Jump to content

DCS


carve_gybe
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jade_Monkey

I've been flying the P-47D and the Channel map for a couple of weeks, and I thought I would share my first impressions for those who wonder how they compare to IL2's P-47D-28.

This is not meant to be an apples to apples comparison, i know the cost, the time to market, performance, and other factors are very different and they need to be taken into account if you want a wholistic comparison.

 

 

Channel map and P-47D Comparison with BOX

Overall, I think they are both really well done. DCS has higher textures for the plane but the gap is closing fast (especially with the last IL2 update).

You can see the poly count is still higher in DCS for some of the small switches in the cockpit but nothing is a deal breaker, I think both planes hold their own very well.

 

Things I like better in IL2: 

  • The visuals on the wing surfaces, rivets, and metallic reflection look better to me in IL2.
  • The engine sound on the ground, the deeper noise.
  • Damage model
  • Cockpit reflections on gauges and canopy.
  • Much easier to spot planes and ground units. They are incredibly blurry in DCS even at relatively close distances (1000m over a truck or AAA on the ground).
  • Autolevel feature. This is not historical for the P-47 but I think it's indispensable for a flight sim. After all we all need to check the phone, go to the bathroom, etc. 

Thinks I like better in DCS:

  • Airfields are incredibly detailed, this is probably the biggest difference for me. They feel very real, there is stuff everywhere and there are lots of details in the groud textures. Also short grass.
  • The height map "resolution" for the southern part of England is very detailed, you can really see small hills and nuanced terrain differences. I hope some of this will make it to some parts of BON based on what they learnt from TC.
  • Higher polygon count in cockpit, nothing too dramatic though.
  • Better external sounds, they seem like recordings instead of artificially generated engine sounds.
  • The gunsight in VR doesnt depend on your eye, it works seamlessly between both eyes and it's color strength does not fade away when you move your head in the cockpit.
  • Bullets and tracers seem less linear. I'm not a subject matter expert, but from a regular Joe's perspective it seems more believable.
  • External fuel tanks, they just look great. I look forward to having them in IL2 once they work on that feature.
  • More sounds that provide immersion:
    • wheels on the ground make that sound when you drive over gravel
    • the electic motor closing the P47 cockpit has a sound in DCS.
    • There is some clink/rattle sound in the plane when flying as if there was some loose metal piece somewhere. Not sure how much I like this one, but I like the general idea of more sounds for immersion.
    •  

Interesting differences i've noticed (neither good nor bad):

  • The speed of the P47 canopy open/close in DCS is much slower using the electric motor
  • The speed of closing the P47 cowl flaps is a lot slower in DCS
  • The 3D of the P47 cowl flaps is modeled differently, even fully closed they still get on your way in DCS while in IL2 they are more flush to the body of the plane.
  • There is a noticeable difference between both games in terms of FOV for all planes. I think by design IL2 looks like the pilot is smaller and the cockpit feels larger, while DCS feels like you are filling up the cockpit more and all instruments are slightly closer to you.

 

Things observed in the Channel Map and DCS platform that I would like to be added to IL2 at some point:

  • Detailed airfields and terrain.
    • More airfield specific objets for ambiance.
    • Some small details on the ground decals: oil stains on airfields, skid marks, etc.
  • Textures under towns are a bit more defined, I would like BON to have higher resolution decals on the ground to avoid the effect of having a building object on top of a grass field. BOBP made progress there but I would like to see higher res textures in that department.
  • The extra sounds are a nice touch (gravel under wheel, electric motor etc)
  • Adding static vehicles to the world by default: harbours have small fishing boats, there are trucks and cars parked all over the map. I saw some of this in the new Velikie Luki summer map, I have hope that it will carry over to the new BON map.
  • The explosion effects are a bit more fluid. Bombs and even the smoke coming out of the Flak 88 seem to have higher "fps" in their animation. 

 

Verdict:

I think the plane and the map are both well done and I would recommend them on a sale.

However, I have my reservations about how much fun they will be in the long run. Factors like the damage model, historical units available to fill the map with WWII enemies, and lack of a career mode really bring down the value of DCS.

Despite a long list of items I think DCS does well, I want those things added to IL2 instead of playing DCS. At the end of the day if I want to enjoy flying and shooting I end up in IL2.

I do look forward to the Reflected Simulations campaign for the P-47D, they are always very detailed and entertaining.

Edited by Jade_Monkey
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LuseKofte
10 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

However, I have my reservations about how much fun they will be in the long run

Nice sum up 

I know only my patience for flying P 47 in channel map exceed any GB map by 100 times. 

Internals and FM is just so ahead, and the map is just georgious. 

The same go for the I 16,. It feel real in DCS. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Internals and FM is just so ahead

 

What makes you conclude that FM is ahead? To me it seemed very surprising how maneuverable P47 felt in DCS. Somehow Il2's FM for such a heavy plane felt more believable, but obviously I have never been in one in real life.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LuseKofte
1 hour ago, Robli said:

 

What makes you conclude that FM is ahead? To me it seemed very surprising how maneuverable P47 felt in DCS. Somehow Il2's FM for such a heavy plane felt more believable, but obviously I have never been in one in real life.

The heavy feel to it is in DCS too. But it got more agility down low, but not enough to keep up with some other fighters. 

I have not said what is correct , I said I liked it better.   I would have elaborated more on the subject but find your tone rather patronizing, however good for you if you like GB P 47 better. Personally I do not like it at all I respect any other opinion on it, I am not married to it. I just pitched in my feeling about it to Jade, and I liked what he had to say

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

If you stopped being so fucking patronizing...

 

Uhh, seriously? Just because I asked what made you feel that P47 FM in DCS was ahead of IL2's?

No worries, I won't be 'patronizing' you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LuseKofte
5 minutes ago, Robli said:

 

Uhh, seriously? Just because I asked what made you feel that P47 FM in DCS was ahead of IL2's?

No worries, I won't be 'patronizing' you.

I changed that, but I am simply fed up by people putting words in my mouth. It was not fair taking on you. I apologize, I never endeavor in a FM debate , most here knows it. I simply like how DCS P 47 FM is. To my use it suit me fine. 

GB one I can rather fly a IL 2. It do not disintegrate when hit by a bullet

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ST_Catchov
23 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

 I am simply fed up by people putting words in my mouth.

 

So you're saying DCS is great and GB is crap. :( 

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LuseKofte
1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

So you're saying DCS is great and GB is crap. :( 

 

 

 

 

HAH! No

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanadaOne
2 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

So you're saying DCS is great and GB is crap. :( 

 

Anyone who is being honest knows they are both great. 

 

IL2 has much better WWII A2A action and the atmospherics and fine touches in IL2 are fantastic. Bust a 109 just as it hits the clouds and you get the first class smoke and fire and debris and then you notice the droplets from the cloud moisture on the cockpit, all of it mixing together. And you get that at with good FPS. Artistically, it's gorgeous!

 

DCS has better maps, nicer cockpits, and a far better system for the player to create his own flights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur-A

In DCS the P-47 is a real fighter. It's heavy, but still it feels like a fighter. The boxed version feels like shit.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
9 hours ago, Arthur-A said:

In DCS the P-47 is a real fighter. It's heavy, but still it feels like a fighter. The boxed version feels like shit.

 

True. We did a fun dogfight yesterday - P-47 vs several bombers, incl. IL-2 (granted, at low altitude) and the Jug could barely hold it's own.

Something is still amiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

itsbillyfrazier

@Jade_Monkey - That's a nice write up and seems a balanced comparison, although i have very little experience in DCS.

 

I picked up the Huey in DCS months ago as i wanted to try out helicopters, but i haven't played it much.

 

DCS seems to show my PC's age (i6700k, 32GB RAM, GTX980ti).  il-2 is much more forgiving to my current specs.

 

I wouldn't mind picking up some WW2 modules in DCS and maybe the channel map in the sale.

 

Are there any modules you would recommend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive been having a ball with the F14. Tried out the F16 today and man it just seems so complicated in comparison, dont get me wrong it was awesome in its own way but the F14 has that great character. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LuseKofte

When it comes to US fighters DM I am pretty sure GB is struggling vs DCS. 

To me using the P 47 in GB as a ground pounder make no sense at all. It get hit in the engine and stop. While doing the same with IL 2 actually give better odds. If your not going above 20 000 feet it make little to none sense flying it. 

In DCS it make a lot of sense choosing it. That is the only difference I care about. Doing ground attack in GB servers is a death wish because you got all these fighters waiting for you. So your stuck with SP, SP in DCS is better, plane and simple. GB is a great sim. Just not playable for me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD_Arthur
11 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

DCS has better maps, nicer cockpits, and a far better system for the player to create his own flights.

 

Whilst I agree that the ME in DCS is far better for the average user (thats me:)) and some of the jets are sublime, I remain totally unconvinced by the WW2 offering.  i haven't got the channel map or the P47 as I feel I got my fingers burnt by the DCS Normandy map which is still horrible as far as I'm concerned.  The cockpits?  I have to say I prefer the GBS ones, especially in VR.

Flight models?  Hmmm.....yeah....I remain unconvinced.  What I think DCS has got very right are sounds and throttle response.  The rest? Not so much.....

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanadaOne
7 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Whilst I agree that the ME in DCS is far better for the average user (thats me:)) and some of the jets are sublime, I remain totally unconvinced by the WW2 offering.  i haven't got the channel map or the P47 as I feel I got my fingers burnt by the DCS Normandy map which is still horrible as far as I'm concerned.  The cockpits?  I have to say I prefer the GBS ones, especially in VR.

Flight models?  Hmmm.....yeah....I remain unconvinced.  What I think DCS has got very right are sounds and throttle response.  The rest? Not so much.....

 

BoX has a much, much better WWII A2A offering. DCS doesn't compare. The DM, the effects, the atmospherics, the fluidity, the diversity of planes, It's all in the BoX camp. It's not that BoX is twice as good as DCS in the WWII A2A - it's five-times as good. My opinion anyway. 

 

For the A2G I think DCS has it simply because the player can build better custom scenarios much faster and much easier. In A2A the sky is the sky, so to speak, so maybe cookie cutter scenarios can still have a lot of variety depending simply on how the player wants to approach the flight. In A2G, you want to take advantage of the different ground objects and buildings and terrain, and DCS is better at that. You can build A2G missions in DCS in minutes that would require a degree in physics from Hogwarts to do in the BoX ME. I've used the DCS ME more in one day than I used the BoX ME in all of 2020. And it's all about building good A2G scenarios. Lots of variety and lots of beeg badabooms!

 

As for the Channel map, it's simply the best WWII map I've ever seen. I bought and retuned the Normandy map, which was horrible. I bought it again after the update and its okay now. The Channel map is freaking great right from the start. I like Crash' take. 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound too patronizing, but some of the things I read here make me feel like I have tried a totally different sim. For example this better WWII single player in DCS? I find it totally opposite. Once I have learned the various systems of a WWII bird, there is really not much to do with it. No campaigns or careers and not that many interesting missions. This is not meant as an aim at anybody or trying to patronize, just interesting how different perception people can have about the same thing. Currently, for me, the lack of meaningful content is one of the biggest weaknesses of the WWII side of DCS.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD_Arthur
53 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

For the A2G I think DCS has it simply because the player can build better custom scenarios much faster and much easier. In A2A the sky is the sky, so to speak, so maybe cookie cutter scenarios can still have a lot of variety depending simply on how the player wants to approach the flight. In A2G, you want to take advantage of the different ground objects and buildings and terrain, and DCS is better at that. You can build A2G missions in DCS in minutes that would require a degree in physics from Hogwarts to do in the BoX ME. I've used the DCS ME more in one day than I used the BoX ME in all of 2020. And it's all about building good A2G scenarios. Lots of variety and lots of beeg badabooms!

 

I have neither the time, inclination nor, I suspect, the intellect to swallow the GBS mission builder.  Luckily, I'm a member of a squad which contains much cleverer and more dedicated people than yours truly:biggrin:.

 

  I disagree with you about A2A and A2G in DCS.  In DCS I feel you can create both types of mission equally well.  Or rather, can create missions equally well.  This video was my DCS epiphany.  After I'd watched this everything was...."Ahhhh, I get it!"

 

 

So for me i can enjoy the badaboom but also the "Fox two!"  Whoosh, splat, splash:o:

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur-A
1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

DCS Normandy map which is still horrible as far as I'm concerned

Would you care to elaborate? What is it exactly horrible about this map?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD_Arthur
1 minute ago, Arthur-A said:

Would you care to elaborate? What is it exactly horrible about this map?

 

For me, it still looks grim and performs woefully compared to other DCS maps in both 2D and VR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanadaOne
10 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

I have neither the time, inclination nor, I suspect, the intellect to swallow the GBS mission builder.  Luckily, I'm a member of a squad which contains much cleverer and more dedicated people than yours truly:biggrin:.

 

  I disagree with you about A2A and A2G in DCS.  In DCS I feel you can create both types of mission equally well.  Or rather, can create missions equally well.  This video was my DCS epiphany.  After I'd watched this everything was...."Ahhhh, I get it!"

 

 

So for me i can enjoy the badaboom but also the "Fox two!"  Whoosh, splat, splash:o:

 

 

You're right about DCS A2A. I was referring to WWII stuff only. And I'm not any kind of authority on A2A mission building. 99% of my missions are A2G.

 

As for the BoX ME. I think Jason said in an interview that it was a developer's tool, and I have no interest in writing code, so I'll stick with the infinitely more user friendly DCS ME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LuseKofte
2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

I remain totally unconvinced by the WW2 offering.

This is something I can agree upon, compared with BOX it will never meet the standard when it comes to wargames , but it can eventually be a masterpiece  in campaigns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My critical tests as a strictly SP:

 

1) Both sims make me feel like I'm flying

 

2) DCS maps makes me want to fly 'over there' to see what is there, Il2 does not

 

3) Il2 feels like a war is going on in 194x, DCS does not

 

4) DCS AI makes me feel like I need to watch my six, IL2 does not 

 

Regards,

 

M

Edited by marcost
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LuseKofte
13 minutes ago, marcost said:

My critical tests as a strictly SP:

 

1) Both sims make me feel like I'm flying

 

2) DCS maps makes me want to fly 'over there' to see what is there, Il2 does not

 

3) Il2 feels like a war is going on in 194x, DCS does not

 

4) DCS AI makes me feel like I need to watch my six, IL2 does not 

 

Regards,

 

M

That was a nice sum up , I believe not flying online much affect my gravitation a lot to DCS. I am sure it would have been opposite if I liked online flying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DBFlyguy
1 hour ago, marcost said:

My critical tests as a strictly SP:

 

1) Both sims make me feel like I'm flying

 

2) DCS maps makes me want to fly 'over there' to see what is there, Il2 does not

 

3) Il2 feels like a war is going on in 194x, DCS does not

 

4) DCS AI makes me feel like I need to watch my six, IL2 does not 

 

Regards,

 

M

 

Definitely agree with these observations, with a few of my own to add:

 

  • There is definitely more detail by a mile put into the maps in DCS, they are BEAUTIFUL.  The Channel map is absolutely gorgeous.  Unfortunately, its not optimized at all and run like absolute garbage.  The IL-2 maps still have a generic feel to them... Kuban is really good but I feel like a lot more work should've gone into the Bodenplatte map.  I hope the Normandy map is massive improvement especially since there is direct competition with the DCS version.  Maps aside, I prefer the overall look of IL2. It continues to improve with each update and the care into small details like time period appropriate pilot models are nice touches which I really appreciate as a WWII aviation history buff by comparison the pilot models in the DCS WWII are pretty poor, especially the P-51 pilot model
  • IL2 definitely feels more like an immersive WWII air combat sim.  DCS WWII feels like a modern combat sim that lets you fly a couple WWII aircraft.  DCS WWII just isn't believable in its current state... the radio calls really break immersion, there is literally nothing to do unless you build your own missions or buy one of the canned payware campaigns that is likely to break in some form or fashion with one of the "patches".
  • The updated dogfight AI in DCS is currently light years ahead of what we currently have in IL2.  Calling the friendly AI in IL2 incompetent is putting it lightly.... they have no ability to hit anything and get blown out of the sky with annoying regularity.  I don't notice any difference no matter what you put their skill level to.  The enemy AI has gotten somewhat better where they actually use the vertical from time to time but there still is too many instances of that long never ending turn in one direction then reverse and go into a turn in other direction.  the AI needs major improving (ie overhaul) in IL2. 
  • The VR experience in IL2 is a lot more immersive and enjoyable for me.  I get solid and consistent frames including in larger air battles.  DCS is...well, DCS... it hasn't been optimized to run anything properly.  It looks cool but runs like crap, even FS2020 in its current state is a much more enjoyable VR experience over DCS.
  • Despite my current issues with IL2 like those mentioned above... I would never in a million years suggest the current offerings of DCS WWII over IL2.  The price of entry alone into what I see as a fairly subpar WWII experience is frankly just too high, even during a sale for DCS WWII.  Making people buy a separate "assets pack" just to get some era appropriate AI units is a joke! Same thoughts for the separate maps...Oh and that pointless I-16 module 😂 what the actual hell was the point of that thing...it doesn't fit into any scenario with anything else currently available in DCS.  DCS WWII has no consistent plan or vision that I can get behind.
Edited by DBFlyguy
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I use DCS for my craving for more modern jets and helicopters.

WWII I use IL-2 GB all the way, and WWII is my first love.

Edited by dburne
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanadaOne
36 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

Definitely agree with these observations, with a few of my own to add:

 

There is definitely more detail by a mile put into the maps in DCS, they are BEAUTIFUL.  The Channel map is absolutely gorgeous.  Unfortunately, its not optimized at all and run like absolute garbage.

 

Fortunately I don't have that experience. But I also have 32GB RAM which I'm sure helps a good deal. And I play with the settings a bit to get the FPS I'm comfortable with, but I can absolutely balance out the settings with my expectations and have a beautiful looking flight.

 

 

36 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

Despite my current issues with IL2 like those mentioned above... I would never in a million years suggest the current offerings of DCS WWII over IL2.  The price of entry alone into what I see as a fairly subpar WWII experience is frankly just too high, even during a sale for DCS WWII.  Making people buy a separate "assets pack" just to get some era appropriate AI units is a joke! Same thoughts for the separate maps...Oh and that pointless I-16 module 😂 what the actual hell was the point of that thing...it doesn't fit into any scenario with anything else currently available in DCS.  DCS WWII has no consistent plan or vision that I can get behind.

 

 

There's an apples and oranges thing going on here, I think. IL2 offers, for lack of a better term, a cohesive complete package. You get the peanut butter and jelly and crackers and a little plastic knife all in one box you can bring with you and you don't need anything else. And I'm not knocking it. IL2 is a great flightsim. I've been flying IL2 products for 20 years.

 

DCS is a big sandwich board covered in ingredients. You pick what you want and what you do with it is your business. It's much more of a flightsim sandbox than IL2. And it also offers much higher quality planes and maps than IL2 does. I heard the F-18 development budget alone was more than a million dollars and the manual, when all is said and done, will run 500+ pages. It's a whole other thing compared to what IL2 offers. And I guess by necessity that means if you want WWII assets, which not everyone does in a sim that features mostly modern jets, well ya gotta shell out a few bucks. 

 

IL2 is dinner brought to you. DCS is a buffet where you serve yourself. 

 

I want some cookies all of a sudden.... :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

Fortunately I don't have that experience. But I also have 32GB RAM which I'm sure helps a good deal. And I play with the settings a bit to get the FPS I'm comfortable with, but I can absolutely balance out the settings with my expectations and have a beautiful looking flight.

 

 

 

 

There's an apples and oranges thing going on here, I think. IL2 offers, for lack of a better term, a cohesive complete package. You get the peanut butter and jelly and crackers and a little plastic knife all in one box you can bring with you and you don't need anything else. And I'm not knocking it. IL2 is a great flightsim. I've been flying IL2 products for 20 years.

 

DCS is a big sandwich board covered in ingredients. You pick what you want and what you do with it is your business. It's much more of a flightsim sandbox than IL2. And it also offers much higher quality planes and maps than IL2 does. I heard the F-18 development budget alone was more than a million dollars and the manual, when all is said and done, will run 500+ pages. It's a whole other thing compared to what IL2 offers. And I guess by necessity that means if you want WWII assets, which not everyone does in a sim that features mostly modern jets, well ya gotta shell out a few bucks. 

 

IL2 is dinner brought to you. DCS is a buffet where you serve yourself. 

 

I want some cookies all of a sudden.... :P

 

Yeah and after this pandemic I am afraid buffets are going the way of the Tookie bird.

Shame really as I have been known to enjoy them, but would certainly help my diet if they did.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DBFlyguy
51 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

Fortunately I don't have that experience. But I also have 32GB RAM which I'm sure helps a good deal. And I play with the settings a bit to get the FPS I'm comfortable with, but I can absolutely balance out the settings with my expectations and have a beautiful looking flight.

 

 

 

I've got 32GB too and between the three sims I currently use the most (IL2, DCS and FS2020) Only DCS consistently gives issues.  Its DCS, not my setup.

54 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

 

IL2 is dinner brought to you. DCS is a buffet where you serve yourself. 

 

 

 

The buffet is also a hotbed for germs and bacteria...seems appropriate for the DCS 🤣  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my modern stuff (Hornet, Harrier, M2K etc) we've got no other options in that market besides BMS, just looking at WWII stuff, the only major things I feel DCS has over IL2 currently are better detailed maps, sound design, AI logic and that AI B-17 (Come on Jason... give us some AI 4 engine bombers aircraft to escort...SERIOUSLY!!!! 😔)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanadaOne
1 minute ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

I've got 32GB too and between the three sims I currently use the most (IL2, DCS and FS2020) Only DCS consistently gives issues.  Its DCS, not my setup.

 

I can't answer for your performance issues - ooohhh, that didn't sound nice :blush: - but I have decent rig I think, 3700X/32RAM/2060 Super with DCS on a dedicated M.2 drive and DCS runs very nicely at 1080P. I enjoy my flights and they look great. 

 

1 minute ago, DBFlyguy said:

The buffet is also a hotbed for germs and bacteria...seems appropriate for the DCS 🤣  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my modern stuff (Hornet, Harrier, M2K etc) we've got no other options in that market besides BMS, just looking at WWII stuff, the only major things I feel DCS has over IL2 currently are better detailed maps, sound design, AI logic and that AI B-17 (Come on Jason... give us some AI 4 engine bombers aircraft to escort...SERIOUSLY!!!! 😔)

 

DCS WWII is definitely a work in progress. And an expensive one at that. I don't see the DCS WWII option as being inherently cohesive the way IL2 is; it's the sandbox way of doing things. Pick the pieces you want and do as you see fit. It's both a limitation and a selling point. Depends what you like. I have a buddy who still flies IL2-46 because he has one and only one flightsim priority: Flying P-47s in the Pacific. He doesn't care about anything else. He builds his missions, he makes his skins, and he really enjoys his flights. DCS is kind of tuned for that kind of "do your own thing" flying. There is structured and there is sandbox. DCS is definitely sandbox.

 

Here's an advantage to the sandbox approach: we will have a high-fidelity DCS Mosquito long before we have a low-fidelity IL2 Mosquito. And there is a very strong possibility that we will get DCS carrier action in the Pacific long, long before we get it in Il2. Granted the DCS products will be buffet style (and $$$) and not part of a cohesive package, but then a lot of people don't care. That will be evidenced shortly by the DCS Mosquito selling like mad! to hordes of flyers who can't wait to get their grubby mitts on it. And when the DCS carrier and Corsair come out, they will also sell like crazy. Because a lot of people don't need a complete package, and certainly don't want to wait for it, they just want some good flightsim toys and they'll figure out what to do with them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DBFlyguy
9 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

I can't answer for your performance issues - ooohhh, that didn't sound nice :blush:

My Man Lol GIF by Steve Harvey TV - Find & Share on GIPHY

LOL Well played sir!

11 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

 

DCS WWII is definitely a work in progress. And an expensive one at that. I don't see the DCS WWII option as being inherently cohesive the way IL2 is; it's the sandbox way of doing things. Pick the pieces you want and do as you see fit. It's both a limitation and a selling point. Depends what you like. I have a buddy who still flies IL2-46 because he has one and only one flightsim priority: Flying P-47s in the Pacific. He doesn't care about anything else. He builds his missions, he makes his skins, and he really enjoys his flights. DCS is kind of tuned for that kind of "do your own thing" flying. There is structured and there is sandbox. DCS is definitely sandbox.

 

Here's an advantage to the sandbox approach: we will have a high-fidelity DCS Mosquito long before we have a low-fidelity IL2 Mosquito. And there is a very strong possibility that we will get DCS carrier action in the Pacific long, long before we get it in Il2. Granted the DCS products will be buffet style (and $$$) and not part of a cohesive package, but then a lot of people don't care. That will be evidenced shortly by the DCS Mosquito selling like mad! to hordes of flyers who can't wait to get their grubby mitts on it. And when the DCS carrier and Corsair come out, they will also sell like crazy. Because a lot of people don't need a complete package, and certainly don't want to wait for it, they just want some good flightsim toys and they'll figure out what to do with them.

 

I definitely understand where your friend is coming from, I'm planning on reinstalling 1946 soon.  I miss being able to fly in the pacific and none of the upcoming stuff for either IL2 or DCS is honestly gonna match what 1946 brought, especially with the current mods out there.

 

Speaking of the Mossie, the DCS one looks really tempting but I'll wait for the IL2 version.  If DCS drops a massively expanded and FREE assets pack including a lot more AI aircraft, vehicles and ships, I "may" consider it then, maybe.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IamRed1jfranchi
12 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Whilst I agree that the ME in DCS is far better for the average user (thats me:)) and some of the jets are sublime, I remain totally unconvinced by the WW2 offering.  i haven't got the channel map or the P47 as I feel I got my fingers burnt by the DCS Normandy map which is still horrible as far as I'm concerned.  The cockpits?  I have to say I prefer the GBS ones, especially in VR.

Flight models?  Hmmm.....yeah....I remain unconvinced.  What I think DCS has got very right are sounds and throttle response.  The rest? Not so much.....

Re: Normandy Map in DCS. You should check out this Terrain Texture MOD: (GTM:Normandy by Barthek) It does a fantastic job of correcting the "cartoonish colors" and gives a more natural look.

I am very impressed with IL2 Great Battles graphics and performance. I am just happy that IL2 GB exists because there are days when my brain needs a switch from the DCS Platform. 

DCS hangs or crashes 10 or 20 times more than IL2 if it ever does.. LoL.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jade_Monkey
6 hours ago, marcost said:

4) DCS AI makes me feel like I need to watch my six, IL2 does not 

 

I think it has changed a lot within the last two months, and the AI can give you a run you your money.

The IL2 AI is not stuck turning like it used to, it uses the vertical space a lot more now and they have been making many more frontal attacks and deflection shots.

 

If you havent truly tried it recently I would recommend setting up a 8x8 QM and seeing the new dogfight AI. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DBFlyguy
18 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

I think it has changed a lot within the last two months, and the AI can give you a run you your money.

The IL2 AI is not stuck turning like it used to, it uses the vertical space a lot more now and they have been making many more frontal attacks and deflection shots.

 

If you havent truly tried it recently I would recommend setting up a 8x8 QM and seeing the new dogfight AI. 

 

I just did, and the IL2 AI is HORRIBLE, specifically the friendly AI.  I set up a few flights that had 7 friendly AI (3 P-51s and 4 P-47D-28s) all set to ACE vs 1 BF109G6 Late set to NOVICE...and I just watched what unfolded....guess which side took loses and which side got away unscathed....  🙄

 

At this point, I'd be perfectly ok if we didn't get any new updates for a few months until the AI is seriously revamped across the board, this is bad, really really bad.

Edited by DBFlyguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jade_Monkey
8 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

I just did, and the IL2 AI is HORRIBLE, specifically the friendly AI.  I set up a few flights that had 7 friendly AI (3 P-51s and 4 P-47D-28s) all set to ACE vs 1 BF109G6 Late set to NOVICE...and I just watched what unfolded....guess which side took loses and which side got away unscathed....  🙄

 

At this point, I'd be perfectly ok if we didn't get any new updates for a few months until the AI is seriously revamped across the board, this is bad, really really bad.

 

I just performed that test: 7 veteran p-47 and p-51 vs 1 novice 109.

 

The result was as predictable as they come, after some tight turning the 109 gets shot down and peppered by mutiple planes from all directions without inflicting any damages to allied planes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QB.Creep
13 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

I just did, and the IL2 AI is HORRIBLE, specifically the friendly AI.  I set up a few flights that had 7 friendly AI (3 P-51s and 4 P-47D-28s) all set to ACE vs 1 BF109G6 Late set to NOVICE...and I just watched what unfolded....guess which side took loses and which side got away unscathed....  🙄

 

At this point, I'd be perfectly ok if we didn't get any new updates for a few months until the AI is seriously revamped across the board, this is bad, really really bad.

 

there is a very simple solution to this: fly against humans online

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DBFlyguy
42 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

I just performed that test: 7 veteran p-47 and p-51 vs 1 novice 109.

 

The result was as predictable as they come, after some tight turning the 109 gets shot down and peppered by mutiple planes from all directions without inflicting any damages to allied planes.

 

Just ran a few more test missions, 7 aces (friendly) versus 1 novice (enemy).  The novice managed to get in several head on passes while being chased by muliple friendly before finally being taken down including getting at least 1 guns kill and a maneuver kill against the friendly on 3 of the 4 test runs.  Yes, they eventually shoot down the 1 novice but it takes forever.... If I even the playing field and add more aircraft to the enemy side, regardless of the skill level, the friendly AI consistently get slaughtered. 

40 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

 

there is a very simple solution to this: fly against humans online

That is not a solution.  That's ignoring the issue.

Edited by DBFlyguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

I think it has changed a lot within the last two months, and the AI can give you a run you your money.

The IL2 AI is not stuck turning like it used to, it uses the vertical space a lot more now and they have been making many more frontal attacks and deflection shots.

 

If you havent truly tried it recently I would recommend setting up a 8x8 QM and seeing the new dogfight AI. 

 

Hi Jade_Monkey,

 

I must agree the AI is getting better and I do actually fly campaigns now whereas previously I lost interest after a couple of missions. Still don't really feel threatened though like in 1946 or to some degree DCS.

 

IL2 GB is definitely nearer the finished line for me and graphics, performance and AI improvements keep rolling in. Long may the improvements continue!

 

Regards,

 

M

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

simfan2015

Thank you all for these assessment of both il-2 and DCS. This sure is very valuable information for anyone trying to decide on one, or the other or... Both! Although I like DCS very much I, personally, always have the feeling I am fighting the game itself, far more than the enemy. Of course I am looking forward to the mossie and corsair too and as always... won't resist to buy those DCS modules on day 1. However, I keep returning to il-2 since that fine day I first installed it, simply because it is the only modern day sim/game that indeed gives one the impression to return in time and fight those fearful enemies in WWII and WW I. I hate being shot down over Normandy in a spit in 1944 by... a DCS F14B ! 🙂

Edited by simfan2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

 

will have a high-fidelity DCS Mosquito long before we have a low-fidelity IL2 Mosquito. 

 

I dont know about "long"

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...