comparison with Bf 109 and Dw 190 in DCS World

[fighter1976]

Hi! 

I recently found out this site and I was amazed by the graphics and effects.I consider seriously to purchase this sim( taking in consideration that I played IL 2 1946 over 10 years). Have one question: I flew the Bf 109 and Fw 190 in DCS World.I would be much interested in a comparison between  the two sims : How it is the complexity of the flight, how each plane response in flight? In DCS World the flight characteristics are very well reconstructed, the graphics of planes are great, but they lack campaigns, scenery of the WW II and the effects are not so good.

Thank you and I don't mean to offend anyone asking for this comparison, but I really want to know how "true" one can feel the flyables in IL 2 BoS and the differences regarding the same planes in DCS World

[Comes]

System Modelling is not as deep as in DCS and there are no clickable Pits.

IMO the Flight Model (Plane Responding) is more believable and more realistic in IL-2. 

[fighter1976]

But I saw on some posts on  Youtube that , when start-up  the player actually click some contact, move some levers

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It's not that simple.

 

The engine and system management is fully modelled to a similar degree with DCS. The main difference is that the majority of these is controlled automatically during start-up. On most Bf-109 and Fw-190 variants the engine controls are automated in flight as well, but just like in the real aircraft you can switch some engine parameters to manual controls if you feel like it.

[fighter1976]

Yes . but several command are clickable, right?

[F/JG300_Gruber]

I believe you watched something on IL2 Cliffs of Dover where there's quite a few clickable commands in the pit.

 

In BoS, they are not and you have to bind things on the keyboard/joystick

Edited April 27, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[fighter1976]

So it's similar ti Il 2 Sturmovik, Il 2 1946 ?

[Dakpilot]

I do not fly/use DCS 109 or 190, so will not try to make a comparison, but if you have not tried BoS/BoM, a good intro to the game is to try out  1C/777  Rise of flight, the basic version with three flyable aircraft is free to download

 

Although WW1 and an earlier generation of the game engine with less development, it will give an idea into what it is all about, with no cost outlay, and although I personally prefer WWII as an era, RoF is an outstanding game/sim in its own right if a tiny bit older than Bos in some graphics and effects areas, with a generally very convincing FM overall

 

http://riseofflight.com/download/

 

By trying for yourself the flight characteristics/game it can give you some idea, of course the WW1 experience is very different to BoS/BoM, having used and enjoyed original IL-2, personally I can only recommend BoS highly 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

So it's similar ti Il 2 Sturmovik, Il 2 1946 ?

It's somewhere between Flaming Cliffs 3 and DCS level. The flight dynamics are excellent, and the reproduction of aircraft systems is off the charts too. Damage models are insanely good. The main difference is that cockpits are not clickable and some minor system functions are automated. For example, you cannot switch from fuel tank A to fuel tank B yourself, but you will see that the pilot is constantly working on that and the switch is moving all over the place as needed.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It's very different from DCS both in the Flight and Damage dynamics and has it's very own strongpoints and quirks compared to the other sim.

 

Flight models are not very compareable, infact the 109 feels very different from the K4 over there. FMs overall are a hot topic themself, some people love them, some dont like them. It's probably best to give it a try yourself to get an own opinion on that matter yourself (mind you that FMs are not finilised and BoS/BoM is expected to reccieve many FM improvements within the coming months).

 

Damage dynamics are definetly convincing and better suiting for WW2 gun combat. Wings can be bent or crippled by gunfire and rip off later under stress, sections can be shot off individually, controlls can be disabled ect.

 

The aircraft controlls are Key and Joytsick binded only and about as complex as the FC3 aircraft. Basic controlls availabel to the player are mixture, radiators, RPM, supercharger and boost injection. Everything else including mags, fuel pumps, electrics ect. is automated.

 

Personally I find BoS/BoM has one of the best flight dynamics overall (by that I referr to the weather / turbulence simulation) and although not all Flight Models are perfect it feels very authentic.

[Finkeren]

It's very different from DCS both in the Flight and Damage dynamics and has it's very own strongpoints and quirks compared to the other sim.

 

Flight models are not very compareable, infact the 109 feels very different from the K4 over there. FMs overall are a hot topic themself, some people love them, some dont like them. It's probably best to give it a try yourself to get an own opinion on that matter yourself (mind you that FMs are not finilised and BoS/BoM is expected to reccieve many FM improvements within the coming months).

 

Damage dynamics are definetly convincing and better suiting for WW2 gun combat. Wings can be bent or crippled by gunfire and rip off later under stress, sections can be shot off individually, controlls can be disabled ect.

 

The aircraft controlls are Key and Joytsick binded only and about as complex as the FC3 aircraft. Basic controlls availabel to the player are mixture, radiators, RPM, supercharger and boost injection. Everything else including mags, fuel pumps, electrics ect. is automated.

 

Personally I find BoS/BoM has one of the best flight dynamics overall (by that I referr to the weather / turbulence simulation) and although not all Flight Models are perfect it feels very authentic.

 

5tuka pretty much says it all here. Very good summary.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

There's nothing to do between those two. In BoS systems aren't only "automated" during auto start, they aren't there the same way they are in DCS and so they don't affect you the same way in your flight/engine management. Anyway BoS has a deeper engine management than any previous Il-2 so it's challenging enough, just not so in deep realistic as DCS but many would say that's unnecessary subtleties.

 

About Flight Dynamics, don't let anybody fool you, DCS is the best thing out there by far. They don't use than slogan but it's the only and true "as real as it gets" in simulation history and they are the milestone, you can "like" it or not but that is the damn real thing. BoS is a good compromise between some better realism than old Il-2 and a not so tough and harsh simulation, but it's not even comparable to DCS flight dynamics. Again many would say that's unnecessary subtleties but IMHO details here and there makes the whole simulation experience. BoS is focused in playability and combat, DCS in deep simulation so you can experience the closest to a real combat but they don't care much about playability. BoS lighter simulation makes them easier to release content sooner, DCS complexity makes content appear now and then at least until now. It's your taste and what you're looking for what should make your choice between those two very different approaches.

 

S!

[fighter1976]

Thank you all guys! I'll buy it, one more question: How It is installed: it's like DCS a module that you download and install, or comes on a DVD Rom?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Exactly like DCS. Also, the modules work from the same interface.

 

Make sure to check Chuck's Guide and the manual, and to set up your joystick curves to your preference inside the game

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Download game once serial purchased and activated into your account, that's all.

 

S!

[fighter1976]

Thank you:) !

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Here are the links, if anything

 

Il-2 Battle of Stalingrad manual (by LukeFF)

Chuck's Aircraft Guides (by Chuck_Owl)

[Elem]

Or you can purchase the DVD if that is your preference....

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/2-Sturmovik-Battle-Stalingrad-DVD/dp/B00O9VUXVM

[Brano]

The guys who brought DCS, or in that time Flaming Cliffs Basic flight model to Advanced Flight Model are those working at 1CGS now. Both games AFMs originated from same basics.

Both also went different way.BoS/BoM for WW2 aerial combat fidelity, DCS for "study sim" as they use to call it.

So,if you want to spend your free time by studying, go for DCS. If you want to spend it in WW2 tactical scale air/ground warfare,go for BoS/BoM.

I own all of them

[Guest deleted@30725]

DCS is a better study of the aircraft being able to click all the levers and play with the pit, but being able to actually see your enemy is really hard in dcs and once or twice a week there is people playing the ww2 server.

 

BOM has more immersion as you have a ww2 map and units. I think the planes fly similar in il2 as to dcs, but in il2 bullets feel like they have more weight and overall the experience is better crafted to the genre. il2 bos is a better ww2 fighter game + if you really want you can now fly with mouse. Bos you get more content for your money though

[Jaws2002]

Bos is a decent game, but they looked for arcadish features too much, in a pathetic atempt to draw in the War thunder/ world of tanks crowd, that failed miserably.

It's a game, made on an old, limited engine, trimmed of some features to run faster, then "enriched" with pay to win features, that failed to attract the crowd it was designed to please.

At some point they realized their dream to cash on the war thunder crowd failed, and now they are trying to remodel the game into something, their original customers were told they'll get.

Those original customers are mostly gone by now, after being laughed off the forum, by the developers, forum moderators and the army of paid "honest customers".

 

 

BOS will go down in history as the game that killed the progress in Flight Sims.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Jaws2002

[Original_Uwe]

The K4 and D9 in DCS fly so damn well it's shocking.

They really feel like the way Galland, Rall, Hartman et al described them.

In BoS every time I hop in the 109 im reminded of the dr.1 from RoF. Wobbly, unstable and weightless.

Furthermore DCS has the better more modern engine.

That being said I think game play is better in BoS.

[FuriousMeow]

Bos is a decent game, but they looked for arcadish features too much, in a pathetic atempt to draw in the War thunder/ world of tanks crowd, that failed miserably.

It's a game, made on an old, limited engine, trimmed of some features to run faster, then "enriched" with pay to win features, that failed to attract the crowd it was designed to please.

At some point they realized their dream to cash on the war thunder crowd failed, and now they are trying to remodel the game into something, their original customers were told they'll get.

Those original customers are mostly gone by now, after being laughed off the forum, by the developers, forum moderators and the army of paid "honest customers".

 

 

BOS will go down in history as the game that killed the progress in Flight Sims.

 

That's just sour grapes mixed with lies. I'm one of the original customers and its exactly what they promised, except for having to play the campaign to unlock skins.. which big deal.

[Jaws2002]

That's just sour grapes mixed with lies. I'm one of the original customers and its exactly what they promised, except for having to play the campaign to unlock skins.. which big deal.

As i said. "Honest customers"giving their "honest five cents".

Fact: BOS delayed progress in flight sims with at least ten years.

[Original_Uwe]

As i said. "Honest customers"giving their "honest five cents".

Fact: BOS delayed progress in flight sims with at least ten years.

How so?

I mean, it's not like it's a crowded field of competitors making flight sims.

[coconut]

I don't understand Jaw's thinking there. Are you saying that 1CGS divided a small online community already spread thin over 1946, CloD and DCS? With that line of thinking, any new WW2 flight sim is a bad thing. Or that the leadership of 1CGS sucked in talented professionals and put them to work on an unworthy title, thus preventing them from working on a better title? If that's true, then I think the problem is the lack of talented professionals.

 

Anyway, the way I see it, what 1CGS is trying to do is bring hard-core flight simulators to the masses. Keep the advanced flight dynamics but package it in an easy to run application (icons, flight aids, ease of configuration). It doesn't have all the features everyone wants, but it's a sufficiently small project that a small team can handle it and earn money. And the subject they mean to cover, they cover it well. No plane without cockpits, ground forces are from the right era, landscape modelled after the real thing, down to the kind of tree.

[LukeFF]

 

 

BOS will go down in history as the game that killed the progress in Flight Sims.

 

And yet, here you still are. Things must not be as horrible as you make them out to be. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I think on the opposite they bring a refreshing side of flight simulation - focus.

 

Due to the extremely demanding vocal minority, most flight sims have ended up trying to accomplish everything but fell short somewhere along the way. Cliffs of Dover was never finished, the old Il-2 tried branching out into all theatres but didn't quite fill the shoes people expected it to fill in many of them, DCS is going to every single direction at once but at a pace where you will see a complete scenario every 5-7 years.

 

In come 777 and 1CGS. What do they attempt? Everything? One-upping everyone before? Nope. Instead they push out a game that is exactly what it is: here is a tactical warfare simulator set in 1942-1943 during the Stalingrad battle. It accomplishes nothing beyond that, and it doesn't try to. You can use the major fighter, attack and bomber aircraft from the period with the most common weaponry. You will experience the combat missions of the time.

 

There are no click-pits, no fanciness, no this or that but hey, to get a feel of the Stalingrad combat operations, it's great. It does a gorgeous job at that. Frankly I would much rather see a focuses coherent simulator like the new Il-2 that yet another bombastic one that doesn't deliver. Il-2 does everything you need for a combat sim, which is combat coupled with realistic mechanics.

[Beazil]

Wait what?  We can get paid for this? 

[DD_Arthur]

Hello Jaws m8!  

[Bearcat]

Bos is a decent game, but they looked for arcadish features too much, in a pathetic atempt to draw in the War thunder/ world of tanks crowd, that failed miserably.

It's a game, made on an old, limited engine, trimmed of some features to run faster, then "enriched" with pay to win features, that failed to attract the crowd it was designed to please.

At some point they realized their dream to cash on the war thunder crowd failed, and now they are trying to remodel the game into something, their original customers were told they'll get.

Those original customers are mostly gone by now, after being laughed off the forum, by the developers, forum moderators and the army of paid "honest customers".

 

 

BOS will go down in history as the game that killed the progress in Flight Sims.

 

As i said. "Honest customers"giving their "honest five cents".

Fact: BOS delayed progress in flight sims with at least ten years.

 

That is your opinion which you are entitled to but it is just that and only that and absolutely NOTHING more. Furthermore.. in MY opinion.. you are DEAD WRONG.

 

Here is why I say that.

1. "they looked for arcadish features too much, in a pathetic atempt to draw in the War thunder/ world of tanks crowd, that failed miserably."

   First off.. It was not that simplistic. You have no idea what the plan was and based on what the stated plan was and what they actually delivered.. I think we can safely rule out that scenario altogether. I don't think their goal was ever to draw in the WT WoT crowd but to make a WWII simulation that those crowds as well as many die hards could enjoy.

2. The failures of BoS have a lot more to do with the failures of the genre of WWII flight sims in general than any singular thying that can be attributed solely to BoS or it's developers.
3. "It's a game, made on an old, limited engine, trimmed of some features to run faster, then "enriched" with pay to win features, that failed to attract the crowd it was designed to please." All things considered.. the limitations of this engine have not been touched. You are spouting the same unsubstantiated drivel about the DN engine that has been floating around for some time now and neither you nor anyone else who is not directly associated with the product have the slightest clue as to it's limitations. Pay to win??!! Really..? Where...? All paying more gets you is early access and extra planes.. If you are counting the ability to unlock everything but skins as "pay to win" then you either have no idea what pay to win actually means .. or you are just blowing smoke out of the side of your neck with no real idea of what you are talking about.
4. "At some point they realized their dream to cash on the war thunder crowd failed, and now they are trying to remodel the game into something, their original customers were told they'll get." ............ I think that they are just trying to stretch the engine and broaden the sim now that they have reached certain milestones... like releasing a number of working aircraft and several maps... You seem to insinuate that you have actually passed MindReading 101, which I highly doubt. 
5. "Those original customers are mostly gone by now, after being laughed off the forum, by the developers, forum moderators and the army of paid "honest customers"." That may be true to an extent. At least the part of some of those original customers being gone now.... but as far as being laughed off the forum.. and all the silliness that followed that statement..  They are gone from here because the chose to be gone. They could return at any time should they chose. The handful that are not absent from here by choice made their beds and now they sleep in them. The rest of those "original customers" .. are actually still here.. and they do not see the same failed product that you seem to...
6. "BOS will go down in history as the game that killed the progress in Flight Sims." No.... I think that distinction will rest squarely and irrevocably on the shoulders of IL2 Cliffs of Dover. Given the true flight sims that have actually been released since IL2 CoD.. I think that has been pretty well established. You may hae whatever opinion on the subject you want to but I challenge you to find another flight sim released since then other than IL2 BoS. DCS? They don't count.. they have been making sims since 1995 .. and they were not effected as much by the cancer to the genre (even if it is now in remission thanks to the stellar work of Team Fusion) .. so that whoile line of dialog frankly is just not true. I could think of far more colorful terms to describe it.. but then some mod would come along and provably edit my post...
7. "As i said. "Honest customers"giving their "honest five cents".

   Fact: BOS delayed progress in flight sims with at least ten years." This is just more high velocity ridiculocity on your part...  considering that IL2 BoS is the only new sim produced by a house outside of DCS in the past 10 years and even if you include all the Gaijin offerings... ie Wings of prey ... and War Thunder .. the above statement holds absolutely no water whatsoever. NONE.

 

I think on the opposite they bring a refreshing side of flight simulation - focus.

 

Due to the extremely demanding vocal minority, most flight sims have ended up trying to accomplish everything but fell short somewhere along the way. Cliffs of Dover was never finished, the old Il-2 tried branching out into all theatres but didn't quite fill the shoes people expected it to fill in many of them, DCS is going to every single direction at once but at a pace where you will see a complete scenario every 5-7 years.

 

In come 777 and 1CGS. What do they attempt? Everything? One-upping everyone before? Nope. Instead they push out a game that is exactly what it is: here is a tactical warfare simulator set in 1942-1943 during the Stalingrad battle. It accomplishes nothing beyond that, and it doesn't try to. You can use the major fighter, attack and bomber aircraft from the period with the most common weaponry. You will experience the combat missions of the time.

 

There are no click-pits, no fanciness, no this or that but hey, to get a feel of the Stalingrad combat operations, it's great. It does a gorgeous job at that. Frankly I would much rather see a focuses coherent simulator like the new Il-2 that yet another bombastic one that doesn't deliver. Il-2 does everything you need for a combat sim, which is combat coupled with realistic mechanics.

 

Well said..

 

In addition to that.. this statement ..

 

Those original customers are mostly gone by now, after being laughed off the forum, by the developers, forum moderators and the army of paid "honest customers".

 

.. has earned you a 7 day ban from these forums. You know good and well that this is a rehashment of an old and very well worn line of dialog that will not be tolerated on these boards as long as I am a moderator here.

[FuriousMeow]

As i said. "Honest customers"giving their "honest five cents".

Fact: BOS delayed progress in flight sims with at least ten years.

 

Jaws, there is so much I want to say - much of it repetitious that simply falls on the same deaf ears/blind eyes - but it matters little because you are a liar. You think you are honest? There has been virtually no deviation from what was posted in the dev diaries and everything prior to the title being released and what was developed and produced prior to BoM's release and then expanded upon even further at BoM's release and ongoing because this is an ongoing development unlike that CloD disaster that was just dumped. As a matter of fact, the devs have been incredibly accurate, honest and open.

 

Your "honest" "customers" - and I put that in two different quotes because most aren't customers but just joining the bandwagon because it isn't CloD and very few, and I mean none, are actually honest - are people that sit there and hate the fact they have to buy stuff or have some odd mental affliction that they think there is some conspiracy going on against Oleg and/or Luthier which already says a lot right there. The majority of those that hate BoS/BoM hate it because they have to keep buying because they bought 1946 but don't realize it was a series of releases which I paid for each of while they paid for just the final iteration and they love the CloD <series of expletives removed> because it promises to expand on a disastrous product for free through a team of "modders."

 

Now, as far as you trying to claim I'm not honest - coming from you that means nothing as I consider anything you say completely irrelevant and absolutely worthless.

Edited May 1, 2016 by FuriousMeow

[Hoots]

At the risk of answering the op's question, in BOM your aircraft will start quicker as you don't have to click the buttons yourself. After that the difference is minimal, they both are tricky to fly well. DCS only really has the Nevada terrain that's good graphics.

[Feathered_IV]

As i said. "Honest customers"giving their "honest five cents".

Fact: BOS delayed progress in flight sims with at least ten years.

 

That really is garbage. 

[DD_Arthur]

 

 

.. has earned you a 7 day ban from these forums.

 

 Bye Jaws m8!        

[SKG51_robtek]

Fact is, imo, that DCS strives for accuracy and BoS/BoM for gameability, as the first is by the devs definition a simulation and the second is, also by the devs definition, a game.

[Original_Uwe]

Fact is, imo, that DCS strives for accuracy and BoS/BoM for gameability, as the first is by the devs definition a simulation and the second is, also by the devs definition, a game.

Very well put!

[Tektolnes]

When I want to fly a study version of a plane I'll fly it in DCS. They simply spend more time on a plane so stands to reason that it's a more full on experience. But each plane costs a fair chunk of cash so there's a price to be paid for all that time spent developing it. When I want to fly a WW2 scenario or multiplayer though I fly BOS / CloD. DCS just doesn't have the surrounds in place yet for a proper scenario and the multiplayer needs a serious code update to fix all that lag. To be fair BOS sits in a nice balanced place with good FMs / DMs for the most part, the landscapes are nice, the pits are good enough without being stunning, multiplayer can handle a decent number of players now, the design is coherent, etc. There's no glaring deficiencies and the devs have done well overall with the budget they had. Hopefully they can continue to make new versions and keep progressing with things like a move to DX11/DX12 in time.   

Edited May 1, 2016 by Tektolnes

[SKG51_robtek]

I still have a little bit hope left that some things will be made possible, i.e. the possibility to use the Lotfe at 6000 m AND to see the targets soon enough to aim properly.

Or that the wings dont come off so often, that is really overdone from everything that i have learned about wwii aviation.

[Dr_Molem]

evry sim that renders a 190 turns like abrick but according real pilots accounts it was very manoubrable

 

the forums rewritting history since the new millenium

 

Sorry but that's simply not true... Ace High, IL-2 1946 w/ HSFX (and even without), DCS, and even War Thunder... FW-190s are pearls in all those i have cited. At the moment i'm writing, the only 190 that is literally [Edited] and almost the absolute opposite of what this plane was IRL is the BOS one.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Bearcat
Profanity