Personally, I think BMS is in much better position than ED. BMS could develop a second, third, fourth study sim level a/c using the base they have. I have asked the question, and there is no technical reason they cannot do it. I would love to see ED move in the right direction, but let's be honest. Building a study sim level a/c is a heck of a lot easier than developing a dynamic campaign, and the host of other parts currently missing from DCS.

Again, there is nothing stopping anyone from developing a study sim level A-10, F-15, Mig 29, etc. in BMS. When that happens, and it is free, I just think ED has their work cut out for them.

As far as graphics go, I think there is a threshold where graphics don't matter. When I am in the cockpit in BMS, the graphics just melt away. They are way beyond the threshold where immersion is impacted. I suspect they will continue to improve, as will more theaters, a/c, etc.

Both sims are equal in the initial learning phase, where everyone is busy starting up the jet and then doing the various weapons and systems training missions to wrap up everything the planes are capable of. There's just as much stuff to learn in BMS as there is in DCS.

But where BMS really takes off, is when you start using the plane as a weapon in the "real world combat" of the 24/7 multiple-missions generator. Feels very much like being a fighter pilot. Doing training in controlled environment, then stepping out into campaign mode, where anything can happen. Uncertainty before takeoff and relief after landing, this feeling is unmatched.

If I have to be brutally honest I find DCS easier to use.

Let me explain:
the most complex airframe I have in DCS is the A10 and having the Thrustmaster Warthog it requires me 0 time to set up controls.

All the others (Uh1, the Mustang, the Fw 190 and even the F86) take 10 minutes each to set as they have a barebone structure. Fex axis, few keys.

Unfortunately having a HUGE amount of switches to set up in the BMS F16, F18 and all the other flyable goodies (I literally drool thinking just about that!) proves also a big hurdle.

I have no idea how to set them and that simply demoralizes me.
I tried a bit- I also wanted, REALLY, to simply fly the BMS A10... I simply don't have all that time.

Now I'm not saying DCS is better- at all. I fly it simply as it's for me the most viable choice.


That is, until someone comes up with a pre-made profile for the Warthog.

Which, while I type, probably exist already and if I just googled that instead of writing this post I'd probably be playing already...

*thinking*

You know? It's the coolest time to be a flight simmer.

i think most people would pay for a persistent dynamic campaign in dcs, I would. They also need a multi role fighter either Russian or nato.

And if they could have multiplayer servers that were presistent 24/7 until win conditions were meet, it would be even better.

It would take more than a dynamic campaign to bring DCS to life. With Falcon 4 you have the pre-mission planning, post-mission debriefing, everything that gives you the impression your playing a part in a war; then, there's that dynamic campaign.

Like someone said, would help DCS to have a multi-role fighter. Opens a whole new world of missions in Falcon 4.

And for God's sake, play both! Not many left.

ps BMS v4.33 is GREAT! Thank you BenchMarkSim's!!!

Not just that. DCS modules, well, at least the American ones, do not really "interact" with each other. You can put in an F-15 with an A-10 but there's no way they will "work" with each other. The A-10 is too slow to keep up with the F-15. Compare that with a Strike F-16 and a CAP F-16..... both will obviously have the same speed and would be easy for one to support the other despite their different "roles"

A long time ago, a few guys and myself tried mixing up BS2 and A-10C, with the Shark working like a FAC once all the ordnance was spent. It was awkward to say the least!




As for those that said my "review" was spot-on, thanks guys! That took a lot of self-control to write!! Unfortunately, seeing this makes me very disappointed whenever I "remember" that the DCS line exists. I was such a fanboi of A-10C that I bought BS2 just to support DCS but when they came out with Combined Arms and announced WWII, I had to step back in surprise. That was, as you guys will remember, the start of the downhill slope. I'd love to be wrong about DCS... maybe DCS World 2.0 will bring many surprises and bring me back into their airspace. As it is, the Mirage was the biggest temptation I had a month or so ago, but again, problems have reared their ugly heads and again, I am both happy and sad that I was right about staying away.

FORTUNATELY, BMS now brings so many aircraft into THEIR myriad of theatres (Balkans, Israel, Korea...) that if it was hard enough to be proficient at ONE aircraft, well.... *cough! cough!* Hornet! *cough!*

Well rest easy. Every plane is really just a faceplate over the F-16. Any switches that are selectable in a non-Viper flyable are simply a callback to an identical function in the F-16. If you go to the DOCS folder and find the FA-18 pdf you will find that each switch has its F-16 keymap callback listed. And it is here where we need to keep it honest. DCS models their planes and helos with nearly a clean slate. BMS allows only a few tweaks away from the underlying F-16 in order to create a plausible flyable.

So does FSX do some things better than P3D or XP10 and vice versa.





True. However, you can't bomb Nellis or the surrounding area. The best you can do is make "pretend fights" over the desert.

I will say that yes, I do miss the DCS visuals. However, in the "Falcon mindset," I don't want to be flying low because my jet is really, REALLY thirsty. Even if I got wing tanks and I know I got fuel, I don't want to burn fuel unnecessarily because at the back of my head is Plan Y which is to drop A-G stuff and step into the phone booth with Mr. MiG for a friendly little knife fight. If I **DO** have to go down low, well, I'm usually very, very, VERY busy with other things to notice any buildings.... if they were there, I wouldn't be ogling them but just working to avoid them. They might as well be blocks on the terrain. Long story short, the only time I have time to ogle the low-level graphics is during final approach for landing. If I'm doing it at any other time, I'm doing something wrong.





Very good way of putting it!





I hope I'm around to see it with the rate they're going!





New game engine = visuals (the F-15 didn't really fly differently due to the "new game engine," did it? Su-27 is still on SFM, yes?)
Upgrade to DX-11 = visuals (Does DX-11 affect any of the bomb fall performance? Does it improve online stability?)
Improved performance = visuals (read: less stuttering. Still there, but less.)

disingenuous = adjective, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Point taken and I agree! 14 years later, I might re-read this thread and laugh at how wrong I am!

One thing I do not like in DCS is their lack of focus. You have a great American air-superiority fighter in the F-15 and it has all the bells and whistles. Where is DCS MiG-29? Where is DCS Su-27? Nope, these aircraft are done at Flaming-Cliffs-level, not DCS level. You have the WWII aircraft, but where is the WWII theatre? Where are the WWII anti-air assets? At this current time, DCS is kinda like FSX+TacPack but in FSX, you can fly anywhere in the world....





Yeah, but to build such a mission.... let's just say I spent the last few months of my DCS time trying to script some aircraft to take off and land when the player aircraft is starting up or near the airbase on his RTB. In BMS, these things simply "exist."





They have to decide what they want to do and do it. Focus on it. Do they want to cater to the hard-core study-sim, "I love flicking switches" crowd? Then do it. Do they want their market to be the switch-lite, "ALT+HOME to start up engines" crowd? Then do it. Are they going for US aircraft with enemy aircraft being AI? Or do they want to focus on Russian aircraft? Are they going for modern? WWII? Vietnam-era?

Again, they lack focus. If they could clamp down on what they want to do --- say a modern theatre featuring a multi-role aircraft (Strike Eagle? Hornet?) in the a specific theater (please, no more Baltic!), it'll be easy to get behind them. As it is, they're trying to be everything and end up pleasing nobody.


As theOden said, we acknowledge that DCS has potential.
BMS, however, is actually DOING it.
New theatres? Yep.
New aircraft? Uh-huh.
Carrier ops? But of course!

Here's a bib for your drool.

Your preference for DCS here is the simplicity of the other aircraft. Barebones, as you put it.
In BMS, well, even if the other aircraft are simpler in implementation compared to the F-16, they're still way more complex than a Mustang or FW.

Simply put = too many detailed aircraft, too little time.

As for a pre-made profile for the Warthog... for the F-16, I can assure you this exists! Have you seen my Helios profile for BMS? That comes with a TARGET profile for the F-16 and if you know the DMS/TMS/CMS stuff from the A-10C, well, you've got a big chunk of the finger acrobatics out of the way!





I would not call a dual-engine Hornet or Eagle "just a faceplate over the F-16." I would also doubt whether the landing approach you need on the Hornet and the resulting forces is "just a faceplate over the F-16" --- but I'll admit to not having tested this as I'm still too busy getting my controls properly set up for 4.33. Suffice to say that any hard landing on the Viper = pretty explosions.

However, see my first post in this thread. That's a BMS vs DCS comparison without even touching the new aircraft.

But that is the thing. A study sim level A-10 could be built, for example, and not use any callbacks to F-16 functions. So if BMS or someone else wants to do it, it is possible. And that is a lot easier for BMS to do, vs what ED needs to catch up to BMS. But in the end, this is truly the golden era of flight sims. From WW1, WW2, modern era combat, and commercial aviation, we have more options than time.

I see no reason not to enjoy them all.

+1

You have MiG-21 and where is the F-4 Phantom? Or Thud, ...

Heh, good old -Ice. I knew I could count on you. Yep, anyway- spot on.

Sorry Im late... ;-)

Long time Falconeer from 1988.

Long time DCSW flier since 2008, including the BS and A10C.

The FBMS DC is awesome and remains a key advantage to the sim. Falcon always tried to create an environment where ARE a fighter pilot in a war. 4.33 carries this even further IMHO. Missions are varied given that the Viper is really a fighter-bomber. Too bad the terrain is still crappy, but thats a limitation of the old code.

DCSW looks alot a better, provides a better flying environment, but I find it to relatively sterile. Plus the online servers are flooded with Air Quakers. FBMS, by its very nature, vets these folks out. Nevada should be very interesting and really look forward to to a true hardcore multirole jet, like the Bug.

Agree with everything you said, except the terrain. I think 4.33 looks really good once you are in the air a bit. It could definitely be better, but then the FPS would be worse. I like the balance we have.

I miss my mirrors in my BMS F18C :-( I know it's a limitation in the falcon coding, bummer

Agreed. I enjoy them in my DCS A10C for immersion, tactically near useless though.

I have a question, and hopefully it has not been asked yet (this seems like the place for it).

How does the latest BMS version of F4 compare to DCS in terms of frame rate / system requirements?

I have DCS, and it runs ok at low detail, with a few slowdowns with smoke and such.
I have always been vaguely interested in F4, and I've decided that now is the time to sit down and learn a high-fidelity flight sim, so I'm tossing up between going back into DCS and doing it properly, and going for F4 BMS. Frame rate / will my computer cry is the biggest consideration.

I have both.

I would say that BMS 4.33 and DCSW 1.5 are roughly equal in system demands now.