DCS

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

OP seems a little sensitive to the fact that the other posters in this thread didn't agree with him right off hand.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

I have both. I like the start up procedures of DCS. There is nothing wrong with the "automated" start up in BoX either. To me ground handling is somewhat better in DCS than BoX, planes "feel" heavier and do not spin like carousels due this. I do not have problems with BoX, but at times it feels the planes just spin for nothing and even the slightest of wind makes it very hard to turn the plane. Nothing I have seen in DCS or real life. In short planes in BoX feel like WW1 kites, almost weightless. Still can live with it, no big deal.

 

FM comparison. Both have their weakness and strength. DCS has a feel of weight to it, more than BoX. It will be easier to compare the games when Bodenplatte comes out and we get similar planes. Now we can only compare the Spitfire Mk.IX that is in both titles. Later P-51D and P-47D and of course the Dora are coming to BoX. Should be decently easy to make a performance/flight characteristics comparison. But again, both have a believeable FM on a home PC.

 

One thing DCS beats BoX in is how systems are modelled. There is no competition there. And biggest plus in DCS is that it has no magical engine breakdown timers, you have to monitor temperatures of coolant/cylinder heads and oil when pushing the envelope, like pilots did it. Sure you can enable random failures in the settings in DCS. Many of the pilots who we got a chance to talk to said the temps were monitored and as long as they were within safe values there was no problem. Even when exceeding them temporarily the engines did not blow up or seize instantly.Required a more thorough check and shortened the time between overhauls of course. But in neither title there are no overhauls or post flight checks, always a pristine plane.

 

Graphically both titles are adequate, both having their own problems. Be it shimmering on DCS or the "circle of LOD" in BoX. But in general both titles have good enough graphics. BoX maybe more atmospheric and lively than DCS. BoX runs better than DCS though. Sounds are good on both titles as well, with their own peculiarities.

 

In short flying them both and liking it on their own merits. One thing both titles could use is the feature from Cliffs of Dover: modelling of the pilot moving levers and switches. You simply did not fiddle all the systems at once, like we can now with the fancy HOTAS setups. Wanted to trim the plane? Well, then you did but could not fiddle other levers or switches with same hand. Sure it had problems if controllers spiked or such, but today joysticks and throttles have come a long way from spiking pots. With a refinement this feature could really make the difference in planes. Some had it easy for the pilot, some not so much. And every second you are not flying the plane and having proper SA you are making it easier for the opponent to get you.

 

TL;DR Both are good in their own way. We are lucky to have flight sims at all these days.

[Monostripezebra]

the drama conversation simulation is up and running again..

 

Polychop is teasing Kiowas while ED maintains they have no licence for it

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/8s98mf/oh58d_module_by_polychop_spotted_on_multiplayer/

 

 

OH AND  A MIG 23 IS COMMING!!

https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/photos/pcb.1740173216069309/1740171972736100/?type=3

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Monostripezebra

[Wolf8312]

Quote

FM comparison. Both have their weakness and strength. DCS has a feel of weight to it, more than BoX. It will be easier to compare the games when Bodenplatte comes out and we get similar planes. Now we can only compare the Spitfire Mk.IX that is in both titles. Later P-51D and P-47D and of course the Dora are coming to BoX. Should be decently easy to make a performance/flight characteristics comparison. But again, both have a believeable FM on a home PC.

 

I was wondering about that the other day. Both BOS and DCS have rather similar spitfires that feel light. However when it comes to the 190 and 109's the DCS modules feel much heavier. To be honest I wasnt sure if this was due to them being different varients, D9 etc.

 

Another VR point I will add to the list later is that DCS has more ability to move ones head around the cockpit.

But saying that BOS allows the view to be limited so that your head doesn't annoyingly keep moving through the AC. Wish there was a middle ground as I love both, BOS is too restricted, and DCS needs to be confined!  

1 hour ago, Space_Ghost said:

OP seems a little sensitive to the fact that the other posters in this thread didn't agree with him right off hand.

 

I think I'll leave the bait!

[Monostripezebra]

I don´t really think a direct comparision between DCS and IL2:BoX makes any sense. 

 

DCS is like a somewhat autistic tech porn thing, where you rightfully marvel at your plane and your planes systems, which is a lot of fun and where clickable cockpits absolutely make sense while BoX is aimed at a more coherent gameplay experience where you and things in the game world interact more fluently with each other and where it absolutely makes sense to not have clickable cockpits because like in the real world, going heads down and looking for switches is deadly in fluent action, you need to know where they are. Either on your keyboard or in the cockpit without looking.

[SYN_Vander]

I don´t really think a direct comparision between DCS and IL2:BoX makes any sense. 

 

DCS is like a somewhat autistic tech porn thing, where you rightfully marvel at your plane and your planes systems, which is a lot of fun and where clickable cockpits absolutely make sense while BoX is aimed at a more coherent gameplay experience where you and things in the game world interact more fluently with each other and where it absolutely makes sense to not have clickable cockpits because like in the real world, going heads down and looking for switches is deadly in fluent action, you need to know where they are. Either on your keyboard or in the cockpit without looking.

 

Well said!

Edited June 19, 2018 by SYN_Vander

[Wolf8312]

2 minutes ago, Monostripezebra said:

I don´t really think a direct comparision between DCS and IL2:BoX makes any sense. 

 

DCS is like a somewhat autistic tech porn thing, where you rightfully marvel at your plane and your planes systems, which is a lot of fun and where clickable cockpits absolutely make sense while BoX is aimed at a more coherent gameplay experience where you and things in the game world interact more fluently with each other and where it absolutely makes sense to not have clickable cockpits because like in the real world, going heads down and looking for switches is deadly in fluent action, you need to know where they are. Either on your keyboard or in the cockpit without looking.

 

Yep BoX is defo more of a game, and DCS a sim, but they both kinda cross over, with DCS having game elements (there is alot of SP content though maybe not for WW2 yet) and BoX having sim elements. I think the funny thing about DCS and what alot of people dont realize about it, is despite its complexity how casual/fun it can be. I actually fly DCS more like an arcade game and Box more like the sim!

 

But this is something BOX could improve as well, by either improving the campaign generator, providing a more accessible mission editor, or something more akin to the old campaign, while of course keeping the new one intact. Cause although BOS has the much better campaign and SP content (only talking WW2), in DCS its easier to get into a mission in which the sole purpose is just to see how much stuff you can blow up, before being killed.  But thats just personal preference, and depends how I am feeling from one moment or day to the next...

At the moment I use the two seperate games with these two opposing objectives in mind.

 

Personally I would love it if BoX also had clickable cockpits but thats just my opinion, as I do agree important functions needed in battle should be mapped to the HOTAS. 

 

[Danziger]

1 hour ago, Monostripezebra said:

the drama conversation simulation is up and running again..

A MIG 23 IS COMMING!!

https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/photos/pcb.1740173216069309/1740171972736100/?type=3

 

From the same team that hired a plagiarist and publicly stood behind the decision until they caved to internet pressure and fired him.

[Monostripezebra]

3 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Yep BoX is defo more of a game, and DCS a sim (..)

 

 

This whole "sim vs game" debate is something, that can be pretty silly. In the end, both are games and both are sims. I recently played a lot of DCS and got a good chuckle out of my first MP tries: There where some very self-assured DCS-players, absolutely convinced that they are the true "sim pilots" and "IL2 is just an arcady game", while flying on maps with all plane types for all sides and consequently identifying them enemies via map-magic (the precise location of your plane and friendlies showing) while beeing totally lost without map icons.

 

A friendly jetline driver once said to me, after running into simmer questioning him with vigor: "you know, those flightsim guys know amazingly well how to flip switches, but they have absolutely no idea, what really matters in what flightphase".  In the end we all like to imagine we "could fly the real thing" but there is a really steep gap between regularly moving a plane safely and playing a game on a computer. Flightsim games can transport some knowledge and they can be used to train some procedures, but "as real as the real deal" is a promise yet unfulfilled by any sim, and it would probably be boring.. so without respawn and all.

[Wolf8312]

9 minutes ago, Monostripezebra said:

 

This whole "sim vs game" debate is something, that can be pretty silly. In the end, both are games and both are sims. I recently played a lot of DCS and got a good chuckle out of my first MP tries: There where some very self-assured DCS-players, absolutely convinced that they are the true "sim pilots" and "IL2 is just an arcady game", while flying on maps with all plane types for all sides and consequently identifying them enemies via map-magic (the precise location of your plane and friendlies showing) while beeing totally lost without map icons.

 

A friendly jetline driver once said to me, after running into simmer questioning him with vigor: "you know, those flightsim guys know amazingly well how to flip switches, but they have absolutely no idea, what really matters in what flightphase".  In the end we all like to imagine we "could fly the real thing" but there is a really steep gap between regularly moving a plane safely and playing a game on a computer. Flightsim games can transport some knowledge and they can be used to train some procedures, but "as real as the real deal" is a promise yet unfulfilled by any sim, and it would probably be boring.. so without respawn and all.

 

Yeah I think that’s why you get so many people obsessed with the accuracy of the flight models and their historical realiabilty and realism, because they want desperately to believe that they really do know how to fly the real thing! 

 

 

8 hours ago, =FEW=Herne said:

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

 

Yeah I got the hornet in my backlog along with the spit, 109, 190, viggen, mirage, and all of the helicopters, oh and BoX. Also been meaning to play a game that doesn’t involve flying when I get the time.

[BeastyBaiter]

Don't care for behind the scenes drama. What I care about is the #1 or #2 plane on my fixed wing wish list getting added finally (toss up between MiG-23 and MiG-25). If someone makes a northern Persian Gulf map, we'll have a good backbone for the 1980's Iran-Iraq War, 1991 Gulf War and 2003-present Gulf War II. Just think of it, the F-4E, F-5E, F-14A, F-15C, F/A-18C, UH-1H and AH-1S vs the MiG-21Bis, MiG-23MLA, MiG-29A, Su-25A, Mi-8 and Mi-24P. Not all the models are an exact match for those wars, but they are close enough imho and should be a blast in MP.

[Monostripezebra]

1 hour ago, Wolf8312 said:

Also been meaning to play a game that doesn’t involve flying when I get the time.

 

Heresy!

[DetCord12B]

The flight dynamics, characteristics and modeling in BoX is incredibly realistic and pretty spot on. While not being able to push all the buttons and flip all the switches in the VC certainly detracts from the immersion factor somewhat, it's completely and absolutely made up for in the incredible and well-rounded experience the BoX titles provide. From MP to SP, you couldn't ask for anything more than what the developers have provided and continue to provide in their titles, free updates, and mod support.

 

2 hours ago, Monostripezebra said:

A friendly jetline driver once said to me, after running into simmer questioning him with vigor: "you know, those flightsim guys know amazingly well how to flip switches, but they have absolutely no idea, what really matters in what flightphase".  In the end we all like to imagine we "could fly the real thing" but there is a really steep gap between regularly moving a plane safely and playing a game on a computer. Flightsim games can transport some knowledge and they can be used to train some procedures, but "as real as the real deal" is a promise yet unfulfilled by any sim, and it would probably be boring.. so without respawn and all.

 

I can perform the entire startup procedure for an A320. I can follow a real checklist, I can program the MCDU completely, manipulate the systems, properly utilize the FBW AP systems, account for and run emergency procedures and a myriad technical aspects of that aircraft. Hell, if you were to put me in the flight deck of a real A319-A321 (neg NEO) I could run the systems from top to bottom.

 

What I could not do is actually fly it. I'm under no illusion there and that's something you don't always see in the this genre, especially on the civilian (FSX, P3D, XP) side of the house. You wouldn't believe the statements of armchair pilots out there that know in their heart of hearts that just because they own the PMDG 777 they could fly the real thing. It's utterly ridiculous.  

[Raptorattacker]

Try having a word with Requiem who does The Air Combat Tutorial Library on YouTube. He does both, BOX and the real thing and MAY even do DCS. Worth speaking to, he knows his stuff AND has probably got a pretty good handle on all the points in this (sometimes heated) debate! 

http://www.youtube.com/requiembos for those who haven't visited....

Edited June 19, 2018 by Raptorattacker

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

10 hours ago, Monostripezebra said:

This whole "sim vs game" debate is something, that can be pretty silly. In the end, both are games and both are sims. I recently played a lot of DCS and got a good chuckle out of my first MP tries: There where some very self-assured DCS-players, absolutely convinced that they are the true "sim pilots" and "IL2 is just an arcady game", while flying on maps with all plane types for all sides and consequently identifying them enemies via map-magic (the precise location of your plane and friendlies showing) while beeing totally lost without map icons.

Thats just selective realism. Wannabe aces complaining about this or that not working, throwing around manuals and datasheets of which they have no actual knowledge, thinking that because they can do cobra in their Su-27 or score bunch of victories every now and then, they are as good if not better than real guys. Oh boy, I recall old 1946 discussions and folks thinking that because they fly in their 109s every day, every week and learn from their mistakes they are better than real pilots who could not learn from mistakes because they were dead. 

Personally I think closest to real flying are guys from aerobatic groups like Virtual Horsemen who really take time to familiarize with flight model and plane characteristics. You can see that in their very tight and coordinated formations and flight technique. 

 

But rest just picks their plane and throws it into least realistic environment, while at the same time demanding more and more realism from an aircraft. Take what suits them, drop what stops them and pretend you are a real fighter pilot. As I said, a selective realism.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Many people forget that simulation software isn't defined by some arbitrary amount of detail that must be included. Simulation just requires modelling some subset of real phenomena. 

 

No piece of software can do everything. For example, finite element analysis packages may be used to simulate complicated airflows around a body. Can DCS do that? Of course not. However, that doesn't mean DCS is somehow a lesser simulation. 

 

Similarly, Il-2 and DCS are both simulations; they merely focus on different things.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, DetCord12B said:

The flight dynamics, characteristics and modeling in BoX is incredibly realistic and pretty spot on. While not being able to push all the buttons and flip all the switches in the VC certainly detracts from the immersion factor somewhat, it's completely and absolutely made up for in the incredible and well-rounded experience the BoX titles provide. From MP to SP, you couldn't ask for anything more than what the developers have provided and continue to provide in their titles, free updates, and mod support.

 

 

I can perform the entire startup procedure for an A320. I can follow a real checklist, I can program the MCDU completely, manipulate the systems, properly utilize the FBW AP systems, account for and run emergency procedures and a myriad technical aspects of that aircraft. Hell, if you were to put me in the flight deck of a real A319-A321 (neg NEO) I could run the systems from top to bottom.

 

What I could not do is actually fly it. I'm under no illusion there and that's something you don't always see in the this genre, especially on the civilian (FSX, P3D, XP) side of the house. You wouldn't believe the statements of armchair pilots out there that know in their heart of hearts that just because they own the PMDG 777 they could fly the real thing. It's utterly ridiculous.  

 

You are indeed very critical about yourself. But a healthy respect for professionals is certainly preferable to the alternative.

 

As quoted, the comfy armchair pilot lives in a world of

14 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

selective realism

, well put.

 

In the sim, we have two main differences from real life, one is the lack of feel for the plane (the plane is more limited in the way it is „talking“ to us) and the ability to hit a pause button. Especially the later makes a lot more people suitable to „fly“ sim aircraft than real aircraft. Being able to work under timed pressure like that is not for everyone. My experience with piloting airliners is not beyond class D motion sims, but after a short introduction, I felt they were as straight forward to operate than I was used from sims. These are great aircraft and they fly wery well.

 

Where the differences between real and sim (pilots) become painfully evident is in the handling of „unforseen circumstances“. Certainly, you can learn procedures on a sim, but reacting correctly in an emergeny hardly any sim pit pilot will be able to do. I was rather impressed when I „dropped“ (there‘s a nice touch screen panel for all kind of emergencies) an engine of the A320 while my instructor was showing me the approach. After being baffled for a second by the red lights, he just turned around and gave me this look while going through the hoops and saflely landed the aircraft. I can add that he was the head of the flight school...

 

Regarding „flying“ itself, the feel for a real aircraft different from real aircraft. It takes a lot of practise to develop an intrinsic feel for them. Once you have that, it is so much easier to do all other workloads. Without this feel for the real aircraft, flying is a real strain. You‘d be possibly able to fly it and bring it down safely under favorable circumstances. But also for myself I wouldn‘t count on more. Knowing the procedures beforehand, I absolutely needed some time with the instructor to then make a flight and some circuits in the pattern.

 

This intrinsic feel I think is best learned as early as possible. Teenagers are usually very relaxed about taking aircraft to their limit. Or at least so was I and my friends when we started flying at the age of 16. Things like short field take off, where you lift the plane of the runway in ground effect and then acellerate until it really flys, is something that does generally not mix well with pilots who learned to fly after retirement. Same with horseback riding. You better learn how to properly sit in the saddle. (Falling of a couple of times hurts less when you are young and fit than when you are old and fat.)

 

[LuftManu]

In my opinion this post is useless. You can't compare two different approaches, there is just something that is going to be better or worse by nature. Just go for the one you like.

But since we are here I am going to say something:

It is an unfair comparission, I will compare Il-2 to DCS when DCS it's completed ?

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

Just pick two out of three, or choose one you can live without.

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by LsV_Trupobaw

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

So RAZBAM announced F-15E, MiG-23MLA, map and now it seems they are also making at the same time Embraer Tucano apparently (as few hours ago they posted on their facebook pictures of it). Sounds plenty.

 

[Wolf8312]

25 minutes ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

Just pick two out of three, or choose one you can live without.

 

 

Does Clod not have good physics? Was kinda looking forward to it getting VR! Scratch kinda, was really looking forward to it!

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by Wolf8312

[Lusekofte]

I think DCS got good environment outside cockpit, and I do not think clickable pits are a necessity in life when it comes to WW2 era. But I like conrolinterface in DCS much better, the fact that you can have setup for each plane in DCS and COD is a very good thing. To me BOX series is pretty bad in this. 

[BeastyBaiter]

That's the big concern I have. Though they've certainly proven themselves able developers, it kinda reminds me of VEAO when they claim to be working on the MiG-19P, A-29B, MiG-23MLA, and F-15E all while still finishing up the AV-8B. The map probably doesn't interfere, that's just a bunch of 3d modeling and texturing. But with only 2 coders, that's a ton of planes they are working on. Hopefully it works out, definitely looking forwards to the MiG-23 and to a lesser extent, the MiG-19. Have no interest in the other 3 projects.

[Wolf8312]

2 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I think DCS got good environment outside cockpit, and I do not think clickable pits are a necessity in life when it comes to WW2 era. But I like conrolinterface in DCS much better, the fact that you can have setup for each plane in DCS and COD is a very good thing. To me BOX series is pretty bad in this. 

 

You mean how the graphics look outside the cockpit? The graphics are stunning to be honest (especially from altitude) but you have got to get the gamma and time of day right especially in VR. 

[JG5_Zesphr]

From what i gather, they have got them all in 3D modelling production but only the AV-8b and MiG-19 mainly in the coding

[dburne]

31 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I think DCS got good environment outside cockpit, and I do not think clickable pits are a necessity in life when it comes to WW2 era. But I like conrolinterface in DCS much better, the fact that you can have setup for each plane in DCS and COD is a very good thing. To me BOX series is pretty bad in this. 

 

This for sure.

Along with the ability to set a button as a modifier.

Edited June 20, 2018 by dburne

[Sokol1]

1 hour ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

Just pick two out of three, or choose one you can live without.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_2018_06/63589289_Untitleddrawing.jpg.541462b694566fa5959428fcffe59531.jpg

 

CloD has only partially clickable cockpits, far away from DCS standards. The only thing really need click is open fuel cock, is moot consider their 'clickability' as differential feature.

 

 

 

[CanadaOne]

I demand an F-104!  

[Taxman]

I demand that they go to work on WWII aircraft I have a need for the 47, and 262.  Oh never mind BOBP will get me into them much sooner then DCS.

[BeastyBaiter]

Nah, don't need the P-47 and Me-262. What we really need is an Albatross, Se-5a, Spad VII and other wonderful bipes.

[CanadaOne]

Awwwright! 50% off DCS at Steam.

 

Might just do some shopping. Normandy map, Mig-21, who knows. Even the Harrier is half-price. Love it.

[scram77]

Might get the harrier. Anyone already have it? Thoughts?

[BeastyBaiter]

I like it a lot. It's not complete yet, but most of the core functionality is there (nav system is WIP still and maybe some minor systems). Very fun plane to fly and a pretty decent mudmover too. The ability to operate out of a FARP like a chopper is pretty unique for a fixed wing plane. Carrier ops also take a different meaning when you can land vertically. So yeah, I can easily recommend it. You can't go wrong with the MiG-21 and F-5E either. Both planes are complete and tons of fun to fly. They offer a nice mix of old WW1/WW2/Korea style fighitng and more modern missile combat. The missiles are good enough to kill reliably, but positioning is of critical importance and switching to guns is almost guaranteed in any fight of significance even if you have missiles left.

[Danziger]

Idk I just don't find myself interested in DCS very much anymore.

[Wolf8312]

4 hours ago, BorysVorobyov said:

Idk I just don't find myself interested in DCS very much anymore.

 

I had a few months where I didnt go near it or have much interest in it either. But when I got back into a jet and took off from Vegas airport in VR, with my jetseat rumbling, it all came swimming back to me...

 

20 hours ago, raaaid said:

is not half price now just double price the rest of the year

 

I just got the Mustang for 20 dollars seems a reasonable price to me! 

 

Really wish I'd waited though paid full price for the Spit and 109 just recently, oh well win some lose some!

Edited June 22, 2018 by Wolf8312

[BeastyBaiter]

Heh, I got the P-51D for $6 back in the day I think. I wouldn't say I've gotten my $6 worth out of it though. On the flip side, I can absolutely recommend the F-5E for anyone that hasn't picked it up yet. Hopped on 104th late last night and beat up some Hornets in VR with it. Shameless youtube plug below (action starts at about 1:50). And yes, DCS is quite a bit worse for VR performance compared to BoX. But it was a locked 45 fps during play, only in the recording is it lower at times. Certainly playable with a top end system.

 

 

 

[DD_Arthur]

Great vid!

[CanadaOne]

Is there a general consensus on the Normandy map, whether it's a good map or not?

 

 

 

[dburne]

32 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

Is there a general consensus on the Normandy map, whether it's a good map or not?

 

 

 

 

It has some issues, overall though I have been pleased with it.

Performance is a bit rough especially in VR as it does not utilize speed-tree technology.

 

For the time being I am doing all my WWII simming in BoX, nothing comes close now to the Single Player aspect of BoX as it is superb. And with both the new Career Mode and PWCG there is an abundant supply of great SP action. Me being a SP only guy that makes a big difference for me.

 

DCS - I use now for jets and choppers, currently trying to get my arms wrapped around the new F/A 18-C on the Persian Gulf map.

[CanadaOne]

1 hour ago, dburne said:

 

It has some issues, overall though I have been pleased with it.

Performance is a bit rough especially in VR as it does not utilize speed-tree technology.

 

For the time being I am doing all my WWII simming in BoX, nothing comes close now to the Single Player aspect of BoX as it is superb. And with both the new Career Mode and PWCG there is an abundant supply of great SP action. Me being a SP only guy that makes a big difference for me.

 

DCS - I use now for jets and choppers, currently trying to get my arms wrapped around the new F/A 18-C on the Persian Gulf map.

 

 

Howdy, 

 

I also stick to BOX for WWII fights and blowing stuff up, but I'm a sucker for new maps. Ya just can't have too many maps. And I tend to spend a lot of time in DCS just flying around. 

 

That said, I am thinking of getting the P-51 now that it's half price. The free P-51 that comes with DCS is fun, and great for enjoying the scenery, but... you know. "Boom!" And I may grab a fast mover as well.