- I'm sure we'll all try it, no doubt about that
- I'm sure they'll use what they develop for the F/A-18 (and even part of the A-10C which has a lot of similarities with the F-16) for the future addons like the F-16. It's not even smart coding, it's the only logical way.
That said, F/A-18 and F-16 radar are quite different!
- I have no issue with their money addicted posture, as I said in my first post (which was apparently missed) it's a commercial company and that's what commercial companies do. I fully appreciate that but I am mature enough to also realise the limitation of such a system.
- As Jody I bought all the modules that were appealing to me and used them for a bit in MP with a few buddies but I always returned to something more dense, providing me a more real environment for MP combat
- I adapted my pit for an easy switch from the F-16 to the A-10C. Lots of similarities, stick, MFDs, ICP/UFC, weapon systems
I can tell you that this is not easy. BMS and DCS have completely opposite views of outputting data. It is possible but a simple click reconfiguration is a bit presomptuous. I have the tee shirt already
- If you like rampstarting multiple times and flying around. DCS is super great. If you want a dense combat environment, DCS lacks very much. it's empty, repetitive and boring quickly.
This analogy resumes pretty well the same difference in pit builders. These building a piece of furniture and those building a tool to achieve better immersion in flight simulation actually using the pit as a mean to enjoy combat flight sim in multiplayer.
Both optics are valid and both have their software solution. So I'm all for it
Comparing a BMS vs DCS development time frame isn't very meaningful. Two very different development environments.
which is the very first argument of the comparison
I'm not familiar with BMS team and the behind the scenes work but i'd bet DCS has far more resources available for research, 3d modelling, coding and testing.
I disagree.
A passionate coder working for free goes deeper into things because time (and therefore money) is not an issue.
The paid software developer may not be passionate by what he codes, he's under time and result pressure and often that leads to not so deep research.
Si in my humble opinion, the paid coder will always provide less deep research and work than the free coders, just because of time, pressure and motivation.
And that IMHO is exactly the difference between BMS and DCS
Now having said that - I love and respect both ventures and their users. I do believe that one is not mutually exclusive from the other. BMS has merit but so has DCS for being the only real company with the guts to develop such products commercially, and my philosophy is to support them just for that.
There is no benefit to bash one or the other. Both ventures could learn from each other. Unfortunately they fight each other through their fanboys official team
Very often with poor insights.
So i'm sure there is enough to enjoy both. And if it takes 2 or 5 years it doesn't change one bit
Guests: 22
Hidden: 0
Users: 0