Oh hell yeah.
1 Like
In regards to the flight model there was a very good comparison by a real world pilot between IL2, DCS and the real deal (P-51), which shows some of the issues with the IL2 model in certain flight regimes. Both are good but DCS is generally ahead and neither manages to really portray what it is to fly the real aircraft (surprise surprise^^).
Although I don’t think the ‘stickiness’ he mentions in the video is as big of problem with DCS Ground handling anymore, At least the P-47 basically starts rolling as soon as you start the engine if you forget to set the parking brake (I should really try the P-51 again).
5 Likes
Unfortunately history tells us that this discussion will become quite personal.
My take on it is that the DCS approach is significantly more realistic, last time I tried BoX and this was a long time ago I didn’t like the feel of flying… Nor did I get any clear difference in flying one aircraft or another.
However that is my experience, other people have the reverse.
On YouTube a P-51 pilot has done a comparison of BoX and DCS to his experience and the results don’t surprise me.
What I really enjoy is the sense of realism and atmosphere that pushing those buttons brings with DCS.
I have now spent a small fortune buying old MOD RAF stock switchs to create my own Mossie cockpit.
Edit:
Derbyseiger has beat me to the video… 
4 Likes
It doesn’t have to. At least it mostly stays civil around here and it still doesn’t feel like an echo chamber. Lot’s of different opinions and generally it’s still a nice place and we get along despite having different opinions.
6 Likes
I’d go along with that… Although I’ve never flown any of these warbirds in real life 
There’s something about the feeling of flying the DCS aircraft, that is slightly better, I think. But it also comes down to what kind of flightcontrol hardware one is using, and none of the sims can actually simulate flight perfectly. It just can’t be done, IMO.
And anyone flying a real P-51 would be reluctant to go to the extremes of the envelope of their extremely expensive toy, and risk their lives at the same time 
And when considering the development of both aircraft and the simulation software in general, a lot has happened in the last decade… But they were always as they should in terms of handling and flightmodelling. It’s just that with time and effort they still got even more as they should be.
Not knocking the devs here. They probably always aimed for a handling and flightmodel that was as close as they could make it.
5 Likes
I hope you are right, as a veteran/survivor of the old banann forum I am jaded. 
1 Like
100% agree here, I can’t imagine the nightmare flying the DCS Spitfire would be for me without this…
7 Likes
…and this is where I go on my rant about the IL-2 BoX series and the shortcomings of the way its control schemes are presented and setup. Definitely another advantage for DCS here, especially jumping between single-engine and multiengine planes.
8 Likes
I wouldn’t mind hearing your thoughts on this even if presented in rant form
Learning, mapping and trying to remember a whole new sim is the exact reason I’ve not bought it yet
2 Likes
Basically, all the controls for all the planes/ tanks/ vehicles are on the same screen, without a whole lot of guidance as to which are needed for each vehicle, and which aren’t- just a long list of every optional control. There’s a spreadsheet that breaks out which controls correspond to which plane (and which controls can be safely assigned to the same buttons, say for cowl flaps or radiator flaps), but that was developed by the community.
Also, and this is a bigger issue for me, there’s no option for setting up separate control profiles for different axes. Using my Warthog throttle as an example, I can either have both throttles for individual engines on multiengine planes like the Lightning or He-111, OR I can have one for a single-engine throttle, and the other for a single-engine prop pitch control. There’s no “if single engine, then x, if dual engine, then y” options. Not without setting up multiple external control configs outside of the game, anyway.
5 Likes
I think that it depends on what you want from your WW2 flight sim. IL-2 BoX satisfies for the most part the urge to quickly get into action with minimal need to do systems management. Although some aircraft, like the Jug, have their systems modeled pretty well, other than fuel.
You just can’t operate it like you would the real aircraft - especially useful for VR pilots and those wanting more out of their WW2 simulation. Channel crossings can get a little boring without having to switch fuel tanks every 15 minutes and open carburetor ram air at 20k. Also, keep your eyes peeled for Jerries, and make sure that you are on the right frequency to talk to flight, group, a bomber formation that you might be escorting, or air/sea rescue. Don’t forget that you need to burn off about half of your Mustang’s fuselage tank before getting into a spat with a 109F, or you are going to have a nasty rear CG. All part of the job man. Parts that keep it interesting IMHO.
I’ve said it before, but Reflected’s DCS WW2 campaigns are the whole enchilada. You have to know how to manage your bird’s systems, navigate, communicate, lead your element, flight, or group and then fight. I imagine that multiplayer can give a similar experience.
4 Likes
Anyway, back on DCS WWII. For me, I’m extremely excited about the Pacific theater being developed- we’ve spent enough time in Europe in the last 15-16 years, IMHO.
5 Likes
Does IL-2 have clickable cockpits yet?
That’s the killer argument for me. I haven’t played IL-2 since Pacific Fighters for that reason.
I don’t want to remember which button is the cowl flaps when the handle is right there in my view.
DCS planes ruined that for me.
The reason I don’t play DCS WW2 is the simulation environment. It just doesn’t fit for me. I feel like a dude flying an old plane. The old IL-2 games made me feel like a pilot in a war.
In DCS WW2 we spent what feels like a decade with a handful of planes and close to no AI assets. Immersion was basically not there for me.
The missions in IL-2 also allowed for a lot more assets. Huge bomber formations and dozens of flak guns firing at them, fighters attacking and defending, huge numbers of tanks and stuff. Somehow I always found them more believable. The editor was also nice.
The AI was mediocre, but somehow still better than DCSW. Replays actually worked.
So yeah, the planes are nice in DCSW and that’s it. So once I have learned flying the plane the fun stops.
Being called a hater for that opinion made me leave the ED forums. Especially after I spent more than 10 times the money on DCSW than on IL-2.
I jump in once a year, look for new stuff, find hardly anything except the same old bugs and missing features, and leave it alone for another year.
I don’t hate it, I just don’t care anymore.
7 Likes
Nice setup there! Still, a lot of players make do with desktop joysticks with twist grips and what not But that’s not for me…
I agree! And considering the nightmare the controller assignment of DCS, that’s saying a lot. RoF had individual aircraft assignments. They made a decision not to bring that into the Great Battles series. I wonder if that was a mistake?
I understand what you’re saying and I agree. But some of the third party campaigns for DCS are really excellent!
6 Likes
Thing is- I can totally respect your opinion!
It makes perfect sense and I actually feel like you feel- what makes DCS for me is flying MP with the usual suspects here of Mudspike. ^-^
2 Likes
With all due respect, I feel like you’re not flying the right missions. From Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney.
12 Likes
I am really looking forward to Reflecteds Mossie campaign he has done a lot of work by looks of it to give us a taste of the range of missions the old birds were thrown into.
5 Likes
For sure dcs, il2box and clod have their strengths and weaknesses. Have them all, but lately have not really had the desire to fire them up.
I’ve come to the conclusion that for me, it’s not clickable (or lack thereof) pits, flight models, graphics, or any of the other usual suspects, it’s the lack of one little button.
Skip to the next waypoint button, where have you gone?!?
God I miss it so much. Start up the game, check out your briefing, loadout maybe. Take off, form up if you like, cycle through some external views to take in the aircraft. Then, alt-n or ctrl-s your way to the coast, or the bombers you’re looking after. Maybe some more external viewing (check out that noseart!), then skip on over to your next waypoint. Fly around a bit if you feel like it before skipping on, or maybe it’s “fighters! coming down!” and then off to the races. Dogfight or ground attack over, if you’re not shot up skip on back to home base. Maybe you feel like landing today, but if not, yes to end the mission and let’s take a look at what happened.
I would pay an embarrassing amount of money to get that feature back (that’s not how things work I realize but I would). I’m hoping that maybe whatever Microprose has cooking will be my savior.
Know this is a bit off topic, but when I found myself emptying the dishwasher the other night and having an imaginary conversation about this with someone I realized it was time I got it out of my system. So thanks to Mudspike for existing to humor this kind of thing!
6 Likes
for me IL2 BOX is for now the ultimate WWII aerial combat experience.
both DCS WWII and CLOD/DWT are too small (in regards to dev teams/content) to fill in quickly the gaps.
talking about DCS FC WWII that could help, but at the time they will deliver the BOX team will be two steps ahead already imo.
its better for them imo to focus on what they do good and thats the detailed aircraft simulation.
3 Likes
That’s right! Micropose had that in their B-17 Flying Fortress from 2000, I think the Jane’s USAF used to have that (or at least some kind of time acceleration/skip). IL2’s time acceleration seems to work pretty well. In DCS, on a populated mission if I try to do time acceleration beyond about 4x, the simulation rate slows to a crawl so it’s actually slower, LOL!
3 Likes