Damage Model still needs lots of work to compare to COD.

[Catseye]

Just flitting around in my little F-86 and took some pot-shots at ground targets. Then landed for a peek at the damage. Seems the .50's are very effective in vaporizing tails, wings and noses of targets. :)

1079910800


Cats . . .

[startrekmike]

The visual damage model in DCS only tells a very, very small part of the story here, it is important to keep that in mind.

The DCS damage model is very complex in reality, perhaps not so much on the Flaming cliffs level aircraft but since I have zero experience with those (and nor will I ever), I will only speak to DCS modules with full systems modeling (like the A-10C).

DCS models aircraft like the A-10C as a combination of fully modeled subsystems, you have entire electrical, hydraulic, fuel, manual linkage and avionics systems (this varies on what each DCS aircraft actually has of coarse) and each of those systems can take damage, this may result in cascading damage as the failure of one systems results in the failure of connecting systems.

To be really blunt, while Cliffs of Dover's damage model may look better, it simply is not going to cover the same systems based detail as DCS, I don't mean this as a "DCS is better!" kind of thing, simply stating the truth here.

Also, keep in mind that the Sabre is still very much a work in progress, a lot of stuff still is not implemented yet so perhaps it would be good to judge it when it leaves beta.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Sorry have to disagree with you Mike.

CoD has a so-called 'cascading' damage system as well.

Any number of different system damages affect other systems.

Until you have looked at the files, you really can't make a judgement on what is modeled.

[ATAG_Colander]

Well, DCS has more systems modeled so there is more cascading :)

[startrekmike]

Sorry have to disagree with you Mike.

CoD has a so-called 'cascading' damage system as well.

Any number of different system damages affect other systems.

Until you have looked at the files, you really can't make a judgement on what is modeled.


You are right, I don't look at the files, I am not a modder but I am a player and that counts for something.

I think that perhaps you are getting defensive for no real reason, I am not picking on CloD at all, it is simply that (from my experience playing it) CloD has it's limitations, they are not bad limitations, they are not the kinds of limitations that someone could look at and say arrogantly that it is "clearly arcade!" or any other such nonsense, it is simply that DCS's modules (with the exception of the Flaming cliffs style aircraft) are actual, exhaustively researched study simulators, very few details are left out and there is far, far more going on under the hood than might seem obvious.

Now, the OP is right that the visual damage model is not very good in DCS, that is a hold-over from the fact that it is all based on a very old engine but the actual modeling (from flight to damage) is about as authentic and realistic as you can get.

With that said, I am sure that given enough time and resources, Team fusion could indeed make CloD as detailed as DCS (at least as detailed as you can make it without direct access to the aircraft like Eagle Dynamics often has) but that day has not yet arrived and until then, I don't really feel that it is bad or wrong to say that CloD is (at it's very core) a great survey sim but it is not a study sim, at least not yet.