IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad Discussion

Started by Grim.Reaper, December 28, 2013, 06:51:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MengJiao

Quote from: RyanE on July 22, 2018, 06:09:59 PM
But your example is a modern plane.  I am wondering about WW2 planes as a direct comparison.  For example, is engine start or management any more complex or realistic in any of the three?  Or does the the complexity even matter?

  I think most of the complexity adds nothing to the immersion or realism.  In reality in 1940, Saunders took off in a Blenheim at night to escape from France with an unknown extra load of passengers and he'd never flown a Blenheim or any two-engine plane and could not find the prop pitch control in the dark.

  Similarly, I can take off in BoX without much trouble if I cut back on the "realism" settings and that seems reasonable.  DCS has more settings to mess with and CLoD has the second most and BoX seems like the most reasonable (with fewer settings) and possibly the most realistic.   

MengJiao

Quote from: RyanE on July 22, 2018, 06:19:49 PM
OK, that's a start.  But what is more complex?  Is it because its a P-51 in general?  Is the ME-109 more complex in DCS than in BOS?

  Hard to say.  The 109 in DCs is the K version and in BOx the G14 is the most advanced 109.  BOX has more versions of the 109 and that suggests some good sim work and not too much wasted complexity...ie that the complexity that there is is worth the effort in terms of distinguishing aircraft types.

RyanE

I have tried a 109 in both CLOD and in BOX.  What I found is the main difference on start up is that CLOD has a clickable set of switches, vs. BOX is only through key binds.  If I am in expert mode, I see a similar process process to start the engine in BOX vs. CLOD.  What I did notice through a mistake is that if I miss a step in CLOD, the engine seems to start anyway.  Seems like more a procedural placebo.

I could be wrong on all accounts.  I have never used complex start up on any sim.  And, frankly, complexity of engine start up is maybe 10 on my list of how I view realism in a sim.

Tuna

Quote from: RyanE on July 22, 2018, 06:19:49 PM
OK, that's a start.  But what is more complex?  Is it because its a P-51 in general?  Is the ME-109 more complex in DCS than in BOS?

In BoS, you just hit E? After start you might make adjustments on BoS panes with RPMs and cooling.. watching pressure.. But I think DCS is a lot more realistic.. i.e you can't just hit E.

RyanE

I think so, as far as the E goes.  It does go through the sequence.  So my question is it that much more realistic?  What effect does the complexity have?

I know in BOX, you have to make some adjustments before the E.  ANd then you hit the E.  If your intial settings aren't right, you have to stand down for a short time until a restart is allowed.  That is the depth of my knowledge.

Toonces

Honestly, if you (we) want to discuss which game is a better "sim" it is important to qualify what is being simulated, and why it is better. 

I know we sort of skip that part of the discussion in our desire to just debate the merits of one game vs. another, but it's an important aspect.

There was a brilliant post about this a long time ago on SimHQ.  I doubt I could find it now...maybe I'll try.  It was by the guy who created that Yankee Air Pirate add-on for Thirdwire's Wings over Vietnam.  The gist of it was that while a certain amount of systems fidelity is necessary in a combat flight sim, there is a point at which it doesn't add as much to the simulation of a pilot's decision-making in combat. 

I don't play BoX, DCS WW2, or IL-2 Tank Commander, so I can't comment on specifics.  But using two WW1 simulations I do play as a comparison, Rise of Flight and Wings over Flanders Fields, a common observation is that RoF is better at simulating the mechanics of flying a WW1 aircraft, while WoFF is better at simulating flying a WW1 aircraft in a war.  It's a pretty powerful observation.  One can argue either is the better simulator, but without qualification I think it's hard to debate the statement.

Perhaps why a simple answer to you question is somewhat elusive.  I mean, I find DCS to be remarkable in its simulation of its aircraft, but it doesn't give me nearly the satisfaction of the simulation of flying a fighter in a war like Falcon 4.  Which is the better simulation?  That depends...what are you trying to simulate?
"If you had a chance, right now, to go back in time and stop Hitler, wouldn't you do it?  I mean, I personally wouldn't stop him because I think he's awesome." - Eric Cartman

"Does a watch list mean you are being watched or is it a come on to Toonces?" - Biggs

Toonces

"If you had a chance, right now, to go back in time and stop Hitler, wouldn't you do it?  I mean, I personally wouldn't stop him because I think he's awesome." - Eric Cartman

"Does a watch list mean you are being watched or is it a come on to Toonces?" - Biggs

RyanE

Thanks for that.  I wasn't looking for a definitive answer.  I just saw some comments about one sim being more realistic than another.  I was curious what answers I would get.  I got a couple good answers about why people feel the way they do.

I just  find it interesting that people have a hard time defining why they think one sim is more realistic than another.

Toonces

Me too.  I hear that frequently, "Sim X is more realistic!"  Realistic at simulating what?  It makes a difference.

A very brief war story:  When I flew P-3s, we had two different simulators we would use.  One was a full mock up of a P-3 cockpit, with full motion and everything else.  But the graphics were like playing MS Flight Simulator from about 1995...and it only had night...and only part of the world simulated.  I remember flying it one day on a pilot trainer, taking off out of Kaneohe and flying an approach into HNL....only to find that HNL, the biggest airport in the islands, simply wasn't there.  It wasn't in the database.  Realistic?  But the systems, the weather modeling, turbulence, physical sensations on the controls...all very much just like the real airplane.

The second simulator was the tube part of the simulator where all of the crew stations were simulated.  Theoretically you could like the cockpit with the tube (they were in different parts of the building) and fly a full ASW mission.  At night.  With virtually no graphics.  But, usually for an ASW trainer, the crew would go into their part and the pilots would sit at a console with little paddle wheels like an old Atari controller, and some instruments for speed, altimeter, artificial horizon, etc.  And we be sitting there in our desk chairs with no representation of the outside world at all, in the air conditioning, just dialing the little paddle to bank the plane, or setting airspeed and altitude on the autopilot input.  It provided the pilots with the geometry and timing problem of hunting a sub, and provided the same problems to the TACCO in back, but was it a realistic simulator? 

Well...realistic at what?  At hunting a sub with a full crew?  Or realistic at flying a P-3?

"If you had a chance, right now, to go back in time and stop Hitler, wouldn't you do it?  I mean, I personally wouldn't stop him because I think he's awesome." - Eric Cartman

"Does a watch list mean you are being watched or is it a come on to Toonces?" - Biggs

Destraex

#384
Got my butt kicked by Jason Williams (a dev moderator for il2?) while trying to explain and understand views on infantry in the new tank crew module that we have been discussing here. I think he "heard" me :P
https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/38036-a-few-important-questions-about-tank-crew/

"Then don't buy it and stop trying to discourage others from enjoying it. You want infantry. Heard you. Next.



Jason"

Happened to see this today as well. When I see how he talks and his general mannerism and put the voice to the text. It seems much more palatable.
"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"

Destraex

Quote from: RyanE on July 22, 2018, 08:09:06 PM
Thanks for that.  I wasn't looking for a definitive answer.  I just saw some comments about one sim being more realistic than another.  I was curious what answers I would get.  I got a couple good answers about why people feel the way they do.

I just  find it interesting that people have a hard time defining why they think one sim is more realistic than another.

Ryan. Generally when I say realism with regard to il2 or DCS I mean the technical aspect. The flight model and how complex it is. How many damage points are on an aircraft and how well bullets are modelled when they hit the aircraft. Whether the air affects them in flight. How an aircraft reacts to getting hit. for instance if a particular system is hit, no matter how small. Does the simulator model that system to begin with and does it have a damage model routine for the system getting affected.
Another aspect is the way the airflow and weather, wind currents etc are modelled not only off the perfectly good aircraft but a damaged one. DCS goes to extreme lengths to model weather and aerodynamic effects, where lesser or older simulators only have a very few simple models and points that affect the aircraft.

Some simulators (including DCS lower flight models) use scripting for events rather than real physics modelling that happens dynamically and in real time. So say the air from a storm hits the wing hard. Instead of modelling airflow at that point with a physics interaction and calculating it in real time then having an effect. A script will be run. Meaning that a set reaction will happen according to some lines of code saying "wing hit = bump 1mm". A canned reaction if you will. This may not matter to you or you might not even notice. But to some of us it really feels different.

Then of course you have simulators which pick and choose what systems they consider important enough to model at all. That is part of the reason DCS with it's clickable cockpits is hard to create. Because then the player notices when buttons do not do anything if any systems are not modelled.

For all intents and purposes modelling the aircraft handling slightly differently when out of ammunition and theirfore lighter probably won't matter to a lot of people. But it's all part of that complex layering of multiple simulation systems (weather models, airframe models, physical affect modelling, damage modelling, system modelling etc) interacting together and how well they do it. How much detail the developer puts into each aircraft and whether the models are superior to other sims or whether every aircraft in that simulator has those models applied.

For me DCS has the best mix of realism while having enough variety in aircraft and scenery plus AI aircraft to be a viable combat simulator. il2 has pushed out a lot more a lot faster and on reputation and from what I have seen especially at release when people were comparing it to CLOD. Apparently at least at that time. I remember reading how the damage models and points of damage, especially with the engine I think??? Were a lot simpler back then. Also il2 went backwards to dx9 where clod was dx11 back then.... I have no idea if they have revised and introduced newer more DCS models these days.
"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"

Destraex

Another aspect is the flight curves that are used. Some engines are less smooth because the dots on the flight curves are at longer intervals, making flight feel less smooth or just missing some flight characteristics of that aircraft b cause of it. When I last compared the two. Dcs just felt a lot more like the aircraft was alive and that I could feel the tactile feedback. Problem with dcs is that for ww2 it does not have that many aircraft to fly.

I guess the question for me is. Could I fly the aircraft if I played the simulator for long enough? For that a clickable cockpit is something that is desirable and for me is a major difference between the two.
"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"

Destraex

I think by the way. That DCS when it comes to ww2 aircraft may lag behind il2bos in some aspects as it's a bit newer. I also just like the look of dcs and that it has tinitus settings. Some still swear by the older original il2. Preferring that to BOS. I tell you what makes a sim for me these days though. This will make you laugh. The ability to clearly see enemy aircraft. Dcs has a mode that makes aircraft draw bigger at distance because they know that drawing 1 pixel on the screen at x distance does not cut it. You think of how clear aircraft are to see at distance looking from the ground and compare that to a sim. Generally it's much harder to see them clearly at distance as they turn them into single black pixels.
"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"

Skoop

#388
Have you flown the latest versions of BOX ?  I would say BOX is ahead of everything vs DCS WWII.  I don't think clickable cockpits matter until your in modern aircraft or your doing 737s in prepare.  It's a waist that I even have dcs WWII.  I'll probably end up flying the WOFF WWII sim before I spend much time with DCS WWII.  Now if DCS makes that AI B-17 Flyable with multicrew capable, now we're talking about time worthiness.

Destraex

Skip no I have not played it lately because of my ears. But your point goes to my point about tank crew. Put infantry in and you probably have me. As for il2bx being better than dcs for ww2. Can you explain why in detail without referring just to the sheer amount of content they have pumped out?
"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"