Ay, Dynamix was second to none in that regard.
Aces over Europe had two ring bound manuals- one for the game and one for the real History + planes.

If I learned proper English is no doubt thanks largely to games.

Haha! Of course not! Just having a discussion there!

Obviously not much to talk about if the conversation goes like this:
Me: "I love BMS! It rocks!"
You: "Me too..."
Me: *silence*

It's always better when others bring up contrasting viewpoints.... makes for interesting discussion!

As a married man I have to say "not always". :-P

Thankfully, this is about a topic much, MUCH less complicated than marriage!

Just flew a campaign mission and...nothing happened...just like can happen in RL. You just never know with a DC.

Nice AAR haha. It does feel kinda strange to fly 120mi, chuck a couple harms, then turn 180 and dhead home for my "excellent". I agree though, part of the immersion.

Another good reason to "Fly Navy". Even if nothing happens during the mission, there is still that small task of getting back on the boat.

I agree that CV ops are superior. 4.33 perhaps a step in the right direction, but still under developed.

I have high hopes for the dcs bug and ED cv ops.

I fly BMS mostly but sometimes my eyes need a rest from the tiny letter fonts in the cockpit. DCS does very well in that area.

Do you guys have any monitor size/resolutions advice?

Get least 2560x1440 rez monitor, and big as you can afford.


I have 27" 2560x1440rez isp monitor and i love it. High rez makes text sharp and easy to read.

Here what it looks: http://i.imgur.com/CgAyHOA.jpg (bit compressed but you get the idea)

Thanks Haukka, that does look better. Mine is 23" 1920x1080, time to get rid of it!

DCSW Nevada not ready, alpha though it is. Crappy Crappy FPS and no immersion. And no good hardcore multirole jet.

FBMS scores high in immersion and the best hardcore multirole jet. And the terrain graffiX are now passable.

Passable? This blew me away for atmosphere in Falcon4 BMS4.33, although seconds after I got blown out of the sky....

I think these 'd!ck measuring contest' threads are pointless.

The fact is there are surprisingly a lot of people out there who like pretty flighsims that only make a vapid gesture towards the full blown single player experience, eg. IL-2, DCS.

Personally, I doubt DCS will stray from that formula seeing that their bread and butter is already bringing the moolah. The safe play is to kick back and keep milking the status quo. To their credit, the DCS modules have superb fidelity. Now and then, they throw in a few trinkets (nominally better graphics, a new map.. yada, yada) and some table scraps to keep the diehard drooling fanbois from leaving the altar of worship. Which is fine by me...I get it. You're devout. More power to you.

Why should DCS risk anything to fly into unknown territory of programming a credible dynamic campaign ? It's no mean feat. I don't think they have the cohones to do it. Probably don't have the resources and time either.

A few comments on this thread are just plain silly, in particular about the graphics and future developmental potential.

The biggest problem I had with the old F4 was the terrain tiles which were low res and featureless on NOE flight and could not deliver the sensation of speed of driving a fast mover. They have since fixed all that in particular with autogen 3d objects. Cannot really fault the graphics on BMS 4.33. Real pretty at least from my perspective. Therein lies the rub with some DCS diehards. It's almost as if they are saying that Jennifer Lawrence is not pretty because she's not a Giselle Bundchen.

Developmental potential.....F4 is an old engine for f%%% sakes. Of course, its finite in terms of what you can do with it graphically, and from a modification standpoint it will have a shelf life. Further, the BMS group who labor thanklessly do not get remunerated for their efforts AFAIK. It's less of an incentive to keep chugging out mods to an often critical and self-entitled community if you are not paid for your aggravation. But look what they have done. Nothing short of mind blowing. Fidelity oozing out of every skin pore and a dynamic campaign that is both believable, unprecedented, unequalled...probably never will btw It's not the latest Formula 1 car but it's still a Formula 1 car.

If graphics alone was the only selling point, you wouldn't hear all the tortured screaming that accompanied the travesty that was the latest Star Wars Battlefront. Hey maybe you like playing canned training missions where you edit and place every asset on the mission and know exactly what odds are stacked against you and what to expect and where. I'm happy for you but that's just not my cup of tea.

At the end of the day, people play what they want to play. Both sides of the camp are just beating a dead horse. You're not going to gain any new converts and nothing's going to change to make DCS more like BMS or vice versa.

Dude you make valid points but this debate has raged for over a decade. ;-)

I love the fact that you said that and then proceeded to measure both!

I would argue that they are **NOT** pointless though. If you bring in a newbie flight simmer, this is the perfect place for him (or her) to get a feel of what each sim has to offer. As we mostly skip the marketing mumbo-jumbo, the new guy (or gal) gets a more accurate picture of which sim choice might be the better fit for his/her preferences.

Crappy FPS? Or do you just have a crappy GPU/CPU or something wrong like wrong or unrealistic settings or hardware/software problems? I get 80 FPS flying right down the middle of the Las Vegas strip and 125+ flying everywhere else. My computer is middle of the road so I'm really confused by your statement.

You cannot compare graphics between F4 and DCS with a straight face. Flat 2d cities in BMS look horrible while flying NOE. The new engine looks good in the hills and mountains, but the cities remain an immersion breaker. I love F4 BMS for what it is, a GREAT look at my favorite aircraft, the Fighting Falcon! I love the campaign and the immersion it brings. I love the random encounters that happen during missions. But lets not get it twisted, DSC blows F4BMS away in every way in the graphics department.

Like it or not, DSC is the future unless there's a new revelation in the F4 source code that I'm not aware of. BMS did incredible things with what they had to work with, but I'd be surprised to see much advancement from where it's at now. Now if we could just get a F-16 that's on par with the Mig21 or A10C in DCS with a DC all would be good in the Vampr sim world! These are just my humble opinions, your mileage may vary

While I do really enjoy the DC, I've come to realize that it's the viper that brings me back the BMS. Nothing like looking over your shoulder and seeing amraams on the rails. I noticed that instead of flying in the campaign I find myself just doing single sorties in witch I just try different attacks with different weapons or recreate real missions from books like vipers in the storm or even just do some free flight. I can do all this in DCS minus the big X factor, the viper. If the managed to get a f-16 90%(witch would be tough IMO) as good as the one in BMS I may never come back.

I doubt DCS will be "the future" at this very slow rate of new releases. Over the last year we've seen abysmal 3rd party devs being accepted out of sheer desperation, ED stabbing one in the back for the sake of releasing an L-39 of their own design, and a declaration that the sales of old will not come again. They're obviously not experiencing increased profits which in itself is no surprise considering a plethora of lower quality modules being accepted, immense lack of progress as usual on DCS WW2 despite the scam they pulled, or carrier ops and the Hornet.

The only aspect where DCS wins is graphics. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't even win on having more planes, because I want a modern setting and as far as that goes all we have is the A-10 after half a decade of "the Hornet is coming soon". There are 3 WW2 planes, but given just the crap DM, those can't be considered finished and neither can the Sabre and MiG-15.

Il2 BoS didn't come off great in comparison to older IL2 games, but I do believe their way of doing things will prevail. DCS is literally speaking coming along at such a slow rate that it currently won't ever be able to provide a full theater. 5 years since the A-10C and still no Hornets, Eagles, Vipers, etc. We'll get to the stage where the engine overhauls will necessitate going back to work on the Warthog to make it compatible at all, before we'll see even 3-4 compatible fighters.

2016 will tel...l lots of content planned for the new engine, if it's delivered remains to be seen. While I'm not going to go as far as to speculate as to whether or not ED is successful I think we do have good reason to remain skeptical.

It's the same story they've pulled every year. Last year it was all about the Hawk, C-101, DCS WW2, etc. Now we're here again, with all three having crashed and burned. I hope for some competition to turn up, so the people over at ED will have to either start acting with respect towards the customers or wind up in the poorhouse.