@@edwinalwy2039 I would not be surprised if BMS gets a full F-15E because 3D assets for a Strike Eagle cockpit ALREADY EXIST in BMS and a lot of the systems needed can be transferred over from the F-15C. The only thing that will be missing is multi-crew functionality. Functionally the F-15E is already playable; it just has F-16 MFDs, sounds, and HOTAS commands.
Amazing. Keep the f15 content coming and props to the devs. BMS stole me away a week ago and I haven’t looked back at dcs since… the eagle has always been my favorite plane. Having a ff one is a dream. So much to learn
@@freakmusicaddict I think there's long range boresight on strike eagle as one of the aacq modes? But pretty confident that ED will never add it to the FC3 F-15C
@@MusicByNemo1I mean it still *works* for the most part, though at current you have to change your OS date to be June 12th after DCS launches, so that your radar isn't frozen. I use Long Range Boresight mode all the time in DCS, because alot of the time, I can visually spot the target out to 20+nmi, so it's alot easier to just lock the radar that way.
Considering what is happening with the debacle in DCS, and that 3D assets exist for the Strike Eagle cockpit in BMS, I would not be surprised if at some point the F-15E reaches this same level of fidelity in some future development just because so much can transfer over and the only thing stopping that is time and interest.
I started with DCS but it was rough. Strangely, I learned to fly better, navigate, etc with BMS. Every flight was different with the dynamic campaign. I started to understand the ground threats much better. I didn't get smoked by bandits with DCS's magical A.I. flight mechanics. I think it may have been the layout of BMS and the way it was structured made more sense for my brain. Plus, the F16 was the best beginner plane to learn on as DCS didn't have their F16 model then. Anyone else have a similar experience?
Absolutely, the way that BMS is structured from a UI/UX perspective, it effortlessly protrays the processes of planning and flying fighter missions in the modern age. The dynamic campaign is the most immersive experience available of any combat flight sim and even when you become very experienced, it still throws curveballs at you. The thing about BMS, is that it's not just one element, but the confluence of the air/sam AI, campaign engine and UI that gives an unparalleled experience.
I don't think it was possible for me to have a similar experience. I got Falcon 4.0 on release and I did not have then nor ever owned or played Flanker (the earliest precursor to DCS). Most PCs I had since then could not run LOMAC multiplayer and I could not play DCS until recently when I finally bought a gaming rig so I was stuck with Falcon 4.0 and derivatives (mostly Allied Force). The one thing I will say DCS wins out on is flying helicopters... for now.
Man..... I keep putting off playing this cause of the graphics but I'll be damned if it doesn't look better and better system wise all the time. Ugh..... Yall gonna make me get another friggen addiction. I'm already addicted to the Strike Eagle but...... This is lookin AMAZING 🥺😆 Edit:Just finished the video and its pretty much exactly like the streagle bro, alright.... I'm sold. I'mma try it. I have a few systems to learn but I really already know all the air to air stuff by heart. Fantastic job guys and thanks making such an amazing module.
To be honest, our radar is nowhere near as complex as the strike Eagle! It will get more love and become even more real in future updates though. Definitely do download and try it. After all it’s FREE! DCS is great and does some things really really well, and for sure the graphics are better, but with the new aircraft models and PBR that came with U4 - BMS is looking amazing. Also, for modern BVR combat, BMS is hands down the best replication of any sim!
@@__Dusty_ I don't know man, the acquisition controls are pretty much 1-1. Yall are killing it and you've earned yourself another guy wanting to try it. I'll be doing a download today for sure since it really sows look incredible. Thanks for the hard work and can't wait to try it 💫
@@EpicNinjaRides Nah, I don't play BMS for the graphics, but sure it will be a great addition to the experience. Like when we add ortho tiles in X-Plane
@@__Dusty_ happy to hear it! I left the f15 aside after missing a couple of must haves, but looking at it now it’s feature complete as far as mission readiness goes; time to knock that switchology back into memory
how does your f15c cockpit look so high res? Especially your mpcd and vsd? I have bms 4.37 u4 too with the latest hotfixes. My F15c cockpit doesnt have that sheen on the mpcd like yours
@@__Dusty_ ah thanks, I've been running into a problem tryna update, every time I hit update, it says "a update has been found" I click "Ok" and it does absolutely nothing lol
why would you want to port this full fidelity F15C in a sterile environment ? This beasts are made to combat in full scale realistic war. Not sand boxes PvP airquakes
Yeah that's such a sad situation. I'm a huge fan of the RB F-15E. Their radar model is out of this world. Huge respect for their module, hopefully they can continue to work on it one day.
@@utley never had any issue with them personally, but I’m not fully across all the DCS drama lol. Looks like they definitely hired the right people for the Strike Eagle tho :)
@@freakmusicaddict you would have had to bought their modules in FSX or P3D to really understand. They play the blame game, its never their fault when something doesnt go their way. First experienced that when I tried to tell them their AV-8B was broken in navigation when their GR7/9 worked just fine, and their excuse (why did they need one?) was that it was FSX that was the problem and Microsoft was the one that needed to fix it. Why? It worked fine in one of their aircraft, the code couldnt have been that dissimilar to each other...Im just sick of Razbam and their excuses.
@__Dusty_ man ive really been wanting to get into bms. im a dcs player, not sure all the specifics of mods etc you need to play in vr. but im really considering, just hard with all the $$$ i have in DCS
Totally understandable! I play both sims as I love helicopters in DCS and the strike Eagle. Yo don’t need any mods to get VR working! It has VR support built right in :)
@@bobholmes487Falcon 4 is just 6 or 7€ and you can even return it within 14 days if decide otherwise (on steam). Also, Falcon bms is just about 30 gigs with some theatres)
That's very kind words but honestly, we are big fans of the Razbam F-15E, they have set the bar extremely high for their quality of 3d model, FM, radar and avionics. We are striving to match their quality some day in the future.
I respect BMS for what it is, and would love for it to do more of what I would want out of a flight sim. And I find the dregs of fanboys in r/hoggit and some other general combat sim spaces insufferable when they pretend ED/DCS is trash because things aren't 100% perfect or complete with some avionics system or flight model condition. They know everything DCS doesn't do "exactly right" but don't care if/what BMS doesn't have accurately at all until BMS changelogs shows "the fix."
Sadly, both communities have plenty of people who talk a lot of trash about the other sim. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I think the issue with DCS is that bc people pay quite a lot of money for modules that are often buggy or subject to longstanding DCS core issues, it makes them quite vocal in their dissappointment.
@@__Dusty_ That is a common factor that comes up in r/hoggit, but such people have no concept of proportional work and effort. How complex is it to make and manage a sim/platform like DCS. And it's all too common of a pattern that BMS is the one and only "clearly better" sim. It's not like anyone is comparing to any other combat flight sim. That's why it's toxic. No one is being genuine about how much their money should get them considering DCS for what it is, and aims to be. The "constantly buggy" state you mention, I'm sure exists for some of the less popular modules, but often it is some functionality that isn't super critical for a platform and the complainer is overblowing it. If the fuel page for the F/A-18 is busted and I can't tell what the optimal endurance altitude and speed are, I wouldn't consider the F/A-18 broken, but over in r/hoggit, it's unflyable in some hairline necessary scenario that someone will claim is the bread and butter of all missions. Again, it's that anti-DCS gaslighting that makes people say "oh, it's a buggy mess" when I rarely run into game breaking bugs -- thought F-15E was the first and only non-ED developed module I've purchased. I've seen BogeyDope, a real F-16C crew chief I believe, post videos of updates of the F-16C changes since early access has been available. It's rare, but happens that I catch him saying "_____ was completely broken before and now it's fixed." Never has he said "oh yeah, couldn't at all use the F-16 for an entire class of mission because ___ was broken." A vast majority of what happens are improvements or adjustments towards higher accuracy and completing implementation, but rarely changes how you would fly the F-16 in DCS. It's one of those "the internet says over and over again" but does your actual experience constantly do that.
Lmao, nice troll. But the genuine answer is that people who enjoy combat flight simulators that are less arcade and more on systems depth and environmental depth will always prefer BMS over DCS. Personally, I like both.
I mean 6 bucks and you can return it on steam for 14 days (bms playtime doesn't count on steam, therefore no 2hour limit). If you have a hotas, just give it a go. The dynamic campaign will instantly sell you.
