I can’t really say my experience with DCS WWII has been to “fly planes around”. There’s been plenty of tough fights I had with friends. I’m really not a single player guy; multiplayer is where the fun is at for me.
From the early 1.2.X days…
To the modern 2.5.X days.
All these pics were online, taken with friends.
This is where I think the fundamental fault lies. ED claims that most of their customers are singleplayer; my problem is that from a singleplayer perspective, it’s incredibly frustrating. The B-17 AI gunners are Davy Crockett, hardly ever missing a shot; the AI fighter planes pull infinite Gs, have invisible airbrakes, invisible afterburners, never overheat, never feel the effects of damage; then they go the opposite way and miss shot after shot after shot, hardly taking any good shots. I’m a PvE guy at heart, coupled with a desire to build my own scenarios, and I find it incredibly frustrating to make good scenarios with DCS WWII that aren’t haunted by various performance issues or AI issues. If we’re instead doing PvP, then it’s a completely different matter entirely. But that’s not what ED is claiming.
The poll is getting closer - I’m actually surprised. Thanks so far everyone!
I’m hip. I just assumed IL2-x had all that.
I figure it should be added that ED’s defined the funding model as modules fund the core. Jet modules take ages to complete, and cost tons of man hours of money.
WWII birds have come at a quicker pace, and technically help fund all the jets with cash flow.
Of course, this also works the other way too.
IL-2BoX does have that, it’s just done automatically with one key. It glosses over a lot of the smaller stuff involved to bring the player closer to the experience without focusing on the minutiae. Basically, it tries to make you feel like you’re a pilot in a war, while DCS tries to make you feel like you’re a pilot trying to fly a plane. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.
This. This. A million times this.
So its clear. There cant be any DCS without WWII. They made a mistake that they created Mustang in the first place. Once you have a plane there start to be people requesting proper opponent, proper maps, proper assets, proper campaigns, proper AI, more planes, more maps, more assets, more and more and you end up where DCS is now 
Btw @ED stated in the past that WWII modules dont consume directly dev resources as usually less experienced members of the team starts with them as they are simple and then they move to the more complex stuff.
I can believe that. With the Viper and Hornet modules they spend just as much time doing the weapons and targeting systems as they do on the aircraft…
You just HAD to say that didn’t you…?
IL-2: 1946 with the HP Reverb and vorpX…
1946 “hooks” to vorpX just fine. Use DirectX mode within IL-2. I’m using some UltraPack that looks great. I know zero about 1946, so I’m not much help…but I can see how it would appeal to people due to the immense amount of action going on. It looks great in DirectX mode, the 3D mode looks great in vorpX. I don’t know how IL-2 handles cockpit view parameters, but they are a bit constrained to the left and right - like I couldn’t crane my neck around 180 degrees behind me, so you hit a limit which would be nice to get rid of. Field of view settings in IL-2 have 3 levels I believe, and the widest view is OK for VR…but could probably stand to be a shade wider still. I don’t know how to access those settings.
The best solution would be for 1CGS to make Korea or Vietnam or later jet releases like they make WWII ones.
Yes, DCS models each plane to a great amount of detail, but how many people are getting to invest the time needed to make that worthwhile? Il-2 makes you know enough about the plane to be effective without requiring graduate-level study. The economics of course are superior, with a map and 8-10 planes for the price of a single plane or map in DCS.
I think the people who also fly MSFS/P3D will never understand the mindset of those who do not but only fly Il-2 and DCS.
I don’t want to be a real pilot. I don’t want to study for it like it’s a job. I want to give the command and see it happen. Too much minutiae distracts from the experience for me, it doesn’t add to it. I want to be Kirk giving orders, not Scotty pulling the levers. The experienced trained pilot is the one sitting in the pit in the sim.
I say “activate the TGP” and it happens. Actually turning 4 knobs and hitting 3 switches in the correct order and timing only eats up what little time I have, I don’t find it well spent.
In the 90s, when I was single and later first married, I had the time, and I took the time. Then I got a house and had 2 kids and now I can’t.
Well, from my perspective studying IS part of the hobby, not a mean to an end.
Similar to what @JediMaster said (but a little different) -
I actually find clickable WWII era cockpits to be less immersive. Using a mouse to click OSB buttons on an MFD is OK, and flipping a switch up or down is OK I guess too. But there is nothing intuitive or immersive about using a mouse to try to drag a prop pitch lever, or adjust a mixture knob, or crank a canopy open. It actually completely breaks immersion for me. So when it comes to WWII and piston powered aircraft with levers and knobs to control the engine and systems, I actually prefer IL-2 GB level of fidelity. Let me get immersed in flying and fighting, and let the computer do some of things that are too hard to simulate with a M+KB.
And like JediMaster said, I’m at a stage in life where I can maybe learn 1 DCS level module (still trying with the F-18), so the rest needs to be more accessible. All these DCS modules look great, but the reality is I will never have time to get proficient enough with them that I can have fun with them, and not be constantly re-learning basic things.
ED should focus on making a more immersive modern battlefield to compliment their jets. In the words of Ron Swanson - “Never half-ass anything. Whole-ass one thing.”
The props in DCS require about 1% of the brain cells needed to master the F-18. Every plane needs electrics and fuel. Once you spend the 30 minutes needed to learn how to get her cranked and ready to shoot, you probably will never forget it. I prefer the clickable pit because it gives me some satisfaction to bring the thing to life. Plus that short process reminds me of the existence of systems and equipment I may have forgotten about while flying other stuff. A clickable pit in IL2 would save me some joystick buttons and axes that I would rather use for other stuff. Buttons for lights just seems stupid, but I need them and that’s the only way. In DCS I just reach over and flick the thing. Well, anywho, this thread has made me sad for Hyperlobby and the war in the Pacific. What I great time that was. Would I give up VR to return to it? Nope!
This point is worth every character taken to write it - I was able to learn multiple warbirds over one weekend. A modern jet that may get you a couple sub-systems or weapons (with their various modes).
And perhaps clickable levers is a bit excess, as we all mainly use axis for those - but not much a penalty in the grand scheme of making the entire pit clickable.
I will reiterate in this thread as well - I had never heard of the entire IL2 series until after I flew DCS: A-10C. My WWII combat experience is Wings/Aces over Europe on either Win95/98 (too young to recall as I was born in 94) which didn’t work on XP. Then nothing until around 2005-6 when I met a friend who introduced me to CFS2. Then I found CFS3 in a store. We also played Xbox Blazing Angels. I also had just before that the FSX Reno Mustang and a freeware warbird Mustang that was mediocre. I was more caught up with the A-10C and FSX to expand back to WWII and IL-2 for whatever reason didn’t look appealing at the time.
Even now, with my DCS birds I don’t see myself jumping into IL-2. The DCS aircraft experience has changed my standard perhaps - and as someone who enjoys knowing how things work, that was unavoidable. Staying with DCS saves my disk space, learning another platform, money…or perhaps the aging process is beginning to find it’s voice. 
I’m going to shorten your quote unfairly to make my point unfairly
I agree and disagree with you smoke, in that starting up and flying requires a lot less memorization, but how come I’ve had more dead engines and crashes in the Spitfire than the Hornet? You’re doing your pilot thing, while I have to work harder to make the thing an effective fighting machine, or even get home.
The Hornet sometimes feels like an Ikea bookcase, while the warbirds have that ‘lump of wood’ feeling. I’m splitting hairs knowingly (still no new burr grinder btw, and AM here) but you need more brains cells for the warbirds to make it fight properly? 
Very nice topic! It is apparently a very polarizing subject, but I’m happy to see everybody is still Mudspike friendly as always. My personal mantra on all things flight sims counts as much for this as for anything else, which is if something is produced that I don’t (think I will) enjoy flying around there is somebody else who has been waiting for an oppertunity like this to fly a plane they’re a fan of or have been intrigued by at the fidelity they enjoy.
I personally already really enjoyed DCS’ WW2 offerings. All the warbirds I own are enjoyable to fly, I found some real love with the pony and experiences like Thorn Falaise on Hollo Pointe and the carefully designed campaigns by the likes of Reflected and @bunyap2w1 made it worth it. I can only imagine it becoming better if the upcoming dynamic campaign supports it and if the damage models receive their improvements ( I really hope fires become a properly dangerous thing for players and AI alike).
I would say no to needing more to fight with it.
It’s primarily engine management. Recall too that our AI has an unfair advantage right now that means that we overrun our engines to keep up - versus players with the same limits it may be much different.
Deflection shooting is similar enough to a jet without a radar lock, although the gun funnel helps.
Flying itself is also the same energy management game when WVR - except you don’t have that same level of performance. In a Spitfire you don’t think about wasting all your gas by leaving burner on, or over-G in a non-diving turn.
To get an equivalent jet experience, go back to say the Sabre or the F-14A when it’s available as those engines have a temper. Jets that flame-out at high alpha due to inlets being blanked, would be another example.
Getting your Spitfire into combat didn’t require an INS alignment, knowing how to use various radar modes, knowing missile launch parameters, and so on. In fact, you don’t even get to participate in the fight if you fail in the Hornet - fail to set radar and find the target? Fail to turn on CMS or RWR? You get K/O’d BVR before you know what hit you.
Spitfire bonus: can’t forget to arm the ejection seat, it doesn’t have one! 
If at that stage, we say it is down to the systems are too much to handle - well that’s the DCS philosophy. So if you don’t like that in the jets either - DCS isn’t the right tool for the job then, and we’re not arguing about DCS WWII anymore but about whether or not DCS’s level of fidelity should exist and perhaps if everything in DCS should also have an FC3 type mode - at which point DCS WWII does become moot as IL2 already does pretty much exactly that.
I would also add I don’t think I have died in a warbird in combat due to pilot overload, but I have for target fixation. In the Hornet, switch fumbling has multiple times been a factor towards cause of death.
That was and still is a major problem in the real world too.
Wheels
