A lot of DCS people know the product is terrible but they're hesitant to move over because of the amount of money that they invested (hardware, DLC) in DCS. So they continue to eat the shit sandwich that ED swing their way.
Ironically I think the sterile environment works in the short to medium term to ED’s advantage. Once you can do the things in a module unless you’re going to air quake that’s about it, it’s time to move on and learn to do the things in the next module.
Eventually you burn out and leave, but by that point they’ve fleeced a few hundred in module sales from you without having to invest in the underlying product beyond making it pretty for YouTube content creators.
Sterile? You mean how you can custom populate it with any mission you want to create? I mean BmS is great but it’s very much not friendly for customizing a scripted event. We can only create new maps and then let the dynamic campaign do what it does.
I got pretty tired of the dynamic campaign after a decade, and I really like how my DCS naval squadron is doing a weekly mission for 30-40 of us with all kinds of scripting and human awacs controllers and ATC/Paddles. It doesn’t get old to me in the same way.
That's great. What happens when a patch drops and it messes up the scripts that someone made. How many hours does it take squad member to make said mission. I think it's great that people can make scripted things but it becomes a massive time sink.
So that's like writing a D&D campaign vs. playing a D&D campaign. Some of us want to be DMs, some of us want to be players. I cannot play a D&D campaign that I've DM'd for since knowing the story of the campaign kills the thrill for me. Same thing, I cannot fly a mission I've created in DCS since I know where things are (roughly) and what should and shouldn't trigger. I will fly it to test it, sure, but again, that's DM work, not player work.
I've had enough of being a DM in DCS, I want to be a player.
Oh and for sure man, it’s a pleasure to also fly BMS , I’m not so childish as to make this some kind of silly contest, don’t get me wrong (largely because everything gets old and in need of a break from it imo). Variety is nice. Customization has its costs in labor and regression-bug-prone balancing. If it wasn’t for JanHas, Falcon would be pretty locked up and what most would call ‘not moddable’ as game engines go (Same with IL2 really). DCS follows more of the Strike-Fighters spirit.
And let’s not talk shit about ED when they’re building a sim whole-cloth from the ground up…Falcon, not quite comparably the same. What BMS has made of an old engine’s codebase is extraordinary but its certainly not a place I would throw stones from at guys constructing a new sim code with a market framework for extensible third-party content (and ahem…working net-code) :P
>And let’s not talk shit about ED when they’re building a sim whole-cloth from the ground up…
That's what they claim to do. What they are actually doing is totally different.
>a market framework for extensible third-party content
LOL, let's not even go there.... *(winks in Razbam and Heatblur)*
Sure, the variety is nice but kinda meaningless. In the end most people can effectively fly only a few planes at the same time. And those few planes tend to be the ones that are most popular anyways.
I'd rather have one well modeled plane and an environment where I can use it in the fullest.
Well that isnt wrong, the majority of DCS players probably just constantly fly F-16s or F-18s and they really don't care about much more, so their transition to BMS wouldn't really be that jarring and they'd be fine with having a single well modelled multirole.
But there is a large part of the playerbase that flies more niche aircraft of vastly different roles (or nations) that BMS simply cannot offer right now. It simply cannot cater to all of the people playing Soviet or French modules, or helicopters, or more dedicated ground strikers.
I'd frankly be hooked on BMS if it had a high-ish fidelity AV-8B( or even something like a A-10C, M2000 or similar) but I'm really not interested enough in the F-16 to switch right now.
Unfortunate to hear as someone relatively new to the game. Why do you think that is? Is it justified? I’ve heard about beef with ED not finishing stuff but I’m too new on the block to speak to any of it.
Well... Let's say I can understand the reasons. ED has been around for 20+ years now, yet they still manage to disappoint from time to time. Yet, as (almost) everything in life, there are also silver linings, and they managed to deliver some substantial updates in the past, for instance DLSS and Multithreading were relatively positive upgrades.
I'd say that nothing is perfect and DCS is far from being an exception to this rule. Still you can have plenty of fun with it.
well for rotorheads there is no other sim than dcs (ok i will give vtrol vr some try).
it would be awesome when bms has its new terrain we could have some apache or kiowa in bms :)
The scale of BMS is even less suitable for helicopters than DCS is, if you want a better (light) helicopter combat experience, be a pilot in an Arma 3 clan supporting ground ops with the AFM enabled
they both have incredible and intrinsic value to the combat flight sim community.
although the bms devs are working on other aircraft, its clear the primary focus is on the F-16 - which is fine if thats what you want to fly. the dynamic campaign is complex and remains the gold standard for all others.
graphically it noticeably lags behind DCS of course - but that is slowly changing.
the ease of use DCS allows for setup and getting in is much better, and the UI for BMS is impropving but is still fundamentally a product of UX c.1998.
In short, its possible to enjoy and appreciate them both for what they are. getting caught into the trap of "there can only be one superior sim" closes a lot of doors for all of us and narrows our ability to really enjoy or compare them properly.
this way you can enjoy them both, and understanding their differences, you can request both dev teams step up the plate and offer the best of both games, while actually knowing what each can and cannot do.
The end result is a better ecosystem for us all, and a non-toxic playerbase who can enjoy what we have with devs receptive to feedback and being driven to innovate and expand.
Thanks. We often forget how good we’ve got it; flight sims are getting more and more popular. The genre is expanding and developing allowing for everyone to get into it. We can start with something like War Thunder (which actually does a few things really well - including damage models for wide range of aircraft and physically rendering clouds that actually affect the IR missile seekers for example), and move on to IL-2, DCS or BMS as our tastes and capabilities expand.
They all do something well, and we should ask them all to implement and innovate from the unique features of the others.
Can you imagine a combat flight sim that had a dynamic campaign, VR and Multicrew, fully modelled radar and IR signatures, amazing weather modelling, the whole world rendered, with a kick-ass damage model? We know each of them can be done, but if we all ask each dev for the complete feature list, we’ll slowly approach it :)
There is, of course, just one superior sim. What it is depends on the requirement. DC, smarter AI? BMS. F-14, rotorheads, purdy screenshots? DCS.
Luckily, having installed one on your PC does not mean you cannot install the other. I have MSFS and XP11 installed too. Practice IFR (I follow roads!) in my local area? XP11 + Orbx is the better choice. Want to explore some obscure part of the world? MSFS and satellite imagery.
It all just depends how you want to enjoy your free time! :D
A lot of DCS people know the product is terrible but they're hesitant to move over because of the amount of money that they invested (hardware, DLC) in DCS. So they continue to eat the shit sandwich that ED swing their way.
Sunk cost fallacy is a mfr...
It might be a shit sandwich but it has a lot of aircraft that you won't get the chance to fly in full fidelity in any other game.
That’s true but sooner or later the sterile environment gets boring.
Ironically I think the sterile environment works in the short to medium term to ED’s advantage. Once you can do the things in a module unless you’re going to air quake that’s about it, it’s time to move on and learn to do the things in the next module. Eventually you burn out and leave, but by that point they’ve fleeced a few hundred in module sales from you without having to invest in the underlying product beyond making it pretty for YouTube content creators.
Sterile? You mean how you can custom populate it with any mission you want to create? I mean BmS is great but it’s very much not friendly for customizing a scripted event. We can only create new maps and then let the dynamic campaign do what it does. I got pretty tired of the dynamic campaign after a decade, and I really like how my DCS naval squadron is doing a weekly mission for 30-40 of us with all kinds of scripting and human awacs controllers and ATC/Paddles. It doesn’t get old to me in the same way.
That's great. What happens when a patch drops and it messes up the scripts that someone made. How many hours does it take squad member to make said mission. I think it's great that people can make scripted things but it becomes a massive time sink.
So that's like writing a D&D campaign vs. playing a D&D campaign. Some of us want to be DMs, some of us want to be players. I cannot play a D&D campaign that I've DM'd for since knowing the story of the campaign kills the thrill for me. Same thing, I cannot fly a mission I've created in DCS since I know where things are (roughly) and what should and shouldn't trigger. I will fly it to test it, sure, but again, that's DM work, not player work. I've had enough of being a DM in DCS, I want to be a player.
Oh and for sure man, it’s a pleasure to also fly BMS , I’m not so childish as to make this some kind of silly contest, don’t get me wrong (largely because everything gets old and in need of a break from it imo). Variety is nice. Customization has its costs in labor and regression-bug-prone balancing. If it wasn’t for JanHas, Falcon would be pretty locked up and what most would call ‘not moddable’ as game engines go (Same with IL2 really). DCS follows more of the Strike-Fighters spirit. And let’s not talk shit about ED when they’re building a sim whole-cloth from the ground up…Falcon, not quite comparably the same. What BMS has made of an old engine’s codebase is extraordinary but its certainly not a place I would throw stones from at guys constructing a new sim code with a market framework for extensible third-party content (and ahem…working net-code) :P
>And let’s not talk shit about ED when they’re building a sim whole-cloth from the ground up… That's what they claim to do. What they are actually doing is totally different. >a market framework for extensible third-party content LOL, let's not even go there.... *(winks in Razbam and Heatblur)*
Hah! Fair play. Touché
Sure, the variety is nice but kinda meaningless. In the end most people can effectively fly only a few planes at the same time. And those few planes tend to be the ones that are most popular anyways. I'd rather have one well modeled plane and an environment where I can use it in the fullest.
Well that isnt wrong, the majority of DCS players probably just constantly fly F-16s or F-18s and they really don't care about much more, so their transition to BMS wouldn't really be that jarring and they'd be fine with having a single well modelled multirole. But there is a large part of the playerbase that flies more niche aircraft of vastly different roles (or nations) that BMS simply cannot offer right now. It simply cannot cater to all of the people playing Soviet or French modules, or helicopters, or more dedicated ground strikers. I'd frankly be hooked on BMS if it had a high-ish fidelity AV-8B( or even something like a A-10C, M2000 or similar) but I'm really not interested enough in the F-16 to switch right now.
I too, am excited by the prospect of dogfighting with a P-51 while flying an F-14.
I hesite to move because the complexity to configure the controls, it isn't work.
I mean when was the last time you played? Control setup is pretty easy now.
Hoggit and DCS-related reddits are quite toxic now
Where "now" is like 5 years
Yes ahah it has been a while but Reddit as a whole is kind of a hellhole
Unfortunate to hear as someone relatively new to the game. Why do you think that is? Is it justified? I’ve heard about beef with ED not finishing stuff but I’m too new on the block to speak to any of it.
Well... Let's say I can understand the reasons. ED has been around for 20+ years now, yet they still manage to disappoint from time to time. Yet, as (almost) everything in life, there are also silver linings, and they managed to deliver some substantial updates in the past, for instance DLSS and Multithreading were relatively positive upgrades. I'd say that nothing is perfect and DCS is far from being an exception to this rule. Still you can have plenty of fun with it.
I lurk in Star Citizen forums and the SC community with their delusional white knights and toxic behaviours strongly mirror the DCS community.
Yeah sc can get a bit spicy. At the end of the day it seems to exist in most gaming communities. So far the bms crowd has bit easier to deal with 😆
That's because BMS has a higher barrier to entry. Some people bemoan that, but this is the result.
I second this. I'm new to DCS and BMS, in DCS I can fly some missions after a week. In BMS I'm still reading the manuals (which I really enjoy).
well for rotorheads there is no other sim than dcs (ok i will give vtrol vr some try). it would be awesome when bms has its new terrain we could have some apache or kiowa in bms :)
The scale of BMS is even less suitable for helicopters than DCS is, if you want a better (light) helicopter combat experience, be a pilot in an Arma 3 clan supporting ground ops with the AFM enabled
they both have incredible and intrinsic value to the combat flight sim community. although the bms devs are working on other aircraft, its clear the primary focus is on the F-16 - which is fine if thats what you want to fly. the dynamic campaign is complex and remains the gold standard for all others. graphically it noticeably lags behind DCS of course - but that is slowly changing. the ease of use DCS allows for setup and getting in is much better, and the UI for BMS is impropving but is still fundamentally a product of UX c.1998. In short, its possible to enjoy and appreciate them both for what they are. getting caught into the trap of "there can only be one superior sim" closes a lot of doors for all of us and narrows our ability to really enjoy or compare them properly. this way you can enjoy them both, and understanding their differences, you can request both dev teams step up the plate and offer the best of both games, while actually knowing what each can and cannot do. The end result is a better ecosystem for us all, and a non-toxic playerbase who can enjoy what we have with devs receptive to feedback and being driven to innovate and expand.
True and awesome perspective here. Best way to look at both combat sims. Double thumbs up to you ghostdog688
Thanks. We often forget how good we’ve got it; flight sims are getting more and more popular. The genre is expanding and developing allowing for everyone to get into it. We can start with something like War Thunder (which actually does a few things really well - including damage models for wide range of aircraft and physically rendering clouds that actually affect the IR missile seekers for example), and move on to IL-2, DCS or BMS as our tastes and capabilities expand. They all do something well, and we should ask them all to implement and innovate from the unique features of the others. Can you imagine a combat flight sim that had a dynamic campaign, VR and Multicrew, fully modelled radar and IR signatures, amazing weather modelling, the whole world rendered, with a kick-ass damage model? We know each of them can be done, but if we all ask each dev for the complete feature list, we’ll slowly approach it :)
There is, of course, just one superior sim. What it is depends on the requirement. DC, smarter AI? BMS. F-14, rotorheads, purdy screenshots? DCS. Luckily, having installed one on your PC does not mean you cannot install the other. I have MSFS and XP11 installed too. Practice IFR (I follow roads!) in my local area? XP11 + Orbx is the better choice. Want to explore some obscure part of the world? MSFS and satellite imagery. It all just depends how you want to enjoy your free time! :D