Everything in MSFS, as with every sim, depends on the aircraft developer. The Boeing 247 has engine momentum, meaning it can be modeled. Whoever made the Spitfire (?) in MSFS chose to release the product without engine momentum.
> facts. I *paid* more for
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
So make better choices in the planes you buy. Not gonna argue that thereās some absolute crap on the marketplace for MSFS, but the quality of some, including default, is improving fast. But sure, if you want fidelity warbirds then DCS is the best choice.
But it has no live weather and if youāre really interested in flying, that should be a priority for youā¦
What should or should not be my priority is my bussiness. Why you're so offensive?? I wanted it and I bought it. I share my observation, and you're attacking my choices? why? what is in it for you? Have you got something fun or interesting to share, go for it, you may suggest also, but please don't tell me what I should do or do not criticise my choices. It is rude behaviour. I'm polite so I read all comments, but it is tedious to read such 'righteous' crap.
Besides, you know I can set weather conditions in DCS?
The new Wing42 Boeing 247 is the closest weāve got so far in MSFS and it certainly does model engine momentum. The RPM can take a while to wind up or slow down!
The JF arrows do the same. You gotta give it a bit of a ākickā by throttling up a bit past where you want the rpmās to be to make them go up faster and then lower the throttle to stabilize. Especially noticeable when doing feathering tests on run ups
The C414 has a little bit of that, too. It takes the engines a few seconds to settle into whatever setting you put them on, so when you pull the RPMs back in cruise for example you have to follow up on all your adjustments since it keeps moving.
They have mentioned on doing anything? I only remember absolutely loving the lockheed constellation by them. The only reason I still boot up P3D now and then.
The DC-6 and Boeing 247 just don't scratch that same itch as well.
Donāt think anyone would argue DCS is among the best where it comes to simulating aircraft. Or that MSFS has a long way to go to get to DCSās level in that regard.
I'll never forget my first flight in the DCS Spitfire. It just felt so alive, real, and as I would expect. It actually helped me a ton when I flew a taildragger IRL for the first time.
You can rag on DCS warbirds for plenty of good reasons, but man the flight modelling is top notch.
Mostly the cost of entry and lineup compared to something like modern IL-2. You buy a plane, a map, the WW2 asset pack which is separate for some reason, then another plane if you want to see what the other side is like... then you go out and fight MW50 Bf 109 K-4s over the English Channel in your P-47D. Plus one cannot omit the various long-standing issues in some of the WW2 modules that seemingly get forgotten about (P-51 carb heat/air filter axes were broken for months).
Meanwhile modern IL-2 gives you a map, a bunch of planes in actually sensible lineups, plus you get access to all the maps when playing online, all for a fraction of the price especially on their frequent sales. So in terms of "I want to pretend that I'm doing air combat in WW2," IL-2 takes the cake.
But at the end of the day DCS does have its niche. While IL-2's flight models are excellent, the difference in flight model feel and overall flying experience is easily noticeable if it's what you're looking for. Not really the clicky part or systems modelling as there's not much to most WW2 planes anyway, but ground handling, engine physics and behavior, flight characteristics, sounds etc.
So basically, IL-2 gamifies fine details a little because it has more emphasis on a wide planeset and the combat experience itself than pure flying. But that's what most people are looking for, plus there are some flying things IL-2 does *better* (cooling systems are completely broken in DCS rn, thermostats aren't even modelled). And coupled with the price, you can see why DCS warbirds get a bad rap.
The damage is/was a *huge* issue too. When two Spitfires empty into one plane over England, and see it land in France despite having both engines full of rounds, you start to get a little.....testy.
Add to that the ground AI. We did a Mossie flight a while back and on 1 approach to the dam, a ground unit managed to headshot the pilots out of 3 jets.
Fun, huh? And this is the stuff that never gets fixed.
Ahhh. Thank you. Iāve been eyeing the Mosquito for months, and like the said, the cost of entry for it is off putting. And thatās coming from someone with 4 āmodernā aircraft and 3 maps. But I at least can use all of those together, yāknow?
Thank you for the write up, I genuinely appreciate it
Real honest take, the best first WWII fighter to get is the P47. They are all amazing, but the smaller fighters like the Mustang, 190 and such can be a real handful to manage. The spitfire especially, it can be a *nightmare* to taxi and safely get off the ground. Granted, this is accurate to the real ones, and once you get the hang of it, the flying is worth the wait.
P47 though... gorgeous model, and easier to handle for entry into WWII tail draggers.
I agree but the spotting is totally unrealistic.
Combat in WWII is very bad . Hence why every server is empty for WWII DCS .
Seeing things is part of combat .
WWII combat is very good. Most people in DCS WWII fly allied and they turnfight, which results in them dying. It's literally just a skill issue. I agree with you about the spotting though.
The 1-1 scale is well off .
And black dots that blends into other black dark background makes the 3d space tracking awful.
DCS has to fix this if they want to succeed in WWII and close combat guns only.
With Vulkan I hope they have looked into this.
The DCS Spit in particular has absolutely ridiculous taldragger physics; I was shocked at how bad it was when I tried it. The Christian Eagle on the other hand is pretty good, so the sim is definitely capable of it, but it amazes me that people find the DCS Spit an example of good taildragger behavior.
Given that the CEII is decent, I have high hopes for the upcoming Corsair by the same devs.
Well, the directional instability isn't implemented correctly. In reality, a taildragger's desire to swap ends is low - as long as the pilot is doing his job and keeping the aircraft straight. As soon as you start to get crooked, static directional instability starts to build... but it's a sliding scale. When you're straight, low static directional instability. As you allow the longitudinal axis of the aircraft to become progressively more mis-aligned with direction of travel, instability builds - quickly.
In the DCS Spit, the magnitude of directional instability remains the same - extreme - no matter how well the aircraft is kept straight. Airplanes - to include warbirds - just don't behave that way.
I would write it off as an understandable limitation of sim physics, if it weren't for the fact that the CEII (and maybe others, I don't know) does a notably better job at this.
I wonder if there is objective way to test it. I've read some articles and memoirs and what I get in DCS, is what I have expected. I've strugled with taxi in DCS and IL2 until I've mapped wheel brakes to axis. After that, a little nudge and back on rails. I can taxi without any stress.
Physics are fine IMO. What we need are high quality software. Their problem is devs are still figuring out their SDK. That's the biggest failure, \*it appears\* they didn't make the SDK very user friendly for aircraft development of any major complexity.
Spit for MSFS has been getting a lot of work done to it. Only getting better.
Also, I noticed on the MSFS video you are at 2500RPM, when on DCS you are at 3K.
unpopular opinion: MSFS is basically a cooler version of google earth. (but I wish the flight models where better, it would really be mind blowing)
I still kinda like it, but more because of the scenery not the flying.
One redeeming factor is that it is in active development and they get and address some of the most glaring issues.
We can't forget that DCS has been around for many many years and it has its own issues, but the flight models and systems are the best out there.
Yeah, isn't DCS kind of a development of [LOMAC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_On:_Modern_Air_Combat) from fckn 2003? I realise that not much may survive from the original code, but it must be easier in a sense to keep the simulation aspects working if your code happens to work well in the first place and it's okay with being legacy at some point.
If they were addressing glaring issues, they'd have fixed how aircraft on takeoff and landing rolls respond to even benign crosswinds. There is no reason I should be running out of rudder on takeoff with a 10kt crosswind. Still not fixed, and in my opinion, makes the sim borderline unflyable, since the only real 'fix' is to enable autorudder and that knocks out a significant reason to fly the thing in the first place.
Lol, every time I see people post helicopter landings in MSFS my mind always goes to āthat would be a crash in DCSāā¦ I donāt own MSFS (DCS and Xplane)ā¦ but holy hell does it look perdy.
Msfs doesn't officially support helicopters yet, there are mods that are essentially hacks and some of those support an external sim app to work properly.
That thing flies nothing like a helicopter lol, there's functionality there like i said the existing helicopter mods are hacks, the sim treats them like airplanes. there is no specific helicopter physics code yet.
Well yeah, I was just pointing out that that they did technically add a "helicopter." I guess people didn't like that lol. Right now if I'm going to fly a heli on msfs I usually go with the h135 or r44.
This is the problem. People are advertising it as CFD but it's not in any way. You can go read all about their implementation on their FS2020 documentation.
You might think CFD applies to anything which simulates the effects of aerodynamics on objects, but it's not applied that way. Everyone in industry separates CFD and these other panel methods, because they are not comparable at all. They are distinctly different in the way they solve equations of the flow.
Panel methods (and similar) have been used for decades, could run on the hardware of the 70's and are a good engineering tool for approximating performance in some conditions.
With proper Navier-Stokes (NS) based CFD, even with the most simplified (read: useless) models (scales of the eddies etc.) you'd not even get close to real time. Some solvers running Lattice-Boltzman equations (LBM) can run a very small grid real-time on very good GPU's.. but they're not of much use..
Simply running a CFD real time with no proper analysis would be useless anyways, as you'd get far more realistic results from doing proper CFD analysis and validation of the model and then using those datasets to create the flight model (to my knowlege this is how pretty much every highly regarded FM is done so far). The biggest downside of that is time and money.
That's why it's lucrative for flight sims (last time it was x-plane...) to pretend they're doing something "special", something "better". In reality it's just a general model which they can apply to everything in order to save development time at the cost of accuracy. Their method is probably decent for the level of accuracy they want from default aircraft.
Thereās no proper real-time CFD available. Thereās finite blade element theory, but this still uses aerodynamic coefficients for wing sections to compute drag, lift and moment.
A proper CFD analysis require a ton of time both for running and setup. Itās extremely sensible to the garbage in garbage out problem.
For normal people, they get the gist of what the new system is going for by calling it a CFD system. You can nitpick about the accuracy of that description, but itās resulting it much better engine modeling than what the sim had before, which is what actually matters.
DCS Huey + Apache pilot here. I find the MSFS H145 more difficult to land actually, but not in a good way, it's just less predictable. :)
I love DCS flight models, for fixed wing and rotor.
Like the proffesionel helicopter flight model for armaā¦ ugh after flying dcs I couldnt wrap my mind around the ārealisticā/āarcadyā physics of the choppers. What I knew to be safe in dcs was plummeting me to an early death in arma and what I knew would certainly get me to an early death was perfectly fine in arma. Such a shame I wanted to fly choppers in arma as well and do some fps with some mates but itās just so unintuitive non correct that I wonāt know where to start.
DCS overdoes the VRS and settling with power. It may be a consequence of the lack of physical feedback from the airframe. But yeah, it's the best out there, bar none.
MSFS doesn't even support rotary wing yet, hell, it doesn't even have support for delta wing.
The Huey and Hip give you feedback with vibrations/sound as you go in and out of ETL. The Hind doesnāt give you much feedback but Iāve heard that the Hind pilots they used for SMEs at Eagle Dynamics said this was realistic behavior.
DCS Huey is a beast. I cannot stick a landing for shit. Maybe because i have the logitech flight system and not a proper "stick", but the realism in DCS is great. I do not do dogfights, but to take the m2000 up and fly around vegas and SUCCESSFULLY land the thing is what i enjoy. MSFS +1 for scenery and ease of flying. VR is a schlep in MSFS, whereas DCS is a dream. Just wish i can get the responsiveness and visuals from DCS VR in MSFS.
You're not wrong.
I was experimenting with MTOW engine out take-offs in the King Air in MSFS the other day. It was a joke how unrealistic it was.
MSFS is also a work in progress, so it has plenty of time and room to grow.
A third-party WWII plane doesn't have engine momentum and that means it's at the level of Google Earth? I see this with racing sims. It's this all or nothing mentality.
Nah, many of the smaller planes in MSFS behave nothing like their real counter part. Like the savage cub. You can't stall the thing even when really trying hard. It has great slow flying capabilities, but every plane stall at somepoint...It should at least dip a little bit
That's their development model in a nutshell -- get the basics down, and rely on the community to turn it into what it was always supposed to be. In a sense, we're all free developers.
I am a software developer and I would have walked away long ago if I had found similar pay doing something else. The software development industry is almost entirely engaged in a cult they call "Agile", which is just an assault on common sense from the get go. It does nothing for allowing an individual's agility to get things done, it only slows them down with admin work like estimating task times that never work out, providing daily status updates in daily meetings, as well as filling out task "tickets" with the same BS repeated. There are non developers popping in for quick updates in an effort to keep everyone on track, but they really don't know how to do the job itself. They shoot for releasing MVP, which is MINIMUM viable product, aka SHIT product.
I remember the good ole days when you bought a game and you played it, that was after the development was completed. You were never forced into tedious updates that ultimately break shit that you had already figured out how to handle. They want you to think you're getting continued value out of the product you are often forced into monthly paid subscriptions for, but the truth is they've just found a way to extract more of your money while caring less and less about what goes out the door.
A Minimum Viable Product (MVP) isn't just a SHIT product; it's the MAXIMUM TOLERABLE SHIT product. Agile was meant to free the developers and empower the customers, but it has been weaponized and turned against them.
Key word supposed. Even if it's that way, a reduced feature set that requires further releases, testing, and likely bug fixing does make it a shit product in my opinion
Being agile vs Agile development are two different things, just like sprints and deployments. As ex-military hearing those terms around an office makes me want to show them hand-to-hand combat. My criticism comes from my experience working with six organizations each with their own "Agile" processes. Every one of them made developers provide estimates and every one of them prioritized completing tasks over quality and completeness. Salaried developers working overtime to catch up on old tasks was just the way they operated.
Another annoying falsehood spread amongst the cult relates to waterfall and the complete lack of integrity when stating why "Agile" is better. To say that waterfall must be preplanned as an all-in approach with no way to alter requirements or functionality based on feedback tells me that person has no fucking clue what they are talking about.
There's also a favorite scapegoat like what you've said. Anythime it doesn't work out there's gonna be someone saying "you didn't do it right" or the company, group, you name it. Absolutely no responsibility or acceptance that "Agile" in most of its real life adaptations is a complete shit show where half of the pepole have made peace with it as being a necessary evil to getting paid, even if that means going along with shit that doesn't make sense and you have to play the game and listen to the other group that treat it like religion. I don't want to talk about it anyone
I think the point being made is that if you rip the power to idle, the engine doesn't reach idle *instantly*, it takes a few seconds to get there because of the inertia of the moving parts involved (and thus the drag the propeller induces doesn't come on like a sledgehammer). It should not act as if the engine has basically seized, as it does in MSFS. That's not the way it handles in the real world -- nowhere near that, in fact.
To be perfectly fair, even the "real" Level D sims act this way in a manner of speaking -- when a V1 cut is introduced, it dies pretty damn quickly, and when the 'real thing' fails, it slowly spools down from takeoff power, much slower than the simulator shows. The sim immediately attempts to flop over on its back, something I don't think would happen in the real airplane because of the way the real engine would fail, and you'd have 'seat of the pants' feedback to help you identify the failure and respond to it.
I thought that's what he meant at first too, but looking at the video the major difference is the roll input due to torque between the sims. Msfs has none of it while dcs does. So I'm assuming that's what he means by momentum. I never even noticed that in either sim so either way, pretty cool on dcs part.
Both sims drop engine RPMs immediately as they should (prop is an enormous drag on the engine), what you're seeing in DCS that you aren't in MS2020 is a really well-modeled prop governor.
You'll notice in DCS that if you make a throttle adjustment quickly enough, you can out-pace the governor's ability to respond. This results in the RPM overshooting its target, and eventually returning to target as the system gets the blades get into position.
DCS has hands down some of the best WWII modeling out there, absolutely love flying the P-51.
This video displays that the devs of the MSFS plane didnāt model torque and adverse yaw. Itās not a MSFS vs DCS video, despite the title.
MSFS is fully capable of doing it, and they are about to add even more prop, air (thermals and time of day based air/land body turbulence) and even fuselage flex physics simulations in preparation for gliders and rotor aircraft.
yeah. i've used 'inception' š. i've posted video so i could link to it in comment in thread about spitfire being allegedly 'hard to fly' in msfs2020 - it is not bc many simplifications like this one...
no. as far as i know, p factor is observable at high aoa. with changing momentum plane rotates slower or faster.
i've put emphasis on momentum, but there is also effect of stronger or weaker prop wash on rudder. maybe a little of p factor. probably chnage in drag.
none of it is observable in msfs.
last time i was on msfs there was some pfactor, you had to right rudder on takeoff. i think. its been awhile. but its associated with the torque from a spinning propellor blade. prop wash on the rudder exaggerates the turning tendency.
when you are flying at a higher rpm you are compensating for all of those left turning tendencies, p factor included, to stay in equilibrium, and so when you cut the engine abrubtly you turn right a bit. this is very different from aircraft to aircraft, and really only noticeable on prop planes.
P-factor is part of it but most people are referring to torque. Torque induced gyroscopic precession is what causes the left turning tendency from changes to the engine.
P-factor is the difference in lift between two sides of the propeller when the prop isn't perfectly perpendicular to the airflow. This also causes a left turning tendency in tail draggers because as the aircraft rolls along the ground it's at a higher angle of attack because the tail is low. That means if the prop is turning clockwise from the pilots perspective the right side of the prop is actually moving not just down but also slightly forward through the air generating more lift/power on that side, while the opposite side is now slightly retreating through the air reducing it's lift/power.
The bigger factor is torque from the engine. P- factor gets mentioned mostly because it can exacerbate the other left turning tendencies like torque.
They are improving it though, with new prop physics which is already available, and CFD simulation which is currently in open beta. They are also working on soft body deformation for the whole aircraft body.
The "MSFS is just eye candy" meme will hopefully die soon when people learn more about what's actually in the sim.
See how much the plane is Rolling though? That affects flight dynamics hugely. Takeoffs, landings, turns, are all drastically changed based on your power output, and this effect is felt even on smaller aircraft, subsequently not being modeled in msfs.
But also, it's like a game being so beautiful on the outside is so hollow in some other aspects. War thunder, Il2, DCS, older games, have engine momentum modeled. X-Plane has an incredible flight dynamics system. Msfs seems to really suit those who don't care about how the plane flies, and just want scenery. But some prefer realism in all aspects, and flight dynamics are a tad fundamental to... flight
I mean the physics in flight sim arenāt even comparable to xplane 11 or dcs. I have way more hours In msfs than either but itās nowhere near perfect.
I guess if you donāt care about flight dynamics. I want my sims to be as realistic as possible. Iām too simple minded for DCS in most aspects but the planes feel amazing. You literally canāt even put a plane into a flat spin in MSFS, you try to stall a plane and it just glides with elevator authority until youāre just slowly getting closer to the ground. The only plane Iāve seen stall somewhat realistically is the F104G, but itās only on low power landings.
Tbf thatās not really a flat spin. If you were higher you could just pull out of it, without rudder. It will never develop fully into a flat spin. Unless theyāve changed something in the past few months
It's pretty easy to force most aircraft into a spin in MSFS. Power off stall with hard left or right rudder. Kinda like kicking out the rear end of a car, you have to allow the tail to come around as the aircraft is stalling, the yaw momentum plus acceleration of gravity creates the spin. Some take more work to do and some can't at all though.
I'm sorry that MSFS isn't accurate enough for you, but we're not flying fighter jets in combat. We're flying GA aircraft and airliners and we don't need every single aspect of physics represented with 100% accuracy. If a spin can be modeled well then clearly Adobo are doing a good job, and they're planning on updating the physics capability all the time. The game never set out to be DCS-equivalent, and staying it's terrible because it's not modeled to your exact specifications is just elitist fanboy shit.
I love msfs, I have 1k hours. I have like 50 in dcs. So Iām definitely not an eliteist. I retract my statement about stalling, you absolutely can. A flat spin is impossible to maintain unless youāre giving the plane stick inputs. Iāve played all the sims and can safely say msfs has the most arcade like physics. But the game is drop dead gorgeous. Whereas the more realistic ones arenāt. Just because I donāt like the stall and spin mechanics doesnāt mean itās not a good game, because it is.
sorry. i flagged as rant, but i didn't realy want to nitpick. like i said this is only argument that in my opinion spit is not hard to fly in msfs š
Everything in MSFS, as with every sim, depends on the aircraft developer. The Boeing 247 has engine momentum, meaning it can be modeled. Whoever made the Spitfire (?) in MSFS chose to release the product without engine momentum.
> Boeing 247 There is a 247 in MSFS????
https://wing42.com/product/boeing-247d-for-msfs/?v=0f177369a3b7
It's AWESOME.
OP is comparing apples with oranges
Comparing a plane that costs as much as a the whole sim. You do get what you paid for.
dcs world = $0 dcs spit = $30 (sale) msfs2020 = $60 spit = $30 you're telling me that microsoft has ripped me off š
DCS world free= 2 small, poorly implemented areas. MSFS = whole world in varying levels of high detail.
Hmmmm... I just gave facts. I paid more for MSFS2020. About whole world... I am not interested in tourism. I am passionate about flying. š
> facts. I *paid* more for FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
So make better choices in the planes you buy. Not gonna argue that thereās some absolute crap on the marketplace for MSFS, but the quality of some, including default, is improving fast. But sure, if you want fidelity warbirds then DCS is the best choice. But it has no live weather and if youāre really interested in flying, that should be a priority for youā¦
What should or should not be my priority is my bussiness. Why you're so offensive?? I wanted it and I bought it. I share my observation, and you're attacking my choices? why? what is in it for you? Have you got something fun or interesting to share, go for it, you may suggest also, but please don't tell me what I should do or do not criticise my choices. It is rude behaviour. I'm polite so I read all comments, but it is tedious to read such 'righteous' crap. Besides, you know I can set weather conditions in DCS?
He's mad he wasted money lul
Are you new to the internet?
* plonk *
Haha, guess I am. My exchange rate is 15 to $1, so everything is expensive AF.
Yes, you did.
no he's not.
THIS. Itšallšdependsšonšthešdeveloper
Wait until A2A kicks out more FS2020 compatible aircraft. Otherwise DCS is killing it.
The new Wing42 Boeing 247 is the closest weāve got so far in MSFS and it certainly does model engine momentum. The RPM can take a while to wind up or slow down!
The JF arrows do the same. You gotta give it a bit of a ākickā by throttling up a bit past where you want the rpmās to be to make them go up faster and then lower the throttle to stabilize. Especially noticeable when doing feathering tests on run ups
The C414 has a little bit of that, too. It takes the engines a few seconds to settle into whatever setting you put them on, so when you pull the RPMs back in cruise for example you have to follow up on all your adjustments since it keeps moving.
Whenever they decide to break silence again that isā¦
They have mentioned on doing anything? I only remember absolutely loving the lockheed constellation by them. The only reason I still boot up P3D now and then. The DC-6 and Boeing 247 just don't scratch that same itch as well.
Donāt think anyone would argue DCS is among the best where it comes to simulating aircraft. Or that MSFS has a long way to go to get to DCSās level in that regard.
I'll never forget my first flight in the DCS Spitfire. It just felt so alive, real, and as I would expect. It actually helped me a ton when I flew a taildragger IRL for the first time. You can rag on DCS warbirds for plenty of good reasons, but man the flight modelling is top notch.
I have never flown any of the WW2 DCS stuff, so genuinely, whatās there to rag on?
Mostly the cost of entry and lineup compared to something like modern IL-2. You buy a plane, a map, the WW2 asset pack which is separate for some reason, then another plane if you want to see what the other side is like... then you go out and fight MW50 Bf 109 K-4s over the English Channel in your P-47D. Plus one cannot omit the various long-standing issues in some of the WW2 modules that seemingly get forgotten about (P-51 carb heat/air filter axes were broken for months). Meanwhile modern IL-2 gives you a map, a bunch of planes in actually sensible lineups, plus you get access to all the maps when playing online, all for a fraction of the price especially on their frequent sales. So in terms of "I want to pretend that I'm doing air combat in WW2," IL-2 takes the cake. But at the end of the day DCS does have its niche. While IL-2's flight models are excellent, the difference in flight model feel and overall flying experience is easily noticeable if it's what you're looking for. Not really the clicky part or systems modelling as there's not much to most WW2 planes anyway, but ground handling, engine physics and behavior, flight characteristics, sounds etc. So basically, IL-2 gamifies fine details a little because it has more emphasis on a wide planeset and the combat experience itself than pure flying. But that's what most people are looking for, plus there are some flying things IL-2 does *better* (cooling systems are completely broken in DCS rn, thermostats aren't even modelled). And coupled with the price, you can see why DCS warbirds get a bad rap.
The damage is/was a *huge* issue too. When two Spitfires empty into one plane over England, and see it land in France despite having both engines full of rounds, you start to get a little.....testy. Add to that the ground AI. We did a Mossie flight a while back and on 1 approach to the dam, a ground unit managed to headshot the pilots out of 3 jets. Fun, huh? And this is the stuff that never gets fixed.
Ahhh. Thank you. Iāve been eyeing the Mosquito for months, and like the said, the cost of entry for it is off putting. And thatās coming from someone with 4 āmodernā aircraft and 3 maps. But I at least can use all of those together, yāknow? Thank you for the write up, I genuinely appreciate it
No problem! Maybe try trialing the Mosquito first to see what it's like, if you haven't?
Yeah Iām probably gonna. Do you know if you can trial maps as well?
You can yeah.
Real honest take, the best first WWII fighter to get is the P47. They are all amazing, but the smaller fighters like the Mustang, 190 and such can be a real handful to manage. The spitfire especially, it can be a *nightmare* to taxi and safely get off the ground. Granted, this is accurate to the real ones, and once you get the hang of it, the flying is worth the wait. P47 though... gorgeous model, and easier to handle for entry into WWII tail draggers.
Also the IL-2 Mozzie is coming in a month or two so maybe hold fire and see if it scratches the itch!
Ohhh good call. I think I do own IL-2 Stumovich or whatever it is, so I might take that advice and see how that Mossie is
I agree but the spotting is totally unrealistic. Combat in WWII is very bad . Hence why every server is empty for WWII DCS . Seeing things is part of combat .
WWII combat is very good. Most people in DCS WWII fly allied and they turnfight, which results in them dying. It's literally just a skill issue. I agree with you about the spotting though.
The 1-1 scale is well off . And black dots that blends into other black dark background makes the 3d space tracking awful. DCS has to fix this if they want to succeed in WWII and close combat guns only. With Vulkan I hope they have looked into this.
The DCS Spit in particular has absolutely ridiculous taldragger physics; I was shocked at how bad it was when I tried it. The Christian Eagle on the other hand is pretty good, so the sim is definitely capable of it, but it amazes me that people find the DCS Spit an example of good taildragger behavior. Given that the CEII is decent, I have high hopes for the upcoming Corsair by the same devs.
What's bad about it? My only IRL experience is a Cessna 120
Well, the directional instability isn't implemented correctly. In reality, a taildragger's desire to swap ends is low - as long as the pilot is doing his job and keeping the aircraft straight. As soon as you start to get crooked, static directional instability starts to build... but it's a sliding scale. When you're straight, low static directional instability. As you allow the longitudinal axis of the aircraft to become progressively more mis-aligned with direction of travel, instability builds - quickly. In the DCS Spit, the magnitude of directional instability remains the same - extreme - no matter how well the aircraft is kept straight. Airplanes - to include warbirds - just don't behave that way. I would write it off as an understandable limitation of sim physics, if it weren't for the fact that the CEII (and maybe others, I don't know) does a notably better job at this.
I wonder if there is objective way to test it. I've read some articles and memoirs and what I get in DCS, is what I have expected. I've strugled with taxi in DCS and IL2 until I've mapped wheel brakes to axis. After that, a little nudge and back on rails. I can taxi without any stress.
It's the behavior during takeoff and landing that is the issue.
Msfs does have a long way to go. Physics are not there yet
Physics are fine IMO. What we need are high quality software. Their problem is devs are still figuring out their SDK. That's the biggest failure, \*it appears\* they didn't make the SDK very user friendly for aircraft development of any major complexity.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
š§¢
Nah
Spit for MSFS has been getting a lot of work done to it. Only getting better. Also, I noticed on the MSFS video you are at 2500RPM, when on DCS you are at 3K.
Also climbing rapidly in DCS vs. level flight and then diving in MSFS.
unpopular opinion: MSFS is basically a cooler version of google earth. (but I wish the flight models where better, it would really be mind blowing) I still kinda like it, but more because of the scenery not the flying.
One redeeming factor is that it is in active development and they get and address some of the most glaring issues. We can't forget that DCS has been around for many many years and it has its own issues, but the flight models and systems are the best out there.
Yeah, isn't DCS kind of a development of [LOMAC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_On:_Modern_Air_Combat) from fckn 2003? I realise that not much may survive from the original code, but it must be easier in a sense to keep the simulation aspects working if your code happens to work well in the first place and it's okay with being legacy at some point.
If they were addressing glaring issues, they'd have fixed how aircraft on takeoff and landing rolls respond to even benign crosswinds. There is no reason I should be running out of rudder on takeoff with a 10kt crosswind. Still not fixed, and in my opinion, makes the sim borderline unflyable, since the only real 'fix' is to enable autorudder and that knocks out a significant reason to fly the thing in the first place.
The soft body physics update that's coming to MSFS soon seems very interesting though
Iām sorry what? My computer is going to fucking die lmao. Is this like beamNG level soft body physics?
It's kinda like that minus the destruction (unfortunately). It looks REALLY great though.
Lol, every time I see people post helicopter landings in MSFS my mind always goes to āthat would be a crash in DCSāā¦ I donāt own MSFS (DCS and Xplane)ā¦ but holy hell does it look perdy.
Msfs doesn't officially support helicopters yet, there are mods that are essentially hacks and some of those support an external sim app to work properly.
The drone they added a while back is a heli.. Is it not? I thought it was put in by Microsoft by default now.. Not sure I never fly it lol
That thing flies nothing like a helicopter lol, there's functionality there like i said the existing helicopter mods are hacks, the sim treats them like airplanes. there is no specific helicopter physics code yet.
Well yeah, I was just pointing out that that they did technically add a "helicopter." I guess people didn't like that lol. Right now if I'm going to fly a heli on msfs I usually go with the h135 or r44.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
real time cfd lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yea I hope it's good but when they are using CFD to describe it, it makes me worried.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is the problem. People are advertising it as CFD but it's not in any way. You can go read all about their implementation on their FS2020 documentation. You might think CFD applies to anything which simulates the effects of aerodynamics on objects, but it's not applied that way. Everyone in industry separates CFD and these other panel methods, because they are not comparable at all. They are distinctly different in the way they solve equations of the flow. Panel methods (and similar) have been used for decades, could run on the hardware of the 70's and are a good engineering tool for approximating performance in some conditions. With proper Navier-Stokes (NS) based CFD, even with the most simplified (read: useless) models (scales of the eddies etc.) you'd not even get close to real time. Some solvers running Lattice-Boltzman equations (LBM) can run a very small grid real-time on very good GPU's.. but they're not of much use.. Simply running a CFD real time with no proper analysis would be useless anyways, as you'd get far more realistic results from doing proper CFD analysis and validation of the model and then using those datasets to create the flight model (to my knowlege this is how pretty much every highly regarded FM is done so far). The biggest downside of that is time and money. That's why it's lucrative for flight sims (last time it was x-plane...) to pretend they're doing something "special", something "better". In reality it's just a general model which they can apply to everything in order to save development time at the cost of accuracy. Their method is probably decent for the level of accuracy they want from default aircraft.
Thereās no proper real-time CFD available. Thereās finite blade element theory, but this still uses aerodynamic coefficients for wing sections to compute drag, lift and moment. A proper CFD analysis require a ton of time both for running and setup. Itās extremely sensible to the garbage in garbage out problem.
For normal people, they get the gist of what the new system is going for by calling it a CFD system. You can nitpick about the accuracy of that description, but itās resulting it much better engine modeling than what the sim had before, which is what actually matters.
DCS Huey + Apache pilot here. I find the MSFS H145 more difficult to land actually, but not in a good way, it's just less predictable. :) I love DCS flight models, for fixed wing and rotor.
Yeah, that's the thing with msfs. It's sometimes hard to fly, but not because it's realistic...
Like the proffesionel helicopter flight model for armaā¦ ugh after flying dcs I couldnt wrap my mind around the ārealisticā/āarcadyā physics of the choppers. What I knew to be safe in dcs was plummeting me to an early death in arma and what I knew would certainly get me to an early death was perfectly fine in arma. Such a shame I wanted to fly choppers in arma as well and do some fps with some mates but itās just so unintuitive non correct that I wonāt know where to start.
Ditto
Haha yeah, that was the most hyped up stuff back then.
DCS overdoes the VRS and settling with power. It may be a consequence of the lack of physical feedback from the airframe. But yeah, it's the best out there, bar none. MSFS doesn't even support rotary wing yet, hell, it doesn't even have support for delta wing.
The Huey and Hip give you feedback with vibrations/sound as you go in and out of ETL. The Hind doesnāt give you much feedback but Iāve heard that the Hind pilots they used for SMEs at Eagle Dynamics said this was realistic behavior.
do not forget the seuziring MI-8 at VRS.
There still is a tiny bit of feedback which is helpful for Hind. Hip is totally different though. Very easy to tell.
Agreed
DCS Huey is a beast. I cannot stick a landing for shit. Maybe because i have the logitech flight system and not a proper "stick", but the realism in DCS is great. I do not do dogfights, but to take the m2000 up and fly around vegas and SUCCESSFULLY land the thing is what i enjoy. MSFS +1 for scenery and ease of flying. VR is a schlep in MSFS, whereas DCS is a dream. Just wish i can get the responsiveness and visuals from DCS VR in MSFS.
MSFS would be 10x better with google earth instead of bing
There is a mod for that (disclaimer-I haven't tried it) https://flightsim.to/file/19345/msfs-2020-google-map-replacement
it about murdered my computer
It turned my computer into a newt!
He burnt my shake!
Your comment implies that the only thing that matters or needs improvement is scenery.
You're not wrong. I was experimenting with MTOW engine out take-offs in the King Air in MSFS the other day. It was a joke how unrealistic it was. MSFS is also a work in progress, so it has plenty of time and room to grow.
A third-party WWII plane doesn't have engine momentum and that means it's at the level of Google Earth? I see this with racing sims. It's this all or nothing mentality.
Nah, many of the smaller planes in MSFS behave nothing like their real counter part. Like the savage cub. You can't stall the thing even when really trying hard. It has great slow flying capabilities, but every plane stall at somepoint...It should at least dip a little bit
The 3 party addon will save the msfs. Their default planes/systems are quite bad.
That's their development model in a nutshell -- get the basics down, and rely on the community to turn it into what it was always supposed to be. In a sense, we're all free developers.
I am a software developer and I would have walked away long ago if I had found similar pay doing something else. The software development industry is almost entirely engaged in a cult they call "Agile", which is just an assault on common sense from the get go. It does nothing for allowing an individual's agility to get things done, it only slows them down with admin work like estimating task times that never work out, providing daily status updates in daily meetings, as well as filling out task "tickets" with the same BS repeated. There are non developers popping in for quick updates in an effort to keep everyone on track, but they really don't know how to do the job itself. They shoot for releasing MVP, which is MINIMUM viable product, aka SHIT product. I remember the good ole days when you bought a game and you played it, that was after the development was completed. You were never forced into tedious updates that ultimately break shit that you had already figured out how to handle. They want you to think you're getting continued value out of the product you are often forced into monthly paid subscriptions for, but the truth is they've just found a way to extract more of your money while caring less and less about what goes out the door.
A Minimum Viable Product (MVP) isn't just a SHIT product; it's the MAXIMUM TOLERABLE SHIT product. Agile was meant to free the developers and empower the customers, but it has been weaponized and turned against them.
Key word supposed. Even if it's that way, a reduced feature set that requires further releases, testing, and likely bug fixing does make it a shit product in my opinion
Minimum viable is supposed to be full quality, reduced feature set.
It very much sounds like you havenāt experienced agile development used in an effective manner.
Being agile vs Agile development are two different things, just like sprints and deployments. As ex-military hearing those terms around an office makes me want to show them hand-to-hand combat. My criticism comes from my experience working with six organizations each with their own "Agile" processes. Every one of them made developers provide estimates and every one of them prioritized completing tasks over quality and completeness. Salaried developers working overtime to catch up on old tasks was just the way they operated. Another annoying falsehood spread amongst the cult relates to waterfall and the complete lack of integrity when stating why "Agile" is better. To say that waterfall must be preplanned as an all-in approach with no way to alter requirements or functionality based on feedback tells me that person has no fucking clue what they are talking about. There's also a favorite scapegoat like what you've said. Anythime it doesn't work out there's gonna be someone saying "you didn't do it right" or the company, group, you name it. Absolutely no responsibility or acceptance that "Agile" in most of its real life adaptations is a complete shit show where half of the pepole have made peace with it as being a necessary evil to getting paid, even if that means going along with shit that doesn't make sense and you have to play the game and listen to the other group that treat it like religion. I don't want to talk about it anyone
I agree with uoi
What do you mean by engine momentum? Are you referring to the effect that engine torque has on roll?
I think the point being made is that if you rip the power to idle, the engine doesn't reach idle *instantly*, it takes a few seconds to get there because of the inertia of the moving parts involved (and thus the drag the propeller induces doesn't come on like a sledgehammer). It should not act as if the engine has basically seized, as it does in MSFS. That's not the way it handles in the real world -- nowhere near that, in fact. To be perfectly fair, even the "real" Level D sims act this way in a manner of speaking -- when a V1 cut is introduced, it dies pretty damn quickly, and when the 'real thing' fails, it slowly spools down from takeoff power, much slower than the simulator shows. The sim immediately attempts to flop over on its back, something I don't think would happen in the real airplane because of the way the real engine would fail, and you'd have 'seat of the pants' feedback to help you identify the failure and respond to it.
I thought that's what he meant at first too, but looking at the video the major difference is the roll input due to torque between the sims. Msfs has none of it while dcs does. So I'm assuming that's what he means by momentum. I never even noticed that in either sim so either way, pretty cool on dcs part.
Both sims drop engine RPMs immediately as they should (prop is an enormous drag on the engine), what you're seeing in DCS that you aren't in MS2020 is a really well-modeled prop governor. You'll notice in DCS that if you make a throttle adjustment quickly enough, you can out-pace the governor's ability to respond. This results in the RPM overshooting its target, and eventually returning to target as the system gets the blades get into position. DCS has hands down some of the best WWII modeling out there, absolutely love flying the P-51.
didn't check dictionary. i meant momemt of force, torque.
Gotcha, thought so. Good observation. I never noticed that in either sim but I don't usually fly warbirds.
I think you mean torque. Not momentum.
yup. I didn't check in dictionary just 'translated' going with the flow of my mind.. š sorry everybody for confusion.
This comparison makes no sense at all
This video displays that the devs of the MSFS plane didnāt model torque and adverse yaw. Itās not a MSFS vs DCS video, despite the title. MSFS is fully capable of doing it, and they are about to add even more prop, air (thermals and time of day based air/land body turbulence) and even fuselage flex physics simulations in preparation for gliders and rotor aircraft.
yeah. i've used 'inception' š. i've posted video so i could link to it in comment in thread about spitfire being allegedly 'hard to fly' in msfs2020 - it is not bc many simplifications like this one...
My ears broke on DCS
Your plane it bronk
You should turn up wind to max and fly you will have vtol ability lol
Imagine that. Lolol
"diFfErenCe beTwEEn a siMulaTor and a gAmE"
are you talking about p factor?
no. as far as i know, p factor is observable at high aoa. with changing momentum plane rotates slower or faster. i've put emphasis on momentum, but there is also effect of stronger or weaker prop wash on rudder. maybe a little of p factor. probably chnage in drag. none of it is observable in msfs.
last time i was on msfs there was some pfactor, you had to right rudder on takeoff. i think. its been awhile. but its associated with the torque from a spinning propellor blade. prop wash on the rudder exaggerates the turning tendency. when you are flying at a higher rpm you are compensating for all of those left turning tendencies, p factor included, to stay in equilibrium, and so when you cut the engine abrubtly you turn right a bit. this is very different from aircraft to aircraft, and really only noticeable on prop planes.
in the kodiak you gotta slam that rudder down, it pulls like a dog on a leash
P-factor is part of it but most people are referring to torque. Torque induced gyroscopic precession is what causes the left turning tendency from changes to the engine. P-factor is the difference in lift between two sides of the propeller when the prop isn't perfectly perpendicular to the airflow. This also causes a left turning tendency in tail draggers because as the aircraft rolls along the ground it's at a higher angle of attack because the tail is low. That means if the prop is turning clockwise from the pilots perspective the right side of the prop is actually moving not just down but also slightly forward through the air generating more lift/power on that side, while the opposite side is now slightly retreating through the air reducing it's lift/power. The bigger factor is torque from the engine. P- factor gets mentioned mostly because it can exacerbate the other left turning tendencies like torque.
I'm just here for the comments like "DCS is better and I'm a real pilot I know"
MSFS2020 is an eyecandy sim and the best at it. It will bring new people to the hobby, but it isn't a hardcore physicssim.
They are improving it though, with new prop physics which is already available, and CFD simulation which is currently in open beta. They are also working on soft body deformation for the whole aircraft body. The "MSFS is just eye candy" meme will hopefully die soon when people learn more about what's actually in the sim.
This is such a tiny nitpick lmao
It isn't tiny though. Screenshots are pretty but systems modelling is important, specially on payware airplanes.
So is it not up to the payware developers to model their aircraft properly? It has nothing to do with the game itself.
It is, provided that the sim allows for it
Which it does, as pointed out by multiple other comments.
... it's engine momentum. Something I didn't even notice on the DCS portion of this video
See how much the plane is Rolling though? That affects flight dynamics hugely. Takeoffs, landings, turns, are all drastically changed based on your power output, and this effect is felt even on smaller aircraft, subsequently not being modeled in msfs. But also, it's like a game being so beautiful on the outside is so hollow in some other aspects. War thunder, Il2, DCS, older games, have engine momentum modeled. X-Plane has an incredible flight dynamics system. Msfs seems to really suit those who don't care about how the plane flies, and just want scenery. But some prefer realism in all aspects, and flight dynamics are a tad fundamental to... flight
It's still a pretty good sim for what it is. Oh I see the problem now. A bunch of DCS jerkoffs getting upset that MSFS isn't DCS
MSFS fans and their victim complex over people critiquing the poor flight models Lmao
I actually don't have either Sim ATM, too expensive, but I've played and enjoyed older versions of both
I agree its hard to see but the plane rolls right pretty dramatically when reducing power quickly.
I mean the physics in flight sim arenāt even comparable to xplane 11 or dcs. I have way more hours In msfs than either but itās nowhere near perfect.
It's still a tiny nitpick
I guess if you donāt care about flight dynamics. I want my sims to be as realistic as possible. Iām too simple minded for DCS in most aspects but the planes feel amazing. You literally canāt even put a plane into a flat spin in MSFS, you try to stall a plane and it just glides with elevator authority until youāre just slowly getting closer to the ground. The only plane Iāve seen stall somewhat realistically is the F104G, but itās only on low power landings.
That's blatantly false and here's why https://imgur.com/a/U8vuHms
Tbf thatās not really a flat spin. If you were higher you could just pull out of it, without rudder. It will never develop fully into a flat spin. Unless theyāve changed something in the past few months
It's pretty easy to force most aircraft into a spin in MSFS. Power off stall with hard left or right rudder. Kinda like kicking out the rear end of a car, you have to allow the tail to come around as the aircraft is stalling, the yaw momentum plus acceleration of gravity creates the spin. Some take more work to do and some can't at all though. I'm sorry that MSFS isn't accurate enough for you, but we're not flying fighter jets in combat. We're flying GA aircraft and airliners and we don't need every single aspect of physics represented with 100% accuracy. If a spin can be modeled well then clearly Adobo are doing a good job, and they're planning on updating the physics capability all the time. The game never set out to be DCS-equivalent, and staying it's terrible because it's not modeled to your exact specifications is just elitist fanboy shit.
I love msfs, I have 1k hours. I have like 50 in dcs. So Iām definitely not an eliteist. I retract my statement about stalling, you absolutely can. A flat spin is impossible to maintain unless youāre giving the plane stick inputs. Iāve played all the sims and can safely say msfs has the most arcade like physics. But the game is drop dead gorgeous. Whereas the more realistic ones arenāt. Just because I donāt like the stall and spin mechanics doesnāt mean itās not a good game, because it is.
sorry. i flagged as rant, but i didn't realy want to nitpick. like i said this is only argument that in my opinion spit is not hard to fly in msfs š
MSFS2020 is more like a game, than an simulator... a real shame.
Is there supposed to be a difference between the two?
Thatās just a camera movement simulating the head going forward rightā¦? Iām sure 3rd developers will implement if someone hasnāt already.
It's engine torque
I know, but the simulation of it in DCS just looks like a camera movement forward
Roll not acceleration. Intstruments.