DCS, BOS and CoD+TF

[Pringliano]

Since the General forum is not the place to talk about other sims, and since I have been mentioning the positives of IL2 BOS at the DCS forums, AVSIM, an other sites, I would just like to give you my own rating of the 4 Combat sims I recently visited, with CoD + Team Fusion being very recent, but already occupying the 1st place...

 

I'm not an air combat simmer, but I'm becoming one, that's for sure. Il2 BOS was by far the sim that changed my likes... I was completely uninterested in air combat itself, and BOS has awaken the combat gene in me :-)

 

I had been using DCS for quite a few more time, primarily the p51d, recently the tf51 and the Dora. I am also eagerly awaiting my K4 pre-purchase to become available. I still find DCS remarkable in terms of flight dynamics modeling, in some aspects ahead of BOS, like in prop effects, if I forget about the deflected propwash bug, but then again I also find BOS prop effects while at slow speeds and power regime quite unrealistic, like while taxiing and even on initial takeoff run.

 

I was trying to start using RoF too, since I bought it in a promotional sale, when I found BOS to be the excellent sim IT CERTAINLY IS, and because I knew the same team was also behind RoF....

 

The completely unexpected outcome was Il2 CoD. I had long been told good and bad things about it. My simmer mates know I am primarily concerned with flight dynamics and systems modeling, weather modeling, most kind of stuff modelled in civil sims and that doesn't make much sense in a ww1 or ww2 sim, and so, when they talk to me about other flight simulation games, they try to focus on those aspects. But honestly, because I was not up to Combat Flight, I never even thought about spending money & time with CoD.

 

Well, everything can change in our lives, and being somehow disappointed with the deflected propwash bug in DCS, the poor ground handling in BOS as well as the problems it still has with the pitch down induced flick roll on the fw190, and the Bf109 although not so intense, I decided to give CoD a try. I will skip my first experience, and jump into the state of my evaluation of the 3 sims I am using.

 

Flight Dynamics, Engine & Systems modeling:

=====================================

 

CoD + TF         --      9,0

DCS and BOS   --      8,0

 

 

Weather effects modeling:

=====================

 

CoD + TF & BOS  --  8,0

DCS                    --  6,5

 

Damage Modeling:

===============

 

CoD + TF  -- 9,0

BOS         --  8,5

DCS         --  7,0

 

 

AI, Missions and Campaign:

=======================

 

Can't really say much in this area, but what I have tried on the 3 sims makes me, again, put CoD in the 1st place

 

Sensation of Being There:

=====================

 

Hmmmm, very subjective, but there really is something special about BOS that makes me put it in the 1st place, with CoD closely following... No scores yet though...

 

 

My tests with the various aircraft models available in CoD revealed an unexpected quality and accuracy of the flight and overall physics modeling, as well as an attention to detail

when it comes to engine management and failures / damage due to improper use, damage from combat, etc...

 

I also really liked the way CoD addresses prop effects - I find it superior to BOS at present state of the sim, although I expect that something will be done, at least regarding 

ground handling and the pitch-down induced flick rolls on the German fighters...

 

Ground handling, btw, is again very plausible in CoD, probable ex-aequo with DCS.

 

I will continue to use and test all three sims. I look forward for additional content for all of the three, specially TF 5.0 for CoD, and new maps for BOS.

Edited November 11, 2014 by jcomm

[=LD=Hethwill]

Fixe!

 

I think you have it overall especially on the CloD.TF and BoS flight part.

I suggested a while ago that air density seems odd in BoS and you can definitely feel it more in TF, especially when you yaw, but then there is something in DN engine that makes the whole flow through the air feel much better in BoS, like it has no "surface" unlike what I feel in TF, somehow it feels i'm skidding on top of a fluid. But they both are great immersion sims, no doubt about that. Plus both give two complete opposite theatres of war, so for combat simmers it is always a plus.

 

Will keep an eye on this.

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

I enjoyed your perspective on these (and I enjoy them all too) flight Sims. And though I'm not quite as tech wavy on these as some do enjoy them all. I believe you'll find Rise of Flight equally enjoyable. It's sort of like comparing cars. They may all get you from point A to point B but it's how they do so. They each give you a different experience.

 

Chief

New Wings Virtual Flight Training

[gavagai]

Flight Dynamics, Engine & Systems modeling:

=====================================

 

CoD + TF         --      9,0

DCS and BOS   --      8,0

 

 

This makes no sense at all to me.  Only one of these sims models every switch in the cockpit and the systems they control, and it is not Cliffs.

 

For damage modeling you need to distinguish between a visual damage model and the physics.  "Damage model" by itself is ambiguous.  If you mean visual damage model then I agree Cliffs is the best.

 

I would also add a category for FFB support and feel.  For me that is where Cliffs is a big loser.  DCS and Rise of Flight are both great with the msffb2.

Edited November 11, 2014 by gavagai

[Pringliano]

This makes no sense at all to me.  Only one of these sims models every switch in the cockpit and the systems they control, and it is not Cliffs.

 

For damage modeling you need to distinguish between a visual damage model and the physics.  "Damage model" by itself is ambiguous.  If you mean visual damage model then I agree Cliffs is the best.

 

I would also add a category for FFB support and feel.  For me that is where Cliffs is a big loser.  DCS and Rise of Flight are both great with the msffb2.

 

 

gavagai, FF is something I am unable to test unfortunately - I never used a FF controller at home. Have been reading the best comments regarding MS FFB2, and I would really like to give it a try one day... Anyway, I believe that in the absence of a FF controller, other forms of giving the user a notion of the forces being required for some maneuvers, and even of the inability to "win" against physics under some high speed / G situations, should be explored, specially when we're dealing with ww2 aircraft, when no FBW systems were available ( although already designed and debated in theory... ). As most as I find the flight dynamics in DCS superb, I really don't like so easily braking my wings apart when I pull on the stick, without even an hint of that control not wanting to deflect as I am asking it too, particularly now on the Dora. I look fwd to see how te K4 behaves on a high speed pull....

 

When I mean DM, and understand what you're saying regarding DCS and the rather complex net of internal systems modeling and associated damages tree, but I have to give my perspective as a whole, and that way I think, from my even very short experience with CoD, that it does a better job.

Edited November 11, 2014 by jcomm

[Reflected]

Interesting comparison, and I must say I disagree about FM-s. I would also break it down to different parts:

 

Systems:

 

DCS: 10

CloD:9

BoS:7

 

Dynamics, actual feeling of flight:

 

BoS:9

DCS:7

CloD:5

 

FFB:

 

BoS:8 (RoF was 10, but in BoS I'D like some cannon impact feedback, or rolling/ touchdown bumps)

DCS:7

CloD:2

- Overall BoS feels excellent, but due to the nature of its revolutionary engine it has quite a few annoying quirks and bugs.

- CloD feels simply outdated. Spot on performances but lagging behind in feeling of flight. The systems modelling is optimal IMO, not too complex as DCS, but not simplistic as BoS.

- DCS might simulate every screw by the book I don't play it at all due to poor performance, total lack of content and outdated graphics. With all these, the nice FM just doesn't do it for me.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Reflected

[Pringliano]

Reflected, you're the 2nd mentioning the importance of FFB in RoF. I remember exchanging some messages with one of the fellow DCS users, who happens to be an aeronautical engineer and pilot, and really loves RoF, but complains about the total lack of force feedback - as far as I know he doesn't use an FFB joystick, so, maybe that explains why RoF appears no naked to him in this respect ( ? )

 

 

Regarding the "actual feel of flight", I agree that there is something really special about BOS, but flight dynamics wise, and strictly speaking of the outcome of your control inputs, prop effects, I am finding CoD more accurate / complete...

 

CoD is also the first sim I was able to see reproducing a porpoising situation so well and realistically as it sometimes happens IRL ( although, luckily. never in my case, yet, because an old friend pilot once told me there were two classes of glider pilots, those who already had porpoised and those who didn't yet... ).

 

Regarding DCS, I am anxiously awaiting a fix for that irritating deflected propwash bug :-/ and I am glad my aileron trim "tweak" will find it's way into the next patch :-)

Edited November 11, 2014 by jcomm

[Reflected]

Sorry I forgot:

 

Performance accuracy:

 

DCS: 10

CloD:9

BoS:7

@jcomm,

 

Flying with and without FFB makes the biggest difference in sims, bigger than TrackIR. It's the only point of contact between you and the game physically, and RoF does a great job transmitting the virtual environment through the stick. BoS is a close second only so far.

[DD_bongodriver]

Graphics

 

BOS: 8 (but it would be nice to have more control of settings) but somehow visually I really think BOS has captured the notion of a continuation and upgrade to the legacy IL-2 and I actually like it very much

CloD: 9

DCS: 8 anticipating EDGE to bump it up to 9

 

Systems

 

BOS: 5 (what systems? we don't even get to map trim on an axis)

CloD: 8

DCS: 9

 

flight modelling

 

BOS: 5 because of the numerous quirks (pitch wobble, super strong rudder, neg g stall behaviour, ability to do cobra manoeuvres, ability to do full aerobatic routines from take off in He-111's.....etc) but sorting those problems out would be a 8

CloD: 8

DCS: 9

(DCS and CloD like any sim also have quirks, but far less than BOS)

 

Damage modelling (visual and physical)

 

BOS: 6

CloD: 8

DCS: 7

 

Overall BOS is mediocre for me, a rehash of an ageing game engine, sold at a premium price, IMO the CloD engine would have been a better building block for a new venture.

CloD is a much more sophisticated piece of software and would have longer legs being based on a more contemporary game engine with DX11, clearly it was never inherently broken if a team of volunteers could fix major performance issues without even having the game code.

DCS is likely to be my go to sim for the future, my interests lay largely with pure simulation and I'm not much fussed about role play fantasy in recreating any romanticism in war.

[Vaxxtx]

Graphics

 

BOS: 8 (but it would be nice to have more control of settings) but somehow visually I really think BOS has captured the notion of a continuation and upgrade to the legacy IL-2 and I actually like it very much

CloD: 9

DCS: 8 anticipating EDGE to bump it up to 9

 

Systems

 

BOS: 5 (what systems? we don't even get to map trim on an axis)

CloD: 8

DCS: 9

 

flight modelling

 

BOS: 5 because of the numerous quirks (pitch wobble, super strong rudder, neg g stall behaviour, ability to do cobra manoeuvres, ability to do full aerobatic routines from take off in He-111's.....etc) but sorting those problems out would be a 8

CloD: 8

DCS: 9

(DCS and CloD like any sim also have quirks, but far less than BOS)

 

Damage modelling (visual and physical)

 

BOS: 6

CloD: 8

DCS: 7

 

Overall BOS is mediocre for me, a rehash of an ageing game engine, sold at a premium price, IMO the CloD engine would have been a better building block for a new venture.

CloD is a much more sophisticated piece of software and would have longer legs being based on a more contemporary game engine with DX11, clearly it was never inherently broken if a team of volunteers could fix major performance issues without even having the game code.

DCS is likely to be my go to sim for the future, my interests lay largely with pure simulation and I'm not much fussed about role play fantasy in recreating any romanticism in war.

I would rate it exactally the same. So...ummm ditto.

[GP*]

I would rate it exactally the same. So...ummm ditto.

Thank you for addressing the ridiculoud pitch wobble and rudder authority. This sim has such potential and the FM should be its biggest selling point, but the way aircraft flop around (mainly the 109) is frustrating. But people will continue to defend it and/or tell me I must not be able to fly, because after all, more difficult must equal more realistic.

 

Edit: meant to quote Bongo's post, but you get the point.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Prefontaine

[FuriousMeow]

What systems does CloD model? Fuel tank transfer? Starting the engine? Opening cooling flaps?

 

You do realise those exact systems are in BoS, some just aren't manual. And you do realise the systems in CloD aren't modelled with any level of depth? 3 clicks of the fuel pump cockpit area mouse clicky thingy and you're set! Not to mention all that cockpit interactivity can be mapped to buttons and keys so the clickpit doesn't make it more realistic at all.

 

The systems and the interactive cockpit are a silly distraction in CloD.

 

In DCS they mean something, in CloD - no - they should just be automatic since the exact same clicks and sequence will yield an engine start everytime.

 

The clear fact is the fans of CloD are just fans of Battle of Britain. There are so many issues in that engine that it doesn't matter how much TF hacks it, they will always still be present - unused, but present.

 

The CloD engine is so sophisticated it could only use one core at release. It uses two cores, by moving sound to a second core. That is sophistication right there! And the FM calculations, just an advance on 1946 FM4.0 which had a lot of silly bugs and issues that are quite terrible itself. CloD is not sophisticated, it was a feature creep graphics engine reboot reusing 1946's code for the FM and Ground Modeling, and everything else aside from the graphics - and leasing SpeedTrees because they couldn't figure out how to get trees to work. And somehow speedtrees broke sound in multiplayer with this sophisticated engine. Delusional is what CloD's rating is, simply delusional.

Edited November 11, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

since the exact same clicks and sequence will yield an engine start everytime.

 

Yeah because in real aircraft you can just make it up as you like and never follow a sequence.

[FuriousMeow]

Yeah because in real aircraft you can just make it up as you like and never follow a sequence.

 

So you're saying that a manual process and one that is automated just to cut down on the number of clicks is the same thing? Same process, same thing, just one requires you to do the clicks while the other one does the clicks for you - at the same exact timing. In a real aircraft you don't reach for your co-pilot's hand to pump the fuel, unless you're one of the mile high club pilot/copilot duos - but in clickpits you do, because that mouse isn't your hand reaching for that control to adjust it. You are reaching for someone else to change that control, like a key or a HOTAS button. SSDD with you, so convinced CloD is superior when it has so many failures but the clickpits, oh them clickpits.

Edited November 11, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Pringliano]

DCS also uses only 2 cores, one for the sound... I guess EDGE will change this...

 

And, BTW, I'm a big fan of DCS :-)

 

To give you just an example of something basic, but very important, that I find much more realistically modeled in CoD 109s than in BOS, simply look at the cadence at which your pitch trim wheel works in both sims...

 

I know the latest BOS patch just increased the fastest interval a bit, but still, by far and acording to realistic human limitations to move such a trim wheel I find by far CoD doing a better job.

 

And... btw, juyst came from a CoD session, and I really find nothing wrong with the grouind model or sideways friction? As  a matter of fact, my tires easily go flat when I abuse of side forces.... like when doing repeated spins on the rw....

 

Honestly, the more I use CoD, the more I think it had so great potential... What a BIG LOSS. Thanksfully, there's TF!!!

Edited November 11, 2014 by jcomm

[FuriousMeow]

I played CloD, I have it. I'm not going to go into this because you have TF which has the tires flatten when the aircraft achieves a certain angle of momentum with the gear down while contacting the terrain, that is not lateral tire traction - that is a pre-determined destruction point for the tires. They still don't grip though, they just slide across the terrain reinforcing my point. You should actually dip your outerwingtip into the ground before the tires go flat.

 

Go ahead and go with CloD, I already pointed out the short comings - they still exist because TF can't change the core. They can't change the core game because they don't have the source code to re-compile it. There isn't any information out there from TF they ever changed the lateral traction. Damaged tires isn't any indication of anything, 1946 and prior had the gear collapse after yawing down the runway at 150+km/h with the wheels on the runway. No, that is not lateral traction.

 

So your tests, they mean nothing because TF has done a lot of hacking in CloD to achieve some semblance of realism because they can't change the core code. Downgrade to the stock and patch through the dev patches, that are actual patches, and you will slide. The gear will fail eventually, just the same as they did with Il2:1946 - after sliding laterally for a hundred plus meters.

[Dakpilot]

I would like to know how many man hours have been put into CLoD TF to get it to where it is now

 

It is not that CLoD game engine is "broken" it obviously can yield good results, but as a commercial venture that would have had to pay the bills to get where it is today, how much would you have to pay to buy it in a real market. Notwithstanding recouping the 7 year development costs and after release patching

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

So you're saying that a manual process and one that is automated just to cut down on the number of clicks is the same thing?

 

No, but you are imagining I am for some reason.

 

 

 

In a real aircraft you don't reach for your co-pilot's hand to pump the fuel, unless you're one of the mile high club pilot/copilot duos

 

No but you verbaly request a cockpit function to be engaged/disengaged etc, since we don't all voice control our computers I assume it is acceptable to simply make these actions yourself using a standard computer interface.

 

 

 

In a real aircraft you don't reach for your co-pilot's hand to pump the fuel, unless you're one of the mile high club pilot/copilot duos - but in clickpits you do, because that mouse isn't your hand reaching for that control to adjust it.

 

That's right, it is the standard computer interface most commonly used and we can use it to operate our 'SIMULATED aircraft'

 

 

 

You are reaching for someone else to change that control, like a key or a HOTAS button. SSDD with you, so convinced CloD is superior when it has so many failures but the clickpits, oh them clickpits.

 

I am not reaching for someone else to do anything.......why have you changed your story? besides HOTAS has a limited number of assigneable functions, if they cannot all be mapped then for me the next best thing is a mouse controlled click pit instead of clumsy keyboard commands.

[DD_bongodriver]

I would like to know how many man hours have been put into CLoD TF to get it to where it is now

 

Would you? really?

 

 

It is not that CLoD game engine is "broken" it obviously can yield good results, but as a commercial venture that would have had to pay the bills to get where it is today, how much would you have to pay to buy it in a real market. Notwithstanding recouping the 7 year development costs and after release patching

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

You certainly don't recoup costs by shutting down and spending more money on another project and making more awfull design choices, let's face it, they took it to release, if they wanted to minimise losses it should have dawned on them before 7 years was up and just cancelled without release.

Edited November 11, 2014 by DD_bongodriver

[Tektolnes]

I would like to know how many man hours have been put into CLoD TF to get it to where it is now

 

A very large amount no doubt but a lot of that would have been working out what all the bits of code are doing and figuring out tools to work with what they had. If they had access to the source code and documentation things would've gone a lot quicker.

[gavagai]

You do realise those exact systems are in BoS, some just aren't manual. And you do realise the systems in CloD aren't modelled with any level of depth? 3 clicks of the fuel pump cockpit area mouse clicky thingy and you're set! Not to mention all that cockpit interactivity can be mapped to buttons and keys so the clickpit doesn't make it more realistic at all.

 

You'll never convince me that a clickable cockpit isn't more fun!  I don't know about realism, but I love rotating knobs with the mousewheel, clicking switches, sliding dials, and exploring the aircraft systems.  "Hmm, what does this do?"  I hardly have anything mapped to my joystick for the DCS Warbirds because there is no need to except for the essentials, like the throttle, trigger, and gunsight range.  Similarly, I don't consult the keyboard map because I can find every control that I need by using my eyes.

[siipperi]

You'll never convince me that a clickable cockpit isn't more fun!  I don't know about realism, but I love rotating knobs with the mousewheel, clicking switches, sliding dials, and exploring the aircraft systems.  "Hmm, what does this do?"  I hardly have anything mapped to my joystick for the DCS Warbirds because there is no need to except for the essentials, like the throttle, trigger, and gunsight range.  Similarly, I don't consult the keyboard map because I can find every control that I need by using my eyes.

 

I feel exactly same way. Its a lot easier to memorise how to start the plane using its own virtual cockpit and switches than map to joystick and keyboard and print those layers to memorize how you binded them.

 

 

And to keep in topic I made some ratings from 1-10.

 

Graphics: planes/world

BOS: 7/10

Clod: 8/9

DCS: 9/7 (dcs 2 might up graphics to 10/9 however by look of it)

 

System modeling:

BOS: 7

CLOD: 7-8 havent played that much recently so cant give accurate opinion.

DCS: 10

 

Flight model:

BOS: 7

CLOD: 7

DCS: 9-10 depending of module and its release status

 

Damage model visual/under the hood:

BOS: 8-9/8, thb hard to judge later one

CLOD: 8/ no idea for current modded clod

DCS: depending of module 4-7/8-10, sadly visual damage model on some of planes is just horrible.

 

Weather effects:

 

I must confest I have absolutely no idea about weather simulation of bos or clod but dcs have dynamic weather system that should be improved with dcs 2, and seems to work ok.

[avlSteve]

I like all of the mentioned sims.  Couldn't care much less about clickable cockpits, and personally can't stand having a mouse pointer on the screen. 

 

Regarding the twitch and rudder authority in BOS, I've adjusted my curves out on all 3 axes as far as they'll go, and do wish I could adjust the curve further.

 

I wish for a long and prosperous life for all flight simulators.

[Flyingpencil]

CoD + TF  -- Cliffs with what?

BOS         --  Battle of Stalingrad

DCS         --  ????

RF   Rise of Flight

[76SQN-FatherTed]

 

 

CoD is also the first sim I was able to see reproducing a porpoising situation so well and realistically as it sometimes happens IRL ( although, luckily. never in my case, yet, because an old friend pilot once told me there were two classes of glider pilots, those who already had porpoised and those who didn't yet... ).

 

 

Completely OT, but I was intrigued...Many years ago I did some gliding and I thought that the term porpoising described a deliberate flight pattern whereby you climb (slow down) in areas of lift and dive (speed up) in areas of sink in order to most efficiently fly in a straight line.  As I say, all a long time ago, so I could be imagining it all....

[J2_Trupobaw]

To keep things simple (without learning how to embed html in post)

____________________________________________________

|                                                                      |  BoS  | CloD | DCS |

-----------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------|--------|
|Clickable cockpit, detailed plane systems :|  NO    | Yes   | Yes |

---------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------|-------|
|Good physics and flight dynamics              |  Yes   |  NO  |  Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------| ---------|--------|------- |

|Good looking scenery, weather etc:           |  Yes   | Yes  |  NO  |

|__________________________________|_____|_____|_____|                               


Apparently some cosmic constant prevents all developers from delivering more than 2 of 3.

[SharpeXB]

To keep things simple (without learning how to embed html in post)

____________________________________________________

|                                                                      |  BoS  | CloD | DCS |

-----------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------|--------||Clickable cockpit, detailed plane systems :|  NO    | Yes   | Yes |

---------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------|-------|

|Good physics and flight dynamics              |  Yes   |  NO  |  Yes |

-----------------------------------------------------------| ---------|--------|------- |

|Good looking scenery, weather etc:           |  Yes   | Yes  |  NO  |

|__________________________________|_____|_____|_____|                               

Apparently some cosmic constant prevents all developers from delivering more than 2 of 3.

This ------> $

[Guest deleted@1562]

Just like "Good, Cheap, Fast: choose any two."

[76SQN-FatherTed]

To keep things simple (without learning how to embed html in post)

____________________________________________________

|                                                                      |  BoS  | CloD | DCS |

-----------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------|--------|

|Clickable cockpit, detailed plane systems :|  NO    | Yes   | Yes |

---------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------|-------|

|Good physics and flight dynamics              |  Yes   |  NO  |  Yes |

-----------------------------------------------------------| ---------|--------|------- |

|Good looking scenery, weather etc:           |  Yes   | Yes  |  NO  |

|__________________________________|_____|_____|_____|                               

 

 

Apparently some cosmic constant prevents all developers from delivering more than 2 of 3.

"Cosmic constant" probably = development money.  Or, more realistically, the computing power of home PCs.  But in all our tribal wars, I think you've nailed it.  We are separated into our camps by which sim delivers the most of what we each find most important.  For me it's the bottom two lines in your table (good effort btw).  That's why I'm here and not over at ATAG or DCS.  It's a purely subjective thing and, to my mind, there's no way to say which is the best of the three.

[-=PHX=-Satch]

Damage Modeling:

===============

 

CoD + TF  -- 9,0

BOS         --  8,5

DCS         --  7,0

 

 

 

 

9 in DM for COD + TF? really?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vVckh40tAI

[Chuck_Owl]

Makes perfect sense, knowing that the component-level damage model "under the hood" is much more elaborated in CloD. However, I think DCS should be a 9 too. It might not be as "visually" appealing as Cliffs of BoS, but the damage to systems is much more advanced. In CloD I generally know what to do or what happened when I have been hit and if I risk having engine troubles. In DCS, however, the engine management once your engine has been damaged can get much more complex than  you might think. One needs to appreciate the complexity in system modeling in order to fully realize what the DCS damage model actually brings to the table, even if it's not necessarily visually appealing. I fear much more for my engine in DCS than I do in CloD, and in BoS I hardly think about it because with one hit in the engine block your death is pretty much guaranteed. In CloD, you'd be surprised to see how much punishment one aircraft can take. The mindset of the fighter pilot in CloD is to aim for the engines or, more importantly the radiators. It's a more surgical approach than purely shooting into the aircraft fuselage like I do in BoS and seeing everything fall apart.

 

Edited November 21, 2014 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[Bearcat]

You'll never convince me that a clickable cockpit isn't more fun!  I don't know about realism, but I love rotating knobs with the mousewheel, clicking switches, sliding dials, and exploring the aircraft systems.  "Hmm, what does this do?"  I hardly have anything mapped to my joystick for the DCS Warbirds because there is no need to except for the essentials, like the throttle, trigger, and gunsight range.  Similarly, I don't consult the keyboard map because I can find every control that I need by using my eyes.

 

For me as long as all the functions are assignable to a switch or a pot I could care less about clickable pits. For me having to use my mouse while flying is a major immersion killer. If I can assign every function to something on my sticks i am golden.

 

CoD + TF  -- Cliffs with what?

BOS         --  Battle of Stalingrad

DCS         --  ????

RF   Rise of Flight

 

?? I don't understand your post.

[Chuck_Owl]

For me as long as all the functions are assignable to a switch or a pot I could care less about clickable pits. For me having to use my mouse while flying is a major immersion killer. If I can assign every function to something on my sticks i am golden.

 

 

?? I don't understand your post.

Perhaps he doesn't know what these acronyms mean.

 

CloD + TF = Il-2 Cliffs of Dover + Team Fusion patches (mod)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLDipDDf58E

BoS = Il-2 Battle of Stalingrad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHSEaHwPTM

DCS = Digital Combat Simulator 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHBIhvTfkb4&list=UUKDCQ2Y6CtqCjKceXO1J6hg

RF = Rise of Flight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUOZDYNW5Ok

[J2_Trupobaw]

"Cosmic constant" probably = development money.  Or, more realistically, the computing power of home PCs.  But in all our tribal wars, I think you've nailed it.  We are separated into our camps by which sim delivers the most of what we each find most important.  For me it's the bottom two lines in your table (good effort btw).  That's why I'm here and not over at ATAG or DCS.  It's a purely subjective thing and, to my mind, there's no way to say which is the best of the three.

Development money and I'd say legacy code that needed least improvements so it was left in obsolete form, possibly using the "if it's not broken - don't fix it" logic.  DCS seems to be concentrating on planes and still using Flaming Cliffs scenery (which was good enough for high and fast going jets, less so for low and slow warbirds and helicopters that came later). CloD seems to be concentrating on scenery and plane systems, using lot of 1946 physics below the polished TF flight models. BoS is definetely re-using Digital Nature engine, with all it's advantages and limitations.

 

 

[Pringliano]

CoD + TF  -- Cliffs with what?

BOS         --  Battle of Stalingrad

DCS         --  ????

RF   Rise of Flight

 

TF = Team Fusion Patches ( free ) - SUPERB! Made CloD probably my preferred prop flightsim EVER!  - http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/

DCS = Digital Combat Simulator  - http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/

 

 

Completely OT, but I was intrigued...Many years ago I did some gliding and I thought that the term porpoising described a deliberate flight pattern whereby you climb (slow down) in areas of lift and dive (speed up) in areas of sink in order to most efficiently fly in a straight line.  As I say, all a long time ago, so I could be imagining it all....

Sorry for the late reply, but I was no longer monitoring this thread :-/

 

What you talk about regarding that technique is "Dolphin" not "porpoising  :-)

 

And thanks Chuck for your excellent comments!  I do agree that DCS also deserves a 9.0

 

Anyway, one of the reasons I completely forgot to monitor this thread I started is that I am so overwhelmed with IL-2 CloD that most of my simming time goes with it :-)  Also busy trying to find the best NVidia settings for it :-)

 

Although I have DCS in the highest consideration, and still have to give Rise of Flight the necessary time to learn how to use it, contrarily to what some have posted, I do consider CloD's flight dynamics model, at least with the TF patches, one of the best I ever used as a flight simmer!  I usually runa a battery of flight dynamics tests to each new sim I try. Most have made me uninstall soon after. CloD surprised me positively each time I test a new item - heck! This platform is SO GOOD!!!! I would really like to see the TF efforts continue to grow and giving the CloD community even better reasons to make this ww2 sim probably the best available.

Edited November 22, 2014 by jcomm

[76SQN-FatherTed]

 

 

Sorry for the late reply, but I was no longer monitoring this thread :-/

 

What you talk about regarding that technique is "Dolphin" not "porpoising  :-)

 

 

Ah well, pretty close

[Bearcat]

Perhaps he doesn't know what these acronyms mean.

 

CloD + TF = Il-2 Cliffs of Dover + Team Fusion patches (mod)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLDipDDf58E

BoS = Il-2 Battle of Stalingrad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEHSEaHwPTM

DCS = Digital Combat Simulator 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHBIhvTfkb4&list=UUKDCQ2Y6CtqCjKceXO1J6hg

RF = Rise of Flight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUOZDYNW5Ok

 

Duhhhh

[Emgy]

The flightsimming world is truly an alphabet soup hell.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Calvamos

[indiaciki]

just curious, waht's your opinion on x-plane 10.3 ?

[SharpeXB]

9 in DM for COD + TF? really?

 

Yeah nothing beats the Digital Nature stuff for physics, it's so real looking. Big plus for DN is that damage model includes tree collisions which for WWI is completely important.

Cliffs of Dover has nice eye candy in terms of stuff you see on broken planes but the physics as shown in the video is sub par.

DCS has really great modeling detail and systems damage that is at the level of a pro simulator but sometimes lacks subtlety, I'm not sure how much damage affects the flight model but in the modern stuff you're looking at missile hits that just blow everything up. It's not up close and personal like RoF.

CoD has a lot of great features like the cockpits, systems, the models themselves are very nice and the game content if you add Desastersoft is quite good. But the flight model puts it in last place. One thing that strikes me watching fan videos is that the planes just don't look real in motion. Rise of Flight looks nearly real and so do the Pro FM aircraft in DCS. Just watch from 3rd person. The CoD planes look like an old stop motion movie. Especially on the ground. I've never installed TF so I suppose I should give it a try.