DCS

[BOO]

in my limited experience the Spit flies ok-ish at speed with half a wing but I couldn't land it - as soon as the speeds drops so does the life expectancy. 

[LuftManu]

5 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

Hey guys not sure if this is a DCS damage model problem or just better or worse physics than IL-2 but I've noticed in DCS, losing half a wing is far less of a problem than it is in sturmovik. In sturmovik you're pretty much dead once a piece of your wing snaps off but DCS with half a wing you can pretty much land. Can anyone say which is the more realistic?

Well

 

I can't say ?

[Wolf8312]

2 hours ago, LF_ManuV said:

Well

 

I can't say ?

 

So I guess half a wing is okay in any plane then! I think in DCS I tend to lose my wings alot more than I ever did in BOS!
 

[Lusekofte]

There is a pick on interweb with a hellcat manage to land with half his wing shot off

[Uufflakke]

54 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

There is a pick on interweb with a hellcat manage to land with half his wing shot off

 

Or do you mean the half winged Avenger?

 

 

 

On February 18,1945 his squadron was to attack shipping and waterfront installations at Chi Chi Jima.

As they were approaching the waterfront installations they came under heavy anti-aircraft fire. The pilot in the flight behind Robert's, Jesse Naul, saw Robert's plane get hit by the anti-aircraft fire and his right wing was blown off. He said Robert's plane went into a spin and crashed into Lt. King's plane. The propeller on Robert's plane took off about four feet of the left wing and damaged the fuselage on Lt. King's plane. Jesse said he saw no parachutes from Robert's plane as it went down and crashed into the sea. He said Robert's crew John Louis Gerig and Gilbert Reynolds were presumed lost and later listed as Killed in Action.

Starting to lose control of his plane, Lt . King ordered his crew to bail out. As he started to lose altitude he was able to regain some control of his plane and was able to make it back to the task force and made a water landing and was rescue

 

 

[Wolf8312]

10 hours ago, 216th_Lucas_From_Hell said:

Which aircraft was that in, Wolf?

 

Think it was mainly the fw190 D9 mate.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Ah, OK. Not sure who has it better in that aspect to be honest, I don't fly the Fw-190 much in Il-2 and I don't have it in DCS. In the more modern planes the fuselage is designed to do part of the lifting work so they're generally a bit better in that aspect.

 

Fun fact though, the genius we call An.Petrovich was the main developer for the fantastic Su-25T and Su-25 flight models for Lock On: Flaming Cliffs, the very first Advanced Flight Models which paved the way to what DCS is now, before becoming the Il-2 coding overlord. In other words, the basic 'rules' of dynamic flight models shouldn't be all that different in either game since the foundations were laid on by the same person.

[Wolf8312]

Wrote this on the DCS thread, but as it took a while to write I guess I might as well post it here for further discussion as otherwise it will just get burried. Always wanted to get a discussion on this topic going, and tried to do so on the DCS forums once, but my post was deleted as being against the rules.

Let me know if you have anything to add in favour or against either DCS or IL-2!

Should point out as well, I love both games equally albeit for different reasons.

Basically I think DCS is the better sim, but not the better game (I think its fair to say BOS was developed to have a more mass appeal) though everything is liable to change as the wonderful thing is both are developing and improving all the time. Keep in mind, most of the views expressed are just my opinions so dont get upset or assume I am making declarative statements.

Keep in mind this is really VR specific and I welcome anyone telling me I am wrong, and why though lets keep it friendly, as its only a game! ?

+DCS has clicakble cockpits. Big plus for VR immersion and convenience IMO (maybe not even up for debate in VR though giving the complexity of the DCS modules)

+DCS lighting has major issues which means the graphics have major issues

+ BOS has much better anti aliasing, DCS has more shimmer

+DCS is better graphically in cities airports etc (Disclaimer opinion not fact?)

+DCS clouds are buggy in VR,

+IL-2 clouds are buggy in VR without mod

+BOS/M/K has better graphics on the whole, but its not really that the graphics are better per say as DCS does look fantastic, its just DCS is terribly inconsistent and comprimised by the lighting at the moment. Again I'd go back to 'potential' because there are times when it actually exceeds BOS/M/K IMO in terms of realistic looking/feeling visuals and by this I especially mean away from the cities, and in the deserts and caucasus valleys. DCS seems somehow on a grander scale, but BOS naturally seems to have a tighter pixel density or something which makes it look generally better in VR. I think thats really more by default than design but then what do I know...

+IL-2 has just better and less buggy trees. Graphically speaking the trees are as bad as the IL-2 clouds without the mod, maybe worse in how distracting they are (especially in Normandy). Forrests though are generally fine and maybe thats it, its rare to see lone trees scattered about in Il-2

+BOS has far superior lighting, though like DCS in VR its pretty rough on default gamma at midday (I rarely fly around such a time if I can help it)

+DCS has better or at least more challenging and believable physics IMO (which doesent mean much), and I only say this because I learned how to land the 109/FW190 etc way quicker in IL-2 than I think I should have been able to, and in DCS its really more like I imagined (difficult). This makes me happy though because it means I can just immerse myself in the challenge which can be both fun and funny...

+DCS flight models are better IMO, more extensive, more challenging with better physics and fully functional systems where every button is usable giving the user -if only in a metaphysical sense- a greater feeling of ownership over the module.

+DCS AI is more challenging at least to me, though I have heard this is because it cheats a bit so I will reserve judgement on this one. I have to wonder if this means the best way to beat the AI is to exploit the loop holes

+DCS is still in beta, but in a weird way I kinda feel slightly comforted by the fact it's still being worked on, as in IL-2 in reguards to VR -at least on the VIVE- there are still some performance problems in the BOS/M/K campaign and I kinda get the feeling that the VR side of things is finished. 
+The Jetseat works with DCS. This is something that has to be experieced to understand what a genuine plus it is, simshakers software gets better all the time, and the guns and cannon effects now feel positively godly and empowering! But more seriously I think you can well imagine how great, and helpful it is to be able to actually feel yourself stalling.

+BOS has better performance (though not the campaign for me) generally. Big plus because it means the majority of the content is not off limits especially not multiplayer. DCS though I'm scared to even try multiplayer or certain campaign missions knowing how poorly they have performed in the past. Though to be honest they are still both pretty close performance wise and even in this aspect, they both kinda have palpable pros and cons that are difficult to put into words. I kinda feel DCS seems smoother when in reprojection which it always is. Perhaps this is because somehow VR suffers when making the transition from 90 to reprojection or something.

+Over the last few weeks DCS has improved (just a week ago it was basically broken VR wise), but it still has problems that seem to be module specific (viggen) and assets loading into the game seem to cause FPS drops. The way round this seems to be to play the mission a second time, or to make missions with two of each asset (enemy plane), one being active and the other static. BOS dosent have this problem but then DCS gives the user the ability to fix it with the mission editor, which leads me to...

+Mission editor gives user ability to edit or change almost anything from the time of day, to the number of assets, or whether or not you want to fly with clouds etc, which really is a huge plus for VR. Mission editor also means you can easily create your own missions or edit existing ones, to optimize them for performance or make them better or more suited to the users own tastes. It kinda annoys me how limited the user is in terms of customization in IL-2. Why the campaign for example dosent have options for weather, and time of day etc baffles me, though luckily there is PWCG..

+Il-2 feels more historically accurate, with a more atmospheric setting, flying over stalingrad for example is pretty hard to beat for a WW2 buff like myself, though to be honest I dont have much historical attachment or interest in the Kuban map though it is beautiful. DCS lacks the rich WW2 atmosphere though the tools to make it happen are there, or at least will be one day!

+BOS has less of a learning curve

+DCS has more of a learning curve. Pick which one you prefer but IMO I feel DCS gives a greater sense of satisfaction and can therefore be more rewarding if you take the time to master a module. That said I think its a stretch to say I have 'mastered' any of them!

+DCS has less restriction in VR big plus because you can lean right in and up to your instruments. Trouble is there is no restriction as there is in BOS when you hit the walls of the AC, on the whole I would prefer even the restriction, as ghosting through the walls really kills immersion! 

+Spotting in Il-2 is far easier than with DCS, I never had any problems finding a potential enemy in BOX, but in DCS it's a real drag and I play with 0 pixel density (VR).

+Ground targets in DCS are also too small and difficult to see in DCS though pretty easy to see in IL-2.

+DCS has the most beautiful and realistic looking terrain I have ever seen in a flight sim, especially in VR it is breathtaking. Make a WW2 mission in the mountain ranges of the persian Gulf, at the right time of day, and be prepared to be utterly blown away!

+DCS AA is much more lethal and accurate

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Wolf8312

[dburne]

For me I would say that IL-2 is fantastic in the single player arena for WWII combat flight sim. Truly superb in fact, no others even close.

DCS not so much, unless one wants to pay for a campaign or learn the mission editor. Just not a lot of depth in the SP department.

So most of my WWII combat flying is done in IL-2. Many , many hours.

 

DCS is superb in the more modern jet fighter category, they do it quite well and one can really get entrenched in learning all aspects of controlling these birds and fighting in them. I have had DCS since like 2008, back when it was only the KA-50.  I am currently spending a fair amount of time in learning the F/A 18-C over Persian Gulf and having fun with it in the meantime. Got a long way to go to get there, but I am hoping to be able to at some point.

 

Again, my views are coming from strictly a single player guy. I enjoy each for what they have to offer in the different arenas.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

DCS and Il-2 are entirely different products that can't be compared directly. At this time, the Great Battles series can be purchased for around $350. Meanwhile, DCS requires around $1500, despite having fewer aircraft. 

[JimTM]

27 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

DCS and Il-2 are entirely different products that can't be compared directly. At this time, the Great Battles series can be purchased for around $350. Meanwhile, DCS requires around $1500, despite having fewer aircraft. 

 

I think if you want to compare IL-2 to DCS, it's probably best to limit the DCS cost to WWII elements only. So:

- Spitfire IX $49.99

- P-51D $39.99

- Bf 109 K4 $49.99

- FW190 D9 $49.99

- Normandy 1944 + WWII Assets Pack $59.99

- Caucasus Map, TF-51D (two-seater P-51), and Su-25T are free

 

This brings the DCS total to $249.95.

 

That said, I think the IL-2 combat experience is much more complete than DCS WWII.

 

I have IL-2, Rise of Flight (soon to have Flying Circus), DCS, and XPlane and I love all of them. I feel very fortunate to have all of these amazing sims to fly.

 

Cheers!

Edited June 16, 2018 by JimTM

[Rolling_Thunder]

The il2 devs listen to their customers and are 100% commited to their product, their vision and their direction.

ED ban their customers and don't have a clue about what direction they are going.  Ww2 eh, erm, oh.....maybe. Modern? Sure lets make some trainers for a combat simulator. Clickpits yeah thats what were going to concentrate on, er well, hmmm, maybe FC4? Sure why not.

Like night and day. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

While I think the direct comparison is somewhat useless, here's my €0,02 - entirely subjective, not some one truth to rule them all.

 

Both simulators are very good. I spend my simulator time evenly between the two, and I'm very happy with that.

• Terrain: We can actually make a direct comparison, with the 2.5 Caucasus DCS map and the 3.00X Il-2 Kuban map. DCS looks fairly better from high altitude, but from 3000m and lower Il-2 beats it by far. The trees and shoreline blend in better, the fields look natural and grassy, the towns are built in a more believable way... it's all there. In winter however both come close, DCS makes the snow fluffier while Il-2 makes it look colder, each very beautiful and unique.
• Aircraft models: Equally beautiful. It's worth noting that vanilla DCS has better textures for most aircraft but it only takes two minutes to find, download and install some gorgeous 4K textures in Il-2.
• AI: The Il-2 AI is more reliable in my opinion, but DCS' is more versatile on paper - you can make it do a lot more, but it'll take a lot of testing to understand how to get that out of it. As wingmen they're equally useless but in air-to-ground the Il-2 ones get the job done better.
• Performance: Often overlooked, this one goes to Il-2 and it isn't even close. The loading times and FPS relative to graphics quality are very favourable to Il-2 in general. DCS is prone to regular mystery slowdowns, and the wide array of options makes troubleshooting a chore. The one aspect where DCS gets the upper hand though is in AI-heavy environment, something that on occasion can still bring a CPU to its knees in Il-2.
• Flight models: Both are great, honestly.
• Damage models: Il-2 for structural, DCS for internal systems. The thrill of nursing a wing that might break off at any point is equally enjoyable as running an emergency checklist trying to bring your instruments online again while navigating at night. Il-2 needs a little work in the fuel and engine management department (extinguishers, cross-feed, cut-off, emergency hydraulics, etc.), while DCS is due an overhaul of the structural damage (no more exploding after clipping a taxiway light at 200km/h please).
• Content: The Il-2 campaign is infinitely replayable and applies to every single aircraft in game, while multiplayer is populated and varied too. DCS is hit or miss in this aspect. By themselves the modules are great at teaching systems operations, procedures and basic aviating - this is lots of fun, and I often find myself happily flying circuits in aircraft I like. Some modules have wonderful campaigns (the Mirage 2000C being a prime example), a few even have multiple of them, but others release with no campaigns, barely any missions, no suitable map, and no AI units that could be used in the same context as the plane. This leads me to the next point.
• Direction: Where Il-2 shines brightest, in my opinion. The direction of development has been coherent and consistent, there are fewer patches but they come with more content and most important of all with finished and properly tested content. In comparison, up until recently DCS development has been haphazard. Major strides were made with 2.5 and the Persian Gulf map, and the producers and developers have said they are well aware of the problem and want to fix it, but that will take time. I think there are patches way too often to a point where it's inefficient - a lot of time is spent developing and testing release candidates to be pushed out within unrealistic deadlines, at times when giving it an extra month to iron out the bugs and push out a more polished version would have been better. The bugs that slip through are seldom major, but they can be inconvenient and bothersome, particularly when ED change something that affects the game as a whole but don't inform the 3rd parties, who then can't make proper adjustments to their products in time. Il-2 has much less frustration in that sense.
• The future: looks bright for both. I'm happy to see Il-2 going forwards into WW2, with late Europe 1944-45 coming soon, while DCS, both ED and 3rd parties, are working on aircraft and scenarios that fit together, finally. Personally I will stick with Il-2 for my WW2 needs and DCS for my Vietnam-and-further era. In the near future they will both stick to those, and that's what they do best.

[Gambit21]

IL2 delivers completed, cohesive releases that perform well, with cohesive aircraft sets, maps, with period correct content on a timely basis at a price that's is almost too reasonable.

They set their sites on a smart, sensible goal and then deliver. They avoid getting lost, they avoid losing touch with what they're capable of delivering.

DCS does none of these things...there's your comparison...the end.

 

 

[-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor]

I Prefer IL2 for combat flying in a WW2 environment, It has a clear direction and has great online and OFFLINE features. DCS is severely lacking in offline content for ww2, the birds they have while modeled with a lot of detail are still very simple to study and learn compared to their more modern birds. I see DCS as a study sim that is more educational than entertaining. The jet combat is where it really shines and they should really stick to that IMO. All the ww2 aircraft are fun to fly for a bit but the netcode and network lag that occurs online is horrendous and the visuals for the damage model are very bad still.

 

If they somehow by 2050 they produce a career like feature for DCS ww2 i would be amazed.

 

IL2 has blown me away with their ability to pump out content and deliver what they promise close or even ahead of the time frame given to the consumer. DCS seems cluttered and confused at times on what it wants to be and in turn the time it takes to release content is VERY slow. 

[Wolf8312]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

IL2 delivers completed, cohesive releases that perform well, with cohesive aircraft sets, maps, with period correct content on a timely basis at a price that's is almost too reasonable.

They set their sites on a smart, sensible goal and then deliver. They avoid getting lost, they avoid losing touch with what they're capable of delivering.

DCS does none of these things...there's your comparison...the end.

 

 

 

Now I did say dont get upset!

[Wolf8312]

9 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

The il2 devs listen to their customers and are 100% commited to their product, their vision and their direction.

ED ban their customers and don't have a clue about what direction they are going.  Ww2 eh, erm, oh.....maybe. Modern? Sure lets make some trainers for a combat simulator. Clickpits yeah thats what were going to concentrate on, er well, hmmm, maybe FC4? Sure why not.

Like night and day. 

 

I should point out here that I post on ED forums and have posted complaints and have never been banned or reprimanded. And I'm always complaining!?

 

If somebody comes on this forum complaining in a rude manner they too wont last very long, but if you present your problems in a polite manner the ED forums can be a very welcoming place. Of course all forums have fanboys who will often over-sensitively defend a given product, or even in some cases gang up on anyone who offers constructive criticism in order to bolster their own popularity on that particular forum, but thats just a sad reality of the internet.

 

As to which team is the most commited I really couldnt say (though DCS seem pretty damned commited to me), but I certainly dont feel as you do about DCS but maybe thats because I dont expect or want the same things.

 

It isn't the direction I worry about as already in beta it has everything I need to immensely enjoy it. The problem for me is instability and erratic performance. Not even FPS just FPS drops. BOS also has the same problem in the campaign though. 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Wolf8312

[Trooper117]

Apples... Oranges = no comparison... however, it is fine to enjoy both.

[Rolling_Thunder]

5 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

I dont expect or want the same things.

So what's the point of this topic then? You trying to drum up customers for ED?

I've spent enough money on that sh1t show. Wont spend another penny. I will pre order pretty much anything on offer from 1c/777. Hows that for a comparison?

[Wolf8312]

1 minute ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

 You trying to drum up customers for ED?

 

 

Yes I'm a shill (?)

 

Quote

So what's the point of this topic then?

 

Well to compare two simulators that I truly love and disscuss their pros and cons. Um making conversation I guess?

 

Quote

Hows that for a comparison?

 

 

Kinda seems like you're playing to the gallery my friend...

 

[Rolling_Thunder]

4 minutes ago, Wolf8312 said:

Kinda seems like you're playing to the gallery my friend...

No, I'm giving you my comparison my friend. Giving you the benifit of the doubt, its what you asked for in this topic.

[Wolf8312]

2 minutes ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

No, I'm giving you my comparison my friend. Giving you the benifit of the doubt, its what you asked for in this topic.

 

No you're calling me a shill, and being rude and aggressive.

What I asked for in the OP was to keep things friendly and therefore not have things descend into a childish war of the butthurt fan boy over a computer game.

 

[Gambit21]

10 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Now I did say dont get upset!

 

Then don't get upset.

Also feel free to not read anger into a post where there is none.

[Wolf8312]

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Then don't get upset.

Also feel free to not read anger into a post where there is none.

 

Well forgive me in that case but "there's your comparison...the end..." did seem a mite abrupt.

Edited June 17, 2018 by Wolf8312

[Lusekofte]

21 hours ago, Uufflakke said:

Or do you mean the half winged Avenger?

 

Yes of course , was on my camper van with a iPad so I just did not bother google it. You are right this is the one

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Well forgive me in that case but "there's your comparison...the end..." did seem a mite abrupt.

 

Blunt yes, angry no.

[Wolf8312]

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Blunt yes, angry no.

 

Yes definately detectable levels of bluntness! ?

[Rolling_Thunder]

51 minutes ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

No you're calling me a shill, and being rude and aggressive.

 

1 hour ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

Giving you the benifit of the doubt, its what you asked for in this topic.

I did give you the benifit of the doubt.

If you want a discussion on the comparison between the two games be prepared for some negativity. You clearly prefer DCS thats fine. I prefer BoX because I think the developers have a clearer vision of what they want to achieve and it shows in their product. Where as DCS is an incoherent mess blighted by no real direction. If you just want to read positives about DCS maybe you should change the title of your topic to something like "Tell me what y'all think is so awesome about DCS"

[Wolf8312]

1 hour ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

 

I did give you the benifit of the doubt.

If you want a discussion on the comparison between the two games be prepared for some negativity. You clearly prefer DCS thats fine. I prefer BoX because I think the developers have a clearer vision of what they want to achieve and it shows in their product. Where as DCS is an incoherent mess blighted by no real direction. If you just want to read positives about DCS maybe you should change the title of your topic to something like "Tell me what y'all think is so awesome about DCS"

 

Benfit of what doubt? You mean you still beleive I am in bed with ED?

 

I think you're forgetting that this was your comparison from which I responded-

 

Quote

 

So what's the point of this topic then? You trying to drum up customers for ED?

I've spent enough money on that sh1t show. Wont spend another penny. I will pre order pretty much anything on offer from 1c/777. Hows that for a comparison?

 

 

You also seem to be forgetting that I myself presented you all with a big long list of problems and things that I think are wrong with DCS. In your insistence of seeing all this from a divisive and team based perspective, you don't seem to realize that in my opinion BOS is overall at present the better game. Mostly I was talking about how much potential DCS WW2 has, but at present I do and did accept that it has all kinds of problems. What you're saying makes no sense as I presented a balanced perspective.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Wolf8312

[AndyJWest]

I think the other thread on DCS is better than this one...

[Rolling_Thunder]

12 minutes ago, Wolf8312 said:

What you're saying makes no sense as I presented a balanced perspective.

Yes you did. However the two replies to your topic that showed DCS in a less than favorable light you replied to. No others.

[Wolf8312]

3 minutes ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

Yes you did. However the two replies to your topic that showed DCS in a less than favorable light you replied to. No others.

 

Again not true. Opinion was unanimous in favor of BOS, I even upvoted one post that was speaking in favor of Il-2.

 

I responded to Gambit for reasons mentioned above, and politely responded to you, not concerning the actual game itself but the accusation you made against the forum which you were claiming banned people for dissent.

 

Anyway its been lovely talking to you, but I think now its time to move on! Thank you for your contribution!

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

I think the other thread on DCS is better than this one...

 

Well with donations like this one, I'm sure we're gaining on them Andy...

[CanadaOne]

BOX and DCS are like a gorgeous blonde and delicious brunette - I want them both. 

 

I find after I fly around in DCS for a while and then go back to BOX, BOX just looks great and all it's particular details that make it so enjoyable really stand out. Then after flying BOX for a while, back to DCS and then all the little things that made DCS so much fun really stand out.

 

Both are a lot of fun and for fun for different reasons, so it's not one or the other... it's both.

[Lusekofte]

DCS , Great battles and COD can not be compared. If I had time I flown all of them. But as it is I fly only DCS choppers , I will return once  FNBF in some form are up and running. 

Personally I find AI in DCS sufficient for single player experience , they perform adequate until they f*piipk up at some point. GB single player does not interest me for some reason, except sea dragons so far. Patrick´s generator is quite ok . 

GB got the smoothest platform and are great in many ways, It is the best WW2 sim for now, but to me COD and Tobruk with Wellington will tip me over in that direction, still in quality Great Battles will win. It is all a matter of taste on what you want to spend time doing

[Wolf8312]

8 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

BOX and DCS are like a gorgeous blonde and delicious brunette - I want them both. 

 

I find after I fly around in DCS for a while and then go back to BOX, BOX just looks great and all it's particular details that make it so enjoyable really stand out. Then after flying BOX for a while, back to DCS and then all the little things that made DCS so much fun really stand out.

 

Both are a lot of fun and for fun for different reasons, so it's not one or the other... it's both.

 

I know what you mean about that! Every time I fly DCS I think this is the best, but then I go back to BOX and think no it’s definitely this one! 

 

This comparison was never really intended towards choosing an overall winner as as stated in the OP I love both equally for different reasons and by writing this was attempting to discuss what these reasons were.

 

But I only really meant the WW2 side of each to be honest, as I know it wouldn’t be fair on BOX to compare it to the jets or helicopters.

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Wolf8312

[Herne]

I don't have much flight time in DCS. I have the P51 and the Spit, and enjoy flying both, but I always feel totally lost in MP. Not figured out how to find out where the objectives are, but I'll quite happily take off, bimble around and enjoy the view.

 

One of the things that really struck me recently though where I thought DCS seemed to be doing a particularly excellent job was audio. Starting on the ramp, hearing the rain "persisting" down on your canopy. I joined a ww2 MP server where it was dark lol. God knows how you were supposed to see and identify your targets, but I really enjoyed the audio and and seeing the reflections of the nav lights on the ground.

IL2 wins hands down as a WWII combat sim at the moment though, for both single player and MP.  i would really like to check out the harrier, and the F/A 18 in DCS, but i just know at the moment that when I feel like I want to fly, IL2 is likely to be the game that gets my stick time. There's just not enough "geeking" hours in a day

[303_Bies]

For me the biggest difference is DCS is optimised for modern planes and IL2 for historical warbirds.

 

+ Plus for DCS is more system being modeled, but systems, avionics are core of modern planes simulations. For WWII plane manual heating of pitot tube adds nearly nothing to your experience. 

 

+ Plus for IL2 is damage model, gunfire model and collision model. They are all core for WWII simulator. 

In IL2 it’s pretty impressive, every damaged element have to struggle against airflow, we can lose a wing or tail long after shot or collision because of high speed or excessive maneuver. Plane behavior after losing some aerodynamic element is being calculated. With some skill and some luck we can regain control over severely damaged plane and try to make it back to the airfield.

Elements can bend or break without any damage under high overload during maneuvers.

Midair collisions depends on relative position of colliding planes, their speeds and colliding elements – they don’t mean catastrophic damage in every case. Ground collisions gives results comparable with real accidents.

Even such details like - MiG-3 elevator trimmer won't work if the right side of the elevator is lost (where trim tab is located) but you still have trimmer operable after losing left elevator - are modeled.

In DCS damage model is lacking, collision model is nearly non existant, gunfire is more generic - you can't even change guns convergency. You can set the empty wing on fire in DCS

 

I like DCS very much but i treat DCS as kind of flying laboratory, plane testing ground. And IL2 as multiplayer WWII simulator.

Don't get me wrong, i would also like to have "manual pitot tube heating" in IL2 but i know it would compromise the speed of developement of the game by huge margin. 

 

cheers

Edited June 19, 2018 by bies

[Wolf8312]

40 minutes ago, bies said:

For me the biggest difference is DCS is optimised for modern planes and IL2 for historical warbirds.

 

+ Plus for DCS is more system being modeled, but systems, avionics are core of modern planes simulations. For WWII plane manual heating of pitot tube adds nearly nothing to your experience. 

 

+ Plus for IL2 is damage model, gunfire model and collision model. They are all core for WWII simulator. 

In IL2 it’s pretty impressive, every damaged element have to struggle against airflow, we can lose a wing or tail long after shot or collision because of high speed or excessive maneuver. Plane behavior after losing some aerodynamic element is being calculated. With some skill and some luck we can regain control over severely damaged plane and try to make it back to the airfield.

Elements can bend or break without any damage under high overload during maneuvers.

Midair collisions depends on relative position of colliding planes, their speeds and colliding elements – they don’t mean catastrophic damage in every case. Ground collisions gives results comparable with real accidents.

Even such details like - MiG-3 elevator trimmer won't work if the right side of the elevator is lost (where trim tab is located) but you still have trimmer operable after losing left elevator - are modeled.

In DCS damage model is lacking, collision model is nearly non existant, gunfire is more generic - you can't even change guns convergency. You can set the empty wing on fire in DCS

 

I like DCS very much but i treat DCS as kind of flying laboratory, plane testing ground. And IL2 as multiplayer WWII simulator.

Don't get me wrong, i would also like to have "manual pitot tube heating" in IL2 but i know it would compromise the speed of developement of the game by huge margin. 

 

cheers

 

Agree damage model is terrible at the moment (is being worked on apprently) and for some planes more than others, though its something I can live with for now. Especially bad is the FW190 damage models but the others are not so bad though not up to the standard of BOX.

 

I'm loving DCS enough that I have bought both the spit and 109 inside a week and dont regret this at all, like I did when I first bought Normandy and the FW 190. Things have really improved IMO. DCS graphics are poor on the ground in some respects, but over a certain altitude they are beautiful and very convincing/realistic in VR. I do love complex start up, and the more challenging take offs and landings.

 

As for convergence range I think the explanation (not sure if it was a good explanation) was that pilots (apart from maybe aces) very rarely ever set this themselves.  I find gunfire itself much more satisfying (though this has alot to do with the jetseat too) but I do think it also has great sound.

[303_Bies]

14 minutes ago, Wolf8312 said:

I do love complex start up, and the more challenging take offs and landings.

Complex start up is not something important for me, but challenging take offs and landings are really good in DCS. I personally think landing gear in IL2 have been reinforced and now it is stronger than real counterparts were. But it's only the opinion - not fact.

 

There is a difference is breaking power, in IL2 it is relatively weaker than in other games. I don't know if it is more or less realistic. Devs are fine tuning breaking power so they are interested in this topic. In legacy IL2 and DCS it's definitely easier to make the plane flip over after landing than in IL2 BoX.

 

cheers

Edited June 19, 2018 by bies

[Wolf8312]

When I first bought BOS I rememeber landings being very difficult pretty much what DCS is now or so it seems. I remember practicing again, and again, and again and not being able to land though eventually getting it.

 

Not sure if its just that I got better and its something you dont really forget like muscle memory, but I don't really think so, because I was far from proficient at that time. I then took a rather long break in the time that DCS had VR and BOS didnt, and so with regards to WW2 flying didn't really improve (degenerated), concentrating instead on helicopter flying.

 

Kinda seemed almost as if when I came back to BOS/x though it was suddenly much easier to land. Its not terrible in BOX, a nice graceful landing is still rather challenging, but in DCS both take off and landing can be truly lethal if you dont pay close attention. Though that said I flew the 109 last night and didnt really notice the torque or slipstream veering me to the left as it does in BOS though this is mentioned in the manual. Take offs are great though. They kinda really seem rather easy at first, but you soon learn to keep on your toes as things can go very wrong very quickly!