That got shut down quick!

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.

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).

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.

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).

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...

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...

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.

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.

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


Really? Where?

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

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?

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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?



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?



Carefule there Jedi... let me quote another poster here:

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

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

Nate

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?

Yeah could be, mostly to do with Multi-player I'd imagine.

Nate

so would I - and nothing stops making later on an FC4, but right now the direction is clear and backtracking would do nothing but delay everything.

I'm not sure what you mean - there's nothing 'elite' about this. It was made for people out there in the public to use a guide for constructing their own modules.

Nope. There never was, and probably there never will be. It's a line used by people who go play airquake and are destroyed on the ground (or because it takes them this long to get back up after they are shot down ) in their DCS jet because they want to do the full 8 minute alignment instead of adopting emergency/scramble procedures.
It's essentially a lamentation to cover for lack of one's flying skill for the most part. The weapons and radars function more or less the same way and frankly, a full fidelity model could, with better radar code, easily have a significant advantage over a DCS jet thanks to higher available of radar modes that enhance radar capabilities.

Case in point, even the F-5 has HOTAS capability, and the process of engaging a bandit in the M2K isn't that different from the F-15C. If you got a 'DCS F-15C', it would actually designate the targets for you, and you just use AMRAAM salvo launch mode to make a mess ... no, I'm not kidding. Real stuff, though a touch exaggerated on my part

Speaking of which, did you know the real APG-63 has three AAI symbols? You know two of them: Dots for buddies, rectangles for no response/unknown ... and diamonds for 'FOE'. That last thing in 'IFF'. Just saying.

So that whole 'FC3 jets make things easier' is mostly silly. It isn't that it can't happen, but FC3 jets have simplified, not gamified cockpits.

Fair enough... I've no A-A experience in DCS. The last time I was serious in a fast mover was in the Su-27/Su-33 back in the LOMAC days. DCS was mostly the Hog for me, then a couple of hours in the Shark.

I keep trying to do A2A in DCS, but the missiles keep turning me off. Only dogfight-range ones are worth a damn, and while that's fine for the MiG-21 and F-86 for the Su-27/MiG-29/F-15 it's just too frustrating.

Sure, you can do guns-only battles easily enough, but it gets old.



The Jedi Master

A-A in DCS is a sad joke. It's so unrealistic that it drives people to adopt opposite-to-real-life tactics.
Still, I do enjoy the air-quake.

The next DCS patch will take away the F10 map and the debug-level chat output.

yes but FC3 + leavu is the only and closest program that allows us to follow A/A tactical control (written in AFTTP) in practice... so every sim has pros and cons.

if only BMS implement advanced datalink and individual planes viewable 2D map(awacs).

Just putting it out there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti0CWLXaQ4Q


Someone obviously might be seeking BMS's assistance to actually get a F-16 module into DCS that is of better quality than the one in the above link......JJablahblah could be anyone.....anyone other than someone who actually works for ED as per OP

Maybe Jim Blim himself, going by a different name is seeking guidance in the matter to improve on his poor investment....who knows

Isn't Leavu just a software that mimics the F-16 avionics and allows you to export them to a screen? If so, that's all stuff that BMS has natively.
As for 2D awacs map, the standard UI in BMS gives exactly that.

Although I'm pretty sure I'm missing something from your comment...

That Video is Less about DCS: F-16 and More about Spencer Lever, Scam Artist, Jim has every right to be peeved, Spencer Ripped him off, like he does everywhere else.

Add the F-4 Phantom to the list as well.

I would probably shriek like a 14 year old girl who just spotted Justin Bieber.

Well that's certainly a reason for them NOT to do it then!



The Jedi Master

Not much shrieking like a 14-year old girl, more like shrieking like a mid-30s male...

In BMS map view each airplane icon is only the position of the flight leader. If the formation is in tight formation no problem but if they are 40nm apart you still only get one icon.

I wonder what the cost ratio is between developing FC3 level and full DCS these days?

Seems like 3d modelling is the cheap part. It's the flight model and systems that really cost (time and money) so where would a customer's level of expectation lie?

Personally I might take a pack of three 60s cold war jets (simpler to develop that generation?) at the price of one DCS. I'd need advanced flight modeling though. To be cost effective I imagine a modular system where a dev could (for example) edit a config file to add functions.

I fully expect such a thing after 2.5!

I doubt you see any Licensed Modules with SFM ever again, SSM is also doubtful.


I've pitched the idea of a "Strike Fighters 3" Module to Thirdwire Multiple times (F-4s, A-4s, F-100, F104 etc etc)..

With Re-Sampled Externals and Updated Cockpits and utilizing embedded SSM Code..

Just looked up SSM. So many acronyms!

Yes, a Third wire module is just the sort of thing I'd like. I agree about the old SFM - we're thoroughly spoiled by the realism we get now. Looking at some of the FM discussions and the tiny details that are debated it's easy to forget how recent AFM is.

Licensing is another roadblock that's a significant factor these days.

SFM = Standard Flight Model
SSM = Standard Systems Model

FC3 Launched with SFM and SSM for all but he Su-25 and A-10A Those were AFM.

Since then the Flight Models have been upgraded, along w/ several supporting systems (electric, hydraulic, fuel, etc)

All DCS Aircraft and Most of the new FC Separated Aircraft use PFM Now.

The 'horse's mouth', as well as more verbose, explanation of the acronyms is here.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

The only thing I can safely confirm is that there will be A LOT of shrieking!


PS: I,personally, believe that DCS development is all over the place. It is almost like the company has ADHD, and I should know, I have ADHD!

It doesn't matter what you call it, the planes in FC3 are still far lower fidelity on the modeling side from the others. That's why they're cheaper.

I'm not even saying they need to release them at $10 each like those are, they can charge $20 or $25 and I think they will do well. No clickable cockpit, no fancy avionics or cockpit systems, but a decent FM and DM are still there.

Ford, Toyota, and Volkswagen wouldn't be where they are now if they'd insisted on taking the route of Ferrari and only making small runs of overly sophisticated sports cars.
ED is not Ferrari, nor are the 3rd parties. Make some lower-priced cars for the masses already!



The Jedi Master

+1

This would be espcially good for adding a flyable heavy to the sim. You dont simply jump into a C-17 or C-130 and have it up and running in 5-7 minutes. It's a 30 minute process, minimum.

More of these FC3 level aircraft are an easy way to fill gaps and keep the interest fresh. For instance, the upcoming A-4 Skyhawk. Knowing full well that it will not be a fully clickable cockpit, the subject is drawing a ton of followers. The A-1 Skyraider from the same team, even more so.

Its the subject that captures peoples eye, not just switch flipping.

Ford has had 2 Bailouts from the US Government because of Management Problems...

They shouldnt be here period.

Tesla on the Other hand, is worth more than ford and creeping up on GM

GM has been bailed out by the government as well and they filed chapter 11 in 2009.

Tesla car sales 2016 < 80,000
Ford car sales 2015 2.6m
GM car sales 2015 9.8m
Source : the internet.

Higher volume/lower priced products are still a sensible product to bring to market. Assuming the businesses can be managed successfully.

I completely agree with you. Most often than not, I don't even feel like going through all the switches, be it either in P3D, Falcon BMS, or DCS, and I just want to fly. That process would also add desperately needed western fast jets to multiplayer.
Get me a Strike Fighter 2 F4 Phantom and I will be happy as #%&*$#.

Ford is named for the man who created the company.

Neither GM nor Tesla are.

Ferrari was.

ED was not.


Anyone else have any irrelevant factoids to interject here?



The Jedi Master

LOL @ the thread derail...