Flight Model Comparison BMS vs DCS with Tacview Overlay

==============Disclaimer==============
The following material is a flight model comparison of F-16 blk 50 in both simulations and does not intent to start debate about which platform is better. They both have theit assets.
==============Time Stamps==============
0:00 Disclaimer
0:17 Take-off and Vertical climb rate
2:10 Sustained turn rate
5:08 Instantaneus turn rate
6:01 Acceleration and top speed
8:27 Knife edge pass
8:50 Negative Gs and AoA
==============More Info==============
WEBSIDE: www.SA-SIM.com
DISCORD: / discord

[@b3rno]

In STR test section there is a different blk (52) in BMS (I overlooked it - my mistake). Here is a link for a retest video of STR with same blk 50: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYOloo2GgctgjKM

[@akaFrits1]

Since BMS has an almost certified F-16 flight model since a decade or so, I can imagine that the developers of the quite recent DCS F-16 have taken the BMS FM as their example/goal. The similarities are no wonder imo.

[@ahmed-ze9ng]

Nothing can beat dynamic campaign in Falcon 4.0

[@vrgamingitalia8105]

exept multplayer :P

[@skyhorseprice6591]

The vertical climb test was amazing because both aircraft performed as near to identically as would be possible even IRK. The sustained turn rate I'd probably much closer than this test indicated because The BMS pilot was flying an oval instead of the pure circle the DCS pilot did. This says to me that the BMS Viper driver was tightening down at the opposing ends of the oval, as if imagining pulling an opponent into his HUD for a guns kill. The instantaneous turn kinda shows this. Both aircraft were pretty much dead even until the end, when the BMS pilot began to tighten down. I'm pretty sure it was a tighten down because that Viper stalled before the DCS Viper. Overall, in the turn stuff the differences seemed due to the pilot flying a bit differently rather than any difference in the Sims. Overall I am impressed with how close they actually are.

[@aztec0112]

Excellent take!

[@possiblyadickhead6653]

no he isnt flying an oval in BMS, the tacview cam is just not point down 90° so it appears as an oval but it is prob very close to a circle .

[@bulletstop100]

I absolutely love both. As you stated perfectly, both have assets and I hope both continue to develop and more folks enjoy what both worlds have to offer..

[@kcz1093]

i think once DCS has a dynamic campaign falcon BMS will be in a position to be put in the dustbin, played only by a few with bouts of nostalgia. DCS has more aircraft to fly ( that are authentically simulated) and looks much nicer visually.

[@FabrizioGalbiati72]

@@kcz1093 time for a dynamic campaign in DCS is yet to come and quite a bit far I fear.

[@bulletstop100]

@@kcz1093 Maybe, but the way bms is progressing, the visuals might not be far behind. DCS is lucky to have other studios helping them. I do not think Bms can do the same.

[@LupusAries]

@@FabrizioGalbiati72 That and the AI needs to be upgraded for a dynamic campaign to be on comparable levels with BMS. Remember a dynamic campaign only works, if you can trust the AI to do it's job. BMS I can confidently send my AI Wingie off to hit a bridge. I can be pretty sure he will hit and return. DCS, they need a shit ton of babysitting, as they are not very good at threat analysis and proper reaction. Addo that the much better missile autopilot simulation (keyword Biasing) in BMS and the flight planning tools in BMS, like being able to program your own DTC, view recon data etc. DCS Needs some time to get this done and then Falcon may be put to rest.

[@Dee-Jay]

@@LupusAries 100% and well explained. Without a "fair" AIs and, good AI ATC, and proper good automatic mission generation, DynCamp is just pointless. ED (DCS) must absolutely fix/improve a lot their AIs, implement ATC ... etc ... before considering any DynCamp.

[@hsh172002]

thank you very much for your effort on this B3! I actually wished yesterday that someone would make comparison video of these two different platform loll dream comes true lol

[@b3rno]

Thanks Ace!

[@ilejovcevski79]

Quite close indeed, except in the ITR (faster g-onset in DCS resulting in higher bleed rates early on, but less excess power in low mach means higher bleed rates at low speeds) and negative g authority. Interesting comparison all in all. I didn't know they were that close.

[@TheDarkman222]

Was this test before the DCS F16 flight model was claimed to be final or after that?

[@b3rno]

Tbh don't remember now. It was 8 months ago

[@cameronhepburn925]

Bro thanks for the vid it was very much needed.

[@talbotmcinnis]

Great way to present this analysis. Well done.

[@b3rno]

Gracias!

[@fortinero3361]

Really apreciate your work, both are quite close, but there are still differences, in the most concern or "hot" topics, STR in the BMS' FM model is slighly better, and the low speed handling too, but still, for a two different simulations, with their own pros and cons, is very close! Regards.

[@b3rno]

Well said. Glad you like it! Thanks and appreciate

[@Youda00008]

I would say the differences seen in this video are within human error variance during measurement.

[@R3dd_1247]

@@Youda00008 came here to say this exact thing

[@Obi1-KenBone-Me]

Except bms has fewer cons

[@fortinero3361]

@@Obi1-KenBone-Me of course, BMS do not have an AH-64, UH, Mi-8, Mi-24, Ka-50, Gazelle, a dedicated F/A-18C, Mirage 2000C, F-14A/B, AJS37, A-10C, JF-17 Block I, AV8, C101, L-39, MiG-21Bis, MiG-19, F-5E, F-86, MiG-15, Yak-52, Bf-109K, Fw-190A8, Fw-190D9, P-47D, P-51D, Spitfire MkIX, Mosquito, I-16, the chance to use almost any ground unit, image quality is ok... , there are maps that are acceptable, but yes, BMS has fewer cons, of course... there are public that enjoys BMS, there are public that enjoys DCS, and people that, incredibly, enjoys BOTH, with their pros, and cons.

[@krippz7980]

Great as always. Thanks B3.

[@b3rno]

Thanks Krippz! Glad you like it buddy!

[@pancakeoperator]

Good work man, thanks for sharing

[@michal.michalak]

Very nice as always.

[@b3rno]

Thanks Majkel!

[@thusharikabotheju5655]

I feel like the DCS viper does not like high beta, great video!

[@MistaMeowmers]

Looks like the DCS one is coming along nicely. It'll never replace BMS, but for those who want to fly with their buddies in DCS while still driving the Viper, it's certainly a good option.

[@DNH17]

Thank you, inspiring video.

[@CallsignJoNay]

Looks identical in climb, STR, and acceleration. Very different ITR, yaw, and a little bit more fuel burn in BMS. And also the negative-G control very different. Did you try disabling the FLCS limiter in DCS to see if you get more play in negative pitch?

[@b3rno]

Tbh no, but I'll try it. Thanks!

[@CallsignJoNay]

@@b3rno I also wonder why Tacview condenses BMS space along the West/East axis. (Resulting in oval turn circles). I noticed it years ago and it looks like it's still doing it?

[@b3rno]

@@CallsignJoNay I was wondering about the same! First time noticed tbh.

[@CallsignJoNay]

@@b3rno Remember that F-18 v F-16 FM comparison I did for 4.33 years ago? That's when I first noticed it. If you pay attention to the crop marks on the ground there is more space between them from N-S than W-E. I had to stretch the aspect ratio of all my tacview clips horizontally so that the crop marks were equally distant and my turn circles were circular.

[@b3rno]

@@CallsignJoNay Yeah I do remember it, that was hell of a job right there! So it's actually Tacview making that wierd "stretch"... interesting

[@krzysztofgawe1089]

Bigger differences comes from different steering, then from FM itself. In first scene compare G load on entering a climb +0,5 G (moderate) in case of BMS. The same is with constatne turn. AOA is simmilar but speed is not, and the difference grows bigger. At the end of constatnt turn BMS plane is not stabilised. IMO the planes are quite simmilar

[@raffaelerossi4273]

BMS. i love you. :)

[@b3rno]

We all ❤BMS

[@UCh905]

Thank Bruno for the time and effort you put into it. It looks similar to me if not exactly the same. Would this put one's-FM-is-better-than-others debate to end? It should now at least for FMs.

[@venom56]

It will never stop, and there are differences in FMs. Check JoNay's comment above.

[@MultiJp51]

It’s not the same , look at the edge pass , look at the initial pitch response. . Handling is different and LGains are very much different as well

[@ArchOfficial]

After "80% accurate" consumers generally can't tell a difference between models in my experience, so I don't blame you, but there are pretty visible numeric differences even in this video. Probably unlikely the DCS model will ever reach BMS levels as they probably won't dedicate the time to correlate it, if they even have sources to do it from.

[@gb7418]

@@MultiJp51 In DCS it’s so different above angels 20 with a loadout - flying Mach .7+ but at 6 degrees AOA; I don’t think the AOA would be that high in BMS at that speed ~21000MSL. In DCS the FM seems far less responsive up high than the BMS model.

[@JayDKB]

Great video they are pretty much even

[@bmwtest8062]

See how smooth the hud graphics is on the BMS. Look at the climb ladder 0:45. I think the BMS is more responsive from stick input (I use a FSSB R3).

[@olmop7785]

Im prety sure thats because the guy doesent have a nasa computer lol.

[@slgarrett]

This is interesting because the max instantaneous turn performance test suggests what I've noticed, which is that the DCS version seems to bleed energy more quickly (less specific excess power). I'm not sure quite why. That being said the climb performance test seems to suggest that the DCS version has greater specific excess thrust. I wonder if it has to do with small differences in the way they model engine performance and drag?

[@guywholikesplanes]

Not sure if in the test he accounted for different atmospheric parameters, like density altitude

[@slgarrett]

@@guywholikesplanes Oooo yeah, good point. Probably want to set the atmosphere to standard to make it consistent.

[@guywholikesplanes]

@@slgarrett All POH paramaters are given for an aircraft at MTOW, flying in standard atmosfphere. At least for GA's.

[@slgarrett]

@@guywholikesplanes yes, but for the purpose of testing in the simulations. Do we know what the atmospheric parameters were?

[@DabakoWorld]

Intersting was the difference in how the Plane reacted after the fuel run out. The BMS still had some RPM and it seems that the EPU did start to have some systems. In DCS it just turned off and the RPM dropped very fast. I don't know which one is closer to reality. But I assume BMS because they have done a lot of work on the Systems.

[@tac-cobserver3788]

Both are awesome But, still flyin in BMS Cowboy-2, Kunsan twr v:

[@gb7418]

I was just testing this meself!

[@bawki]

your altimeter shows different configured pressures for DCS (2992) vs BMS (3060), that is a difference of about ~640ft in altitude in favour of DCS. This would mean that the DCS viper was flying at a higher altitude with less drag and could explain some discrepancies. I am not sure if this is modeled equally in both sims, but something that has to be kept in mind! Cool comparison regardless!

[@b3rno]

The air pressure was set to the same values on both Sims. I just did not correct altimeter manually in BMS.

[@jaymac7203]

For those wondering DCS is the one on the left.

[@-_Nuke_-]

Does anyone know how can we mod the DCS MFDs to change their color to yellow? Or other collors?

[@Bryan-cd9cl]

For those who want to see huge différence between both F-16..pay attention several version has been built with differents engine power and reducing fuel flow to increase the range of the fighting falcon upto block 70...does Dcs and BMS are using the same version ???....secondly Dcs have multi atmospheric density of the air means if u setting up worm weather the aircraft wouldnt have the same physik...every single detail should be the same for this video..but really good Idea to show us that ...

[@Ryan-lx6oh]

Is BMS Falcon BMS 4.36? Benchmark Sim's? I am somewhat new to DCS & have never herd of BMS before? Looking through their site and it looks promising. And I will add you guy's to my Discord if you don't mind, I read through your notes & I think it is something I would like to get involved with. (Competative flying that is on a regular basis.)

[@johnpancoast3236]

Yes, BMS is Falcon BMS 4.36

[@b3rno]

Please visit www.falcon-bms.com for more info.

[@johnpancoast3236]

Flying BMS online is great fun; campaign, te, co-op, whatever.

[@MaxWaldorf]

BMS has been there for the last 20 years thanks to it's community!

[@johnpancoast3236]

@@MaxWaldorf In large part, thanks to your efforts. Also, there is one HUGE difference in flight models between the two; one takes place in a dynamic campaign and one doesn't......:)

[@kipchickensout]

They seem to be incredibly close :o wow I just wonder which of the cockpits and its details are closer modeled to real life

DCS

[@josearjona]

Fantastic comparison, could you please do the same in MIL power?, i guess there is difference there. Thanks

[@b3rno]

Will test it but not sure if i'll make a video of it, but thanks for suggestion :)

[@josearjona]

@@b3rno thanks, anyway, if you do it, could you please post here your conclusions?, i am sure you will see a difference ,here in full AB both models are quite similar

[@b3rno]

@@josearjona sure thing

[@Prancingkiller]

Hey mate, i remember when i first put my hands on the DCS f-16 after flying BMS for so many years.. how much do you think the flight model changed since its first release?

[@b3rno]

Hey PK! Yeah, it definitely progressed into the right direction - still not ideal, but it's still wip product.

[@Dubanx]

You should have done top speed and acceleration at various altitudes. There's a video out there where CW Lemoine hits the gas at 20-30,000 feet and and is like "What?" at the continued acceleration through the supersonic spectrum.

[@Mobius118]

That issue has since been addressed with the recent update to the Viper's flight model

[@the_eagle_of_masyaf]

Much love to Falcon BMS

[@DylanStahl]

Great video! It's really interesting to see how close the two models appear to be, which, considering the high opinions of BMS is quite promising for the DCS players. Do wonder what the top speed would have looked like at higher altitudes, since it was quite clearly drag limited at the deck.

[@Youda00008]

Are the versions of the F-16 really same in DCS and BMS? I don't remember where i read it, but i think they are different ones. Maybe Block 50 vs Block 52?

[@b3rno]

Yes, I'm working on it - will post the link for a retest as soon as it's done. Thanks

[@Youda00008]

@@b3rno I did not ask for a re-test lol :) i was just asking what are the versions. Does that mean there are multiple versions of the F-16 in BMS?

[@b3rno]

@@Youda00008only in STR section. I'll make a retest of that

[@b3rno]

here is a link for a retest video of STR with same blk 50: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYOloo2GgctgjKM

[@AviationPlus]

It might be time for another one

[@PatrickJamesBeckett]

falcon bms has more realistic simulation almost like real F-16 , dcs world is only giving beautiful graphics

[@glassfullofmilk]

Interesting I looks like there is a little less drag on the dcs model but slightly higher lift on the bms model but with the ITR the induced drag was higher in the DCS model than the BMS model for the amount of lift and tr achieved. But at low levels of Aoa dcs has less induced drag than bms and obtains a faster top speed looks like the lift on the bms model is higher too in this example as it was flown at a lower aoa. Also funny enough neither sim simulates exceeding vne.

[@QuietWatcherObserving]

Actually they do in dcs. The aircraft will start to shake and become harder to control iirc. Not sure if it is realistic or not or if the aircraft takes damage from that. I believe it does though. Maybe it is different for each plane though. I fly the FA18-C.

[@glassfullofmilk]

@@QuietWatcherObserving all DCS models is some wing wobble no engine compressor stalls as the diverterless intake looses efficiency or structural failures in the f16, I have seen them do 900knots on the deck without issues.

[@zigzagfly1635]

Is there a video showing a comparison between DCS vs BMS EM Performance data ?

[@b3rno]

Tbh dont know i never seen one before.

[@alphapicturesentertainment]

There's a bug with the DCS F-16 not allowing it to reach the maximum negative G load.

[@b3rno]

looks like it indeed. Friend of mine report it, but he was told that it's not in priority list - unfortunately

[@cloud_1688]

As a DCS Player, this other sim looks really good too :)

[@b3rno]

Please check out more about Falcon BMS here: www.falcon-bms.com

[@mplmpl7780]

No VR which is a shame

[@daveg5857]

@@mplmpl7780 It just got VR support!

[@Dee-Jay]

@@mplmpl7780 kzbin.info/www/bejne/bGabkqtmrp1-ftU

[@drafura]

@@mplmpl7780 BMS have VR with 4.37, meanwhile DCS have no dyn campaign wich is a shame

[@HyundaeCho]

Great video and I enjoyed it. I've done a similar test in the past, and watching this video reminded me of an old my questiones. 1. Why is the sustained turn of BMS shown as a distorted circle in the tack view S/W ? 2. BMS, The effect of reducing the weight of the aircraft due to fuel consumption is not visible (So that the plane is more maneuverability). On the other hand, DCS do this well. 3. If users actually play both simulations with enough time, the FM of BMS feels unnatural, and it just feels like a game. (DCS looks more realistic.) I look forward to your next great video. Thank you.!

[@Dee-Jay]

Hi! 1. Top view from TACVIEW is not 100% vertical, so it appears oval (explained in some comments way above). 2. Where on the video? ... Maneuverability is not really tied to weight but on AoA and energy/airspeed. 3. Looks ... but is actually not. (confirmed by three different F-16 drivers)

[@Capt_OscarMike]

I am an older guy (lot older) but decided to get into flight sims since a health issue grounded me in real lie (heart attacks will do that)....the reason I mention is due to DCS having their Spring Sale right now and I have NEVER heard of BMS....Although I am certified or better wayto say is multiple certifications/ratings in most private aircraft including small and medium sized jets...the largest being a Challenger 300....I am intrigued w high performance military aircraft...Nice timing due to I was about to purchase a couple more DCS aircraft, maps and campaigns...I've already purchased most of IL-2's offerings. Soon as I am able to figure out whether I need a USB hub or 3rd party add-ons for comms, Navigation and or mods and take the time to set up my beginner level HOTAS setup I purchased not long ago I will be humiliating myself...mostly out of sight of others due to my confidence in being blasted before I even take off in DCS multi-player... I also haven't decided on head/eye tracking yet but should be able to make that choice sooner than later...Thanks for the video...Looking forward to learning more about BMS

[@b3rno]

Hi there Oscar - you can start looking here: www.falcon-bms.com/ And here is BMS official discord : discord.gg/KQNHQBz

[@gb7418]

In DCS it’s so different above angels 20 with a loadout - flying Mach .7+ but at 6 degrees AOA; I don’t think the AOA would be that high in BMS at that speed ~21000MSL. In DCS the FM seems far less responsive up high than the BMS model.

[@mitch_the_-itch]

In reality the farther up you go the less responsive an aircraft gets.

[@gb7418]

@@mitch_the_-itch yes of course- it’s this way in BMS too. Have you tried BMS recently?

[@leggomypotato1484]

I might add a few more test suggestions. One of them is shifting center of lift. In DCS, they don't model it. Imagine your aircraft is falling flat, or even in a tail slide. The Center of lift shifts backward and forces a highly stable profile on just about any aircraft. When climbing until hitting near zero, the plane should nose down with a strong authority or try to flip around quite suddenly. In DCS, this doesn't happen and the plane always gets stuck nose up for a while. It's a problem with all of their modules. The other suggestion I have for comparison is biased pylon drag. Load up one wing full of shit and the DCS version still flies in a straight line once trimmed. You also get no side force contribution from bags as often described.

[@b3rno]

Check out my new video on the channel asymetric loadout: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4i2pa1vlM6cfLssi=2auVpzgY-fH0yanS

[@leggomypotato1484]

@@b3rno that's gold lol

[@ReisShorts.]

we can even hear the breathing in G's

[@fredclifton2208]

Oh boy, you are using BMS block 52 instead of block 50 for sustained turn rate test! Will you redo the test?

[@b3rno]

Yes, I'm working on it - will post the link for a retest as soon as it's done. Thanks

[@b3rno]

here is a link for a retest video of STR with same blk 50: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYOloo2GgctgjKM

[@mobius7089]

Does BMS have over-speed damage modeling?

[@Globalnet626]

Yes

[@b3rno]

Correct

[@Shehbaz666]

In BMS, you will damage the engines and make them incapable of AB if you use the AB for too long. I think this is caused by overheating. This catches most DCS players by surprise.

[@AngersFiction]

@@Shehbaz666 That's not how afterburners work

[@S1baar]

what is blk?

[@Kingonads]

The F-16C Blk 50 in DCS has come a LONG LONG way since its release. It is far closer to the performance of the one ins Falcon BMS which is good. Now if only they can get the rest of the systems up to par. But that is a different topic.

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

Half baked and unfinished is the Egale Dynamics way.

[@ShqipeInfo-bc3ss]

@@sasquatchycowboy5585 well if you are looking for a finished aircraft then go fly a real jet 🤣🤣🤣

[@debbiestimac5175]

At 3:00 I started to feel a gag coming up, just thinking of doing GLOC prevention breathing for that long. "Hip! Hip! Hip! Hip! Hip! Hip! Hip! Hip! Hip Hip! Hip! Hip! Hip!.... Puke!"

[@Stubbies2003]

Nah you won't get sick at that point. The irony is it is after that point when things are calmed down straight and level.

[@MrLifferto]

The following material is a flight model comparison of F-16 blk 50 in both simulations and does not intent to start debate about which platform is better. But... 1. 20 fps 2. 60 fps

[@R3dd_1247]

20 fps in DCS??? You must be running it on an actual potato then... It's not that demanding of a game

[@ArchOfficial]

I think there is some kind of weird bug around M1.0 in BMS 4.36.0 right now, the F-16 can't get past it at most altitudes. It will probably be fixed in .1 (was not a problem in 4.35) but just a heads up. I don't think it affects the acceleration, though, the plane just hits a wall at M1.0.

[@MultiJp51]

There is no issue with the FM, you need to apply the patch about loadout as described in the forum.

[@ArchOfficial]

@@MultiJp51 I applied some config fixes but it appears to be a crashfix rather than performance fix. I'll go search the forums for that, then. Do you have a link perhaps?

[@MultiJp51]

@@ArchOfficial it’s not a crash fix at all. If fixes a bug of loadout that loads a ghost loadout on the plane.

[@ArchOfficial]

@@MultiJp51 Yeah, you're right. I tested to make sure and at 10,000ft with full AMRAAM loadout and 600l bags, F-16CM-40 can reach past M1.0. Thanks for the fix!

[@ethanhiggins4887]

cool video but the g's were nowhere near the same for most of the manuevers

[@xXmobiusXx1]

Ok you know Falcon has been around for decades and was dedicated to reference the F-16c, DCS is not reference sim it's the old su-27 or later known as flanker then known as modern air combat, it cannot be due to having to model multiple planes and the nature of the engine. So to put it simply DCS physics are per plane and do not follow the laws of the simulated world, however Falcon does, BUT only can become more accurate as CPU processing power grows, Falcon was at a time a official ( may still be ) training sim for F-16 pilots. So Falcon technically will have more accuracy and the fact Micropros is back, we will see Falcon become even more in the future.

[@rasmusjensen4683]

But isn’t DCS modelled with real-time psysics as well? Correct me if I’m wrong… the reason DCS can have multiple planes is because they have a much larger development team, with sub development teams which only focus on one module. Probably the same size as the falcon bms team. DCS is a simulated world which gives the benefit of having multiple airplanes which all integrate into the core simulation.

[@xXmobiusXx1]

@@rasmusjensen4683 modulated physics, still separated from the world. Dcs is flanker, just updated, same systems and logic, it relies on a per aircraft modulated physic system that limits the accuracy of flight dynamics.

[@rasmusjensen4683]

@@xXmobiusXx1 hmm what about the differences between the fc3 and full fidelity modules fm wise? Isn’t the full fidelity modules fm much more accurate. Because it’s real time physics vs basically a table of data

[@gigantrejser4926]

How about SAM missiles behavior in BMS?

[@JD96893]

Performance is way better in BMS... FPS that is ;)

[@soumyajitsingha9614]

DCS seems more vibrant and life like

[@BottleOJamie]

yeah thats cause falcon 4.0 was released in 1998

[@SnaxDesAvions]

@@BottleOJamie DCS was known as Flanker, Flanker 2, LOMAC, FC2, etc and was released at the same era as Falcon 4.0 etc, it's been graphically updated ever since, went from engines to engines like TFCGE (The Fighter Collection Graphic Engine) to the latest known as EDGE (Eagle Dynamics Graphics Engine) released in 2015 and still being graphically updated, all maintained by a company. The reason of difference in graphics with both is that Falcon was abandonned in 2000s, and is only now maintained by a group of dedicated modders doing that on their free time. It's like starting a race together but take a pause from 1998 to 2011 and try to catch the others lol

[@JamesW81]

I've honestly never heard of BMS until now. The F-16 in DCS is still in early access though. Probably be more FM tweaks as it goes along. As I'm watching on my phone screen and have broken my glasses I couldn't see fully what was going on, but it looked pretty similar.

[@b3rno]

You can find out more about BMS here - www.falcon-bms.com/

[@JamesW81]

@@b3rno cool, thank you.

[@williamgfjunior2580]

I have both. DCS looks nice but BMS, despite it's age it is way ahead from DCS viper. Sometimes I try to play DCS but it seems an arcade game when comparing to BMS systems and then I come back to BMS.

[@Unkindled2270_Dio]

DCS F-16 has been in early access for almost 3 years now and it's only a single block... People literally say "X is in early access so it will be improved in the future" while paying $80 as some kind of excuse.

[@JamesW81]

@@Unkindled2270_Dio Yes it has, and they're still doing improvements to it. But if you're smart, you know they do at least 4 sale events a year. I've not paid full price for a single module.

[@akulaxbms1905]

it misses a conclusion at the end...

[@rwhunt99]

OH, I . . . don't really care about it, I fly in only one sim at a time, so while you put a lot of time and effort into it, it doesn't matter.

[@Aqueox]

Digital Combat Simulator vs. Bimimal Mombat Simmilator

[@faisalwho]

Now do flightgear!

[@2rhx]

What is BMS?

[@b3rno]

It's a mod for Falcon 4.0

[@2rhx]

@@b3rno THX!

[@MaxWaldorf]

Oh no! Another DCS vs BMS contest?!?!? You can't compare... BMS didn't have VR... They are doomed!

[@sorcer3r17]

😉

[@b0bl00i]

Oh noes.. VR would be cool though but the draw distance and link16 should be added first. Squeeze in VR if you can.

[@nedo68]

couldnt said it better, everyone dedicated to Flightsims, even the Army using VR. Without it it feels like Nintendo SNES

[@ofiterpunte]

Well... About that...

[@Viper_160]

@@b0bl00i bro I have news for you....

[@259559ful]

I can still pull 9g full load out in dcs. Not very realistic.

[@AngersFiction]

That's how the viper works. You should break stuff if you do though, which BMS does.

[@259559ful]

@@AngersFiction i dont recall anything breaking in that configuration in dcs

[@rovpilot1]

DCS has wrong fittings in the beginning

[@headlesschicken7580]

Honestly i didnt even know bms was a thing

[@b3rno]

U know now...

[@headlesschicken7580]

@@b3rno yup ig so

[@gabrirossi743]

Bms seem faster, I mean the feeling of speed

[@Tamburello_1994]

Viper is still early access so quite irrelevant. Just a snapshot in time. When Viper is released as finished, then I'll look at data such as this.

[@MrPhantom453]

Exactly.

[@xdiver01]

DCS F-16 FM is horrible, too much drag.

[@biggie10101]

Ah yes someome whos flown the f16

[@woiace]

The thing I don’t quite like for Falcon BMS compared to the older Falcon 4.0: Allied Force (I am still playing that 20 year old game) is that the BMS manual(s) doesn’t explain clearly on the right keys to press to operate the various functions, unlike the older Falcon 4.0 manual. I hope the Falcon BMS can take this feedback into account and make some improvements to the manual’s content.

[@ArcherAC3]

It's because you don't press keyboard keys in an aircraft, but switches and buttons. BMS manuals excels at explaining every system in details (at times, more than you actually need to know for the sim) and how you interact with them. It's up to the player / simmer to know what action their physical keys translate to. Default keys are just a placeholder and should definitely be mapped to something else as you learn the sim.

[@Stubbies2003]

What Archer said plus if you go into the edit for commands it will show you what is assigned. If you forgot what you put where in the edit just hit that button and it will pop right to the command it is assigned to just like DCS. I wouldn't save through that edit menu as that gets rid of the default comments in the key file.

[@generalpasa5828]

SONUNA KADAR DCS

[@FeguerFineArt]

Ok, what is BMS? New to flight sims.

[@b3rno]

Hi please check out more here: www.falcon-bms.com - thank you

[@FeguerFineArt]

@@b3rno Thank you!

[@ironcross112]

I don't know how you can compare them when one i have exactly 18 dollars spent on BMS and roughly 2,000 on DCS.

[@xdiver01]

And still BMS FM is far better.

[@robertsartino7664]

Someone should ask for a refund from DCS LOL 😂

[@gigantrejser4926]

@@xdiver01 How about SAM missiles behavior in BMS?

[@mitch_the_-itch]

I wonder what Microprose is going to do with it? Back in the day Microprose was my favorite developer. What is most shocking to me is how long its taken ED to catch up even at the exorbitant prices they charge for animated 3D model. ED is truly one of the worst Devs in Sim history. ED management is far more concerned with their yachts and sailboats than they are your flight sim.

[@TheDegenerateLord]

wtf IS BMS?

[@ceekay666]

intend not intent

[@maciekw1354]

I który sim lepszy...? ;)

[@mishmash4760]

I feel like I want to get into bms but the graphics just look awful in comparison

[@stopthemadness398]

OMG! this video show what??? damn ok we know the turn

[@2lbsTrigrPull]

BMS is better.

[@geo32573]

How about DCS vs Battlefield 2042? Both are good flight simulators... #sarcasm

[@RTPJu]

BDM cost 10x less and have the best single player campaign (a dynamic one) in any sim around. DCS is just overpriced junk... got powned by a simulator from the 90s

[@Cedarlog]

bro did not read the disclaimer at the start

[@ironcross112]

With the money DCS is makeing it would have to be better but bms is pretty good for a free simulator

[@reillybrangan2182]

Not neccesarily. The DCS F-16 is still very much being tuned, the Falcon BMS F-16 is a result of over 20 years of iteration.

[@ArchOfficial]

Funnily enough DCS is the one that has been trying to catch up in almost every aspect.

[@MultiJp51]

Why do you think a payware product is better than a freeware ??

[@robertsartino7664]

He says it’s pretty good for a free sim!! BMS has DCS out flown in every respect, not to mention one hell of a dynamic campaign system. Some people like flying in a relative empty sandbox environment. That’s ok because you can look at pretty things on the ground with your VR, no real threats other than scripted ones. Don’t get me wrong DCS is pretty indeed.

[@reillybrangan2182]

@@robertsartino7664 DCS will never be able to keep my attention the same way BMS does so long as that dynamic campaign is absent

[@thompiraux]

Rudder in BMS seems overpowered...

[@schnitzelmopi]

There are a lot of know-it-alls in this comment section. Too bad they couldn't know enough to actually be an Air Force pilot.

[@tinto278]

Go get a real F-16 and test it. Add it to the video.

[@designatedtruth1205]

DCS have light and shadowing that BMS do not

[@NPC_-mf4dw]

If you think these are meaningful strong points, you don't even know what BMS has to offer.

[@arcosiancosine1065]

...BMS doesn't have VR.

[@aircombatunclassified7107]

😆

[@jrfirefiher]

Ok…..

[@Globalnet626]

It's coming relatively soon.

[@MultiJp51]

What is the point in relation with this video ?? How come VR change the FM modeling ?

[@Globalnet626]

@@MultiJp51 LOL Is that you Mav?

[@nesseihtgnay9419]

Dcs looks real, bms looks like a game

[@6XENO9]

Question is not how it looks, but how it flies. Where DCS still has lots to improve. BTW (just mine opinion) When DCS GFX is nice, but at times Hollywood style overly dramatic.

[@EstraNiato]

DCS looks as cartoonish as ever

[@delta9990]

Dcs is better in terms of content and graphics, bms has only the f16 but does it to perfection

[@jrfirefiher]

@@delta9990 bms has the f15c wip

[@Espere]

@@delta9990how is DCS better in terms of content? DCS may have a lot of different modules, but otherwise it's absolutely lacking and completely reliant on the community to come up with content to play.

[@jasonzmurphy]

The complete arrogance as to not even put any information as to what “bms” or “dcs” is anywhere in the entire video or text, just arrogantly assume everyone knows.

[@boeingtre4218]

Stupid