DCS WWII Discussion

Let’s discuss everything about DCS WWII in a separate thread and leave the SoW on topic.

Please keep it civil, mudspike is one of the few places on the internet where we can disagree with each other without going at each others throats. It’s why I like this place so much - let’s keep it that way


Edit: I’ll start off by copying over what I wrote earlier in the threat:
Yeah, Normandy in the summer of 1944 is definitely not the best time period of WWII from a gameplay perspective and then there weren’t even the correct fighter variants for the time period in the kickstarter (Spitfire excluded and the P-47D-30 was pretty close IIRC). At least we now have the Anton and the Mosquito but I’d certainly welcome more.

Bf 109G-6/G-14, Fw 190A-5/F-8/G-8, flyable Ju-88, P-47D with the razorback, P-51B, Hawker Typhoon, more AI air assets etc.

But of course that would take years and years to develop to DCS’s standard …


I’m just happy that somebody is developing a Pacific theater, even if it’s still a few years off.


I really wish the modifications of actual WWII DCS modules would come even if only in Flaming Cliffs level, as someone else noted.

A populated environment is much more lively and happy than having just a few realistic models.


Honest question as I’ve never actually tried IL2 in any form since IL21946

Would a FC3 style Ww2 pack for DCS not just be IL2 on DCS maps?
I understand of course there would be differences between them, but by using resources to work on this (I know its hypothetical) not hinder work being done even more on the current DCS WW2 issues? Would there even be a comparison between IL2 and DCS Because I’ve heard just how wonderful the experience is in IL2 anyway.


From my understanding DCS modeling is more adherent to reality compared to IL2 BoX…
So- theoretically speaking I think DCS would still feel more realistic.

Not immersive though, as I think the campaign interface in IL2 BoX is pretty great.
(I own both)

EDIT: by IL2 BoX I mean “IL2 Battle of X” as in anything - Moscow, Stalingrad, Bodenplatte…


Thats a fair point, I hadn’t considered that.

If we had a Pat Wilson-style campaign generator for DCS though, that advantage might start to slip.


I think I’ve had that explained to me before on Mudspike but I had forgotten what the meanings were

Is there a reason why stalinggrad is always on sale on steam for around £5 but the rest aren’t? Is it just older or are there less planes or missions etc?


Yeah, older; it was the first in the series, now released 9 years ago, but keep in mind anything in the series gets the same engine and model upgrades as any other new module (though not the maps, planes, campaigns, etc).

Also if you watch long enough, you’ll notice modules drop off in price pretty quickly (especially during sales) within a year or so of release- which is why I’m not in a hurry to pick up the two newest expansions that are scheduled for release.


I don’t think that would really work within the scope of DCS. I’d still expect the high fidelity flight and damage model which is closely tied in with the engine and systems model. At that point you might as well make it clickable because you need to simulate the systems anyway. Remember that the new damage model has not yet made its way to the jets (at least not in the amount of detail that DCS WWII has).

Make it simpler and you might as well play IL2 as @Victork2 mentioned.

The kickstarter did not even raise enough money to complete the flight model of one warbird, let alone the promised set (and just the flight model, no 3D model, no assets, no map). And the detailed flight models are one of the reasons I like DCS so much. The clickable cockpit is much less a barrier to entry with WWII modules than it is with modern fighter jets and there’s always the auto start shortcut if you can’t be bothered with a manual start-up. Aircraft handling is far more of a challenge than with jets and I really enjoy the fact that I can isolate problems when I get shot. For example if my radiators get damaged in the 109 I can shut off individual radiators and still make it home on one.


I haven’t played it for a while and don’t plan on, however that is a mixture of personal issues with 777 and what I view as a step backwards from CLOD.

Regarding a FC3 style WWII, one way I recall it being explained to me was that they could quickly produce this standard of module quite quickly and then further down the line if you want a full fidelity version (if they have the means of doing so for the aircraft in question) then you could buy an upgrade when it is eventually released.

I quite liked this idea, however I caveat this as I might not be recalling it correctly or perhaps once reviewed internally it was rejected.

Personally I think such a system would be great, you can get a large number of aircraft in the game in a shorter time frame and if you particularly enjoy an airframe you have the option of enjoying it at the fidelity that ED is praised for.

Don’t know if it’s was mentioned here but il2 is damn good in VR and you get the basic tank command with the original game


Is that with stalingrad or any of the “BoX” @tempusmurphy

1 Like

Yes I struggle to see exactly how they could separate the FC3 style and full fidelity.

It would almost come across like an extremely early access module and they would still have to spend a fortune in hours researching even to a FC3 grade…

1 Like

Yep I think it is. But I had a couple of the battle of titles, when the tank thing was released.

1 Like

I think you made a interesting point there. I hadn’t thought of it like that before. But I totally see this now it’s mentioned.
So would the only sensible way in that case be to sell the WW2 experience as a pack, bagful of planes, maps, campaigns and individual missions and assets. Because that to me seems the sensible way to integrate it into the full fidelity modules and bring in capital for ED.
But again, is that not just a repackaged IL2? If they can spam out the aircraft a lot quicker than full fidelity modules, there must be a trade off somewhere in quality (systems, damage, graphical) as I cannot see having clickable cockpits taking up that much resources to program and like @Derbysieger mentioned, the systems on WW2 birds are nothing like as complicated as modern jets,


Just checked and it is, in the battle of Stalingrad you have access to the t34 and the panzer 3


Bloody mobile keyboards :rofl:

Hmm , that is actually quite tempting in that case as I rather like a bit of Panzer


I think this point needs further discussion… Both sims simulate technical systems, but they interface differently. Like the fuel check button in the Spitfire. In DCS you have to press the button to check your fuel state. In IL-2 it is assumed that the pilot would do so every now and then, so this button is pushed for you. Technically, both sims simulate the system realistically but IL-2 simplified the interface of the system. This is just one detail, but one I think describes the differences between the two sims. They both have very believable flightmodels. Ground handling of tail draggers seems a bit better in DCS, but over all there are minor differences.
Both sim developers won’t release anything they can’t vouch for and they do deep research into simulating the technical aspects.
Maybe ED has the edge considering their ties with the Fighter Collection, but it’s not like DCS is more realistic by an order of magnitude and that IL-2 is a light sim, in this respect. Now I don’t think this is what you meant, but I think it’s an interesting subject and the two sim developers approach their tasks in different manners, making it hard to say one is more right than the other. I know this much. Neither of them are 100% realistic…:wink:


Sorry I should have specified, I mean from a Flight model equations point of view.
They are indeed both extremely good simulation and as far as fun goes I think IL2 is in the lead…

That said if the real bird flight envelope is a blanket, DCS matches it closer especially closer to the edges.
So to speak.