems simulation in BMS.

Opinion.

Dirk.

That's like saying that to bomb a target all you have to do is press the pickle button. FF5 have modeled only the end result, press a button and you get results. You say that you only care about this basic functionality but BMS does not share that mentality. They prefer not to model something at all than model 10% of it just to put it in their "feature" list. There are a ton of things associated with IFF which you probably don't even know about since the system is highly classified. And that's not even talking about IRL where a friendly aircraft can have a wrong code, a damaged transponder, or no transponder at all etc, this is stuff that DOES happen IRL. You ALWAYS coordinate with AWACS IRL, IFF is not the magic wand that some people believe it is.

Also keep in mind there are many F-16s that don't have interrogators, so yes you can say that not having it is realistic if you want to go that way.



Huh? If you want IFF you also have to model the transponder since it's the transponder that responds to the interrogation. Again BMS won't waste dev time to model 10% of a system. That said, IFF might be looked into at some point, but there are other things that need improvement/fixing/implementing first, which can actually be modeled very close to reality.



So you compare the IFF to the fact that your virtual pilot does not speak 5 more words when you make a call. I don't see the connection. It's not even you who is speaking. So if we added bullseye information in the sentence it will be fine? While now it's "arcade"? Yes BMS has stuff that are not realistic. Work goes on and many of those will be fixed eventually. Still, it cannot be compared to FF, completely different level. I think you should read the manuals on what works and how in BMS, as you only quoted datalink as the one thing (systems-wise) BMS has over FF, I think you are seriously misinformed. Actually not even the manuals will help you because there are literally hundreds of pages of changelogs that are not documented in the manuals. You have no idea how much stuff is modeled and in what detail. And just FYI, whatever is not realistic in FF, will never be fixed because they don't care for realism, they have explicitly stated that.



I don't agree with that argument at all. Personally I don't need feedback. Why do you need feedback for example for the landing gear? IRL the pilot even if he feels it, he will always still look at the gear lights to verify three green. So would I in the sim. The sound really has nothing to do with it. The sounds have been created with many recordings, in cockpit with helmet on or off (meaning the recorder inside the helmet or outside), studying RL videos either from in cockpit cameras or HUD recordings (which is closer to what the pilot hears), not to mention the several RL military pilots on the team giving advice, three of whom are currently active F-16 pilots. Still if you want more feedback, you can tweak the sound settings in the options.



You misunderstood. The GPS munitions were made by the RedViper team for FF4. RedViper left FF. Can you guess why? It's because RV wanted realism but FF don't care for it. They want fun. And that's fine. The recipe for failure is trying to please everybody. FF is focused on fun. BMS is focused on realism. From your saying it seems you're happy no matter what sim you fly. I'm not. I want realism. You can enjoy both if you want, but don't compare them for realism. They really are worlds apart, and your comparison is, again, misinformed at best. Compare them for fun if you need to, which is entirely personal preference, and you won't hear any argument from me.

It's always funny how people state things as fact when it's not. LOL


Member since 2003

It's one of the disagreements they had.

I honestly don't get what all the fuss about IFF is all about. Seriously, if you plan properly, maintain good SA and use the AWACS, you don't *need* IFF. Kosmo explained it perfectly in his post. There's a very good thread about this at the BMS forum, where mav-jp explains why it simply is not worth wasting dev time on a feature that
a) Not everyone will utilise because it's quite complicated to use (unlike the magic "click button, get response" behaviour in FF)
b) Most of the system is classified
c) Doesn't add all that much value (in terms of SA)

If it was to be added to BMS, it would be done in the detail and fidelity that we would expect from BMS, not some half arsed "game" feature to make it easier to spot enemies, and all the "Where's IFF" crowd would collectively freak out at how complicated it is to use.

GPS weapons, however, make more sense to implement than IFF.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: get over the IFF thing already, jeez.

IFF is a crutch and nothing more. If you can't fly effective BFM w/BVR WITHOUT IFF you need to work hard to become a much better pilot. IFF is not needed and not only that, it isn't reliable. When you fire an AMRAAM--you NEED to reliably know your target is an enemy.

Proper use of Datalink, Bullseye, Raygun/Buddyspike calls and AWACS all come before using IFF as the sole determinant of the scenario. After that, you can use things like your sniper targeting pod. IFF is a last resort.

It is a crutch. I too used to think IFF was needed. That was before I flew online a lot with humans vs. humans. It was an eye-opener. I now realize why people think it isn't needed. It isn't.

Dont agree, with respect.

If IFF was not needed it would never have been developed.

What IFF can do is at least sift some of the targets as friendlies. Sure, it wont tell you for sure who's an enemy, but it will strike some contacts off the list as it id's them as friendly.

I therefore fail to see how IFF is an unnecessary crutch.

It is a crutch because you lose SA by relying on it. You can tell by looking at a Radar screen which might be friendly and might be hostile via:

a. Good mission planning

b. Paying attention to stuff around you

IFF is a helpful tool, but saying you need it is giving up on your own potential. If you push yourself to excel without it, you will be far better a pilot than you could ever be by insisting upon it. This I know as fact after flying online quite a bit. If you don't believe me, try flying PVP servers for a while in campaign with some GOOD pilots.

Been flying Falcon since 1988 and online since 1999. I stand by what I said about IFF being tactically useful.

Cheers.

Been simming since 1983 and never had needed to rely on it. Used it to amusement in F-15 Strike Eagle III and avoided it since then after reading about limitations.

I think it is useful but far from a requirement. Also, it can never be depended upon alone. Ever. If you fire your slammer based on IFF alone, you're going to shoot a friendly one of these days--or get too close to an enemy (assuming your awacs is asleep and they do get shot down sometimes).

I'm not trying to discredit you, just the notion that IFF is the end-all, be all game-changer uber tech irks me. It isn't.

I don't think anyone is arguing that IFF is an end-all, be-all game-changer, just that it has a purpose and is useful, which is why the USAF has invested in developing and deploying it. Could people live without it? Sure, but that could probably be said about a lot of things, just ask Pierre Sprey.

But given that F-16s have IFF, and all the iterations of Falcon are modeling the F-16, it's not unreasonable to find it desirable that that capability be included.

How well it's implemented is another discussion, and I think it's up to each individual as to whether they prefer it modeled largely incorrectly vs. not modeled at all. I also understand the idea of other items taking priority, because perhaps they're more critical to the core simming experience.

I think people just need to look at the comparative features of FF vs. BMS and decide which one suits what they are looking for best. I don't think it needs to be a competition.

When did I say it was?

OK Guys.....

Up until some time ago I could list the pros and cons of each, but with the new PC hardware I have to say BMS is better since FF5 has all sort of graphical glitches for mee and (probably because of them) is very unstable. I used to fly FF5 a lot and I would fly it again (given the attention to detail in many aspects), but it gives me too much pain. BMS is quite stable though.

The fundamental problem with FF is online stability. No doubt largely a result of many of the FF team having migrated over to BMS Crew.

Offline stability is not stellar either

True, but then FF lost most of its coders to BMS Crew.

FF is a dead end now. IMHO.

Unfortunately Falcon 4 BMS requires you to have Falcon 4. Which would be fine if you could find it priced as a 15+ year old game. But you can't lat time I checked a few years back I saw a couple selling for damn near 200 a piece.

On the other hand Free Falcon is just that, its free and it works.

That by far is the largest reason above all other ones as to way FF will always be better than BMS.

Just did a quick ebay search for F4.0. Price is about $45.


Works on SP... most of the time. Joke on MP code - and the FF team know that too.

Okay so its gone down to 45$ now, wonderful. I'm not going to pay that much for a game made in 1998, just so I can run a community mod.

Not sure where you live, but showing as <USD 20 here:

Falcon 4.0 binder

This is the full-blown edition with the folder, which even as a legacy item is a great read, and three-quarters relevant.

BMS is more full game than community mod, FYI- even at $45, well worth it.

If you're really struggling, I've got a spare original disk.

And all you need is the exe from F4. I bought F4 about 7 years ago, but couldn't get the game to work on my current computer. Good thing I have squadmates.

Your choice then but don't come on here whinging about it.

BMS is worth it - it really does make a new game out of F4. The only thing that's kept from F4 is the bad ground tiles... but that's being worked on by FLARE and FLARE is going to be BMS only not FF. Add in the upcoming stunning F-18A/C 3d pit and somehow $45 is starting to look a little cheap for what you can get out of it.

But by all means stick to FF with its shoddy network code and bad 3d pit.

Your loss. That'll be the best 45 bucks you'll ever spend IF:

a. You love flight
b. You love jets
c. You love an intense, strategic challenge
d. You like things rich and complex
e. You like jets in multiplayer--BMS is the _ONLY_ other version than Allied Force to have stable, solid multiplayer

Falcon is one of the greatest simulators ever made. The mods have made it far, far greater. There really is no equal except maybe the DCS series, but, with them, they don't have a dynamic campaign. So, really, there is no equal in jet sims. If you go to helo sims, the closest you get is EECH with it's dynamic campaign, or Longbow 2 with its pseudo campaign.

Shell out the money. You won't be dissapointed. BMS truly raises the bar and gives us capabilities we only dreamed of having in Falcon for the last decade.

And, new theatres is beeing worked on.

Also F.L.A.R.E is coming up.

OK, BMS has a few minor flaws, but see it as a beta, it's kickin a.....

Check Amazon. A bunch of used copies at around $25

If you are a serious modern combat flight simmer, you need to reconsider that attitude. ;-)

FF is a dead end.

FBMS OWNS the Falcon legacy.