Common defense maneouver in BoX

[FTC_Zero]

3 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

I know people didn't like it, but when the pilot physiology first came out it was a lot stricter than it is now, and violent stick manoeuvres were virtually impossible,
but people moaned, and now we have what we have.
And yes, for me ground handling, and take off and landing are a bit of a let down, but i guess people wouldn't play if it were to 'realistic'........
Maybe there could be a realism option for this?

I think physics of a plane and pilot phisiology are two different things.Artifialy limiting the pilot doesn't make the physics better, Just hide something a bit that was bad already. With the new pilot physiolgy you can finally properly "boom" with a FW190, but the "zoom" part is crap and doesn't work as intended.

Edited February 6, 2023 by FTC_Zero

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The eye popping/wobble/instant recovery shenanigans are more stamina efficient than break turning or doing a split s, so if we go back to the fat pilots with lung cancer it would just incentivize the wobblers further, as it makes the "honest" ways less effective.

[Dragon1-1]

On 1/20/2023 at 3:09 PM, SCG_motoadve said:

DCS does feel better but there are some very unrealistic behaviors, like landing and stopping the Yak 52 in 100meters.

FYI, DCS flight models are very varied, and the Yak-52 in particular is not one of the best. The Mossie is amazing (although really hard to take off in due to the sheer amount of torque) and other WWII aircraft feel better than Il-2, as well. No engine timers, for one, and both weight and torque are very much there, and they will trip you up on landing, takeoff and during air combat.

[SCG_motoadve]

41 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

FYI, DCS flight models are very varied, and the Yak-52 in particular is not one of the best. The Mossie is amazing (although really hard to take off in due to the sheer amount of torque) and other WWII aircraft feel better than Il-2, as well. No engine timers, for one, and both weight and torque are very much there, and they will trip you up on landing, takeoff and during air combat.

I took a serious look at WWII DCS, really impressed now.

Here is my post about it.

Bought all the WWII stuff at the sale and I have not touched IL2 since then, lots more fun.

 

[Dragon1-1]

I'm going to stock up on DCS WWII on the next sale, it's kind of awkward, but I can't even install The Channel map (that I bought to secure a discount on Normandy 2.0), because I ran out of storage on my primary SSD.  That said, this little situation is getting resolved soon-ish, and there's some really great WWII content from Reflected Simulations that I'm looking forward to getting into. Il-2 campaigns are fun, but simplistic. 

 

It'll be even better when they finally finish the WWII dogfighting AI. Believe it or not, in DCS the jets know how to fight as of recently. They've gotten seriously good at it, not quite as good as humans can be, but they now do things that make sense. AI in Il-2 is OK, but I noticed it's quite predictable and always fights the same way, not matter which aircraft you pick. It matters less in campaign flying due to those battles being quite chaotic, but in QMB duels, it's very obvious that it doesn't know the relative strengths and weaknesses.

[71st_AH_Rob_XR-R]

@Dragon1-1 PM me when you get it installed, I have a server for our group that we are reinvigorating.

 

For additional realism in SP, on Reflected's campaigns particularly I recommend VoiceAttack along with Vaicom plug in, it will allow you to 'speak' to the AI instead of using menus.

[Dragon1-1]

I'm stuck on ADSL, so no MP until that changes (yes, updates are painful). I've been playing around with VAICOM/VA, but it doesn't seem to like my accent. 

[JG7_X-Man]

On 2/6/2023 at 5:12 PM, SCG_motoadve said:

I took a serious look at WWII DCS, really impressed now.

Here is my post about it.

Bought all the WWII stuff at the sale and I have not touched IL2 since then, lots more fun.

 

 

Dude! Have been waiting for you to to evaluate these two sims for a bit! Thank you for getting around to it!

[Crocogator]

Problem with DCS is that there's nothing to do with the sim

[Lusekofte]

I am very grateful for WT, DCS , MSFS and GB

Without all these sim hardware would be very limited supplied. 
To compare any of these is BS. They can’t be compared and they all contain a make do mentality in order to enjoy. I could sit all day listing my problems with DCS, MSFS and GB. And CLOD for that matter. Of course mostly subjective non constructive not helpful at all analog. 
we make do with what we got, and hope for more. We always have

[SCG_motoadve]

On 2/19/2023 at 6:57 AM, Crocogator said:

Problem with DCS is that there's nothing to do with the sim

Used to think the same way, and also did not liked the DM and performance, I stayed away for 3 years.

After getting absolutely bored with the current IL2 FM and DM, I gave it a try again.

Was blown away, performance now is better than IL2 with better graphics on a Varjo Aero and a 4090, the campaigns are very immersive, a lot of fun, the mission editor is a lot more complex than the one from IL2 so allows for very detailed immersive campaigns.

Maps are beautiful Normandy and The Channel.

MP is not as alive as IL2 but been flying in this server and having lots of fun.

 

https://projectoverlord.co.uk/

 

DM has been worked on and it is a lot better now.

And all the warbirds are fantastic to fly, really detailed FMs I skip the starting procedure with autostart, but love managing all the systems.

[Mtnbiker1998]

57 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Used to think the same way, and also did not liked the DM and performance, I stayed away for 3 years.

After getting absolutely bored with the current IL2 FM and DM, I gave it a try again.

Was blown away, performance now is better than IL2 with better graphics on a Varjo Aero and a 4090, the campaigns are very immersive, a lot of fun, the mission editor is a lot more complex than the one from IL2 so allows for very detailed immersive campaigns.

Maps are beautiful Normandy and The Channel.

MP is not as alive as IL2 but been flying in this server and having lots of fun.

 

https://projectoverlord.co.uk/

 

DM has been worked on and it is a lot better now.

And all the warbirds are fantastic to fly, really detailed FMs I skip the starting procedure with autostart, but love managing all the systems.

I tried getting back into DCS a few months back and still wasn't impressed. The AI is trash, the original Normandy map looks awful (and they expect me to pay for a new one? Thanks for showing your appreciation to long time supporters, ED) The P-51D has aged like Milk (Can't fix old planes when you gotta sell more pre-orders!) And the content, especially the WW2 content is all over the place. I remember reading a newsletter about their new 1942 Dieppe landing missions they were so proud of, P-51Ds and Spitfire IXs against K4s and D9s. Yeah, thats the Dieppe I remember! Such immersion and realism. 

 

Sure, it does some stuff right but when you can pickup an entire GB title for 12 bucks on sale, I absolutely cannot justify paying ED prices especially with their trash business practices. All of the modules I bought back in 2014-2017 sit abandoned and fall further and further into disrepair with every update (Some of them are probably STILL in early access!) while they announce another new $80 pre-order. Why would I pay that when I see where it'll be in a few years? I've got IL-2 and PWCG for WW2, I've got BMS for Moderns, and I've got MSFS for pretty graphics. I see no reason to dedicate the SSD space or invest the money into DCS ever again

[=621=Samikatz]

imo DCS' realism advantage ends outside the cockpit. The airplanes have a lot of love put into them, but ground units and how they function, the selection of theatres and aircraft, and especially the AI all let those airplanes down. Their modern jets have a lot more appropriate units to fight and the AI seems to function a lot more believably when they're focused on missile combat (though they're nowhere near as smart as BMS' AI), but I think WW2 aircraft are a lot more dependent on how they mesh with the outside world. Il-2 is not without issues (disobedient AI, very wonky near-stall handling on some airplanes), but you have to give it credit to providing a cohesive, fairly believable tactical experience out of the box

[R33GZ]

On 12/20/2022 at 10:55 AM, 102nd-YU-devill said:

 

In all the sims I played before and similarly in all the books I've read about air combat, there is a common thing, that when you get bounced or even when you see the enemy bearing down on your 6, the standard and most effective defensive maneuver is a timely break turn (horizontal) or a split-S.

 

However, in BoX, it appears that the best defensive maneuver is to yank the stick all the way forward, then (eventually) back, or any crazy mix of the two, probably adding elevator trim in the process. During this maneuver some plane types in the sim really look like they are using thrust vectoring, and are even putting modern acrobatic props to shame with the level of control authority, not to mention looking like they pulled a parking brake in mid-flight. Even worse is the follow-up to this maneuver, where some plane types with excellent acceleration can compensate for the sudden "parking brake skid", and just catch up with the overshooting enemy, making the move extremely rewarding.  

 

My guess is that such a maneuver would be impossible to perform in a real WW2 plane, either because of stick forces preventing a sudden and complete deflection of the control surface, or/and because the flow would separate due to a sudden high deflection and induce a delay in actually producing a force in the intended direction. I am thinking of actually doing a simulation of what would happen if the elevator would be able to be deflected at such a rate in a real fluid, so if someone has something on that, let me know so that I don't bother.

 

Of course, the additional real-life reason is that no pilot would actually make his guts churn out of his mouth due to high negative G in the middle of a fight; especially when a high-G (positive) break turn is much less unpleasant and much more effective.

 

Again, I never saw people doing this in any other sim I played, and if they did, they would get shot down without much problem, but in BoX its basically a staple move as soon as a guy spots you in his close 6 or you start spraying bullets around him.  Its very rare to see a "break turn" in this game when playing online.

 

I don't know if there ever was a discussion on this (probably yes, because internet already discussed everything) but it seems to me an artefact of the flight model that seriously affects how real the general feel of BoX is, and what (bad, or better said unrealistic) habits it develops in the player community.

 

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Did you use such maneuvers in old IL2 or in other sims?

What do you think would be the limiting factor in real life?

 

Thanks for reading.

Cheres!

For what it's worth, I read an old interview with Canadian ace George beurling a while back and when asked about his evasion techniques he said that full forward stick and opposite rudder and aileron. No pilot could follow him. Since he lived through the war, I guess his was an effective technique

On 12/20/2022 at 10:55 AM, 102nd-YU-devill said:

 

In all the sims I played before and similarly in all the books I've read about air combat, there is a common thing, that when you get bounced or even when you see the enemy bearing down on your 6, the standard and most effective defensive maneuver is a timely break turn (horizontal) or a split-S.

 

However, in BoX, it appears that the best defensive maneuver is to yank the stick all the way forward, then (eventually) back, or any crazy mix of the two, probably adding elevator trim in the process. During this maneuver some plane types in the sim really look like they are using thrust vectoring, and are even putting modern acrobatic props to shame with the level of control authority, not to mention looking like they pulled a parking brake in mid-flight. Even worse is the follow-up to this maneuver, where some plane types with excellent acceleration can compensate for the sudden "parking brake skid", and just catch up with the overshooting enemy, making the move extremely rewarding.  

 

My guess is that such a maneuver would be impossible to perform in a real WW2 plane, either because of stick forces preventing a sudden and complete deflection of the control surface, or/and because the flow would separate due to a sudden high deflection and induce a delay in actually producing a force in the intended direction. I am thinking of actually doing a simulation of what would happen if the elevator would be able to be deflected at such a rate in a real fluid, so if someone has something on that, let me know so that I don't bother.

 

Of course, the additional real-life reason is that no pilot would actually make his guts churn out of his mouth due to high negative G in the middle of a fight; especially when a high-G (positive) break turn is much less unpleasant and much more effective.

 

Again, I never saw people doing this in any other sim I played, and if they did, they would get shot down without much problem, but in BoX its basically a staple move as soon as a guy spots you in his close 6 or you start spraying bullets around him.  Its very rare to see a "break turn" in this game when playing online.

 

I don't know if there ever was a discussion on this (probably yes, because internet already discussed everything) but it seems to me an artefact of the flight model that seriously affects how real the general feel of BoX is, and what (bad, or better said unrealistic) habits it develops in the player community.

 

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Did you use such maneuvers in old IL2 or in other sims?

What do you think would be the limiting factor in real life?

 

Thanks for reading.

Cheres!

For what it's worth, I read an old interview with Canadian ace George beurling a while back and when asked about his evasion techniques he said that full forward stick and opposite rudder and aileron. No pilot could follow him. Since he lived through the war, I guess his was an effective technique

On 12/20/2022 at 10:55 AM, 102nd-YU-devill said:

 

In all the sims I played before and similarly in all the books I've read about air combat, there is a common thing, that when you get bounced or even when you see the enemy bearing down on your 6, the standard and most effective defensive maneuver is a timely break turn (horizontal) or a split-S.

 

However, in BoX, it appears that the best defensive maneuver is to yank the stick all the way forward, then (eventually) back, or any crazy mix of the two, probably adding elevator trim in the process. During this maneuver some plane types in the sim really look like they are using thrust vectoring, and are even putting modern acrobatic props to shame with the level of control authority, not to mention looking like they pulled a parking brake in mid-flight. Even worse is the follow-up to this maneuver, where some plane types with excellent acceleration can compensate for the sudden "parking brake skid", and just catch up with the overshooting enemy, making the move extremely rewarding.  

 

My guess is that such a maneuver would be impossible to perform in a real WW2 plane, either because of stick forces preventing a sudden and complete deflection of the control surface, or/and because the flow would separate due to a sudden high deflection and induce a delay in actually producing a force in the intended direction. I am thinking of actually doing a simulation of what would happen if the elevator would be able to be deflected at such a rate in a real fluid, so if someone has something on that, let me know so that I don't bother.

 

Of course, the additional real-life reason is that no pilot would actually make his guts churn out of his mouth due to high negative G in the middle of a fight; especially when a high-G (positive) break turn is much less unpleasant and much more effective.

 

Again, I never saw people doing this in any other sim I played, and if they did, they would get shot down without much problem, but in BoX its basically a staple move as soon as a guy spots you in his close 6 or you start spraying bullets around him.  Its very rare to see a "break turn" in this game when playing online.

 

I don't know if there ever was a discussion on this (probably yes, because internet already discussed everything) but it seems to me an artefact of the flight model that seriously affects how real the general feel of BoX is, and what (bad, or better said unrealistic) habits it develops in the player community.

 

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Did you use such maneuvers in old IL2 or in other sims?

What do you think would be the limiting factor in real life?

 

Thanks for reading.

Cheres!

For what it's worth, I read an old interview with Canadian ace George beurling a while back and when asked about his evasion techniques he said that full forward stick and opposite rudder and aileron. No pilot could follow him. Since he lived through the war, I guess his was an effective technique

[AEthelraedUnraed]

6 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I am very grateful for WT, DCS , MSFS and GB

Without all these sim hardware would be very limited supplied. 
To compare any of these is BS. They can’t be compared and they all contain a make do mentality in order to enjoy. I could sit all day listing my problems with DCS, MSFS and GB. And CLOD for that matter. Of course mostly subjective non constructive not helpful at all analog. 
we make do with what we got, and hope for more. We always have

Well said. Although of those four games I only own two (GB and MSFS), all of them have their merits. It may well be that DCS has better AI or FM, but personally I couldn't care less if I cannot use it in a historical context, i.e. on a fitting map and with proper enemies, and preferably with auto-generated missions. I care even less knowing that I pay as much for a single aircraft in DCS as I do for a whole module in GB. That said, I know there are people out there who don't care the slightest for the map, or for historical enemies for that matter, and for those people DCS would likely be the best choice, especially if they've got the budget for it. And then there's WT which would arguably be the best choice for those who just want a game rather than a simulator, and MSFS if you like GA or sightseeing. There is no one-size-fits-all-solution, and hence any comparisons don't make sense if you don't also mention your viewpoint.

 

1 hour ago, R33GZ said:

For what it's worth, I read an old interview with Canadian ace George beurling a while back and when asked about his evasion techniques he said that full forward stick and opposite rudder and aileron. No pilot could follow him. Since he lived through the war, I guess his was an effective technique

For what it's worth, I read an old interview with Canadian ace George beurling a while back and when asked about his evasion techniques he said that full forward stick and opposite rudder and aileron. No pilot could follow him. Since he lived through the war, I guess his was an effective technique

For what it's worth, I read an old interview with Canadian ace George beurling a while back and when asked about his evasion techniques he said that full forward stick and opposite rudder and aileron. No pilot could follow him. Since he lived through the war, I guess his was an effective technique

[Guest]

Lol. This is why I stopped playing MP years ago. Too many players who figure out the limitations of the code and are then happy to game the game and realism be damned.

[SCG_motoadve]

Sorry don't want to derail the topic, this is  my last post abut this.

DCS choice of WWII planes is very dumb and they continue to do it.

The next ones are the Corsair, Hellcat and LA7.

 The fleet Air Arm used the Corsair and Hellcats in raids against the German Battleship Tirpitz Operation Tungsten 1944.

LA7 does not have a map but the time frame works

IL16 why they made it? No map, time frame?

Dora does not have a map by a few months (Maybe the Normandy 2 map?)

109 K 4 Same story.

I fully agree , and cannot understand how can this makes sense business wise.

 

DCS planes and maps are truly amazing though and I rather put up with few months difference historically , than deal with an arcade FM where a P51 flies like a Cessna and DM that has become arcade, which unfortunately is what we currently have in IL2.

DCS prices are expensive, you pay for high fidelity airplanes and quality ,if the airplane's time frames were better chosen it would probably do better for sure.

I was lucky I got everything at sale so was not too bad. 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

If history is your benchmark for simulation I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't exist, nothing will every play out reality in a game, not even close.  It's all in your head if that's what your seeing.  Aircraft systems and and flight dynamics are the proper focus, suspend the belief your in a fighter.  War zone, are you ?ing me, been in any flight server lately?  The war would be over in an hour and a half.

[Lusekofte]

LA 7 is made by a 3 . Party who make it because he want to. I16 the same. Pretty cool plane. One of my favorite joy rides

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Sorry don't want to derail the topic, this is  my last post abut this.

DCS choice of WWII planes is very dumb and they continue to do it.

The next ones are the Corsair, Hellcat and LA7.

 The fleet Air Arm used the Corsair and Hellcats in raids against the German Battleship Tirpitz Operation Tungsten 1944.

LA7 does not have a map but the time frame works

IL16 why they made it? No map, time frame?

Dora does not have a map by a few months (Maybe the Normandy 2 map?)

109 K 4 Same story.

I fully agree , and cannot understand how can this makes sense business wise.

 

DCS planes and maps are truly amazing though and I rather put up with few months difference historically , than deal with an arcade FM where a P51 flies like a Cessna and DM that has become arcade, which unfortunately is what we currently have in IL2.

DCS prices are expensive, you pay for high fidelity airplanes and quality ,if the airplane's time frames were better chosen it would probably do better for sure.

I was lucky I got everything at sale so was not too bad. 

 

There is no competition so they can do what ever and it will sell, no mather if stuff dont fit historical enviroments, they could probably get more ppl if its planed like GB had whole module sets, but it seams they dont think its worth the fuss.

[Lusekofte]

9 hours ago, CountZero said:

There is no competition so they can do what ever and it will sell, no mather if stuff dont fit historical enviroments, they could probably get more ppl if its planed like GB had whole module sets, but it seams they dont think its worth the fuss.

DCS is a bunch of 3. Party home builders. There is no coherent building plan what so ever. We might with right map make a doable Vietnam mar. Not in any way overpopulated with all types, but doable. You can make parts of Korea war and Corsair will have a playground if we get the map. Again, not very populated. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

10 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

If history is your benchmark for simulation I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't exist, nothing will every play out reality in a game, not even close.  It's all in your head if that's what your seeing.  Aircraft systems and and flight dynamics are the proper focus, suspend the belief your in a fighter.  War zone, are you ?ing me, been in any flight server lately?  The war would be over in an hour and a half.

I agree that no game is ever close to reality, but that's about as much as I can agree with. The aircraft and FM need to have some kind of minimal quality, but beyond that it gets much less important than the proper historical context IMO. My disbelief simply is not suspended if I'm not flying an engagement that's at the very least historically plausible. I'd rather boot up IL2 1946 again with its outdated graphics and comparatively simple FM, than fly an I-16 against a Fw190 D-9 above Normandy with the FM and graphics DCS has.

 

This doesn't mean that either of us is "right". It's simply that we have different opinions of what constitutes the best tradeoff between various aspects of a simulator. I attach more importance to historical enemies and theatres, you attach more importance to a realistic FM. In short, there doesn't exist any "proper focus" for any flight simulator in general - the "proper focus" is different for every single player and should hence be adjusted to the (actual or intended) player base. IL2 seems to have coherent packages of aircraft, maps and missions/campaigs as its focus - which aligns more or less with my personal "proper focus". DCS seems to align better with yours, with a focus on systems and flight modeling, and less so on a proper historical context.

[Dragon1-1]

Multiplayer, maybe, but if you want historically accurate engagements, try campaigns from Reflected Simulations. I heard they're pretty great, and they aim specifically for historical accuracy. You won't see any I-16s or Doras in there.

[SCG_motoadve]

4 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Multiplayer, maybe, but if you want historically accurate engagements, try campaigns from Reflected Simulations. I heard they're pretty great, and they aim specifically for historical accuracy. You won't see any I-16s or Doras in there.

I have been into flight simulators for 25 years, Reflected Campaigns are the best I have ever played by far, the attention to detail is impressive and it gives you a feel of being there, and part of a big war.

 

Multiplayer I only do Project Overlord, they have tried to make it as historical as possible with the current plane set.

Its really fun, lots of missions objectives, and there are bomber formations you escort, convoy attacks etc.

IL2 the most popular server is Finnish, and its probably one of the most unrealistic ones, TAW is the most realistic and not as popular.

DCS the most realistic WWII server within its limitations is Project Overlord and its the most popular.

Kind of shows DCS and IL2  are a bit of a different kind of crowd, which is ok.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Multiplayer, maybe, but if you want historically accurate engagements, try campaigns from Reflected Simulations. I heard they're pretty great, and they aim specifically for historical accuracy. You won't see any I-16s or Doras in there.

My point was more that there are many aircraft for which no proper map or opposition is available. If you want to fly allied WW2 fighters in a historical context in DCS, you're pretty much limited to the P-51 or P-47 over Normandy in a ground attack role or against the Fw190 A-8. Other aircraft have no proper map, no proper opponent, or neither.

 

I don't fly multiplayer, so the fact that some IL2 servers aren't exactly realistic either doesn't concern me

 

Again, for some people it might not matter that the map or opponent isn't historically correct. For me it does. It doesn't make either opinion the correct one. It does mean however that you cannot simply say that focusing on FM at the expense of maps or aircraft variety is the "proper focus", or even straight up compare the various sims without regarding their different intended user bases.

[Dragon1-1]

That's not true, although admittedly, some more AI assets would be nice. There are many aircraft other than the ones you listed that do fit, and in fact, both Spitfire and the Mossie were in use over Normandy. Reflected made his Beware, Beware! campaign as a mission by mission recreation of an actual historical account, and it's a Spit campaign (of course, his P-51 and P-47 campaigns are also top-notch). Il-2 can't make this level of realism with its dynamic campaign, and scripted ones I've played so far don't quite go that far on the realism scale.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

8 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That's not true [...]. There are many aircraft other than the ones you listed that do fit

Such as? I admit I forgot the Spitfire, but besides that, if the lists on https://forum.dcs.world/topic/317656-is-there-a-list-of-ai-planes-we-can-meet-during-missions/ and https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/34342 are correct, the only flyable WW2 aircraft are the I-16, Bf-109K4, Fw190D9, Fw190A8, P-51D, P-47D, Mosquito and Spitfire Mk. IX, with the C-47, B-17, A-20 and Ju-88A-4 as AI-only. Of those aircraft, only the P-51, P-47, Mosquito, Spit and Fw190A8 ever flew above Normandy. Those aircraft are incidentally the only ones for which a proper map is available. Apart from the missing Spit, that's exactly what I said (I don't count the Mosquito as a fighter). That's around half the Normandy module for (just calculated) around 5.5 times the price. Also, besides the B-17, all other listed aircraft are not just available in IL2 but playable as well (some with slightly different subtypes).

 

I find it strange you compare a scripted DCS campaign to IL2's dynamic campaign, since DCS doesn't even have one. As for scripted campaigns, the Normandy map for DCS has been out for more than 5 years already, so it's no wonder there are some good campaigns for it. I'm sure IL2 will come on-par or surpass that pretty soon. The recently announced Wings over Caen campaign by BlackSix purports to re-create historical missions, and I myself am working on a 1942 Hurricane campaign that follows the squadron's ORBs to the letter, including opposition (both ground and air, albeit scaled down a bit for performance reasons), flight path, targets, weather, AI behaviour where possible, notable in-flight events and hopefully custom radio traffic. It'll be hard to top that for realism.

 

Again, I'm not saying DCS is a bad game. Far from it. It just has a different focus. If you want a top-notch flight model and full aircraft systems, go for DCS. If you want to fly a multitude of aircraft, both allied and axis, on a number of historically relevant maps and with historical enemies, go for IL2.

[SCG_motoadve]

4 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Again, I'm not saying DCS is a bad game. Far from it. It just has a different focus. If you want a top-notch flight model and full aircraft systems, go for DCS. If you want to fly a multitude of aircraft, both allied and axis, on a number of historically relevant maps and with historical enemies, go for IL2.

All is good except IL2 has gone downhill in its DM and FM towards an arcade feel to almost War Thunder standards, which absolutely kills immersion, and has made it very boring.

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

The recently announced Wings over Caen campaign by BlackSix purports to re-create historical missions, and I myself am working on a 1942 Hurricane campaign that follows the squadron's ORBs to the letter, including opposition (both ground and air, albeit scaled down a bit for performance reasons), flight path, targets, weather, AI behaviour where possible, notable in-flight events and hopefully custom radio traffic. It'll be hard to top that for realism.

Well, if it works out with the production values of a AAA title, you'd be about on Reflected's level (I'm not kidding, the level of polish he puts in is amazing). I found Il-2's scripting more limited than DCS, and AI somewhat more capricious, although this is an area both sims could improve. Yes, lack of aircraft, both flyable and AI, is something bemoaned by the DCS community, too. That is a problem, and it does make historically accurate missions a little repetitive. However, this does not prevent such missions from being made, particularly since there are quite a few AI-only assets. Plus, it does have massive bomber formations Il-2 still lacks, and can probably handle more fighters, as well.

 

The ability to fly any of its aircraft is Il-2's strong point, but IMO, at the moment DCS presents a more immersive experience. Currently probably the biggest sore point is the 109, of which only the K-4 is available. I'd really like Il-2 to step up its game when it comes to FM, particularly with engine torque effects. 

[Youtch]

Engine torque effect on roll rate and turn would be indeed nice. I am curious if it is this something really difficult to model?

[Lusekofte]

Reflected use an excellent ME and its incredible complexity together with coding. He also has a pool of voice actors  

These two ME is different 

Personally I get more involved in scripted campaign in DCS. But GB scripted is in other ways up to same standards. I do not know if conversation and role play is possible in GB the same way. AI in DCS is actually less complex and do not in any way other than communication excell from GB, com’s is essential, and probably a reason for GB ai deemed useless in many occasions 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Lusekofte

[[CPT]Crunch]

The money will be made on outstanding game play, ease of use, and multitude of options for the players.  Everyone likes different aspects, and that's what makes a great game.  You could build a sandbox with a generic map and totally fake inspired working ground war, if it plays really well with great flexibility and function suspending belief people will flock to it.  Trying to nit pick every aspect of a sim to recreate a historical account is a complete waste of time and energy.  Just get a good action game going around a detailed and as accurate as possible smoke and mirrors world with our level of planes is good enough. 

 

Saying a sim is historical is like saying you knew Abraham Lincoln in life and presence, as someone told you about it and you saw his 3 dimensional image stamped on a penny once.  Yeah, you got a vague notion of who he was and what he possibly looks like, but that's about it.  You could be presented with documentation of what he smelled like, how he stood as compared besides you, what he thought, and what his hand grip was like but no one will ever really know or experience these detailed things again. 

 

The maps we fly on aren't much better to the person who knows these regions, but for our needs who cares, general shapes and distances are close enough, in the case of maps its better to quit wasting energy over high historical detailing and spend the budget on greater artistic expression filling up the empty voids.  In the end we're still left only with Lincolns image stamped on the penny history left us.

 

In the long run the generic sandbox will win out, since it's potential is less restricted allowing artistic flexibility for a faster and better rounded product.  The money is in fun games, not representing a historical experience, it's a slow death sentence focusing intensely on history because that objective can never be achieved.        

Edited February 22, 2023 by [CPT]Crunch

[Dragon1-1]

8 hours ago, Youtch said:

Engine torque effect on roll rate and turn would be indeed nice. I am curious if it is this something really difficult to model?

Not really, but it can be really difficult to deal with. Torque itself is modeled to some degree, but it's not just about roll, it also results in gyroscopic effects, which are not modeled in Il-2 at all. In DCS, I'm still having trouble taking off in the Mossie, despite having no trouble with any Il-2 twin besides Ju-88. Free castering tailwheel is annoying as ever, but ever worse is the gyroscopic effect, which, if you don't anticipate it, will slam your wing into the ground right as you lift the tail. With two engines turning the same way, the effect is quite powerful, but it applies to single engine aircraft just the same.

 

Il-2 should probably put the gyro effects behind a difficulty option, if they're ever implemented. With that, any rapid power or attitude change will cause a force that, if unanticipated and uncountered, will throw you into a spin or slam into the ground. That's part of what made Sopwitch Camel (and all rotaties, to some extent) much more difficult to fly than it is in Il-2. Same with takeoffs and landings in a Bf-109 and Spitfire, they both had their issues with narrow undercarriage and massive engine torque, translating to considerable gyro effects. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

They modeled gyroscopic effects in Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr.1, so this should be present in all planes bu  it might be to weak.

[JG27*PapaFly]

16 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Torque itself is modeled to some degree, but it's not just about roll, it also results in gyroscopic effects, which are not modeled in Il-2 at all.

I see very significant gyroscopic effects in the 190 series in GB. When doing a max positive turn at,  say, 400 kph, I must apply about 50% left rudder in order to keep the ball centered. I need a similar amount of right rudder in negative maneuvers.

 

What I find frustrating is the apparent complete lack of the effect in other planes, which should definitely have it (Tempest and Spits come to mind).

Edited February 23, 2023 by JG27_PapaFly

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

What I find frustrating is the apparent complete lack of the effect in other planes, which should definitely have it (Tempest and Spits come to mind).

Planes can differ massively in how they show the gyro from the same engine. In real life, in the Spit, you‘ll notice gyro only in more extreme situations (you can fly her foot off for regular flight after putting her in trim), while the Mustang shows gyro almost like the Camel in FC. Enlarging the tail in the Cavalier Mustangs after the war mended that to some degree, but the vanilla P-51D gets you used to rudder work like in a sailplane. Nothing difficult to handle, same as in sailplanes, but it is a noticeable difference in handling compared to the Merlin Spit. The Griffon Spit makes you work your legs all the time, probably being one of the worst offenders in that regard, hence the escalation of the tail size in later marks. Given the stubby nose of the Tempest, it might well be that at higher speeds the gyro is less felt. But here I am speculating.

Edited February 23, 2023 by ZachariasX

[Dragon1-1]

9 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

They modeled gyroscopic effects in Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr.1, so this should be present in all planes bu  it might be to weak.

It's probably that it's too weak across the board, including in the Camel, Bf-109 and the Dr.1. When you lift the tail in the Bf-109, your wing should be yanked down. I haven't noticed it flying neither the F-2 nor the G-2 in scripted campaigns. Camel's controls outright flipped around in certain conditions, and it was famously unforgiving, without a lot of practice doing anything with it without spinning out or crashing (particularly down low) should be a challenge. It's not particularly ill-behaved in the sim, if the gyroscopic effects are there, they're very weak.

[JG27*PapaFly]

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Planes can differ massively in how they show the gyro from the same engine.

Exactly, because gyro forces have nothing to do with the engine. Following factors are important in determining the gyroscopic effect:

• Prop weight
• Prop diameter
• Prop weight distribution
• Prop RPM
• Distance between prop and COG. The longer the distance, the more leverage the prop will have, thus the more pronounced the effect will be.
• The plane's lateral stability (i.e. mostly vertical stabilizer surface and distance from COG)

 

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

In real life, in the Spit, you‘ll notice gyro only in more extreme situations

OK. You flew as a passenger in a two-seater Spit.

How about we check out what unlimited aerobatics pilot Rick Volker said about the SpitIX. This is someone who actually flies aerobatics in Spits, SU-26, and a boatload of other planes.

[Dragon1-1]

16 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

In real life, in the Spit, you‘ll notice gyro only in more extreme situations (you can fly her foot off for regular flight after putting her in trim), 

Extreme situations like, say, aerobatics and dogfighting. Of course you can fly her straight and level, she's got 3-axis trim, any such aircraft can be trimmed for level flight. As long as you don't mess with the throttle, you can even make shallow turns without rudder. It's the aerobatics where the gyro effects really rear their head.

 

In the real aircraft, you can outright tumble the aircraft either with careless throttle inputs, or deliberately, if you want to perform a lomcovak. You can't do that in Il-2.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

12 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

because gyro forces have nothing to do with the engine.

Are you saying that in  rotary engine the gyroscopic effects are not  going from it ?