I just enjoy flight sims, DCS, Falcon BMS, Rise Of Flight and IL2BOS. Not in any particular order. I feel like all those sims have been worth of my money.

Not even connected to your first post, not even answering any of the questions.

Between posts 12 and 13:

I guess they will not give away numbers at the moment. And you know why, because that probably would initiate another debate with many posting rights suspending. I guess they just trying to squeeze out as much FPS as possible with these trees and the line of sight for the units.


But you know "real" trees are a huge problem for flight sims. From what I remember RoF was the first new generation sim which had collidable trees. Does BMS have collidable trees?


Sure it took so long for whatever reason we dont know. As a company you just do not close up the doors and say goodby to your customers. They wanted to survive in the niche marked. And it seems some people want to play DCS, otherwise they would not buy the modules. The guys from 777 (BoS) regulary reminding the ppl to buy their products otherwise they could not continue. BMS / Prepar3D and so on might be an option for some ppl, though for me as a helohead there isn`t that much left. Yes, I buy modules and play DCS as there is no alternative for me.


I also saw that coming, I´m lurking here long enough. I do know BMS (was happy when they anounced it, with new graphics and flight model), played it some times. Had to use Target to make my Warthog and Saitek pedals working (has that changed, that some have to use external programs to bind all achses and knobs) Not really found the entry to it to play it longer, because of...gasp...graphics. If they only would make the ground, trees, buildings and so on looking better. And I can not fly helicopters there. I like the idea behind Falcon, an strategy game with a flight sim on top. I really wish we would see something the like in the future. Same reason I would like to see a remake of EECH (I dont count that remake of it with better graphics, an addon then left us alone with it.


Dont know about that.
To stay afloat, could that be a reason why ED is changing the direction from time to time? For example they saw the potential customers for WWII, plus the P51 initially was a side project of one (or some) guys at ED. They know they have to make some money while developing a new graphics engine and more maps.

....and then ED releases the official statement on why old mate was banned.....

Though there is no new version of Falcon 4.0 for whatever reason it might have. People have to mod it in their freetime (BMS) to hold it current, right?


From a business standpoint it seems to work. It might be that some ppl doesn`t care how they make their business or they take it as it is and enjoy the sim that is coming from ED.
Personaly I´m on both sides of the fence. I do not like the way of some things they are doing, including the harsh restrictions on their forums and the reaction of those Moderators. For example how can we discuss the advantages and disadvantages for other sims in comparation with DCS when it is not allowed anymore? They say that there would be to much bashing of DCS, comparing apples with oranges and so on. Potential new customers could get a wrong opinion of DCS. I don`t know why ED could not defend himself by good arguments, why they did this and this and the reason behind?


DCS have good flight dynamics, damage modelling, clickable cockpits. We do know that DCS isn`t really capable for a dynamic campaign like Falcon have. For immersion there are many user made missions (and campaigns) which can place / remove units on the basis of the last mission. So it takes account of what you did in the last mission. Yes, DCS strongly depends of user made missions and the things ppl can make out of scripting.
To make the point. We do enjoy what DCS brings to us and for that content we pay. It would not matter if I would not buy, say for example the Huey, just to stop my support for ED. Yes it´s currently hard to express an negativ opinion on their forums, though not buying a module I want to play would not change a thing on the matter how they make their business.

Sorry for quoting post to Mokkeri.

Apparently, this does not show up unless I am logged it... had to log into the forums to see it. So.... after making such a post in #8, Vincent then devolved into such profanity, discrimination, and trolling that he had to be banned? I'm sure that was legit



They won't give away numbers because they either run a really beefy setup to get good framerates or they run it on a reasonable gaming setup but low framerates.... the only reason I can see that they don't give out hard numbers is because no matter how they spin it, they'll look bad and they know it. As for debates and suspension, that is no fault of the customer.... that is due to their silly forum rules designed to protect snowflake developers and big headed moderators.

"Under and i7 7700K on stock clocks, 16GB RAM, GTX 1080, and Windows 10, we were able to obtain the following screenshots and videos and as you can see, especially from the videos with FRAPS running, the sim holds a respectable 80fps at 1440p with all the settings cranked up at maximum. Weaker systems will have to make compromises but as we can see, 60+ fps should be very achievable with a few settings on High instead of Max." --- releasing results like these, with hard numbers, will work wonders and I would respect ED more if they did so. Releasing still images and guesstimating performance is nothing but laughable.



So again, not really a "completely new experience" but more like "an experience you'd expect from RL tactics and common sense"..... something like "it should've been this way in the first place."

I don't fly enough helos and don't fly low enough to worry about collidable trees, but blocking LOS and maybe even blocking IR returns should be interesting. It adds and iteresting aspect to flight and combat... but not really "completely new"...



Sure, we may not know for 100% certainty, but I'm sure there are educated guesses that have at least a good amount of truth in it.



As a company, you do not silence your dissatisfied customers like ED does, **ESPECIALLY** in a niche market where word-of-mouth and snowball effect can be amazing marketing/advertising tools.

Yes, you play DCS but I'm sure if they close up shop and for some reason your modules are no longer available for you to play, I'm sure you can find alternatives... might not be as good in FM as DCS, but I'm sure you'll find alternatives rather than not fly at all. Also, while you do play and enjoy DCS, that is totally different and removed from the "buy more from us otherwise we'll go bankrupt and close shop" mentality/agenda SiTh seems to peddling.



Hahahaha... my reputation precedes me...

If you have any issues with TARGET, I have a profile for binding the stick and throttle together. No need to add pedals to it, BMS can work with Saitek pedals no problem. Combine that with a touchscreen and you have Helios and I have a profile that brings the entire F-16 cockpit controls to your fingertips, plus more! As for the graphics, I agree with you... many times when I taxi out to the runway, I miss the DCS airbases. However, when I take off, well, I'm too busy to really be looking at the pretty landscape. Like I said, if you've got time to look at the pretty graphics, then you're not really flying a COMBAT flight simulator

If your main point is flying helos, then fair deuce and BMS has nothing to offer you. Maybe EECH? I did love the old Gunship! sim where the trees were collidable but were also arranged in a "box" so you can fly "inside" a clump of trees and use that for your pop-up attacks.... the trees also "protected" you from return fire! But your initial statement was "There isnt a company who is doing modern era combat aicraft with such flight dynamics, damage modelling, clickable cockpits and so on" and BMS has that PLUS better DC and sense of immersion.... at the cost of lower graphic quality. Here, we return to my point --- do you want COMBAT and immersion or do you want pretty screenshots?



Any business or management graduate will tell you that project delays and having questionable direction as a company is a recipe for disaster. If you were interested in modern combat aircraft, how much support would you give a company that does modern aircraft, then WWII, then terrain, then GPS? How much support will you give something whose direction you have no clue about? How much support will you give them when they can't even deliver their products on a timeframe that they themselves have set?

Sure, there are potential WWII customers.... but you don't go chasing after them while leaving your current modern-aircraft customers confused about what just happened.



And if you've lurked here long enough, you know that there is no new version of Falcon 4.0 but that is not the fault of Falcon 4.0. That was not what Mokkeri was saying though. The BMS team modded it and brought it to modern-day standards where they could --- TrackIR support, 64-bit, etc. --- with no fanfare, no fees, no drama. Heck, the BMS team even worked out a deal with the new Falcon IP holders!! These are a group of people doing this mod in their free time....



From a business standpoint, what do you make out of ED's constant deep sale practices? How much of this is "being in business" vs. just trying to stay afloat? Anyway, I was just countering Mokkeri's ridiculous "good example how to make business" statement here...



We can discuss advantages and disadvantages here on SimHQ. Want to compare DCS and BMS? Go ahead! Do it here or over in the Falcon sub-forum.

Why can't we do this in the ED forums? Because they can't take it. They want their new customers to "drink the Kool-Aid," to get the wrong opinion of DCS, an opinion that is skewed in ED's favor. They want DCS to look like something it isn't, they want to maintain their facade and will tear down anyone who threatens this fragile front. They've even resorted to trolling other forums in order to enforce bans on their own forum.... what other company does that? It just shows you how desperate they are to maintain the ignorance of their already-small customer base.

I'd respect them so much more if they acted more mature... allow the open bashing of DCS, concede on points that they cannot win (ie, DC, sterile environment, etc.) and work on points that they have going for them (more modules, better graphics, etc.). I'd respect them so much more if they and their fans acted like adults instead of little whiny snowflake children who can't take an honest criticism. I'd respect them so much more if they were honest with their roadmap, if they were honest with the reasons for delays, if they were honest with faults.



Indeed, you won't find me knocking down ED on FM, damage modelling (God knows how many times I've limped home on a damaged A-10C!!), and clickable cockpits. You won't find me dissing DCS A10C or DCS BS2. If you are honest enough to admit DCS cannot compete with Falcon on a DC front, I can be honest enough to say that for new players, the "sterile" environment of DCS, the repeatability of their missions, and the limited variables of a scripted campaign actually works as PROs for ED, not cons. It's like learning to swim with arm floaters and on the kiddie section of the pool.... nothing wrong with that at all. DCS does have it's place, it does have it's market, and there are people out there that are perfect customers for ED.



Oh indeed! If a younger -Ice came to me and asked about a good ground attack aircraft he can cut his teeth into, but had enough room for him to grow, I will recommend DCS A10C in a heartbeat. Even at full price ($40), it's is well worth the money. Just don't think that you need to buy other modules to support ED or worse, feel like it's your obligation to keep ED in the black.



I'm confused why you need to apologize for this? No need to apologize at all

Sith just wrote that he had 60 fps the whole time. He may answer the question on what system he had the 60 fps. We will see. Yes, video of it or something else to see how performance really is would be better. But I guess we can ask for it at a later time when the map is released or near release.


Really hanging on the sentence "completely new"? All current players of DCS can make their own mind about "completely new", for all others it`s just a map. It doesnt mean complete new features like a living battelfield, does it?


I´m certainly with you on that. Yet, it seem`s they can do. How long is another case.


No, really I think that DCS is unique from what they put in their modules. There are no alternatives for me at the moment. So I do not want them to close the doors, though buy only modules I want to use.


Thanks, I do have a profile for TARGET. It may be that I care for good visuals and I´m more a ground pounder then a fighter jet jockey. I like to look at the various objects in DCS while flying. As I said before, BMS with the graphics and dynamics of DCS would be a sim heaven for me. I just can`t stand the dated visuals of BMS, sorry.


EECH, Gunhsip! I flew them all. Sometimes think of having another look at it. I often browse all sources looking for new helicopter combat flight sims. Even played Apache Air Assault for my helicopter fix. I then come back to DCS and think why we can`t have a modern attack helo and a dynamic campaign.
But you can have COMBAT and immersion in DCS. Can recommend the F-5 dynamic campaign to you. Some guys modded it for other aircraft. I would think, there is all you need for combat and immersion. You have friendly and enemy flights doing their tasks while you flight to your target. You get a external debriefing view of your performance and the status of the airbases, EWR sites and so on. Destroyed objects will be removed or triggered as destroyed when the next mission starts. You can fly this campaign in SP or MP (coop only). Though as I can see your are done with DCS and ED and you are not willing to give this campaign a try, right? Sure, all that stuff is written in Lua and makes use of external programs like notepad to view the debriefing. If that kind of stuff where available build in, it would be a better experience.


I´m with you on that. But again, I like the modules they produce. Why should I stop to buy and fly it? As long as there is progress and continue in development...


But thats the point. A group of enthusiasts doing it in their free time. They have regular jobs and can make their living out of that, while the guys at ED have to make modules they can sell. From where should come the money for developing new tech, for changing the DCS World base? Why not trust them if they say, for example the change from BS1 to BS2 cost them money? I do not see these guys becoming millionairs. It´s far from that, I would say. Don`t understand me wrong, I´m not saying give them your money because they need it. Buy the module/s you want to play and wait for the other things to come. Yes, it takes so much time and I´m impatient myself, so playing other games in the meantime.



What about giving the possibility to buy modules people not own yet? Many where asking for more sales, not just the summer sales and so on.


Dont know why they made the decission to run the forum like it is now, I will try to ask a guy who is in the know. On the other side I think it takes much time to maintain the forums and to react on every post people make. Some people make opinions out of other peoples opinions, so they could be lead in the wrong direction without actually playing DCS. New customers can see what DCS have to offer and what not with the free to play aircraft.


Understood. I also don`t get it why they dont highlight the points where they are strong. Some time ago people where asking for more aircraft. Now we have way more aircraft from ED and third party able to add new content. On the other hand things like new ATC, Clouds/Weather and so on are still be worked on (hopefully) but there are no news about. For what purpose they made a poll if people want a DC or like the current campaigns is out of my understanding. At some point in the past Wags mentioned they would like to make a DC, now they answer like the missions and campaigns we have is the way to go.


I absolutely admit that DCS cannot compete with Falcon on a DC front. And no one is saying the opposite? I really understand that for some ppl DCS is not what they want or what they hoped for. They just can stop playing DCS and looking for alternatives. As I said for me personaly there is no alternative for flying helicopters in a combat environment. And I still hope for more helicopters and for a more dynamic environment. I guess the guys who like to fly fast movers and do air to air fights most of the time can`t understand why there is so much effort to make the ground look better and so on. Though DCS is a sandbox and I guess they want to please all type of gamers with that environment. Do you care how a ground vehicle looks like in BMS or how it would be to sit in a tank driving around? I guess no, because you like the living battlefield and you are in the air the most time. What I want so say is, that I believe DCS want to be the one stop solution for all who like combat simulations. And they cannot do all things at the same time.


Agree, though why not let people spend money on whatever they want? I do not know where the thinking is coming from to buy more modules just to keep ED staying in business. I would be happy if they would make a poll what ppl want and then make this happen in a reasonable timeframe.

All in all if they would at least make do a more friendly communication, admit mistakes, have a clear roadmap and stop with being so harsh on their forums ED would get a better reputation, right?
As a sidenote, I have trouble to answer in time and I really need much time to answer with the quotes.

....so are we getting 2.5 this year or not ?

Yes we do.
And everything is subject to change

Long Answer: Absolutely, but just bear in mind that 'this year' could be any year in the next 10 years depending on when you ask the question, and if anyone from ED were to answer that question they have their own definition of quantum time which is fundamentally different to everyone else.
Short Answer: Two hopes

I think we'll get something big by the end of the year. Harrier and F-18 seem likely. F-14 I'm not too sure. I think the Su-33 will come out fairly soon as well because they put it up for pre-purchase, so that must be right around the corner.

I have a feeling 2.5 may not make it, as well as other modules or big updates. Personally I am really wanting an updated weather and cloud system. The clouds in DCS are ugly and if I am not mistaken still from the LOMAC era. Long overdue for an overhaul. I know they're looking to improve explosions to which would be a nice change.

Module wise I am looking for the F-18, Straits of Hormuz and Harrier. RAZBAM redeemed themselves in my eyes as they decided to continue implementing improvements to the M2000C, focusing on the manual and cockpit.

I'm really looking forward to the F-18...but there needs to be a carrier and carrier ops with it. If it's just an a aggressor in Nevada forget it.

It's cool, I'll be flying FalconBMS until something comes along that's better.

Yes...a big disappointment.

Perhaps....However the Harrier to me has my interest over the F-18

personally, I would rather throw my support behind a brand that delivers quality over quantity.....

A Harrier will have me re-installing DCS for sure. CAP 2 just isn't doing it for me.

Hi Chucky,

What are the issues with CAP2? I've been watching it, but haven't tried it.

Regards,

I'll probably end up skipping altogether the Hormuz, Harrier, F-18E and F-14A - but I am looking forward to the P-47D (I have it thanks to the kickstarter) because of the skin making possibilities.

In fairness to CAP 2 I have not played it for some while. I'm sure it's in a different state to when I last played it. The current Steam rating is 62%,so not great but then it is in EA.

I'm not sure why it didn't grab me if I'm honest,being that it's more 'casual' and not hard-core. I'm not a hard-core flyer usually but for a Harrier I'm willing to learn,hence the interest in the DCS Harrier. Hopefully there are other SimHQ'ers (Damson maybe?) who can fill you in on the current progress of CAP 2.

personally, I would rather throw my support behind a brand that delivers....