Where do you rank IL-2 Great Battles?

[Wolf8312]

2 hours ago, Mmaruda said:

 

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.

 

Good points.

 

I think explaining why I love DCS is a very personal thing at the end of the day, because even if I was to give logical reasons to explain, it's comes largely from a simple feeling I have when I am in the planes themselves (In VR).

 

You're right in what you say. It has alot to do with ground handling and start up proceedures, and the clickable cockpits, but these things, taxi, take off and landings, are not to be underestimated in how much more immersive they make the VR experience, especially when using a jetseat.

 

I'm very nerdy about WW2 history, and so with DCS, the abilty to reach out and touch everything in the plane itself makes me feel a greater sense of power/control, familiarity, and ownership of the plane itself.

The same for learning the start up procedure off by heart, as it also adds immersion, and is interesting from a historical perspective because one is actually learning more about the plane.

 

It makes one feel as if, one is going through the very same motions that the real pilots themselves would have done. Even the time it takes to get up into the air, adds value to the pilots life, as you don't wish to die, and the effort to have all been for nothing!

 

Again -and I really am repeating myself now- remember too that by using the jetseat, I can feel the 109's mighty cannons reverberating throughout the cockpit. I can feel my tail wheel smash down onto the ground, or feel nothing at all when I suddenly stall! This isn't anything to do with the whole game as a comprehensive package, but solely about the experience of flying the planes themselves, and for me that's really where DCS shines- the modules.

 

The WW2/DCS modules themselves are truly impressive, and nobody can take that away from their creators. The spitfire for example is a god damned masterpiece, (just bought an audible book!) and I think how a plane behaves during taxi, take off, and landing are all hugely significant in terms of how they serve to convince a VR user like myself that he is actually in a real spitfire! Because the more the plane conforms to how you have heard it is supposed to conform, the more realistic and immersive it begins to feel. Landings/taxi/take off's being so much more difficult to pull off, are also so much more satisfying because of this, and that too all adds to the immersion!

 

Now I know that once all that is mastered, there comes a point when people might start to get bored, and take a module for granted a bit. I had a similar thing happen with the Gazelle (no real campaign for that) but that alone does not detract from how truly magnificent that module is, with or without a campaign...

 

People have to remember too I think that DCS developers put the bulk of their energy into the module itself and that is why the modules are so highly developed and comprehensive. The developers choose to focus their efforts on the flight models and AC's themselves because more so than BOX that is what DCS is all about. The module and AC itself is everything, and content is really the responsibilty of the DCS community and ME.

 

The mission editor, being very easy to use, (and hard to master like the modules themselves) gives everybody the ability to create SP content as good as his ability, or efforts will allow so really nobody should be short of things to do.

 

Yes SP is better in BOX, but that doesn't detract from my enjoyment of DCS. Just because I like chocolate icecream more than strawberry icecream, isn't going to prevent me from enjoying the later!

 

Remember too there is good content out there (epsom campaign) just not quite so much.

 

DCS has the potential to be the best and until very recently really was the best! Gotta remember until a few years before it was DCS that had all the SP content, and Box which was bemoaned for lacking it. The slow one now may later be last, as Bob Dylan once said!

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Wolf8312

[Mmaruda]

Good points there. I have never tried VR, so again that is another thing. I don't take 3D experiences all too well also, 3D films make my head hurt and make me want to puke most of the time, so I can understand that my experience is totally different.

 

I think it's important to note what you said about the plane modules. In DCS the focus is on the machine, you get the plane and that it the highlight, rest comes second (at least it feels like this to me). In BOX the planes are an integral part of a greater whole - the theatre. Handling-wise I would not say they are less accurate than DCS, though detailed comparisons will become possible when BOBp drops in full.

 

I think my post and yours clearly detail the difference in focus with both sims. While I enjoy and appreciate the ability to know a plane in and out, which DCS is all about, I prefer a slightly broader focus, let's say simulating not only the machine but the conflict as well, while you seem to really like being able to experience every aspect of operating the plane. Which I totally get - I started with DCS for my study-sim fix and once I learned the basics of the Ka-50, I felt almost like a real pilot, like I could actually fly the damn thing IRL. Recently I read a book about WWII LW Aces and there is a chapter there about the 109 and some notes of a modern pilot flying the plane (sorry, I have bad memory for names) and the whole process is very detailed and complicated, but after some thought it all made perfect sense and the take off procedure was clear as day to me, and that is all thanks to DCS.

 

That said, I have grown somewhat tired of constantly learning operating procedures for planes that stay in beta for years and never get an operating theatre (F-86, Mig-15, so good, love them so much - what a WASTE!!! SHAME!!!). To me, and many other, this is the real reason to gravitate towards BOX. This and also the ground handling, I've been suspecting for years that it's scripted - each time a new WWII plane goes up, it's super hard and unless you follow the procedure to the letter, you end up in Tokyo Drift Country and a few months and hundreds of user complaints down the line, it become easy and intuitive, even if you have not been flying, without any explanation from the devs. I am sure it's a conspiracy. ?

 

I totally agree, that DCS has potential, and more than anything, I would like to see it realised, but for now, I will stick to what I find complete and approachable, aka fun to be had, with my everyday schedule.

 

I'd like to point out also, and I think this might be an important point in the discussion, that with age come responsibilities (nope, don't have kids, just work more and more to make them moneys), so at some point, I realised that I only have so much time to focus maybe on one sim and enjoy it, instead of being in training mode and waiting for further developments. So yeah, my opinion also comes from there, and that is one of the reasons I put BOX in number 1. It's got what I am interested in, while having the right balance of time requirement to learn vs fun and satisfaction you get from it. Also... amount of content for money, but I guess in terms of simulation quality, that's really an afterthought.

 

That said, I do intend to return to playing DCS regularly, once it's... matured a bit? It might take a while though.

 

PS Where the hell is my damn Vietnam setting for the Huey!? Seriously, I spent all those weeks to be able to control the damn thing, learning about mast bumping and all and when I want to be welcomed to the Rice Fields, Rising Storm 2 Vietnam is my only option. Sad.

 

?

[Wolf8312]

56 minutes ago, Mmaruda said:

Good points there. I have never tried VR, so again that is another thing. I don't take 3D experiences all too well also, 3D films make my head hurt and make me want to puke most of the time, so I can understand that my experience is totally different.

 

I think it's important to note what you said about the plane modules. In DCS the focus is on the machine, you get the plane and that it the highlight, rest comes second (at least it feels like this to me). In BOX the planes are an integral part of a greater whole - the theatre. Handling-wise I would not say they are less accurate than DCS, though detailed comparisons will become possible when BOBp drops in full.

 

I think my post and yours clearly detail the difference in focus with both sims. While I enjoy and appreciate the ability to know a plane in and out, which DCS is all about, I prefer a slightly broader focus, let's say simulating not only the machine but the conflict as well, while you seem to really like being able to experience every aspect of operating the plane. Which I totally get - I started with DCS for my study-sim fix and once I learned the basics of the Ka-50, I felt almost like a real pilot, like I could actually fly the damn thing IRL. Recently I read a book about WWII LW Aces and there is a chapter there about the 109 and some notes of a modern pilot flying the plane (sorry, I have bad memory for names) and the whole process is very detailed and complicated, but after some thought it all made perfect sense and the take off procedure was clear as day to me, and that is all thanks to DCS.

 

That said, I have grown somewhat tired of constantly learning operating procedures for planes that stay in beta for years and never get an operating theatre (F-86, Mig-15, so good, love them so much - what a WASTE!!! SHAME!!!). To me, and many other, this is the real reason to gravitate towards BOX. This and also the ground handling, I've been suspecting for years that it's scripted - each time a new WWII plane goes up, it's super hard and unless you follow the procedure to the letter, you end up in Tokyo Drift Country and a few months and hundreds of user complaints down the line, it become easy and intuitive, even if you have not been flying, without any explanation from the devs. I am sure it's a conspiracy. ?

 

I totally agree, that DCS has potential, and more than anything, I would like to see it realised, but for now, I will stick to what I find complete and approachable, aka fun to be had, with my everyday schedule.

 

I'd like to point out also, and I think this might be an important point in the discussion, that with age come responsibilities (nope, don't have kids, just work more and more to make them moneys), so at some point, I realised that I only have so much time to focus maybe on one sim and enjoy it, instead of being in training mode and waiting for further developments. So yeah, my opinion also comes from there, and that is one of the reasons I put BOX in number 1. It's got what I am interested in, while having the right balance of time requirement to learn vs fun and satisfaction you get from it. Also... amount of content for money, but I guess in terms of simulation quality, that's really an afterthought.

 

That said, I do intend to return to playing DCS regularly, once it's... matured a bit? It might take a while though.

 

PS Where the hell is my damn Vietnam setting for the Huey!? Seriously, I spent all those weeks to be able to control the damn thing, learning about mast bumping and all and when I want to be welcomed to the Rice Fields, Rising Storm 2 Vietnam is my only option. Sad.

 

?

 

Honestly agree with pretty much everything you are saying. Though I should point out, I do actually like BOX a little more than DCS (though I find myself more and more leaning towards DCS for reasons explained) for the exact same reasons you do yourself, and get frustrated with DCS for many of the reasons you do yourself and also lack the time or desire to actually spend time learning modules that I have already once forgotten! Anyway nice talking to you.

 

[Mmaruda]

21 minutes ago, Wolf8312 said:

Anyway nice talking to you.

 

Thanks! It was a pleasure.

 

[dburne]

I fully agree on that Epsom Campaign for the Spit in DCS.

Very realistic and in depth, it is pretty incredible.

I had only gotten a couple of missions into it , but fully intend on going back and getting all the way through it.

[Guest deleted@30725]

I think Il2 great battles is the best because it managed to strike a balance between realism and an actual playable game.

 

The thing that got me hooked was the sound design that makes you as a virtual pilot feel like you're in the situation. The flight models are pretty decent and there is enough nerdy moving of switches (via keyboard commands) to keep more hardcore (excuse this word) players engrossed.

 

I think the other important factor for me as a previous paying customer up till bok (I just ran out of time to play) is that the team do actually listen to our issues and positive changes are and have been made based on proper complaints backed up by researched evidence. This is one good thing that the team listens to their customers. We probably are not going to get four engined bombers, but many technical and flight model issues have been fixed based on player feedback. because of continued expansion, using the engine as a platform continued content and resources are put upon the game.

 

Without a history lesson, Il2 clod was not that great a flight sim when the original dev team left it and they left it to die. It took a team of devoted fans to pickup the mess and bring out the full potential of the game. It took a lot of time. It is a very attractive alternative to il2 great battles. Once again showing the power and dedication of a modding community. It has a playability and aesthetic of its own. In this case both games have their own merits.

 

DCS is really for a different audience, people can enjoy both il2 and DCS games, but DCS is the model of the plane, the best the team can do it. DCS in my opinion shines with things like the huey or the A10C. With the huey being a brilliant implementation of the famous vietnam vet and the A10C and awesome insight into a current gen military aircraft with so much switch pressing geekery that you could well be still on the runway 2 hours after loading the plane for the first time and it really is fun learning all the systems and then going online or single player and implementing the guns and munitions to full and deadly effect. I don't think DCS works so well as a comparable prop flight sim as it's just not a complete enough experience for your average person and to get all the content if one desires costs an eye watering sum of money even with sales.

 

So Il2 great battles gives a lot of content even by choosing one package for your dollars, euros or pounds, etc. I think it strikes a good balance.

 

I can't call it the best, there is always room for improvement, but it's a pretty good attempt at the genre and a worthy successor to clod and you shouldn't really covet what you see as the best with devious greed as each game has it's own good merits. Even il2 1946 is still a fun game to play even now. We would, of course hope with every new generation of game as technology is improved and lessons learned from previous titles that the current gen should be better. It's not always the case.

 

Be happy with your choice, play what you enjoy. There is no point scoring to be gained by hating one product over the other. We have our own views but at it's core we all (hopefully) share the same core love and interest in aviation in all it's many forms.

 

I wish I still had the time to play and I enjoy seeing what is being released next. Il2 bos was for the me the only game I ever jumped into pre release beta. New media such as youtube in the form of other players playing the game got me hooked before even taking the controls and it changed and grew over time. It has had its own set of growing pains, but I always knew deep down that here proposed to me was something really good that would flower and blossom into something wonderful. Years later the team has delivered far more content that I ever could have hoped for and continues to push out consistent quality with the occasional blip (butcher bird). I have zero regrets with any of the purchases made and it's not something you can say with a straight face about many games.

 

To finish with such a corny line "Don't hate the player, hate the game". I'd like to think we're all grown up enough to respect each others opinions on a product regardless of whether we agree with said opinions.

 

Each to their own right?

Edited July 27, 2018 by deleted@30725

[Enceladus828]

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 6:37 AM, Royal_Flight said:

I’d rather BoX did North Africa and the Med

Another to mention is that the Spitfire and the Hurricane gained their fame during the Battle of Britain, which Cliffs of Dover portrays. Although these 2 aircraft were lend leased to the Soviet Union, they were used in the Mediterranean after the Battle of Britain. These aircraft played a major role in the defense of Malta. If BoX did the Med, then where would the Dover series expand to? From 1941-1943 the Spitfire was primarily used in the Mediterranean. The Dover series may take longer than BoX to produce a product, but more aircraft/variants are included.