...the ground textures sure look like crap. Is there a mod for this? Any way to make ground textures sharper? Or have I just been spoiled by DCS?

Really nice to be able to engage afterburner again though And I see I still have to do a little dance for BMS to properly map my Warthog controls and axii (using Dimebug's profile).

FLARE is in development still - lets hope it makes it because it looks brilliant

I *think* FLARE is planned for an integrated release with the next BMS update and should help the ground textures some.

I'm really enjoying BMS cos the F-16 is probably my favourite aircraft.

I know that you're a DCS player as well Ice so FYI: after playing DCS for so long the avionics aren't as developed so don't expect the same level as sophistication. But there's no DCS:Fast Jet (and no guarantees it'd be the F-16) yet and BMS is still very good.

Ah yes... any idea on the ETA on that one? I remember that from 1-2 years ago, surprised there's not even a "beta" out yet.

I just noticed my BMS launcher says 32-bit... is there a 64-bit one I've missed?
Also, the grainy in-cockpit shadows and low res joystick looks very out-of-place on the sharp cockpit... any mods for that?

I can't believe I now have to frequent at least 4 forums now just for my flight sim hobby...

No, F4 is still 32 bit. FLARE is taking a while but at least it's still going - and they've firmly said that they're in the BMS camp of development rather than FF. The intention was to make it part of a BMS update instead of a separate install. FLARE and BMS philosophies are the same in that they'd rather have a one stop shop exe instead of patching it from various mods.

Grainy shadows is what we got for this release. I think the BMS team are looking into it.

Anything to help the ground textures. One of my favorite flight profiles is down low so ground textures are really important to me. Flying at angels 20-30 is all well and good but it's so... airline.

What are you saying about the avionics? Are you saying DCS is more sophisticated? Or that BMS is better? I do remember that Falcon 4 AF had a good degree of switchology in it, but I've not played that sim for over a year and even when I played it, it was only for a few months. The last time I was really proficient with it was about 6-7 years ago, so I can't really remember.

Still, I don't judge a sim by switches alone. The fun factor and the excitement/immersion it can deliver is what pulls me into a sim and Falcon offers a different kind of fun compared to the Warthog, even in A-G missions. Faster, able to get in-and-out quicker, but with lighter payloads, less time-on-station, and thinner "armor," you have to be in a different frame of mind when in the Falcon. I'm going to miss plinking tanks with the gun, but I hope to be able to engage bigger, badder SAMs and do some fancy lofting with bombs. Can't wait to try out the Sniper pod as well!

Ah, thanks for that confirmation. Just wondered why it said 32-bit... so if you say you are Option A, I just thought Option B existed.

Any idea if FLARE will be free or pay with BMS? Not that it matters though, does it? Coz I know people will pay for this baby. However, I'd rather have a bare-bones beta now and start to enjoy it instead of waiting for the "perfect" release.

DCS is much more sophisticated. Coming from the A-10 you'll pretty much know the principles involved but you'll be slightly frustrated at the implementation in BMS as things don't work like they do in DCS:A-10.


Yeah definitely. The DC, while flawed, is still a DC and you get to play it online!
And agree again about the F-16 v A-10. They really are two different aircraft and can't really compare to each other. The F-16 will start sweating as soon as a Zeus looks at it, the A-10 will just laugh it off.

EDIT: regard FLARE, imo if it's going to be part of BMS then it'd most likely be free. The BMS team doesn't believe in taking money. In fact they've stated that if you want to donate, then donate to your favourite charity.

Funny, I thought the exact same thing but the other way around when I got DCS. Depends on what you're used to I guess. As for sophistication it depends. The F-16 is more sophisticated for the most part but more automated as well / easier to use. Which team has implemented more stuff or in a better way I can't say as I don't really know the Hog as well as the Viper so I can't judge DCS fairly. There are aspects of the avionics that are not (fully) implemented in BMS (yet), but the Hog doesn't even have many of those so... I dunno.

FLARE will be free btw.

Yes the F-16 is more sophisticated, but like I said, the implementation in BMS aren't up to DCS levels. Fly with DCS:A-10 and you'll see the differences. The TGP is passable in BMS but you can't slave it to SPI, Maverick cam and TGP are separate so rather clunky for instance... I'd be willing to bet that the real F-16 is much more closer to DCS:A-10 avionics when it comes to common systems like that. I mean why make it harder for F-16 pilots when the whole jet is all about making it easy for the pilot.

Well F-16 does not have SPIs to begin with so... You can slave it to a steerpoint though. As for Mavs, no argument there, but I think a fix for that is due "soon". That said, coming from the F-16, the A-10C seemed to me that while generally very similar, is built on a different foundation. For example the SPIs you mentioned which are a key concept in the A-10 but non existent in the F-16.

I'd be as happy as pig in the mud if they can get the landscape looking like LOMAC 1.0, IMHO some kind of "autogen" trees and small buildings would go a long way.

As for A-10 versus F-16 - I've never liked the Falcon as much as the Hornet or Strike Eagle, but I'm very happy to finally have a one-click installer "beginner friendly" (as far as setup goes) and detailed multirole jetsim again. The DCS Hog certainly sounds like an awesome modelled aircraft with a great environment, but without radar, Air/Air and a dynamic campain I've not yet felt the need to spend money on it as it's simple not my cup of tea.

Fair enough. You only pay money for what interests you. I'm playing both and trying to fit in Skyrim.. argh.. no time. Something's got to give.

On the Hornet note, I've just finished watching Jetstream and that's really piqued my interest in a Hornet variant. Seeing all those in cockpit shots makes me want to try one.

I'm not sure why people bash the sophistication in Falcon. I think it easily compares with DCS and the campaign is a billion times more sophisticated than anything DCS has put together. There is a ton going on behind the scenes in Falcon (like DCS) that you don't see. The flight model especially is the most advanced ever put into a simulator for jets (I think Rise of Flight has the most advanced otherwise).

As for graphics... Terrain looks fine to me--the water is a gigantic improvement over what we had before this version of BMS. Flare promises to raise the bar much higher than we see now though so be patient, dudes are working on this in their spare time for free and love for the community.

Correct. SPIs are non existent and in the real jet, you can't interoperate the TGP w/Mavericks or even HTS/HARM with A/G Radar/TGP handoff.

People knock Falcon but then don't really understand how it all works and simply think it must be the same as in another jet, when, it isn't. Falcon has come a HUGE way since it first came out thanks to the hard work of people doing it for no pay at all. I think we all owe them a great deal of gratitude.

If you can't interoperate the TGP/Mavs then why is a fix for it incoming? If that's what it is in the real jet then why change it?
I love BMS, I fly it every night and I've stated numerous times in other threads, including this one (I think) that the F-16 is my favourite aircraft. It's a classic that belongs with the Spitfire. I fully appreciate what BMS has done and have thanked them. If they accepted donations I'd donate the price of a full game.

But I can still see the merits of other sims and what they've done to what degree of fidelity. No SPI in the real F-16? Ok, but that's a bit of an eye opener for me as SPI makes things so much more easier. But there can be no doubt that DCS has the more accurate avionics seeing as they did do the trainer for the military.

And RE: FM: BMS has the actual FLCS from NASA so it can't really be faulted. Likewise DCS has SME's and their work with the USAF/ANG but you can't seriously claim that RoF has the better FM. There are debates still on how a particular WW1 crate should perform on their official forums and let's face it - there's no-one around (or aircraft around) to solidly base your statement. Sure it's got a nice FM where the sensation of flight is awesome but accurate, correct FM for each and every aircraft? I think not.

Nah you misunderstood me here (or I wasn't clear enough). The sensation and actual modeling of flight in RoF is unsurpassed--the accuracy, I concur, there's no way we'll ever know how accurate it is to the real planes. As for modeling what it takes to actually fly a crate, it feels better than anything else I've ever flown in a PC sim.

Yep, that I definitely agree. No sim has a better sensation of flight than RoF. I think it's the combination of the graphics, the low altitudes, the sound modelling (like the wind rushing past) or just the fact that I can stick my head out to look over the sides. All of it makes for a great feeling of actually being there. Very different to being inside a closed cockpit at 10k.

True for the HARMs, but you can handoff targets from the TGP to the Mavs in the real jet.



Hehe, as I said, depends on what you're used to, coming from the F-16 mindset it felt quit uncomfortable for me at first having to use avionics that are based on (and meant to be used with) SPIs hooks etc. But don't judge from the sources of info alone, don't forget that there is much more information on the F-16 available but most importantly, there are a few active F-16 pilots on the team as well, who provide info on a daily basis on even the smallest of details. BMS like DCS also will not model classified stuff.

I guess while the F-16 is more sophisticated than the A-10, it is also more streamlined so the pilot is not over-saturated. The A-10, while simpler, is also more "manual" so the pilot has a lot on his plate. They're both "sophisticated" but in different areas.

I'm just a bit annoyed that the ground textures look like I'm about to have a seizure, but fair enough, this is a very old game. I just like being low and sneaking into enemy territory while my CAP keeps the enemy busy overhead and I come in and take out enemy air defenses and air bases. So I see that "outdated" ground texture a lot. Can't wait for FLARE!

While I've appreciated the lack of having to do the dance with BMS, I now have to do a little jig everytime I start the sim up. I have to do it via TARGET so that it keeps my config --- DCS spoiled me a lot in this way with the WH being plug-and-play. I tried manually configuring my TM WH in BMS and I just confused the hell out of that sim.

I'm with Wynn with regards to systems though. DOn't mind what us whiners are whining about, if the real jet doesn't have it, we won't have it. Unless it's a sensible compromise between real-life and simulations (like the CBU discussion on DCS A10).

Can't wait for F.L.A.R.E

>>>One very happy BMS user here<<<