DCS

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

With VEAO Dcs lost the last developer how was intressted in building WW2 Moduls staff, never sure VEAO was able at some time bring a solid Module but with no releases and bad PR was sooner or later happen to them.

Funny thing with Normandy release the Player Numbers droped even more down in the MP environment.

Still like the DCS WW2 Idear but with substantial content Missing for something like WOL and the endless waiting for Bug fixing Assett Pack and releasing of new Moduls seem's not in favour of the most Player.

Magnitude is developing F4U-1d and Zero, judging by the quality of MiG-21 I think there is something to wait for. But overall I agree, there are no 3rd parties that would support WW2 DCS. I find it interesting that despite attracting so much attention, those iconic ww2 warbirds are not interesting enough to be developed by any of the 3rd parties. There is room for AV-8B, MiG-19, Gazelle and what have you but not for any ww2 warbird. 

[Jade_Monkey]

Just got the p51 on steam sale. I just gave it a quick spin last night and didnt tweak the controls very much, but i felt like it flutters a lot when pulling the stick on the slightest. I also expected the speeds to be higher (not sure what i was basing it on).

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Set decent curves on pitch axis and small ones on yaw and roll. After given some curves it becomes quite stable in maneuvers and level flight. In regard to speeds ... its not as fast as it would be in optimal setting but what can we do. Community argued with developers for like 3 years now. We are supposed to wait for another Mustang they will make, a version accurate for Normandy timeframe. But regardless of that make sure you fly with ball centered, P-51 is very sensitive to that. When flying slow ball goes to the right and right rudder is necessary to keep it straight, when flying fast and very fast ball goes all the way to the left (in dives especially, rudder becomes like a paddle blocking airflow) so left rudder is necessary. I have issues chasing most of the opponents if I dont fly coordinated, once I do my fuel efficiency increases and ability to catch running enemy. 

 

Greatest issue you will have with armament, rest is something you can work on and improve. 

[Jade_Monkey]

Ok thanks!

 

Is that new mustang a separate purchase or they are going to overhaul the current one?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

No idea, it was just what they planned. What will come out of this is unknown. Judging by Assets I'd expect it to be separate module.

[Jade_Monkey]

Maybe i should return my module then. Im not thrilled about it anyways.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Mustang is love. I worship it every time I fly it. But it just takes time to learn. 

[Jaws2002]

DCS Mustang is really their best prop plane. I love it. It's so smooth and awesome. 

[Gambit21]

How's the Dora?

I own it, but I'm not about to waste the time installing DCS to mess with it at this juncture.

[Brano]

I remember only one thing with Dora. I couldnt stall it whatever crazy stick and rudder move I put in it. Flew it for few hours and then ditched it in the hangar. It was only so much fun flying over concrete apartment blocks from 70-80s soviet era. After some months I decided to update DCS to latest version. It messed up badly. Then I just uninstalled the whole thing and didnt bother with it anymore...

[Jaws2002]

It's not like that now. It's pretty hard to beat the Mustang now. At least the AI.  I think it turns much worse than before and it drops a wing in turn if you push it.

 Dora still can outclimb and outaccelerate the mustang, but it takes time to get enough vertical separation to be able to reengage. 

 

 At least that's how it feels to me, after a long break.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Jaws2002

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

How's the Dora?

I own it, but I'm not about to waste the time installing DCS to mess with it at this juncture.

It's ok. Hard to fly and particularly to do well in it, but there is a bunch of players who do exceptionally well in it. Personally I struggle the most with take-offs in it, very hard to control for me due to high torque. In the air its smooth and there is little to fiddle with, throttle, stick, mw50 and cowl shutters (unless you wish to have them left on auto). It's a very good aircraft though. 

[nirvi]

The Dora is my favorite plane after the Mustang. Good topspeed and rollrate, and good armament with bombs, rockets and 20mm guns. Really tidy and functional cockpit with easy startup and engine management. Just don't try to turn with a Spit or a good Mustang pilot. 

[Guest deleted@30725]

It's not like that now. It's pretty hard to beat the Mustang now. At least the AI.  I think it turns much worse than before and it drops a wing in turn if you push it.

 Dora still can outclimb and outaccelerate the mustang, but it takes time to get enough vertical separation to be able to reengage. 

 

 At least that's how it feels to me, after a long break.

 

AI use basic fm and is rubbish to be worth playing against because they do things no human with the pfm can do.

[Lusekofte]

Like I do for this game I do for DCS , I use it for what I like to use it. Bos 2 hours in FNBF a week the rest in offline DCS . 2,1 has really improved by the latest patch

[Solty]

Mustang is love. I worship it every time I fly it. But it just takes time to learn. 

This is the main reason I fly DCS. All it needs is a new DM (I would love CloD level but BOS level would do fine). I sure hope it won't take another year to make it.

 

Especially something twin engine, such as A20 or B25 or Me410 or Hs129 would increase the longevity of the game.

Edited June 28, 2017 by =LD=Solty

[nirvi]

Short article about the E3 demo of the DCS Hornet: (With new Screenshots)

http://gamingshogun.com/2017/06/27/dcs-fa-18c-hornet-vr-experience-at-e3-2017-with-exclusive-screenshots/

Edited June 28, 2017 by nirvi

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

I understood that the Pony update would be free for the people who already own the mustang. More like an update than a new plane. Or like the MW 50 option in the ME. at some point Sh!tspawn said they wanted to do fuel options for the ww2 planes as well (C3 and 100 (150?) octane). Im sure itll be ready in about 2 weeks or so

 

That being said there was a time when I understood that the fancy assets would be included with the map.

 

As for the F4U and Zero, while they are both cool planes that Id love to play around with, and Im sure the magnitude guys would do a great job with them, I dont think it will help to breathe life into dcs wwii. Last I heard the Iwo map was on hold. People already stayed away from flying on caucasus, how do you think theyll like flying pacific aircraft in France? DCS wwii will never get particularly big. Some people will show up when a new aircraft is released, and then itll dwindle after a month or so. This happened with the spit, people just stayed longer because the map was just beyond the horizon so to speak. I agree with MAD. What does it say about a sim that less people are flying now than before the map was released...?

[Guest deleted@1562]

I don't think WW2 will be a success with DCS. So now there is a map with the advanced airfields after D-Day in place that limit the usefulness of the map to a very short timeframe with no flyable planes that fit. Also no fitting radio comms, ATC,  AI, DM. With the limited resources ED assigns to DCS it would take forever to implement them.

 

My guess: When the F/A-18 gets released WW2 will be forgotten in the DCS World.

[THERION]

I like DCS for jet fighter era and choppers, but alas not for props... I have bought the 109 and the Spitfire with the terrain module Normandy and its assets.

Looks not bad, but compared to CLOD and BOX, it's disappointing and very, very hardware intense. I mean, I tuned down the eye candy a little bit, but still

have lots of stutter, something I definitely don't have with BOX with everything maxed out!

 

So, I'll stay with BOX, which offers a lot more content and a great feeling of being there...

 

Cheers

[DickDong]

They both offer a great experience...what really matters is who you put around you in mp. If there are 5 people on the server, mold it to get the most outve it.Make it a trainig sortie instead of combat as an example. I'm more frustrated at the so called "DCS WW2 community" that was rabbid for this 8-12 months ago but....is apparently too casual to have second copy downloaded (which many already own). I'll be flying DCS with the leftover time I aint here. I predict I'll see many of those I mentioned a few days after every major patch dissappear once again.We live in a time of WW2 sim feast, enjoy it before the next famine.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Banzaii

[Lusekofte]

I think the ww2 planes are very good, in fact I feel pretty much like a ace just being able to take off. Torque effect seems much more realistic, Landing and takeoffs remind me of historical behaviour and how airshow pilots describe it today. For the rest  I do not care too much, I really is not a dogfight dude , to me it is totally uninteresting. For the map. Most people got imagination, We know it is Normandie , but it can really be anything from low countries to Germany. Like in COD , the mission makers can make the most of it, most people are not nitpickers. If they where they would not fly in CFS games 

Edited June 29, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[CanadaOne]

I want a DCS F-104.

 

I'll happily pop the $50 for that.

[Silver_Dragon]

Introduction to the F/A-18C
https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/videos/10159004303245341/

[Blooddawn1942]

Introduction to the F/A-18C

https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/videos/10159004303245341/

 

It´s gettin close and closer!

[Sokol1]

My guess: When the F/A-18 gets released WW2 will be forgotten in the DCS World.

 

Maybe, but I know guys that have DCSW due their incipient "WW II" and have 0 interest for "F-18's or A-10's" - like me. 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

That's me. But I just cant stand anymore those damage models. Have endured that for 3 years flying P-51, really hope its close or else I dont think I will keep flying Normandy much longer ... 

[Guest deleted@30725]

Maybe, but I know guys that have DCSW due their incipient "WW II" and have 0 interest for "F-18's or A-10's" - like me. 

 

Uff, all planes are awesome!

[SeaW0lf]

Recently I gave DCS a go -- I had the P-51 and FW 190 since 2014 without flying it due to all the talk about visibility and DM problems. Now I have the Bf 109 as well. But from the experience I got in a few months of flying is that the sim is mostly unfinished and with lots of very old WIPs, like the DM project that is from 2012, the P-51D revision, visibility (still very poor against the terrain in Normandy, which renders dogfights a very frustrating task and not believable at all), netcode, engine optimization (my GTX 1060 6GB looks like an old HD 6870 playing 2.1) or even projects down the line with irrelevant aircraft such as the Tempest and Vampire or even the 262, which should come way after aircraft such as the P-47, P-38, even a Mosquito, Stuka, you name it.

 

And all the above affects the multiplayer crowd a great deal (therefore the sim per se). The forum section of Normandy is stalled for quite a while. You get a couple posts a day. The whole section of the forum is virtually empty, and Normandy was just released. No words on the WIPs timeline, the new B-17s came with a very basic DM, which might indicate a standard for them (I don't see a point to release a DM already thinking in doing another one from scratch later on).

 

So the impression is that some very, very basic stuff has being ignored for years. Perhaps this is their MO (I'm there for only a few months), but it is not reassuring at all. I had quit flying the 1.5 version because of serious visibility issues. Normandy got a nice improvement in dot spotting and I think it is really good now (Normandy has a nice rendering), but visibility against the terrain did not change much and, together with other diehard WIPs, I'm not very trilled about 2.1 as well. I'm just about to quit.

 

People complaint about empty servers, but I think this is happening not by chance or due to simple steps that aren't being met. It is the core of the sim that is upside down. Either they work on the important things such as DM, visibility, old WIPs, netcode, hadware optimization and son or, or simply a new grass, new water, new maps and asset packs will not change the scenario.

 

I say this for WWII. I have little interest in jets, although the Saber / Mig duel is interesting, but the way things look over there I don't feel compelled to get any modules. I could say that the FM feels very professional (although there are some points being discussed in the forum), that clickable cockpits are a must for enthusiasts, that the Normandy map has a nice / fine rendering (perhaps the reason why it is bringing GPUs to their knees), but all of this becomes void if you can't have a decent game play (paramount in multiplayer).

 

Right now DCS is a good warbird sim for flybys. 

 

 

-------edit-------

Recently I have been flying more in BOS. 

Edited July 5, 2017 by SeaW0lf

[JG5_Zesphr]

TBH DCS should've stuck to jets. The game is perfect for 1-4 gen jets and there's already a few from each gen with a few more on the the way with the F-14, F-15E and MiG 19. I now think Vietnam would have been a brilliant addition instead of Normandy as there is already the Huey, MiG 21, Sabre and MiG 15 (Not sure on the F-5). Plus it would mean a F-4 modual would be obvious and of which many would like. Still time will tell 

[Danziger]

I'm waiting for the grand unified 2.5 version to come out before I bother firing it up again. IL*2 is a WIP in a good way. The core game is always playable and is always being improved at a practical and steady rate. DCS is a WIP in a bad way. Things are very mismatched in development. There are tons of things being worked on at the same time at different rates with dates always missed by years. The updates are constantly breaking other parts of the game and third party modules. I think ED taking over DCS WW2 was a mistake.

[Monostripezebra]

TBH DCS should've stuck to jets. The game is perfect for 1-4 gen jets and there's already a few from each gen with a few more on the the way with the F-14, F-15E and MiG 19. I now think Vietnam would have been a brilliant addition instead of Normandy as there is already the Huey, MiG 21, Sabre and MiG 15 (Not sure on the F-5). Plus it would mean a F-4 modual would be obvious and of which many would like. Still time will tell 

 

I wholeheartedly agree.. I love the P-51, but as the game currently is, the best air to air gameplay happens with not too modern jets and missles and a vietnam map would have been a logical choice. And it´s a senario that in terms of flightsims has not yet been overdone, the old strike fighters was good, but modern day era graphics vietnam map would definatly be something. And yes a F-4 would be very marketable.. I but then again DCS seems to have something against following the obvious development directions.

[Dutchvdm]

TBH DCS should've stuck to jets. The game is perfect for 1-4 gen jets and there's already a few from each gen with a few more on the the way with the F-14, F-15E and MiG 19. I now think Vietnam would have been a brilliant addition instead of Normandy as there is already the Huey, MiG 21, Sabre and MiG 15 (Not sure on the F-5). Plus it would mean a F-4 modual would be obvious and of which many would like. Still time will tell 

 

I would love a Afghanistan map for the Mig-21, Su-25, Mi-8.

 

Grt M

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

F-4s have been discussed on the ED forums a few times. The general consensus is it ain't gonna happen unfortunately . The reasons given are usually something like Boeing doesn't want to give licensing rights (like with the A-4) and Iran still flies them.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Phantom just wont happen. Been discussed so often. Now they are introducing F-18, then F-14 will be added. In terms of jets I feel like it will all be about those two while older modules (in particular Su-27 and MiG-29) will become useless. WW2 on the other hand ... I still got no clue where it is going. 

[Gambit21]

...but then again DCS seems to have something against following the obvious, logical, sensible, plausible, wise, prudent, coherent, efficient, development directions.

 

Fixed it for you. 

[Jade_Monkey]

For those who have tried both, how does the Spitfire compare between  DCS and IL2? I know they are different versions but you know what i mean, do they feel different? Is one better done than the other?

[BeastyBaiter]

Can't comment on the spits but the 109's and 190's feel pretty similar once airborne. All differences I've noticed can be attributed to them being different models. On the ground, it's totally different though. DCS is sort of halfway between the old styled ice skating planes of IL2 (2001), War Thunder and so on and what we have in BoX. The core problem is that on the ground, everything is way too rigid. There is zero drift allowed with a locked tailwheel, no hint of roll or yaw effects and the suspension seems to be a solid chunk of metal with no play and the tires grip the ground like their stuck in railroad tracks. The whole thing is just strange and pretty far removed from reality. Not saying BoX is perfect, it isn't but it is far more believable than what DCS props do.

[Bearfoot]

For those who have tried both, how does the Spitfire compare between  DCS and IL2? I know they are different versions but you know what i mean, do they feel different? Is one better done than the other?

 

Just had a little bit of time in the IL2 Spit. 

 

So far, I've found:

 

(1) While (for me) the DCS Spit was the most difficult single-engine warbird to take-off in, across all aircraft in either sims, the IL-2 Spit is, by far, the easiest warbird to takeoff in either sim. It practically lifts off by itself, requiring none of the "technique" I learned from the DCS: just line her up, keep her straight, and onward and upward! Also, it should be noted that while I've got taking off in the DCS Spit pretty much down so that it is like second nature so that I can consistently take-off well enough, from what I've read my technique is wrong. I set a neutral trim and rely on a strong aft stick, while I've read that the historical technique is to set a strong elevator trim and input no pitch via stick -- just some right stick and rudder to keep her centered. A

 

(2) Engine management is easier in IL2. Though, ironically, there is more to manage/control. So maybe it is more correct to say: it is much more difficult to blow the engine in IL2. How difficult, I cannot say, as I have yet to blow the engine in the little flying I did. In contrast, with the DCS Spit I ended up blowing the engine n times out of n for the first few days, especially in engagements. Whether this is due to the different model or some "hand-holding under-the-hood" (i.e., simplification or otherwise abstraction) that IL2 does, I am not sure right now. Related to the "hand-holding under-the-hood", the "pilot" does a lot of things for you in IL2, such as checking the fuel gauge etc. EDIT: Yep, just managed to blow my engine just flying about. So, it can be done!

 

(3) Generally it seems that the IL2 spit has "more energy in the pocket". I was using the default Merlin at high-altitude, rather than the low altitude optimized one, but I think this is a general phenomenon of the IL2 vs. DCS flight models, rather than anything specific to the Spit. Compared to the DCS aircraft, the IL2 aircraft seem to have less (or maybe even little) inertia, dump energy much more slowly and regain it much faster through a broad range of maneuvers, allowing you to pull a lot more crazy moves at slower speeds with less consequences. Not saying one is more or less realistic or better than the other ... just noting the differences. I find much, much, much more of my headspace is devoted to flying the DCS warbirds vs. fighting, compared to IL2: with DCS, 80% of my mind is focussed not stalling the aircraft or blowing the engine during maneuvering and only 20% of fighting, while in IL2 it is the other way around.

 

(4) I did not notice much difference in flying due to the "neutral static stability" thing. I honestly thought this would be a big one. It's possible that I just have not put the IL2 Spit through the correct maneuvers, or dramatic enough maneuvers ... or that I was just subconsciously adjusting for this while flying. Will have to deliberately experiment with the conditions described in the dev post and see if I can notice it. EDIT: Yep, it's there, and has been there all the time; I was just subconsciously adjusting for this dynamic without noticing it.

 

(5) Those cannon magazines are small! You run out really, really, really, quick! This is, of course, due to the different models rather than any implementation differences.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Bearfoot

[Jade_Monkey]

Thanks for the summary!