Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#4347049 - 03/26/17 09:05 PM That got shut down quick!  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Closed thread over in the BMS forums

Made by a new member and only had 1 post. Any ideas who "jjbk" could be? Or was this just a trolling attempt?

If this was a serious attempt at communication, why would someone from ED want to talk to someone from BMS? Can they not get data on their own?




Note: Usually this part is unsaid but understood; unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case here in this sub forum lately so I'll make it clear: I wish to discuss this TOPIC.
Those who cannot engage in challenging, meaningful discussion about the TOPIC please try to control yourselves and do not reply.


- Ice
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4347077 - 03/27/17 12:51 AM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,599
Frederf Offline
Member
Frederf  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,599
Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to ignorance. I think less than a week earlier someone else asked if BMS could be upgraded to use PFM (DCS terminology).

#4347086 - 03/27/17 01:54 AM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Not exactly sure what you're saying, Frederf.... are you saying that "jjbk" was just ignorant of the situation and had no ties to ED at all?

I did see the thread asking about BMS flight model and had a good chuckle.


- Ice
#4347426 - 03/28/17 12:28 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
bkthunder Offline
Member
bkthunder  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
I think it was a trolling attempt, or just a clueless guy. Anyone with a bit of understanding can see that DCS: F-16 would still be a completely different experience than Falcon BMS.
I have no doubt an F-16 in DCS would be great, and I'd love to have it, but only because of the eye candy. As it is now, there is no way DCS: F-16 could even come close to simulating the experience of flying an F-16 in combat. BMS on the other hand, does it pretty well.

Two different sims, with two different scopes. One is a combat flight simulator with a detailed airframe simulation inside. The other is a detailed airframe simulator with some basic combat capability (more like FSX + TacPack - ATC - the whole world = DCS).

#4347454 - 03/28/17 04:14 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
I doubt it was a clueless guy... I thought he'd have connections in ED or something the way he posted, but then again, if you were serious about the offer, I guess you'd be better off conversing via PM or some other channels.

If they could get DCS F-16C in, that would go a long way with improving the sim. Even if everything stayed the same, and they deliver DCS F-16C to a DCS A10C level, the airframe alone can compensate for a fair bit of the game engine's shortcomings and because of the multi-role nature of the aircraft, mission designers can have a bit more freedom and be more aggressive with their missions...


- Ice
#4347465 - 03/28/17 05:07 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
bkthunder Offline
Member
bkthunder  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 207
Originally Posted by - Ice


If they could get DCS F-16C in, that would go a long way with improving the sim. Even if everything stayed the same, and they deliver DCS F-16C to a DCS A10C level, the airframe alone can compensate for a fair bit of the game engine's shortcomings and because of the multi-role nature of the aircraft, mission designers can have a bit more freedom and be more aggressive with their missions...


I disagree. Even with a great multirole, the sterile environment and AI will just make it boring after a while, as it is with pretty much every other module. Even BMS gets boring after a while, if you only play tactical engagements. And that's with great AI, working ATC, radio chatter etc. At the end we always go back to the same points:

- DC
- AI ( where "I" stands for Intelligence)
- ATC

I could fly the A-10C all day long if those 3 things (or even just the first 2) were implemented in DCS.

I think it would be much more efficient to port BMS to a new gfx engine, than to implement a combat simulation into DCS.


EDIT: I went OT topic there.
If that guy is connected to ED at all, than he must have quickly realized what opinion the BMS devs have regarding ED...

Last edited by bkthunder; 03/28/17 05:09 PM.
#4347475 - 03/28/17 05:28 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
No worries about the OT... My point was that even with the sterile environment and AI, the FLEXIBILITY of the aircraft can compensate for some of the boring stuff in DCS. Also, the multi-role nature of the aircraft means that even when designing an A-G mission, the mission designer can put in significant air threats to really challenge the player. Think about it this way... you probably can't put in an SA-10 or even a MiG-19 in an A-G mission as only a Warthog can currently do this and it'll be mince-meat against either threats.... but put an F-16C in there and things become much more interesting.

As for the guy... what I wanted to explore was whether he WAS/IS connected to ED at all, or even if he was/is, what are the reasons for starting such a discussion.


- Ice
#4347493 - 03/28/17 06:34 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,892
ED has no problems getting public data ... I don't see why they'd ask for them from BMS.

There is a DCS F-16 module that's used as an educational piece for people who wish to make modules - it could be that someone was asking for data to add an EFM to that module.


--
44th VFW
#4347496 - 03/28/17 06:45 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,804
ST0RM Offline
Senior Member
ST0RM  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,804
Ten Mile, Tn
Originally Posted by GrayGhost
ED has no problems getting public data ... I don't see why they'd ask for them from BMS.

There is a DCS F-16 module that's used as an educational piece for people who wish to make modules - it could be that someone was asking for data to add an EFM to that module.


Is that what is being flaunted by the elite for private use? Random pics show up in the screenshot forums.

#4347510 - 03/28/17 07:45 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by GrayGhost
ED has no problems getting public data ... I don't see why they'd ask for them from BMS.

Exactly! That's why I was wondering (assuming it was real) why they're knocking on BMS' door?

Originally Posted by GrayGhost
There is a DCS F-16 module that's used as an educational piece for people who wish to make modules - it could be that someone was asking for data to add an EFM to that module.

Really? Where?


- Ice
#4347573 - 03/29/17 05:44 AM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,365
Stratos Offline
Hotshot
Stratos  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,365
Amposta, Spain
Originally Posted by - Ice
Really? Where?


https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=118794&page=135


-Sir in case of retreat, were we have to retreat??
-To the Graveyard!!

sandbagger.uk.com/stratos.html
#4347586 - 03/29/17 09:42 AM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Nice... so is it just a model or are the avionics and stuff implemented too? Is it really fair to call it a "DCS F-16" module?


- Ice
#4347646 - 03/29/17 02:34 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 79
Chaos Offline
Junior Member
Chaos  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 79
No, it is not fair to call it a a DCS Module. It's a piece of software that shows how one could implement a dynamic flightmodel into a potential ('real'?) DCS aircraft. It was coded by someone who is (or was) involved with some 3rd party developer for DCS. It is purely for educational purposes and last time I looked at it had few rudimentary features like deploying gear and some sort of working HUD symbology.

Nothing more nothing less.... it's an interesting project though.


"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage..."
#4347652 - 03/29/17 02:43 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
Probably it's more FC3 level, aka "F-16 for DCS World", but perhaps with a clickable cockpit to demonstrate that aspect.

I do find it odd they've not released it as an FC3 companion, though.

I seem to recall Wags claiming FC3 outsold all of their other modules. Yet instead of making an FC4 with another batch of jets they have stuck to the time-consuming (ok, lifetime-consuming) DCS level releases of planes like the F-5 and L-39 (REAL popular choices there) while leaving obvious entries like US teen fighters and Western Euro jets out.

Yes, they're working on the Hornet, but until it's actually out it's no more than the Apache ever was--a promise.


The list of popular multirole jets they could model to FC3 levels and sell a ton of is huge, yet totally ignored.

F-14
F-15E (the C isn't multirole)
F-16
F/A-18 (I will take it off this list only when it actually comes out)
Tornado
Typhoon/EF2K/whatever
Gripen
Rafale
Mirage 2kD (RAZ's doesn't count, not multirole)
Su-30 \
Su-32 \
Su-35 \
MiG-35 -- all mutirole variants of planes they already have



But no, let's make an F-5! I'm sure a ton of people out there have been waiting over a decade for a good L-39 sim. rolleyes Make sure to do the full-up DCS systems treatment in depth!


If there's one thing about ED that irritates me just as much as their inability to manage feature creep and impacting their schedules, it's their Magic-8-Ball-and-pot-brownies method of choosing which planes to do.






The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#4347720 - 03/29/17 08:00 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,365
Stratos Offline
Hotshot
Stratos  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,365
Amposta, Spain
Originally Posted by Jedi Master
Probably it's more FC3 level, aka "F-16 for DCS World", but perhaps with a clickable cockpit to demonstrate that aspect.

I do find it odd they've not released it as an FC3 companion, though.

I seem to recall Wags claiming FC3 outsold all of their other modules. Yet instead of making an FC4 with another batch of jets they have stuck to the time-consuming (ok, lifetime-consuming) DCS level releases of planes like the F-5 and L-39 (REAL popular choices there) while leaving obvious entries like US teen fighters and Western Euro jets out.

Yes, they're working on the Hornet, but until it's actually out it's no more than the Apache ever was--a promise.


The list of popular multirole jets they could model to FC3 levels and sell a ton of is huge, yet totally ignored.

F-14
F-15E (the C isn't multirole)
F-16
F/A-18 (I will take it off this list only when it actually comes out)
Tornado
Typhoon/EF2K/whatever
Gripen
Rafale
Mirage 2kD (RAZ's doesn't count, not multirole)
Su-30 \
Su-32 \
Su-35 \
MiG-35 -- all mutirole variants of planes they already have



But no, let's make an F-5! I'm sure a ton of people out there have been waiting over a decade for a good L-39 sim. rolleyes Make sure to do the full-up DCS systems treatment in depth!


If there's one thing about ED that irritates me just as much as their inability to manage feature creep and impacting their schedules, it's their Magic-8-Ball-and-pot-brownies method of choosing which planes to do.






The Jedi Master


Amen to that!!

They should try it, make FC4 ala Strike Fighters series, and then compare time involved and benefits, I'm sure they will be really pleased with the results.


-Sir in case of retreat, were we have to retreat??
-To the Graveyard!!

sandbagger.uk.com/stratos.html
#4347723 - 03/29/17 08:14 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
Considering how well made some of the 3rd party SF planes were, granted no clickable cockpits, but creating things like nukes and advanced ECM systems with nothing but .ini edits, there is no technical reason preventing ED from doing it.

Given the reduction in complexity, they could easily do them faster and cheaper and fill out the field, then release their magnum opus DCS planes afterwards for those that still find more interest in learning how to squawk to the tanker for AAR than in simply flying a heavily-laden Tornado at low alt between SAM sites until dropping the runway bomblets over the enemy airfield and back out at 600kts.
I can't see it impacting their existing release schedule too much at this point.


The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#4347734 - 03/29/17 09:17 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 14,410
Tom_Weiss Offline
Veteran
Tom_Weiss  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 14,410
3rd Planet, Sun
I believe that the direction of DCS is pretty much set - they could go have gone this way or that way ages ago, not anymore, this flight sim is what it is.

#4347735 - 03/29/17 09:18 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Chaos
No, it is not fair to call it a a DCS Module. It's a piece of software that shows how one could implement a dynamic flightmodel into a potential ('real'?) DCS aircraft. It was coded by someone who is (or was) involved with some 3rd party developer for DCS. It is purely for educational purposes and last time I looked at it had few rudimentary features like deploying gear and some sort of working HUD symbology.

Nothing more nothing less.... it's an interesting project though.

So they have at least an external model of an F-16... and is using it to help 3rd party developers make stuff like the C-101 and L-39... am I the only one who sees the irony here?


Originally Posted by Jedi Master
I seem to recall Wags claiming FC3 outsold all of their other modules. Yet instead of making an FC4 with another batch of jets they have stuck to the time-consuming (ok, lifetime-consuming) DCS level releases of planes like the F-5 and L-39 (REAL popular choices there) while leaving obvious entries like US teen fighters and Western Euro jets out.

Yes, they're working on the Hornet, but until it's actually out it's no more than the Apache ever was--a promise.

I guess "see my first statement on this post" then... Always said it before, if they made DCS F-14, DCS F/A-18, and DCS AH-64, they could start their own currency. But no, they go for trainer aircraft instead. Remind me again... does the dual-cockpit bit work in these trainer aircraft?


Originally Posted by Jedi Master
If there's one thing about ED that irritates me just as much as their inability to manage feature creep and impacting their schedules, it's their Magic-8-Ball-and-pot-brownies method of choosing which planes to do.

Considering how well made some of the 3rd party SF planes were, granted no clickable cockpits, but creating things like nukes and advanced ECM systems with nothing but .ini edits, there is no technical reason preventing ED from doing it.

Carefule there Jedi... let me quote another poster here:
Originally Posted by cichlidfan
No you don't know how ED decides anything. You might profess to know, but you don't.

We're no allowed to question ED because we don't know anything about ED... biggrin


- Ice
#4347737 - 03/29/17 09:33 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: Tom_Weiss]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Nate Offline
Member
Nate  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Dublin, Ireland
Originally Posted by Tom_Weiss
I believe that the direction of DCS is pretty much set - they could go have gone this way or that way ages ago, not anymore, this flight sim is what it is.


Yeah I'm with JM on this one, I'd have liked more FC3 level aircraft.

Nate

#4347740 - 03/29/17 09:38 PM Re: That got shut down quick! [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Wasn't there an issue with FC3 aircraft messing with DCS aircraft? Something along the lines of simplified avionics making it easier and faster to find/track/engage the enemy compared to more realistic avionics?


- Ice
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Force10, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0