"Soon" doesn't count at all. Is it here yet? No? Then the answer to ricnune's question is still a "NO."
Irrelevant. Almost all the necessary systems are there, they just don't happen to be built into the same airframe. Context.
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
Which involves *A LOT* of effort and with very low (if any) replayability. Very small in scope as well.
Has anyone tried to make a fast-mission, take an F-15, and see how far you can go before you "leave" the theatre?
Sure, no one's disputing that - but there are ways to gain some efficiency.
Quote:
Again, DCS is an airframe simulator. DCS is better than BMS in terms of graphics (and VR) and in the sense that each aircraft is it's own aircraft (as opposed to a modded F-16), but that's about it. As a whole, if you are looking for a combat flight simulator, BMS does a lot of things better than DCS. If you are looking for FSX where you fly different aircraft and you can shoot missiles at different aircraft, then DCS has the airframe variety.
FSX doesn't have squat on DCS as far as combat goes. As for BMS doing things better - it does some things better, yes, and it has a following for a bunch of well known reasons. I can turn this one on its head and say - here, watch this - 'BMS does well for lazy people who don't want to set up their own detailed scenarios - but that's about it'.
Quote:
I don't think ricnunes was saying BMS exceeds any other sim, just that it exceeds DCS and therefore, DCS does not exceed other sims as Contempt was trying to point out.
The implication was there. When is any of this not X vs Y?
There are strengths in both sims that likely won't be replicated by the other. There's also unfulfilled potential in both.
