Simulated Aerial Combat Roundtable

[Tumor]

It's crazy how far these video games have come.

https://youtu.be/Zaml5h49iQg?si=xoboAOZfUZlKzp5a

This vid right here (IMO) is crafty marketing hiding behind a curtain of BS.  Way to similar to their F-14 antics a number of years ago (Heatblur & Magnitude used to be Leatherneck).  I figure pre-order sales are remaining constant, and they know there'll be a slow-up once the release (higher price) hits.  I'd bet my last dime on it.

Still gonna be awesome, but BS target release dates are about the only thing DCS does that's equally consistent and infuriating.  COVID?  Come on Man.  They'll probably hit the May date... but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[edge12674]

I recently bought two more DCS warbirds, which completes the DCS WWII collection except for the 190D.

I would like to talk about comparing AH and DCS warbird flight model impressions.

Taxi, takeoff, and landing: DCS warbirds are harder and more in line with real world accounts.

Ballistics: The cannon rounds seem to drop more in DCS.  I found it surprising that DCS does not allow you to set convergence.  I had custom convergences for every warbird in AH.  I think AH is still ahead of the current state of combat flight sims with its inclusion.  DCS guns don't do as much damage as in AH.  I think this is due to the more complex damage models in DCS, making it more important to aim at specific parts of the aircraft.

Spit9: Behaves pretty close to AH modeling.  Roll rate is a little slower in DCS.  The DCS model seems to hold its energy a little better.

Mossie: Behaves pretty close to AH modeling.  It seems to turnfight and handle slow flight a little better in DCS.  Acceleration is a little slower in DCS than AH.  The delay in cannon firing in DCS, while accurate, requires better timing on your shots.

I-16: Again pretty close to AH.  Seems to hang on the prop a little better in DCS, making climbing turns a more viable tactic.

P-51D:Requires a lighter touch in DCS, when turning, compared to AH.  The wing drop when turning is surprising and has cost me the saddle several times.  Like the Mossie, the top speed is there, but the acceleration is slower.

P-47D: It seems to turn a little better in DCS when clean, but the AH model turns better with some flaps deployed.  It does not pick up the speed in a dive the way the AH jug does.  At high altitude the DCS jug seems to hold its own better than in AH.  The zoom after a dive is not as great in DCS.

109K:Similar to AH, but does not climb as well.  In AH a climbing spiral works well, but in DCS a Spit will hand you your lunch if you try it.  The DCS 109K requires a shallower straight climb to accelerate away.  In DCS it also does not want to slow down as much as in AH.

190a8: Like the P-51, it requires a finer touch in DCS compared to AH.  The wing will drop out from underneath you with little warning.  It picks up speed in a dive faster in DCS.  The guns shred bombers better in DCS, with the bomber ammo mix.

How does the IL-2 flight model compare to AH and DCS?

[hazmatt]

I recently bought two more DCS warbirds, which completes the DCS WWII collection except for the 190D.

I would like to talk about comparing AH and DCS warbird flight model impressions.

Taxi, takeoff, and landing: DCS warbirds are harder and more in line with real world accounts.

Ballistics: The cannon rounds seem to drop more in DCS.  I found it surprising that DCS does not allow you to set convergence.  I had custom convergences for every warbird in AH.  I think AH is still ahead of the current state of combat flight sims with its inclusion.  DCS guns don't do as much damage as in AH.  I think this is due to the more complex damage models in DCS, making it more important to aim at specific parts of the aircraft.
This is based on my limited experience in IL2 so others may be able to provide more/better info.
Spit9: Behaves pretty close to AH modeling.  Roll rate is a little slower in DCS.  The DCS model seems to hold its energy a little better.
Spits in general seem to be much faster and climb better in IL2.
Mossie: Behaves pretty close to AH modeling.  It seems to turnfight and handle slow flight a little better in DCS.  Acceleration is a little slower in DCS than AH.  The delay in cannon firing in DCS, while accurate, requires better timing on your shots.
I can't turn the mossie as well slow as I can in AH3 even with the flaps and the ammo seems to go much faster 
I-16: Again pretty close to AH.  Seems to hang on the prop a little better in DCS, making climbing turns a more viable tactic.
The low speed handling seems to be better in IL2
P-51D:Requires a lighter touch in DCS, when turning, compared to AH.  The wing drop when turning is surprising and has cost me the saddle several times.  Like the Mossie, the top speed is there, but the acceleration is slower.
Like the spit in IL2 the Pony seems faster and to climb and turn better in IL2. It definitely is harder to slow down on landing and such. 
P-47D: It seems to turn a little better in DCS when clean, but the AH model turns better with some flaps deployed.  It does not pick up the speed in a dive the way the AH jug does.  At high altitude the DCS jug seems to hold its own better than in AH.  The zoom after a dive is not as great in DCS.
I haven't flown this one much but they recently did some tweaks to the flight model. 
109K:Similar to AH, but does not climb as well.  In AH a climbing spiral works well, but in DCS a Spit will hand you your lunch if you try it.  The DCS 109K requires a shallower straight climb to accelerate away.  In DCS it also does not want to slow down as much as in AH.
It seems to be comparable to AH3 at wep but over a min at wep and you can burn up the engine.   
190a8: Like the P-51, it requires a finer touch in DCS compared to AH.  The wing will drop out from underneath you with little warning.  It picks up speed in a dive faster in DCS.  The guns shred bombers better in DCS, with the bomber ammo mix.
Don't know this one, haven't flown it much 
How does the IL-2 flight model compare to AH and DCS?

Overall I've noticed that the planes don't seem to have as much rudder authority as in AH3. That might be speed related and me still being a noob too. Another point is the same as DCS. The weapon damage does not seem ad great here and where you hit is very important. I've seen fighters take more then one hit from 30mm. That said the plane "feels" much more responsive. I've also noticed that when you're shooting it looks more like the videos I've seen of ww2 planes in the way that the plane moves.

Before anybody gets all jammed up. I'm just saying it's "different" not "better"

[Tumor]

.

[Tumor]

Taxi/Takeoff/Landing:  Once you get used to that weird brake system in the Brit stuff, it's harder than AH, but not hard to Taxi.   Taking off in DCS is really only worth a mention regarding Warbirds.  All the Jets are a snap.  But, the Spit & Mossie feel like you're on an ice covered glass runway.  The other Warbirds aren't so bad... it's still there, and will mess with you for a bit, but it's not hard to overcome.  Early on, the Spit and K4 gave me fits trying to get off the ground.  It's not so bad now.  In the K4, you used to HAVE to counter torque by laying the stick all-the-way to the left and back a smudge... and it still went haywire once airborne.  Landing for me is still usually a controlled crash in DCS... ya gotta be plenty dainty when touching down.  I never found AH to be remotely difficult in any of the above.  Honorable Mention goes to IL-2... enjoy your early morning Ground Loops.

Ballistics:  Ya, not as much damage in DCS.  Watching old (real) Guncams, I think it's fair to say AH & DCS each have their pros & cons, and these really don't make a difference.

Spit:  Definitely harder to get run down by a Spit in DCS, for sure.  But hey, HiTech's a Spitdweeb, who knew?

Mossie:  Maybe my favorite Warbird (in DCS).  It's just fun.  This one comes down the the general "overall" difference in handling between DCS & AH, which to me can be measured in Light Years.

I-16:  I agree with your assessment, with one exception.  It's wise to have the Gear raise/lower sequence ready on your kneeboard.  Friggin Russkies

P-47: Overall performance in AH is much higher IMO.  Engine management makes it a dream... but that's just my thing.  I like to move mud, and as with most everything comparing the two, it's way, way harder in DCS.  Not once did I ever look at a slip indicator in AH, and I was pretty accurate.

K4: Pure fun.  Watch for "No MW" in some of the DCS MP Servers.  That had me infuriated for about a week as I had no idea that little switch on the left existed (I don't think Chuck had it in the guide then either).  I don't remember a lot about flying the K4 in AH, but I certainly noticed the torque in DCS.  It's like 2 entirely different planes IMO.

A8: Standard flight model differences aside, it's the sam Pig in both games.  It does seem to stall way easier in DCS.

D9:  I was flying the D9 on the Wolfpack server just last Friday (I think).  Coincidentally, I was thinking about how much it felt like AH.   While it stalls easier in DCS, it generally rides on the same rails that all the AH planes do.  Which IMO is just a sign of how things work as time goes on.  The flight model in Air Warrior was GLUED to rails compared to AH.

Rudder in DCS feels to me completely different than in AH... like a whole different way of thinking about rudder.  I'm exactly the opposite of hazmatt on this.  DCS not only feels like what I would think a rudder should, it's far more sensitive in DCS.  I mean, I get tensed up trying not to throw in too much rudder... and I NEED to use rudder in DCS.  Not so much with AH (ahhh... I don't use rudder-assist)

Overall, my impression regarding the differences regarding flight models is as follows.  I may not live long enough to have the same number of hours in DCS as I do AH, but I thoroughly enjoy DCS "more now" from a pure flight perspective.  The adrenalin pumping fighting fun is not there in DCS, but I'm not looking for it.  I totally enjoyed AH "more then", from a pure fighting perspective.  I owned LockOn the day it released... but barely noticed it for over a decade.  I think that says something.  But hey, I'm getting older.  I don't need or care to prove anything to anyone.  I could easily go another 20yrs in DCS, never fire a shot, and do only SP free-flight and be perfectly happy with it.  No so with AH... DCS is simply, more aesthetic.  If I was still looking for competition.. I'd muck around in DCS during the day, and fly AH during peak hours.  DCS is harder and more realistic regarding Flight Models, but AH employs it's flight model perfectly for what it is.

MSFS sucks

[AKIron]

All of the DCS WWII Warbirds have an auto rudder which can be turned on/off and an adjustable takeoff assist (0-100) which is fully on by default. Those can make it pretty easy to taxi and takeoff if you are struggling. They are under the options-special tab.

I didn't like the Spit braking system at first but it makes sense once you understand how it works and get used to it. I like better than toe brakes now. And this is how the actual plane worked.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/supermarine-spitfire-134209906/

[edge12674]

I agree with Hazmatt and Tumor that rudder input is more important outside of AH.

D9:  I was flying the D9 on the Wolfpack server just last Friday (I think).  Coincidentally, I was thinking about how much it felt like AH.   While it stalls easier in DCS, it generally rides on the same rails that all the AH planes do.  Which IMO is just a sign of how things work as time goes on.  The flight model in Air Warrior was GLUED to rails compared to AH.

Now that you mention it, I remember coming back to Warbirds after a few months of AH and was shocked how "on the rails" Warbirds felt.  I think the same difference exists between DCS and AH.  It has been a couple years since I have flown AH.  I will have to get my Crystal setup for AH and give it a go offline to see how it compares now.

[Eagler]

Let me know if you get the crystal vr working with ah

Eagler

[AKIron]

Typically the jets in DCS have nosewheel steering which can be turned on and off in the cockpit like their real life counterparts. Many also have assist functions in the options-special settings that make it easier than real life and these are often enabled by default. Turn 'em off if you want a more real experience. Maybe just a few jets. The F-86 especially though.

[Eagler]

Jets are for studmuffins..and not brit cigarettes either lol
 
Eagler

[AKIron]

Jets don't have reciprocating engines but they do have propellers. Lots and lots of them. You probably knew this but modern jet engines (turbofan) derive about 80% of their thrust from those bypass fans.

[CptTrips]

It does seem to stall way easier in DCS.

I think a lot of impression that the FM in DCS stalls easier isn't due to the FM per se, but how they chose to model stick inputs.

I believe that some sims like AH model a guess on how much you could pull back based on loading.  So on some planes maybe you pull back on your joystick 50% of travel and it only applies 35% of stick deflection in the sim because it would be a heavy pull.  That is perfectly reasonable.

I believe DCS simply calculates the FM result of a given deflection and doesn't try and guess how weak or strong your arms are.  Pull back 50% on your joystick, it calculates what 50% deflection of the stick in the aircraft would do.  That is also reasonable.  I bet they send out force data so if you had a high-end full length stick with force feedback it would simulate that resistance for you at the physical level.  It'd be nice to have a toggle option.

The result is if you are used to AH FM, it is easy at first to over-control in DCS because the input by default is 1:1.  So an accelerated stall is easier if you are not careful.  They do provide stick scaling curves that can help a lot and the curves are specific per aircraft so you can dial-in the level of touch you can handle a little better if you don't have FFB.

I wouldn't say either approach is wrong, just different design choices.

As to the subtler aspects of the FM, I wish I had a better way to describe it, but AH does feel a little more "on-the-rails" to me than the DCS FM.  I have no doubt that AH, IL2, and DCS mostly hit all the flight envelope numbers.  Therefore I don't doubt that all are more\less "correct" in the whole.  There are subtle differences in feel though.  I guess DCS feels a tad more ..."fluid"?  Like a little smoother with more subtle effects of momentum and inertia at lower speeds.  Hard to quantify.  I wish AH could output Tacview data.  That might be easier to compare them at a numbers level.

I think AH's FM is fine for what it is choosing to simulate.  I'm sure it is in the performance envelops and demonstrates enough of the rock-paper-scissors difference between different planes to allow the player to make "interesting" choices during BFM\ACM.  That is what HT was shooting for.  I think his FM fulfills his design goal.

Of course DCS is a different kind of product.  Their obsessive fetish on the minute details is not necessary to build a pew-pew MMO, but I do appreciate the extra levels of challenge to just the flying aspect.  The extra levels makes even pattern work interesting.  That is not necessary for what AH is trying to do, but I'm glad someone is doing it because I enjoy just the sensation of flight in DCS.

Different strokes for different folks.  Even for a particular player, on different days they may be more interested in one over the other.  It's nice to have different choices.

[Eagler]

Jets don't have reciprocating engines but they do have propellers. Lots and lots of them. You probably knew this but modern jet engines (turbofan) derive about 80% of their thrust from those bypass fans.

Yes probably should change it to guided missiles 

Eagler

[Tumor]

In the K4, you used to HAVE to counter torque by laying the stick all-the-way to the left and back a smudge...

RIGHT!  I meant "right".  Please don't try left... that would be ugly.

Also, is it just my funky braind or didn't AH rudder seems to have as much or more "roll" to it as it did Yaw?  That's what I meant about the differences in the two FMs being so different.

[CptTrips]

I think a lot of impression that the FM in DCS stalls easier isn't due to the FM per se, but how they chose to model stick inputs.

...

I believe DCS simply calculates the FM result of a given deflection and doesn't try and guess how weak or strong your arms are.  Pull back 50% on your joystick, it calculates what 50% deflection of the stick in the aircraft would do.  That is also reasonable.  I bet they send out force data so if you had a high-end full length stick with force feedback it would simulate that resistance for you at the physical level.  It'd be nice to have a toggle option.

I keep buying lottery tickets. You never know.