I have noticed one thing though...
In BMS, my cockpit fonts ...esp the MFDs ...they appear to need some antialiasing or something.
Difficult to see clearly w/o shifting downward for the bigger views of the MFD.
It seems your resolution is pretty low, so yes zooming in is pretty much necessary in this case. However check if the "double resolution cockpit displays" option is checked in the BMS config editor and see if unchecking it helps a bit.
Since its hard to convey tone through a forum, let me say first that the following is said in a completely friendly manner. I only write this because there seems to be some misinformation about what BMS is or isn't in these forums. I have never looked down on AF, I have flown it quite a bit as it came out just when I was returning to flight sims after some years of absence. Now..
AF's graphics is old for today standards, there's no doubt, but it is coherent in every aspect.
When viewed as a whole, you just accept it. It is clear that they did put more efforts in
'normalizing' the graphics than it is apparent at first glance. The tricky thing is... you don't
notice it because it looks so natural (as a whole).
That it looks coherent is fact. However the graphics were barely updated from the various F4 flavors floating around at the time so I don't think it was such a monumental task. On the other hand, what BMS have done and continue to do with the graphics is
a monumental task, which is one of the reasons why things take so long. They could have waited until every aspect of the graphics was updated, which means the release would be around 2020 (have you counted how many 3d models are included in F4 for instance?). I don't think anyone would want that. Things like these are being worked on though.
Look instead at BMS. Its beautiful lighting
(if not a bit garish) is in stark contrast with the shabby terrain. It's not coherent.
BMS has a new terrain engine which already looks miles better than AF.
Yeah, promises promises... BMS has been around for ages.
To clarify, the current BMS team is not the same that made the older BMS patches. Some people are the same but not many. And no this BMS has not been in development since the last BMS patch, its much younger, the dev time is not nearly a decade as you suspect.
And the most part of the improvements
you play with, in BMS 4.32, are from the decade old BMS versions.
Turn off the hype, turn off the enthusiasm. Turn off the "everybody says it's cool" thing. Try to
be neutral and objective: how much of the actual BMS is truly 'new' stuff?
If we exclude the graphics, there is very little 'new' left.
The above are much more relevant to AF actually, which just took the best stuff of the mods that were already out there. Very little has been developed from scratch for AF. How much of BMS is new, well if you could see the (literally) hundreds-of-pages long changelog you'd know. And that is a changelog from OF, which was already probably the most advanced F4 flavor. Just to point the big stuff out, there is new terrain engine (not entirely new but significantly different from other F4 versions), new FM / physics / weather (this is entirely new), transition to DX9 gfx engine (also entirely new), new MP code (entirely).
It'll be months before you get a proper and working 3D cockpit (lke
that of the F16) for each of the different jets they allow you to fly.
Months? I'd say never, it is not one of the team's goals. And I don't know of any hardcore study sim that features more than on aircraft in full detail.
And it'll be months (to not say years) before you get to see the many bugs plaguing the new BMS
avionics finally squashed and buried.
That makes it sound like a bug-fest which it isn't. Keep in mind that what works in AF works also in BMS. Its just that BMS has 10 times more stuff implemented, and some aspects of some of this stuff do not work 100% correct under some circumstances. The percentage is pretty small.
They target people with modern hardware,
as they openly state somewhere in their main page or where there are the system requirements, I
don't remember, but it's there - just read around the front page.
That is true, BMS looks to the future and develops the sim to be as good as it can be, no holds barred. If you don't agree with this approach then I can't say you're wrong, anyone would like something that runs perfectly on medium hardware. Same goes with bugs, AF chose to remove a ton of features to spare users the bugs. BMS instead choose to include those features and fix the bugs. As you say, its a matter of choice. BMS chose to have a longer developing time but end up with a better product. One of the team members made a great post about development on the BMS forums. I won't quote it in it's entirety but I'll write the resume. Commercial products have limited resources (money to pay the staff), and a deadline. For free products money is not an issue. So with a long enough dev time, a free product will always be better than a commercial one. I say with a long enough dev time, because commercial products (like AF) are worked on full-time, while the BMS guys work on it on their free time. On the other hand, AF had a deadline as I said, BMS does not. They can keep developing it for 10 more years and we can only imagine what the results can be.
When the current hype about BMS will subside we can see, facts at hand, what's been actually
accomplished and what's been promised but is still to come.
Nothing has ever been promised by BMS is all I can say on that.
There's more to Falcon 4 than
And there's more to BMS than graphics, dear lord so much more! I think you're in denial man!
Joking aside though, it sounds like you have not tested BMS much or at all. One other reason I've written all this is that personally I think you're just seeing the tip of the iceberg and you're seriously
missing out. As far as I can tell, the biggest thing AF had was stability. BMS is rock solid on my current and previous machine, never had a CTD. Then again I only had 2 (two) CTDs in the 2 years flying OF (again on 2 different machines) so maybe I'm really really really lucky? Hmm, somehow I can't believe that. BTW, that is the exact same number of CTDs I had with AF too in 2 years. Every other aspect besides stability is simply incomparable between the two versions. I say try it out a little. Try and see what has been changed, to what degree and to what fidelity to RL. I believe you'll be very pleasantly surprised.
Sorry for the huge post and the derail.