Falcon BMS vs DCS comparison

[rolypoly]

I haven't been able to find much on this topic. How does Falcon BMS compare to DCS modules in general, or the DCS F16 module in particular? DCS as far as I can tell has the most advanced simulation of both flight models as well as systems. Most other sims lag pretty far behind in both categories. From the videos that I've watched about Falcon BMS it is hard to say what level of simulation is there.

[Dr. Jester]

It is superior to DCS. In every way.

[Jolly]

Both have their pros & cons. One thing to remember with BMS however is that it is being developed by a group of dedicated volunteers, where as DCS is developed through paid coders, so you may see some disparity their. Also, BMS has always been about the F-16, so most of the attention is placed on that aircraft. One can fly other aircraft such as the F-18, Harrier, Tornado, and soon the F-15C is expected to have a new cockpit, but most of the effort is put into the F-16.

There are other nuanced features that separate the 2 like the F-16's flight model is better in BMS and the cockpit is more functional than DCS. But, The one major difference between the 2 is the campaign in BMS. DCS has tried to mimic this feature with little success. Without this particular feature gameplay is simply just a rat-in-a-maze. Not only are the campaigns & maps free (found separately on the BMS forums) but they are so much more immersive than just flying those 15 rat-maze missions in DCS' so called campaigns.

[rolypoly]

Oh wow, a better FM you say than DCS? And better cockpit simulation? I'm surprised, considering that, as you say, BMS is developed by a group of volunteers.
Good point about the campaign. I have experienced myself that campaigns are a weak point with any DCS module really.
Thanks for your opinion! I think I will definitely check it out.

[SandMartin]

The most important thing that the DCS gives is the opportunity to compare the F-16 with other popular aircraft. Example - You can fly the Apache or Mi-24 or F-14/F-18 there, the F-15E is coming out soon. Moreover, their avionics corresponds to the real prototype and does not copy the F-16.
Also, in my opinion, DCS has better graphics, especially the sky, clouds, and so on. Support for VR and modern graphics cards. But the BMS has better optimization and better visibility of contacts. in the BMS. close combat (BFM) is much more pleasant due to "smart scalling".
I would argue about where the f-16's flight model is better, but the fact that the BMS has a dynamic campaign is undeniable. Although the dyn.campaign is also in development for the DCS, but we waiting for it for 5 years.

[roy35150]

Both are great and both are are getting updates.

Blond or redhead??

Why not have fun with both beuties lol.

[pgm316]

Originally posted by Dr. Jester:

It is superior to DCS. In every way.

Probably yes other than graphics and plane choice.

Hopefully Microprose will tackle both, some warbirds would be fun.

[mwirkk]

Would be cool to have scenarios that might somehow involve theoretical/experimental platforms like the F-16XL ETF and the F-36 Kingsnake. :)

[[57th] AngryHatter]

It'd be better if it ran!

[mwirkk]

Originally posted by 57th AngryHatter:

It'd be better if it ran!

Haven't had any problems with it, myself.

[Hootman]

Originally posted by rolypoly:

Oh wow, a better FM you say than DCS? And better cockpit simulation? I'm surprised, considering that, as you say, BMS is developed by a group of volunteers.
Good point about the campaign. I have experienced myself that campaigns are a weak point with any DCS module really.
Thanks for your opinion! I think I will definitely check it out.

Inside the BMS folders after you download are dozens and dozens of documents covering every aspect of BMS, the F-16, etc. Basically everything ever done to update it, operators manuals, even a 130 page document detailing the flight model including charts and tables. The User manual alone is 220 pages.

When it comes to detail and documentation nothing comes close to BMS. And based on the detailed high fidelity flight model documentation, I have to say I think BMS is probably better modeled, and the documentation details everything including how they've tweaked it and the charts and data to back it up. They even go so far as to mention that the flight models for Block 15, 25, 30, 32, 40, 42, 50 and 52 are all different in BMS. It would probably take a very dedicated expert / fanatic to notice the differences in some of them, but they are there.

So if you download BMS, be sure and go look in the BMS folder, open the "Docs" folder, and have a look around. There is plenty of reading material for those who like to spend a lot of time on the throne in their bathroom

[rolypoly]

An operator's manual? You mean like for the real plane? Wouldn't that be classified?

[Hootman]

Originally posted by rolypoly:

An operator's manual? You mean like for the real plane? Wouldn't that be classified?

Not so much. I'm actually retired Army Aviation, and currently work for the DoD as a Quality Assurance Rep for procuring spare parts for the F-16. I work directly with the USAF F-16 engineers at Hill AFB, so I've seen a lot of the T.O. and drawing to build an F-16. A lot of stuff is classified, but the general knowledge provided in things like a military aircraft operators manual doesn't actually go into technical details, it's the actual drawings and specifications to build the parts (such as frequencies and performance ranges of radars, etc.) that are the secret squirrel stuff, not so much an operators manual. An operators manual is just going to give you the basic description, and how to actually USE it, not how it actually does what it does.

Same with things like COMSEC radios and radars. the avionics mechanics are given enough details to know whether it's operating correctly or not, and do limited repairs, but a lot of it is just move and replace.

Performance data may be restricted on some aircraft, like the F-117 and B-2, but for a general fighter aircraft like the F-16, not so much. The enemy can pretty much figure out what an aircraft can and can't do just by observing it for a while. How high and aircraft can go, or how fast, easy to gather data on. But the employment of the weapons systems, and how they interact is kept a bit close to the chest.

I was also the publications NCO in my Army Aviation unit, and none of the aircraft operators manuals that I know of were tracked or anything like that, people had copies at home, they were left laying around, etc. No classification markings on them at all.

If you haven't already, just download the setup file and setup and extract it into a folder just like you were going to run BMS, and go poke around the Docs folder...there is really a lot of good stuff in there, all the users who have contributed over the years did a bang up job on documenting everything, and the current people have gone one step further and collected all that info and put it into an organized readable structure. The "Articles" page at the Benchmark Sims website gives an overview and a taste of the sort of things than can be found in the detailed docs, such as how the flight model was in the original Falcon 4.0, and what has been done to tweak it over time.

And speaking as a former maintenance guy, you can tell that many of the people who have contributed to the project over the years have a technical and military aviation background, as the various manuals and guides are written in a similar format as you would find in the real world.

One other thing that impresses me, is the BMS flight model discussed on the flight model page discussion on the website that shows that much of the development is treated similar to an actual military weapons development program, with milestones and gates (I'm also level 2 Defense Acquisition Workforce (DAWIA) certified member with training to participate on Weapons Systems development teams, particularly as a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in the Quality and Testing area of a program). The program development has to be laid out and monitored in such a manner as to ensure that there is constant consideration of how each development area can affect the overall weapon system development, since things are compartmentalized. A simple thing like increasing the range of a radar may result in an increase in size of an avionics box, which in turn affects the weight and balance and perhaps the basic design feature of where the box is placed in the aircraft if it's a tight compartment. Or, that same change may induce an increase in voltage/power requirements and increase in Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) output that would require additional shielding of surrounding components or wiring. Just that type of thinking is what seems to be evident in the way the BMS team approaches the ongoing development and everything they do.

It's the type of approach and thinking I don't think you will find in any other "game" sim on the market. It's more along the line of companies that build actual physical flight simulators, and there are many who prefer to call physical simulators "emulators" to differentiate between the two.

[rolypoly]

That was all very interesting, thank you for sharing!

[McDonaldSteve]

Here are the observable differences between the two that I can remember at the moment

Falcon BMS
+ Data Cartridge implementation, so you can actually plan missions ahead of time, as well as set certain settings in the F-16 ahead of time instead of having to do them every single time you start up the plane
+ Option to start hot start or cold start, save time or do startup procedures just for fun or committing stuff to memory
+ An F16 simulation that has been in development for far longer than DCS, therefore more likely realistic and mature (less bugs hopefully)
+ Quick and easy dogfight mode against any other Fighter/Attack Aircraft in the game. In DCS it's usually only what the Devs put in already as presets. Anything else you have to make up yourself as a completely new mission in the mission editor. BMS does that just just flat out quicker.
+++ The Dynamic Campaign. DCS has nothing comparable at the moment right now, but news long time ago Eagle Dynamics said they were working on a Dynamic Campaign engine. Until that comes out, BMS is the one that reigns #1 in campaigns

- Only the F16. While there other planes like the F18 in the game, they are for the most part just re-skins of the F16, with the core workings of an F16. In other words, you WILL learn the F16 in order to fly something like the F18, because if you don't you will just straight up not be able to use the F18.
- Lack of Link-16 Datalink. Yea there's datalink but it's limited with only people in your flight for the most part. But the AWA&C in the game will not contribute to your Situational awareness like how they do in DCS. You will have to constantly span "Declare" in the radio menu to find out if something in a bundle of other somethings is a bad guy or not, which chews up precious merge and decision making time, a problem that would be solved with a Datalink system like those present in DCS
- Fishy allies. There are more than one time in the campaign where my ally says he/she wil do something but then don't do it, and fail to communicate it. Or worse, they will die without warning, and looking at Tac-view replays, you find out that their death was of their own doing. Most of the time they kill themselves by crashing.
- Fishy Mavericks. Their rocket burn time is short. The drag on them is also insane. If you fire one at Mach 0.8 with a pitch of ~negative 15, they will still dip to 0.4 or less by the time they reach their halfway point. Mixed with laser guidance, you will be stickin around bad places for a long time while you wonder "where did my missile go?". Honestly dive-bomb dropping GBUs would probably be quicker.
- Strange Laser firing restrictions. According to the manual, the laser will automatically turn off when the pod/plane senses that the camera Fov is looking at the stores or the body of the plane, to simulate real life programming of preventing your own laser from burning or setting off something in your aircraft.
However, in the game, the laser is realistically only able to fire when you are looking straight in front of you, when you are looking within a 60 horizontal range (30 degrees to the left, and 30 to the right), or when the target is directly below you, even if you are nowhere near looking at a store or the plane itself. For All laser guided munitions, this will mean that you will practically be flying almost a straight line to the target until the weapon impacts the target, which can be pretty dangerous, especially if you were planning on doing dropping and orbiting techniques like those possible in DCS in order to be able to hit something while not flying directly over a SAM

+/- Mission Maker is a lot different and will take time getting used to. But for all intents and purposes still present and very useful for training how to use certain weapons or parts of the aircraft

DCS
+ Better graphics
+ Far easier to keybind controls compared to BMS
+ Cheating F10 map, if enabled. If it is, it is practically impossible to get lost or lose track of teammates
+++ Separate Aircraft fidelity. If you want to fly the F18, Harrier or M2000, then you will learn each individual aircraft and their systems to fly it. Sounds painful at first, but when you learn in DCS the systems specific to that aircraft, in my experience the F18, then go to BMS, you find out real fast the lackings of what is modeled in BMS's F18.
+ Relatively easy multiplayer game creation and joining compared to BMS. Easy to hop in and out
+ Datalink. As long as there's an AWA&C, you have a Datalink capable aircraft and have the function turned on, you will have Unparalleled situational awareness compared to BMS. Very useful of course in cluttered airspaces or when you wanna sneak attak by turning off your radar until the last minute

- No Data cartridges. You will have to set GPS and weapon waypoints manually every single time you start up the plane. And set up countermeasure settings
--- No Dynamic Campaign. Either buy Campaigns online, make your own up, or join Multiplayer servers. And while some buyable Campaigns have branching mechanics, it will never reach the scale and level of fidelity "cog in the machine" feel of BMS's dynamic campaign

[lefty1117]

If DCS had a dynamic campaign anywhere near what Falcon 4 has this wouldn't even be a question because in every other way DCS is superior. But that's to be expected when you're comparing against a nearly 30 (!!!) year old game. Falcon 4's dynamic campaign engine and everything that went into it, including the tasking all the way down to the data cartridge, is just a sublime work of art, really a legendary piece of game design and development in my opinion. DCS is apparently working on a dynamic campaign engine but I doubt it's going to be anywhere near the functionality and complexity. We'll see. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised but my doubts are based on just how awesome and how rare the Falcon 4 DCE is.