Trees are never destroyed?

[EAF_51_FOX]

IMHO, I would rather see bomb craters that effect aircraft rather than destroy-able trees. Cratering a runway as a means of impeding it's usability would seem much more utilitarian than creating firewood. Just my thoughts.

Yes I agree should be added this feature in the game too, within trees+house destruction meshes and bump craters where A.i. or human players will fall/crash into if they don't avoid. And I'm surprized lot of people here -not 1c Team developers- are writing about difficulty or simplicity about insertion of this great enhancement of this game/sim: I think this kind of considerations should be demanded primary to Dev Team.

Edited February 9, 2017 by EAF_51_FOX

[Lusekofte]

We should not restrict the possibilities this game have, it might very well be capable to have DM on trees. It is up to the developers.

[Scojo]

This is a DISCUSSION on the topic.

 

I at no point said we SHOULDNT have them. I was just discussing some of what would be involved in the decision making to put them in the game.

 

To satisfy the point of the thread though:

 

Would I like to see them? Yes. Would I like to see craters? Yes.

 

Would I like the devs to work on this before another new plane, target objective, map, or theatre? No.

Edited February 9, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Well, Fox... Sorry I don't share your sense of entitlement in demanding arbitrary features from the dev team.

 

A simple illustration of feature creep:

 

"No collision modeling for trees is unrealistic... I thought this was a sim... Completely unplayable." > Collision model added > "Brushing the tree tops shouldn't blow my plane up" > Collision model tweaked > "The trees should have a generic damage model" > Trees given a generic damage model > "Using generic winter trees to simulate a DM is unrealistic and lazy" > Resources given to creating entirely new damaged tree assets > "The trees don't smoke or catch fire when I crash in to them" > Fire/smoke added to tree damage model > "Forest fires aren't modeled and only 4 or 5 trees burn" > Resources given to modeling forest fires > "The smoke on the trees doesn't last long enough" > Resources given to increase "smoke time" > "Brush fires aren't modeled - game is unrealistic and completely unplayable. I demand that they add brush fires!" > The cycle repeats endlessly until absolutely no worthwhile progress is made and the developer goes bankrupt over completely arbitrary features.

[CUJO_1970]

Eh, I've hit tree tops with an IL-2 plenty of times and gotten shaken up but kept flying. I've never taken a closer look with a track, but you can definitely nick a tree and keep flying.

 

Great to hear that, as well it should. I hope it enhanced your simulation experience, even as it invalidates all the times my fighter has been knocked to pieces when clipping the treetops.

 

Let's go ahead and consider this a non-issue then.

[Lusekofte]

Would I like the devs to work on this before another new plane, target objective, map, or theatre? No.

well I get that, but how long exactly do you enjoy a new plane? to tell you the truth I enjoy the first that came on ALPHA stage among the best still , the LAGG and PE 2, I could manage with only BOS with no extra plane. I apreshiate all the small stuff , the general improvements. A new plane is one week fun, then the first one start to nag about a new plane again. 

So I am not quite sure I am with you on that, the most time consuming endeavours are not always those bringing the most to a sim. 

The bouncy tree tops is one of the reasons I still hold a nickel on this sim.

Do not underestemate a sticky bomb crater lasting the mission, it might well be more worth than a plane in the long run

Edited February 9, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[JaffaCake]

 

Then servers would have a hard time with this feature. Was it common for bombers to intentionally bomb airfield paths IRL? 

 

 

Not sure what you mean by airfield paths but yes it was very common for bombers to bomb the runways. Not only did they bomb them with bombs that exploded immediately, they also bombed them with delayed-fuse or mine-bombs to hamper the airfield repair. [http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=49]

 

 

 

"These were normally fitted to 250/500 kg bombs and contained two mercury tilt switches which detected vertical or horizontal movement. The fuzes fully armed themselves approximately 30 seconds after hitting the ground. Subsequently, if the bomb was moved in any way, the mercury switch triggered detonation. To complicate matters still further, German bombs could have two separate fuze pockets fitted, with different fuze types screwed into each one. As a result, one bomb could incorporate two separate anti-handling devices working independently of each other e.g. a type 17 clockwork fuze with a ZUS-40 hidden underneath..." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-handling_device]

 

I can't remember where I read more about this, but yeah, combo of impact fuses with delayed-action fuses mixed in with anti-handling fuses.

 

Edit - Germans regularly attacked Russian runways during WW2 to the point where russian "mascirovka" was used to create fake airfields that germans then reported as destroyed.

Edited February 9, 2017 by JaffaCake

[Scojo]

well I get that, but how long exactly do you enjoy a new plane? to tell you the truth I enjoy the first that came on ALPHA stage among the best still , the LAGG and PE 2, I could manage with only BOS with no extra plane. I apreshiate all the small stuff , the general improvements. A new plane is one week fun, then the first one start to nag about a new plane again. 

So I am not quite sure I am with you on that, the most time consuming endeavours are not always those bringing the most to a sim. 

The bouncy tree tops is one of the reasons I still hold a nickel on this sim.

Do not underestemate a sticky bomb crater lasting the mission, it might well be more worth than a plane in the long run

I fly all of my planes. The only plane on the shelf right now is the new 110 as it's bugged and also not on the servers I play.

 

Obsolete planes, I can understand, but how long does it take for them to come out with a new plane that makes an old one obsolete? People are still flying the early model 109s and there's reasons to still take the Pe-2 s.35.

 

I also feel like a new plane coming into the SIM is more likely to grab new players than them putting out an announcement that bomb craters are implemented, but that's really for them to decide since only they know their sales data.

 

Not sure what you mean by airfield paths but yes it was very common for bombers to bomb the runways. Not only did they bomb them with bombs that exploded immediately, they also bombed them with delayed-fuse or mine-bombs to hamper the airfield repair. [http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=49]

 

 

 

"These were normally fitted to 250/500 kg bombs and contained two mercury tilt switches which detected vertical or horizontal movement. The fuzes fully armed themselves approximately 30 seconds after hitting the ground. Subsequently, if the bomb was moved in any way, the mercury switch triggered detonation. To complicate matters still further, German bombs could have two separate fuze pockets fitted, with different fuze types screwed into each one. As a result, one bomb could incorporate two separate anti-handling devices working independently of each other e.g. a type 17 clockwork fuze with a ZUS-40 hidden underneath..." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-handling_device]

 

I can't remember where I read more about this, but yeah, combo of impact fuses with delayed-action fuses mixed in with anti-handling fuses.

 

Edit - Germans regularly attacked Russian runways during WW2 to the point where russian "mascirovka" was used to create fake airfields that germans then reported as destroyed.

Then by all means, bomb my runways until they're unusable 

 

I would imagine it would get annoying in MP though, unless the admins redesign their missions around having it as a possibility.

[GrendelsDad]

That would only work for non primary AF where players take off from.

You are NOT meant to bomb the Red and blue primary AF's

You have to meet my friend Dr.Zebra

[Danziger]

Blowing up trees would be awesome! It would also be cool to knock off some branches when you clip the wing. Or push them over with tanks! We would have the most detailed tree simulator!

[EAF_51_FOX]

well I get that, but how long exactly do you enjoy a new plane? to tell you the truth I enjoy the first that came on ALPHA stage among the best still , the LAGG and PE 2, I could manage with only BOS with no extra plane. I apreshiate all the small stuff , the general improvements. A new plane is one week fun, then the first one start to nag about a new plane again. 

So I am not quite sure I am with you on that, the most time consuming endeavours are not always those bringing the most to a sim. 

The bouncy tree tops is one of the reasons I still hold a nickel on this sim.

Do not underestemate a sticky bomb crater lasting the mission, it might well be more worth than a plane in the long run

+ 1 on this. Really better have more correct fx addendum instead of new planes. Look at DCS WWII for example, planes added are very few and sparse in timeline release.

I take the occasion here to remember someone here who continuosly just troll every my post with pathetic and nonsense arguments that I'm very grateful  to see that there are person like this who have so much waste time to dedicate in this forum to me, thank you [Edited]

 

Knock it off!

Edited February 10, 2017 by Bearcat

[DD_Arthur]

Look at DCS WWII for example, planes added are very few and sparse in timeline release.

 

 

Er...that is not a good thing.  Combined with a map nearly fifteen years old and it starts to become a pretty bad thing.....

[Gambit21]

Really better have more correct fx addendum instead of new planes. Look at DCS WWII for example, planes added are very few and sparse in timeline release.:

Brilliant in it's unintentional irony.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Gambit, I wish I could upvote you more here............................

 

A point that was nearly glossed over, however, is it would be nice if craters were 3d and were persistent for a period of time. Even if it was only within the confines of the airfield grid that would be awesome. I do love that bombs knock out bridges and destroy tanks. Better yet is hitting them with a train crossing and watching them tumble into the drink with their mass and momentum.

Edited February 10, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[EAF_51_FOX]

just to explain because I see someone here just tend to extrapolate what they want as to distorce the sense of my previous post:

I just think is better to concentrate efforts on enhancements of this game (we are speaking here about craters, trees destruction and so on..) instead of release new planes every month (e.g.) 

And the example about DCS is because DCS team in fact just prefer to release few planes at time because they prefer to focus and concentrate their efforts fine tuning phisic game enviromentals not only on jet released planes phisic (in fact flight phisic is way better and accurate than 1c BoX)  but even in dynamic effects on scenario map.

[unreasonable]

There are quite a few enhancements that I would like to see as well as new planes: like Mods on mode that will allow us to switch out gun sounds, turn off AI nav lights, etc.  You can see how far the game has come that these minor issues are my pet peeves, and here we have people complaining about tree DMs. Makes me nostalgic for the days of unlocks and pilot levels when we really had something to complain about! 

 

The reality, however, is that the team has to have a continuous revenue stream to survive, so new planes and maps must always take priority.

 

Putting significant effort into something that earns no revenue is very risky unless the revenue generating parts are going full blast. If the game was aiming to become a full ground war simulator (which I would love but not recommend) then a ground object DM becomes essential. But it looks as though that course has not been taken. (It is going to become a full naval war simulator instead ) . 

 

If a ground objects DM could be sold as a DLC for SP then I would buy it, tree DM and all: but the problem is, as always, MP - you all have to have the same environment, so environment changes have to be given away.  Maybe persistent craters could be squeezed it, but better resign yourself to the idea that a tree DM is just not going to happen.

Edited February 10, 2017 by unreasonable

[Gambit21]

just to explain because I see someone here just tend to extrapolate what they want as to distorce the sense of my previous post:

I just think is better to concentrate efforts on enhancements of this game (we are speaking here about craters, trees destruction and so on..) instead of release new planes every month (e.g.) 

And the example about DCS is because DCS team in fact just prefer to release few planes at time because they prefer to focus and concentrate their efforts fine tuning phisic game enviromentals not only on jet released planes phisic (in fact flight phisic is way better and accurate than 1c BoX)  but even in dynamic effects on scenario map.

 

Go fly a DCS WWII campaign mission...just one...then come back and tell us how it went.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

TL:DR

 

New modules = new planes = revenue = enhancements

 

(Oh, and the physics are top notch in BoX BTW.

[EAF_51_FOX]

There are quite a few enhancements that I would like to see as well as new planes: like Mods on mode that will allow us to switch out gun sounds, turn off AI nav lights, etc.  You can see how far the game has come that these minor issues are my pet peeves, and here we have people complaining about tree DMs. Makes me nostalgic for the days of unlocks and pilot levels when we really had something to complain about! 

 

The reality, however, is that the team has to have a continuous revenue stream to survive, so new planes and maps must always take priority.

 

Putting significant effort into something that earns no revenue is very risky unless the revenue generating parts are going full blast. If the game was aiming to become a full ground war simulator (which I would love but not recommend) then a ground object DM becomes essential. But it looks as though that course has not been taken. (It is going to become a full naval war simulator instead ) . 

 

If a ground objects DM could be sold as a DLC for SP then I would buy it, tree DM and all: but the problem is, as always, MP - you all have to have the same environment, so environment changes have to be given away.  Maybe persistent craters could be squeezed it, but better resign yourself to the idea that a tree DM is just not going to happen.

1- You are speaking as you are part of dev Team ? seem not to me. so your statement "..better resign yourself to the idea that a tree DM is just not going to happen..." sound to me a little bit arrogant from you.

2- You will like to see primary A.I. light switch off, possibility of gunsound switch off etc.. those are features you will like, and I respect them, but please keep in mind that this is YOUR opinion/dreams and equally you will have to respect MY opinion that I will prefer primary other stuff like tree destruction and/or solid craters on terrain.

3- Adding trees destruction or craters didn't affect or move this sim  just only to "terrain ground war.." as planes take off on damaged runaways will affect the whole sim contest, at the same ground forest visual destruction will affect spotting better aereal area of action.

regards.

TL:DR

 

New modules = new planes = revenue = enhancements

 

(Oh, and the physics are top notch in BoX BTW.

"..and the physics are top notch in BoX BTW.."

Are you shure?   May be you never played DCS then.

Go fly a DCS WWII campaign mission...just one...then come back and tell us how it went.

never talked about DCS "campaign missions", but just compared DCS FM planes. read better before write something about an argument, thank you.

Edited February 10, 2017 by EAF_51_FOX

[Finkeren]

And the example about DCS is because DCS team in fact just prefer to release few planes at time because they prefer to focus and concentrate their efforts fine tuning phisic game enviromentals not only on jet released planes phisic (in fact flight phisic is way better and accurate than 1c BoX)  but even in dynamic effects on scenario map.

 

I beg to differ. DCS is a completely different beast than BoX, with different goals, different strategies, different company structure, different production processes. There's really very little to compare between the two (and I think you're mostly - but not completely - wrong about flight physics btw) but one thin g we actually can compare: The different developers' track record of setting realistic goals and deadlines, ability to keep promises, listening to feedback from the community and willingness to constantly go back and improve every aspect of the sim, and here 777/1CGS is just miles ahead of ED and its associated producers.

[unreasonable]

1- You are speaking as you are part of dev Team ? seem not to me. so your statement "..better resign yourself to the idea that a tree DM is just not going to happen..." sound to me a little bit arrogant from you.

 

 

 

Oh grow up.

 

That is my opinion - just as you say, we all have them. Mine happens to be informed by a career in business and the observation of game and sims development for the last 30 or so years. 

 

If you find informed opinion to sound arrogant - too bad.

[Dakpilot]

 

"..and the physics are top notch in BoX BTW.."

Are you shure?   May be you never played DCS then.

never talked about DCS "campaign missions", but just compared DCS FM planes. read better before write something about an argument, thank you.

 

I am fairly certain that if BoX 10 aircraft set cost $500 (without map) and had the same individual aircraft development time time you would be happy? it is just not a valid or useful comparison

 

regardless there are many aspects where BoX is vastly superior to DCS, but they are both very different things, constant comparison is pointless and counterproductive  

 

simply put there have been very many feature developments which have not only been release of new aircraft DLC, just check the patch release notes...as BoX/RoF series is the only core product supporting 1C/777 Studio they need a constant revenue stream to continue development and survive

 

Unlike ED/DCS who are also and perhaps mainly supported by commercial/military contract sim revenue

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited February 10, 2017 by Dakpilot

[JaffaCake]

Is it just me or its pretty sad that arguments "devs do what brings them money" are the most reasonable ones, while at the same time disappointing ones too?

 

We could easily have il2-1946 with better graphics, fewer planes and "premiums" because that is how it would have happened if the above was followed to the word. Fortunately devs felt it was necessary to create better FM, DM, hittable trees etc. Unfortunately the swath of arguments against further improving immersion in favour of churning out the next 109 version is disheartening.

 

Please, if I can buy a "premium" version of trees, craters, better network sync, visibility fixes (land targets vanishing at 9km!!), micro-freeze fixes, telemetry, AI improvements, multi-threading, random contrail/gunfire without a source, and so forth, I would!! I would even prefer it to another yak1b release (And it was pretty low of devs to release the most powerful plane in the game as a premium) 

Edited February 10, 2017 by JaffaCake

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Unfortunately our game did not offer nothing revolutionary, new teatres,planes,games modes etc are just redone plus some small evolution in new tech. That's why I'm looking forward for things like advanced fuel menagment, more real flight dynamics or whether. Plus some small things which add flavors for how I overall received whole product.

I hope that some day I will see more like real life (to convincing degree) interactions of different types of materials.

 

Anyway I will be supporting whatever they release becouse from past experience if they make mistakes like we all do end products I finely enjoy.

Edited February 10, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Scojo]

You have to meet my friend Dr.Zebra

Shadow would really have Random Expert lol

 

 

just to explain because I see someone here just tend to extrapolate what they want as to distorce the sense of my previous post:

I just think is better to concentrate efforts on enhancements of this game (we are speaking here about craters, trees destruction and so on..) instead of release new planes every month (e.g.) 

And the example about DCS is because DCS team in fact just prefer to release few planes at time because they prefer to focus and concentrate their efforts fine tuning phisic game enviromentals not only on jet released planes phisic (in fact flight phisic is way better and accurate than 1c BoX)  but even in dynamic effects on scenario map.

I like how y'all latched onto new planes because it's the easiest thing for you to argue about.

 

I also said new new theatres, which means I want them to deliver on Kuban and at least start the pacific before they worry about trees and craters. In fact, the impact of your desired change will be extremely miniscule come Pacific theatre.

 

Also something I didn't mention is they should definitely bug fix the 110 G-2 before they even think about modifying trees or adding bomb craters.

 

Sorry to bother you with these "nonsense arguments".........

[curiousGamblerr]

Is it just me or its pretty sad that arguments "devs do what brings them money" are the most reasonable ones, while at the same time disappointing ones too?

 

We could easily have il2-1946 with better graphics, fewer planes and "premiums" because that is how it would have happened if the above was followed to the word. Fortunately devs felt it was necessary to create better FM, DM, hittable trees etc. Unfortunately the swath of arguments against further improving immersion in favour of churning out the next 109 version is disheartening.

 

Please, if I can buy a "premium" version of trees, craters, better network sync, visibility fixes (land targets vanishing at 9km!!), micro-freeze fixes, telemetry, AI improvements, multi-threading, random contrail/gunfire without a source, and so forth, I would!! I would even prefer it to another yak1b release (And it was pretty low of devs to release the most powerful plane in the game as a premium)

You misunderstand. If the devs were all about money, they wouldn't be in the flight sim business at all. The argument is that the devs need money to survive at all and continue operating. And while you and I might buy a tree DM, the average buyer is going to be more likely to buy traditional content like planes. I want this franchise to make it to the Pacific so I support this realistic approach and consider us all very lucky that the devs continue to revise existing stuff as they're able to find time.

 

And your comment on the 1b is nuts. It was released between BoM and BoK, of course it's going to be an independent purchase. This notion I keep hearing that it's "behind a paywall" is total crap- you think the devs should start giving out planes for free? At $20 it's the exact same price as purchasing any other collector fighter a la carte. And when bundled, two collector planes add $30 to the $50 standard price tag, so they're $15 when bundled, which seems like a fair bundle discount. It's just that the 1b has no standard addition to be bundled with- it's not "low."

Edited February 10, 2017 by 19.GIAP//curiousGamblerr

[Finkeren]

Unfortunately our game did not offer nothing revolutionary, new teatres,planes,games modes etc are just redone plus some small evolution in new tech. That's why I'm looking forward for things like advanced fuel menagment, more real flight dynamics or whether. Plus some small things which add flavors for how I overall received whole product.

I hope that some day I will see more like real life (to convincing degree) interactions of different types of materials.

 

I'll agree, that this sim doesn't offer anything truly revolutionary for the genre as a whole, but as a continuation of the IL-2 series, it's pretty revolutionary, even compared with ClOD, which, despite its flaws, was incredibly ambitious, when it started development. Things like ground handling and dynamic DM causing structural failure over time depending on airflow and G-load is unlike anything that has been seen in an IL-2 title before.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I'll agree, that this sim doesn't offer anything truly revolutionary for the genre as a whole, but as a continuation of the IL-2 series, it's pretty revolutionary, even compared with ClOD, which, despite its flaws, was incredibly ambitious, when it started development. Things like ground handling and dynamic DM causing structural failure over time depending on airflow and G-load is unlike anything that has been seen in an IL-2 title before.

But all that things exist in Rise of Flight including things to come like coop mode, campaign, 3d water, mods on etc. That things will be improved ofcurse.

Edited February 10, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[Gambit21]

never talked about DCS "campaign missions", but just compared DCS FM planes. read better before write something about an argument, thank you.

 

With respect Fox, you miss the point.

You're using another product as an example to make a particular point, however the state of the two products in question and the experiences they yield make

your posts once again, unintentionally ironic. 

 

That said there's no rule against you saying that you'd like these features, I would just keep DCS out of the discussion if I were you.

[Danziger]

I would just keep DCS out of the discussion if I were you.

No kidding. DCS has some spies over here watching and waiting for you to say something they don't like so they can ban you on their forum. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25533-dcs-news/page-14#entry437312 

 

They already look unfavorably on you for being an Il-2 user. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25533-dcs-news/page-15?do=findComment&comment=437535

[LukeFF]

 

 

Is it just me or its pretty sad that arguments "devs do what brings them money" are the most reasonable ones, while at the same time disappointing ones too?

 

It's you. 

[Lusekofte]

 

 

there's reasons to still take the Pe-2 s.35.

 

This is the version that climb fastest and got best speed at altitudes. I take this for every level-bombing mission I fly

Good for you if you use them all, but that is not what I meant. If you think about it, it is not the planes that make you fly this sim. It is the feeling it gives you while flying. And for some things fast get immersion killers. And I think they got a legit point.

For me a full startup prosedure, fuel management like transferring to other tanks very important. I get it that it is not for all. But if implemented it could be by choice. You could use [é] or full procedure. My point is, why use argument about Developers priorities when it is not up to us. I do not think we ever get what I just mentioned, but it is their choice  

It's you. 

No it´s not 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

It's you. 

 

+1

[Scojo]

This is the version that climb fastest and got best speed at altitudes. I take this for every level-bombing mission I fly

Good for you if you use them all, but that is not what I meant. If you think about it, it is not the planes that make you fly this sim. It is the feeling it gives you while flying. And for some things fast get immersion killers. And I think they got a legit Developers priorities when it is not up to us. I do not think we ever get what I just mentioned, but it is their choice  

 

"This is the version that climb fastest and got best speed at altitudes. I take this for every level-bombing mission I fly"

 

So then you agree with me that a plane doesn't just give 1 week of enjoyment.

 

"it is not the planes that make you fly this sim. It is the feeling it gives you while flying"

 

Nope, it's a combination. And going by that description, the current trees are perfect. They look good, they each have their own hit box, and if you graze the top of them with your wing(not your propeller), it doesn't destroy your plane and you can keep flying. Also, the majority of the time I hit a tree, it would kill me even if it were more realistically modeled. And finally, trees disappearing with craters? I don't feel that would actually make the game better enough to warrant the time involved in creating that. No need to waste more development time on it. Better spent on other things that have more appeal.

 

"Developers priorities when it is not up to us"

 

OH BUT IT IS!  It's entirely based on us as we give them our money for the product, so they want to put time on things that will give a good return on investment! And what's one of the ways they can predict customer wants? BY LISTENING TO CUSTOMER INPUT WHICH WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW!

 

All of this goes to support exactly what I've been saying, that I don't need an updated tree model. What I want is that time that would be used on it to be spent on other stuff that I DOOOOOOOOO want.

Edited February 10, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[216th_Jordan]

 planes phisic (in fact flight phisic is way better and accurate than 1c BoX)

 

Actually you are comparing apples with oranges here. DCS sure has a nice flight model, but DCS's flight model is static, BoX's flight model is dynamic.

The difference between both lies mostly in treating parts of the plane as objects that contribute dynamically to the overall plane performance (BoX) or treating the whole airplane as one object with variations of flight models for various circumstances like stalls, normal flight, lost wing etc. (DCS)

 

One example: Every plane in a static flight model needs a stall FM specific to that flight condition (in old Il-2 your plane would violently tipstall). In the dynamic model on the other hand the airflow over all (or most) parts modelled is calculated and the result from all parts results in the planes behavoir leading up to a stall. (blade element theory)

 

So for hard data (top speed/climbrate/turnrate) a static FM is a lot easier to create and be accurate. A dynamic FM will be much harder to create because the result of all parts combined needs to produce the desired results, however it can create an almost infinite amount of outcomes for all kinds of situations and conditions.

Edited February 10, 2017 by 216th_Jordan

[Lusekofte]

 

 

I am fairly certain that if BoX 10 aircraft set cost $500 (without map) and had the same individual aircraft development time time you would be happy? it is just not a valid or useful comparison

 

Wrong, you get so much more with the modules in DCS, a total game every model with hours of offline campaign and tutorials, As long as they work. 3. party and official patches corrupt things all the time.

 

Bos got a unique feel of thermic interaction together with the FM , something that no other game has. Better? who knows and cares. It is the total package that counts.

Personally I like General purpose aircraft, and in this game, COD and DCS those are cannon fodder . So I fly offline choppers and ground pounders in DCS when time allow , and a tiny bit BOX. 

Talking about better or worse or preferences is fine discussing them are at best killing time, a conclusion will never be union. 

At Scodjo , yes I enjoy PE 2 and have done since it came out, the MIG 3 I flown 2 times and new YAK 1 time . I fly variations of IL 2 and PE 2. I might fly HS 129 when balance allows it, and I will fly A 20. But that is it. I would be much more enthusiastic about the mountains and torpedoes we get. 

[6./ZG26_Loke]

With 90% of the pilots taking off through the rough anyway craters on AFs matter even less, sadly

 

Which I know many people dislike. Can't see why it is that hard to stick to the taxiways.

[EAF_51_FOX]

Actually you are comparing apples with oranges here. DCS sure has a nice flight model, but DCS's flight model is static, BoX's flight model is dynamic.

The difference between both lies mostly in treating parts of the plane as objects that contribute dynamically to the overall plane performance (BoX) or treating the whole airplane as one object with variations of flight models for various circumstances like stalls, normal flight, lost wing etc. (DCS)

 

One example: Every plane in a static flight model needs a stall FM specific to that flight condition (in old Il-2 your plane would violently tipstall). In the dynamic model on the other hand the airflow over all (or most) parts modelled is calculated and the result from all parts results in the planes behavoir leading up to a stall. (blade element theory)

 

So for hard data (top speed/climbrate/turnrate) a static FM is a lot easier to create and be accurate. A dynamic FM will be much harder to create because the result of all parts combined needs to produce the desired results, however it can create an almost infinite amount of outcomes for all kinds of situations and conditions.

Yes, it is clear you mix apples and orange...or for shure you haven't never play DCS WWII. Try it and may be you will change your opinion but if you have enough skill to judge and compare flight sims games.

[Danziger]

Is there a DCS WW2? I thought we are still waiting for a map? Or is Caucasus region 2008 and present day Nevada DCS WW2? They have a few WW2 planes but most of them aren't fitting to a single time period.

[EAF_51_FOX]

With respect Fox, you miss the point.

You're using another product as an example to make a particular point, however the state of the two products in question and the experiences they yield make

your posts once again, unintentionally ironic. 

 

That said there's no rule against you saying that you'd like these features, I would just keep DCS out of the discussion if I were you.

With the same respect Gambit I'm very surprized you find "ironic" and "out of point" my answer to your previous statement: just to clear you my answer  is very serious and was referred to your distortion to my previous post where I never talked about -DCS campaigns- as you stated. 

And if DCS is another product but cover the same purpose is logical to compare both, don't know why not.