Where do you rank IL-2 Great Battles?

[Enceladus828]

 

Where do you rank IL-2 Great Battles compared to other IL-2 or WW2 Combat flight simulator games? Is it the Best, is it the second best…?

 

    I would like everyone to read the entire topic please and thank you.

 

In my opinion, this is my list.

1. IL-2 1946 with Patch 4.12.2+

Advantages: 285+ flyable aircraft and 300+ total, with Mods the number of aircraft is unlimited, has many opportunities like the PTO, ETO, with 41 different locations, player can fly almost everywhere around the world, including remote Svalbard, game is continuously updated with patches, price is $11, when IL-2 1946 was first released parachuters didn’t (and still don’t) die when the pilot lands in the water, drop tanks were available, on the ground the crew of the plane can run away when you press the bail out button(s), it’s the only IL-2 Sturmovik game currently were you can takeoff and land on Aircraft Carriers, comparing Patch 4.07 to 4.12.2, the new game is very different such as bomb bay doors being required to open and close, bomb fuses, realistic fuel tank fires, and other realism not in the original patch, recently the B-24D and the Pe-8 bombers are now flyable.

Disadvantages: Graphics are slightly old, compared to IL-2 CoD and IL-2 GB, crashes and collisions can sometimes not be realistic (hitting a fence at 5km/h will cause the plane to explode and belly landing at 250 km/h will cause the plane to explode), AI issues, especially Autopilot! It may cause the plane to crash, without Mods the Western Front 44-45 (excluding Normandy) is not well portrayed, as it only comes with a small Ardennes map, portraying the Siege of Bastogne and a map call Northwest Europe.

These pictures are what I believe a well portrayed Western Front map is. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_2018_05/Map.jpg.d5efedcd216a3353229cae66f36463cc.jpg Battle of Bodenplatte map,,https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj3xtjNyKzcAhV4HzQIHZapBG0QjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.warthunder.com%2Findex.php%3F%2Ftopic%2F223985-why-this-game-is-bad-for-long-range-high-altitude-fighters%2F&psig=AOvVaw0BBmRugLA6exvSPSq6UUhB&ust=1532137898251295 Western Front 1940,1944 for Il-2 1946 Mods

 

2. IL-2 Cliffs of Dover Blitz

Advantages: Very realistic 3d damage and slightly more detailed than 1946 and Great Battles, engine damage is quite detailed, clickable cockpits, has a fair amount of realistic collisions and crashes than IL-2 1946, currently has 48 flyable aircraft and variants, and 64 aircraft total, costs $28.

Disadvantages: Initial game development was skeleton and was released with many bugs and technical issues, game development by 1C Maddox was unfinished and abandoned, graphics need to be updated.

 

3. IL-2 Great Battles.

Advantages: Very realistic crashes, flight dynamics, damage models, and effects. It states that It is as "real as it gets", highly detailed landscape, has aircraft that actually participated in each Battle, all of the battles were major turning points in Ww2 where the war could have gone either way, can drive tanks with detailed cockpits (a first for the IL-2 series), Virtual Reality.

One thing that I’d like to mention is that before buying this game if you were to ask me about variants of the Me-109, I would have absolutely no idea. On IL-2 1946 I would select a variant of the Me-109, but I wouldn’t paying any attention to it. But after buying this game I learned about the E,F, and G models and how they differ. So I think that’s a great advantage for myself.

Disadvantages: Quite expensive at $50, Collector planes that are variants of other aircraft cost $20, currently has only 44 aircraft total, parachuters die when the pilot lands in the water, no matter how fast or high the pilot bails out at, whenever all of the aircraft engines quit, the crew bails out, no matter if a safe controlled landing can be made, some features that were included when IL-2 1946 was released haven’t been included in Great Battles yet.

 

Reading this, you are going to say that I am shunning IL-2 Great Battles and that it has no place in the IL-2 Sturmovik series. That is not at all what I am saying. In my own opinion I myself am currently saying for now, Il-2 1946 is better than Il-2 Great Battles by two spots, but this is as of July 20th, 2018. In the future, perhaps several years from now, with the release of many new content in all 3 of these games, my opinion of the best Il-2 game will likely change.

 

            Please Read This

 

    In the future many content will be added to these 3 games.

 

Il-2 1946: Pretty soon patch 4.14 will be released, it will contain the Channel map (pretty much similar to Cliffs of Dover map, but it will extend slightly past Cherbourg, France), which will portray the Battle of Britain and D-Day. We’ll also get the Donbass map, which will give us the city Kharkov that will probably have the Battles of Kharkov. Known aircraft to be added will be MBR, He-177, C-47 family, including Li-2 and L2D, Ju-52, maybe much more.

 

IL-2 Cliffs of Dover: Sometime soon, TF Patch 5.0 will be released, which will include the Tobruk map, 41 new aircraft and variants; 89 flyable and 105 total aircraft. Some of the flyable aircraft will be the Dewoitine D.520 and the Vickers Wellington. There will be new ships, better graphics, it will be possible to man Flak guns on ships. It is stated by Team Fusion that if 5.0 is a commercial success, then we should be excited about Patch 6.0. It is stated that it will include the Fw 190 A-1 and A-2; it may include many Italian bombers like the SM.79 and the Cant Z 1007. The Patch will probably portray the Siege of Malta or Operation Torch, meaning that we can takeoff and land off aircraft carriers. You may dislike Cliffs of Dover now, but let me tell you one thing, Team Fusion is currently planning add-one for the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations. Jason has stated that they will not be making any battle packs in the Mediterranean for Great Battles as they don’t want to cannibalize Cliffs of Dover. Maybe 5 years from now the Cliffs of Dover series will be as or almost as popular as IL-2 Great Battles.

 

Il-2 Great Battles: Early Access for Tank Crew, Battle of Bodenplatte and Flying Circus Vol.1 has started and will portray the Battle of Kursk. Allied advances in late 44, early 45: Operation Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge, and Operation Bodenplatte. A new WW1 flight simulator with VR and improved graphics. In the future they’ll probably include the Battle of Berlin, possibly another Tank Crew at an unknown location, future Volumes of Flying Circus. A Pacific Theatre will soon be added; I hope that they include the Battle of Guadalcanal, Battle of the Philippines, and the Battle of Okinawa because these were major turning points in the Pacific Theatre. Despite it being mentioned, I don’t necessarily think that the Battle of Midway will be made in the Pacific Battles Trilogy as it occurred for only several days, while the previous 3 occurred over several months. Maybe in the future IL-2 Great Battles will have clickable cockpits and other features in IL-2 1946 and Cliffs of Dover that haven’t been added to the game yet.

 

Now that I have given you my reasons where I rank IL-2 Great Battles and the reasons why, I’m going to ask you my question, but first let me tell you something very important. I’ll say it again, this is as of right now, not 3 years from now, Now. Everything is subject to get better than when it was first released. Lastly, the question that I am asking you is not “ Is IL-2 1946 better than IL-2 Great Battles?”, the question is “ Where do you rank IL-2 Great Battles?” Everything that I wrote down at the very beginning for the 3 games is simply my own opinion, which is simply a highly detailed example. You can simply answer the question like this.

    1.IL-2:...

    2.IL-2:...

    3.IL-2…

   

    Remember, I only want your opinion for the answer; you can also ask questions if you choose to. If you’re someone who may get offended by what has been written at the beginning, then simply pretend that everything above this paragraph has been deleted. I have been planning this question for a long time. So without further ado here is the question for all of you nice people who love planes and enjoy flying one of the best WW2 Combat Flight Simulators ever made.

    In your opinion, where do you rank IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles, compared to other IL-2 Sturmovik games or WW2 Combat Flight Simulator Games? Is it the best? Is it the second best?

 

    Cheers, Novice-Flyer.

 

[Gambit21]

Not reading that.

[Enceladus828]

16 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Not reading that.

Lets just cut to the chase.

Where do you rank IL-2 Great Battles compared to other IL-2 or WW2 Combat flight simulator games? Is it the Best, is it the second best…?

[The-Doctor]

To me it’s  the best , followed by CloD followed by DCS

Edited July 20, 2018 by =RS=BlackRaven

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

32 minutes ago, Novice-Flyer said:

 

Where do you rank IL-2 Great Battles compared to other IL-2 or WW2 Combat flight simulator games? Is it the Best, is it the second best…?

 

For its time, Il-2 Sturmovik from 2001 was the most distinctive. Sixteen years later, new sims still have the same basic components in some form. 1946 no longer seemed groundbreaking in 2007 because games such as Crysis were being released. Nevertheless, its solid principles and growing library kept it relevant. 

 

Cliffs could have pushed Il-2 technology far ahead, but the fallout from its disastrous development is still very visible. 

 

In terms of the features that are available now, Great Battles is the best. It will only get better as time goes on. However, I do not think it will ever exceed the old game in terms of innovation. Now, we have VR, amazing graphics, etc., but the basic gameplay is generally similar to Il-2 Sturmovik.

[BladeMeister]

I refrain from choosing what is best, because I am thankful that IL2-GBs, CLOD TFS, IL2 1946+BAT, DCS WWII and WOTR are all still in development and continue to improve and expand each of their own niche's within the WWII Air Combat Sims niche. Each have their pluses and their minuses and each are trying to improve the areas that their customers want improved. So for that I am very thankful and I encourage each Developer to please continue to perfect your individual projects and I will continue to support you and enjoy the fruits of your labor. I am overloaded with good sims and under supplied with the time to use them each, so no matter which I fly in I am having fun, and that is all that matters to me. Sorry a bit Off Topic but it is what it is. This is not even to speak of ROF, FC, WOFF UE and now TC. I am torn between cloning myself or building a new computer? Come to think of it, if I clone myself I will need another computer to fly with!?

 

S!Blade<><

[BB5000]

IL2 1946+BAT feels outdated after flying BOX for a while now. Still, it has all those theatres and aircraft and a pretty good dynamic campaign (DCG), good SP AI and radio comms. If all work put into it could be re-used...wow.

 

CLOD 4.5..I like the complex engine management , flight models etc..The pitfall right now is SP play, stupid AI, incomplete radio comms..waiting for 5.0.

 

BOX has some AI issues and missing some radio commands to effectively lead AI..still, its #1 for Eastern Front WW2 air combat.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I can't rank it against each and every other combat sim, because I played few ( mostly DCS, IL2 BoX and then tried IL2 by Team Fusion, including the latest release ) but I am mostly a "civil" simmer... Well... Was ?

 

IL-2 is the Flight Simulator that BY FAR brings me the feel of being there like no other one. Yes there is another very good tittle, but it's not the same... Even with some of the limitations IL-2 imposes to systems management.

 

I just look fwd for fuel management !  I think that will positively contribute to an even better / more realistic experience.

 

Yesterday I bought Flying Circus. I had actually spent a good deal in ROF after in 2014 I fell in love with IL-2 ... Now I have it integrated in this SUPERB platform that 1C / 777 makes available to us all.

[Finkeren]

I won't rank these sims from "best" to "worst", because I think they all have their flaws and strong points, and they supplement each other rather than compete against one another in my world view.

 

I can rank them, however, on the completely subjective basis of how much they appeal to me personally and how much time I send/have spent on them.

 

1. IL-2 Great Battles - It is the most direct successor to the original IL-2 series, and it fills the niche very nicely with great balance between content, complexity, graphics and gameplay. At the moment it is pretty much all I play. 

 

2. IL-2 1946 - Nothing will ever come close to providing the all-encompassing experience, that the original IL-2 series managed. Today it seems dated in too many ways, such that it takes a while to adjust to when coming from more advanced sims, but still in terms of content and the near limitless possibilities, this is a true classic that will likely never be topped. Over the past couple decades, I have spent more time with this than with any other game, ever.

 

3. Rise Of Flight - WW1 done right for the first time since Red Baron 3d. An amazing sim that did so many things right that larger titles couldn't. I think the first steps of Flying Circus proves just how well Rise Of Flight holds up in how little difference there is.

 

4. Cliffs Of Dover Blitz - I acknowledge the amazing work done by Team Fusion in getting this train wreck up and running. I'd love to really get into it again some day, but the experience with this sim around the release has just left me scarred. Every time I try to get back into it, I find myself turned away. When they start moving to the Mediterranean, I'll have to revisit it. 

 

5. War Thunder - It's an arcade wargame featuring primarilly air combat from the 1930s through the 1950s. For what it is, it isn't really bad, but with all the alternatives floating around, I just don't feel the need to play it. Plus: A-historical battles and matchups aren't really my thing.

 

6. DCS - I can't, I just can't. I know, that it's incredibly accurate, detailed and amazing in so many ways, but I just can't find the enthusiasm to sink endless hours into getting the thing to run properly and then start learning all the intricate details of one aircraft just to fight the same 2-3 matchups over and over again. If it was a little more accessible and had content that was more focused and actually fit together, then I'd be all over it, but the glacial pace of development just tells me, that this is never going to happen. I know a lot of you will think I'm crazy to rate WT above DCS, but remember, this is just my personal preference, I'm not at all saying, that WT is better than DCS, just that it holds more appeal to me.

 

Some flight sims of historical importance to me, which I have played a lot but will most likely never touch again:

 

European Air War - Before there was IL-2, there was EAW. This was the first combat flight sim that was a true experience and not just a game for me. In certain small aspects I think that modern developers can still learn something from this sim.

 

Red Baron 3d - the first flight sim that felt truly grand and with an awesome career mode for its time that came to serve as a gold standard even for modern sims (though I think nostalgia sometimes causes us to paint it in too rosy colors)

 

Battle Of Britain II - still one of the best AI of any combat flight sim. Lacking in performance, it was hard to actually get to play right, but when it worked for me, it was awesome.

 

B-17 The Mighty 8 - This should serve as a model for future heavy bomber sims. Perfect balance between flight sim, crew management and great immersion overall. 

 

Jane's WW2 Fighters - This was the game that taught me, that ground attack can be a lot of fun.

 

Luftwaffe Commander - This was the first sim that allowed you to feel like you were living through an entire war. It also has the distinction of being the only video game ever to feature the Spanish Civil War in a meaningful way.

 

Secret Weapons Of the Luftwaffe - My first combat flight "sim". Ridiculous amount of content and fun for its time.  

 

 

 

[Feathered_IV]

8 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

 

Where do you rank IL-2 Great Battles?

 

I rank it somewhere below Il-2 1946. 

 

SP Career, AI flight behaviour, AI radio calls, flight commands and longevity of visual effects don't match and certainly do not exceed the gameplay of ten years ago.  Maps and planes look nice, however it just isn't there yet.  If ever it manages to beat 1946 in these areas I'd certainly rate it higher.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

1. IL-2: GB

2. ROF

3. IL-2: Cliffs of Dover

4. IL-2: 1946

5. DCS

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Space_Ghost

[OrLoK]

1.BoX

2.Xplane

3.DCS

4.CloD (with VR it might move up)

 

il2 1946 is way down, purely due to age.

[Lusekofte]

Unfortunately I lost a great deal of interest in MP flying, COD because of lack of time, and BOX because of how the public servers play out. And neither of these two offer long run interest in offline flying. GB lack of complexity and a total lack of offline feature in COD .

I really like the flying itself in GB, but there is no sense of growth once you learned the basics. So I find myself flying DCS choppers. So how to rate GB?

It is a great MP dogfighter experience , best CFS game atm, the FPS aviation top of the world. 

But if you are not into FPS and dogfighting personal growth and learning-courve is flat. 

DCS offer a long lasting learning curve despite its faults and keep me busy enough, that said GB fills a gap between WT and simulators that was greatly needed

[Gambit21]

11 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

Lets just cut to the chase.

Where do you rank IL-2 Great Battles compared to other IL-2 or WW2 Combat flight simulator games? Is it the Best, is it the second best…?

 

Even European Air War (EAW) brought things that even Oleg's great sim sorely lacked in the immersion department.

Those briefings, with the sounds of boots on the floor, chairs creaking, the 1940's graphics and music - that has not been done since. Oleg just didn't have the vision, neither did Loft.

As Fink indicated, there are lessons to be gleaned from EAW, and should be a starting point for what we want/expect in a flight sim experience. Again, that BoX

didn't do that is a Loft thing.

 

Jason has the vision, but undoing all vestiges of Loft and re-creating from the ground up isn't possible, so baby steps.

I don't expect to ever see an EAW style interface though all things considered.

 

Point is, no product offers the whole package with regard to immersion, flight modeling, 3D modeling and texturing, terrain, content, ballistics, damage modeling...

I fly BoX only, because my time is limited, and priorities to me are flight modeling/physics, (including damage modeling) graphics, content.

BoX delivers.

 

I gave CloD a chance when it was released, didn't even run. I put it in the drawer and never looked back...for years held the notion that 1C owed me $50 for that piece of junk.

 

[xvii-Dietrich]

11 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

Where do you rank IL-2 Great Battles compared to other IL-2 or WW2 Combat flight simulator games? Is it the Best, is it the second best…?

 

Define "best".

 

This is by far an impossible question to address, as all the different games/sims excel in different things. Different people have different interests, requirements, expectations, etc.. And these can vary depending on what mood they are in, what they want to do, what their squad is doing, or what is currently working. Having read through the (rather long) OP, some of the points being made are based on speculation (e.g. "A Pacific Theatre will soon be added ..."). Really? And even so, who knows what the future will bring.

That said, BoX is off my "best list" for the time being as my installation is broken.  (yes, I have only bought from IL2 and Steam and, yes, I have submitted a support ticket about a week ago... still waiting on a reply.) So, at the moment I'm flying a FW 190 D-9 on DCS Storm of War or my own He 115 B-1 in X-Plane 10. But that's just WW2. I also fly the UH-1H and various jets in DCS, the W.12 and HD.2 floatplanes in RoF, and dragons in Skyrim.  :-)

 

What is great is not that there is a "best", but that there is a "choice". 

[Herne]

I've always been interested in Flying since as far back as I can remember. I played most of the IL2 series with the exception of 1946. I felt this was a stupid name for a ww2 FS so skipped it, I also seem to remember this title was hot on the heels of it's predecessor.
 

I always enjoyed dabbling with the Flightsims, but never truly got the bug until VR.

1: Great Battles VR experience combined with ww2 combat is second to none.

2 DCS in VR. Not had a great deal of stick time, but have flown the p51, spit, huey, and AV8B. Love em all. 

3. WT. This one brings a bitter taste to my mouth, because I don't really consider it a sim. For ww2 combat in VR though I can't think of any other alternative, and I would rather play a poor sim in VR, than a decent sim without VR.

[Enceladus828]

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 1:02 AM, Finkeren said:

I won't rank these sims from "best" to "worst", because I think they all have their flaws and strong points, and they supplement each other rather than compete against one another in my world view.

 

I can rank them, however, on the completely subjective basis of how much they appeal to me personally and how much time I send/have spent on them.

 

1. IL-2 Great Battles - It is the most direct successor to the original IL-2 series, and it fills the niche very nicely with great balance between content, complexity, graphics and gameplay. At the moment it is pretty much all I play. 

 

2. IL-2 1946 - Nothing will ever come close to providing the all-encompassing experience, that the original IL-2 series managed. Today it seems dated in too many ways, such that it takes a while to adjust to when coming from more advanced sims, but still in terms of content and the near limitless possibilities, this is a true classic that will likely never be topped. Over the past couple decades, I have spent more time with this than with any other game, ever.

 

3. Rise Of Flight - WW1 done right for the first time since Red Baron 3d. An amazing sim that did so many things right that larger titles couldn't. I think the first steps of Flying Circus proves just how well Rise Of Flight holds up in how little difference there is.

 

4. Cliffs Of Dover Blitz - I acknowledge the amazing work done by Team Fusion in getting this train wreck up and running. I'd love to really get into it again some day, but the experience with this sim around the release has just left me scarred. Every time I try to get back into it, I find myself turned away. When they start moving to the Mediterranean, I'll have to revisit it. 

 

5. War Thunder - It's an arcade wargame featuring primarilly air combat from the 1930s through the 1950s. For what it is, it isn't really bad, but with all the alternatives floating around, I just don't feel the need to play it. Plus: A-historical battles and matchups aren't really my thing.

 

6. DCS - I can't, I just can't. I know, that it's incredibly accurate, detailed and amazing in so many ways, but I just can't find the enthusiasm to sink endless hours into getting the thing to run properly and then start learning all the intricate details of one aircraft just to fight the same 2-3 matchups over and over again. If it was a little more accessible and had content that was more focused and actually fit together, then I'd be all over it, but the glacial pace of development just tells me, that this is never going to happen. I know a lot of you will think I'm crazy to rate WT above DCS, but remember, this is just my personal preference, I'm not at all saying, that WT is better than DCS, just that it holds more appeal to me.

 

Some flight sims of historical importance to me, which I have played a lot but will most likely never touch again:

 

European Air War - Before there was IL-2, there was EAW. This was the first combat flight sim that was a true experience and not just a game for me. In certain small aspects I think that modern developers can still learn something from this sim.

 

Red Baron 3d - the first flight sim that felt truly grand and with an awesome career mode for its time that came to serve as a gold standard even for modern sims (though I think nostalgia sometimes causes us to paint it in too rosy colors)

 

Battle Of Britain II - still one of the best AI of any combat flight sim. Lacking in performance, it was hard to actually get to play right, but when it worked for me, it was awesome.

 

B-17 The Mighty 8 - This should serve as a model for future heavy bomber sims. Perfect balance between flight sim, crew management and great immersion overall. 

 

Jane's WW2 Fighters - This was the game that taught me, that ground attack can be a lot of fun.

 

Luftwaffe Commander - This was the first sim that allowed you to feel like you were living through an entire war. It also has the distinction of being the only video game ever to feature the Spanish Civil War in a meaningful way.

 

Secret Weapons Of the Luftwaffe - My first combat flight "sim". Ridiculous amount of content and fun for its time.  

 

 

 

Thank you for mentioning this Finkeren. You're absolutely correct, every game has strengths and weaknesses in it.

Strengths

IL-2 1946: Number of planes, number of maps, number of ground objects (tanks, vehicles, ships).

IL-2 Great Battles: Realistic crashes, effects, flight dynamics, damage models.

 

Both of these games have some/several weaknesses in them.

[Royal_Flight]

Again, it’s hard to say which is best, but in my subjective view nothing beats Il-2 ‘46 and with the BAT mod it goes at the top of the list.

 

There are so many possible aircraft and maps even without BAT there is a huge choice of theatres and scenarios, as well as a variety of mission types and roles catered to by a load of different aircraft.

 

The AI is streets ahead of BoX, albeit giving orders to wingmen is still essentially pointless, and the QMB and mission builder are immediately accessible so you can throw together whatever mission you feel like to suit, whether you want a long bombing mission full of navigation to fill an afternoon, or a five-minute furball. 

I missed the multiplayer heyday so cant comment on that, but it’s got the strongest singleplayer experience by miles. 

 

The flight models aren’t close to BoX, CloD or DCS though, obviously. And the graphics show their age, but that’s about the least important part of a flight sim anyway and ironically the graphics make spotting at range easier. 

 

BoX has steadily been improving since launch and in a way it’s an unfair comparison as ‘46 has had years of growth, first officially then via modders.

BoX has come a long way since it started, and the feeling of flight and the fidelity is the best out of the three, athough there are some areas in which it needs some big improvements made. 

 

I never got into Cliffs, even though it had been improved a lot by the time I first picked it up (2016) it was still unintuitive and awkward. The Blitz edition release turned me off it completely and now it seems to be slowly imploding, which is a shame because TF 5.0 would have been great if it was ever likely to be released and I like the idea of going from 1940-41-42 the way they intended to. 

I don’t expect I’ll ever see a release of it though and now I sort of want it to get out of the way as I’d rather BoX did North Africa and the Med rather than 1945 Europe or more Eastern Front. 

[Herne]

17 hours ago, Royal_Flight said:

 

 

I never got into Cliffs, even though it had been improved a lot by the time I first picked it up (2016) it was still unintuitive and awkward. The Blitz edition release turned me off it completely and now it seems to be slowly imploding, which is a shame because TF 5.0 would have been great if it was ever likely to be released and I like the idea of going from 1940-41-42 the way they intended to. 

I don’t expect I’ll ever see a release of it though and now I sort of want it to get out of the way as I’d rather BoX did North Africa and the Med rather than 1945 Europe or more Eastern Front. 

 

TF 5.0 is coming though, Progress seems slow but I see updates now and again. In an ideal world I'd like great battles to revisit battle of Britain. So many other battles to include but I hope that BoB  makes it onto the list

Edited July 23, 2018 by =FEW=Herne

[Wolf8312]

I suppose alot of this has to do with VR, but DCS and BoX were the only two I ever played before VR, and IMO are miles ahead of the competition though in large part because of VR.

 

BOX just about edges DCS for it's single player content and overall atmosphere, but the DCS planes (talking WW2 here not jets or helicopters) and flight models (though not damage model) are frankly superior to everything else I have ever tried physics wise, and in terms of things like take off, and landing, and how the planes behave on and off the ground.

 

Helps to have a fully functioning jetseat but as just one example the way in which, braking too suddenly will lift the planes tail off the ground and smash it back down again with a vibrating shudder is incredibly convincing, but there are also other examples such as how the planes will handle off the runway itself, which in BOX doesent seem to make any difference.

 

I find there is a much clearer distinction between each and every plane for me, in terms of how each feels and handles differently. I also love the ability to press each and every button, which is of course a big plus for VR (when haptic gloves come along this advantage will increase massively). BOX planes on the other hand, like the game itself are more simplified, which is especially noticible if you spend a few months with DCS and then go back to BOX.

 

But....

 

BOX looks better overall, the atmosphere is incredible and its just more accessible. The actual BOX single player campaign, and the incredible ineffable atmosphere the whole experience creates -especially in VR- at present blows DCS out of the water, though this might also have much to do with the fact DCS is just so much more difficult in terms of AI and how quickly the enemy can dispatch you.

 

The truth is -and I suspect this is true for others too- I have never really got too far into even the WW2 campaigns with DCS, because I am just not very proficent, and clearly with DCS you really do need to train, and learn and practice alot, if you want to have any chance in the campaign. I just spent about half an hour getting up into the air -which is incredible immersive and tense in VR- only to be obliterated on first contact with the enemy!  I felt like well, yeah BOX is easier, but it alows me a little fun before destroying me!  But I will reserve judgement even with the SP because some of the campaigns do seem great, and I need to get better before I could say for sure.

 

For me BOX is more game and DCS is more sim, but I dont use the word 'game' as a derogative as I don't fool myself into thinking I am a real pilot! I play flight sims first and foremost to have fun and in this sense BOX wins.

 

In short I find DCS modules much more extensive, and complex, and convincing indvidually, and they are a wondeful rewarding challenge to fly, but I still enjoy the overall BOX experience more, as of today...

 

The others dont have VR so are no longer in contention for me as I just couldn't go back to 2D now although I have to say, there is no way 1946 is better than IL-2/BoX!

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by Wolf8312

[Royal_Flight]

On 7/23/2018 at 8:00 AM, =FEW=Herne said:

 

TF 5.0 is coming though, Progress seems slow but I see updates now and again. In an ideal world I'd like great battles to revisit battle of Britain. So many other battles to include but I hope that BoB  makes it

onto the list

 

I do believe its coming, I’m not as confident it’ll ever see a functional release. 

I don’t want to sound disparaging about Team Fusion as the stuff they’ve achieved in their own time by reverse-engineering is a serious achievement.

But these days things don’t look like they’re going smoothly or well on the Channel front, and I’ll leave it at that. 

 

 

 

DCS is a different situation.

Its an awesome flight sim, it beats BiX in some ways and doesn’t in others but ultimately it’s a totally different type of sim, with actual systems modelling and more contemporary jets and helos.

 

The big issue with DCS is the string of continually mystifying decisions made about the direction it’s heading in, or whether there even is one.

 

I’m all for competition if it helps drive progress and is better for consumers, but DCS WWII seems to have not worked and it would be better to pull the plug. Time to admit that BoX has it beaten and stop sinking resources into it.

Better to take the late-piston tech and put it into Korea or Vietnam, where they could coexist alongside jets and helos, some of which are already present. Roll out Combined Arms to fit as well. 

That should surely be a no-brainer, build at least one coherent setting and populate it with high-fidelity aircraft and ground vehicles, especially if it’s a conflict no-one else is doing. 

 

This Flaning Cliffs 4 nonsense is a terrible move and will be bad for DCS overall. I was under the impression FC3 was being slowly replaced, now they’re doubling-down and reselling existing aircraft that people already own, just in arcade form.

 

Obvious cynical cash-grab aside, do they want DCS to go down this route?

Do they want a load of mouse-aim players jumping into a sim that is synonymous with high fidelity and where the satisfaction comes from executing a series of complex tasks to engage a target or land, rather than point with the mouse and click the target?

 

Their third-party model is slowly disappearing up its own arse as well. 

Some of the third-party content is really great but again, putting it out with no consistency or thought put into how it’ll fit with the rest of the content means almost nothing matches anything else.

Keeping all the teams under a tight leash ala BoX at least ensures everything compliments everything else.

 

I think DCS is great and I play it a lot when I get the chance, but I decided a while ago not to spend more money on anything in early access.

If FC4 is the future model I doubt I’m going to spend any more on DCS at all. 

 

 

/rant 

[Wolf8312]

2 hours ago, Royal_Flight said:

The big issue with DCS is the string of continually mystifying decisions made about the direction it’s heading in, or whether there even is one.

 

I’m all for competition if it helps drive progress and is better for consumers, but DCS WWII seems to have not worked and it would be better to pull the plug. Time to admit that BoX has it beaten and stop sinking resources into it. 

 

 

Yikes no! That would not go down well at all among those of us who believe in it, and have invested heavily in the plane set! Just give up? Bite your tounge good sir!

 

Honestly, I was lucky cause I only really got into it a few months back and since then as the big merge and update is now behind them, there have been continuous improvements to the WW2 side of things and the sim itself on the whole, with much more to come. DCS WW2 has huge potential, and its already way too far along to just throw the towel in now!

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

2 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

-snip-

 

its already way too far along to just throw the towel in now!

 

Uhh... Compared to the time it took for them to get to where they are now (which is no silver standard...) it doesn't look like it's a smashing success and it's really not that far along.

 

Honestly, if there's one thing ED deserves a little credit for it's eating the dogshit that Luthier pushed on everybody with the WWII project... It was destined to flop.

[Feathered_IV]

21 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

Honestly, if there's one thing ED deserves a little credit for it's eating the dogshit that Luthier pushed on everybody with the WWII project... It was destined to flop.

 

Got to agree with that.   What a pitiful fiasco that turned out to be.  Ten years from now they will still be wondering if they will ever see a German aircraft that is relevant to the period.

[Wolf8312]

54 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

 

Uhh... Compared to the time it took for them to get to where they are now (which is no silver standard...) it doesn't look like it's a smashing success and it's really not that far along.

 

Honestly, if there's one thing ED deserves a little credit for it's eating the dogshit that Luthier pushed on everybody with the WWII project... It was destined to flop.

 

But it hasn't flopped its honestly great!

 

Maybe not you're thing and I respect and understand that you don't like it, but many people myself included are loving DCS WW2, I wouldnt have bought each and every plane if I didn't like or believe in it. The flight models are incredible. These things are very subjective, but I find it hard when people talk about how terrible DCS (WW2 or otherwise) is because I know that for myself it isn't (it was just a few weeks ago though). It's too subjective a thing to make declaratives about. I think you would feel the same way if I was constantly saying how terrible Il-2 is, because its a game you love and therefore want to support.

 

I think you guys should know that DCS/WW2 has really made alot of progress over the last few months and the devs do deserve some credit for that. It doesnt always have to be an 'us and them' type thing, both sims could improve by learning a few things from the other.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Wolf8312

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

30 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

Got to agree with that.   What a pitiful fiasco that turned out to be.  Ten years from now they will still be wondering if they will ever see a German aircraft that is relevant to the period.

 

It was 5 years ago that DCS WWII: Europe 1944 was announced. In that 5 years we've seen:

- An underoptimized map that took 3.5-4 years to develop while contracted to a third party and is sold separately of any assets to populate it

- A period-incorrect, originally unrelated Mustang that came out in 2012ish

- A Bf 109 K-4 that was released in 2014 and still isn't entirely feature complete but is no longer "beta" (because why not?)

- A Fw 190 D-9 because that's cool

- A Spitfire Mk.IV that also doesn't fit the time period

- Two campaigns (one for the Mustang, one for the Spitfire)

 

So to round that up... A resource heavy map which took multiple years to develop under contract (which ED claimed to be incredibly busy with for years..) Four disjointed WWII fighters... A payware asset pack.. And two campaigns which require you to purchase the map, assets and aircraft separately before you can do anything with it.

 

In 5 years over here at IL-2: GB's we've got:

- A Stalingrad map circa 1942

     - Also smaller Lapino and Novosolniki maps

- A well rounded 1941/1942 planeset with 10 planes

- A Moscow map circa 1941

- A well rounded 1940/1941 planeset with 10 planes

- A Kuban map circa 1943

- A well rounded 1943 planeset with 10 planes

- 3 non-specific collectors aircrafts

- Several scripted campaigns

- A major engine update that didn't span three quarters of a decade and a constantly evolving smorgasbord of new features

 

And to round that up... Four maps (if you count Novosolniki and Lapino as 1/2 maps) that are available to all players in MP, period correct assets that are included, 30+ aircraft, a campaign generator for each theater, payware/freeware campaigns, etc.

 

4 minutes ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

But it hasn't flopped its honestly great!

 

Maybe not you're thing and I respect and understand that you don't like it, but many people myself included are loving DCS WW2, I wouldnt have bought each and every plane if I didn't like or beleive in it. The flight models are incredible. These things are very subjective, but I find it hard when people talk about how terrible DCS (WW2 or otherwise) is because I know that for myself it isn't (it was just a few weeks ago though). I think you would feel the same way if I was constantly saying how terrible Il-2 is, because its a game you love and therefore want to support.

 

I think you guys should know that DCS/WW2 has really made alot of progress over the last few months and the devs do deserve some credit for that. It doesnt always have to be an 'us and them' type thing, both sims could improve by learning a few things from the other.

 

Hey genius, I own all of the WWII aircraft too. I've dabbled with DCS for a long time. The flight models are nothing special. DCS IS pretty terrible... I've been there and done that, bud... For years... ?

 

DCS WWII hasn't made a lot of progress in YEARS and believe me, I've been watching. I'm not sure if flight sims are something you recently started dabbling with in the past year or two but some of us have been following ED's products for close to a decade and I am quite simply not seeing it.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Space_Ghost

[Wolf8312]

5 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

 

It was 5 years ago that DCS WWII: Europe 1944 was announced. In that 5 years we've seen:

- An underoptimized map that took 3.5-4 years to develop while contracted to a third party and is sold separately of any assets to populate it

- A period-incorrect, originally unrelated Mustang that came out in 2012ish

- A Bf 109 K-4 that was released in 2014 and still isn't entirely feature complete but is no longer "beta" (because why not?)

- A Fw 190 D-9 because that's cool

- A Spitfire Mk.IV that also doesn't fit the time period

- Two campaigns (one for the Mustang, one for the Spitfire)

 

So to round that up... A resource heavy map which took multiple years to develop under contract (which ED claimed to be incredibly busy with for years..) Four disjointed WWII fighters... A payware asset pack.. And two campaigns which require you to purchase the map, assets and aircraft separately before you can do anything with it.

 

In 5 years over here at IL-2: GB's we've got:

- A Stalingrad map circa 1942

     - Also smaller Lapino and Novosolniki maps

- A well rounded 1941/1942 planeset with 10 planes

- A Moscow map circa 1941

- A well rounded 1940/1941 planeset with 10 planes

- A Kuban map circa 1943

- A well rounded 1943 planeset with 10 planes

- 3 non-specific collectors aircrafts

- Several scripted campaigns

- A major engine update that didn't span three quarters of a decade and a constantly evolving smorgasbord of new features

 

Hey genius, I own all of the WWII aircraft too. I've dabbled with DCS for a long time. The flight models are nothing special. DCS IS pretty terrible... I've been there and done that, bud... For years... ?

 

DCS WWII hasn't made a lot of progress in YEARS and believe me, I've been watching. I'm not sure if flight sims are something you recently started dabbling with in the past year or two but some of us have been following ED's products for close to a decade and I am quite simply not seeing it.

 

You're a toxic person my friend! How about a conversation that isnt just rude negativity for a change?

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Wolf8312

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

1 minute ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

You're a toxic person my friend! How about a conversation that isnt just rude negativity for a change?

 

 

Ahhh, I see. You don't have a well-thought retort so you resort to name calling.

 

I gotcha.

 

Well played.

[Wolf8312]

6 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

 

 

3 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

 

Ahhh, I see. You don't have a well-thought retort so you resort to name calling.

 

I gotcha.

 

Well played.

 

Well 'hey genuis' you don't express yourself politely (never once in any conversation I have had with you) so why should I?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Just now, Wolf8312 said:

Well 'hey genuis' you don't express yourself politely (never once in any conversation I have had with you) so why should I?

 

I'm sorry, did you have anything to add regarding DCS or are you just triggered whining at this point?

 

Uh huh.

[Wolf8312]

Yes I am/was triggered.

[Royal_Flight]

Kids. Shut the fuck up, both of yous. 

 

 

Caveat: this is only my opinion. 

I think the DCS WWII experiment was worth a try, but hasn’t proved a success.

It was born out of confusion, the game engine didn’t really suit it and hadn’t been updated to make it work properly, and the glacial pace of DCS development and seeming lack of any co-ordination between any of the teams involved in creating content has just exacerbated this.

In addition to a P-51 that doesn’t really fit there’s the prospect of a P-40 and an F4U on the way to join them... it’s like no-one is thinking about how to join the dots. 

 

I think, at this point it’s just become a resource drain and they should cut it loose. 

But like I say, that’s just me. 

If anyone is getting their money’s worth from DCS WWII that’s grand, and it’s better to have a bit of competition anyway for a bit more choice. 

 

DCS is great at what it does, it’s just not so great at what BoX is already doing, and - in my view - playing catch-up is just throwing good money after bad, and they’d be better off sticking to being DCS - jets and helicopters from the 60s to about the 90s done in depth. 

With both BoX and DCS going for late-ish War Western Front there’s less variety. I’d have rather had BoX do the Pacific to begin with, but maybe that would have allowed DCS WWII more space to refine itself. 

Now it will always be compared to BoBo, and it doesn't look like it’ll stack up favourably. At least from how I see it. 

 

FC4 is going to be another abomination but for different reasons again.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Opinions about DCS WWII really depend on perspective. For those coming from FSX/P3D, it’s quite amazing to have several ‘study level’ aircraft in a somewhat coherent combat environment. Remember, people do buy warbirds for these sims. I find their lack of context and shallow gameplay irritating. However, someone that can enjoy a Spitfire in FSX/P3D would probably love to fly one in DCS.

 

The majority in the Il-2 crowd seem to look for a comprehensive environment with accurate aircraft, maps, missions, ground units, and gameplay. It’s not surprising that they often dislike DCS.

[Mmaruda]

I'll take the bait, but honestly the answer is very dependent on what you focus on. If it's just content and how much you get for your money, 1946 can not be beaten, if it's detailed realism of each and every airframe, DCS takes the cake, if it's... failed hopes and jumping over huge mountains of masochism to get what you have been after since 2009, probably some people would put CloD in the first spot.

 

To me BOX is currently number one. It's got a modern and good looking engine, everything one can expect of realism, without taking it to the study-sim level, yet with enough study required - you still need to learn your stuff, but without the ramp start. The content is plentiful and keeps getting better, while not really overblown (this is one issue I have with 1946 - there is so much stuff, but you have to make an effort of modding, building or downloading missions to fully enjoy all of it, and then it turns out some of it sucks, like the PLZ 11). BOX has very good AI, a career mode now, some nice scripted campaigns and most of all, open MP servers that you can actually fly missions in - just go to WOL with some mates, pick some planes, pick a target and boom, you are on a mission. Last but not least, the FMs, ground handling and most of all DM are some of the best the marked has to offer.

 

Number two would be... BMS and for the sole reason that I prefer old prop kites, to Vipers with JSOWs, still the dynamic campaign cannot be beaten and the amount of stuff you get for the 5 bucks you spend on GOG during a sale is just jaw-dropping.

 

But since it's WWII we're probably focusing on here... Well, DCS is probably what I have enjoyed most, but the AI is dumb, DM is crap (though I hear the improved quite a bit), plane selection is crap and the whole game... well, it's not very well suited for WWII. They are getting there I think, not just yet though. Also, online was Airquake last time I checked. All this stuff, kind of makes the whole attention-to-detail-study-sim-aspect kind of wasted potential. I'm sure they will eventually make it real good, but I have been waiting for too long, and I doubt it's going to be before Bodenplatte drops with a career mode and all the good stuff.

 

As for CloD, yeah I know, it was fixed and improved upon, but each time I try to get back to it, I bounce of the vertical wall of setting up controls, the whole interface and basically something that cannot decide, if it want's to be a study sim, or not. Also Battle of Brittain is something I am bored to death with - I get it, it was a big thing, but the whole war lasted longer that a couple of months.

 

1946... Well it was great, but it's just so dated now. The ground handling, engine management, AI and some general flight dynamic is just... kind of old and not up to the standards. Once you tasted the delicious stuff, it's hard to get back to something that is now only tasty.

 

At the end of the day, for me it boils down to this - how much fun can I have for a given amount of money with a certainty that I will get what I paid for roughly when promised and in complete state? So far, BOX has proven a solid investment. DCS is getting there, but considering how long you have to wait for the promises to be kept, it's kind of like Star Citizen - they will get there eventually probably, but I'll pass till it's done and someone tries it and tells me it's good. CloD and 1946 are basically running on borrowed time, but considering the price, they are a good investment, if someone isn't all that keen on dropping all your moneys into BOX.

 

 

PS All that I can add to the DCS vs BOX discussion is this - DCS went into WWII without a specific plan to have a product. They started out with the Stang, since they were playing with a concept, it worked, was good, and figured, hey maybe there is interest there and money to be made. There was, so for several years, they have been working hard to profit of that interest with a an engine that has been designed from the ground up to support modern air combat. They have done a pretty good job, but it's not like it's easy and fast. BOX has the upper hand here, since despite all the flaws you can think of, the core product was designed as a WWII sim. If 1CGS wanted to move into modern jets territory, I'm sure that development would be the same sort of struggle.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Without getting extensive, to me Il-2 Great Battles is easily #1 right now,  followed by DCS at #2. 1946 was great for a long time but it was already showing its age by 2009, and the only reason modders and Daedalus had to support it for so long were the Cliffs of Dover development problems. It remains, however, the most influential combat flight simulator to date!

[Wolf8312]

13 hours ago, Royal_Flight said:

Kids. Shut the fuck up, both of yous.

 

Your post came 4 hours after ours! We clearly already had STFU!

[DD_Arthur]

18 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

 I find it hard when people talk about how terrible DCS (WW2 or otherwise) is because I know that for myself it isn't (it was just a few weeks ago though).

 

Lol

[Wolf8312]

10 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Lol

 

Ha ha it gets worse I just had to roll back from the latest beta (my wingman was flying backwards lol)! Let it never be said that I am not aware DCS has problems!

Edited July 25, 2018 by Wolf8312

[dburne]

Ok guess I will chime in as this seems to be turning into a IL-2 and DCS comparison thread.

 

IL-2  BoS - Pre-ordered on day 1 when it was offered up.

DCS WWII Original Kickstarter Project - Contributed fully to it on day 1, and got all content when the dust had cleared and it started to be released after ED saved it.

 

I personally do not see these two as being major competitors. Both are very unique and both do things quite differently.

 

DCS is much more of a study sim, even in the WWII planes, and can be quite complex. For those that are really into the hardcore stuff, studying manuals, engine startup procedures, switching all those cockpit switches, etc. It can be very fun and rewarding, but has quite the learning curve. I am somewhere in between , at times I enjoy some of the complexity, and often though get frustrated with all that complexity. Normandy map is ok, but lack of speed-tree tech hurts it in the performance dept. Could have used more optimizations.

 

IL-2 Great Battles: Whilst can be intimidating to new comers , certainly is much easier and quicker to get into. Less time needed to learn the essentials, and more time for learning the flight characteristics and combat. IMHO the absolute best especially in the SP department.  3 great time period maps with a 4th on the way. Performance is very good, not near as much tweaking needed to get good performance. 

 

I think most are going to fall into one of two categories - very hard core users that prefer the complexity of a study type sim. They typically are into the overall DCS experience and are probably frantically learning the ins and outs of the F/A 18-C Lot 20 now. 

Then the less than major hard core users that are mostly interested in WWII ( and WWI now) type of air combat, that love all the dynamics of the flight models, the gorgeous maps, and the great MP and especially SP action that one gets with IL-2 Great Battles. I myself am a SP only guy so can only speak to that experience, and in that dept for WWII IL-2 Great Battles owns the crown - buy a long shot.

 

 

 

[Mmaruda]

6 hours ago, dburne said:

I think most are going to fall into one of two categories - very hard core users that prefer the complexity of a study type sim. They typically are into the overall DCS experience and are probably frantically learning the ins and outs of the F/A 18-C Lot 20 now.  

Then the less than major hard core users that are mostly interested in WWII ( and WWI now) type of air combat, that love all the dynamics of the flight models, the gorgeous maps, and the great MP and especially SP action that one gets with IL-2 Great Battles.

 

I sort of agree, but then... I don't. I think people have a misconception about the "hard core users", that their focus is mainly on the study and modelling of a machine. With a modern jet with all them avionics, it definitely is a very important part of the simulation, but at the same time, the really hardcore aspect is use all that super complicated knowledge in a realistic environment. People seem to think that Falcon has a very hard learning curve, because of the complexity of the avionics, having to read thick manuals and stuff like that, but all that will only get you as far as starting up the plane, flying and using the radar. That is not the vertical wall to climb some people say it to be, that is just the initial hill, the whole challenge is when you already know how to operate the jet and now you have to do that in a "live" environment.

 

If we translate this to the DCS / BOX discussion, then at the end of the day, if you are even slightly familiar with study-sims, the "study" part of learning a WWII bird becomes limited to mostly the ramp start, once you are in the air, not much to click in that cockpit, it's about flying and fighting, but DCS is still very lacking in modelling that environment, while BOX though skipping the "virtual museum" part, delivers a combat theatre, that to and extent is dynamic. Again, I have not tried DCS in MP for almost 2 years now, but last time I checked there are still no player-controlled bombers and jumping into a not-so-hardcore server like WOL in BOX, I can clearly see how much of a difference having bombers and high-score targets like factories and bridged makes. To me, each sim has their brilliant aspects, but at the end of the day, I already know how to start a 109 or Spit on the ground, taxi and take off, but the fact that I can gather a few mates, get on a random server, pick a target, plot an approach, organize the dudes into a bombers and cover, with that cover actually having to use at least something close to real tactics to be any good makes it a more "hard core" experience than just doing fighter sweeps, if that makes any sense.

 

I'll make the Falcon comparison again - when I used to fly it more or less regularly we either did dogfighting against ourselves or coop missions. The latter one was the good stuff, situation awareness and communication was king and made your brain boil more than all the emergency procedures you could find in that 900 page manual, dogfights, eh... Even with those click-able cockpits, radars and all... It just sucked. You would just lock the radar into dogfight mode and the rest was no different than playing IL-2 1946 - running circles around each other and firing heaters and dumping flares with your head constantly looking back. And the availability of the afterburner actually made it even more boring, because you could to some degree ignore energy-fighting and just burn some fuel.

 

Now I am sure that eventually, DCS will bring that environment and mission flying to the table, but at this point, BOX already has it. Also, almost zero lag in MP.

 

So again, if you really want to learn every nook and cranny of a plane, understand how it works, sure DCS wins hands down, but it is lacking in the combat depiction department and in my opinion, learning to operate the systems of a plane isn't that hard, just put in the time, and you'll just memorize it. Tactics, situation awareness and unpredictability of the environment - this is where the real fun begins.

 

But everyone has their focus and preferences.