PDA

View Full Version : BOS, War Thunder and world of warplanes etc - What are the differences?



Destraex
Nov-19-2013, 22:20
I keep having friends try to move me over to war thunder saying it is very realistic depending on the server you join.
I also see that some members here are about to give war thunder a crack.

It occured to me that with only essential systems being modelled that perhaps BOS was a closer cousin of war thunder or world of warplanes than Clod. I guess you might say BOS is a closer cousin to the original il2 of 10yrs ago.
In fact another question would be how close the original il2 game compares to world of warplanes or war thunder.
What exactly does combat flight simulator mean. To mean it means I am flying a flight simulator with guns. To others it means that the combat is the only element that need be simulated.

Part of the reason I like Clod is that it is a flight simulator with combat on top. I can have my cake and eat it too.
I get to fly an vintage aircraft and learn not only the keys but the cockpit and all it takes to run the aircraft. Essentially to be just a few steps away from actually flying it and being as close to the combat experience as well... due to the aircraft modelling.

My main question though for those who have played it so far is.
Do you think BOS is closers to war thunder \ world of warplanes or closer to Clod?

If I am correctly informed war thunder has prop pitch and fuel managment along with reasonable flight and damage models.

P.S. I am only asking about BOS as it stands at 30%. Don't worry about me pre-judging it. I am interested in how it's shaping up on top of what has been confirmed.
I am NOT attempting a troll but information. I own the BOS early access pack by the way and will be installing it later but I have not got world of warplanes or war thunder so will not be able to complare.

Headshot
Nov-19-2013, 22:33
I played WT for an hour and decided I didn't like it. As for BOS try it and make up you own mind.

Chuck_Owl
Nov-20-2013, 00:03
I keep having friends try to move me over to war thunder saying it is very realistic depending on the server you join.
I also see that some members here are about to give war thunder a crack.

It occured to me that with only essential systems being modelled that perhaps BOS was a closer cousin of war thunder or world of warplanes than Clod. I guess you might say BOS is a closer cousin to the original il2 of 10yrs ago.
In fact another question would be how close the original il2 game compares to world of warplanes or war thunder.
What exactly does combat flight simulator mean. To mean it means I am flying a flight simulator with guns. To others it means that the combat is the only element that need be simulated.

Part of the reason I like Clod is that it is a flight simulator with combat on top. I can have my cake and eat it too.
I get to fly an vintage aircraft and learn not only the keys but the cockpit and all it takes to run the aircraft. Essentially to be just a few steps away from actually flying it and being as close to the combat experience as well... due to the aircraft modelling.

My main question though for those who have played it so far is.
Do you think BOS is closers to war thunder \ world of warplanes or closer to Clod?

If I am correctly informed war thunder has prop pitch and fuel managment along with reasonable flight and damage models.

P.S. I am only asking about BOS as it stands at 30%. Don't worry about me pre-judging it. I am interested in how it's shaping up on top of what has been confirmed.
I am NOT attempting a troll but information. I own the BOS early access pack by the way and will be installing it later but I have not got world of warplanes or war thunder so will not be able to complare.

I've flown War Thunder, BoS, CloD, DCS and most Il-2 games. For me, the major difference between War Thunder and CloD is the fidelity of the flight model and the damage model itself. War Thunder is very, VERY forgiving (even in Full-Real-Battle) and once you've flown simulators with advanced flight models such as DCS and CloD, you always feel like something's off. Either your plane is too manoeuvrable or too fast or whatever... But, but, but... back to the topic at hand.

At the moment, Battle of Stalingrad seems closer to CloD than War Thunder, which is for the better. The flight model of the LaGG is unforgiving at low speeds and the aircraft handles pretty much like I've read from pilot accounts. Flight model fidelity seems very good (but, like I said, I didn't compare it with empirical data) and the feeling of flight is definitely there. Damage model, if the BoS one is based of the Rise of Flight damage model (and it most likely is), will be similar to what you can find in War Thunder. If you get a certain amount of bullets in a certain part of the aircraft, the part will just break or disappear. It's more or less a Hit/Health Point system. CloD damage model is based on component-level damage. In CloD, if a bullet goes through a piston of your engine, your engine will still work but it will most likely die in a few minutes and you'll see oil leaks on your canopy and the fuselage will begin to shake violently. Another time, a single bullet jammed by elevator... I guess it sectioned a control cable or something. It's not something that will be represented in Battle of Stalingrad as far as I know.

War Thunder is a very pretty game with cool effects and explosions, but the simplicity of the flight model, or the lack of all these little factors that are not taken into account (like the characteristic difficulty of a LaGG to pull out of a high-speed dive without stalling, for instance), is what separates it from being a true flight simulator.

Comparing War Thunder, CloD, BoS and DCS would like comparing racing games:

War Thunder: Need for Speed
CloD & BoS: Forza
DCS: iRacing

Or even Shooters
War Thunder: Call of Duty
CloD & BoS: Battlefield 2, Project Reality Mod
DCS: Arma Series

Destraex
Nov-20-2013, 00:17
Thanks for the reply. I am impressed you rate dcs over clod and bos. Is that because dcs deals with more complex modern aircraft?

Cybermat47
Nov-20-2013, 00:38
WT has HB and FRB, which are pretty decent.

indyscout
Nov-20-2013, 03:08
Thanks for the reply. I am impressed you rate dcs over clod and bos. Is that because dcs deals with more complex modern aircraft?

Not even just the modern aircraft. DCS p51 is incredibly detailed. Every switch in the cockpit does something, from oxygen to radios. I have a check list just to make sure I start the damn thing up correctly. Because of this detail, I think DCS WW2 will be something special. What Chuck owl said about WT is entirely my opinion as well. I have around 120 hrs clocked in HB and FRB modes and it is just not the same as clod. I get a real sense of visceral combat in Clod that i don't get in WT. When I beat someone in Clod, I feel like I have truly bested them, were as in WT I feel like I am just pointing and clicking and then they die, even in FRB.

1lokos
Nov-20-2013, 08:56
Destraex,

See this opinion about BoS FM:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/2212-impressions-real-world-high-performance-taildragger-pilot/#entry52346

Sokol1

Noivtile
May-23-2014, 13:34
Comparing War Thunder here (http://hackerbot.net/fps/plus/war-thunder-wt), CloD, BoS and DCS would like comparing racing games:

War Thunder: Need for Speed
CloD & BoS: Forza
DCS: iRacing

Or even Shooters
War Thunder: Call of Duty
CloD & BoS: Battlefield 2, Project Reality Mod
DCS: Arma Series

Agreed.

And thats also why I like war thunder a lot. While the behaviour of the planes is realistic compared to echa other, its not real enough for you to have to fly for hours without seeing an enemy and thats good.

startrekmike
May-23-2014, 15:30
If I were to rank the sims based on realism overall (and that means not just the aircraft but the mission realism as well), I would probably go with the following.

1.) DCS World (but only the full fidelity modules like A-10C, Blackshark, P-51D, Mi-8MTV2 and the Huey).

2.) Il-2 Cliffs of Dover (perhaps more for it's options and semi-clickable cockpit)

3.) Il-2 Battle of Stalingrad/Rise of flight, I kinda want to put these in number 2 since the flight models and sensation of flight is fantastic (for the most part), you will be hard pressed to find a sim that really gives you the feeling of light like these even if the controls are limited in scope.

4.) IL-2 1946, the flight models are pretty outdated but I suppose it kinda comes down to quantity over quality, on top of that, a lot of the aircraft feel somewhat incomplete, other than that, the mission structure is what keeps this from the bottom of the list.

5.) Strike fighters series, about as close to arcade as you can get without it being outright arcade all-together, very much a sim-lite in a lot of ways.

6.) War thunder, the flight models might end up being on par with Il-2 1946 and that is fine for what it is, the real reason this is near the bottom is the very unrealistic mission structure, it really plays like a F2P MMO where the mission goals really boil down to blowing stuff up for currency and grinding purposes, the focus is moved away from compelling missions and shifted entirely to grinding.

7.) World of Warplanes, this is even worse than War thunder in terms of flight models, it is just nonsense really to even pretend it is a sim, it is very much going for a arcade market.


Overall, I would say that 1 through 3 can be safely called sims, I mean, DCS could be called a study sim while IL-2 CloD/Bos/ROF could be called survey sims but still, sims none the less and going for generally the same market share (in some fashion or another).

As long as it is a sim, I am happy, if not, I don't worry about it and nor do I play it.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
May-24-2014, 04:21
A couple points about CLIFFS OF DOVER vs DCS vs BoS:

1) DCS does have a very complex Flight Model with most of the various controls clickable. TF could spend a lot of time enabling a whole series of controls and systems in CoD to match DCS, but at this point that is a very low priority.

2) However, one area where CoD has the advantage... the damage model in DCS is currently not very well modeled. Hopefully it will be upgraded for DCS WWII. CoD is much better at this point... it is the King of damage modeling, better than BoS, which is slightly better than IL-2 1946.

3) CoD and IL-2 1946 are the kings of online playability... both can put up 100+ players in aircraft on a server, plus a TON of objects, and still get good framerates and no crashes.... Neither DCS or BATTLE OF STALINGRAD can do this. If you want huge Multiplayer battles, then CoD is the way to go.

4) IL-2 1946 has the best Full Mission Builder... because it is simple to use... CoD can do the same things... but you need some code writing skills to go past the basics. Both of these games are head and shoulders over any of the others.

Foul Ole Ron
May-24-2014, 06:54
Re #1 it's not just the controls as DCS fully models the combustion engine, the hydraulics, etc. So once you take damage to those areas the severity of the damage will determine whether they continue to work, sort of work or fail, how much longer they work for for, how you can make them work for longer by lowering the stress you're placing on the component. With CloD you can see some things are on a timer such as coolant leak as I guess there's no code link between the various components that would allow you for example to throttle back to ease your engine temps and lower your coolant usage.

Re #2 the visual damage model is definitely better in CloD than DCS but the actual DM under the hood is excellent. If you let your plane get peppered severely you'll see the tons of different components that can take damage some of which can lead to cascading subsequent damage. It's really top notch. They do acknowledge that they have work on the visual DM for WW2 though.

Re #3 definitely agree. It's probably the biggest let down currently about DCS for me. Hopefully EDGE and proper dedicated server code will improve matters here. Until they do CloD for me is hands down the best WW2 multiplayer flight sim out there and why I spend most of my time playing CloD and not DCS (on top of the nice FM, beautiful visuals).

Re #4 DCS has a very powerful FMB built into it but it's not the most intuitive. With combined arms on top of that it's possible to have one or more players essentially control the battle real time, play JTAC, take control of individual units such as SAMs, etc. I think that the poor DCS multiplayer experience hadn't led to these tools being properly exploited yet. If they can fix that there could be some very interesting MP campaigns put together.

gavagai
May-24-2014, 06:57
2) However, one area where CoD has the advantage... the damage model in DCS is currently not very well modeled. Hopefully it will be upgraded for DCS WWII. CoD is much better at this point... it is the King of damage modeling, better than BoS, which is slightly better than IL-2 1946.


I don't know which is better, but many undersell DCS's damage model because of the poor visual effects. What is actually simulated is very exhaustive.

startrekmike
May-24-2014, 11:11
I hesitate to get into the whole "Cliffs of Dover vs everything else" thing but I gotta say something about DCS as I have hundreds of hours with it's various modules (specifically the A-10C, the P-51D, the UH-1H Huey, the Mi-8MTV2 and the Ka-50).

DCS is not the best sim visually, I think we can all agree that while the models and textures of the aircraft and cockpits are fantastic, they don't really show visual damage all that well and that can lead to somewhat lower immersion overall (taken with the lower quality terrain that will soon be fixed with the new graphics engine), still, lets not let the visual side of things obfuscate what is going on under the hood here.

The fact is, as far as simulation fidelity goes, DCS is the king on the throne, I am not using my opinions here, I am not just saying this to be edgy or against the grain, I say this because you can objectively classify a DCS module like A-10C as a full study simulation, the cockpits are 95% accurately modeled and functional, the systems you operate are fully modeled down to individual components and the flight models exhaustively made on a individual bases to be as close to the plane in question as possible, I mean, I know this sounds like a advertisement or whatever but the fact is, Eagle Dynamics operates on a much different level than Maddox games or even 777 does, when they make a sim, they often are doing so with access not only to the real aircraft but also access to pilots and consultants that can oversee the whole process to ensure authenticity.

Even the third party stuff is often made with full access to the actual aircraft, heck, the MiG-21bis team is pretty much headed by a active MiG-21Bis pilot!

If we want to compare graphics alone, sure, DCS needs to do some work to stack up to CloD or even BoS (though I would argue that the quality and detail of the models and textures for the playable aircraft is better technically, it is just the terrain that drags everything down) but if you want ot start talking about simulation, if you do some reading up on what they do and how they do it, I think you will see that it is pretty much the best in terms of flight models, system simulation, damage model (as far as systems go), cockpit/system interaction and weapon models.

If we want to bring in the flaming cliffs 3 content, sure, that stuff is more comparable I suppose because the product was designed as a survey sim (like CloD, ROF, BoS) so the individual detail of those specific aircraft are going to be lower overall.

Finally, I don't know how much time some of you have spent with the DCS editor but I gotta say that to dismiss it as unintuitive is not really accurate, I find that a lot of things are easier to do in the DCS editor than they are just about anywhere else, I don't even really need to get into scripting at all to make a realistic and interesting mission, I can just use it's very simple trigger system to make a very dynamic mission.

As I said before, I don't want to play the CloD vs everything else game but if we are going to start talking about DCS, this stuff needs to be kept in mind because when you go on the Eagle dynamics forums, you don't see a lot of griping about the A-10 flight model or how accurate the systems modeling is, those that play the sim regularly know that it is top notch and know that ED has access to information, flight data and actual aircraft on a much deeper level than other flight sim developers (mostly due to military contacts and even military contracts).

ATAG_Snapper
May-24-2014, 11:33
Great analysis, startrekmike! :thumbsup:

One aspect I'm curious about wrt DCS FM's is, has anyone other than ED actually tested them against documented data? I certainly cast no aspersions against DCS' dev team, plus I own P51D/A10C/Huey + invested in WW2 Kickstarter. But have the DCS Team released their performance specs or are we just to rely on their assurances?

I acknowledge that other than the IL2 1946 comparative spec charts (which were/are excellent), no one else, including Team Fusion, has released any other than the most cursory of data.

startrekmike
May-24-2014, 11:46
Great analysis, startrekmike! :thumbsup:

One aspect I'm curious about wrt DCS FM's is, has anyone other than ED actually tested them against documented data? I certainly cast no aspersions against DCS' dev team, plus I own P51D/A10C/Huey + invested in WW2 Kickstarter. But have the DCS Team released their performance specs or are we just to rely on their assurances?

I acknowledge that other than the IL2 1946 comparative spec charts (which were/are excellent), no one else, including Team Fusion, has released any other than the most cursory of data.

Well, I think a lot of the data they draw from (at least Eagle Dynamics specifically) is from either direct access via the military (in the case of the A-10 which the ANG commissioned ED to make a simulator for training and possibly the Blackshark which I think they did for Russia's military but I can't be sure) or via access to The fighter collection's rather large collection of aircraft (where the P-51D info came from).

As I said before, some 3rd parties also have direct access to the aircraft and it's pilots so that I suppose is pretty good data ;)

ATAG_Snapper
May-24-2014, 11:59
Well, I think a lot of the data they draw from (at least Eagle Dynamics specifically) is from either direct access via the military (in the case of the A-10 which the ANG commissioned ED to make a simulator for training and possibly the Blackshark which I think they did for Russia's military but I can't be sure) or via access to The fighter collection's rather large collection of aircraft (where the P-51D info came from).

As I said before, some 3rd parties also have direct access to the aircraft and it's pilots so that I suppose is pretty good data ;)

Absolutely. The best of the best, I'm sure. :thumbsup:

But that wasn't my question at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding. My question really was: has anyone tried it in the sim to see if it actually DOES match up to the data?

I'm not skeptical. Hey, Volkswagen has some of the best and brightest engineers in the world. When they claim that their Jetta Diesel can drive from Toronto to Montreal on a single tank of gas, I'd be the first person to ask, "Has anyone actually done it?" Similarly, no aspersions on VW, DCS, 3rd party devs, or their pilots. Just asking.

startrekmike
May-24-2014, 12:46
I would have to comb the forums a bit for that but I do know that at least a couple of active duty A-10 pilots have said that the A-10 module is pretty spot on, I suppose it would have to be considering that it was made for the military as a training aid first.

ED does make it pretty clear that real pilots have a lot of input, I suspect I will have to see if any of those pilots have made statements, that would probably be the best source of info.

ATAG_Snapper
May-24-2014, 13:01
Agree 100%. Please don't comb the forums for this on my account, if you saw it mentioned that's plenty fine by me. Actual pilots signing off on FM's for the aircraft they've flown is about as good as you can get. Certainly within reasonable parameters wrt warbirds. Thx for your reply. :salute:

It's interesting to compare the FM's of A2A's Wings of Power 3 Spitfires vs Clod's Spitfires. A2A sims are based on the Microsoft FSX engine. Numerically speaking the two sims align pretty well, such as top speeds and climb rates (from very informal testing on my part). I prefer Clod's "feel of flight" vs A2A's, but that is merely subjective on my part. The major difference in my casual comparison was the A2A Spits accelerated noticeably quicker than Clod's Spitfires for equal-weighted equivalent models. (Being an FSX-based sim, there are no guns to fire, but in its loadout GUI you can still program in ammo weight). The A2A's take off run is breathtakingly quick to rotation, while Clod's Spitfires seem to take half of Kent to get airborne in comparison. My bias shows through in which I prefer :D, but which is technically correct, who knows?

Foul Ole Ron
May-24-2014, 13:22
Agree 100%. Please don't comb the forums for this on my account, if you saw it mentioned that's plenty fine by me. Actual pilots signing off on FM's for the aircraft they've flown is about as good as you can get. Certainly within reasonable parameters wrt warbirds. Thx for your reply. :salute:

With the P51-D ED had contact with Nick Grey if I remember right who was able to provide a lot of feedback on the initial versions of the flight model they created. Aside from guys directly connected with ED the VEAO team at Duxford last year had a couple of guys from the P51 Horsemen acrobatic team try it out and the feedback they gave that it was spot on except for maybe the rudder on the ground which was a bit over-sensitive.

ATAG_Snapper
May-24-2014, 13:41
That squares very well with startrekmike's statements. The aerobatics aspect far exceeds anything I would have considered reasonable in view of how conservatively old warbirds are flown normally. Thanks to you both. :dthumb:

RAF74_Buzzsaw
May-24-2014, 18:17
It's interesting to compare the FM's of A2A's Wings of Power 3 Spitfires vs Clod's Spitfires. A2A sims are based on the Microsoft FSX engine. Numerically speaking the two sims align pretty well, such as top speeds and climb rates (from very informal testing on my part). I prefer Clod's "feel of flight" vs A2A's, but that is merely subjective on my part. The major difference in my casual comparison was the A2A Spits accelerated noticeably quicker than Clod's Spitfires for equal-weighted equivalent models. (Being an FSX-based sim, there are no guns to fire, but in its loadout GUI you can still program in ammo weight). The A2A's take off run is breathtakingly quick to rotation, while Clod's Spitfires seem to take half of Kent to get airborne in comparison. My bias shows through in which I prefer :D, but which is technically correct, who knows?

There is definitely a problem with the takeoff acceleration in CoD. There is something in the prop modeling which is causing this... something which we are investigating now for TF 5.0. Hope to have it fixed for that release.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
May-24-2014, 18:42
Re #1 it's not just the controls as DCS fully models the combustion engine, the hydraulics, etc. So once you take damage to those areas the severity of the damage will determine whether they continue to work, sort of work or fail, how much longer they work for for, how you can make them work for longer by lowering the stress you're placing on the component. With CloD you can see some things are on a timer such as coolant leak as I guess there's no code link between the various components that would allow you for example to throttle back to ease your engine temps and lower your coolant usage.

All of this is already modeled in CoD. It is not on a timer. Re. radiator damage, if you do throttle back, the rate at which the coolant leaks is reduced. If you keep the aircraft at full throttle, it will leak faster. The number of types of radiator coolant leaks at the moment are only modeled on one level.. ie. you get a hit, the result is only one type of hole, which is defined as only one volume of leakage per pressure.. and it progresses on that basis. (with the engine pressure, as mentioned, affecting this) However, the game engine is more than capable of modeling many different size damages... size holes... other systems in CoD use variations in the size of the damage hole causing leakage. All we have to do is add the different types of hits to the existing modeling for the radiators... which we expect to do for TF 5.0. Why wasn't this done in the vanilla version?... same reason I guess a lot of other things weren't done. Lazy programmers, not enough time, etc. etc.


Re #2 the visual damage model is definitely better in CloD than DCS but the actual DM under the hood is excellent. If you let your plane get peppered severely you'll see the tons of different components that can take damage some of which can lead to cascading subsequent damage.

Same principles apply in CoD.

Bounder!
May-24-2014, 20:18
As we're talking about DCS :) I'm no expert on the mission builder but I've found DCS very user friendly and I'm really surprised by just how much I can do with it that I would really struggle and other stuff I couldn't even begin to try in Cliffs as I can't code. The script menu is great, really easy to use from everything like getting new AI to spawn on conditions, rolling to a specific next map depending on the outcome of the current one, and the capacity to have loads of submissions that can be launched within the single main mission with their own briefing. DCS even has rearm, refuel and repair built into the game and I've found it's great for people like me that struggle with the Cliffs mission editor. Luckily in Cliffs with have experts that can create much of that but I don't think it's as approachable for us mere mortals.

On the other stuff, Startrekmike's posts are bang on the money for me, couldn't agree more. DCS strengths are in the FM and CEM which are second to none imo. It isn't just the clicakble cockpit in DCS and full engine startup but also using powerbands that makes DCS CEM. Personally I feel Cliffs does most of the over stuff better - e.g. online numbers, greater range of ww2 a/c (now and in the near future), and graphics and special effects. EDGE might improve things if it ever comes out but I'm not sure it will look as great as Cliffs, who knows. As for the damage model, in DCS I really like the way hits effect manoeuvrability and it does engine and electrical system damage really well too, when I take hits I'm resetting the circuit breaker trying to bring my gunsight back if it's knocked out, watching oil pressure, fuel pressure, my mp can drop and/or rpms - I personally feel it's more complex in that regard to Cliffs and I'm not always sure of how bad the damage is or how things are going to go initially. However, in my mind Cliffs does other damage modelling much better - there are the visuals but on-top I'm sure there are more hit boxes in Cliffs, I can't say I've had my radiator directly damaged, nor lost a control surface, and I've definitely never had a control cable go in DCS. For me Cliffs is king on the DM front compared to anything out there because it does a wide range well. The more I've been playing DCS recently the more I love it but I'm not sure it will challenge Cliffs exactly as they are such totally different approaches and are both great for different reasons.

[edit] since this is the BoS section and given the thread title: I agree with Startrekmike 'ranking' and although it's tough to rank stuff and each will have their pros and cons, that's how I see it atm. Whilst I rank DCS ahead of Cliffs and BoS, it only supports small multiplayer numbers and given the absence of proper ww2 bombers it wont give the same immersion as far as Cliffs or BoS to simulate ww2 as such. For me if your first priority is the simulation of operating, flying and dogfighting in ww2 bird DCS is great but if your interests are more to simulate the immersion of flying in epic large scale battles, intercepting/escorting/piloting huge raids of bombers and awesome multisquad campaigns then Cliffs is the ticket. BoS will hopefully be up there and abouts with Cliffs although the absence of a full mission builder for the masses limits things as far as campaigns etc and it will probably, hopefully be a good solid air combat sim. WT is an arcade game and is probably a good starter game if you like aircraft but don't want to delve too deep or spend much time.

Badlego
May-26-2014, 04:21
"All of this is already modeled in CoD. It is not on a timer. Re. radiator damage, if you do throttle back, the rate at which the coolant leaks is reduced. If you keep the aircraft at full throttle, it will leak faster."

Buzzsaw: Did Team Fusion model this? And can you give me an evidence AND explain this behaviour?

LuseKofte
May-26-2014, 17:08
I aprichiate and agree with those very objective facts about various simulations, but still the judgements made by individuals are highly subjective.
DCS don't make sense if you just haven't time to go in depth to A-10 systems, ergo it is not a good sim for me. And that might reflect in the discussion and people understand it as a critique to the sim itself.
I fly bombers exclusively , fighters just does not interest me. Ergo I need to put a side 2 hours to fly my Heinkel. The last 3 month I do not have that 2 hours. Ergo Clod is a bad sim for me, this might upset someone else hearing I say Clod is bad, BOS give me a 10 minute fun with the PE-2 . Perfect sim for me, and we all know it is far from perfect.

These discussions and wars are based on subjective opinions with a varied content of facts . Mix that with enthusiasm and you have fanatism.
All I say I think no one disagree with the cold facts presented here, but they will still not lead people to change their point of view on the matter on witch game are the best

Continu0
May-26-2014, 18:07
I aprichiate and agree with those very objective facts about various simulations, but still the judgements made by individuals are highly subjective.
DCS don't make sense if you just haven't time to go in depth to A-10 systems, ergo it is not a good sim for me. And that might reflect in the discussion and people understand it as a critique to the sim itself.
I fly bombers exclusively , fighters just does not interest me. Ergo I need to put a side 2 hours to fly my Heinkel. The last 3 month I do not have that 2 hours. Ergo Clod is a bad sim for me, this might upset someone else hearing I say Clod is bad, BOS give me a 10 minute fun with the PE-2 . Perfect sim for me, and we all know it is far from perfect.

These discussions and wars are based on subjective opinions with a varied content of facts . Mix that with enthusiasm and you have fanatism.
All I say I think no one disagree with the cold facts presented here, but they will still not lead people to change their point of view on the matter on witch game are the best

Best post for a long time...

TheVino3
May-27-2014, 01:25
I aprichiate and agree with those very objective facts about various simulations, but still the judgements made by individuals are highly subjective.
DCS don't make sense if you just haven't time to go in depth to A-10 systems, ergo it is not a good sim for me. And that might reflect in the discussion and people understand it as a critique to the sim itself.
I fly bombers exclusively , fighters just does not interest me. Ergo I need to put a side 2 hours to fly my Heinkel. The last 3 month I do not have that 2 hours. Ergo Clod is a bad sim for me, this might upset someone else hearing I say Clod is bad, BOS give me a 10 minute fun with the PE-2 . Perfect sim for me, and we all know it is far from perfect.

These discussions and wars are based on subjective opinions with a varied content of facts . Mix that with enthusiasm and you have fanatism.
All I say I think no one disagree with the cold facts presented here, but they will still not lead people to change their point of view on the matter on witch game are the best

I think it would be more diplomatic to say "DCS or CloD is not practical, or convenient, for me", rather than "It is a bad sim for me". Less people will think you are bashing the sims this way :thumbsup:

RAF74_Buzzsaw
May-27-2014, 03:02
...I need to put a side 2 hours to fly my Heinkel. The last 3 month I do not have that 2 hours. Ergo Clod is a bad sim for me...

Two hours to fly a Heinkel mission?

I see most Heinkel pilots do their missions in an hour... sometimes less.

You can also fly a Stuka... usually quite a quick mission.

But whatever works for you. :salute:

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
May-27-2014, 03:23
Ergo I need to put a side 2 hours to fly my Heinkel. The last 3 month I do not have that 2 hours. Ergo Clod is a bad sim for me, this might upset someone else hearing I say Clod is bad, BOS give me a 10 minute fun with the PE-2 . Perfect sim for me, and we all know it is far from perfect.


Why did you make this comparison (Clod He-111 versus BoS Pe-2)?
The Pe-2 is more comparable to the Bf-110 , not the He-111.

You can easily get some action within 10 minutes in CloD in a Bf-110.

It seems like you are deliberately trying to make CloD difficult for yourself. . .

LuseKofte
May-27-2014, 03:53
Nope I just say for me pe2 works fine until I got more time available I dont compare the planes.
I dont choose what to fly based on quality of the sim.
It is more mood and time witch make my choise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

vranac
May-27-2014, 05:43
LuseKofte, you said that you're exclusively flying bombers.

What do you say about that they simplified bombing in BoS even when you compare it with old il2 ?

I thought that all the fun for bomber guys is to calculate parameters for successful bombing (and I know a lot of them).

Kling
May-27-2014, 06:11
"All of this is already modeled in CoD. It is not on a timer. Re. radiator damage, if you do throttle back, the rate at which the coolant leaks is reduced. If you keep the aircraft at full throttle, it will leak faster."

Buzzsaw: Did Team Fusion model this? And can you give me an evidence AND explain this behaviour?

Try this, it actually works!
When the radiator is hit, reduce power and prop pitch to 50% or less. I managed to keep the engine running for 5mins and 10secs!This is just enough to make it back across the channel no matter if you fly red or blue! Most people dont know this ;)

LuseKofte
May-27-2014, 06:44
I say its ok by me I still fly IL 2 and clod


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Continu0
May-27-2014, 07:52
Try this, it actually works!
When the radiator is hit, reduce power and prop pitch to 50% or less. I managed to keep the engine running for 5mins and 10secs!This is just enough to make it back across the channel no matter if you fly red or blue! Most people dont know this ;)

I think the question that Badlego was interested in is if the time until the engine quits depends on Throttle OR rpm OR temperature. Buzz wrote "throttle back", which could mean everything. We from JG4 read that and tought it would be quite strange if the time depends on Throttle only, because we could not see a connection between throttle and cooling liquid fluctuation... where as it would make sense if increased rpm leads to faster engine-damage because of the increasing temperature...

AKA_Recon
May-27-2014, 08:30
LuseKofte, you said that you're exclusively flying bombers.

What do you say about that they simplified bombing in BoS even when you compare it with old il2 ?

I thought that all the fun for bomber guys is to calculate parameters for successful bombing (and I know a lot of them).

'fun' or just a prerequisite given the tools provided ? Yes, there is great satisfaction hitting a target in CloD because it takes all this work to get right. I would say though, once you figure it out, it isn't that difficult.

That all said, I think the most fun I've had bombing was in the Gotha in ROF. I haven't tried bombing in BoS yet. I thought the bombing in ROF was a nice middle ground. Pulling out charts to determine IAS vs. TAS, etc... is to me just a pain in the butt, not a sign of 'better'.

As far as the different games - DCS might be better, but not in terms of gameplay right now and theatre (WW2) - there is just a p51 and an AI Dora right? There are no WW2 bombers. After the WW2 game comes out, then I will re-evaluate - so I'll just throw that out the window right now.

Cliffs of Dover is next for sure. It simulates the Battle of Britain - has a great FM, DM. Although the FMB might be harder, the scripting does allow for scenarios you can't do in 1946/ROF, etc... ie. look at the work Wolverine and others are doing - once more people are able to see and duplicate, it's actually top notch. You also can't denied joining a server with 100 humans is the best - playability online - and this tops it all. Get on TS, grab a bomber and some escort, and it's a blast.

IL2:1946 is still a good sim - and I think it's a 'sim' - it's not arcade - and the content now is great. But that said, after playing CloD, I find it nearly impossible to go back to this as it's looks very dated in comparision.

I can't really comment much on BoS - I haven't flown it too much. I've never flown War Thunder. I'm going to guess after loving CloD that those games will feel very watered down for my taste.

In the end, is it a 'simulator' type feel you want, or just an arcade game. Different strokes for different folks - glad there is this variety. None of the games can be the 'end all' for everyone - that is why we have this variety.

LuseKofte
May-27-2014, 09:38
Thing is. The physics are simulated very good in BOS. I enjoy flying it now and then.
Clod is a bit frustrating after the last patch and added wind.
Flying bomber alone gives a hit % less than 50.

Historical yes but not fun in the long run


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

startrekmike
May-27-2014, 11:11
For me, I suppose I really just don't try to compare DCS and CloD, as I said before, they both are built on much different levels and while you could take out specific elements and compare them, as a whole, DCS is always going to be a study sim platform first and the aircraft modules that are produced (at least the ones on the level of the A-10C and others like it) are modeled to such a degree that no survey sim can really match.

Now please understand what I am saying here, I am not taking a cheap shot at CloD or BoS or whatever, there is no reason to assume that I am trying to tell you "DCS is the best at everything always no matter what you personally believe", I am not saying that at all, I guess I am just looking at this from the angle of someone who had been away from simming for a number of years and when I came back to it, I jumped into everything from ROF to CloD with equal fervor, I had no history with one over the other so I suppose would like to think that I am looking at all the available sims on equal footing, no one sim has my loyalty over another since I really encountered all of them at roughly the same time.

With that being said, when I look at all the sims and how they stack up to one another, my previous rankings stand, DCS is at the top not because I am trying to take a pot shot at CloD but because I have found that the attention to detail is much greater, the systems all work as they should, the damage model is complex and accurately cascades to greater problems when applicable, the damage model feels very interactive, all these little bits and pieces can go wrong and each can have either a major or very minor effect.

Now, CloD has a pretty impressive damage model for a survey sim, in fact, it is the best damage model among the survey sims (BoS, ROF, 1946), I won't debate that there is some impressive stuff going on under the hood in CloD but at the same time, you will forgive me when I say that (knowing what I know about DCS from years spent playing and reading about it from it's developers/3rd parties) I am still going to place DCS on the top not because of the visual aspect of the damage but because of the very, very fine detail it is capable of modeling and on a much more complex scale (modern and vintage aircraft).

If we are going to compare DCS and CloD as WWII sims, of coarse CloD comes out on top, it was purpose built as a WWII survey sim so of coarse it will be a more enjoyable and lush WWII experience but if we are going to compare them as flight sims where we look at systems modeling, cockpit modeling, damage model detail and even the flight model, well, I am going to have to side with the company that is making sims based on aircraft that they have direct access to on a very deep, very working level, I am going to have to side with the company that uses real pilots of the specific airframes in question to verify or even help build the modules.

As I have said in the past, I hesitate to plant my flag in any particular camp, I play and enjoy BoS, CloD, ROF and DCS all the same and I don't really feel like I owe any one company my loyalty over another but when it comes to a debate about the level of simulation between all of them, I am going to go for DCS because it plainly is the king of that particular kingdom, it may not be as pretty, it may not have the same airframes as CloD, ROF or BoS (yet) and it may not have the benefit of being a WWII sim (at least in regards to the WWII simming community here) but pound for pound, the Eagle Dynamics guys have access to aircraft on a much deeper level than I think we give them credit for here, it is hard to debate the various things that DCS models when they are all based on aircraft owned by the parent company (the fighter collection) or based on direct access to active military airframes, pilots and engineers (like the case with the A-10C).

If we are going to debate the level of detail, I perhaps think that comparing CLoD to BoS is a more level playing field to work with, DCS is a very different beast.

ATAG_Bliss
May-27-2014, 14:55
I think the question that Badlego was interested in is if the time until the engine quits depends on Throttle OR rpm OR temperature. Buzz wrote "throttle back", which could mean everything. We from JG4 read that and tought it would be quite strange if the time depends on Throttle only, because we could not see a connection between throttle and cooling liquid fluctuation... where as it would make sense if increased rpm leads to faster engine-damage because of the increasing temperature...

It depends on all 3. But it gets complicated because airflow gets the heat out of the radiator. You don't have much airflow at low speed, low RPM situations. But the other thing to remember is RPM is water pump output.

So if you have a leak, the higher the RPM, the higher the combustion temperature, the higher the water temperature, and the greater flow of water wanting to be pushed out of the hole the water is leaking from.

So cooling down the engine from a radiator leak isn't a very straight forward process. It's all determined by the situation you are in at the time. How much IL2COD models all of these complexities, I don't really know, but I do know it's not just a time limit. There's at least all 3 of those factors involved.

DUI
May-27-2014, 16:53
A complicated topic where I do not have expertise in - except for the experiences with my pc water cooling. :D

But isn't it more important how much pressure there is in the system and not how fast the rate of flow of the cooling fluid is? And is it even a fact that the rate of flow depends on the throttle or RPMs in the 109's cooling system?

To me it only is for sure that the temperature of the cooling fluid has a direct influence on the pressure and thus has to have an influence on the speed the fluid is leaking out of the system. So opening the coolers to cool down the fluid (as long as there is some left) seems to be reasonable. In this case keeping the throttle and RPMs down for the same temperature reason also seems to be advisable to me.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
May-27-2014, 18:07
I'll make one last comment:

CLIFFS OF DOVER has the potential to model every detail which exists in DCS re. damage... and more.

We could model every single electrical line, every single fluid line, every single strut or rib, every single element which goes to make up a functional aircraft.

There is no limit... simply a case of how much detail we decide to put in.

LuseKofte
May-27-2014, 18:31
Well I am glad to hear it is potential to develop this game for a long time, it seems we are not going to get a adequate WW2 sim in future with the same complexity

Continu0
May-27-2014, 18:58
God damn, I know what I would do if I won the lottery...

LBR=H.Ostermann
May-27-2014, 20:01
God damn, I know what I would do if I won the lottery...

+1

Me too :thumbsup:

startrekmike
May-28-2014, 01:38
I'll make one last comment:

CLIFFS OF DOVER has the potential to model every detail which exists in DCS re. damage... and more.

We could model every single electrical line, every single fluid line, every single strut or rib, every single element which goes to make up a functional aircraft.

There is no limit... simply a case of how much detail we decide to put in.

The comparisons I have made thus far between CloD and DCS are based only on what I can see via playing both, there may be a ton of potential that is still untapped with CloD but at the same time, we can only really judge things that are right in front of us, we can't know the future and thus I can't really count features that don't exist yet.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to pick a fight here, nor am I making a snarky jab at CloD or TF, I am simply saying that potential or not, if I look at the way things are right now based on products that I can actually use and test, my already mentioned thoughts still stand. It is not a dig on CloD or even a attempt to make a unfair comparison.

What I am trying to say here is that I understand what you are saying about potential, I get that you are enthusiastic about your projects future but at the same time, it is important to note that nobody here is making any unfair comparisons or bashing anything, there is no need to get protective or defensive, we know that you and your team are doing great work and we look forward to seeing what is in the future for TF's mod.

Please note that when I say you are being a bit defensive or protective, I don't mean in any great amount, it is just that you have posted a few times saying that CloD can do everything DCS can and while that may be true in the future, that does not change how things are right now and it is not a value judgement on either product, it is simply what it is until something changes.

This is one of those posts that might read a bit more aggressive than it really is, I am simply trying to reassure you that we know that CloD has more up it's sleeve but DCS already has a lot of that stuff right now so you will forgive me for judging only what I can actually see myself, I am not trying to make it sound like CloD can't get there, just that it is not there yet.

Continu0
May-28-2014, 03:38
It depends on all 3. But it gets complicated because airflow gets the heat out of the radiator. You don't have much airflow at low speed, low RPM situations. But the other thing to remember is RPM is water pump output.

So if you have a leak, the higher the RPM, the higher the combustion temperature, the higher the water temperature, and the greater flow of water wanting to be pushed out of the hole the water is leaking from.

So cooling down the engine from a radiator leak isn't a very straight forward process. It's all determined by the situation you are in at the time. How much IL2COD models all of these complexities, I don't really know, but I do know it's not just a time limit. There's at least all 3 of those factors involved.

thx!

Remon
May-28-2014, 06:09
On the subject of DCS visual damage modelling, the problem with it is that the game was originaly strictly about modern warfare, with no reason to give visual detail to the damage, since a hit from a missile most of the times means you're dead.

On the other hand, I don't know how many of you have seen this, it's a twitch video, by the lead dev of VEAO, showcasing the damage modelling of the upcoming Hawk. It really shows that how much detail they want the DM to have is up to the developers. He, Ells, had a diagram somewhere of the model of the Hawk with the different parts that can get damaged.

http://www.twitch.tv/ells228/b/500255397

Praetor
Jul-01-2014, 12:28
You guys are forgetting about Aces High :)

Usually has 200 people online at any given time, all in the same server.

I'd rank them:

DCS
CloD
BOS
Aces High
IL2
War Thunder
Asteroids

ChiefRedCloud
Jul-01-2014, 12:48
Perhaps instead of asking what are the differences, we should ask what are they alike in. And the answer to this would be simply, they are entertaining and challenging (each in their own way).

ATAG_Colander
Jul-01-2014, 13:04
Perhaps instead of asking what are the differences, we should ask what are they alike in. And the answer to this would be simply, they are entertaining and challenging (each in their own way).

Asteroids graphics are better :)

https://cdn.tutsplus.com/gamedev/authors/legacy/Steven%20Lambert/2012/10/28/asteroids.png

Chuck_Owl
Jul-03-2014, 03:50
A couple points about CLIFFS OF DOVER vs DCS vs BoS:

2) However, one area where CoD has the advantage... the damage model in DCS is currently not very well modeled. Hopefully it will be upgraded for DCS WWII. CoD is much better at this point... it is the King of damage modeling, better than BoS, which is slightly better than IL-2 1946.



On this specific point, I must respectfully disagree. CloD might have a visually more detailed damage model, but the damage model complexity in DCS is much more advanced "under the hood". Maybe not in visual terms, but the advanced systems models (ASM) make every time I am hit by something a different experience. The way the engine is modelled allows for more realistic failure modes and affect the entirety of the aircraft. When I look at the damage reports after a long mission I am often amazed to see how detailed the report actually is. CloD now has something similar, but it is not quite the same thing yet.

ATAG_Colander
Jul-03-2014, 10:09
Chuck,

Yes DCS is a lot more detailed in sub-systems but what I think Buzz means is that those sub-systems do not receive battle damage as of now since they where designed to receive a missile hit that would basically destroy half the plane.

If they implement hitboxes for all the subsystems so they can receive damage from a single bullet, then yes it will be a lot more detailed.


Note: I do not have DCS so I might be a LOT wrong :D

Recoilfx
Jul-03-2014, 10:46
Actually practically all the sub systems receive damage on the P-51D. The glaring problems are the damage visuals and lack of pilot damage, which i hope they will fix eventually. They also promised to upgrade the electrical modeling.... Given how slow Eagle dynamics has been with the P-51, i think they'll get to it in probably 2 more years :)

ATAG_Colander
Jul-03-2014, 10:47
You mean two weeks, for sure? :)

Foul Ole Ron
Jul-03-2014, 11:16
Yes DCS is a lot more detailed in sub-systems but what I think Buzz means is that those sub-systems do not receive battle damage as of now since they where designed to receive a missile hit that would basically destroy half the plane.

If they implement hitboxes for all the subsystems so they can receive damage from a single bullet, then yes it will be a lot more detailed.

The sub-systems can just about all take battle damage from a bullet impact - I posted this previously but the below is the damage report log after I let (eh.. sure.. let) a FW-190 absolutely leather me in the Mustang:

debriefing = {
[53] = {
["failure"] = "LEFT_WING_TANK_LEAK",
["failureDisplayName"] = "",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32656.352,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[54] = {
["failure"] = "RIGHT_WING_TANK_LEAK",
["failureDisplayName"] = "",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32656.352,
["type"] = "failure",
},
},
[98] = {
["failure"] = "COOLANT_RADIATOR_MOTOR",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Coolant radiator flap motor fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32715.518,
["type"] = "failure",
},
},
[100] = {
["failure"] = "OIL_RADIATOR_MOTOR",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Oil radiator flap motor fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32715.518,
["type"] = "failure",
},
},
[143] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_LEFT_OUT_MOUNT_LOOSE",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Left outboard gun mount loose",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32715.955,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[144] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_LEFT_CENTER_MOUNT_LOOSE",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Left center gun mount loose",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32715.955,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[145] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_DAMAGE_ELINKAGE_LEFT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Left rack electrical linkage damaged",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32715.955,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[146] = {
["failure"] = "MAGNETO_2",
["failureDisplayName"] = "",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32716.016,
["type"] = "failure",
},
},
[161] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_RIGHT_IN_MOUNT_LOOSE",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Right inboard gun mount loose",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32718.708,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[162] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_RIGHT_CENTER_MOUNT_LOOSE",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Right center gun mount loose",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32718.708,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[163] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_RIGHT_OUT_MOUNT_LOOSE",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Right outboard gun mount loose",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32718.708,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[164] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_SOLENOID_FAULT_RIGHT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Right rack solenoid fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32718.708,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[165] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_ARMING_BROKEN_WIRING_RIGHT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Right rack arm broken wiring",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32718.708,
["type"] = "failure",
},
},
[167] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_FAIL_RIGHT_OUT_GUN",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Defective right outboard gun",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32718.708,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[168] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_RIGHT_CENTER_AMMUN_FAULT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Right center gun ammunition fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32718.708,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[169] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_RIGHT_OUT_AMMUN_FAULT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Right outboard gun ammunition fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32718.708,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[172] = {
["failure"] = "BOOST_REG",
["failureDisplayName"] = "",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32719.016,
["type"] = "failure",
},
},
[205] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_FAIL_RIGHT_CENTER_GUN",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Defective right center gun",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[206] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_FAIL_RIGHT_IN_GUN",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Defective right inboard gun",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[207] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_RIGHT_IN_OPEN_CIRCUIT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Right inboard gun wiring fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[208] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_RIGHT_CENTER_OPEN_CIRCUIT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Right center gun wiring fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[209] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_RIGHT_OUT_OPEN_CIRCUIT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Right outboard gun wiring fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[210] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_RIGHT_IN_AMMUN_FAULT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Right inboard gun ammunition fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[211] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_NO_VOLATAGE_AT_RACK_RIGHT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. No voltage at right rack",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[212] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_DAMAGE_LINKAGE_RIGHT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Right rack release linkage defective",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[213] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_ARMING_NO_VOLATAGE_RIGHT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Right rack arming latch does not lock",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[214] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_DAMAGE_ELINKAGE_RIGHT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Right rack electrical linkage damaged",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[215] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_ARMING_BROKEN_SOLENOID_RIGHT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Right rack arm solenoid fail",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[216] = {
["failure"] = "FAULTY_ROCKET_RIGHT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Rockets. Faulty right wing rocket",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.867,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[217] = {
["failure"] = "MAIN_R_GEAR_D_LOCK",
["failureDisplayName"] = "",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.87,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[218] = {
["failure"] = "R_GEAR_UPL_FAULT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.87,
["type"] = "failure",
},
},
[232] = {
["failure"] = "RIGHT_WING_TANK_LEAK",
["failureDisplayName"] = "",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32864.996,
["type"] = "failure",
},
},
[236] = {
["failure"] = "K14_NO_POWER_SUPPLY",
["failureDisplayName"] = "K-14. No power supply.",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.013,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[237] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_TRAIN_DEFECTIVE_WIRING",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Train wiring fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.013,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[238] = {
["failure"] = "CARBAIR_BREAK_GROUND",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Carb. air ind. gnd lead fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.013,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[239] = {
["failure"] = "DEFECTIVE_MECHANISM",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Directional gyro mechanism fail",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.013,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[240] = {
["failure"] = "TURNIND_POINTER_FAILS_NO_VACUUM",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Turn ind. No vacuum to instrument",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.013,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[241] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_FAIL_LEFT_OUT_GUN",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Defective left outboard gun",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.013,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[242] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_SOLENOID_FAULT_LEFT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Left rack solenoid fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.013,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[243] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_ARMING_BROKEN_SOLENOID_LEFT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Left rack arm solenoid fail",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.013,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[265] = {
["failure"] = "K14_FIXED_LAMP_DEFECTIVE",
["failureDisplayName"] = "K-14. Fixed reticle lamp defective",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.173,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[266] = {
["failure"] = "PITOT_HEAT_WIRING",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Pitot. Break in the wiring",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.173,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[267] = {
["failure"] = "TACH_POOR_CONNECTION",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Tachometer poor connection",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.173,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[268] = {
["failure"] = "SUPERCHARGER_LIGHT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Supercharger light burned out",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.173,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[269] = {
["failure"] = "SUPERCHARGER_WIRE",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Supercharger wiring fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.173,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[270] = {
["failure"] = "COMPASS_ERRATIC_OPERATION",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Mag compass. Wires shorted or open. Erratic operation",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.173,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[278] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_TRAIN_DEFECTIVE_SWITCH",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Transfer switch fault",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.23,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[279] = {
["failure"] = "VHF_CRYSTAL",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Radio. Crystal or tube failure",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.23,
["type"] = "failure",
},
},
[284] = {
["failure"] = "K14_MOTOR_DEFECTIVE",
["failureDisplayName"] = "K-14. Motor defective",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.253,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[285] = {
["failure"] = "BAT_SOLENOID_DEFECTIVE",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bat. solenoid defective",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.253,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[286] = {
["failure"] = "BOMBS_ARMING_NO_VOLATAGE_BOTH",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Bombs. Both racks arming latch does not lock",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.253,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[287] = {
["failure"] = "GUN_FAIL_LEFT_IN_GUN",
["failureDisplayName"] = "Defective left inboard gun",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32865.253,
["type"] = "failure",
},
},
[308] = {
["failure"] = "MAIN_L_GEAR_D_LOCK",
["failureDisplayName"] = "",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32880.044,
["type"] = "failure",
},
[309] = {
["failure"] = "L_GEAR_UPL_FAULT",
["failureDisplayName"] = "",
["initiator"] = "Pilot #1",
["initiatorMissionID"] = "1",
["t"] = 32880.044,
["type"] = "failure",
},

["result"] = 0,
}

javelina
Jul-03-2014, 11:40
I'd rank 'em as:

- DCSW A-10C, BS2, Huey, P-51 (learning/training sims, cool beans. The A-10C is the cats @ss by far! Don't "F" with the Hawg)
- DCSW (all the remaining mods), BMS Falcon (also a great training sim, and the dynamic campaign capability)
- CoD (with the mods, this sim is awesome! Having a semi clickable cockpit. the mods for this just put it to a whole new level, plus the cost of the base sim, you need to get it!)
- RoF (just tinkering with it now, I'm afraid I'll end up buying more A/C, just like when I got DCSW for "free". The Su-25 Toad wasn't enough...)
- BoS (it'll get better as we approach release, and will move up my list. Love the Kanonenvogel! Panzerjager!!!)
- A2A BoB II (with mods as well, but CoD, I'd rather fly that)
- SubHunter III - yes, it's not a flight sim. But with the Grey Wolves mod, this sub sim is the bomb!!!!!

Remon
Jul-03-2014, 12:17
On the subject of DCS visual damage modelling, the problem with it is that the game was originaly strictly about modern warfare, with no reason to give visual detail to the damage, since a hit from a missile most of the times means you're dead.

On the other hand, I don't know how many of you have seen this, it's a twitch video, by the lead dev of VEAO, showcasing the damage modelling of the upcoming Hawk. It really shows that how much detail they want the DM to have is up to the developers. He, Ells, had a diagram somewhere of the model of the Hawk with the different parts that can get damaged.

http://www.twitch.tv/ells228/b/500255397


Seriously, no one watched the video of the VEAO Hawk module I posted here?

javelina
Jul-03-2014, 12:27
awaiting it... and EDGE... :thumbsup:

Vlerkies
Jul-03-2014, 18:00
Asteroids,,, pew pew pew :)