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.

[Hootman]

DCS just put out another update on the Campaign generator progress which got me thinking about it again. Wondering how they are going to implement the ground war. The switchover to MT and upcoming (at some point) Vulkan is going to help in that aspect, but it really makes me wonder. I'm no programmer, but one has to think about optimization, graphics, and process load. How was Microprose able to balance that with the engine? Of course the original graphics were nothing to write home about, it was 1998 after all. However, ED I believe was around also at that time, with CD games like Flaming Cliffs and others (I still have some of those CD's). But when DCS world became a reality, it seems all the processing power went into the terrain and aircraft.

I just built a new rig, 13900K with a 3080 Ti and 64G RAM, and even with that I have to give up some graphics to maintain good framerate and smoothness. I CAN run the most demanding thing I've seen, which is the FULL MAP SYRIA in the Liberation Campaign generator, and run it well, by using the trick of creating my own server and running the Liberation Campaign missions on that server. I'm even able to have infantry units in there.

We all know that having a lot of units in an area kills DCS frames. How are they going to squeeze in ground units and battles across the map with a Dynamic Campaign Generator?

I suspect it will have to be with very low res models, and very limited ground battles that would only be on your route of flight for the mission. OR, perhaps a system that "culls" units / makes them "invisible" like the Liberation generator does. Liberation seems to have a way of having "ghost" units that are still "fighting" without physically being visible on the map.

Maybe a system of generating visible units within a certain radius of the aircraft, and as they pass out of that radius, they disappear and are no longer actual physical models.

Going to be interesting to watch. The ED team is pretty solid though, so while the initial release probably will have issues, I don't doubt that they'll find a way to at least make the war in your vicinity at least as active as F4....fingers crossed.

[♀⛤WitchyWoman⛤♀]

Publicado originalmente por Dr. Jester:

It is superior to DCS. In every way.

as someone who owns most DCS modules you fail ultimately on one feature. DCS campaign is INFERIOR to the dynamic engine of Falcon 4.0 and even EECH and F22 TAW.
DCS linear system is garbage compared to this dynamic engine and most players of DCS will back me on that. The makers of DCS only care about selling modules, they have been told for years by the community to make a similar dynamic campaign system (going back to at least flanker 2.0) but they could care less.

And that is a huge deal breaker on so many levels. Its pitiful that we have to rely on a 3rd party mod to get a campaign system that still is nowhere close to Falcons.

The generator does not model real time changes to the battleground like Falcon does and it runs outside the game. Its essentially just a mission generator that develops new missions based on the last. Its not even close to what people really desire.

Falcons battle around you continues to go on even as you are in the mission planning,weapon loadout windows, and maps, and its one of the key reasons that sim refuses to die because its never been outdone, its awesome. Its also why the other two games I mentioned are basically immortal and still played.

[Dr. Jester]

Publicado originalmente por ♀⛤WitchyWoman⛤♀:

Publicado originalmente por Dr. Jester:

It is superior to DCS. In every way.

as someone who owns most DCS modules you fail ultimately on one feature. DCS campaign is INFERIOR to the dynamic engine of Falcon 4.0 and even EECH and F22 TAW.
DCS linear system is garbage compared to this dynamic engine and most players of DCS will back me on that. The makers of DCS only care about selling modules, they have been told for years by the community to make a similar dynamic campaign system (going back to at least flanker 2.0) but they could care less.

And that is a huge deal breaker on so many levels. Its pitiful that we have to rely on a 3rd party mod to get a campaign system that still is nowhere close to Falcons.

The generator does not model real time changes to the battleground like Falcon does and it runs outside the game. Its essentially just a mission generator that develops new missions based on the last. Its not even close to what people really desire.

Falcons battle around you continues to go on even as you are in the mission planning,weapon loadout windows, and maps, and its one of the key reasons that sim refuses to die because its never been outdone, its awesome. Its also why the other two games I mentioned are basically immortal and still played.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Falcon is superior in absolutely everything. Maybe DCS wins in graphics a bit, but that is it.

[Nats]

I love jet combat sims, I've played most of them in my time, and Falcon 4.0 was the best ever made. Falcon 4.0 is a great game and a very detailed sim. BMS have ruined it a bit with over complexity but its still a great game at it's heart. I am looking forward to Microprose's revamped version(s) to come.

DCS is ok if you want to learn to fly the real F18 or F16 plane with state of the art graphics but its not really a great game, although some modded campaigns have made it better lately. I wasnt that impressed with the flight model in DCS. But its the lack of a decent integrated campaign that really brings DCS down.

Overall Falcon 4.0 is definitely the better game all round.

[QTRpounder]

i use them both. i tend to enjoy bms a bit more. i personally like everything about bms including the graphics. i is enough to get the job done and looks great. i like dcs for the unique aircraft and locations. i do enjoy it dont get me wrong. i play both nearly daily.

[nelsond0490]

Publicado originalmente por 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.

I read in a youtube comment, albeit, that the F18 is getting worked on as well.

[BulletInYourHead]

Falcon BMS needs Falcon 4 that you can buy for around 7€. you can fly a ton of f16 models and Blocks fully interactive and other Planes ( moded on F16 Simulation ). The Engine is Outdated but Still good and far from Dead. DCS has more eyecandy but it comes with high prices for the Planes and Terrains. Falcon BMS is much better in so many things, BUT I still prefere DCS. It is more user friendly and ( because i dont care so much about money ) I like to fly all the different planes that are available in DCS.

[Bishop Knight]

I just tried BMS out today and it's disappointing. The hype is bad. The graphics engine is outdated. No proper support for triple screen. interface is clunky and outdated. It was the go to sim for the F16 but it's far too outdated at this point. DCS is only going to get better by leaps and bounds.

And I'm all for community made software. Blender is an amazing 3D modeling software package that I love so I'm not against community driven alternatives. But, Blender realized that they needed to spend a lot of time and resources modernizing the user interface and adding quality of life features to the software. Falcon BMS has not done that and it's absolutely critical for software to keep up with the times and update their user experience. Triple screen has been around in the sim community for as long as Falcon BMS has been around, and yet they have made zero effort in adding it. They've added zero effort in seriously upgrading the interface. It's like 10 years behind at best.

Falcon BMS is for those loyal to the project and a longtime fan of it. But, it does nothing to bring in new players and keep up with the times. Great to see this old game kept alive by fans of it but it isn't going to keep up with DCS once DCS finishes the dynamic mission upgrade. For new players to the sim market, skip Falcon BMS and check it out after you've tried DCS for a while.

I grew up with Jane's Combat sims and still have my old Thrustmaster gear from before the Cougar. The TM FCS Mark II FCS stick and WCS Mark II throttle and the F-16 FLCS & TQS Throttle. The old DOS days when games had to be launched from a custom made boot disk with Config.sys and control.bat files that matched the system specs. And the hotas setup had to be done outside the game in TM's dos based software that took some learning to configure and load into the hotas before playing a given sim. So, don't come at me with the young gamer who doesn't want to put in effort nonsense that so many try to use. BMS is good for what it is but it's no replacement for DCS.

[Dr. Jester]

Publicado originalmente por Bishop Knight:

I just tried BMS out today and it's disappointing. The hype is bad. The graphics engine is outdated. No proper support for triple screen. interface is clunky and outdated. It was the go to sim for the F16 but it's far too outdated at this point. DCS is only going to get better by leaps and bounds.

And I'm all for community made software. Blender is an amazing 3D modeling software package that I love so I'm not against community driven alternatives. But, Blender realized that they needed to spend a lot of time and resources modernizing the user interface and adding quality of life features to the software. Falcon BMS has not done that and it's absolutely critical for software to keep up with the times and update their user experience. Triple screen has been around in the sim community for as long as Falcon BMS has been around, and yet they have made zero effort in adding it. They've added zero effort in seriously upgrading the interface. It's like 10 years behind at best.

Falcon BMS is for those loyal to the project and a longtime fan of it. But, it does nothing to bring in new players and keep up with the times. Great to see this old game kept alive by fans of it but it isn't going to keep up with DCS once DCS finishes the dynamic mission upgrade. For new players to the sim market, skip Falcon BMS and check it out after you've tried DCS for a while.

I grew up with Jane's Combat sims and still have my old Thrustmaster gear from before the Cougar. The TM FCS Mark II FCS stick and WCS Mark II throttle and the F-16 FLCS & TQS Throttle. The old DOS days when games had to be launched from a custom made boot disk with Config.sys and control.bat files that matched the system specs. And the hotas setup had to be done outside the game in TM's dos based software that took some learning to configure and load into the hotas before playing a given sim. So, don't come at me with the young gamer who doesn't want to put in effort nonsense that so many try to use. BMS is good for what it is but it's no replacement for DCS.

okydoky. We shall see that in 2040, if ED is still alive, about your predictions. I wonder if the data cartridge or the dynamic campaign... or proper weather will come first in 2040, or paying Razbam.

[Hootman]

Publicado originalmente por Dr. Jester:

Publicado originalmente por Bishop Knight:

I just tried BMS out today and it's disappointing. The hype is bad. The graphics engine is outdated. No proper support for triple screen. interface is clunky and outdated. It was the go to sim for the F16 but it's far too outdated at this point. DCS is only going to get better by leaps and bounds.

And I'm all for community made software. Blender is an amazing 3D modeling software package that I love so I'm not against community driven alternatives. But, Blender realized that they needed to spend a lot of time and resources modernizing the user interface and adding quality of life features to the software. Falcon BMS has not done that and it's absolutely critical for software to keep up with the times and update their user experience. Triple screen has been around in the sim community for as long as Falcon BMS has been around, and yet they have made zero effort in adding it. They've added zero effort in seriously upgrading the interface. It's like 10 years behind at best.

Falcon BMS is for those loyal to the project and a longtime fan of it. But, it does nothing to bring in new players and keep up with the times. Great to see this old game kept alive by fans of it but it isn't going to keep up with DCS once DCS finishes the dynamic mission upgrade. For new players to the sim market, skip Falcon BMS and check it out after you've tried DCS for a while.

I grew up with Jane's Combat sims and still have my old Thrustmaster gear from before the Cougar. The TM FCS Mark II FCS stick and WCS Mark II throttle and the F-16 FLCS & TQS Throttle. The old DOS days when games had to be launched from a custom made boot disk with Config.sys and control.bat files that matched the system specs. And the hotas setup had to be done outside the game in TM's dos based software that took some learning to configure and load into the hotas before playing a given sim. So, don't come at me with the young gamer who doesn't want to put in effort nonsense that so many try to use. BMS is good for what it is but it's no replacement for DCS.

okydoky. We shall see that in 2040, if ED is still alive, about your predictions. I wonder if the data cartridge or the dynamic campaign... or proper weather will come first in 2040, or paying Razbam.

I think there's room for both. I for one love to see as many combat flight seems as we can get out there. It's really a genre that has fallen on hard times, and having the "arcadey" ones certainly doesn't help. Unfortunately the attention span and dedication to spend time setting up and properly employing complex simulations doesn't seem to be a particular interest or skill of the younger generations, having grown up with gaming available in so many platforms.

Showing my age, but I recall being amazed when I got my first Atari 2600, and watching as gaming progressed was great. I moved into PC gaming as soon as I could afford a PC in the 90's, and have eagerly devoured combat sims as they have progressed and gotten better both visually and complexity wise. Falcon 4.0 certainly set a bar back in 98, and some of those bars are still not really achieved by others.

I still fly Comanche V. Hokum once in a while, as it was also one of the few to achieve a form of "Dynamic Campaign". I hope ED can achieve that, and that the move to Vulkan helps out with the CPU bottlenecking. One thing I think holding them back is getting the AI to fly correctly, mainly the Helo's. I fly mostly Helo's in ED, and for a sim that is based mostly on PVE, the way the helo AI act is atrocious. I watch in amazement as they fly into mountains, each other, and watched the other day as one flight of 4 Apache's I sent off on a seperate mission stopped and engaged in dogfighting with a MIG, literally climbing up and manuevering around like a bunch of morons as the MIG picked them off one by one.

[Dr. Jester]

Publicado originalmente por Hootman:

Publicado originalmente por Dr. Jester:

okydoky. We shall see that in 2040, if ED is still alive, about your predictions. I wonder if the data cartridge or the dynamic campaign... or proper weather will come first in 2040, or paying Razbam.

I think there's room for both. I for one love to see as many combat flight seems as we can get out there. It's really a genre that has fallen on hard times, and having the "arcadey" ones certainly doesn't help. Unfortunately the attention span and dedication to spend time setting up and properly employing complex simulations doesn't seem to be a particular interest or skill of the younger generations, having grown up with gaming available in so many platforms.

Showing my age, but I recall being amazed when I got my first Atari 2600, and watching as gaming progressed was great. I moved into PC gaming as soon as I could afford a PC in the 90's, and have eagerly devoured combat sims as they have progressed and gotten better both visually and complexity wise. Falcon 4.0 certainly set a bar back in 98, and some of those bars are still not really achieved by others.

I still fly Comanche V. Hokum once in a while, as it was also one of the few to achieve a form of "Dynamic Campaign". I hope ED can achieve that, and that the move to Vulkan helps out with the CPU bottlenecking. One thing I think holding them back is getting the AI to fly correctly, mainly the Helo's. I fly mostly Helo's in ED, and for a sim that is based mostly on PVE, the way the helo AI act is atrocious. I watch in amazement as they fly into mountains, each other, and watched the other day as one flight of 4 Apache's I sent off on a seperate mission stopped and engaged in dogfighting with a MIG, literally climbing up and manuevering around like a bunch of morons as the MIG picked them off one by one.

I agree, there is space for both of them, but I was replying to someone who insists that BMS is not a good alternative.

[Nats]

I cant play Falcon 4 now but only because I played it to death already years ago. I think is still a good flightsim.

The problem is we dont have any alternative to really detailed sims or arcade like flight sims. There is nothing in the middle. Not many people have time to invest in detailed sims. I only played flightsims back then because they were quick to play, easy to get into and fairly realistic. This is what we need now. But hardly anybody seems to be making any, just very small indie firms.

Our hope has to be in Microprose. Because without Microprose computer gaming would have been very different in the 80s and 90s. I think they still have a part to play in bringing these combat sims back to the PC.

The main issue is at the moment PC games development seems really dire. There are very few games I want to play being made. It is all just so lacklustre and safe. Constant reiterations of the same game types with no creativity just better graphics. It really needs a massive shake up. There are only about 2 or 3 games I play now that are good. The rest you buy and lose interest after a month because they are so shallow. And games production has never been higher. There must be 20 games released every single day now. But 99.9% of them are atrocious.