The Difference is because ... ?

[Lensman]

I'm quite good at flying aircraft in IL-2 and in particular the bf 109 because that's my speciality. However, I briefly tried DCS tonight and their bf 109 is very different to fly and I'm rather poor at it, at least in a dogfight with a P-51, Their bf 109 seems to not want to climb, hates turning and stalls too easily. Therefore: which is most accurate do you think? I know that I most certainly prefer the flight model in IL-2 but can anyone comment who knows about this? This is not an advert for DCS because IL-2 smokes it iin every way in my opinion unless you wany a helicopter or jet.

[Dakpilot]

Hard to compare two fairly different models

 

I guess that will change with Bodenplatte planeset

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Venturi]

The last time I flew DCS, the 109K climbed like a bat out of hell, turned better than a P51, and was faster in a straight line (marginally) - although some 'Stang pilots were faster than others.

 

The main problem with the 109K is not in absolute performance numbers, but in how it handles at the upper limits of its performance: At high speeds, all controls were stiff. This means than the 51 can dive away and roll away with relative impunity, and unless you can then re-acquire it, and set-up another attack run (doable in a 1 v 1, but difficult if not impossible with multiple enemy aircraft which are co-E), then the absolute performance figures are meaningless.

 

Additionally, the 30mm is nearly useless in fighter - to - fighter combat, with its low rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, and low ammo. Obviously it is death on bombers, and that is why it was mounted on the Luftwaffe aircraft.

 

YMMV.

[Higaluto]

Yes i agree, flying ww2 aircrafts are very different in dcs. Diving in the 190D9 just dosent feel the same as in the A5 just to name one thing. What is more realistic or not i cant say, but i enjoy flying in IL2 much more. I just get a more immersive experience in IL2 .

[Asgar]

Yes i agree, flying ww2 aircrafts are very different in dcs. Diving in the 190D9 just dosent feel the same as in the A5 just to name one thing. What is more realistic or not i cant say, but i enjoy flying in IL2 much more. I just get a more immersive experience in IL2 .

flying the D-9 in IL-2 wont feel like flying the A-5 in IL-2 either. it has a different CoG, has different wings, has a longer tail. it's essentially a different aircraft

[Guest deleted@50488]

Wil be interesting to compare when we get the K-4, P51D and D-9 in Bodenplatte ... 

 

But overall I prefer the immersion of IL-2, by far...

Edited January 22, 2018 by jcomm-in-combat

[Rolling_Thunder]

Performance is so smooth in BoX compared to DCS. Flying the WW2 aircraft on Normandy feels like flying through syrup. The performance is so poor in DCS it may feel like its the aircraft when in fact its the poor state of the engine. Maybe with the "promised" release of 2.whatever next week things may improve. I have my fingers crossed.

[Higaluto]

flying the D-9 in IL-2 wont feel like flying the A-5 in IL-2 either. it has a different CoG, has different wings, has a longer tail. it's essentially a different aircraft

yes i know, but what i mean is in il2 you get wind sounds, aircraft vibrations etc, you dont have to look at your speed, you feel it. Do a power dive in dcs, be the mustang, D9 or k4 i have no idea what speed im at.

i have to look at the gauge. thats what i mean with a more immersive experience. 

[Max_Damage]

DCS is more realistic but it has no gameplay to compensate for it IMO. I ve compared the spitfires and come to this conclusion.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

DCS is more realistic

 

-snip-

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Some things in DCS' modeling of systems and engines is more "realistic" - the FM is not necessarily one of them.

[Solmyr]

DCS is more realistic but it has no gameplay to compensate for it IMO. I ve compared the spitfires and come to this conclusion.

 

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Some things in DCS' modeling of systems and engines is more "realistic" - the FM is not necessarily one of them.

 

Don't want to start another one of those sim wars here, just an input, but here is my experience with DCS :

A fully clikable cockpit and realistic management of the plane ? I wanted to go for a try, for sure.

Downloaded the shareware version, spent some time into the settings, etc.. and fired up the Mustang.

As said above, no immersion feeling.

I was able to fingers in the noze do countless loopings around a bridge, without any loss of E, and I wasn't very careful and precise in my handling, and I still had my gear down (!)

Seemed soooo ridiculous to me.

Uninstalled.

Just my opinion.

 

i think if sims were right they should be alike

 

i have more experience in racing sims and apparently friction is dificult to model

 

no wonder if modern science claims friction is independent of contact surface

Energy, all is about energy, Eneeeeergyyyy, E... ;-)

 

, i think if sims were right they should be alike

 

i have more experience in racing sims and apparently friction is dificult to model

 

no wonder if modern science claims friction is independent of contact surface

 

Edited January 23, 2018 by Solmyr

[scram77]

My experience of DCS is just from the following bought modules:

 

F-5

Huey

Spitfire

Nevada Map

Normandy Map

 

And from these I have to say I was very disappointed with the Spitfire, love the Huey and the F-5 seems great, although not spent much time with it yet.  The spitfire just felt fluffy and waaaaaaaay to responsive. 

[DD_FT-]

 

Don't want to start another one of those sim wars here, just an input, but here is my experience with DCS :

A fully clikable cockpit and realistic management of the plane ? I wanted to go for a try, for sure.

Downloaded the shareware version, spent some time into the settings, etc.. and fired up the Mustang.

As said above, no immersion feeling.

I was able to fingers in the noze do countless loopings around a bridge, without any loss of E, and I wasn't very careful and precise in my handling, and I still had my gear down (!)

Seemed soooo ridiculous to me.

Uninstalled.

(...)

Well, there is a setting in DCS, called 'Auto Rudder'. It may have been checked when you were trying it out.

I know I thought take off and landing the first tries in DCS very easy and simple.

 

After un-checking Auto Rudder, things were very ... different  

 

You may want to re-install it, and try it once more ... 

[Jade_Monkey]

Any real life Bf 109 pilots willing to chip in?

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

As far as real 109 pilots DCS devs always talk about having their FM confirmed by Klaus Plasa (flies Red 7). Gets mentioned alot by certain moderators in alot of the FM discussion threads. Interpret that however you want....

 

In the air the FM's aren't radically different after the big fm change in bos. At very low speed (hammerhead) and on the ground all controls are much more effective in bos. In DCS the stick forces are much worse than in bos as well. If I had to guess I would say reality lies somewhere in between but guesses aren't really worth a whole lot....

 

There is an interview with Volker Bau at ILA somehwere where he describes takeoff in Red 7, and what Rudder inputs are required at what time etc etc. This actually matches DCS very very closely. In BOS you can takeoff in the 109 with the rudder centred the whole time without any real issues provided you have significant free space on your left...... I think this has alot to do with how the interaction between the wheels and the ground is modeled rather than FM though.

[BeastyBaiter]

I haven't messed with DCS WW2 planes in over a year, but as I recall they were pretty much the same in terms of feel once in the air. The Bf-109K4 felt about like I'd expect it to coming from the Bf-109F4 and G2 in BoS. It was less agile at low speed and definitely stalled quicker but was also faster and climbed better. That's exactly what I expected. The subjective feel was about the same, they both felt like a 109 to me, regardless of which I considered more correct. The 190A4 and 190D9 gave me the same impression, the D9 being clearly heavier but more powerful and yet still having the same subjective feel. This is in stark contrast to generic feeling planes I've come across in XPlane and WarThunder. Even if all the specs are correct and they generally fly right, they lack the nuance DCS and BoX provide. The nuance being the same between BoX and DCS really impressed me.

 

The only real difference I could discern is the ground handling. At the time, BoS's ground handling was heavily exaggerated in favor of ground looping and bouncing. That has since been largely fixed. DCS didn't do the ice skating of IL2 (2001) or War Thunder, but it's absolutely less detailed compared to BoX then and now. The physics defying tailwheel locks, unbreakable traction (very much on rails), outright stupid handling on non-paved surfaces and overall strange behavior on the ground really push DCS into second place for flight modeling imho. Admittedly ground handling isn't flying, so some may nitpick on that point but it is an important aspect. BoX isn't perfect either of course, but it's massively better than DCS in that regard.

 

I'm more of combat flight sim fan though, so on that point there really isn't any argument. DCS's damage modeling, random assortment of vintage planes and general lack of WW2 content remove it from the running. DCS is a late cold war to present combat flight sim with a handful of randomly chosen WW2 assets thrown in for the lols.Of course, if you look at the stuff in DCS's focused time period, it's very good. I actually play DCS far more than I play BoX. I just don't play DCS WW2 stuff.