I flew BMS online and Campaign mode for 10 years or so. And also DCS. Until I bought a VR headset. That was a gamechanger. It was then DCS only I'm afraid to say. I couldn't go back to 2d. But I always missed the feel of being in a changing World instead of a scripted sim. BMS released 4.37 with VR support. Now I'm back home. The graphics are poor compared to DCS but I don't care. I'm part of something again. Offline in a campaign I'm part of the war. I don't need to "pass" a point in the script to advance. If my flight's performance is poor and the target survives. I can re-task and try to destroy that target again, or I can choose a totally different flight. But the war has moved on a few hours by then. So the threats have changed dramatically. It might be a cake walk 12 hrs later, or you might not get off the ground because your airfield is getting attacked. A butterfly flaps it's wings in Kimpo sort of thing.
It's a bit less easy to set up and I find it less stable than DCS but it's fantastic and needs a good rig too though you no need a 4090ti and i9... works fine on my XR5700XT and i5-12600k at 72 fps with some tweaks !! You should give it a try !! And @Novacngood185 is right, the dynamic campaign is such a game changer !! nothing better than doing some interdiction or CAS in VR when the war is on !!
@@Spiretail BMS is VR is insane-- runs much better than DCS, looks pretty good, and you get that dynamic campaign. Much more immersive to me. Only problem is that I use a leap motion controller with finger mice to interact with cockpits in DCS, and that doesn't seem to work in BMS. If there's a way to get that hand tracking controller working in BMS, I'd probably only play BMS these days
BMS in VR is what I've been dreaming my whole life, since I was playing Lightning Simulator on ZX Spectrum. Dynamic campaign, fog of war, those unexpected flights that crash into your path when you least expect, even if they are MiG-21s or 19s .... doesn't matter, they still change your mission 100% Yesterday I crashed into a parachute and lost my FLCS ... went on to fight MiG-21s, I used rudder and suddenly I'm in a left hand fast flat spin unable to recover, something I've never seen in Falcon 4.0 ... amazing. What I miss (I actually dislike a lot) in BMS is that they went to change the original Iron Fortress Pusan perimeter campaign and made it less hard. Iron Fortress is what I was playing on original F4. That was THE campaign to play from Taegu airbase ... others were boring. You had less than an hour to drop the closest 3 bridges to prevent your base from being overrun by DPRK mechanized units. Then you had about 3 more hours to drop another let's say 8 bridges and stabilize the frontline on Nakdong river. Then you could switch to BAI and Interdiction and start reducing bogged down enemy units behind the river. You could also retask ground forces to go and engage enemy ground units. In the evening first day you had time to start doing OCA and Deep strike. That was THE BEST WAR in game. And it was removed. Sadly. I nor could nor will ever play DCS. Scripted missions totally kill it for me.
Since I fly both simulations, I appreciate both - they both have excellent takes on the experience of flying the Falcon. Pilots of the type, on trying either of them promptly say 'I'm at work!' - which is more than good enough for me.
Falcon BMS for the F-16. DCS for the F-18 (and all other jets and helicopter). But I really love these aspects of BMS: 1) it loads in just 12 seconds (bamm, it runs) 2) dynamic campaign (offline or multiplayer) 3) almost everything of the F-16 is modeled and simulated 4) the AI is a lot more intelligent 5) it only costs 5$ ... really! 6) it does not crash 7) it gets better and better with every release and update (DCS is very slow in this regard) But I "like" (don't love) DCS. It is the best simulation so far for all other jets. And yet ... it requires too much resources.
I Just got bms cause da viper is ma fav, i've got like 1000hr in DCS and I love the way I can fly an f18 or the a10 or even the up and comming f4e. I do enjoy the graphics of dcs but bms is just the viper and viper make me happy :)
DCS has a fairly decent flight model for helis. I would say the only part that isn't good is the change from hover to translational lift, but then again no sim gets that right. But if you were to practice hovering in DCS, you could do it IRL.
It's still hard to play MP in BMS? I saw there is a new update that almost brings the game to moderns standards, and I wonder if they improved MP connectivity
@@StoneCoolds what's supposed to be hard about the mp? It's just open two ports instead of one for DCS. There's no server browser, but it'd be a nonsensical addition given that 24/7 servers aren't really a thing in BMS.
@@r4dio4ctiv3man9falcon bms is more of a war simulator than dcs it is limited in airframes but the scale depth and level of simulation put dcs to shame. DCS is flying a plane bms simulates being a fighter pilot in a war.
After all these years, it's still Flanker 2.0 vs Falcon 4.0, Flanker 2.0 with dumb scripted mission and damage model vs Falcon 4.0 with awesome dynamic campaign.
I am into sumulators for 30 years and graphics is the last priority thing for me. Truly, the most valuable thing in Falcon is the dynamic campaign. For me, the DCS is too much autistic. You load a mission, you know what is your target, you are pretty alone there. You meet 2 enemies, so you know, that if you shot them down, there is no other bandit in the air, so you are free to continue your mission although you are winchester. Every real and BMS pilot will turn back to home base, when he depleted all his AMRAAMs. Empty word in DCS. In BMS you feel you are in a war, not in a prescripted mission. In DCS if you sit still and do not take off for 1 hour and then you take off, you are free to bomb any target, no enemies will appear, just because they all already landed :D :D:D
Come on sir, that is pretty much exaggerated. There are tons of missions for DCS is were you not just shot down 2 or 3 enemies and then you are free to continue your mission. Yes, the missions are scripted, but the ME in DCS offers so much possibilities to make missions exaclty the opposite you just described. I suggest the Bold Cheetah campaign for the Hornet, it´s for free and one of the best campaigns i have ever played. Created with the help of former Navy pilots and highly immersive in terms of realistic radio calls, On-call-CAS procedures and lots of enemies surprising you. Only disadvantage is, you should have mastered the Hornet properly to be able to finish it as it demands usage pretty much all of the weapons and systems the Hornet does have, as well as AAR.
From watching this and not having a full understanding of all the systems modelled etc and taking it from the viewpoint it was a trial evaluating competing electronics / Radar systems. It comes across to me that you feel more in control of what is developing moment by moment and how to attack and survive in the BMS Sim rather than DCS.
Well I am more familiar with BMS also DCS does not have the DLZ fully implemented with Husky and the Digital Maneuvering Queue in degrees. And the RWR gives me negative situational awareness because of the way it is implemented in DCS.
I prefer BMS these days; much more accessible, dynamic campaign, every single block of F-16 is simulated and it's very immersive; you play DCS for the graphics but you play BMS for the soul.
Every block is not simulated as the avionics is the same for all blocks in bms, you cant put togheter a true 80s scenario as you are flying with 90s something avionics with the hotas and mfds, early blocks did not have this
@@briantoplessbar4685 my point is you cant fly in a early 80s to mid 80s campain/mission and call it *realistic* because you dont have that early f16s in game *as in all blocks are modeled* because they are simply not
1. I haven't touched DCS much since BMS added VR in 4.37. 2. The fake Link-16 in DCS is kinda cringe, as it's essentially a god-mode crutch for SA, but at least it's an attempt to have it, unlike BMS, which takes a "if we can't make it realistic, we won't model it" approach (an approach I kind of disagree with). I do like the process of confirming a bogey in BMS, as it feels like a realistic procedure (IFF+AWACS+TGP). 3. The dynamic campaign in BMS is still so good 20+ years later, and much more immersive and realistic than DCS's sandbox-style play and canned mission campaigns. I'm not sure if DCS could ever really do true dynamic real-time campaigns for performance reasons. Liberation is a decent alternative, but it's not the same, and performance is miserable. 4. Multiplayer is where it's at in DCS for better or for worse. Unfortunately, it also negates one of DCS's best strengths- multiple airframes- as people cry about "balance" in PvP. 5. BMS doesn't look nearly as bad as some would have people believe (especially in VR), but the terrain update needs to come fast. I'd happily use a 2D cloud option in DCS were it available to get some framerate in VR. 6. DCS's lack of actual ATC and AI comms in general makes the sim feel lifeless in single player. And having ATC would help so much in multi. Takeoff and landing is more hazardous than actual combat in DCS multi. 7. Lack of general faults and malfunctions in DCS is puzzling. 8. AMRAAM performance in DCS feels better. Although part of me feels like this is because the AI in BMS is better in BVR and can defeat missile shots outside of the highest probability zone. 9. DCS is still king when it comes to selection of aircraft. But to clear something up, people keep saying that the other flyable aircraft in BMS are just F-16 "reskins". This isn't true. The Hornet for instance, has it's own flight and performance model, and possible weapons loadouts and configs (can't put an HTS on a Hornet, for instance)- it's just that the avionics are all from the F-16. Still, it's not the same as having a full-fidelity model in DCS. I flew an entire campaign with the F-22 in BMS, and it was *very* different from the F-16. 10. Carrier ops in DCS are FAR superior. If you're a Navy guy, it's the way to go. Carrier ops in BMS are... serviceable. 11. From the standpoint of the F-16, the actual flying feels mostly the same in both sims. Love the channel, by the way!
1. Funny enough, this lacking feature pre 4.37 didn't seem to really matter in DCS vs BMS before. Now that it's in BMS, it's lauded. It's revealing of how one side of the debate is acting (disingenuous). 2. Interesting to know. How Link16 should work is likely somewhat classified? Obviously it would benefit REDFOR to know how to prevent enemy fighters from successfully using it by jamming it, or injecting malicious, irrelevant, or incorrect information. If these are the dominant ideas that are missing, just like with detailed radar jammers, for a simulator environment I think it's best to fake-estimate these things. Any detailed conversations and attempt to become accurate is very clearly classified information, and in fact likely changes from year to year as EW is an evolving battle. 3. This is a strange claim to something DCS could never do when ED themselves literally announced they are working on it. And they aren't claiming some ridiculous release time that wouldn't measure up to the expectation either. I'm pretty sure their relevant road map called out first phase with multithreading (delivered in open bet a); next is a general mission scripting overhaul for performance as well (this is the phase where ideas like not fully simulating outside of player bubbles would enable greater performance); and then dynamic campaign engine is the final end goal. I wouldn't expect this to be delivered fully before late 2024 or more realistically 2025 but it's been laid out. ED is pulling in money and the list of modules is growing quite fast so I fully believe they are dedicade to these things. 4. Are we really listing player complaints about jet differences as downsides? Can we agree to ignore players that say silly stuff during a serious discussion? 5. I agree, BMS doesn't look that bad. It is very playable. Though I don't think clouds is where you're losing so much performance. 6. What? Perhaps the scripting around ATC comms is the first issue. But if ATC is more dangerous than combat, what server are you playing on? 7. Do you mean random or battle damage? The latter definitely happens, and random faults is a matter of mission design. I agree that there is an interesting layer added when you can successfully detect a fault with a plane before taking off, but what is the reward system for that? Do you get points for discovering a failure and properly spawning in a new plane? Or maybe requesting repair? This feels more a matter of forcing a more complete cold start procedure full with pre-flight checklist, and running all BIT and tests. 8. Apples and oranges. Doesn't really seem to sway how one sim might be substantially preferable unless the sticking point is AI. 9. Dev from BMS mentioned this; I don't agree with the idea that different performance characteristics = different flight model. That dev pretty much stated it like you did: it's the same flight model with different values. So what if an entirely different plane has an entirely different behavior that isn't modeled perfectly by how those tables + logic add up? I'm sure they can get fairly close, but spot on will always be a lack. I suspect things get work when you also add in flight control computers (FLCS, FCS). 10. I have DCS Super Carrier, it's decent, but nothing to write home about. I wouldn't lose much if I didn't see the animated dudes. 11. Can only comment from a video that both seem to be 99% the same in both sims in terms of pure flying.
1. I can only speak for myself, but VR was the main reason I stuck with DCS over BMS, as I really wanted to get back into dynamic campaign, but I refuse to play flight/racing sims on pancake mode :). 2. I'm okay with guesstimating classified systems within the realm of reasonable functionality. The debate about DL is how reasonable is it. The consensus is that it's not an all-seeing eye (with the F-16, 5th gen fighters are probably a different story). 3. I'd love to be proved wrong, but DCS would need a *massive* overhaul to be able to simulate a full scale conflict in real-time for dynamic campaigns, as it wasn't designed to do that. It can't evern do small ground battles without a performance hit. What we'll probably get is dynamically generated missions, or something like a baked-in Liberation. 6. ATC comm scripting? There *is* no ATC. There are voices that will give you a heading, and an arbitrary permission to land or takeoff (sometimes), but it does not actually control or schedule air/ground/approach traffic like BMS does. Supercarrier is a bit better in this regard, and in 2021 ED announced there would be an overhauling of the airfield ATC, but of course, nothing so far. 7. One example that comes to mind: In DCS, you cannot Over-G stores and have resulting malfunctions. You can pull 9'gs with AGM-88s on all day then put them on target. In BMS, there is the likelihood of station failure from breaching the g limits on stores. This may seem small, but it makes a huge difference in tactical decisions during combat, as you have to be more careful in BVR engagements if you still have your payload. Defending against SAMs with HARMs or Mavericks still on is trickier.
1. The VR implementation in BMS is more on a level of a VR mod (like the VR mod for GTA V or RDR2) instead of natural implementation like in DCS (not perfect too, but much better than with BMS and since the MT update, i at least get stable 90fps in VR). 2. The Link 16 has been updated in DCS with the last update and is now pretty realistic. At least that´s what the real F-16 and Hornet pilots say. 3. The dynamic campaign is indeed something i miss in DCS, but not realy a reason for me to play more BMS. It´s a very complex project and will propably still need some time, but will come to DCS. 4. Not realy what i experienced. Blueflag does not realy balance and their servers are always full. 5. Again, since the MT update, the VR performance is great in DCS. 6. A new ATC system is on the roadmap. The Supercarrier already has a few features of the new ATC system and it is very promising. 7. This can be set up in the mission editor. G-load damage for ordonance is a requested task in DCS, but high g-load does in fact damage your aircraft (will rip the wings off i.e. your Strike Eagle or, depending on how much over-G you´re pulling, will at least bend them visually and technically). 8. The AI in DCS has recently been updated and will get further updates. The AI now acts way more realistic in both BVR and ACM. 9. Exactly that´s the point. They all have the avionics of an F-16, wich makes them all an F-16 with slightly different FM and different skin. No excuses, other airframes in BMS are not on a simulator level but more on the level of a helpless gap filler. 10. This 11. Confirmed. The F-16 in BMS is still better imo, as it is more polished and covers different Blocks. If one is only interested in the F-16 and different version of it, BMS is the way to go.
@@r4dio4ctiv3man9 1. That is 100% false. The VR in BMS is as natural as it is in any other VR sim. Since BMS updates are direct to the source code, it isn't a "mod". The VR performance is roughly even with the last BMS update. DCS just looks better as the graphics engine is more modern. 3. DCS has a hundred other things to fix before even getting to DC. The game is simply not designed for it, unlike BMS. DCS is a scenario/sandbox game and it will likely stay that way. 6. Even supercarrier ATC is leagues behind BMS's actual ATC. And "roadmap" may as well mean "when we get to it in a few years". 7. DCS still doesn't model for G-overload of stores on the F-16. You can pull 9gs with AGM-88 and no malfunctions, where as the stations should fail at about 5-6 Gs. 9. Actually with the last BMS update, the F-15c is fully modeled with it's own avionics- it's even modeled more fully than the DCS F-15c.
Calm, rational manner? Holy cow, I'm out, lol! Nice work, good comparison. I don't usually have as much don't notice the problems as you, or, maybe I'm focused on staying alive, lol!I haven't flown BMS for some time but I always enjoyed it. I do envy the comms which are much better, especially on the ground. I am eternally hopeful DCS will continue to improve, but they have so many issues to deal with, trying to get their ducks in a row it is difficult, like herding cats, lol!
I don't fly the 16 in DCS. It's the best sim of the Warthog, the F14 Tomcat, and many other combat airframe experiences. I can fly online every day and never get bored or run out of things to learn. I will say that BMS is a very impressive & realistic F16 sim and campaign in its specific niche.
I try to play the DCS F-16 but it is difficult in the current state that it is in. I can't spend more than a few hours a month flying it with out getting annoyed and going back to BMS.
My take on seeing each of these sims, portrayed "side by side", is that they are on a course of merging. Each has different aspects that one may do better than the other and aspects that are very comparable. Given enough time the two may become close analogs of the other. I look forward to seeing these changes, to see the evolution unfold for each.
BMS is working on graphics which doesn't need evidence of. DCS on the other hand the RWR is atrocious and makes zero logical sense of how it functions. Good luck getting ED to change that even though it was more accurate when it first released.
@@AviationPlus That explains it, I was sure the clouds had been updated a long time before this video was uploaded! I really am looking forward to them finishing the weather system update, but considering how long it took them to get clouds to move with the wind I'm not holding my breath for it any time soon.
DCS offers graphics and a greater variety of aircrafts and maps to fly, with a price of course. Main issue is how heavy DCS is (unplayable with low fps) for mid ranged PCs. BMS is extremely smooth with exceptional fps and relaxed eyes experience. Yes terrain graphs aren’t the greatest but the way campaigns work in conjunction with your flying performance, proper weapon systems and cockpit functions, i would even dare to say that I enjoy flying physics more in BMS too,as the jet feels more responsive with better deceleration acceleration and turn rates. Also AI threats are way more lethal in BMS than DCS. BMS with a proper graphics update will be a no brainer.
That's my view also. I flew BMS for 10 years before VR came out. I flew mainly DCS once I bought a VR headset. But I always missed the "alive" feeling of BMS. Now that BMS has VR it's a game changer for me. Back to BMS for me. I will probably buy the Tornado and Euro fighter when released. But...
Both sims fill their niche suitably but Falcon BMS comes out on top purely because it marries being both a video game and a specialized simulator into one package. With the amount of work put into it, the only thing that beats Falcon BMS is DCS just on visuals alone; but the flight model, the dynamic campaign, and the fact that they're working on full-fidelity cockpits for the aircraft that are flown by AI in the sim make it stand out above DCS--for 1/8th the cost of a single airframe model on DCS. The fact that you can also fly a full-fidelity F-15C despite the original game being designed specifically for the F-16 and its blocks is just the cherry on top.
Well Falcon has been developed for decades by Micropros ( formerly Spectrum Holobyte ), Falcon released back in 1987. While DCS started as SU-27 for dos in 1995 ( other iterations in order, Flanker, Flanker 2.0, Lock on, Flaming Cliffs, then DCS ) Back then Falcon was as real as it gets, and still is, DCS comes close but is limited by how the engine functions. BMS team has become part of the reformed Micropros publisher and is making great strikes in updating the engine to look better and better as well as bringing in other full fidelity aircraft which currently is the F-15C. Eventually Falcon will turn into a full on DCS contender. For who does the F-16 best, that will be Falcon, again many years of development behind it on one aircraft.
1). If you fly F-16 or F-15C, then BMS wins hands down. 2). If you fly Russian jets or F-18C, or Helicopter: DCS wins hands down. (BMS has some more aircraft in its pipeline...but its a community works). 3). Graphics: DCS wins, but BMS is pretty impressive with 4K updates, but it has its limit. DCS is beautiful at its full setting. 4). If you want a dynamic campaign or immersive environment, BMS wins by far. You really feel like you are a part of something big. It gets tense, and it really gets you involved. DCS lacks this part. HOWEVER, there is are servers ran by community (like Enigma's Cold War server), that can get you involved and experience the campaign. But still, you simply cannot beat the complexity, tension, and design of Falcon 4's original dynamic systems - and considering its based on nearly 20 year old system, that is very impressive. 5). If you want VR support - its a tie (both DCS and 4.37.4 supports native support now) - as for VR set, you get what you pay for. Both will get you to be very engaged. 6). Multiplayer - both are good, but both have its own share of bugs. So I say its a tie again. 7). Realism - My real life flight experience consists of airline travels and occasionally being thrown off from my bike (in my younger days). In my opinion, for F-16 only, BMS is a bit more realistic...but that's just my opinion based on my own personal interpretation of its flight characteristics. As for the comparison to real life flight characteristics, there are more qualified TH-camrs who can give more accurate accounts (like Mover). But it will take you quite a bit of time for anyone to learn entire systems in both games. It's not easy, but its fun! Summary: GET BOTH! :D. It's a good time to be a sim player!
Hey AP, I just notice you have this video cause it pop up in my screen while I watch TH-cam to accompany my meal time. I might said, both of the sim have their decent strength and terrible weakness spot. BMS, very excell in term of physics and math occured in jet, missile, seeker, radar, RWR. Not everything is perfect there, for example, DEAD against stationary SAM except SA-10, HARM is overmodelled by the INS guidance that superseeded the radar homing guidance. In BVR missile, it brings real world reality none can compared. My Uncle that work in that industry since 1990 verify that BVR missile in BMS is way more closer into reality, while DCS so far away and more game like. And, I forgot, either I got it from you or other channel, I think from you, weave and fly like snake defending, effectively bleed any BVR / long range missile. It is true in reality, far more worse actually the energy bleed that happened. MAV-JP realy made serious work into it. But, BMS lack of consistenty in term of modern color profile. Once the visor down, the effect is far more like kill the tone instead of mimic the visor effect. HUD readability also seriously hampered in daylight, cause the green is yellowish and not like highlight green. Compare to the DCS, they mimic the visor effect in HUD, so the green is more sparkle there. In term of massive combat deployment, every military personel in my circle said, BMS is unbeatable. You can not goes low, cause gopher wait you below 10k. The beauty of BMS in non online i really liked is just you can made the R-77 more harder to tame. I do it to compensate the way the AI model which just cold and at the certain point pull up, or rarely turn. As I mention above, BMS model air thickness pretty well, so against any BVR missile, in dueling like that, I often tempted to do disrespectful manouver by just crank right, their missile pitbul, I change my crange left while nose low, hit notch, climb, done. AI still defending I am already 22k++ with 0.9mach ++. This is the strength of BMS, in other side, the graph is their homework to dig in seriously. If you compare 4.35 with 4.36 and 4.37, you might notice the light in "benchmark TE" is different. 4.36/4.37 really messed up with yellow is greenish, and green is yelowish. Made the pretty and well maintenance runway looks like full of dirt by the yellow greenish light in tarmac. 4.35, bright nice light. This the reason I use reshade sometimes with default "Fake HDR" and Default "Colorfulness" to strengthen the blue, correcting the yellow, and green in BMS. At the other side, if I wanna refresh my eyes by looking some goodlooking things in air, I watch DCS. Once I played and buy it, and completely dumped it cause "LGB can illuminate target precisely" even TGP can't see it in zero visibility weather. For me, it just like a sin, as the same feeling with kill SA-2-3-5 in BMS with harm. Later on, I messed up with 4.35 more, and for sure, SA-10 replacing SA-5 and more SA-6 and SA-4 replacing the SA-2-3 so I have to use harm correctly to kill them cause they're moving. With Harm against SA-2-3, set precission stpt using recon, set target isolate parameter with SD (not flex not glide), SAM Radar almost guaranteed hit both they're on or off. This a bit off actually, and made me felt like sinner everytime I did it 😁😁😁. Aight, have a good time AP, I thing I've just dropped too much here
@@AviationPlus for me also in every technical aspect of combat flight sim DCS does not do. The graph, they did it beautifully. The mechanics, physics, and the consequences of that, they messed a lot. BMS at the other side, messed up a lot with graphic things like "color consistency" like color gamut, but marvelous work at the mechanical things. Even some sort of "classified number" they already figure it out with their way (example : phyton 5 max speed and turn ability).
BMS is awesome but I still prefer DCS. The Viper has come a long way in DCS too, and will close the gap with the BMS Viper as they finish up the development roadmap. Big negative for me with BMS is the lack of available flyable jets. No full fidelity Tomcats or other amazing fighters to go along with the Viper. The Hornet in BMS is just a re-skin, so it doesn't count. Grateful we have both sims as flight simulation enthusiasts!
I think I'm the only person who prefers BMS graphics. At least in Korea theater where sky is typically hazy / marine air. The shadows all over the Nevada ground-textures on DCS don't seem to align with the position of the sun, at all? I find it disorienting and fake-looking. But ofc I wish BMS had higher-fidelity terrain and textures, too.
@@HumbleSiPilot77 Unimportant. The comment is still retarted as an F/A-18 fan is not just a video game fan only because he chooses the full fidelity DCS Hornet, instead of the poor Hornet skin with F-16 avionics in BMS. Same for the Strike Eagle, F-14, Apache, KA-50, Mirage 2000, Mirage F1, Harrier, Warbirds aso, aso.
Calm, rational discussion while subtly backhanded trashing DCS players...that's really mature. This is a beaten topic. Dynamic campaign is amazing and untouched in flight simulation for all time. BMS has a more complete and accurate F-16 avionics model for the various blocks. I think when it comes to the F-16 flight model, neither outclasses the other. BMS has better AI airman/wingman AI. Anything else BMS actually does better? I think what players should fly boils down to this question: "what is your flight simulation end game?" * Pick BMS if the absolute most detailed modeling of a single aircraft is all you care about, and that aircraft is the F-16 * Pick BMS if the most expansive feeling and rewarding single player scenario is your goal * Pick BMS if you're OK with mutliplayer being limited to coordinated, tight knit group multiplayer scenarios * Pick DCS if you care about which has the better graphics a lot * Pick DCS if you want to fly planes other than the F-16 * Pick DCS if you want to fly helicopters * Pick DCS if you're eventually going to get sick of flying on the same map * Pick DCS if you want to access multiplayer server environments more easily and more casually * Pick DCS if you enjoy flying in an multiplayer environment with other players flying different planes, roles, and missions with all of them capable of interacting and helping each other out * Pick DCS if you care about sound quality People list off a ton of cons with DCS and forget two key things: first is that DCS is very actively developed. It has a roadmap with major features that'll improve the current modules you already own. We saw the major performance update with multithreading, and we know a rehaul of the campaign/mission engine is underway to move towards dynamic campaign is in progress. We also know that a Vulkan graphics renderer is in the works to extract even more performance (and maybe crazily...Linux support?). Second thing with the number of articulated DCS cons is that DCS has vastly more scope to poke at. Falcon BMS is an ice cream shop that sells one flavor of ice cream that is unquestionably very good. DCS is a mall of ice cream shops, and Eagle Dynamics only one of the shops inside. Some of the flavors are not super refined and you can mention weaknesses. Make fun of the large number of early access planes all you want, but make no mistake, the Ka-50, A-10C, and the F/A-18 is quite complete. Though in early access, the AH-64D and F-16C are already quite flyable with a majority of their core capability. Add what third parties like RAZBAM and Heatblur have added to the mix such as the F-14, AV-8, Mirage 2000, etc. and how is it even a fair comparison? I got nothing against someone who knows they just want to fly the F-16, or someone who decides their combat flight simulation career only needs to care about one aircraft; but if that isn't you then BMS is quite a non-starter.
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Only Bashing DCS? Must have missed the memes at 1:00 1:19 2:09 2:48 3:14 Sorry about the clouds did not think DCS would have old clouds for the dynamic weather option. 6:33 If you think me just pointing out things in DCS that I notice different like the HUD moving, having to adjust buttons and Chaff Flare because they are not auto set then I am not sure what to say. I am sure everyone knows that DCS does not have a DTC right now and that is a very big turn off for me. This is a legitimate topic. Below are debatable beaten topics Early Access Modules from ED being VERY early access is a beaten topic BMS getting VR was a beaten topic BMS not having DCS graphics is a beaten topic Waiting for Early Access Modules to come out of Early Access is a beaten topic What DCS Module is easiest? Everyone knows BMS has 90's graphics. Everyone knows BMS has old UI. Everyone knows BMS is an F-16 sim. Everyone knows DCS has better graphics Everyone knows DCS has more modules Everyone knows BMS and DCS have different things as can be seen in the comments below. For the most part I placed two similar videos and had others discuss. There is not enough time to explain everything but you really hit the nail on the head if you want only the F-16, BMS is for you and if you want other aircraft, graphics and helicopters DCS is for you. As for me I won't get tired of the F-16 I am always learning new things even though I am flying the same aircraft. What is OK about planning for a weekly 30 player package with SEAD, DEAD, STIKE, ESCORT, BARCAP and GCI in a campaign that you can continue with the same folks next week. Then during the week there are many planned 10 player packages. This is not the only thing but in a simulator I should not be able to pull 8Gs with 2 bags 2 GBU 31 and not have some sort of consequence I should not be able to cycle my landing gear at 400 knots and it be just fine I should be able to use the cursor bump to manipulate my radar azimuth in TWS This is why we have these discussions because as long as DCS BMS are a thing this will always come up. There will always be new folks wondering what to play and this is one of the many places to create their own opinion. I was pretty sure everyone would be mature enough to not get totally offended. This must have gone over someones head. Truly thanks for your comment this videos purpose was to have calm, rational discussions.
DCS has potential but ED is not doing the right thing. The Viper is not perfect but it’s been said by those that know the Viper under performs while the Hornet over performs. It gets old when ED says per publicly available information yet other aircraft and weapons seem to work better then what is publicly available. My 2 cents.
@@bryananderson3422 "it's been said" is not going to cut it. As reputable and credible someone on an online forum may seem claiming to be an (ex?) pilot or maintainer of a jet, ED would require either a formal business relationship that includes proof of who the person is and their prior experience, or reference to a public document they are legally allowed to use. Outside of that, it's just voices complaining. That's what it is to be a published title versus beign a mod that can go in a direction that serves community popularity and complaint volume. Essentially, BMS can let the popular vote win; ED sticks to a doctrine. In the interview a month ago with the main BMS dev, this was pretty obviously a difference as BMS will never take monetary donations because it does force them to behave differently when it comes to how and when they make changes. Accepting money has advantages, and disadvantages. If someone paid you, and later found out you just listened to some con artist on the internet about what you put in your paid product, that'll hurt. With BMS, it can be overlooked if it "looked legit" and didn't completely feel like a B.S. change. I'd call the difference apples and oranges, because there are so few people who really really know the answers to this question. Honestly, it also pushes the envolope in what might be classified information about and it's easier for any current or ex pilot to err on the side of caution and refuse to comment. Even a real pilot may forget or not realize something about conditions that maybe suggest why a plane behaves a certain way and is why they ARE wrong. Maybe the FLCS/FCS had revisions, or maybe the conditions they experienced one thing or another were still different. I'm a software engineer for non-flight-sim stuff, and I've seen/responded to requests from consumers who feel something should work a certain way and 95% of the time, the ask is super incomplete when you get down to the details and they really don't care what else about the entire system breaks or fails to make sense, they just want the overall behavior they're asking for. So when I see something like "oh, the F-16 doesn't corner that way at 3000ft and 350kts" up front I can think of: 350 IAS or TAS? What's the aircraft weight, atmospheric pressure, what changes might have happened over time with the aircraft with it's flight computer (if we're talking fly-by-wire)? Lastly, are you actually claiming that the differences you read about online personally and substantially hinder your DCS experience? Or are you mostly influenced by the fact that most people praise BMS's accuracy and your affinity (may?) lie there and thus differences you notice in DCS now feel offensive to you? If the avonics systems and models themselves didn't change, but everyone online was claiming DCS was actually more accurate, would you still prefer BMS's modeling? Last I checked the internet is full of F-16 fanboys (even within DCS) so I can kind of see why so many want it to perform so well. But again, exact radar and weapons ranges are exactly what is likely super classified unless you're going back to stuff that came out 30+ years ago maybe. Again, there's a reason why real ex or current pilots completely do not engage in those discussions, but the ones who aren't do. Coincidentally, I also used to work substantially with classified information (search and discovery DIA/DNI FINTEL), and it makes sense to just avoid having conversations anywhere near what you know to be classified. It's too easy to indirectly reveal a classified truth. And just so you know, if information we know to be classified is somehow available in an (ostensibly) public document, we still cannot affirm that said information is true or not, or verify what the classification of the information should be. So if pilot A knows the range of radar/weapon is Y, but believes that information is classified; it doesn't matter if some online dude-bro finds an unofficial doc (neither from manufacturer or military branch). If someone at ED knows that information is classified and the latest truly unclassified document says something different, that is the truth from ED's perspective.
@@AviationPlus I am having an extremely rational discussion. Bias becomes obvious you're unable to tap into the mindset of both sides of an issue and the jokes only truly pierce one way. If you actually pushed information like expected, I was eager (and expected) to learn how BMS did more justice for the F-16 in this scenario. I was hoping to be motivated to open up BMS for the highest fidelity F-16 modeling, and could easily pair it down for DCS. Maybe you're not aware that you're virtual signaling true flight sim values and instilling it in BMS players and taking it away from DCS players. Sure, you're acknowledging some obvious and caual shortcomings of BMS, but at the same time you're memeing that it doesn't really matter to "the true simmer." I actually left my comment predominantely because of what I saw at 1:00 in and the next minute and stopped watching because of how it was tracking. I have since finished and rest of the video, but it fails to offer substantive comparison for even the limited scenario across both sims. * Which SIM has more realistically bevaving RWR + sounds? * Which sim has the more realistically behaving radar? (though this is something most people have to take with massive grain of salt) * Which sim has more functional AI wingmen+comms to accomplish the mission? * Does the modeled ECM/jammer functionality make a difference? * Is the HUD symbology or behavior on one substantially incomplete or misbehaving? There's a mention that DCS lacks a DTC (true); and you further qualify this for DCS start-up having to repeat some processes because you always have a blank/default jet config at mission start. You mention that BMS doesn't seem to have Link16, but is that a real thing missing from the block 40 variant? I noticed the HSD was different in BMS, but that could also be a variant thing. You don't seem to care to comment: so do I need to read the f***ing manual? I'm so dumb I don't even know the answer to this already? Maybe I'm being labled as a filthy casual for not knowing the difference. With a simmer mindset, so it's fine that there are actual differences between the block 40 and block 50, but why subtitle it and then say nothing about it? You have no point; you're offering no information, just memes and super shallow differences. Every thing you affirm that is perhaps a shortcoming of BMS is actually subtly, not really a shortcoming for a real simmer except for the last one on this list: * BMS "read the manual" isn't a real knock against the BMS community or the sim; it is actually the opposite and is a prideful thing for the true flight simmer. Whether it's reading a manual, or watching TH-cam tutorial, of course a player who doesn't know what's going on and doesn't understand the systems shouldn't succeed. There is no easy button to "turn on radar and lock the target I magically intend to lock up, arm the jet and fire the missile." That is a good thing when either sim models the real behavior: it works when it is supposed to, and doesn't work when it is not supposed to. Even DCS players believe and understand that. You're essentially highlighting "BMS is more hardcore so players seem to have a tougher time escaping the manual." * BMS worse graphics isn't a true complaint because it's just so obvious and not worth discussion. BMS players have no pride in graphics and would easily tell anyone, "go play the other one" as any true simmer would. If graphics were king, we should all be playing MSFS or Battlefield 3/4 jets in awe of the visuals. I happen to know that combat jets have some seriously bad modeling in both even if their visuals (in some areas) are better. You're literally signaling to true simmers: "hey, graphics don't really matter when the avionics and flight is sub-par." It's a trap for those who picked DCS for better graphics: iot reveals who's not hardcore enough ";-)" That makes the compliments you had in the DCS portion backhanded. And also, why bother mentioning the cloud pop-in? That's a product of one of your graphics settings. I see no pop-in like that. * BMS "only models the F-16" is also worn like armor. It's super obvious and cannot be escaped by a rational person. But even you eagerly qualify it by saying "I'm always learning new stuff with just the F-16." In a recent interview with a BMS dev, I could hear as one question was laid out, the interviewer was putting forth a fantasy that BMS would easily have many jets modeled just like in DCS. While a technical possibility, as confirmed by the dev, a realistic impossibility. So this one kind of reveals the one real downside BMS players actually sensitive about. Everything is biased. There is no such thing as removing bias entirely so what you should aim to do is validate perspectives. "If you're looking for ____, then ____ serves you better." People who try to use humor memes that pretends to poke fun of both sides almost always fail at hiding their actual bias. It only gets revealed. Again: bias becomes obvious you're unable to tap into the mindset of both sides of an issue and the jokes only truly pierce one way.
@@EbonySeraphim I read what you had to say and this video was not a comparison or verses. It was simply BVR in both sims with some memes and voice over. I wanted the comments to discuss. I guess I should have been silent then but what good would that have been. No one has time to compare two sims and not have something in real life to compare it to. You mentioned classified a lot so you understand. Trying to compare what sim is more realistic without the REAL portion is not how one deems something realistic. This would only compare two attempts at reality. Like I mentioned before I should not be able to pull 8Gs with 2 bags 2 GBU 31 and not have some sort of consequence I should not be able to cycle my landing gear at 400 knots and it be just fine I should be able to use the cursor bump to manipulate my radar azimuth in TWS Stuff like RWR, Radar and ECM accuracy is something I am not willing to talk about. There are a few comparison videos out there every one will have bias and there is nothing that can be done about that.
Note that all I have really flown is DCS, I don't fly the Viper, and I spend a lot of time tinkering in the mission editor: For me the big thing BMS seems to really do better is the AWACS and AI implementation. The BMS AWACS just seems superior in every way, calling out groups rather than planes, basing calls off bullseye, and being able to ID targets. DCS campaigns these days have taken to using pre recorded AWACS calls as theyre so much better. With what the BMS system seems to offer, I don't think that would even be necessary really. As for the AI, your comment on "AI likes to merge" is apt. Part of the problem is how they fight BVR. Rather then pumping and turning cold, they often just do a max performance dive and dump all their altitude. I don't think there is code under the hood that is trying to get them merged, its just after both flights dump all their altitude in the process of evading the fights gonna be at close range from there. I will say one tip for the AI is you can sorta setup a simple grinder for initial shots. Tell them to hold position when ~40-50 miles out, and then around the time youre getting ready to launch missiles order them to engage. Its not perfect, but its a decent way to have them hot and shooting while you defend.
I still dont understand what dynamic campaign exactly means. what is the main fun part about it. I know that DCS outside of the cockpit and airframe everything is simply trash.
There is no need to create a mission when it comes to units everything is being made by the campaign. All you need to do is create your flight/package and you may have popup SAMs, a scramble of aircraft intercepting you, the battalion that you were attacking has moved, or a friendly flight created by the campaign took it out already. This goes on in the background even if you are not playing. I personally hate always having to create and place every unit when creating a mission.
I got a new rig because of the performance issues in dcs i had with with my older system. Now i gotva new system there are still performance issues with dcs no matter what the system. The game is very poorly optimized for VR. So i switched to BMS. The performance are very sweet and i think it doesn't look that awfull at all. I can enjoy low lvl flying or massive clusters fcks without any performance cutting to 45fps.
@@AviationPlus there’s so much responsibility in BMS (navigation, communication, TOS etc) that I could easily overlook the dated visuals. Plus it runs like a dream on VR with absolutely 0 stutters on my system.
@@AviationPlus a lot of knowledge i gained from BMS transfers to the DCS viper, but not vice versa. The A/A TGP function and bore sighting for the mavs don’t even work properly in DCS.
How is the ATC in DCS? Ground stutter on takeoff, clouds disappearing, no dynamic campaign... and costs about $50 more than BMS. Other than that, it's pretty.
I have never experienced the clouds disappearing like they did in this video, and I've been playing for about 9 months. Same with ground stutter, must be something on his side or he hasn't updated to the newer versions. Also, on the multiplayer side of DCS, there are a few dynamic campaigns. The ATC in DCS is just you bring up a menu, click an option and that's it. Not sure if you can use your voice to use the ATC there. Never tried BMS but it seems like a great sim if you don't consider the graphics.
@@znatrix the graphics in BMS have been improved greatly over the years, and the next large revision (4.38) likely due out ~end of this year will give DCS a good run "looks-wise". There are no real dynamic campaigns in DCS, though some are doing a pretty good job of simulating them within the limits of the engine. Reality is you can't really fathom the depth of a BMS dynamic campaign until you play it. The whole theater is involved, moving, changing every minute, damage being rebuilt by engineer divisions, ground forces moving, and on and on.. Graphics are secondary at best, and once you are at 20,000+ feet who cares how pretty the ground is? I own about 20 DCS modules (I got sucked in) and actually enjoy the WWII stuff the most...likely because it's close to the ground.
@@znatrix considering the cost is ~€6 to buy\install the original Falcon 4.0 (just for licensing issues) and BMS is 100% free the only thing holding you back is the learning curve..
I like theaters better we don't need the entire world if we are only going to use 10% of it for missions. Not sure if anyone wants to fly around South Africa.
HONESTLY within us in our heart. WHY people go to DCS? the answer is always for the GRAPHIC. There is no different answer, you don't go to DCS because the contents aren't there. FALCON's MILSIM is amazing how much deeper it is. Starting from ATC, with packages tied to the time factor, roadmaps, AI moving in the campaign that lasts for months. If you don't go there for the content, then, WHAT are we talking about? I repeat ED is similar to RSI of star citizen. think about it. If FALCON had the same graphics as DCS, NO ONE would be on DCS.aside from the money issue
As a DCS player I can say that DCS players chose DCS for not only the graphics but also variety of aircrafts, mods, easier controls&keybinding and better ui. I like Falcon BMS but especially the keybinds was a nightmare for me.
@@mcdonnelldouglasf-4ephanto607 ui changed a lot with the last patch, for me it's even easier than dcs in the full spectrum of the sim itself: pinky switch/dx switch doubles the buttons on my hotas for example, and mission editor is a lot more intuitive and faster than dcs
@Aviation Plus I had commented that I thought graphics don't look too bad and I had provided a link to one of my Balkans Campaign videos. Maybe it doesn't like me replying with a link? Or maybe I flat out forgot to hit the post comment button lol I was at work hehe
@@AviationPlus " but maneuvering targets not so much" - In SAM, antenna behavior look like priority track in Eurofighter and gripen. Antenna is searching, he rotates right-left, when Antena passes the bugged target, he changes elevation up-down to update bugged target position. The target's jinks should not break the lock in DCS. In DCS SAM have very stable lock, one of the most stable in DCS radars. Remember, that beam have beamwidth.
No proving that you can understand and carry out an orchestrated time line based on intel and capabilities of the other aircraft. While listening and working with your wingman and lead to support one another in a dynamic environment when closing speeds often exceed 1000 knots.
BMS has always been focused on maximum SIMULATION authenticity. DCS has always put more emphasis on realistic visuals. Both are more than adequately detailed and accurate to F-16 functions and performance for anybody who's not trying to use it for advanced F-16 training in a real world environment. Side note: Back when Falcon 4.0 was not yet an "old" title, at least one mod was delayed in its release because some data in it had to be changed because it was too close to matching classified performance data for the F-16 or certain systems/weapons of the time. Yes there was someone to check this info to ensure that it wasn't TOO authentic. I usually fly BMS simply because I have yet to make my DCS install work correctly with my VR headset.
As a former DCS pilot and now BMS pilot i have noticed huge gap between these 2 consoles..First off in DCS all weapons in a/a & a/g can open without MA ON and G-forces are not simulated...You can pull over 9G without avionics fault or weapons MAL...DCS offers only high detailed cockpit , ground graphics and of course the multiplayer...For all the above reasons DCS is not a sim..its a game!
There are 5 very confused people upvoting this comment. At best, DCS might have a flaw if those aircraft really prevents the avionics configuration from switching to AA or AG modes without Master Arm ON(for the F-16 and F/A-18). However, I doubt this is the case because of the simple fact that said aircraft must also be trained on so simulate/train has to do everything exactly the same up to the point of actually launching a weapon. Even if it is a bit off and AA/AG mode buttons don't wory until Master Arm = ON or TRAIN/SIMULATE, that's not such a big deal. Perhaps one day it'll be fixed in some patch. Those who do it correct are still working, and some who do it incorrectly are improperly working but wouldn't take much for them to find out and fix it. The next part also seems silly on its face. G-forces not simulated? Every flight simulator for 20 years does at least this much. Maybe you mean high G-forces negative impacting a specific weapons launch. I'm sure someone knows of a very specific condition DCS doesn't model yet - maybe AIM-7 doesn't launch if the plane is pulling over 3-4Gs, fine? But to suggest it's incapable is bullshit. In the A-10C if you have a GPS guided weapon and fly on autopilot straight and level for an extended period of time, the weapon status will change thinking something is possibly off with the INS alignment until you manuever just a slight bit, then it'll change back. I also know that in the F-16 you can lob dumb bombs furthering its range. Check out Gaffer's TH-cam videos so those bombs defintely know what the jet is doing when they come off the rail. Lastly, even the K-50 can lob rockets over hills/terrain to hit targets. I actually think DCS might have the most realistic ballistics and flight simulation on the consumer market. That is the reason why it's so CPU intensive. DCS's design assumption was to simulate everything going on in the entire battlefield in real time. Falcon 4.0 saved a ton of CPU cycles by only 2D+probabilitistically simulating anything outside of the player "bubble" which is probably something like a 50 mile radius of human player.
In a real F-16, If Master Arm is off, switching to A-A or A-G will still allow those modes to function- but you will NOT get hud cues or indicators for your selected weapons until the switch is set to Arm or Sim. Sim gives those cues, but simply cuts off firing voltage to all stations. In DCS, Master Arm off and Sim are the same thing. Master arm off will still give you missile/bomb cues. You can even uncage an aim-9 and have the seeker track in DCS with Master arm off, which is simply not possible IRL. As for the G's, he's probably talking about over-g of stores causing malfunctions, which is not modeled in DCS at all, but is in BMS.
@@theoldweaponstroop7441 Yup. Sounds like a short cut ED took with most of it's modules. Honestly, I'm ok with this. Honestly, I've always wondered why the simulator even has training munitions. I'm fine with them having training/simulation switching there, but also perfectly OK with them not being implemented correctly. It's a simulator, there's no real benefit to using the training/simulation mode. All that's left is the inaccurate modeling of Master Arm OFF showing weapons cues on the hud I guess. They should probably do that because it is sometimes strange to not realize you haven't turned it on except for weapons not firing. If it behaved realistically and didn't show you the cue, the player/pilot would sooner know what was up.
Love them both but when returning back to BMS from F4 and very older mods times, I felt how advanced it still is from many aspects (AI, Awacs, radios, systems, damage and dtc, specially the full dyn campaign) . The only downside, for me, in BMS is the lack of fully clickable cockpit, where DCS does a better job. E.g. i was blown away in disappointment that cockpit lights have still only 2 active rotations!? or MFD BRIGHT and CON is controlling basically both screens or cockpit lighting seems weirdly different than dcs or a real plane. And some few other stuff. Graphically i do not mind BMS, as it still looks OK and will get a better overhaul. I really do not like DCS sandbox style game, as it lacks content and gets very boring. MT is the key but not aways have time with friends. And those continuing and endless bugs ... ohh dear!
Clickable sure but remember in BMS you can manipulate your Transponder modes and turn them on and off. Perform more functions on the Threat Warning Prime. Not sure if DCS models OBOGS test and EPU test but ya to each their own.
@@AviationPlus yes, can fully agree with you and confirm. I love the iff and transponder details, test, failures/f-ack, realistic ecm etc that are much better and realistically implemented but where they fails, in my mind, are the active buttons like obogs/breathing switches does not have 100% coverage (i could not switch to 100% air or test the mask e.g), com1/2 buttons are not separated (as I understood only for mp usage) and communication goes automatically through one coms based on the page you are in (im used to srs communication in dcs), ecm button has only 2 buttons and no standby, jhmcs activates per on/off (i could not rotate to activate like in dcs), i could not understand tgp manual handover to mav, if its implemented at all, etc. Small things like these are a bit disappointment. I hope the team will make those more available in later upgrades. But, as you said, its more advanced and from time to time, I'm loving it more than dcs, currently. Even my flying buddy from dcs has switched almost fully over to bms. Still, there is so much to learn in bms (and read) that i might have a wrong view of it but at least a fresh view, where it could shine more and be the ultimate 🙂.
I have been trying to fly in MP with others in DCS but the F-16 still does not satisfy me still at this point it is going to take a lot to improve my experience. Some of what is lacking is not even with the F-16 but how DCS handles things when it comes to lack of being able to create your own threat circles and seeing your flight path before the flight.
the comparison must be made in the contents. DCS you pay and it's an empty sandbox, with no content. FALCON is a milsim. with complex campaigns and realistic simulation of all military procedures. The rest counts for zero.
Remember that the Mission editor exists and that multiplayer also exists. Also the modules come with a few missions and campaigns but overall seems like BMS has more difficulty/gameplay.
@@znatrix BMS multiplayer is an editor. ;) Linked only to one or more MISSION MAKER who have to write missions. Writing diverse missions on DCS is not easy and time consuming. Trust me need time to make valid missions. Except for the largest groups, mission makers are unlikely to keep up. We find ourselves doing single missions, for their own sake. Things are scripted, and with difficulty. On BMS you know well that A WHOLE WORLD MOVES during a campaign. It can last FULL MONTHS with an AI that thwarts you. Waypoints, and everything is TIME bound, and a packet has TIMES SET, and then everything else. THERE IS NO COMPARISON my friend, not to mention the flight model. Incredible how a product made a long time ago and modded can be superior to a company that does it for work. BUT LET'S ASK US HONESTLY WHY we go to DCS? the answer is always GRAPHICS. ;)
@@shr3dd3rbtw24 Thats all DCS is though. Just making mission after mission in order to complete a mission. Its beyond lame. Its just a "flight simulator". BMS is a combat flight sim. Been playing all Falcons since 3.0 and BMS has never bored me.
Shirts and merch here. Thanks for watching. aviationplus.creator-spring.com/?
I flew BMS online and Campaign mode for 10 years or so. And also DCS. Until I bought a VR headset. That was a gamechanger. It was then DCS only I'm afraid to say. I couldn't go back to 2d. But I always missed the feel of being in a changing World instead of a scripted sim. BMS released 4.37 with VR support. Now I'm back home. The graphics are poor compared to DCS but I don't care. I'm part of something again. Offline in a campaign I'm part of the war. I don't need to "pass" a point in the script to advance. If my flight's performance is poor and the target survives. I can re-task and try to destroy that target again, or I can choose a totally different flight. But the war has moved on a few hours by then. So the threats have changed dramatically. It might be a cake walk 12 hrs later, or you might not get off the ground because your airfield is getting attacked. A butterfly flaps it's wings in Kimpo sort of thing.
So have you tried BMS since VR support was added?
It's a bit less easy to set up and I find it less stable than DCS but it's fantastic and needs a good rig too though you no need a 4090ti and i9... works fine on my XR5700XT and i5-12600k at 72 fps with some tweaks !! You should give it a try !! And @Novacngood185 is right, the dynamic campaign is such a game changer !! nothing better than doing some interdiction or CAS in VR when the war is on !!
@@Spiretail BMS is VR is insane-- runs much better than DCS, looks pretty good, and you get that dynamic campaign. Much more immersive to me. Only problem is that I use a leap motion controller with finger mice to interact with cockpits in DCS, and that doesn't seem to work in BMS. If there's a way to get that hand tracking controller working in BMS, I'd probably only play BMS these days
@@Starmast3rmusic "clicking" where you look is possible in BMS though - that really made a huge difference for me when I figured it out!
BMS in VR is what I've been dreaming my whole life, since I was playing Lightning Simulator on ZX Spectrum.
Dynamic campaign, fog of war, those unexpected flights that crash into your path when you least expect, even if they are MiG-21s or 19s .... doesn't matter, they still change your mission 100%
Yesterday I crashed into a parachute and lost my FLCS ... went on to fight MiG-21s, I used rudder and suddenly I'm in a left hand fast flat spin unable to recover, something I've never seen in Falcon 4.0 ... amazing.
What I miss (I actually dislike a lot) in BMS is that they went to change the original Iron Fortress Pusan perimeter campaign and made it less hard. Iron Fortress is what I was playing on original F4. That was THE campaign to play from Taegu airbase ... others were boring. You had less than an hour to drop the closest 3 bridges to prevent your base from being overrun by DPRK mechanized units. Then you had about 3 more hours to drop another let's say 8 bridges and stabilize the frontline on Nakdong river. Then you could switch to BAI and Interdiction and start reducing bogged down enemy units behind the river. You could also retask ground forces to go and engage enemy ground units. In the evening first day you had time to start doing OCA and Deep strike.
That was THE BEST WAR in game. And it was removed. Sadly.
I nor could nor will ever play DCS. Scripted missions totally kill it for me.
Since I fly both simulations, I appreciate both - they both have excellent takes on the experience of flying the Falcon. Pilots of the type, on trying either of them promptly say 'I'm at work!' - which is more than good enough for me.
Falcon BMS for the F-16.
DCS for the F-18 (and all other jets and helicopter).
But I really love these aspects of BMS:
1) it loads in just 12 seconds (bamm, it runs)
2) dynamic campaign (offline or multiplayer)
3) almost everything of the F-16 is modeled and simulated
4) the AI is a lot more intelligent
5) it only costs 5$ ... really!
6) it does not crash
7) it gets better and better with every release and update (DCS is very slow in this regard)
But I "like" (don't love) DCS. It is the best simulation so far for all other jets. And yet ... it requires too much resources.
I Just got bms cause da viper is ma fav, i've got like 1000hr in DCS and I love the way I can fly an f18 or the a10 or even the up and comming f4e. I do enjoy the graphics of dcs but bms is just the viper and viper make me happy :)
DCS has a fairly decent flight model for helis. I would say the only part that isn't good is the change from hover to translational lift, but then again no sim gets that right. But if you were to practice hovering in DCS, you could do it IRL.
It's still hard to play MP in BMS? I saw there is a new update that almost brings the game to moderns standards, and I wonder if they improved MP connectivity
@@StoneCoolds what's supposed to be hard about the mp? It's just open two ports instead of one for DCS. There's no server browser, but it'd be a nonsensical addition given that 24/7 servers aren't really a thing in BMS.
Digital Cockpit Simulator
I never notice the 'poor' graphics when I'm on BMS because I'm actually immersed there.
This
Did you notice everything besides the F-16 and now F-15C in BMS are gap fillers with F-16 avionics? That is pretty poor for a "simulator"....
@@r4dio4ctiv3man9falcon bms is more of a war simulator than dcs it is limited in airframes but the scale depth and level of simulation put dcs to shame. DCS is flying a plane bms simulates being a fighter pilot in a war.
@@connorraab Especially the carrier operations in BMS put DCS to shame i guess...
@@r4dio4ctiv3man9 I'm pretty sure they will, soon hopefully :)
BMS has new terrain teed up with the next update, so looking forward to that.
After all these years, it's still Flanker 2.0 vs Falcon 4.0, Flanker 2.0 with dumb scripted mission and damage model vs Falcon 4.0 with awesome dynamic campaign.
There is nothing like the dynamic campaign and the ability to create mission very quickly.
I am into sumulators for 30 years and graphics is the last priority thing for me.
Truly, the most valuable thing in Falcon is the dynamic campaign. For me, the DCS is too much autistic. You load a mission, you know what is your target, you are pretty alone there. You meet 2 enemies, so you know, that if you shot them down, there is no other bandit in the air, so you are free to continue your mission although you are winchester. Every real and BMS pilot will turn back to home base, when he depleted all his AMRAAMs. Empty word in DCS. In BMS you feel you are in a war, not in a prescripted mission. In DCS if you sit still and do not take off for 1 hour and then you take off, you are free to bomb any target, no enemies will appear, just because they all already landed :D :D:D
Come on sir, that is pretty much exaggerated. There are tons of missions for DCS is were you not just shot down 2 or 3 enemies and then you are free to continue your mission. Yes, the missions are scripted, but the ME in DCS offers so much possibilities to make missions exaclty the opposite you just described. I suggest the Bold Cheetah campaign for the Hornet, it´s for free and one of the best campaigns i have ever played. Created with the help of former Navy pilots and highly immersive in terms of realistic radio calls, On-call-CAS procedures and lots of enemies surprising you. Only disadvantage is, you should have mastered the Hornet properly to be able to finish it as it demands usage pretty much all of the weapons and systems the Hornet does have, as well as AAR.
I cant live without any of them, i need them both. monogamy be dammed
From watching this and not having a full understanding of all the systems modelled etc and taking it from the viewpoint it was a trial evaluating competing electronics / Radar systems. It comes across to me that you feel more in control of what is developing moment by moment and how to attack and survive in the BMS Sim rather than DCS.
Well I am more familiar with BMS also DCS does not have the DLZ fully implemented with Husky and the Digital Maneuvering Queue in degrees. And the RWR gives me negative situational awareness because of the way it is implemented in DCS.
I prefer BMS these days; much more accessible, dynamic campaign, every single block of F-16 is simulated and it's very immersive; you play DCS for the graphics but you play BMS for the soul.
Every block is not simulated as the avionics is the same for all blocks in bms, you cant put togheter a true 80s scenario as you are flying with 90s something avionics with the hotas and mfds, early blocks did not have this
@@higaluto block 40 was late 80s and it had this avionics set up? For sure it had hotas
@@briantoplessbar4685 my point is you cant fly in a early 80s to mid 80s campain/mission and call it *realistic* because you dont have that early f16s in game *as in all blocks are modeled* because they are simply not
@@briantoplessbar4685 u dont have colored mfd's, JHMCS ,EHSI and EGI in late 80s block40
@@higaluto The most accurately simulated block in BMS is pre ccip HAF block 50s flown by 341 and 347 sqn.
BMS forever❤
1. I haven't touched DCS much since BMS added VR in 4.37.
2. The fake Link-16 in DCS is kinda cringe, as it's essentially a god-mode crutch for SA, but at least it's an attempt to have it, unlike BMS, which takes a "if we can't make it realistic, we won't model it" approach (an approach I kind of disagree with). I do like the process of confirming a bogey in BMS, as it feels like a realistic procedure (IFF+AWACS+TGP).
3. The dynamic campaign in BMS is still so good 20+ years later, and much more immersive and realistic than DCS's sandbox-style play and canned mission campaigns. I'm not sure if DCS could ever really do true dynamic real-time campaigns for performance reasons. Liberation is a decent alternative, but it's not the same, and performance is miserable.
4. Multiplayer is where it's at in DCS for better or for worse. Unfortunately, it also negates one of DCS's best strengths- multiple airframes- as people cry about "balance" in PvP.
5. BMS doesn't look nearly as bad as some would have people believe (especially in VR), but the terrain update needs to come fast. I'd happily use a 2D cloud option in DCS were it available to get some framerate in VR.
6. DCS's lack of actual ATC and AI comms in general makes the sim feel lifeless in single player. And having ATC would help so much in multi. Takeoff and landing is more hazardous than actual combat in DCS multi.
7. Lack of general faults and malfunctions in DCS is puzzling.
8. AMRAAM performance in DCS feels better. Although part of me feels like this is because the AI in BMS is better in BVR and can defeat missile shots outside of the highest probability zone.
9. DCS is still king when it comes to selection of aircraft. But to clear something up, people keep saying that the other flyable aircraft in BMS are just F-16 "reskins". This isn't true. The Hornet for instance, has it's own flight and performance model, and possible weapons loadouts and configs (can't put an HTS on a Hornet, for instance)- it's just that the avionics are all from the F-16. Still, it's not the same as having a full-fidelity model in DCS. I flew an entire campaign with the F-22 in BMS, and it was *very* different from the F-16.
10. Carrier ops in DCS are FAR superior. If you're a Navy guy, it's the way to go. Carrier ops in BMS are... serviceable.
11. From the standpoint of the F-16, the actual flying feels mostly the same in both sims.
Love the channel, by the way!
"he fake Link-16 in DCS is kinda cringe, as it's essentially a god-mode crutch for SA, but at least it's an attempt to have it" - It will be changed.
1. Funny enough, this lacking feature pre 4.37 didn't seem to really matter in DCS vs BMS before. Now that it's in BMS, it's lauded. It's revealing of how one side of the debate is acting (disingenuous).
2. Interesting to know. How Link16 should work is likely somewhat classified? Obviously it would benefit REDFOR to know how to prevent enemy fighters from successfully using it by jamming it, or injecting malicious, irrelevant, or incorrect information. If these are the dominant ideas that are missing, just like with detailed radar jammers, for a simulator environment I think it's best to fake-estimate these things. Any detailed conversations and attempt to become accurate is very clearly classified information, and in fact likely changes from year to year as EW is an evolving battle.
3. This is a strange claim to something DCS could never do when ED themselves literally announced they are working on it. And they aren't claiming some ridiculous release time that wouldn't measure up to the expectation either. I'm pretty sure their relevant road map called out first phase with multithreading (delivered in open bet a); next is a general mission scripting overhaul for performance as well (this is the phase where ideas like not fully simulating outside of player bubbles would enable greater performance); and then dynamic campaign engine is the final end goal. I wouldn't expect this to be delivered fully before late 2024 or more realistically 2025 but it's been laid out. ED is pulling in money and the list of modules is growing quite fast so I fully believe they are dedicade to these things.
4. Are we really listing player complaints about jet differences as downsides? Can we agree to ignore players that say silly stuff during a serious discussion?
5. I agree, BMS doesn't look that bad. It is very playable. Though I don't think clouds is where you're losing so much performance.
6. What? Perhaps the scripting around ATC comms is the first issue. But if ATC is more dangerous than combat, what server are you playing on?
7. Do you mean random or battle damage? The latter definitely happens, and random faults is a matter of mission design. I agree that there is an interesting layer added when you can successfully detect a fault with a plane before taking off, but what is the reward system for that? Do you get points for discovering a failure and properly spawning in a new plane? Or maybe requesting repair? This feels more a matter of forcing a more complete cold start procedure full with pre-flight checklist, and running all BIT and tests.
8. Apples and oranges. Doesn't really seem to sway how one sim might be substantially preferable unless the sticking point is AI.
9. Dev from BMS mentioned this; I don't agree with the idea that different performance characteristics = different flight model. That dev pretty much stated it like you did: it's the same flight model with different values. So what if an entirely different plane has an entirely different behavior that isn't modeled perfectly by how those tables + logic add up? I'm sure they can get fairly close, but spot on will always be a lack. I suspect things get work when you also add in flight control computers (FLCS, FCS).
10. I have DCS Super Carrier, it's decent, but nothing to write home about. I wouldn't lose much if I didn't see the animated dudes.
11. Can only comment from a video that both seem to be 99% the same in both sims in terms of pure flying.
1. I can only speak for myself, but VR was the main reason I stuck with DCS over BMS, as I really wanted to get back into dynamic campaign, but I refuse to play flight/racing sims on pancake mode :).
2. I'm okay with guesstimating classified systems within the realm of reasonable functionality. The debate about DL is how reasonable is it. The consensus is that it's not an all-seeing eye (with the F-16, 5th gen fighters are probably a different story).
3. I'd love to be proved wrong, but DCS would need a *massive* overhaul to be able to simulate a full scale conflict in real-time for dynamic campaigns, as it wasn't designed to do that. It can't evern do small ground battles without a performance hit. What we'll probably get is dynamically generated missions, or something like a baked-in Liberation.
6. ATC comm scripting? There *is* no ATC. There are voices that will give you a heading, and an arbitrary permission to land or takeoff (sometimes), but it does not actually control or schedule air/ground/approach traffic like BMS does. Supercarrier is a bit better in this regard, and in 2021 ED announced there would be an overhauling of the airfield ATC, but of course, nothing so far.
7. One example that comes to mind: In DCS, you cannot Over-G stores and have resulting malfunctions. You can pull 9'gs with AGM-88s on all day then put them on target. In BMS, there is the likelihood of station failure from breaching the g limits on stores. This may seem small, but it makes a huge difference in tactical decisions during combat, as you have to be more careful in BVR engagements if you still have your payload. Defending against SAMs with HARMs or Mavericks still on is trickier.
1. The VR implementation in BMS is more on a level of a VR mod (like the VR mod for GTA V or RDR2) instead of natural implementation like in DCS (not perfect too, but much better than with BMS and since the MT update, i at least get stable 90fps in VR).
2. The Link 16 has been updated in DCS with the last update and is now pretty realistic. At least that´s what the real F-16 and Hornet pilots say.
3. The dynamic campaign is indeed something i miss in DCS, but not realy a reason for me to play more BMS. It´s a very complex project and will propably still need some time, but will come to DCS.
4. Not realy what i experienced. Blueflag does not realy balance and their servers are always full.
5. Again, since the MT update, the VR performance is great in DCS.
6. A new ATC system is on the roadmap. The Supercarrier already has a few features of the new ATC system and it is very promising.
7. This can be set up in the mission editor. G-load damage for ordonance is a requested task in DCS, but high g-load does in fact damage your aircraft (will rip the wings off i.e. your Strike Eagle or, depending on how much over-G you´re pulling, will at least bend them visually and technically).
8. The AI in DCS has recently been updated and will get further updates. The AI now acts way more realistic in both BVR and ACM.
9. Exactly that´s the point. They all have the avionics of an F-16, wich makes them all an F-16 with slightly different FM and different skin. No excuses, other airframes in BMS are not on a simulator level but more on the level of a helpless gap filler.
10. This
11. Confirmed. The F-16 in BMS is still better imo, as it is more polished and covers different Blocks. If one is only interested in the F-16 and different version of it, BMS is the way to go.
@@r4dio4ctiv3man9
1. That is 100% false. The VR in BMS is as natural as it is in any other VR sim. Since BMS updates are direct to the source code, it isn't a "mod". The VR performance is roughly even with the last BMS update. DCS just looks better as the graphics engine is more modern.
3. DCS has a hundred other things to fix before even getting to DC. The game is simply not designed for it, unlike BMS. DCS is a scenario/sandbox game and it will likely stay that way.
6. Even supercarrier ATC is leagues behind BMS's actual ATC. And "roadmap" may as well mean "when we get to it in a few years".
7. DCS still doesn't model for G-overload of stores on the F-16. You can pull 9gs with AGM-88 and no malfunctions, where as the stations should fail at about 5-6 Gs.
9. Actually with the last BMS update, the F-15c is fully modeled with it's own avionics- it's even modeled more fully than the DCS F-15c.
Calm, rational manner? Holy cow, I'm out, lol! Nice work, good comparison. I don't usually have as much don't notice the problems as you, or, maybe I'm focused on staying alive, lol!I haven't flown BMS for some time but I always enjoyed it. I do envy the comms which are much better, especially on the ground. I am eternally hopeful DCS will continue to improve, but they have so many issues to deal with, trying to get their ducks in a row it is difficult, like herding cats, lol!
I don't fly the 16 in DCS.
It's the best sim of the Warthog, the F14 Tomcat, and many other combat airframe experiences. I can fly online every day and never get bored or run out of things to learn.
I will say that BMS is a very impressive & realistic F16 sim and campaign in its specific niche.
And for the AH-64D Apache....
Been playing DCS for 4 years the F-16 being one of my main modules. But after watching more BMS videos I want to give it a try.
I try to play the DCS F-16 but it is difficult in the current state that it is in. I can't spend more than a few hours a month flying it with out getting annoyed and going back to BMS.
My take on seeing each of these sims, portrayed "side by side", is that they are on a course of merging. Each has different aspects that one may do better than the other and aspects that are very comparable. Given enough time the two may become close analogs of the other. I look forward to seeing these changes, to see the evolution unfold for each.
BMS is working on graphics which doesn't need evidence of. DCS on the other hand the RWR is atrocious and makes zero logical sense of how it functions. Good luck getting ED to change that even though it was more accurate when it first released.
I never had this odd cloud effects like you have in DCS
Ya it was because I chose dynamic weather did not know DCS would still provide old clouds.
@@AviationPlus That explains it, I was sure the clouds had been updated a long time before this video was uploaded! I really am looking forward to them finishing the weather system update, but considering how long it took them to get clouds to move with the wind I'm not holding my breath for it any time soon.
For new player don't want invest too much, Falcon BMS is answer.
DCS offers graphics and a greater variety of aircrafts and maps to fly, with a price of course. Main issue is how heavy DCS is (unplayable with low fps) for mid ranged PCs. BMS is extremely smooth with exceptional fps and relaxed eyes experience. Yes terrain graphs aren’t the greatest but the way campaigns work in conjunction with your flying performance, proper weapon systems and cockpit functions, i would even dare to say that I enjoy flying physics more in BMS too,as the jet feels more responsive with better deceleration acceleration and turn rates. Also AI threats are way more lethal in BMS than DCS. BMS with a proper graphics update will be a no brainer.
Have you heard of Multi-threading?
I must say MT has made DCS a little more playable for me with higher FPS.
That's my view also. I flew BMS for 10 years before VR came out. I flew mainly DCS once I bought a VR headset. But I always missed the "alive" feeling of BMS. Now that BMS has VR it's a game changer for me. Back to BMS for me. I will probably buy the Tornado and Euro fighter when released. But...
@@MitjaBonca Valid argument but it has been upgraded since. It’s not the same
Both sims fill their niche suitably but Falcon BMS comes out on top purely because it marries being both a video game and a specialized simulator into one package. With the amount of work put into it, the only thing that beats Falcon BMS is DCS just on visuals alone; but the flight model, the dynamic campaign, and the fact that they're working on full-fidelity cockpits for the aircraft that are flown by AI in the sim make it stand out above DCS--for 1/8th the cost of a single airframe model on DCS.
The fact that you can also fly a full-fidelity F-15C despite the original game being designed specifically for the F-16 and its blocks is just the cherry on top.
0:43 simply press 1 or 2 or 3 button on keyboard. It will change clouds to static, will no longer rotate.
Well Falcon has been developed for decades by Micropros ( formerly Spectrum Holobyte ), Falcon released back in 1987. While DCS started as SU-27 for dos in 1995 ( other iterations in order, Flanker, Flanker 2.0, Lock on, Flaming Cliffs, then DCS ) Back then Falcon was as real as it gets, and still is, DCS comes close but is limited by how the engine functions.
BMS team has become part of the reformed Micropros publisher and is making great strikes in updating the engine to look better and better as well as bringing in other full fidelity aircraft which currently is the F-15C. Eventually Falcon will turn into a full on DCS contender.
For who does the F-16 best, that will be Falcon, again many years of development behind it on one aircraft.
So funny that DCS competes with this
@@ThePotentialFailure Debatable if it competes the users have two totally different mindsets and expectations.
Dcs is a business model, bms is a combat aviation simulation made by the fans for the fans. Very different perspectives.
Yes very different perspectives and very different mindsets of customers, which might be skewed due to the amount of money to purchase content.
1). If you fly F-16 or F-15C, then BMS wins hands down.
2). If you fly Russian jets or F-18C, or Helicopter: DCS wins hands down. (BMS has some more aircraft in its pipeline...but its a community works).
3). Graphics: DCS wins, but BMS is pretty impressive with 4K updates, but it has its limit. DCS is beautiful at its full setting.
4). If you want a dynamic campaign or immersive environment, BMS wins by far. You really feel like you are a part of something big. It gets tense, and it really gets you involved. DCS lacks this part. HOWEVER, there is are servers ran by community (like Enigma's Cold War server), that can get you involved and experience the campaign. But still, you simply cannot beat the complexity, tension, and design of Falcon 4's original dynamic systems - and considering its based on nearly 20 year old system, that is very impressive.
5). If you want VR support - its a tie (both DCS and 4.37.4 supports native support now) - as for VR set, you get what you pay for. Both will get you to be very engaged.
6). Multiplayer - both are good, but both have its own share of bugs. So I say its a tie again.
7). Realism - My real life flight experience consists of airline travels and occasionally being thrown off from my bike (in my younger days). In my opinion, for F-16 only, BMS is a bit more realistic...but that's just my opinion based on my own personal interpretation of its flight characteristics. As for the comparison to real life flight characteristics, there are more qualified TH-camrs who can give more accurate accounts (like Mover). But it will take you quite a bit of time for anyone to learn entire systems in both games. It's not easy, but its fun!
Summary: GET BOTH! :D. It's a good time to be a sim player!
Not sure what you are trying to show in the video.
It seems a showcase of cockpit sounds.
Other than that, beautiful skies.
The TGP in the DCS viper is extremely glitchy, even in AG mode.. It's quite frustrating.
its more realistic and also they're different blocks one was made in the 90s other was more recent
To be a pilot you sure notice details in dcs
Not sure if I understand.
Hey AP, I just notice you have this video cause it pop up in my screen while I watch TH-cam to accompany my meal time. I might said, both of the sim have their decent strength and terrible weakness spot. BMS, very excell in term of physics and math occured in jet, missile, seeker, radar, RWR. Not everything is perfect there, for example, DEAD against stationary SAM except SA-10, HARM is overmodelled by the INS guidance that superseeded the radar homing guidance. In BVR missile, it brings real world reality none can compared. My Uncle that work in that industry since 1990 verify that BVR missile in BMS is way more closer into reality, while DCS so far away and more game like. And, I forgot, either I got it from you or other channel, I think from you, weave and fly like snake defending, effectively bleed any BVR / long range missile. It is true in reality, far more worse actually the energy bleed that happened. MAV-JP realy made serious work into it. But, BMS lack of consistenty in term of modern color profile. Once the visor down, the effect is far more like kill the tone instead of mimic the visor effect. HUD readability also seriously hampered in daylight, cause the green is yellowish and not like highlight green. Compare to the DCS, they mimic the visor effect in HUD, so the green is more sparkle there. In term of massive combat deployment, every military personel in my circle said, BMS is unbeatable. You can not goes low, cause gopher wait you below 10k. The beauty of BMS in non online i really liked is just you can made the R-77 more harder to tame. I do it to compensate the way the AI model which just cold and at the certain point pull up, or rarely turn. As I mention above, BMS model air thickness pretty well, so against any BVR missile, in dueling like that, I often tempted to do disrespectful manouver by just crank right, their missile pitbul, I change my crange left while nose low, hit notch, climb, done. AI still defending I am already 22k++ with 0.9mach ++. This is the strength of BMS, in other side, the graph is their homework to dig in seriously. If you compare 4.35 with 4.36 and 4.37, you might notice the light in "benchmark TE" is different. 4.36/4.37 really messed up with yellow is greenish, and green is yelowish. Made the pretty and well maintenance runway looks like full of dirt by the yellow greenish light in tarmac. 4.35, bright nice light. This the reason I use reshade sometimes with default "Fake HDR" and Default "Colorfulness" to strengthen the blue, correcting the yellow, and green in BMS. At the other side, if I wanna refresh my eyes by looking some goodlooking things in air, I watch DCS. Once I played and buy it, and completely dumped it cause "LGB can illuminate target precisely" even TGP can't see it in zero visibility weather. For me, it just like a sin, as the same feeling with kill SA-2-3-5 in BMS with harm. Later on, I messed up with 4.35 more, and for sure, SA-10 replacing SA-5 and more SA-6 and SA-4 replacing the SA-2-3 so I have to use harm correctly to kill them cause they're moving. With Harm against SA-2-3, set precission stpt using recon, set target isolate parameter with SD (not flex not glide), SAM Radar almost guaranteed hit both they're on or off. This a bit off actually, and made me felt like sinner everytime I did it 😁😁😁. Aight, have a good time AP, I thing I've just dropped too much here
This is a lot to digest but yes every sim has their pros and cons, but right now and specifically the F-16 in DCS does not do it for me right now.
@@AviationPlus for me also in every technical aspect of combat flight sim DCS does not do. The graph, they did it beautifully. The mechanics, physics, and the consequences of that, they messed a lot. BMS at the other side, messed up a lot with graphic things like "color consistency" like color gamut, but marvelous work at the mechanical things. Even some sort of "classified number" they already figure it out with their way (example : phyton 5 max speed and turn ability).
BMS is awesome but I still prefer DCS. The Viper has come a long way in DCS too, and will close the gap with the BMS Viper as they finish up the development roadmap.
Big negative for me with BMS is the lack of available flyable jets. No full fidelity Tomcats or other amazing fighters to go along with the Viper. The Hornet in BMS is just a re-skin, so it doesn't count.
Grateful we have both sims as flight simulation enthusiasts!
That about to change greatly
I dont think block50 will complete...so no iff in-out in roadmap...no ufh-vhf....no fuel switch..only sniper pod...by the way...how it start up?? 😁😁😁
I think I'm the only person who prefers BMS graphics. At least in Korea theater where sky is typically hazy / marine air. The shadows all over the Nevada ground-textures on DCS don't seem to align with the position of the sun, at all? I find it disorienting and fake-looking. But ofc I wish BMS had higher-fidelity terrain and textures, too.
Nevada's a pretty weak map, tbqh. I think Syria is definitely the best showing of the level of detail DCS can offer (for the right price, of course!)
The Terrain in BMS is literally the same segments put together again and again.
Video game fans like DCS...Viper fans fly BMS
Cringe comment. Try flying a Mi-24P or F/A-18 in BMS.
@@HumbleSiPilot77 Unimportant. The comment is still retarted as an F/A-18 fan is not just a video game fan only because he chooses the full fidelity DCS Hornet, instead of the poor Hornet skin with F-16 avionics in BMS. Same for the Strike Eagle, F-14, Apache, KA-50, Mirage 2000, Mirage F1, Harrier, Warbirds aso, aso.
Bullshit.
Calm, rational discussion while subtly backhanded trashing DCS players...that's really mature.
This is a beaten topic. Dynamic campaign is amazing and untouched in flight simulation for all time. BMS has a more complete and accurate F-16 avionics model for the various blocks. I think when it comes to the F-16 flight model, neither outclasses the other. BMS has better AI airman/wingman AI. Anything else BMS actually does better?
I think what players should fly boils down to this question: "what is your flight simulation end game?"
* Pick BMS if the absolute most detailed modeling of a single aircraft is all you care about, and that aircraft is the F-16
* Pick BMS if the most expansive feeling and rewarding single player scenario is your goal
* Pick BMS if you're OK with mutliplayer being limited to coordinated, tight knit group multiplayer scenarios
* Pick DCS if you care about which has the better graphics a lot
* Pick DCS if you want to fly planes other than the F-16
* Pick DCS if you want to fly helicopters
* Pick DCS if you're eventually going to get sick of flying on the same map
* Pick DCS if you want to access multiplayer server environments more easily and more casually
* Pick DCS if you enjoy flying in an multiplayer environment with other players flying different planes, roles, and missions with all of them capable of interacting and helping each other out
* Pick DCS if you care about sound quality
People list off a ton of cons with DCS and forget two key things: first is that DCS is very actively developed. It has a roadmap with major features that'll improve the current modules you already own. We saw the major performance update with multithreading, and we know a rehaul of the campaign/mission engine is underway to move towards dynamic campaign is in progress. We also know that a Vulkan graphics renderer is in the works to extract even more performance (and maybe crazily...Linux support?). Second thing with the number of articulated DCS cons is that DCS has vastly more scope to poke at. Falcon BMS is an ice cream shop that sells one flavor of ice cream that is unquestionably very good. DCS is a mall of ice cream shops, and Eagle Dynamics only one of the shops inside. Some of the flavors are not super refined and you can mention weaknesses. Make fun of the large number of early access planes all you want, but make no mistake, the Ka-50, A-10C, and the F/A-18 is quite complete. Though in early access, the AH-64D and F-16C are already quite flyable with a majority of their core capability. Add what third parties like RAZBAM and Heatblur have added to the mix such as the F-14, AV-8, Mirage 2000, etc. and how is it even a fair comparison? I got nothing against someone who knows they just want to fly the F-16, or someone who decides their combat flight simulation career only needs to care about one aircraft; but if that isn't you then BMS is quite a non-starter.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Only Bashing DCS? Must have missed the memes at 1:00
1:19 2:09 2:48 3:14 Sorry about the clouds did not think DCS would have old clouds for the dynamic weather option. 6:33 If you think me just pointing out things in DCS that I notice different like the HUD moving, having to adjust buttons and Chaff Flare because they are not auto set then I am not sure what to say. I am sure everyone knows that DCS does not have a DTC right now and that is a very big turn off for me.
This is a legitimate topic. Below are debatable beaten topics
Early Access Modules from ED being VERY early access is a beaten topic
BMS getting VR was a beaten topic
BMS not having DCS graphics is a beaten topic
Waiting for Early Access Modules to come out of Early Access is a beaten topic
What DCS Module is easiest?
Everyone knows BMS has 90's graphics.
Everyone knows BMS has old UI.
Everyone knows BMS is an F-16 sim.
Everyone knows DCS has better graphics
Everyone knows DCS has more modules
Everyone knows BMS and DCS have different things as can be seen in the comments below.
For the most part I placed two similar videos and had others discuss. There is not enough time to explain everything but you really hit the nail on the head if you want only the F-16, BMS is for you and if you want other aircraft, graphics and helicopters DCS is for you. As for me I won't get tired of the F-16 I am always learning new things even though I am flying the same aircraft.
What is OK about planning for a weekly 30 player package with SEAD, DEAD, STIKE, ESCORT, BARCAP and GCI in a campaign that you can continue with the same folks next week. Then during the week there are many planned 10 player packages.
This is not the only thing but in a simulator
I should not be able to pull 8Gs with 2 bags 2 GBU 31 and not have some sort of consequence
I should not be able to cycle my landing gear at 400 knots and it be just fine
I should be able to use the cursor bump to manipulate my radar azimuth in TWS
This is why we have these discussions because as long as DCS BMS are a thing this will always come up. There will always be new folks wondering what to play and this is one of the many places to create their own opinion.
I was pretty sure everyone would be mature enough to not get totally offended. This must have gone over someones head.
Truly thanks for your comment this videos purpose was to have calm, rational discussions.
DCS has potential but ED is not doing the right thing. The Viper is not perfect but it’s been said by those that know the Viper under performs while the Hornet over performs. It gets old when ED says per publicly available information yet other aircraft and weapons seem to work better then what is publicly available. My 2 cents.
@@bryananderson3422 "it's been said" is not going to cut it. As reputable and credible someone on an online forum may seem claiming to be an (ex?) pilot or maintainer of a jet, ED would require either a formal business relationship that includes proof of who the person is and their prior experience, or reference to a public document they are legally allowed to use. Outside of that, it's just voices complaining. That's what it is to be a published title versus beign a mod that can go in a direction that serves community popularity and complaint volume. Essentially, BMS can let the popular vote win; ED sticks to a doctrine. In the interview a month ago with the main BMS dev, this was pretty obviously a difference as BMS will never take monetary donations because it does force them to behave differently when it comes to how and when they make changes. Accepting money has advantages, and disadvantages. If someone paid you, and later found out you just listened to some con artist on the internet about what you put in your paid product, that'll hurt. With BMS, it can be overlooked if it "looked legit" and didn't completely feel like a B.S. change.
I'd call the difference apples and oranges, because there are so few people who really really know the answers to this question. Honestly, it also pushes the envolope in what might be classified information about and it's easier for any current or ex pilot to err on the side of caution and refuse to comment. Even a real pilot may forget or not realize something about conditions that maybe suggest why a plane behaves a certain way and is why they ARE wrong. Maybe the FLCS/FCS had revisions, or maybe the conditions they experienced one thing or another were still different. I'm a software engineer for non-flight-sim stuff, and I've seen/responded to requests from consumers who feel something should work a certain way and 95% of the time, the ask is super incomplete when you get down to the details and they really don't care what else about the entire system breaks or fails to make sense, they just want the overall behavior they're asking for. So when I see something like "oh, the F-16 doesn't corner that way at 3000ft and 350kts" up front I can think of: 350 IAS or TAS? What's the aircraft weight, atmospheric pressure, what changes might have happened over time with the aircraft with it's flight computer (if we're talking fly-by-wire)?
Lastly, are you actually claiming that the differences you read about online personally and substantially hinder your DCS experience? Or are you mostly influenced by the fact that most people praise BMS's accuracy and your affinity (may?) lie there and thus differences you notice in DCS now feel offensive to you? If the avonics systems and models themselves didn't change, but everyone online was claiming DCS was actually more accurate, would you still prefer BMS's modeling? Last I checked the internet is full of F-16 fanboys (even within DCS) so I can kind of see why so many want it to perform so well. But again, exact radar and weapons ranges are exactly what is likely super classified unless you're going back to stuff that came out 30+ years ago maybe. Again, there's a reason why real ex or current pilots completely do not engage in those discussions, but the ones who aren't do.
Coincidentally, I also used to work substantially with classified information (search and discovery DIA/DNI FINTEL), and it makes sense to just avoid having conversations anywhere near what you know to be classified. It's too easy to indirectly reveal a classified truth. And just so you know, if information we know to be classified is somehow available in an (ostensibly) public document, we still cannot affirm that said information is true or not, or verify what the classification of the information should be. So if pilot A knows the range of radar/weapon is Y, but believes that information is classified; it doesn't matter if some online dude-bro finds an unofficial doc (neither from manufacturer or military branch). If someone at ED knows that information is classified and the latest truly unclassified document says something different, that is the truth from ED's perspective.
@@AviationPlus I am having an extremely rational discussion. Bias becomes obvious you're unable to tap into the mindset of both sides of an issue and the jokes only truly pierce one way. If you actually pushed information like expected, I was eager (and expected) to learn how BMS did more justice for the F-16 in this scenario. I was hoping to be motivated to open up BMS for the highest fidelity F-16 modeling, and could easily pair it down for DCS.
Maybe you're not aware that you're virtual signaling true flight sim values and instilling it in BMS players and taking it away from DCS players. Sure, you're acknowledging some obvious and caual shortcomings of BMS, but at the same time you're memeing that it doesn't really matter to "the true simmer." I actually left my comment predominantely because of what I saw at 1:00 in and the next minute and stopped watching because of how it was tracking. I have since finished and rest of the video, but it fails to offer substantive comparison for even the limited scenario across both sims.
* Which SIM has more realistically bevaving RWR + sounds?
* Which sim has the more realistically behaving radar? (though this is something most people have to take with massive grain of salt)
* Which sim has more functional AI wingmen+comms to accomplish the mission?
* Does the modeled ECM/jammer functionality make a difference?
* Is the HUD symbology or behavior on one substantially incomplete or misbehaving?
There's a mention that DCS lacks a DTC (true); and you further qualify this for DCS start-up having to repeat some processes because you always have a blank/default jet config at mission start. You mention that BMS doesn't seem to have Link16, but is that a real thing missing from the block 40 variant? I noticed the HSD was different in BMS, but that could also be a variant thing. You don't seem to care to comment: so do I need to read the f***ing manual? I'm so dumb I don't even know the answer to this already? Maybe I'm being labled as a filthy casual for not knowing the difference. With a simmer mindset, so it's fine that there are actual differences between the block 40 and block 50, but why subtitle it and then say nothing about it? You have no point; you're offering no information, just memes and super shallow differences.
Every thing you affirm that is perhaps a shortcoming of BMS is actually subtly, not really a shortcoming for a real simmer except for the last one on this list:
* BMS "read the manual" isn't a real knock against the BMS community or the sim; it is actually the opposite and is a prideful thing for the true flight simmer. Whether it's reading a manual, or watching TH-cam tutorial, of course a player who doesn't know what's going on and doesn't understand the systems shouldn't succeed. There is no easy button to "turn on radar and lock the target I magically intend to lock up, arm the jet and fire the missile." That is a good thing when either sim models the real behavior: it works when it is supposed to, and doesn't work when it is not supposed to. Even DCS players believe and understand that. You're essentially highlighting "BMS is more hardcore so players seem to have a tougher time escaping the manual."
* BMS worse graphics isn't a true complaint because it's just so obvious and not worth discussion. BMS players have no pride in graphics and would easily tell anyone, "go play the other one" as any true simmer would. If graphics were king, we should all be playing MSFS or Battlefield 3/4 jets in awe of the visuals. I happen to know that combat jets have some seriously bad modeling in both even if their visuals (in some areas) are better. You're literally signaling to true simmers: "hey, graphics don't really matter when the avionics and flight is sub-par." It's a trap for those who picked DCS for better graphics: iot reveals who's not hardcore enough ";-)" That makes the compliments you had in the DCS portion backhanded. And also, why bother mentioning the cloud pop-in? That's a product of one of your graphics settings. I see no pop-in like that.
* BMS "only models the F-16" is also worn like armor. It's super obvious and cannot be escaped by a rational person. But even you eagerly qualify it by saying "I'm always learning new stuff with just the F-16." In a recent interview with a BMS dev, I could hear as one question was laid out, the interviewer was putting forth a fantasy that BMS would easily have many jets modeled just like in DCS. While a technical possibility, as confirmed by the dev, a realistic impossibility. So this one kind of reveals the one real downside BMS players actually sensitive about.
Everything is biased. There is no such thing as removing bias entirely so what you should aim to do is validate perspectives. "If you're looking for ____, then ____ serves you better." People who try to use humor memes that pretends to poke fun of both sides almost always fail at hiding their actual bias. It only gets revealed. Again: bias becomes obvious you're unable to tap into the mindset of both sides of an issue and the jokes only truly pierce one way.
@@EbonySeraphim I read what you had to say and this video was not a comparison or verses. It was simply BVR in both sims with some memes and voice over. I wanted the comments to discuss. I guess I should have been silent then but what good would that have been. No one has time to compare two sims and not have something in real life to compare it to. You mentioned classified a lot so you understand.
Trying to compare what sim is more realistic without the REAL portion is not how one deems something realistic. This would only compare two attempts at reality.
Like I mentioned before
I should not be able to pull 8Gs with 2 bags 2 GBU 31 and not have some sort of consequence
I should not be able to cycle my landing gear at 400 knots and it be just fine
I should be able to use the cursor bump to manipulate my radar azimuth in TWS
Stuff like RWR, Radar and ECM accuracy is something I am not willing to talk about.
There are a few comparison videos out there every one will have bias and there is nothing that can be done about that.
Note that all I have really flown is DCS, I don't fly the Viper, and I spend a lot of time tinkering in the mission editor:
For me the big thing BMS seems to really do better is the AWACS and AI implementation. The BMS AWACS just seems superior in every way, calling out groups rather than planes, basing calls off bullseye, and being able to ID targets. DCS campaigns these days have taken to using pre recorded AWACS calls as theyre so much better. With what the BMS system seems to offer, I don't think that would even be necessary really.
As for the AI, your comment on "AI likes to merge" is apt. Part of the problem is how they fight BVR. Rather then pumping and turning cold, they often just do a max performance dive and dump all their altitude. I don't think there is code under the hood that is trying to get them merged, its just after both flights dump all their altitude in the process of evading the fights gonna be at close range from there.
I will say one tip for the AI is you can sorta setup a simple grinder for initial shots. Tell them to hold position when ~40-50 miles out, and then around the time youre getting ready to launch missiles order them to engage. Its not perfect, but its a decent way to have them hot and shooting while you defend.
so, is BMS the same thing as Falcon 4.0, just renamed?! i'm a bit confused.
@@paddygaming4856 It is a modernized modification of Falcon 4.0. Its like saying Lock On Modern Combat is the same as DCS.
@@AviationPlus thanks, all clear now.
I still dont understand what dynamic campaign exactly means. what is the main fun part about it. I know that DCS outside of the cockpit and airframe everything is simply trash.
There is no need to create a mission when it comes to units everything is being made by the campaign. All you need to do is create your flight/package and you may have popup SAMs, a scramble of aircraft intercepting you, the battalion that you were attacking has moved, or a friendly flight created by the campaign took it out already. This goes on in the background even if you are not playing.
I personally hate always having to create and place every unit when creating a mission.
I got a new rig because of the performance issues in dcs i had with with my older system. Now i gotva new system there are still performance issues with dcs no matter what the system. The game is very poorly optimized for VR. So i switched to BMS. The performance are very sweet and i think it doesn't look that awfull at all. I can enjoy low lvl flying or massive clusters fcks without any performance cutting to 45fps.
AI in DCS put up a much better fight. Wasnt even close.
I play DCS to chill and BMS to experience combat aviation.
Ya DCS is pretty but Digital Combat Simulator is not living up to its name. Having Combat is important not just looks.
@@AviationPlus there’s so much responsibility in BMS (navigation, communication, TOS etc) that I could easily overlook the dated visuals. Plus it runs like a dream on VR with absolutely 0 stutters on my system.
@@AviationPlus a lot of knowledge i gained from BMS transfers to the DCS viper, but not vice versa. The A/A TGP function and bore sighting for the mavs don’t even work properly in DCS.
How is the ATC in DCS? Ground stutter on takeoff, clouds disappearing, no dynamic campaign... and costs about $50 more than BMS. Other than that, it's pretty.
I have never experienced the clouds disappearing like they did in this video, and I've been playing for about 9 months. Same with ground stutter, must be something on his side or he hasn't updated to the newer versions. Also, on the multiplayer side of DCS, there are a few dynamic campaigns. The ATC in DCS is just you bring up a menu, click an option and that's it. Not sure if you can use your voice to use the ATC there.
Never tried BMS but it seems like a great sim if you don't consider the graphics.
@@znatrix the graphics in BMS have been improved greatly over the years, and the next large revision (4.38) likely due out ~end of this year will give DCS a good run "looks-wise". There are no real dynamic campaigns in DCS, though some are doing a pretty good job of simulating them within the limits of the engine. Reality is you can't really fathom the depth of a BMS dynamic campaign until you play it. The whole theater is involved, moving, changing every minute, damage being rebuilt by engineer divisions, ground forces moving, and on and on.. Graphics are secondary at best, and once you are at 20,000+ feet who cares how pretty the ground is? I own about 20 DCS modules (I got sucked in) and actually enjoy the WWII stuff the most...likely because it's close to the ground.
@@gradocchio Sounds amazing! I really should try it some day
@@znatrix considering the cost is ~€6 to buy\install the original Falcon 4.0 (just for licensing issues) and BMS is 100% free the only thing holding you back is the learning curve..
You should get it now on GoG. com. Atari did some stuff and it going to be removed from GoG on the 27th of April.
MIcroprose needs to release Flacon World and have it use the whole world
I like theaters better we don't need the entire world if we are only going to use 10% of it for missions. Not sure if anyone wants to fly around South Africa.
DCS so real they didnt even bother to put in a pilot body
@@tahzib1451 They do now. However focus should definitely be elsewhere.
does the bms sunglasses(idk what its called) visor is really a feature in this video or just a edit?
The visor is a game feature not an edit.
@@AviationPlus can u tell me the control? im really needing it cuz the sun burn my eyes when im fighting above 15k feet
@@DemCampurz Alt V
@@AviationPlus thanks man I'll appreciate it
Why did you take off with ews turned on?
Did I? Well good thing it does not affect anyone.
BMS has more accurate F-16 Flight model than DCS. There is a comparison video between BMS, DCS and real F-16. And BMS is for free :D:D:D
Is that active RADAR tone in BMS realistic?
Most of us will never know.
Fox away ... which fox???
HONESTLY within us in our heart. WHY people go to DCS? the answer is always for the GRAPHIC.
There is no different answer, you don't go to DCS because the contents aren't there. FALCON's MILSIM is amazing how much deeper it is. Starting from ATC, with packages tied to the time factor, roadmaps, AI moving in the campaign that lasts for months.
If you don't go there for the content, then, WHAT are we talking about?
I repeat ED is similar to RSI of star citizen. think about it.
If FALCON had the same graphics as DCS, NO ONE would be on DCS.aside from the money issue
Couldn’t have say it any better. Agree 💯
@@simgaminglifeofficial What are you doing here 😂😂
As a DCS player I can say that DCS players chose DCS for not only the graphics but also variety of aircrafts, mods, easier controls&keybinding and better ui. I like Falcon BMS but especially the keybinds was a nightmare for me.
@@mcdonnelldouglasf-4ephanto607 Just leaving my 2 cents on the topic. 🤓🙌
@@mcdonnelldouglasf-4ephanto607 ui changed a lot with the last patch, for me it's even easier than dcs in the full spectrum of the sim itself: pinky switch/dx switch doubles the buttons on my hotas for example, and mission editor is a lot more intuitive and faster than dcs
7:22 Why?
Why what?
Dang, was my comment removed?
I don't see anything on my end.
@Aviation Plus I had commented that I thought graphics don't look too bad and I had provided a link to one of my Balkans Campaign videos.
Maybe it doesn't like me replying with a link? Or maybe I flat out forgot to hit the post comment button lol
I was at work hehe
Shadowbanned. TH-cam hates links nowadays.
You don't have to track the target in STT, in DCS SAM lock is very stable and have good precision as like in reality.
It's a habit. I can see SAM stable for stable targets but maneuvering targets not so much, as for reality maybe, maybe not.
@@AviationPlus " but maneuvering targets not so much" - In SAM, antenna behavior look like priority track in Eurofighter and gripen. Antenna is searching, he rotates right-left, when Antena passes the bugged target, he changes elevation up-down to update bugged target position. The target's jinks should not break the lock in DCS. In DCS SAM have very stable lock, one of the most stable in DCS radars. Remember, that beam have beamwidth.
BVR? What's the point? Proving you can push a button?
No proving that you can understand and carry out an orchestrated time line based on intel and capabilities of the other aircraft. While listening and working with your wingman and lead to support one another in a dynamic environment when closing speeds often exceed 1000 knots.
@@AviationPlus And pushing a button.
@@dinkmartini3236 Tell me you don't understand the difficulties with BVR without telling me you understand the difficulties of BVR
BMS has always been focused on maximum SIMULATION authenticity. DCS has always put more emphasis on realistic visuals. Both are more than adequately detailed and accurate to F-16 functions and performance for anybody who's not trying to use it for advanced F-16 training in a real world environment. Side note: Back when Falcon 4.0 was not yet an "old" title, at least one mod was delayed in its release because some data in it had to be changed because it was too close to matching classified performance data for the F-16 or certain systems/weapons of the time. Yes there was someone to check this info to ensure that it wasn't TOO authentic. I usually fly BMS simply because I have yet to make my DCS install work correctly with my VR headset.
As a former DCS pilot and now BMS pilot i have noticed huge gap between these 2 consoles..First off in DCS all weapons in a/a & a/g can open without MA ON and G-forces are not simulated...You can pull over 9G without avionics fault or weapons MAL...DCS offers only high detailed cockpit , ground graphics and of course the multiplayer...For all the above reasons DCS is not a sim..its a game!
"a/a & a/g can open without MA ON" - Without master on?
There are 5 very confused people upvoting this comment. At best, DCS might have a flaw if those aircraft really prevents the avionics configuration from switching to AA or AG modes without Master Arm ON(for the F-16 and F/A-18). However, I doubt this is the case because of the simple fact that said aircraft must also be trained on so simulate/train has to do everything exactly the same up to the point of actually launching a weapon. Even if it is a bit off and AA/AG mode buttons don't wory until Master Arm = ON or TRAIN/SIMULATE, that's not such a big deal. Perhaps one day it'll be fixed in some patch. Those who do it correct are still working, and some who do it incorrectly are improperly working but wouldn't take much for them to find out and fix it.
The next part also seems silly on its face. G-forces not simulated? Every flight simulator for 20 years does at least this much. Maybe you mean high G-forces negative impacting a specific weapons launch. I'm sure someone knows of a very specific condition DCS doesn't model yet - maybe AIM-7 doesn't launch if the plane is pulling over 3-4Gs, fine? But to suggest it's incapable is bullshit. In the A-10C if you have a GPS guided weapon and fly on autopilot straight and level for an extended period of time, the weapon status will change thinking something is possibly off with the INS alignment until you manuever just a slight bit, then it'll change back. I also know that in the F-16 you can lob dumb bombs furthering its range. Check out Gaffer's TH-cam videos so those bombs defintely know what the jet is doing when they come off the rail. Lastly, even the K-50 can lob rockets over hills/terrain to hit targets. I actually think DCS might have the most realistic ballistics and flight simulation on the consumer market.
That is the reason why it's so CPU intensive. DCS's design assumption was to simulate everything going on in the entire battlefield in real time. Falcon 4.0 saved a ton of CPU cycles by only 2D+probabilitistically simulating anything outside of the player "bubble" which is probably something like a 50 mile radius of human player.
In a real F-16, If Master Arm is off, switching to A-A or A-G will still allow those modes to function- but you will NOT get hud cues or indicators for your selected weapons until the switch is set to Arm or Sim. Sim gives those cues, but simply cuts off firing voltage to all stations.
In DCS, Master Arm off and Sim are the same thing. Master arm off will still give you missile/bomb cues. You can even uncage an aim-9 and have the seeker track in DCS with Master arm off, which is simply not possible IRL.
As for the G's, he's probably talking about over-g of stores causing malfunctions, which is not modeled in DCS at all, but is in BMS.
In BMS An/apg-68v5 is not good implemented.
@@theoldweaponstroop7441 Yup. Sounds like a short cut ED took with most of it's modules. Honestly, I'm ok with this. Honestly, I've always wondered why the simulator even has training munitions. I'm fine with them having training/simulation switching there, but also perfectly OK with them not being implemented correctly. It's a simulator, there's no real benefit to using the training/simulation mode.
All that's left is the inaccurate modeling of Master Arm OFF showing weapons cues on the hud I guess. They should probably do that because it is sometimes strange to not realize you haven't turned it on except for weapons not firing. If it behaved realistically and didn't show you the cue, the player/pilot would sooner know what was up.
Love them both but when returning back to BMS from F4 and very older mods times, I felt how advanced it still is from many aspects (AI, Awacs, radios, systems, damage and dtc, specially the full dyn campaign) . The only downside, for me, in BMS is the lack of fully clickable cockpit, where DCS does a better job. E.g. i was blown away in disappointment that cockpit lights have still only 2 active rotations!? or MFD BRIGHT and CON is controlling basically both screens or cockpit lighting seems weirdly different than dcs or a real plane. And some few other stuff. Graphically i do not mind BMS, as it still looks OK and will get a better overhaul. I really do not like DCS sandbox style game, as it lacks content and gets very boring. MT is the key but not aways have time with friends. And those continuing and endless bugs ... ohh dear!
Clickable sure but remember in BMS you can manipulate your Transponder modes and turn them on and off. Perform more functions on the Threat Warning Prime. Not sure if DCS models OBOGS test and EPU test but ya to each their own.
@@AviationPlus yes, can fully agree with you and confirm. I love the iff and transponder details, test, failures/f-ack, realistic ecm etc that are much better and realistically implemented but where they fails, in my mind, are the active buttons like obogs/breathing switches does not have 100% coverage (i could not switch to 100% air or test the mask e.g), com1/2 buttons are not separated (as I understood only for mp usage) and communication goes automatically through one coms based on the page you are in (im used to srs communication in dcs), ecm button has only 2 buttons and no standby, jhmcs activates per on/off (i could not rotate to activate like in dcs), i could not understand tgp manual handover to mav, if its implemented at all, etc. Small things like these are a bit disappointment. I hope the team will make those more available in later upgrades. But, as you said, its more advanced and from time to time, I'm loving it more than dcs, currently. Even my flying buddy from dcs has switched almost fully over to bms. Still, there is so much to learn in bms (and read) that i might have a wrong view of it but at least a fresh view, where it could shine more and be the ultimate 🙂.
Ахаха 😹
Су-30 в курсе, что тут воздушный бой? Ракеты есть у него? Или F-16 только безобидных сбивать может?)
Нашли чем гордиться…
DCS looks and sounds better than BMS easily.
There are way more talking points than just looks and sounds.
Such a “gamers” comment. I guess you miss the point of flight simulation.
BMS is the Best sim. DCS is good loking arcade.
I have been trying to fly in MP with others in DCS but the F-16 still does not satisfy me still at this point it is going to take a lot to improve my experience. Some of what is lacking is not even with the F-16 but how DCS handles things when it comes to lack of being able to create your own threat circles and seeing your flight path before the flight.
DCS clearly sucks compared to BMS. Rational enough?? :D
Not, when ED add TDOA in viper.
That will be neat. But there are other things that need to be addressed like unable to bump the side of the FCR on TWS to narrow the radar Azimuth.
the comparison must be made in the contents.
DCS you pay and it's an empty sandbox, with no content.
FALCON is a milsim. with complex campaigns and realistic simulation of all military procedures.
The rest counts for zero.
Remember that the Mission editor exists and that multiplayer also exists. Also the modules come with a few missions and campaigns but overall seems like BMS has more difficulty/gameplay.
This was a very surface level video with some satire in it as well. A true video would be like 3 days long. Thanks for watching.
@@znatrix BMS multiplayer is an editor. ;) Linked only to one or more MISSION MAKER who have to write missions.
Writing diverse missions on DCS is not easy and time consuming. Trust me need time to make valid missions.
Except for the largest groups, mission makers are unlikely to keep up. We find ourselves doing single missions, for their own sake.
Things are scripted, and with difficulty.
On BMS you know well that A WHOLE WORLD MOVES during a campaign. It can last FULL MONTHS with an AI that thwarts you.
Waypoints, and everything is TIME bound, and a packet has TIMES SET, and then everything else.
THERE IS NO COMPARISON my friend, not to mention the flight model.
Incredible how a product made a long time ago and modded can be superior to a company that does it for work.
BUT LET'S ASK US HONESTLY WHY we go to DCS? the answer is always GRAPHICS. ;)
empty sandbox????? BMS gets boring after a while, in DCS you have the ability to create any mission you want and has more maps than BMS
@@shr3dd3rbtw24 Thats all DCS is though. Just making mission after mission in order to complete a mission. Its beyond lame. Its just a "flight simulator". BMS is a combat flight sim. Been playing all Falcons since 3.0 and BMS has never bored me.
ARHHHHH I'M NOT BEING RATIONAL *OR CALM*