BMS has done the Viper so extremely well and in such a DYNAMIC environment. Why buy it again (or at all depending on how one gained access to BMS)? I guess that from a MP perspective, it would make a nice Red fighter to fill the gap (we’ve sold them to just about everybody, haven’t we?)
For me, enough airplanes for now. My cupboard is rich with fast movers. Helicopters, armor, troops, a better campaign engine, a war worth fighting!
DCS does have some advantages like JTAC and the ability to cooperate with other hifi modules in mp. Also visually it is quite a bit ahead, bms last graphics engine update was 2011. If it got the ability to handle as big a battlefield, it would make bms largely obsolete.
I disagree. Look at @near_blind’s and @klarsnow’s AAR. That’s just two friends COOPing a stock dynamic campaign (or if not, it easily could be). Replicating that in DCS is nye impossible. DCS is eons ahead in every respect you listed, and probably many more. But that one brilliant aspect of BMS will keep serious players coming back. Its not the plane, its the amazing strategy game being driven underneath it.
Sorry. I guess I didn’t fully understand “battlefield”. I took it to mean just the landscape where you were referring to a dynamic battlefield that functions like BMS but looks like DCS. If that’s the case then I withdraw my disagreement.
For myself, I’d say no. Would it be a very good product? I’m sure it would be, but I think unless it fully integrated an organic battlefield in the same way as other representations of the Viper, it would constantly be compared to things like BMS. Now that’s not necessarily bad, but the question now become who’s switchology is better and that’s just not an argument worth having, much less listening to. I’m pretty sure DCS is aware that as of now, the only thing they could potentially have to offer F-16 fans is acombat systems management simulation experience and multiplayer.
“Look, our switching sequence for this SMS display is slightly different than this other product and it’s more accurate to 99.43% of what we feel like the technical data of this system would be if we had access to Department of Defense secrets!”
DCS is going to have address the glaring problem of their battlespace environment and how antiseptic it is. They’re about to price themselves right out of the market if they are not cautious. Battle of Bodenplatte is coming out soon and it’s getting my money where DCS is not. For $80, I get a map of Germany and the Low Countries, eight planes, and a campaign. In order to get the same thing on DCS, I’d need to spend almost $200 in addition to get all the same things and i’m not getting what I feel is an additional $200 in value added.
I’d rather see DCS improve my experience as a pilot than give me a new plane. I plan on buying the Persian Gulf map because I’ve been endlessly bitching at DCS to give me a new place to fly other than the Black Sea and they finally did it. It would be rude of me not to buy it and try it. Just make me want to fly there for once.
I think it’s a “Not if but when” kind of a deal. The Hornet and Falcon two very different interpretations of the same idea. It’d be super cool to see the Viper modeled with the same fidelity as what ED are demonstrating with the Hornet. Also, I’ll have to fish for the link, but IIRC if you look at the branch of ED that does professional training sim contracts they do list the F-16 in their portfolio.
Play BMS enough and you start to notice where the seams are, so to speak. Modeling the Viper to the extent the BMS team has is very impressive, but you can tell that with some advanced systems like datalink, IFF, certain TGP features, and inertially guided munitions they’re kinda grasping for straws with what the 20 year old engine can support. Not to mention the welcome superiority that DCS’ flight dynamics and aero modeling would bring to the table.
Now, the thing that makes me a little weary is that ED tends to pick ONE configuration of a plane to model in obsessive detail, and one of my favorite parts of Falcon is that they localize the various blocks of F-16, eg flying the Sulfa (F-16I) has some nice quirks that make it different from the Block 40.
I imagine DCS would probably just model a bone stock USAF F-16C Block52 with a couple upgrades… Doesn’t really capture half the flavors the F-16 has been exported as.
Pfunk sorta nailed it. Plus I am a child of the 70’s and 80’s. In my 20 years of playing Flanker and its offspring, my favorite rides have been the Ka50, Mi8, F-5, Harrier (wish it were older) and the PFM Su33. A sophistcated fighter is completely lost in an unsophistacated and mostly empty battlefield.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s definitely value to that. It’s readily acknowledged that if you’re not flying a USAF Block 40/50/52 in Falcon the differences are largely cosmetic with a few variables tweaked for performance. I have no idea how ED would keep the quality they’ve build a reputation on while also adding a variant system. Still, a guy can dream.
I wouldnae mind having both the Mi-24 and the AH-64A at all, no not at all. Viper’s got a special place in my heart as well. So yeah, you guys build em, ill buy em. (got my hornet on preorder as well.)