no news on other WW2 addons?

I have spent enough time with the Mustang to finally be able to properly fly it. I love the cockpit, attention to detail and the sound. But, when the day is set i get back to IL-2. CloD is a fail, but the 1946 version still rocks hard. In terms of realism it cannot be compared to DCS, but it has one thing DCS doesn't - the setting. After several months of learning the Mustang, flying around, having fun etc. I am simply bored.

 

I have tried to set up some combat missions, but the Pony's armament just doesn't cut it in DCS. All you can do is dogfight other P-51s and that is just not right. DCS just cannot compete with providing fighter escorts to B-17s against a swarm of 109s and simulation fidelity has nothing to do with it.

 

Sorry to say this, but with WWII machines, the setting is everything. Hope ED can fix this soon. ;)

I have tried to set up some combat missions, but the Pony's armament just doesn't cut it in DCS. All you can do is dogfight other P-51s and that is just not right.

 

I personally have killed T-90 with bombs, most things with rockets, gotten a few Strela and a couple of M48 Chapparal too with terrain masking and gunz.... Also have fought Gunzo with almost all the planes in DCS and the Mustang can win! Just sayin.

CloD is a fail, but the 1946 version still rocks hard.

 

Not if you demand a high-fidelity simulation. IL-2 may have been a super-fun game, but it is 100% unacceptable as a simulation. With such low realism, I wouldn't play IL-2 if it were the last flying game on the planet.

Not if you demand a high-fidelity simulation. IL-2 may have been a super-fun game, but it is 100% unacceptable as a simulation. With such low realism, I wouldn't play IL-2 if it were the last flying game on the planet.

You say that because you should be very, very young or absolutely new to flight sims. My first "Flight Simulator" was Digital Integration Fighter Pilot in an AMSTRAD CPC464 with green screen, and since that I'm looking for a bit more (until I got my licence, yes, but even now...). Il-2 was great and the best simulator 12 years ago when it comes out. Yes, it's outdated and Oleg didn't go further with realism but in very limited details if any, but if you where one of those FS geeks looking for realism in a 8bits PC since 25 years ago you wouldn't talk like that. I look for absolute realism and I like it the most, be sure, but Il-2 is still playable :smilewink:. (but CloD is cr@%...)

 

S!

 

P.D.: Just for the record in case you don't know it, that's it...

 

 

Edited December 2, 2012 by Ala13_ManOWar

All I want for Christmas is news about the development of another WW2 aircraft for DCS.

 

Anyone want to fuel that fantasy?

Not if you demand a high-fidelity simulation. IL-2 may have been a super-fun game, but it is 100% unacceptable as a simulation. With such low realism, I wouldn't play IL-2 if it were the last flying game on the planet.

 

That is a matter of opinion, but still, one has to take into consideration that IL-2 is a 10+ year old sim. There may not be any button clicking, but FMs feel right most of the time, and with new patches coming up, complex engine management adds the necessary realism. The AI in 4.11.1 version is better too, or maybe just less boring. As I said before, it's nothing close to DCS, but it does have a full theatre and a set of campaigns + mods (Histomod actually introduces a study-sim level 109). That said, I can fly all I want in DCS and enjoy the detail, but if I want to enjoy World War II, IL-2 is the only place to go. Unless ED steps up in that matter, things aren't gonna change for me.

You say that because you should be very, very young or absolutely new to flight sims.

 

I've been doing flight sims for over twenty-four years. The first flight sim I used was on the Commodore Amiga. This is irrelevant--any discussion of first-gen flight sims does not alter the facts about IL-2, nor amend the latter's innumerable and enormous errors.

 

one has to take into consideration that IL-2 is a 10+ year old sim. There may not be any button clicking, but FMs feel right most of the time

 

Not if you know your stuff reasonably well. The IL-2 flight models--both the general flight model and the individual aircraft modelling--were poor, from a purist's perspective. Better than MSCFS, but that isn't saying much. The IL-2 general F.M. wasn't a significant step up from that of old Warbirds--in fact, Warbirds's step-child Aces High modelled stalls (for one) much more realistically & dynamically than IL-2 ever did--at the same general time frame, too. IL-2 was okay back in 2001, but even only three years later, it was well behind the technology. And now? As a flight sim, it's pure and utter rubbish, by the modern standard of a well-informed hard-simmer. The only reasons that people don't realize that are IL-2's colossal marketing budget and the sad fact that there aren't many alternatives.

 

Now, I hear that Clod has made large improvements in realism, and I can't speak about that. I was so disgruntled with the low fidelity--the willful lack of realism--of the first few games in the IL-2 series that I have no wish to try any of the others. So, everything I say about IL-2 is referring to the series prior to the release of 1946, because that's where I had had enough and tossed the disks into the wastebasket.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Echo38

But that's not a looking for realism, that's fanaticism mate :). DCS is great, but it's still a flight sim and from your view you can look for wrong things and inaccuracies and you'll find them. You talk about "bad stalls" like you were flown one of those era fighters but you didn't, like any of us. You talk like you'll fly a real aircraft and if it doesn't perform the stall you want you would say "it's not realistic" :D. The gentle Cessna stalls are a realistic one for you? :) Of course we know Il-2 have many fails and I wouldn't be its more courageous defender, you can bet it, but I've perform aerobatics with it many years with Neil Williams "Aerobatics" in my hand and mate, bad or good it worked in many aspects which I've to recognize the same I recognize its fails in a 12 years old sim.

 

S!

 

P.D.: and yes, for too many years we had anything else.

You may try different IL-2 from 1.0 to 4.08 and feel the change of its FM. It may be simple compare to new sims today or in the future, but you can find the difference of stall between 109 and P39.

 

Some friends of mine refuse to try the DCS: P-51D for the bad impression of the poor FM and DM of Flanker and Lock On, and no FW-190 in DCS world.

....Of course we know Il-2 have many fails .....

 

But still f*** awesome. Not as realistic as DCS but entertaining and fun. (my 2cts)

 

Anyway, if a 3rd party dev has the will to create a new playground terrain...

I don't think there a chance at least before the release of EDGE/Nevada.

If I recall well, a member started an Afghan map. Does someone knows the level of completion of this map?

 

I found: it's here

 

Fast cross-read: last input of the creator 'Batou', he was still waiting for a SDK from ED. It was 05-09-12.

We can discuss all we want, but the truth is, that no matter how bad a sim IL-2 is, there has not been anything better in terms of WWII since 2001. Warbirds and Aces High do not come close (not to mention they are multiplayer only). Cliff of Dover has some good engine modelling--it's better than DCS IMO, where you can take-off with a cold engine and the only failure I have seen so far was a complete engine stop with the prop being instantly welded to the fuselage. Still that is about it, since in terms of immersion BoBII>CloD>DCS:P-51 and all are completely owned by the already mentioned 12-year old sim when it comes to online play and amount of content to have fun with.

 

Unless something gets released for DCS, things are gonna stay that way.

...Cliff of Dover has some good engine modelling--it's better than DCS IMO...

Well, as said Echo38 opinion seems to me too extreme, IL-2 is a nice sim and still playable to me, but Il-2 has its failures and particularly CloD is an absolute failure. It's not true CloD has better engine management than P-51, CloD simply has no engine management but a stupid thing where your engine get broken without a handbook where engine operation or limits are stated, nothing. P-51 engine management is exactly like it is in the real thing. I haven't flown a real P-51, but I did an advanced Cessna with constant speed prop and similar engine management, and it's the very same. Simple Tiger Moth in CloD is just crap, so impossible compare CloD to DCS.

 

S!

Maybe you just turn off the complex engine management in CloD. It does have engine management, just some operations like starting are simplified. You can handle it acording to the real spitfire II manual during the flight. When cross the cloud, you can feel the carb icing. And every failed part will be listed if the engine goes wrong. 2 of 3 propeller blades can be cut in a crash landing.

 

You will also kill it if oprate the 109E's DB engine as the way of merlin engine. Every type is different.

 

P-51D's engine is a little bit different from that of Cessna 182. You needn't care about the EGT for the auto mixture.

Edited December 5, 2012 by billeinstein

Yes CLoD has some engine managment operation but still it is too simplificated but also too bugy and it is not possible to fly it according to manual. The most close is 109 alhought still some thing are wrong e.x. WEP engine power ratings possible to use at higher altitutudes. Also performacne of all planes in CLOD are off comparing to RL data not mention that high altitutde model is totally crap - all planes have reduced performacne at higher alts and much too low service celling comparing to RL data.

 

Flight phycis in CLOD is not so bad if Su26 could make most aerobatic manouvers like in real life. I think landings in CLoD are too simplificated and to easy comparing to real planes.

 

DCS engine and P-51 is much better regarding engine managment it could be flown according to manual and all system of plane are moddeled. Flight physcis is very high level - landings and take off are very realistic the same behaviour in the air. I think in some cases it could be even harder then in real life ( take offs with flaps on and unexpected stall in some manouvers) :) Also performacne of P-51 is very accurate and very close to RL data.

 

FSX engine maby is good for avionics of planes, system of planes and flight procedures but regarding stricte flight phycisc it is very poor modeled even worse then CLOD or IL2. Landings are very simplificate and i never seen natural spin behaviour in any FSX plane. Even A2A Accu Sim planes dont change these. They are also limited by FSX flight phycis engine.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Kwiatek

Maybe you just turn off the complex engine management in CloD

Nope, just read my comment...

 

...CloD simply has no engine management but a stupid thing where your engine get broken without a handbook where engine operation or limits are stated, nothing.

Of course I've ""advanced"" engine management activated. CloD is not real, they simply put engines that breaks easily but with no hanbook saying what you have to do (like real aircraft and good sims, P-51 handbook is exactly like real P-51 handbook for example). So, you beak it and they can say, "it's a very real and difficult sim, see? you broke the engine". But how is supposed I should keep it OK without handbook or at least a readme?? :shocking: Truth is they faked everything and try to show us "a very difficult and real sim", but it´s not, it's only a failure... :lol: And physics to me are real bad, worst than original Il-2, they introduced a lot of "animations" than moves the aircraft trying to show a real physics engine is behind it, but it's not they are only animations. Taxi one is particularly annoying, moving aircraft one side to other without care about what kind of terrain you're over. Ah, and I've also operate many times in RL on grass and earth strips, so don't say that's because grass fileds :smilewink:.

 

 

P-51D's engine is a little bit different from that of Cessna 182. You needn't care about the EGT for the auto mixture.

I fly a three bladed prop C172RG, no auto mixture :smilewink:. Even she've less auto things than P-51, I've to take care of everything myself, it's stressing... :lol: That's why I like her and P-51... :thumbup:

 

S!

The early merlin and DB engines are also different from the engine we use on GA aircraft today. They are very powerful and can be easily destoried if without care. Just follow the historical manual, remeber to warm it before take off, keep the temp well and never make a high MP with low RPM, you can fly it well. Maybe the power is less than that historical test date, but you can find it's not just animations.

 

For the Taxiing, you can land or take off at any plat ground in that world. So does the P-51D in DCS I think. In real world, even digging a hole in a grass filed may kill you at landing. You may try to taxi through a bomb crater and see what happens.

DCS is great, but it's still a flight sim and from your view you can look for wrong things and inaccuracies and you'll find them.

 

There are, but they are few and small in comparison with IL-2 (and anything else I've tried). In the hi-fi flight sim world, the generally accepted standard is a 5% error margin. In IL-2, there were frequent cases of errors of 15–20+%, and I even recall one case (bullet dispersion values) where the error was 300% (and the developer refused to acknowledge or investigate it). IL-2 had more numerous and larger errors than any other game classified (mistakenly, in IL-2's case) as a hardcore flight sim. And I'm only aware of one other flight game made in this millennium (excepting those which make no claims about high accuracy modelling, because they are out of the scope of this matter) which does things worse than IL-2--and that's Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 2 & 3. (Okay, that's technically two, but pardon me if I lump those two nuggets in the same heap.)

 

DCS isn't perfect, but it's immeasurably better in terms of modelling accuracy and data fidelity than any other flight sim that's ever been sold for under a thousand dollars. And, putting aside comparisons, it's damn near as close as you can get on a P.C. That's why I'm here.

 

You talk about "bad stalls" like you were flown one of those era fighters but you didn't, like any of us.

 

There are certain undisputed facts which one can know about the stall behavior of various well-documented Second World War fighters. While, naturally, one cannot intimately know their stall behavior without having flown them, one does not need to have flown them in order to know a few basic things about their stall behavior. The IL-2 developers did very little research on that subject, and paid no heed to the aforementioned facts. (I'm disappointed to note that you seem to be on the same page as them.)

 

that's fanaticism mate

 

That's how I feel about flying. That's why I'm in DCS instead of lesser sim-games. It's also why I cared enough to do a significant amount of research & observation in the area of WWII fighter stall behavior--rather than making sweeping claims about it without bothering to do a modicum of research, the way some people do.

 

We can discuss all we want, but the truth is, that no matter how bad a sim IL-2 is, there has not been anything better in terms of WWII since 2001. Warbirds and Aces High do not come close (not to mention they are multiplayer only).

 

Aces High II did indeed come close to <1946-era IL-2. AH2 portrayed quite a few things better than IL-2--in particular, AH2's stall physics, collision physics, and ground physics were vastly superior to IL-2's. I'm not gonna champion AH2 as a good hardcore flight sim, because it isn't; like IL-2, AH2 is a flying game with some simulator elements. IL-2 definitely did model avionics better than AH2, but that's about it. AH2 modelled most areas of physics much more accurately than the IL-2 series prior to CloD (or, at least, prior to 1946--although I doubt 1946 fixed much of the broken stuff from Forgotten Battles & Pacific Fighters). Engine management was roughly on par, although AH2 may've been slightly behind IL-2 in that area. (IIRC, AH2 had fuel tank selection and IL-2 had mixture control--albeit both modelled very wrong.)

 

Really, other than the avionics, the only thing that I can think of that AH2 modelled definitively worse than IL-2 was some of the within-the-envelope flight behavior--in particular, last time I gave it a try, I noticed that the transition from level flight to high alpha was bizarre in AH2, like it was a binary switch. I begrudgingly admit that IL-2 did that moment--increase of alpha, below max alpha--better, but once alpha approached max, AH2 was on top again, and by miles, because in IL-2, it was the entire stall which was a binary switch. (Or trinary, I should say: no stall, clockwise spin, or counterclockwise spin.) Ballistics was also a mixed bag--IL-2's weapon modelling was more complex, but wildly inaccurate in data, while AH2 was the inverse, using more accurate data but having a somewhat simplified system.

 

There are so many other areas I could discuss and point out where AH2 did things more true-to-life than IL-2 (compressibility comes to mind, but I'd have to spend some time thinking about it to list them all), but I'm not much interested in promoting AH2, which was rife with its own flaws--fewer than IL-2's, and generally smaller, but there were a few biggies. Of course, all of this comparison is assuming that you configured the game for maximum available realism, which took quite a bit of digging in the options in AH2's case.

 

The gentle Cessna stalls are a realistic one for you?

 

I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. I don't see much point in further discourse, if you're going to be like that.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Echo38

SimHQ DCS: P-51D Mustang Review

November 30, 2012

 

http://simhq.com/_air15/air_550a.html

 

Can you see parked Messerschmitt Bf-109s in the background ? :) 1:34-1:36

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ozv3pOxmY40#t=94s

Can you see parked Messerschmitt Bf-109s in the background ? :) 1:34-1:36

That video was posted over 7 months ago ...

That video was posted over 7 months ago ...

 

Of course, i know, but maybe someone don't know Tomcatz became a partner of E.D. ever since...who made these Messers i guess ;)...and you watched eagledynamicstv :music_whistling:

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=84075

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ozv3pOxmY40#t=92s

Edited December 5, 2012 by HungaroJET

...................

Mate, I agree with you completely, and I know the problems of Il-2 and it's far from perfect, I know, really. I'm not an Oleg fanboy (I blame him so many times.. :lol:). I only say it's still playable and behind the problems is a not bad thing although it could get much better throughout time and Oleg never worried about it, and now we get the CloD rubbish. Of course DCS is GREAT, I'm here isn't it? and I said from first time I ride P-51 is the very first time I feel like the (limited of course) real world I know, YES, but sadly only with P-51 we do very few things even while I still enjoy only taking a ride and with some touch&goes, don't you think? I wish something like Il-2 in content like DCS, but we haven't!! So your point although right is very narrow and you'll have to wait A LOT until we can do further things in a DCS level WWII and I wish to be mistaken. That's all :smilewink:.

 

S!