I agree with the point of WT has allowed me to learn so much about the dynamics in dogfights. For as many problems WT has, and for however disgusting Gaijin's business model is. WT will forever remain as the game that brought me into flight sims AND the world of aviation. I'll add something else to the favour of WT: it is the only game on the market that allows someone to experience combat flight sim in a relatively realistic environment AND being able to execute maneuvers without having to invest hundreds of dollars for a sim gear first. That first taste of flying has been bringing people consistently into this niche genre of flight sim. Think about how many people we have played with in DCS and IL-2 started in WT. This should say enough about the matter.
Agreed. WT is the only combat sim I can play using mouse and keyboard. DCS gave me no options with their strict keybind system and lack of any kind of mouse aim.
When it comes down to it there is no other game that gives us the approachability and selection war Thunder does. It’s not perfect but it really is incredible. I’ve been playing since like 2012.
"for however disgusting Gaijin's business model is" Well, ED is way ahead of them in being money grinders... Imagine you had to pay for an updated model of T-34-85? That's what we do in DCS when black sharks 2345 come out
@@ГеоргийМурзич I'm sorry but you are completely ignorant if you think that's all it is. Updated modules like Black Shark 3 have many entirely new systems
Man seeing the 37s and 23s be ate alive in some of those clips makes me sadge. Like another video I saw of a 21 dumping half its ammo into a saber which put out its fire and kept flying on ECW server, lol I can see why people want it removed.
The Sabre is a bit of a meme in DCS imo, it has a really low heat signature as well as a ridiculously tanky damage model. It’s like the Canberra’s fuselage in WarThunder, but as a plane lol
Msfs was my first experience with any type of aviation back in 95. WT got me started in combat aviation sim, and I've arrived at DCS in which I love the technicality of. Each has its place and purpose.
I went from MSFS to DCS and IL2.. now I mostly play WT Sim because it's a better GAME than DCS. DCS is just fucking boring. Only so many times I can flip a switch and say "Oooooo... ahhhhh I wish some devs would make more planes similar to the Flaming Cliffs/IL2 planes so we'd have more than the same old planes using the same strategies every match
@@jimlthor Maybe that's the issue. Flying the aircraft is more fun than just flipping switches. I know part of this has a bit to do with external factors, but the sim I probably had the most fun with was Chuck Yeager's Air Combat. Probably Il-2: 46 in pretty close second.
@@jimlthor I *highly* recommend playing 1946 with a force-feedback stick, if you get the chance. I have a Logitech G940 (which is nice, but has some issues), but I know that the old Sidewinder FFB stick used to be available used on Ebay for fairly cheap. In simpler aircraft designs (like in WW II aircraft), they use cables going from the controls to the control surfaces. As the speed increases, the controls offer more resistance, and this is modeled well in '46. On the ground, the controls are 'floppy', but at high speed, they get more rigid. The effect of this is you can 'feel' the speed you are going, which is really helpful in preventing bleeding off too much speed without looking at any instruments. Plus it improves immersion. NOTE: FFB should not be confused with force-sensing, which is used on some modern aircraft, like the F-16, as part of the fly-by-wire system.
War Thunder is simply the most approachable air/ground combat sim on the market today. Given that it has its issues BUT I absolutely love it and honestly have a hard time playing anything else… so that tells you something right there.
Really looking forward to seeing more on this topic, as someone who currently only plays Warthunder Sim but has DCS and is waiting to dive into it, this sort of comparison is super useful. Really interesting to see which aspects WT does a surprisingly better job at implementing, such as the damage models impacting flight, as well as radar modelling and missile mechanics etc.
I anticipate getting flak for parts of that, because your aircraft will feel different after taking a hit in DCS but elements of how that damage manifests doesn’t always feel true to what actually happened to cause it. For example if you land hard and shred your gear, your airframe will be full of shrapnel as if you got damaged by enemy fire. But short of your gear being ruined, the flight controls wouldn’t feel any different. Then there are cases where I’ve flown a MiG-19 with literally no elevators at all, but somehow still able to control my pitch with the stick, just less… But then you get helis in WarThunder eating tank shells with no thought given to the gigantic bank of electronics and instrumentation that would be annihilated even if the mechanical drive components were somehow missed - and tanks having huge “empty” gaps in them where they can soak damage for days for no penalty, it’s possible to argue it both ways if you twist things a bit. It’s a hard topic to talk about in depth in the space of a short clip, but it boils down to all vehicles in WarThunder being tended to by the same Dev team, Vs DCS being a bit of a higgledy piggledy mess, which I think is worse - consistent expectations are important in a game, which DCS still is, as much as people want to behead anyone that calls it that instead of “sim”.
@@Bullet4MyEnemyAren't tanks in DCS just a straight up HP pool with a vague armor value defining whether X munition can even damage them? I don't think DCS has any room to brag there, for sure. I totally agree on heli's though, the survivability of them as artificially higher just because of the weirdly lacking internals they have. Even just things like fuel lines being modelled would increase lethality by 2x-3x I'd wager.
Yeah, stuff like that kinda ruins the whole “immersion” vibe at times, often you can hit stuff so hard it just completely disappears - not even an explosion effect just like, straight up despawns.
Warthunder was my gateway drug into IL-2 and DCS. Honestly, there is no better game to start learning the basics of BFM and energy fighting than WT. The hardcore sim players may lambast as much of they want, but the truth is that WT is the best way to get into more advance flight sims.
At the start of the vid, when you mentioned that you started as a WT-tuber, it reminded me that I think I've been following your channel since even before your WT sim days. If I'm not mistaken you used to make airsoft vids before that. Anyways, what I really wanted to say was that it's funny how universal the complaints of DCS are when from people like us that came from the WT sphere once you take the rose tinted glasses off. Most of the stuff in this vid I've been saying for years, and I just find some solace in seeing more people talk about it. Keep up the vids. You're like the only DCS creator I actually watch lol
Thanks for the video. I learned how to dogfight in WT Realistic from my 10 to 17 years old, then quit and after a few years later got into DCS. I was considering getting back into WT in Sim mode, but your video convinced me that WT wasn't what I was looking for.
Another factor is the rate at which fights are happening. War Thunder its one fight after the other. This is just a massive amount of experience within a short timeframe. To accumulate the same amount of fighting in DCS is disproportionally harder and takes way more time.
Nice and objective video. As a WT only player looking to get into DCS I'm surprised how much skill is transferable and how WT even does some things better, like the damage modeling.
I don't recall having a stick up my ass but my hatred for WT comes from two simple things: I played 1700 hours of ground battles and you can't pick a plane and fly, you gotta work for the game. If not for those two things, I wouldn't hate on WT so much. WT has a lot of stuff implemented WAY better than DCS, but as a game, it sucks.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy well, I was talking about the grind. Its insufferable in the cold war era. Are you talking about the CAS? Because CAS is one of the many reasons ground battles suck so much.
@@madrigo When you mentioned ground battles I thought your complaint was the spawn points - the grind is fair enough, it is bullshit; especially with all the things you have to grind more than once across multiple trees…
This was incredibly well done. This vid and Enigmas take on WT is something the DCS community doesnt want to talk about. Because it was would probaly irrationalize the thousands of dollars and countless hours spent on hardware and modules.
I was fully in agreement with Enigma's video, I was surprised by how many people seemed to completely miss his point and just react negatively without thinking through the points he made. It wasn't my intention to draw parallels with this video, but as more episodes are eventually released I will be trying to show that full fidelity is a spectrum, and at the low end it's borderline FC3/WarThunder. It really is a case of where you draw the line in the sand, and how mad you want to get about it.
It's difficult to compare the two games really, unless only referencing dogfighting. Modern DCS jets require some nice hardware because of the hundreds of keybinds that are available. You can get away with just a nice HOTAS, but it's beneficial to have hardware to use for some of the other keybinds too. Dogfighting is just one aspect of DCS and some players won't even mess with it, they'll stick to BVR combat or ground attack instead.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy Flying often feels sterile in a lot of sim-lite games, and that is a killer for me. I have a pilot's license, so I know what flying a plane feels like, and I did have a lesson in a helicopter once, too. Unlike the preceding series of LOMAC, flying generally feels really good in DCS, of course it does vary a bit between modules.
Absolutely on point. I’m in the process of getting ready to get into DCS. I started out in WT in 2013 currently on my 2nd account but DCS at least from what I see seems to be more on the quality side. WT had pretty good quality but I wouldn’t compare WT to DCS. Seems to be a different philosophy between those games. I’ve been playing WT sim mode for over 7 months and I’ve learned so much but I think I’d be much better if I switch to HOTAS from MnK
WT sim is pretty good tbh. As far as fidelity goes it's probably on a similar level or even better than il-2 1946 and that is as realistic as it got during the peak of flight sims in the 90s and early 00s. A lot of DCS fanatics really put rose tinted glasses when it comes to the many issues with the game. Realistic flight models and clickable cockpits is more or less where the advantages end for DCS. Ordnance and damage models are MUCH better done in WT. DCS missile flight models are mostly inaccurate and very inconsistent. Bomb and especially rocket blast radius is also very wrong and the damage models for ground vehicles are literally health bars. Aircraft damage models are not much better either. DCS is a place where you can take a jet you like and fly around with it, experiencing as closely as possible how it behaved irl. The moment you engage in combat though, the experience takes a nosedive. This is even more exacerbated by how difficult it is to make a good combat scenario. Most multiplayer servers are literally just an arena style furball, not realistic in the slightest. Single player scenarios get boring very fast and have literally zero replayability. The only reason I would even jump into DCS is because of Enigma's cold war server which through gargantuan effort fixed many of the inherent drawbacks of the mission editor.
@@stoyantodorov2133 DCS is best experienced with a co-op group flying together, using radio comms with missions that have been created by players in the mission editor. Playing DCS solo can be fun too but a virtual fighter squadron/group of friends is the way to go.
@@stoyantodorov2133 The claim that DCS aircraft damage models are not much better then health bars is complete bullshit. In DCS almost every system an aircraft has can be damaged. In War Thunder only the basic systems are modelled. You don't have to worry about a hit knocking out an avionics computer and having to switch to another, or a hit to the hydraulics messing with flaps, control surfaces and wheel brakes
@@DeadRabbit86 I meant it more like that obscure joke reference where, a person is immortal but they’re constantly being chased by a snail and if it touches them they die lol 😂. But also I guess in general war thunders. Encroaching more and more on the more modern stuff that typically has been EDs court
Retired F-18 Instructor with 4000 hours in the Hornet. I've also got 1500 hours in F16s, M2000's and the Tornado through NATO transfers. I play WT and DCS to this day. Anyone who thinks WT is teaching you anything about rate and energy fights is clueless. WT is as arcade as it gets and nothing you think you've learned in WT will transfer to DCS, reality.
No aircraft has ever turned 7g for two seconds. Both games are made by complete retards, dcs core development is stalled and the game hasn't released an update for the past year.
I’d have expected a Hornet instructor to be able to identify the viability of dogfight fundamentals in a game, but if you think WarThunder is “arcade as it gets” and they can’t be applied then I guess not… Either that or you’re only aware of the stat boosted “arcade” mode and think I’m playing that from the cockpit? You’re either lying or telling on yourself because there are demonstrable examples in the video where the same logic clearly works across both games. If WarThunder is arcady, DCS is snapping at its heels by your own reasoning.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy Ye but every game that has planes can to a certain degree "teach you the fundamentals of dogfighting". What he is saying is that war thunder doesnt rly model energy fighting correctly. You accelerate too fast, you dont have systems that you need to manage mid dogfight(like for example in real life and in DCS if you pull too much AoA in the Mig-21 you kill your engine because you starve it of air but im WT you can pull as much as you want and it wont matter other then the fact you are gonna loose airspeed). Also missiles dont behave like they should in some cases, notching sometimes doesnt work at all(even tho you did it correctly). Also the way that aircraft handle is completely different, in WT its rly easy to fly the plane(even in SIM) compared to DCS and real life. You have a lot of stuff that helps you fly unlike dcs. So ye in comparison to DCS, WT is arcade and thats true even if you like it or not. That doesnt mean that WT is a shit game. Also DCS has better damage modelling(at least in the full fidelity models)
WarThunder doesn’t model system management, no. But to say it doesn’t model energy fighting correctly is a misnomer. What’s “correctly” to you? When you turn, you pull AOA, which creates drag and slows you down. If you ease off the pitch for reduced AOA you will accelerate more quickly and regain energy. If you manage those factors appropriately you can best someone else whose aircraft favours a different management regime (one vs two circle) or beat them at their own game if you do it better than they do from a pilot skill perspective. The fundamentals work, losing cues look the same, what you can and can’t capitalise on are the same, knowing how to manage your speed using throttle and pitch works the same. Deeper aspects aren’t involved, like compressor stalls, engine flame outs and having to navigate the switchology to arrive at the right ACM radar mode to help in a tight spot, but I never said they were. Through trial and error only, no outside help, just playing the games; WarThunder would produce better dogfighting knowledge in someone with no prior experience than DCS would, based purely on the variety of airframes. In DCS if you fly the MiG-21 you might realistically encounter 4 opponents with closely comparable dogfight performance to your own aircraft. In WarThunder that number is likely upwards of 40. Even if all of those aircraft had fantasy flight models, so long as Pitch > AOA > Drag > Loss of energy rings true, they will develop knowledge of dogfighting faster than they would in DCS.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy The speed up and acceleration are too fast compared to real life or for that matter DCS. Again that doesnt mean WT isnt a good game but back to my first statement "you can basically say that any game that has planes and models drag and speed to a certain extent is teaching you dogfighting basics". Dcs teaches you more than just the basics and even though some stuff certainly require some improvements it is still a better dogfighting sim. I played both of the games and from the gameplay standpoint i like both but if I had to chose a sim I would 100% go for DCS over WT because it just has so much more depth of gameplay in that matter
Good video. DCS shines for me as a sandbox, can create some great scenarios from historic to bizarre, let down a bit in single player by AI. Also cheaper or free with plane mods such as the F22.
Oh man, great video. Love watching both, and I can speak to someone who likes Warthunder SIM but is a bit too scared of DCS: The fun of simplified flight, and the lack of extra mechanical complexity can be quite a bonus to someone who just wants to play for a few hours. I can hop into an F-16, a Mig-21, or a F-14 and they'll all be relatively easily controllable without much fiddling or memorization. One plane flows into the next, where the actual performance metrics like you mentioned are the things you try and pay attention to, but there's no need to read the cockpit or learn the layout of where real controls are. It's a nice level of "Yup, nice pick up and play!" while providing something far more in depth than more arcadey games even in Warthunder's other modes itself. It's just good fun.
You should get FC3 module for DCS. The planes are easier to manage and are not full fidelity. Meaning things like engine startup sequence is bind to shortcut keys.
dont be scared to play DCS, first you have low fidelity models that cost about 5 bucks, second if you play cold war or WWII planes, the principles are the same, and apply in both, ACM are the basic of combat and are equal pretty much everywhere, now if you enter in modern jets then it gets a lot more complex quick, but it isnt hard at all, just pick the plane you like and master it for a year or two, then every other model even being different, will be 10 times easier , also they give you 10% cash for every purchase that you can use to cut the price on the next purchase
@@hippoace Even advanced modules have simple start-up bindings. The whole startup is automated. Of course, it will still be more complicated flying it. It's worth pointing out that the early jets are probably the simplest to operate, as their systems weren't that complex, and turbine engines are MUCH easier to operate than a high-performance piston engine. The only thing you need to memorize are approach speeds, landing procedures, etc., although you can make a reference card for that stuff, so you can glance at it while playing. EDIT: Also having nosewheel steering is much easier than controlling a tail-dragger on the ground.
@@hippoace Pretty sure all of them. I think the default key binding may be Windows + Home keys. It still goes through the entire process, just it is automated (and it doesn't make mistakes). You may still need to make some final adjusts to radios, etc. and maybe also systems like Radar in the MiG-21, which will run out of alcohol in ~40min if only left in standby mode. And ~15-20min if on.
I also started on WT and I think it was super helpful for dcs. It didn’t help at all with systems but it was tremendously useful for energy fighting and dogfighting in general. In general I think some DCS players tend to oversell the realism of dcs compared to other games because of the systems fidelity. There is definitely stuff that is better in WT like the damage modeling you mentioned and some missile mechanics, engine heat for example and clouds messing with IR seekers.
I've been following you for a while now on both your WT and DCS content, since I also (like many) play both. You are one of the better dogfighters that I watch as far as cold war guns on target type gameplay. I haven't tried sim on war thunder, in fact I usually fly just keyboard + mouse on air RB. I am not sure why, but I've always treated WT as a very very casual way to chuck some matches and quickly get into the action. DCS on the other hand, I have the rudder pedals + hotas + head tracker and really should for the full immersion as it's a sim and is really meant for that kind of player. As someone who plays both, it is really interesting to hear your insights on the similarity of the two games and how a lot of the skills are at least in part transferable. I also wonder if newer modules like blackshark 3 and possibly the upcoming phantom with more "modules" within the airframe are in preparation for changes to how damage feels. I agree that damage in WT feels more impactful - sometimes even ridiculous - whereas DCS often allows me to shrug off considerable damage where I look like a piece of swiss cheese. I'm definitely going to give WT Sim a try with the full DCS setup and see how that feels after watching this video. I'm only ~2/3 through the video at the time of writing this, but I really appreciate you taking the time to put out content like this that points out the different strengths of two games a lot of the flight community plays. Also, I'm thrilled that you're giving helicopters a whirl as per your last video. The learning curve is a bit steep initially, but they are a blast to fly!
Yes thats it, the similarities end with dogfights. And the point you make about learning how to DF is true for any game, IL2 heck even Elite dangerous and MSFS in multiplayer. But the best thing WT has going for it is the ease in which one can start playing it. Even if Sim were to be the only mode available, I'd prefer WT over DCS to kill some time because it doesn't take forever to get into fights with my older PC.
Nice, its what Ive been saying since years. The fighting style stays the same, because WTs flight models are "good enough" to make it work. I often feel like people get skinned alive just for comparing the two or mentioning them in the same sentence, which is a bit sad. Fact is: You can have fun in both games. About 14:01: Remember there are WTs custom gun sights, I think we spoke about it at some time
Nothing wrong about learning to dogfight in WT, as you said the principles are the same and you get good at killing things or just getting killed. I'm more of the "flying the plane" type and I really like complex air to ground stuff which you just can't realistically achieve in pretty much all of WT. But on the other hand I really, really suck at BFM. Just different things for different people.
DCS damage can be inconsistent but generally feels like - in the 21 particularly - even a few grazing .50 cal hits to the wing will put your handling directly in the bin. Fuselage damage seems to have much less effect, but I absolutely know the second anything has hit my wing because the jet immediately begins trying to roll out from under me and begins seriously protesting in any turn. As far as your main point goes, no matter how many issues I have with WT's flight models themselves, you are of course correct: the principles don't change and the more reps you get, the better you are. Most DCS players would get absolutely smoked by WT players in a dogfight (and often they do). Some of the best dogfighters I know in DCS came over from War Thunder and most of them still play it from time to time.
This is a seriously cool video, thanks for sharing !!! Ive played War Thunder for years, and am hoping to get into DCS real soon once ive upgraded the PC a bit. I was genuinely surprised to hear that WT has a better damage model, I would have thought DCS would be an element higher. But regardless I am quite impressed with how WT looks in VR/1st person, may just have to give it a go myself as I already have a head tracker and quality controls, just need a better graphics card to do it all in VR.
It’s less that DCS don’t do it and more that it varies from aircraft to aircraft because they’re all developed by different companies, so they’ll all tackle certain aspects of the modelling process in different ways. WarThunder’s strength is its consistency with everything being coded and implemented by the same development team, with only 3D modelling being outsourced rather than everything from the weapons, damage, flight modelling etc like in DCS.
i feel like dcs is just better for it in terms of physics, but both are good. it just depends how it feels to each individual person. preferences are valid 🗣️🗣️
you cant tell them *all* apart but you can recognize flare patterns in WT to help tell a general type of aircraft! for example upward firing flares often being part of soviet ground strike Sukhois and late MiGs. paired with context clues you can totally make educated guesswork from it- also some ingame aircraft like the Buccaneer having very unique ones can come in handy sometimes lol
@@Dieselboy420 I think you’ve missed their point a bit, I don’t think anyone can argue WarThunder looks better (except maybe particle effects and fire), they’re talking about using flare patterns to ID the aircraft launching them.
@@Dieselboy420war thunder looks better on worse systems than dcs looks on good systems By that i mean DCS OPTIMIZE YOUR FCKN GAME ALREADY IT STILL RUNS LIKE SHIT, I CAN RUN WAR THUNDER AT MAX AND IT LOOKS 20× BETTER AND RUNS 20× FASTER THAN YOU ON THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SETTINGS
I'd say that war-thunder is for the people that want to have fun doing air 2 air combat, and DCS players is for people that enjoy getting into all the little details about the jets or Heli's they own. Warthunder is better for Variety of aircraft, DCS is better for hardcore simmers that want to build a full simpit where every button they press does something in the cockpit. I do wish that the planes I own in DCS had some of the variety of models or types that warthunder has. for me I just never liked the input setup for warthunder all that much, and the grind of just getting to the airframe I wanted to fly just wasn't for me, I wanna get in the airframe, fly it and learn it and improve my skill with it in combat. if they reduce the grind by about 90% I'd jump right back into it and enjoy it tho.
This vid was quite a bit more informative and interesting than I thought it would be (being a war thunder RB player). I didn't know that DCS didn't model the partial damage of components like war thunder does, would be cool to see that added. My main complaint with war thunder Air RB is how chaotic it is. There's just too many people in too small of a map to actually dogfight people. And I know sim is better in that regard, I just don't play it. Would be nice to see RB control scheme, but Sim map setup. Anyways, great vid. I'm glad I saw this.
This is actually in correct, they have actually model partial damage and it does actually have an effect, it just doesn’t show like war thunder, for example you can actually notice the effect of damage to the wings, and for example of your radar is shot or damage it will effect that and how you can use it, same goes wings, flaps, engines, landing gear, and so on, the Other thing to remember is that the aircraft in DCS compared to war thunder are from an era in the jet age where almost 50% of an aircraft’s lift came from the body of the plane.
I’ve been playing it since launch, so I never really had to massively boost through a lot of things at once, the game sort of added more vehicles as I was getting to them anyway. Realistic battles are the fastest way to grind, with premium time and vehicles. But play for fun, enjoy the game for what it is; if your only goal is a specific vehicle then you’re going to burn out a long time before you get there.
Nice video. I never did War Thunder myself, but I did get started with IL-2 great battles a month or two before doing DCS, though I jumped into Multiplayer on both right at the start. I find that the techniques from both carried over a lot, which of course would work with war thunder as well, BFM and the tactics for setting up good fights is pretty universal, and the differences are for the most part nuanced. The big problem for war thunder for me is the buisness model to get new aircrat that is required, and the idea of grinding for new aircraft.
Nice video. I am in the minority but imo DCS would benefit creatly from a few more FC3 type of planes. All that fidelity only makes it harder to enjoy more planes.
I would also appreciate more FC3 aircraft, especially if they’ll never make it as full fids due to lack of documentation. So long as the flight model can be done justice I don’t have an issue with the systems being simplified.
Yeah Enigma made a good video about this topic exactly. Honestly War Thunder has so much support from its developers that if they wanted they could make it extremely realistic and possibly not alienate their players
Found your channel recently, nice to watch good energy managment and knowledge what you can do with particular plane and what not. Think most of people are flying new stuff in DCS require alot off learning, is more strategie game when you can engage when not, theres "not" alot of dogfighting involved with AMRAAMS and strategie games. Think WT much better trainer for Dogfights where you get thrown right in to the Action can gradually increase the difficulty from easy to sim. Where DCS is pretty much unforgiving.
As someone who has over 1000 hours in WT and 800 in DCS, I can safely say both have their pros and cons! War Thunder offers faster gameplay while still keeping the realistic aspects of dogfighting. If you want to just jump in and shoot down some other players, WT is definitely for you. Beware the grind to get aircraft you want though. It can definitely take awhile. You can thank Gaijin's predatory business model for that. What DCS has to offer is more than just dogfighting. It strives to simulate what it's like to be a fighter pilot and how to fully operate your chosen airframe. The adrenaline you get from simply just starting your plane is amazing! When you finally encounter your first bandit, its exhilarating. However, don't expect to do that within your first few hours of the game. The learning curve is super high and not even from a flying standpoint. You literally have to sit there and read manuals, watch videos, and more in order to learn how to start the damn thing and get it in flying order. It's not just one button to shoot either haha! And the money you have to spend is ridiculous too. Flight sim gear is not cheap and will cost you at least $100 entry. The planes in DCS, while they do go on sale, are still quite expensive. So to players looking at what to get into, these are my two cents on either. I love and play both to this day even with their shortcomings.
War Thunder - относительно простая и разнообразная. Тебе не нужно, купив Ка-50 летать только на нëм. Платя за него, ты по-сути облегчаешь себе путь до Ка-52/Ми-28НМ и открываешь всю советскую ветку вертолëтов. Да, я согласен с тем, что DCS более реалистичная и продуманная и это еë плюс. Как пример в War Thunder - многие СПО не рабоют в кабине в отличие от DCS.
War Thunder is a great starting point for learning the basics of energy management, combat manuvering, and visually identifying the state of the fight you're in. It forces you to learn so many different things that will work in some situations and not in others. It forces you to be better at judging fights. DCS sure, is far more in-depth with what it does, but it struggles with making anything accessible to the average joe with an interest in air combat. There's a reason WT is the most popular between itself, IL-2, and DCS. It's simply the most accessible.
I think the biggest difference between the two in terms of terms of flying and fighting is just system knowledge. With DCS the more systems knowledge you know, the more you can leverage the aircraft and the weapons it uses. War Thunder is a bit like the old IL2 1946, it's remembering some variables and you should be good - you can run the engines and airframes well above their design limitations because there's few limitations in the simulation. One is fine for just the experience of dog fighting, the other is more the complete experience of flying and fighting. I'll never knock someone for playing WT and fighting in the sim mode but I prefer the whole simulation - the cockpits, the mission planning, navigation, GCI, comms etc.
This is a very good way of framing them against each other, I prefer DCS for the same reasons you list. The stakes are higher and it goes beyond merely fighting the enemy, you have to fight your own plane as well.
I think what happened with the damage models is War Thunder traces back to the Il-2 games, which were pure WWII era, and focused extensively on the damage modeling, while DCS comes out of the Flanker -> LOMAC -> Flaming Cliffs line, where most kills were missile kills, which tended to be catastrophic hits. As I gather ED is working on expanding the damage modeling baseline in DCS, but it's a long process to add it into something that didn't initially have it. I've dipped in and out of Warthunder over the years, though I've only played it in Arcade mode. I'm a stick and rudder VR user, and it feel like that mode behaves really weirdly in VR. Do you recommend specifically Realistic or Sim for dogfighting? And how is the economy in those modes? It always sort of felt like when I had time to play, the game wanted me to stop playing, and when I didn't have much time to play, I needed to spend too much time getting into and through a match. Just seemed like there was a lot of weird friction, you know?
You’re definitely right about the root of the damage modelling. Were you flying from the cockpit in AB with VR? I can’t imagine it working in 3rd person. A lot of people really rate WarThunder sim in VR because the performance is so good, it’s a really well optimised game for all the graphical fidelity it has, they’re actually producing a VR only product at the moment but there aren’t any details about it yet, not sure if it’ll be sim based or toned down, but I would recommend trying sim if you have VR, it’ll be a lot better than arcade.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy Always in cockpit :). But I found that there was a lot of 'nodding' that happened in high turn rates. I'll give it another go in Realistic and Sim mode and see how it goes. I already got fairly deep into the US WWII fighters line, which was all I really wanted to fly anyway.
@@HarryVoyager The nodding thing sounds like the “sense of flight” slider in the options/controls menu; it’s supposed to make the camera move around under G but with head tracking or VR it’s just obnoxious
You probably know this, but if you make a custom skin for the MiG-17 and input this block of text, it will cage the gunsight- replace_tex{ from:t="asp_3n_collimator*" to:t="sikte_s7_fixed_collimator*" } replace_tex{ from:t="_empty_collimator*" to:t="asp_3n_collimator*" } Fresco's armor glass with no tweaks to simulate light refraction makes for a very sad Fresco :'(
DCS online has been unplayable since the last major update imo. DCS not sorting their shit out is unironically the biggest motivator to play WarThunder 😅
Some of the best dog fighters in DCS play war thunder as well. I think it’s just pooh poohed by people that don’t really have a good grip on dogfighting. I’ve never played war thunder personally, one thing I do enjoy in dcs is how much little things on the module can be exploited. Thinks like manipulating the manoeuvre flaps on the tomcat to suit your future situation. Messing with the ARU in the 19 and 21 if that’s your thing. When to exploit flaps up in the f5. Not negative G’ing in the 21 to avoid fuel starvation. Not going over 1300 ias. Dcs depth of the module is very challenging too. Flying the p47 at max manifold takes a whole lot of attention mid dogfight to keep that engine running just below its parameters and not to overheat or seize it. It’s nice to enjoy knowing everything that could go wrong and mitigating it while at the same time choosing angles, reacting to the opponent and throwing in the odd 6 check. I haven’t played WT but I definitely find the flight models in DCS are more attractive to me than IL2. I find they keep their energy almost too well over several turns (when a dcs warbirds would have gone nose down a lot earlier). Torque for rolling too makes a difference (do they have that in WT)? I like your WT videos, it’s nice to see jets we don’t have and will never get fighting
The things you mention are definitely where the satisfaction is its highest in DCS, totally agree. System management is an element missing in WarThunder, but it does model torque from props and things like air density based on temperature and how that can affect your top speed and acceleration. As well as thermodynamics, like your engine will overheat faster on a hot map vs one with snow. IR missiles aren’t able to acquire locks through cloud in WarThunder either, and lasers can’t penetrate clouds for the purpose of guiding bombs either. For something so looked down on there’s a fair chunk of things they’ve modelled better than DCS has.
@@Magpie... You can mod the sight shown to any other type found in the game files without triggering anti-cheat, I just personally haven’t managed to figure it out. So there is a solution, it’s just infinitely more faff than a simple keybind would be…
The fact of the matter is that when you try to represent aircraft as their real life counterparts and they fly like they do in real life, it is infinitly cooler than when you represent the same weapons and aircraft with wrong characteristics.
This is hard to interpret, because you can pick examples from both games that fall on both sides. Like the radar in the Fishbed in DCS isn’t even close to realistic, whereas in WarThunder it performs more true to life. Like I say in the video, it comes down to where you choose to draw the line of acceptable realism. The Fishbed in DCS is a “full fidelity” module, but how in-depth that actually means depends on the aircraft and the developer. Things like the Mirage 2000 or F-14 are modelled exceptionally true to life, whereas the Fishbed or especially things like the Sabre are borderline low fidelity in some cases, yet people perceive them as more realistic because they have a higher price tag attached when they’re always corners cut in certain things. There are compromises in realism at every level across both games.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy The depth is probably the largest difference. Also a big thing(And the reason why I got into DCS) is Gaijins business model. It is outrageous. If I wanted to pay that much to have an ounce of fun, it might as well be on a game where the planes are closer to the real thing. War thunder is also a pick up and play, while you have to spend a lot of time learning and mastering a certain plane on DCS. Some may not consider that fun, but I do.
I largely agree. I’d far rather spend £50 on a full fid MiG-21 than a premium one in war thunder. Obviously in war thunder you’re also buying the potential to grind faster for subsequent things, but it’s about what you value more. No doubt the DCS MiG21 is mostly modelled better than the war thunder one. But the question is just, is the war thunder one modelled well enough to have a decent dog fight in? Yeah it doesn’t wobble or behave quite like it should, but I can turn and burn and it bleeds speed on the delta wing across the war thunder interpretation of them as I’d expect, and it’s good enough for a scrap. That being said, I enjoy the complexity of having to manage my limits in the DCS MiG-21 more, even if I know that (for the time being) DCS doesn’t have an F8 crusader, F100, A6, A7, Sabredog, etc for me to fight it in. It’s about whether you value the in depth study of the jet itself or the variety of what you can fight (even if they’re an approximation) Nevertheless BFM is BFM, and war thunders flight models are just about good enough to apply core principles.
The thing that keep bringing me back to warthunder is the uniformity of the controls. I can startup and fly my radar equipped fighter jet with the same buttons and switches and levers that I can start up my mustang with and i can do the same for a yak and a spit. The fact that while I do have to learn how to fly the planes, i don't have to learn how to work the plane make the game that much easier to jump into after a workday. I love the mustang, the P-47 and the P-40 but in a full simulator the engine management between the two is vastly different, meanwhile in warthunder the engine is approximated, like an rpg game that assumes your character has some background in the task at hand and so is in no danger of destroying the engine on the ground freeing me up to fly with the mindset of someone who already has a working understanding of their planes systems.
I must be doing something wrong with my controls setup because I cannot fly WT sim at all. I turn off all the instructors, autotrim, but when I center my stick it still springs back to wings level like it's in autopilot. And it runs crazy slow like half second control lag. DCS just responds to my stick inputs how I expect.
There is a sort of noob mode for sim where it rolls you level, but I thought it was just for mouse control, generally I feel like the opposite is true and you can roll 45 degrees and it'll just stay there without causing a bank, weakness of the lower fidelity flight modelling - regarding the slow response times, there are sliders called "sensitivity" in the controls, but they're best described as input lag; if you do give it another look, sensitivity to 100% should give you a 1:1 control input.
I would say variety isn't War Thunder's actual strong suit, it's accessibility. It's because the flight models are heavily simplified, and the systems are heavily simplified, that players can get into it easier, and develop the interest needed to get into IL2 or DCS. If you want variety, DCS already offers more than you need- You can fly an I-16 against an F-16, both with significantly better flight models than anything WT offers, and dozens of mix ups in between. From the argument that variety is better than fidelity of flight model, you could compare most actual cold war air campaigns and see that both sides rarely had more than four or five types (usually one or two) that participated heavily in air combat, there are exceptions but this is true for everything. DCS offers significantly more variety at the cost of fidelity than most real fighter pilots of the 60s, 70s, and 80s faced in their regional conflicts- which one taught dogfighting better? You could make the same argument you did, and I do think it is valid, that academically, being an F-5 pilot in the Ogaden war and facing mainly MiG-21s with a chance of facing a MiG-17, and doing so often in ambushes (which most kills from WW2 to present have been, an amubsh where one side doesn't even know it has been engaged till rounds are fired) you are on paper going to learn less than a DCS player who takes his F-5 against the variety offered by the gap in flight model between your potential adversaries you could set up to face. That said, depending on what you want out of it, do you care what the variety of possible enemies could be on paper, from UFO to rock, or do you just care about being able to defeat the two threats you could possibly face, and that is not just enough, but all the dogfighting knowledge you could possibly need? What I mean to get at, is does variety really matter when DCS offers more than most have seen in real cold war conflicts, and War Thunder offers more than DCS? I would say accesibility is king when learning to dogfight, and fidelity is the king of mastering. I don't care if I only faced the same type, or one or two, if I could afford it I would rather fly a real fighter and learn that way than DCS, or IL2, or War Thunder. It's just that War Thunder, then IL2, then DCS are more accessible in that order. There is always the case that the less accessible (closer to or in reality) the fight is, the more real it is. Who is better off, a real pilot who remembers he must fight one type in the horizontal and the other type he could face in the vertical, or the man who has never seen a real plane but can tell you the absolute specifics of every possible engagement type one could have vs forty other types? I don't think there is a wrong answer when you set ego aside- which one do YOU care about is all that matters- some men KNOW they will never fly a fighter, so they may prefer the latter, while some in the flight sim community fly real fighters, and may lean the former. There are further things like mechanics of the flight models by type that are characteristic of the actual aircraft that can be pushed to win or lose fights ( high AOA behavior in the FW-190A8 being one go to example that you can readily compare in DCS, IL2, and WT back to back and feel the differences, and they are huge ) that others may touch on but I am leaving that out because I am responding to the premise in your video. As someone who has been playing War Thunder, IL2 and DCS, from Arcade to Sim, mouse controls to a full HOTAS, pedals, and VR, from the I-16 to the F-16, starting in both in 2014 with air AB and the DCS MiG-21Bis (and actually getting into IL2 only a few years ago), I can say if I want to practice dogfighting fundamentals, IL2 is my pick. DCS is the place for systems and modern PVP, and War Thunder is the door in. They all have their place. It's case by case what you want with your real life means and interests.
I too play both of these games. In VR. We are in the golden age of Sims but the player base is not keeping up. People want bang and click games instead of Sims. DCS can be a giant pain because it is so complex. In WT it's a fun game when you get decent enemies otherwise it's just a turkey shoot. Which sucks.
Makes sense, sounds similar to IL-2 BoX vs DCS when it comes to WWII stuff. I'm more of a DCS guy so far as i'm in it for the immersion. Navigating and battling an empty tank and overheating engines after crossing back over the channel from France, instead of non-stop dog-fighting. But yeh, that's why I relatively suck at dogfighting :P, I just way less mileage.
i started my aircraft sim career in war thunder and now have graduated to DCS.. i fly war thunder now and it just doesnt hit the same as it used to... ive grown enough to appreciate the things DCS can offer that WT does not.
For me the biggest draw to DCS was the lack of an in game economy, no grind for unlocks, no grind for countermeasures or competitive weapons. But also the freedom servers have to change the gameplay loop to whatever they want. The actual sim aspect was surprisingly low on the list
Haven’t noticed any issues personally, but haven’t tried ground pounding properly in a while. Gun and bomb CCIP seems to work fine though, I use the gun pipper to see in fog when landing sometimes.
This is great. There are a few problems with war thunder, such as flaps and gear suddenly breaking instead of being stuck. But it is still a fantastic experience, with a bunch of aircraft we would never see in other games. Curious as to what your thoughts are on IL2 1946 and great battles. As I feel its campaign and aircraft selection are much better than DCS, whilst having more realism than war thunder.
Having only recently got into PC gaming in the last ~4 years I always felt like it was sort of too late to look at IL2:1946, but I’m sure if I’d been around on PC 10 years ago I’d have been deep into it. As it stands though, WWII era prop stuff just doesn’t grab me too much, so IL2 doesn’t really scratch the right itch. It’s a shame though because the damage modelling especially looks amazing in Great Battles.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy 46 was the best in it's day, and there were something around 300 different aircraft (not all flyable), including variants. It was pretty much the sim to play. Plus, there were some early jets and I think 3 rocket planes (Me 163, BI-1, and Ohka). The standard Me 262, He 162, Gloster Meteor, and my favorite, the Arado Ar234. Plus some designs that never left the drawing board. The Pacific theater was the most fun, IMHO, and there is nothing yet to really scratch that itch.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy I've played a bit before but always arcade with mouse and keyboard... never played long enough to unlock jets though ( but I'm close, like 2 or 3 planes to unlock before jets) but I've been playing DCS for a couple years now...
It’s really not that bad once you map the basics, start up can be done automatically with 2 buttons, then you can get everything else mapped on your HOTAS
It will be a tough transition that feels like a bit of a downgrade in terms of flight modelling, but certain mechanics are handled much better. Primarily things like radar wave modelling and RWR frequency bands, as well as missile seeker differences actually affecting their capabilities.
What’s War Thunder like in terms of the physics and science behind notching missiles? I played WarThunder before I got in to DCS years ago but I only played low tier planes. In DCS it’s extremely difficult to evade missiles. You have to know how radar works and why plus you need to know stuff like terrain masking and the reflection of radar off of mountains. Plus the different types of radar returns. Also the different types of radar lock e.g STT vs RWS vs TWS and how the enemy aircraft’s RWR responds to them. How is that stuff in War Thunder?
The wave simulation is consistent across all aircraft so for some aircraft it’s implemented better than it is in DCS. Reflections off the ground creating interference, notch gates, the difference between mono pulse and pulse doppler radar tracking and missile seeker heads, it’s all modelled quite meticulously. In DCS only a few aircraft have things modelled to as high a standard, the Tomcat, Strike Eagle and Mirage 2000; with the upcoming F-4 being amongst them too. The other aircraft have rough shod approximations at best, and at worst it’s mostly smoke and mirrors backed up by RNG. The MiG-21’s radar in DCS for example, is just using the code from the Su-25T’s Shkval targeting pod, it has ridiculously unrealistic performance at low level, having a “filter” which effectively removes ground clutter completely. Similarly the Mirage F.1’s radar is basically a viewfinder, with a looping gif of backscatter interference making it marginally difficult to pick out contacts, but once you do there is no difficulty locking them up. DCS dresses things up to look more realistic by using the real radar symbology for each aircraft; whereas WarThunder applies the same superimposed UI for everything with radar in the game which gives people the false assumption that it’s quite basic.
Dogfighting in WT is a lot different to DCS, but fear the man who has many hours annihilating people with the F/A-26 and EF-24 in VTOL VR. I personally feel like playing vtol has enhanced some skills like formation flying and dogfighting in DCS, but that’s just me.
Makes sense the skills would carry over - VR’s biggest gain for flight sims is the sense of scale and depth perception, makes formation flying and aerial refuelling much easier than flat screen.
Any flight game can teach you the BASIC IDEA of dogfighting but that doesnt make it a sim. If War Thunder is a sim, it wouldn't allow me to sustain 29 Gs for 3 seconds in realistic with no repercussions whatsoever which is exactly what happened
I am very much for the option of diversity with ever increasing fidelity. Although I am still planning my transition to DCS, there are relatively few vehicles that I'd like to fly there. The A-4E, UH-1, AH-64 and Mi-24 at this point. This is nothing compared to the slew of interesting stuff in WT. I actually don't require 110% fidelity because I am, and never will be a 100% fighter pilot. At this rate I wonder if I will see the advertised F-8J before I get admitted to a care home.
exactly, don't be afraid to try DCS just because you play WT, ACM, BFM principles all apply in all games, so you wouldn't have a problem, start with simple stuff, like WWII or early cold era planes, they are super basic and simple to use, just a bit of caution on taking off and you will be fine xD, then you can go to modern jets, they are a lot more complex and BVR is a lot harder and dynamic than simple BFM, but you can slowly work up the ranks in DCS, first start in Newby servers like 107Th server or Growling Sidewinder server, then go to medium servers like Tempest and Blue flag servers, then go to medium-hard servers like 104th server, and lastly join the top 1% of DCS PVPrs and play in DDCS Hardcore Dynamic server, its a fully dynamic campaign with full PVP focus, you need to fight for bases, control resources, gain resources, built defenses, do 150 miles flanking maneuvers with tanks, air and ground ambushes, gather intel behind enemy lines for slammer/JDAM attacks, coordinate with ground JTACs, Air Magics, move missiles from one base to another, air refuel and return to battle, etc. Campaign's can last for weeks to months before someone wins for 70 bucks you get a reskinned copy paste plane in WT with the same boring combat system since 2013, for the same price you can get a fully muddled plane in DCS and enjoy a fully dynamic PVP campaign, just look at the new Heatblur F4 trailer, and compared with what you can buy for the same price in WT, its cheap once you realize that, and no, you dont need lots of extras, 1 joystick, OpeTrak AI track, and a webcam its all you need to play DCS effectively :)
My personal opinion about war thunder and il2 is that both are handled in a very similar way, il2 is a little more complex but what you learn in one is useful for the other, I also have dcs with the f16 but I like airplanes more a propeller,,, Point in favor of war thunder is that you find action faster, although any sim like DCS or il2 looks prettier
I tend not to bother with the top tier lobbies, the maps aren't really big enough for how many players there are, how fast the jets are or the ranges they can engage at. BVR is a bit of a meme in WarThunder though, just hug the deck and notch and you'll never die to a Fox-1
Tbh I think you overestimate the thinking ability of war thunder players in dogfights too much. xD from my own experience wt always develops a furrball, which doesn't necessarily happen in DCS. That's why I like DCS more even tho the DMG model is outdated by 10 years probably. For me it's 70% the player base which makes DCS my first choice
Good stuff bullet! I haven’t touched WT air in like six years, however I’d like to get back into it. Only thing that stops me is the grind 😂 Happy Thanksgiving if you celebrate! If not, happy 3rd Wednesday in November 😂😂
DCS is weirdly low skill in terms of actual combat ability of the playerbase. DCS players certainly have a leg up in terms of procedures thanks to full fidelity, but unfortunately it sometimes seems (or feels) like this comes at the cost of good BFM and ACM. It's weird, but looking at the stats for ECW and generally observing the population of players on the server, most of the top pilots are players who transitioned quite recently to DCS and most of them have cut their teeth in War Thunder or IL-2. Games like WT or IL-2 by default seem to throw people into a lot more fights and the larger populations mean that you get more people that are good. It's become a joke on ECW, but I firmly believe that the best way to get good at DCS is to go play other flight sims for a couple of months.
I would agree that wt can teach you bfm at a basic level. However you said something in the video that i think is very untrue. Dcs damage models are still quite good, aim for the stabs, your gonna make it harder to control the aircraft, and even if you hit their aircraft, there may not be visual damage, but there is still some damage that the pilot has to deal with. It also simulates well what systems you lose when you get hit. I don’t know much about the MiG, but in the A-10C for example, depending on where you get shot, can restrict usage of certain systems like the mfd or tpod, etc. ultimately, any game that allows an f-14 to pull a spinning cobra maneuver in less than 2 seconds and recover from it easily without snapping off a wing, can never be a good simulator. The MiG in my opinion is one of the more old modules when it comes to when it was created and such so it may not be up to par in comparison to other aircraft modules… many modules have very good damage models and the aircraft you chose I think plays well into your experiences and opinions.
The A-10C is a special case in terms of damage modelling because it’s famed for being able to take a beating, so they kinda had to make it a feature. Where your comment went eventually is my main point - there’s no consistency across modules. A-10C? Great damage model. But what about the MiG-19? I’ve had both my elevators literally shot off in that thing and still had some level of pitch control… Then there’s the Sabre, which can tank multiple hits from the MiG-15’s 37mm without a care in the world, I have been a Sabre that’s done so, it’s not always the case that visual damage is lacking but systems fail internally. A sim needs the level of attention to detail to be uniform across the board, if one thing is modelled extremely well but exists in a universe where the same thing on something else isn’t, it kinda renders the effort moot.
Two things I would point out: 1) Using MiG-21 is not totally good idea for total comparison. It was first 3rd party module in DCS and while its FM got enriched at some point since these times it is still was not updated generally in a long time regarding it. Comparing F-16s would be better 2) Your damage modeling point does not stand for WW2 aircraft. I think in DCS WW2 prop aircraft has better damage modeling than WT. When same damage model will be applied to jets then...
It was more the flight modelling being compared than anything else so which aircraft wasn’t that important, plus it was the easiest thing to get footage for at the time. Viper would be hard to get footage that was comparable because the gameplay loops are vastly different between games. I am basically living for the WWII DMs being applied to jets, it can’t happen fast enough, might even be higher on my wish list than the Phantom 😬 Next aircraft to be compared will probably be the F-5, Farmer or maybe Mirage F.1
War Thunder is much more easier to approach to be honest, easier to start with And most of the logical applies, yes But the UI elements you talked about actually can change the way you play the game at some point Either you have Data Link or not is really switching tables in DCS for situation awareness You can shoot someone without he even knows a Fox was coming, and the other way around, obviously... Not as much in War Thunder
As I play both DCS and WT, my opinion is that air battles in WT are much better. Where DCS shines is air to ground as better modelled avionics has more role here. Helicopters are different story. DCS wins hands down.
@@hresvelgr7193 yea but it’s more than just an apc moving. There’s a lot more to it and alot that needs to be worked on in dcs. Also yes that is another thing. The movements aren’t that great by default.
You keep harping on dogfighting aspects for both games. Something to keep in mind is that dogfighting is only a small fraction of the overall flight experience irl (and simulated as such in DCS). Go to talk to any real world pilot - they’ll tell you that they spent much more time training on takeoffs/landings, emergency operations, refueling, air to ground and sensor operation than they did on actual dogfighting. Also dogfighting is not the end all be all with modern jets - a lot of combat in the jet ages is BVR. Launch your missile and get out of harms way. DCS is meant to replicate the real world experience, as imperfect as it might be. WT is an arcade-like game that has some elements of realism. Two very different games with different visions. I’m sure that a player could learn something about dogfighting from WT, I doubt that learning will even begin to scratch the surface of what really goes into operating a real life military platform.
Yeah, and WT has better net code ,do a loaded roll in dcs,and your plane will teleporting around from the other guy perspective because dcs net code cant handle high aoa and roll at the same time. Whats worse ,people who knows abusing this to evade missile.
I don't think it's true that DCS doesn't model damage impacting performance. I've experienced it for sure. I think that in DCS damage model, the damage with aircraft of this era is often catastrophic, so you are either fine or you snap the wing and die. But getting shot up by lower caliber rounds definitely has an effect on the flight model. I remember one case where I had a hole in my wing in an F-86, the wing was buffeting, and I couldn't turn for my life. This felt really realistic actually.
There are definitely aspects of it that do work that way, but there are just as many where it doesn’t. Using the MiG-19 as an example, you can lose an aileron or take a wing hit and have to fight the roll for the rest of the flight. Then by the same token you can lose an elevator and have your pitch authority reduced and have the imbalance of your control input being asymmetric causing roll when you try to adjust pitch. But… Then you lose your second elevator… And can still fly the plane as if you still had elevators. I forget the video title now but one of my MiG-19 videos has me lose both elevators to a guy, and then manage to still manoeuvre onto him and kill him with a missile. Comparing that experience to any other module and you’ll get bits where it makes sense and bits where it doesn’t. Or even worse, feels a little bit too scripted - like once I was flying the F-15C with a mate and we both ate an R-60 and suffered identical damage; lost an engine, the nose cone/radar, and a wing, but both managed to limp back. In WarThunder if you lost both elevators you’d need to use flaps to manage nose position, but more often than not you’re just boned. And equating back to the missile example, where the missile detonates means shrapnel will hit and damage specific parts, and short of the difference between surviving and dying, the way that damage is visibly displayed is dynamic and could be different every time. In DCS I’ve landed a bit hard before and suddenly it looks as though my airframe has been riddled with shrapnel as if it was caused by enemy fire. I think a lot of it is half arsed in DCS, relying on the excuse that it’s a sim and should be more about the effect the damage has than how it looks - similar to how crashing in some driving sims shows no damage to the car. But when part of the sim is “combat”? It’s a poor excuse and we should be pushing them to do better not trying to make excuses for it. The lack of consistency by nature of different developers doing the same thing in different ways is the biggest issue with the sim imo, and damage modelling is just one small part of that.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy I hear you. A lot of things in DCS need work for sure. Seems like some of it is just bugs too. I think they are working on some changes to the damage model now. It might be underwhelming because in the modern era BVR fights, most hits are kills anyway, so there's no room for subtle damage. Now that you say this, I do recall landing a SU-25 T with no rudder, but it still responded to rudder input. I chalked it up to FC3 being not full fidelity...
I play both, warthunder only by mouse :P I wish that DCS implemented some settings to reduce the unecessary set-up clutter, like why do I have to boresight the maverick before taking off? that's just clutter to me.
If you spawn into a hot started jet then the faffy stuff can be toggled in the mission editor. Downside of that is that you have no control over how it’s set up in a multiplayer server.
If Gaijin didn’t neglect sim the way they do, this could genuinely rival DCS. With hundreds more aircraft, less punishing gameplay, better graphics (imo), and a more beginner friendly start, war thunder beats DCS in most ways outside of full realism and hardcore gameplay. War thunder is also insanely cheap (it’s free after all), and buying aircraft at most will cost $70 when DCS modules cost way more at times. If Gaijin dedicates a few updates in part to just improve sim, war thunder could genuinely build a dedicated sim community
I agree with the general point of your comment, but I think the landscapes and aircraft models are undeniably better looking in DCS - it’s borderline photo realistic. But WarThunder has WAAAAAYYYYY better particle physics, things look much better when they take damage, catch fire or explode. The cost comparison is a tough one as well, I think £70 for a premium in WarThunder is insanity, personally. Considering the most expensive DCS modules are roughly the same cost but offer so much more value for money. But the difference is that in WarThunder it’s not really the plane you’re paying for, it’s reducing the length of time you need to grind the next unlock. Whereas in DCS you’re buying a study level recreation of a real aircraft. Within their respective economies the value is appropriate, but compared against each other it seems ridiculous WarThunder can charge that much for a new airframe skin pasted over the same controls everything else uses.
Dcs has created this "I am a fictional fighter pilot therefore I can judge those who plane another video game" All of them play either growling sidewinder or hoggit servers the most brain dead community. Yet none of them realize it's just a fucking game both. While WT is more approachable for the majority of people and dcs is for a more niche crowd it doesn't change anything they are both video games.
I like to say that the best measure of a simulator's realism is in the decisions players make. If your decisions in the sim lead to that outcomes that we'd expect in the real world, then it's a good simulator. It doesn't matter if you have extremely realistic flight modeling or cockpit switchology if players use gimmicky tactics that no real world pilot would ever consider. If the simulator encourages pilots to use realistic tactics, then it's realistic. In this respect, I actually think War Thunder is just as good as DCS, if quite different in its game modes. I enjoy both WT and DCS, and other sims. It's natural for people to be invested in their preferred game, to justify it in spite of its flaws, and to want it to be The Best, but that sort of tribalism doesn't seem very useful to me. There's no reason we can't enjoy multiple sims, and do it without denigrating other players' choices.
The difference between WT and DCS is like Forza Horizion and Assetto Corsa. The arcade/sim games are a great intro to the mechanics and the techniques, but can lack in realism and immersion. What makes DCS far better than WT is the depth of knowledge in the game that isn't just how to dogfight. There is more variety of mechanics in DCS that are lacking in WT just as there are more planes in WT than there are in DCS. The games are two sides of a coin
I agree with the point of WT has allowed me to learn so much about the dynamics in dogfights. For as many problems WT has, and for however disgusting Gaijin's business model is. WT will forever remain as the game that brought me into flight sims AND the world of aviation.
I'll add something else to the favour of WT: it is the only game on the market that allows someone to experience combat flight sim in a relatively realistic environment AND being able to execute maneuvers without having to invest hundreds of dollars for a sim gear first. That first taste of flying has been bringing people consistently into this niche genre of flight sim. Think about how many people we have played with in DCS and IL-2 started in WT. This should say enough about the matter.
Agreed. WT is the only combat sim I can play using mouse and keyboard. DCS gave me no options with their strict keybind system and lack of any kind of mouse aim.
When it comes down to it there is no other game that gives us the approachability and selection war Thunder does. It’s not perfect but it really is incredible. I’ve been playing since like 2012.
"for however disgusting Gaijin's business model is"
Well, ED is way ahead of them in being money grinders... Imagine you had to pay for an updated model of T-34-85? That's what we do in DCS when black sharks 2345 come out
@@ГеоргийМурзич I'm sorry but you are completely ignorant if you think that's all it is. Updated modules like Black Shark 3 have many entirely new systems
@@hresvelgr7193 Yeah-yeah... But when WT adds some new mechanics those are for free :)
Man seeing the 37s and 23s be ate alive in some of those clips makes me sadge. Like another video I saw of a 21 dumping half its ammo into a saber which put out its fire and kept flying on ECW server, lol I can see why people want it removed.
The Sabre is a bit of a meme in DCS imo, it has a really low heat signature as well as a ridiculously tanky damage model.
It’s like the Canberra’s fuselage in WarThunder, but as a plane lol
It's amazing how you kept replicating both dogfights back 2 back !!
great video!
Msfs was my first experience with any type of aviation back in 95. WT got me started in combat aviation sim, and I've arrived at DCS in which I love the technicality of. Each has its place and purpose.
My first flight sim was also MSFS. Version 1.0, around '84.
I went from MSFS to DCS and IL2.. now I mostly play WT Sim because it's a better GAME than DCS. DCS is just fucking boring. Only so many times I can flip a switch and say "Oooooo... ahhhhh
I wish some devs would make more planes similar to the Flaming Cliffs/IL2 planes so we'd have more than the same old planes using the same strategies every match
@@jimlthor Maybe that's the issue. Flying the aircraft is more fun than just flipping switches.
I know part of this has a bit to do with external factors, but the sim I probably had the most fun with was Chuck Yeager's Air Combat. Probably Il-2: 46 in pretty close second.
@@burnttoast111 IL2 1946 is one of the best. And the amount of mods for it is insane. I still play it occasionally
@@jimlthor I *highly* recommend playing 1946 with a force-feedback stick, if you get the chance. I have a Logitech G940 (which is nice, but has some issues), but I know that the old Sidewinder FFB stick used to be available used on Ebay for fairly cheap.
In simpler aircraft designs (like in WW II aircraft), they use cables going from the controls to the control surfaces. As the speed increases, the controls offer more resistance, and this is modeled well in '46. On the ground, the controls are 'floppy', but at high speed, they get more rigid. The effect of this is you can 'feel' the speed you are going, which is really helpful in preventing bleeding off too much speed without looking at any instruments. Plus it improves immersion.
NOTE: FFB should not be confused with force-sensing, which is used on some modern aircraft, like the F-16, as part of the fly-by-wire system.
War Thunder is simply the most approachable air/ground combat sim on the market today. Given that it has its issues BUT I absolutely love it and honestly have a hard time playing anything else… so that tells you something right there.
Exactly, WT still the ultimate arcade Warbird game, and IL2 and DCS are simulator.
10 Millions users versus 1500 users x)
Really looking forward to seeing more on this topic, as someone who currently only plays Warthunder Sim but has DCS and is waiting to dive into it, this sort of comparison is super useful. Really interesting to see which aspects WT does a surprisingly better job at implementing, such as the damage models impacting flight, as well as radar modelling and missile mechanics etc.
I anticipate getting flak for parts of that, because your aircraft will feel different after taking a hit in DCS but elements of how that damage manifests doesn’t always feel true to what actually happened to cause it.
For example if you land hard and shred your gear, your airframe will be full of shrapnel as if you got damaged by enemy fire.
But short of your gear being ruined, the flight controls wouldn’t feel any different.
Then there are cases where I’ve flown a MiG-19 with literally no elevators at all, but somehow still able to control my pitch with the stick, just less…
But then you get helis in WarThunder eating tank shells with no thought given to the gigantic bank of electronics and instrumentation that would be annihilated even if the mechanical drive components were somehow missed - and tanks having huge “empty” gaps in them where they can soak damage for days for no penalty, it’s possible to argue it both ways if you twist things a bit.
It’s a hard topic to talk about in depth in the space of a short clip, but it boils down to all vehicles in WarThunder being tended to by the same Dev team, Vs DCS being a bit of a higgledy piggledy mess, which I think is worse - consistent expectations are important in a game, which DCS still is, as much as people want to behead anyone that calls it that instead of “sim”.
DCS is amazing and well worth the time to get into it. Warthunder isnt really a sim
I agree, once you get into DCS and the learning huge curve the game cannot really be compared to anything else out there@@AddyRazz
@@AddyRazz
Yet it simulates a lot of things better than DCS.
@@Bullet4MyEnemyAren't tanks in DCS just a straight up HP pool with a vague armor value defining whether X munition can even damage them? I don't think DCS has any room to brag there, for sure. I totally agree on heli's though, the survivability of them as artificially higher just because of the weirdly lacking internals they have. Even just things like fuel lines being modelled would increase lethality by 2x-3x I'd wager.
3:20 I love the Viggen just vanishing out of thin air xDD
Yeah, stuff like that kinda ruins the whole “immersion” vibe at times, often you can hit stuff so hard it just completely disappears - not even an explosion effect just like, straight up despawns.
Warthunder was my gateway drug into IL-2 and DCS. Honestly, there is no better game to start learning the basics of BFM and energy fighting than WT. The hardcore sim players may lambast as much of they want, but the truth is that WT is the best way to get into more advance flight sims.
At the start of the vid, when you mentioned that you started as a WT-tuber, it reminded me that I think I've been following your channel since even before your WT sim days. If I'm not mistaken you used to make airsoft vids before that. Anyways, what I really wanted to say was that it's funny how universal the complaints of DCS are when from people like us that came from the WT sphere once you take the rose tinted glasses off. Most of the stuff in this vid I've been saying for years, and I just find some solace in seeing more people talk about it. Keep up the vids. You're like the only DCS creator I actually watch lol
You really must’ve been around for a while if you remember my Airsoft stuff lol, that’s madness - you might be one of my oldest subscribers
Thanks for the video. I learned how to dogfight in WT Realistic from my 10 to 17 years old, then quit and after a few years later got into DCS. I was considering getting back into WT in Sim mode, but your video convinced me that WT wasn't what I was looking for.
Another factor is the rate at which fights are happening. War Thunder its one fight after the other. This is just a massive amount of experience within a short timeframe. To accumulate the same amount of fighting in DCS is disproportionally harder and takes way more time.
Nice and objective video. As a WT only player looking to get into DCS I'm surprised how much skill is transferable and how WT even does some things better, like the damage modeling.
I don't recall having a stick up my ass but my hatred for WT comes from two simple things: I played 1700 hours of ground battles and you can't pick a plane and fly, you gotta work for the game. If not for those two things, I wouldn't hate on WT so much. WT has a lot of stuff implemented WAY better than DCS, but as a game, it sucks.
You can pick a plane and fly in ground sim
@@Bullet4MyEnemy well, I was talking about the grind. Its insufferable in the cold war era. Are you talking about the CAS? Because CAS is one of the many reasons ground battles suck so much.
@@madrigo
When you mentioned ground battles I thought your complaint was the spawn points - the grind is fair enough, it is bullshit; especially with all the things you have to grind more than once across multiple trees…
This was incredibly well done.
This vid and Enigmas take on WT is something the DCS community doesnt want to talk about.
Because it was would probaly irrationalize the thousands of dollars and countless hours spent on hardware and modules.
I was fully in agreement with Enigma's video, I was surprised by how many people seemed to completely miss his point and just react negatively without thinking through the points he made.
It wasn't my intention to draw parallels with this video, but as more episodes are eventually released I will be trying to show that full fidelity is a spectrum, and at the low end it's borderline FC3/WarThunder.
It really is a case of where you draw the line in the sand, and how mad you want to get about it.
It's difficult to compare the two games really, unless only referencing dogfighting. Modern DCS jets require some nice hardware because of the hundreds of keybinds that are available. You can get away with just a nice HOTAS, but it's beneficial to have hardware to use for some of the other keybinds too. Dogfighting is just one aspect of DCS and some players won't even mess with it, they'll stick to BVR combat or ground attack instead.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy Flying often feels sterile in a lot of sim-lite games, and that is a killer for me. I have a pilot's license, so I know what flying a plane feels like, and I did have a lesson in a helicopter once, too. Unlike the preceding series of LOMAC, flying generally feels really good in DCS, of course it does vary a bit between modules.
@@burnttoast111
DCS will always win effortlessly on feel
Absolutely on point. I’m in the process of getting ready to get into DCS. I started out in WT in 2013 currently on my 2nd account but DCS at least from what I see seems to be more on the quality side. WT had pretty good quality but I wouldn’t compare WT to DCS. Seems to be a different philosophy between those games.
I’ve been playing WT sim mode for over 7 months and I’ve learned so much but I think I’d be much better if I switch to HOTAS from MnK
WT sim is pretty good tbh. As far as fidelity goes it's probably on a similar level or even better than il-2 1946 and that is as realistic as it got during the peak of flight sims in the 90s and early 00s. A lot of DCS fanatics really put rose tinted glasses when it comes to the many issues with the game. Realistic flight models and clickable cockpits is more or less where the advantages end for DCS. Ordnance and damage models are MUCH better done in WT. DCS missile flight models are mostly inaccurate and very inconsistent. Bomb and especially rocket blast radius is also very wrong and the damage models for ground vehicles are literally health bars. Aircraft damage models are not much better either. DCS is a place where you can take a jet you like and fly around with it, experiencing as closely as possible how it behaved irl. The moment you engage in combat though, the experience takes a nosedive. This is even more exacerbated by how difficult it is to make a good combat scenario. Most multiplayer servers are literally just an arena style furball, not realistic in the slightest. Single player scenarios get boring very fast and have literally zero replayability. The only reason I would even jump into DCS is because of Enigma's cold war server which through gargantuan effort fixed many of the inherent drawbacks of the mission editor.
@@stoyantodorov2133 That's not really true other than the bit about ground unit damage modelling being health bars and single player being boring.
@@stoyantodorov2133 DCS is best experienced with a co-op group flying together, using radio comms with missions that have been created by players in the mission editor. Playing DCS solo can be fun too but a virtual fighter squadron/group of friends is the way to go.
@@stoyantodorov2133 The claim that DCS aircraft damage models are not much better then health bars is complete bullshit. In DCS almost every system an aircraft has can be damaged. In War Thunder only the basic systems are modelled. You don't have to worry about a hit knocking out an avionics computer and having to switch to another, or a hit to the hydraulics messing with flaps, control surfaces and wheel brakes
The snail is catching up to ED
It's about a year away from the same era of aircraft
In what way?
@@DeadRabbit86 I meant it more like that obscure joke reference where, a person is immortal but they’re constantly being chased by a snail and if it touches them they die lol 😂.
But also I guess in general war thunders. Encroaching more and more on the more modern stuff that typically has been EDs court
Retired F-18 Instructor with 4000 hours in the Hornet. I've also got 1500 hours in F16s, M2000's and the Tornado through NATO transfers. I play WT and DCS to this day. Anyone who thinks WT is teaching you anything about rate and energy fights is clueless. WT is as arcade as it gets and nothing you think you've learned in WT will transfer to DCS, reality.
No aircraft has ever turned 7g for two seconds.
Both games are made by complete retards, dcs core development is stalled and the game hasn't released an update for the past year.
I’d have expected a Hornet instructor to be able to identify the viability of dogfight fundamentals in a game, but if you think WarThunder is “arcade as it gets” and they can’t be applied then I guess not…
Either that or you’re only aware of the stat boosted “arcade” mode and think I’m playing that from the cockpit?
You’re either lying or telling on yourself because there are demonstrable examples in the video where the same logic clearly works across both games.
If WarThunder is arcady, DCS is snapping at its heels by your own reasoning.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy Ye but every game that has planes can to a certain degree "teach you the fundamentals of dogfighting". What he is saying is that war thunder doesnt rly model energy fighting correctly. You accelerate too fast, you dont have systems that you need to manage mid dogfight(like for example in real life and in DCS if you pull too much AoA in the Mig-21 you kill your engine because you starve it of air but im WT you can pull as much as you want and it wont matter other then the fact you are gonna loose airspeed). Also missiles dont behave like they should in some cases, notching sometimes doesnt work at all(even tho you did it correctly). Also the way that aircraft handle is completely different, in WT its rly easy to fly the plane(even in SIM) compared to DCS and real life. You have a lot of stuff that helps you fly unlike dcs. So ye in comparison to DCS, WT is arcade and thats true even if you like it or not. That doesnt mean that WT is a shit game. Also DCS has better damage modelling(at least in the full fidelity models)
WarThunder doesn’t model system management, no.
But to say it doesn’t model energy fighting correctly is a misnomer.
What’s “correctly” to you?
When you turn, you pull AOA, which creates drag and slows you down. If you ease off the pitch for reduced AOA you will accelerate more quickly and regain energy.
If you manage those factors appropriately you can best someone else whose aircraft favours a different management regime (one vs two circle) or beat them at their own game if you do it better than they do from a pilot skill perspective.
The fundamentals work, losing cues look the same, what you can and can’t capitalise on are the same, knowing how to manage your speed using throttle and pitch works the same.
Deeper aspects aren’t involved, like compressor stalls, engine flame outs and having to navigate the switchology to arrive at the right ACM radar mode to help in a tight spot, but I never said they were.
Through trial and error only, no outside help, just playing the games; WarThunder would produce better dogfighting knowledge in someone with no prior experience than DCS would, based purely on the variety of airframes.
In DCS if you fly the MiG-21 you might realistically encounter 4 opponents with closely comparable dogfight performance to your own aircraft.
In WarThunder that number is likely upwards of 40.
Even if all of those aircraft had fantasy flight models, so long as Pitch > AOA > Drag > Loss of energy rings true, they will develop knowledge of dogfighting faster than they would in DCS.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy The speed up and acceleration are too fast compared to real life or for that matter DCS. Again that doesnt mean WT isnt a good game but back to my first statement "you can basically say that any game that has planes and models drag and speed to a certain extent is teaching you dogfighting basics". Dcs teaches you more than just the basics and even though some stuff certainly require some improvements it is still a better dogfighting sim. I played both of the games and from the gameplay standpoint i like both but if I had to chose a sim I would 100% go for DCS over WT because it just has so much more depth of gameplay in that matter
Good video. DCS shines for me as a sandbox, can create some great scenarios from historic to bizarre, let down a bit in single player by AI. Also cheaper or free with plane mods such as the F22.
Oh man, great video. Love watching both, and I can speak to someone who likes Warthunder SIM but is a bit too scared of DCS:
The fun of simplified flight, and the lack of extra mechanical complexity can be quite a bonus to someone who just wants to play for a few hours. I can hop into an F-16, a Mig-21, or a F-14 and they'll all be relatively easily controllable without much fiddling or memorization. One plane flows into the next, where the actual performance metrics like you mentioned are the things you try and pay attention to, but there's no need to read the cockpit or learn the layout of where real controls are.
It's a nice level of "Yup, nice pick up and play!" while providing something far more in depth than more arcadey games even in Warthunder's other modes itself.
It's just good fun.
You should get FC3 module for DCS. The planes are easier to manage and are not full fidelity. Meaning things like engine startup sequence is bind to shortcut keys.
dont be scared to play DCS, first you have low fidelity models that cost about 5 bucks, second if you play cold war or WWII planes, the principles are the same, and apply in both, ACM are the basic of combat and are equal pretty much everywhere, now if you enter in modern jets then it gets a lot more complex quick, but it isnt hard at all, just pick the plane you like and master it for a year or two, then every other model even being different, will be 10 times easier , also they give you 10% cash for every purchase that you can use to cut the price on the next purchase
@@hippoace Even advanced modules have simple start-up bindings. The whole startup is automated. Of course, it will still be more complicated flying it.
It's worth pointing out that the early jets are probably the simplest to operate, as their systems weren't that complex, and turbine engines are MUCH easier to operate than a high-performance piston engine. The only thing you need to memorize are approach speeds, landing procedures, etc., although you can make a reference card for that stuff, so you can glance at it while playing.
EDIT: Also having nosewheel steering is much easier than controlling a tail-dragger on the ground.
@@burnttoast111 erm which advanced modules have simple startup binds?
@@hippoace Pretty sure all of them. I think the default key binding may be Windows + Home keys. It still goes through the entire process, just it is automated (and it doesn't make mistakes).
You may still need to make some final adjusts to radios, etc. and maybe also systems like Radar in the MiG-21, which will run out of alcohol in ~40min if only left in standby mode. And ~15-20min if on.
I also started on WT and I think it was super helpful for dcs. It didn’t help at all with systems but it was tremendously useful for energy fighting and dogfighting in general.
In general I think some DCS players tend to oversell the realism of dcs compared to other games because of the systems fidelity. There is definitely stuff that is better in WT like the damage modeling you mentioned and some missile mechanics, engine heat for example and clouds messing with IR seekers.
Well done! I think this will make an excellent reference when someone asks what the difference between the two games is all about.
Great vid !
Hopefully the "super serious" part of dcs crowd wont lynch you for comparing it to a "game" xD
I've been following you for a while now on both your WT and DCS content, since I also (like many) play both. You are one of the better dogfighters that I watch as far as cold war guns on target type gameplay. I haven't tried sim on war thunder, in fact I usually fly just keyboard + mouse on air RB. I am not sure why, but I've always treated WT as a very very casual way to chuck some matches and quickly get into the action. DCS on the other hand, I have the rudder pedals + hotas + head tracker and really should for the full immersion as it's a sim and is really meant for that kind of player.
As someone who plays both, it is really interesting to hear your insights on the similarity of the two games and how a lot of the skills are at least in part transferable. I also wonder if newer modules like blackshark 3 and possibly the upcoming phantom with more "modules" within the airframe are in preparation for changes to how damage feels. I agree that damage in WT feels more impactful - sometimes even ridiculous - whereas DCS often allows me to shrug off considerable damage where I look like a piece of swiss cheese.
I'm definitely going to give WT Sim a try with the full DCS setup and see how that feels after watching this video. I'm only ~2/3 through the video at the time of writing this, but I really appreciate you taking the time to put out content like this that points out the different strengths of two games a lot of the flight community plays.
Also, I'm thrilled that you're giving helicopters a whirl as per your last video. The learning curve is a bit steep initially, but they are a blast to fly!
Hop in the discord if you want some sim buddies, I think there’s potentially more WarThunder people than DCS at the moment 👍🏼
Variety is the spice of life.
Air players form war thunder going to dcs is like dude playing tank battles in war thunder going to world of tanks.
Yes thats it, the similarities end with dogfights. And the point you make about learning how to DF is true for any game, IL2 heck even Elite dangerous and MSFS in multiplayer. But the best thing WT has going for it is the ease in which one can start playing it. Even if Sim were to be the only mode available, I'd prefer WT over DCS to kill some time because it doesn't take forever to get into fights with my older PC.
Very nice series idea, loved the detailed breakdown, I think it might be a very nice serie
Nice, its what Ive been saying since years. The fighting style stays the same, because WTs flight models are "good enough" to make it work.
I often feel like people get skinned alive just for comparing the two or mentioning them in the same sentence, which is a bit sad. Fact is: You can have fun in both games.
About 14:01: Remember there are WTs custom gun sights, I think we spoke about it at some time
Nothing wrong about learning to dogfight in WT, as you said the principles are the same and you get good at killing things or just getting killed.
I'm more of the "flying the plane" type and I really like complex air to ground stuff which you just can't realistically achieve in pretty much all of WT. But on the other hand I really, really suck at BFM. Just different things for different people.
DCS damage can be inconsistent but generally feels like - in the 21 particularly - even a few grazing .50 cal hits to the wing will put your handling directly in the bin. Fuselage damage seems to have much less effect, but I absolutely know the second anything has hit my wing because the jet immediately begins trying to roll out from under me and begins seriously protesting in any turn.
As far as your main point goes, no matter how many issues I have with WT's flight models themselves, you are of course correct: the principles don't change and the more reps you get, the better you are. Most DCS players would get absolutely smoked by WT players in a dogfight (and often they do). Some of the best dogfighters I know in DCS came over from War Thunder and most of them still play it from time to time.
This is a seriously cool video, thanks for sharing !!! Ive played War Thunder for years, and am hoping to get into DCS real soon once ive upgraded the PC a bit. I was genuinely surprised to hear that WT has a better damage model, I would have thought DCS would be an element higher.
But regardless I am quite impressed with how WT looks in VR/1st person, may just have to give it a go myself as I already have a head tracker and quality controls, just need a better graphics card to do it all in VR.
It’s less that DCS don’t do it and more that it varies from aircraft to aircraft because they’re all developed by different companies, so they’ll all tackle certain aspects of the modelling process in different ways.
WarThunder’s strength is its consistency with everything being coded and implemented by the same development team, with only 3D modelling being outsourced rather than everything from the weapons, damage, flight modelling etc like in DCS.
i feel like dcs is just better for it in terms of physics, but both are good. it just depends how it feels to each individual person. preferences are valid 🗣️🗣️
Great video to break down some misconceptions between the two games. Hopefully it can allow some WT players to make the jump to DCS.
Lovely lovely video, well done! Comparisons are super interesting!
Tfw I didn't get featured in this video;( I played against you at 10.7 on Sinai like a month ago
you cant tell them *all* apart but you can recognize flare patterns in WT to help tell a general type of aircraft! for example upward firing flares often being part of soviet ground strike Sukhois and late MiGs. paired with context clues you can totally make educated guesswork from it- also some ingame aircraft like the Buccaneer having very unique ones can come in handy sometimes lol
Of course you can tell them apart. Even a blind man can see the difference. War thunder look like crap compared to DCS World.
@@Dieselboy420
I think you’ve missed their point a bit, I don’t think anyone can argue WarThunder looks better (except maybe particle effects and fire), they’re talking about using flare patterns to ID the aircraft launching them.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy I actually think WT looks better in some ways, especially ground vehicles.
@@Dieselboy420war thunder looks better on worse systems than dcs looks on good systems
By that i mean DCS OPTIMIZE YOUR FCKN GAME ALREADY IT STILL RUNS LIKE SHIT, I CAN RUN WAR THUNDER AT MAX AND IT LOOKS 20× BETTER AND RUNS 20× FASTER THAN YOU ON THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SETTINGS
Totally, DCS especially from update 2.9 looks beautiful, there is no comparison @@Dieselboy420
This video is one of the best videos for either communities I have ever seen
Thanks 🙏🏼
I'd say that war-thunder is for the people that want to have fun doing air 2 air combat, and DCS players is for people that enjoy getting into all the little details about the jets or Heli's they own. Warthunder is better for Variety of aircraft, DCS is better for hardcore simmers that want to build a full simpit where every button they press does something in the cockpit. I do wish that the planes I own in DCS had some of the variety of models or types that warthunder has. for me I just never liked the input setup for warthunder all that much, and the grind of just getting to the airframe I wanted to fly just wasn't for me, I wanna get in the airframe, fly it and learn it and improve my skill with it in combat. if they reduce the grind by about 90% I'd jump right back into it and enjoy it tho.
This vid was quite a bit more informative and interesting than I thought it would be (being a war thunder RB player). I didn't know that DCS didn't model the partial damage of components like war thunder does, would be cool to see that added. My main complaint with war thunder Air RB is how chaotic it is. There's just too many people in too small of a map to actually dogfight people. And I know sim is better in that regard, I just don't play it. Would be nice to see RB control scheme, but Sim map setup. Anyways, great vid. I'm glad I saw this.
This is actually in correct, they have actually model partial damage and it does actually have an effect, it just doesn’t show like war thunder, for example you can actually notice the effect of damage to the wings, and for example of your radar is shot or damage it will effect that and how you can use it, same goes wings, flaps, engines, landing gear, and so on, the Other thing to remember is that the aircraft in DCS compared to war thunder are from an era in the jet age where almost 50% of an aircraft’s lift came from the body of the plane.
@@grasshopperstudios2004 ahhh, alrighty then
I have a question. howd you grind Warthunder? did u play simulator to grind and did you use premium time/vehicles?
I’ve been playing it since launch, so I never really had to massively boost through a lot of things at once, the game sort of added more vehicles as I was getting to them anyway.
Realistic battles are the fastest way to grind, with premium time and vehicles.
But play for fun, enjoy the game for what it is; if your only goal is a specific vehicle then you’re going to burn out a long time before you get there.
Overall I agree with what you are trying to say. I enjoyed the video and comparisons.
Amazing deflection gunnery kills as well as a deep sexy voice.
Nice video. I never did War Thunder myself, but I did get started with IL-2 great battles a month or two before doing DCS, though I jumped into Multiplayer on both right at the start. I find that the techniques from both carried over a lot, which of course would work with war thunder as well, BFM and the tactics for setting up good fights is pretty universal, and the differences are for the most part nuanced. The big problem for war thunder for me is the buisness model to get new aircrat that is required, and the idea of grinding for new aircraft.
Nice video. I am in the minority but imo DCS would benefit creatly from a few more FC3 type of planes. All that fidelity only makes it harder to enjoy more planes.
I would also appreciate more FC3 aircraft, especially if they’ll never make it as full fids due to lack of documentation.
So long as the flight model can be done justice I don’t have an issue with the systems being simplified.
Absolutely. @@Bullet4MyEnemy
Yeah Enigma made a good video about this topic exactly. Honestly War Thunder has so much support from its developers that if they wanted they could make it extremely realistic and possibly not alienate their players
Found your channel recently, nice to watch good energy managment and knowledge what you can do with particular plane and what not. Think most of people are flying new stuff in DCS require alot off learning, is more strategie game when you can engage when not, theres "not" alot of dogfighting involved with AMRAAMS and strategie games. Think WT much better trainer for Dogfights where you get thrown right in to the Action can gradually increase the difficulty from easy to sim. Where DCS is pretty much unforgiving.
Yeah, I'd love to see more vids like this. I enjoyed the way you made the video I decided to subscribe to your channel, Bullet.
Thanks 🙏🏼👌🏼
as far as dog fighting goes, dcs and war thunder do it best if you ask me.
You can turn off the gyro sight in war thunder by going to the Y menu then cockpit and then change sight in cockpit mode
Doesn’t that just change whether you’re using the ballistic sight for ground targets etc?
Going to have to try it
As someone who has over 1000 hours in WT and 800 in DCS, I can safely say both have their pros and cons!
War Thunder offers faster gameplay while still keeping the realistic aspects of dogfighting. If you want to just jump in and shoot down some other players, WT is definitely for you. Beware the grind to get aircraft you want though. It can definitely take awhile. You can thank Gaijin's predatory business model for that.
What DCS has to offer is more than just dogfighting. It strives to simulate what it's like to be a fighter pilot and how to fully operate your chosen airframe. The adrenaline you get from simply just starting your plane is amazing! When you finally encounter your first bandit, its exhilarating. However, don't expect to do that within your first few hours of the game. The learning curve is super high and not even from a flying standpoint. You literally have to sit there and read manuals, watch videos, and more in order to learn how to start the damn thing and get it in flying order. It's not just one button to shoot either haha! And the money you have to spend is ridiculous too. Flight sim gear is not cheap and will cost you at least $100 entry. The planes in DCS, while they do go on sale, are still quite expensive.
So to players looking at what to get into, these are my two cents on either. I love and play both to this day even with their shortcomings.
War Thunder - относительно простая и разнообразная. Тебе не нужно, купив Ка-50 летать только на нëм. Платя за него, ты по-сути облегчаешь себе путь до Ка-52/Ми-28НМ и открываешь всю советскую ветку вертолëтов.
Да, я согласен с тем, что DCS более реалистичная и продуманная и это еë плюс. Как пример в War Thunder - многие СПО не рабоют в кабине в отличие от DCS.
what kind of head tracking of camera settings do you use? Im struggling to find a good smooth track it setup.
I use TrackIR5 with the same profile for both games.
War Thunder is a great starting point for learning the basics of energy management, combat manuvering, and visually identifying the state of the fight you're in. It forces you to learn so many different things that will work in some situations and not in others.
It forces you to be better at judging fights.
DCS sure, is far more in-depth with what it does, but it struggles with making anything accessible to the average joe with an interest in air combat.
There's a reason WT is the most popular between itself, IL-2, and DCS.
It's simply the most accessible.
I think the biggest difference between the two in terms of terms of flying and fighting is just system knowledge. With DCS the more systems knowledge you know, the more you can leverage the aircraft and the weapons it uses. War Thunder is a bit like the old IL2 1946, it's remembering some variables and you should be good - you can run the engines and airframes well above their design limitations because there's few limitations in the simulation. One is fine for just the experience of dog fighting, the other is more the complete experience of flying and fighting.
I'll never knock someone for playing WT and fighting in the sim mode but I prefer the whole simulation - the cockpits, the mission planning, navigation, GCI, comms etc.
This is a very good way of framing them against each other, I prefer DCS for the same reasons you list.
The stakes are higher and it goes beyond merely fighting the enemy, you have to fight your own plane as well.
I think what happened with the damage models is War Thunder traces back to the Il-2 games, which were pure WWII era, and focused extensively on the damage modeling, while DCS comes out of the Flanker -> LOMAC -> Flaming Cliffs line, where most kills were missile kills, which tended to be catastrophic hits.
As I gather ED is working on expanding the damage modeling baseline in DCS, but it's a long process to add it into something that didn't initially have it.
I've dipped in and out of Warthunder over the years, though I've only played it in Arcade mode. I'm a stick and rudder VR user, and it feel like that mode behaves really weirdly in VR. Do you recommend specifically Realistic or Sim for dogfighting? And how is the economy in those modes? It always sort of felt like when I had time to play, the game wanted me to stop playing, and when I didn't have much time to play, I needed to spend too much time getting into and through a match. Just seemed like there was a lot of weird friction, you know?
You’re definitely right about the root of the damage modelling.
Were you flying from the cockpit in AB with VR? I can’t imagine it working in 3rd person.
A lot of people really rate WarThunder sim in VR because the performance is so good, it’s a really well optimised game for all the graphical fidelity it has, they’re actually producing a VR only product at the moment but there aren’t any details about it yet, not sure if it’ll be sim based or toned down, but I would recommend trying sim if you have VR, it’ll be a lot better than arcade.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy Always in cockpit :). But I found that there was a lot of 'nodding' that happened in high turn rates.
I'll give it another go in Realistic and Sim mode and see how it goes. I already got fairly deep into the US WWII fighters line, which was all I really wanted to fly anyway.
@@HarryVoyager
The nodding thing sounds like the “sense of flight” slider in the options/controls menu; it’s supposed to make the camera move around under G but with head tracking or VR it’s just obnoxious
You can lock the gunsight in WT
You need to search a bit in options or in the radial menu
Was this added recently? Because I’m fairly sure I would be aware of this already if it were true.
You probably know this, but if you make a custom skin for the MiG-17 and input this block of text, it will cage the gunsight-
replace_tex{
from:t="asp_3n_collimator*"
to:t="sikte_s7_fixed_collimator*"
}
replace_tex{
from:t="_empty_collimator*"
to:t="asp_3n_collimator*"
}
Fresco's armor glass with no tweaks to simulate light refraction makes for a very sad Fresco :'(
I fly the F1-6C in DCS and the Barack II in WT. I prefer flying with the mates in WT. DCS is just still bug hell.
DCS online has been unplayable since the last major update imo.
DCS not sorting their shit out is unironically the biggest motivator to play WarThunder 😅
Some of the best dog fighters in DCS play war thunder as well. I think it’s just pooh poohed by people that don’t really have a good grip on dogfighting. I’ve never played war thunder personally, one thing I do enjoy in dcs is how much little things on the module can be exploited. Thinks like manipulating the manoeuvre flaps on the tomcat to suit your future situation. Messing with the ARU in the 19 and 21 if that’s your thing. When to exploit flaps up in the f5. Not negative G’ing in the 21 to avoid fuel starvation. Not going over 1300 ias.
Dcs depth of the module is very challenging too. Flying the p47 at max manifold takes a whole lot of attention mid dogfight to keep that engine running just below its parameters and not to overheat or seize it. It’s nice to enjoy knowing everything that could go wrong and mitigating it while at the same time choosing angles, reacting to the opponent and throwing in the odd 6 check.
I haven’t played WT but I definitely find the flight models in DCS are more attractive to me than IL2. I find they keep their energy almost too well over several turns (when a dcs warbirds would have gone nose down a lot earlier). Torque for rolling too makes a difference (do they have that in WT)?
I like your WT videos, it’s nice to see jets we don’t have and will never get fighting
The things you mention are definitely where the satisfaction is its highest in DCS, totally agree.
System management is an element missing in WarThunder, but it does model torque from props and things like air density based on temperature and how that can affect your top speed and acceleration.
As well as thermodynamics, like your engine will overheat faster on a hot map vs one with snow.
IR missiles aren’t able to acquire locks through cloud in WarThunder either, and lasers can’t penetrate clouds for the purpose of guiding bombs either.
For something so looked down on there’s a fair chunk of things they’ve modelled better than DCS has.
Sweet as, man hearing that you can’t turn off gyro gunsights would drive me bananas though. All I want is a nice boresight dot
@@Magpie...
You can mod the sight shown to any other type found in the game files without triggering anti-cheat, I just personally haven’t managed to figure it out.
So there is a solution, it’s just infinitely more faff than a simple keybind would be…
I liked this video concept.
The fact of the matter is that when you try to represent aircraft as their real life counterparts and they fly like they do in real life, it is infinitly cooler than when you represent the same weapons and aircraft with wrong characteristics.
This is hard to interpret, because you can pick examples from both games that fall on both sides.
Like the radar in the Fishbed in DCS isn’t even close to realistic, whereas in WarThunder it performs more true to life.
Like I say in the video, it comes down to where you choose to draw the line of acceptable realism.
The Fishbed in DCS is a “full fidelity” module, but how in-depth that actually means depends on the aircraft and the developer.
Things like the Mirage 2000 or F-14 are modelled exceptionally true to life, whereas the Fishbed or especially things like the Sabre are borderline low fidelity in some cases, yet people perceive them as more realistic because they have a higher price tag attached when they’re always corners cut in certain things.
There are compromises in realism at every level across both games.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy The depth is probably the largest difference. Also a big thing(And the reason why I got into DCS) is Gaijins business model. It is outrageous. If I wanted to pay that much to have an ounce of fun, it might as well be on a game where the planes are closer to the real thing.
War thunder is also a pick up and play, while you have to spend a lot of time learning and mastering a certain plane on DCS. Some may not consider that fun, but I do.
I largely agree. I’d far rather spend £50 on a full fid MiG-21 than a premium one in war thunder. Obviously in war thunder you’re also buying the potential to grind faster for subsequent things, but it’s about what you value more.
No doubt the DCS MiG21 is mostly modelled better than the war thunder one. But the question is just, is the war thunder one modelled well enough to have a decent dog fight in? Yeah it doesn’t wobble or behave quite like it should, but I can turn and burn and it bleeds speed on the delta wing across the war thunder interpretation of them as I’d expect, and it’s good enough for a scrap.
That being said, I enjoy the complexity of having to manage my limits in the DCS MiG-21 more, even if I know that (for the time being) DCS doesn’t have an F8 crusader, F100, A6, A7, Sabredog, etc for me to fight it in.
It’s about whether you value the in depth study of the jet itself or the variety of what you can fight (even if they’re an approximation)
Nevertheless BFM is BFM, and war thunders flight models are just about good enough to apply core principles.
The thing that keep bringing me back to warthunder is the uniformity of the controls. I can startup and fly my radar equipped fighter jet with the same buttons and switches and levers that I can start up my mustang with and i can do the same for a yak and a spit. The fact that while I do have to learn how to fly the planes, i don't have to learn how to work the plane make the game that much easier to jump into after a workday. I love the mustang, the P-47 and the P-40 but in a full simulator the engine management between the two is vastly different, meanwhile in warthunder the engine is approximated, like an rpg game that assumes your character has some background in the task at hand and so is in no danger of destroying the engine on the ground freeing me up to fly with the mindset of someone who already has a working understanding of their planes systems.
I must be doing something wrong with my controls setup because I cannot fly WT sim at all. I turn off all the instructors, autotrim, but when I center my stick it still springs back to wings level like it's in autopilot. And it runs crazy slow like half second control lag. DCS just responds to my stick inputs how I expect.
There is a sort of noob mode for sim where it rolls you level, but I thought it was just for mouse control, generally I feel like the opposite is true and you can roll 45 degrees and it'll just stay there without causing a bank, weakness of the lower fidelity flight modelling - regarding the slow response times, there are sliders called "sensitivity" in the controls, but they're best described as input lag; if you do give it another look, sensitivity to 100% should give you a 1:1 control input.
I would say variety isn't War Thunder's actual strong suit, it's accessibility. It's because the flight models are heavily simplified, and the systems are heavily simplified, that players can get into it easier, and develop the interest needed to get into IL2 or DCS. If you want variety, DCS already offers more than you need- You can fly an I-16 against an F-16, both with significantly better flight models than anything WT offers, and dozens of mix ups in between. From the argument that variety is better than fidelity of flight model, you could compare most actual cold war air campaigns and see that both sides rarely had more than four or five types (usually one or two) that participated heavily in air combat, there are exceptions but this is true for everything. DCS offers significantly more variety at the cost of fidelity than most real fighter pilots of the 60s, 70s, and 80s faced in their regional conflicts- which one taught dogfighting better? You could make the same argument you did, and I do think it is valid, that academically, being an F-5 pilot in the Ogaden war and facing mainly MiG-21s with a chance of facing a MiG-17, and doing so often in ambushes (which most kills from WW2 to present have been, an amubsh where one side doesn't even know it has been engaged till rounds are fired) you are on paper going to learn less than a DCS player who takes his F-5 against the variety offered by the gap in flight model between your potential adversaries you could set up to face. That said, depending on what you want out of it, do you care what the variety of possible enemies could be on paper, from UFO to rock, or do you just care about being able to defeat the two threats you could possibly face, and that is not just enough, but all the dogfighting knowledge you could possibly need? What I mean to get at, is does variety really matter when DCS offers more than most have seen in real cold war conflicts, and War Thunder offers more than DCS? I would say accesibility is king when learning to dogfight, and fidelity is the king of mastering. I don't care if I only faced the same type, or one or two, if I could afford it I would rather fly a real fighter and learn that way than DCS, or IL2, or War Thunder. It's just that War Thunder, then IL2, then DCS are more accessible in that order.
There is always the case that the less accessible (closer to or in reality) the fight is, the more real it is. Who is better off, a real pilot who remembers he must fight one type in the horizontal and the other type he could face in the vertical, or the man who has never seen a real plane but can tell you the absolute specifics of every possible engagement type one could have vs forty other types? I don't think there is a wrong answer when you set ego aside- which one do YOU care about is all that matters- some men KNOW they will never fly a fighter, so they may prefer the latter, while some in the flight sim community fly real fighters, and may lean the former.
There are further things like mechanics of the flight models by type that are characteristic of the actual aircraft that can be pushed to win or lose fights ( high AOA behavior in the FW-190A8 being one go to example that you can readily compare in DCS, IL2, and WT back to back and feel the differences, and they are huge ) that others may touch on but I am leaving that out because I am responding to the premise in your video.
As someone who has been playing War Thunder, IL2 and DCS, from Arcade to Sim, mouse controls to a full HOTAS, pedals, and VR, from the I-16 to the F-16, starting in both in 2014 with air AB and the DCS MiG-21Bis (and actually getting into IL2 only a few years ago), I can say if I want to practice dogfighting fundamentals, IL2 is my pick. DCS is the place for systems and modern PVP, and War Thunder is the door in. They all have their place. It's case by case what you want with your real life means and interests.
Solid write up, and I agree completely with your summary
I too play both of these games. In VR. We are in the golden age of Sims but the player base is not keeping up. People want bang and click games instead of Sims. DCS can be a giant pain because it is so complex. In WT it's a fun game when you get decent enemies otherwise it's just a turkey shoot. Which sucks.
I really enjoyed this video. The comparison was great and interesting
I play both tbh. War thunder is in my opinion very decent. I used it to get the basics for DCS and when I started I felt I knew something.
Makes sense, sounds similar to IL-2 BoX vs DCS when it comes to WWII stuff. I'm more of a DCS guy so far as i'm in it for the immersion. Navigating and battling an empty tank and overheating engines after crossing back over the channel from France, instead of non-stop dog-fighting. But yeh, that's why I relatively suck at dogfighting :P, I just way less mileage.
i started my aircraft sim career in war thunder and now have graduated to DCS.. i fly war thunder now and it just doesnt hit the same as it used to... ive grown enough to appreciate the things DCS can offer that WT does not.
For me the biggest draw to DCS was the lack of an in game economy, no grind for unlocks, no grind for countermeasures or competitive weapons.
But also the freedom servers have to change the gameplay loop to whatever they want.
The actual sim aspect was surprisingly low on the list
@@Bullet4MyEnemy free to play has its drawbacks that will never be corrected simply by nature. I’m glad I’ve moved on
I don't know about SB but in RB if u choose the ground targeting site the gimble is off (on modern jet u have to also turn off CCIP) btw good vid XD
Haven’t noticed any issues personally, but haven’t tried ground pounding properly in a while.
Gun and bomb CCIP seems to work fine though, I use the gun pipper to see in fog when landing sometimes.
This is great. There are a few problems with war thunder, such as flaps and gear suddenly breaking instead of being stuck. But it is still a fantastic experience, with a bunch of aircraft we would never see in other games.
Curious as to what your thoughts are on IL2 1946 and great battles. As I feel its campaign and aircraft selection are much better than DCS, whilst having more realism than war thunder.
Having only recently got into PC gaming in the last ~4 years I always felt like it was sort of too late to look at IL2:1946, but I’m sure if I’d been around on PC 10 years ago I’d have been deep into it.
As it stands though, WWII era prop stuff just doesn’t grab me too much, so IL2 doesn’t really scratch the right itch.
It’s a shame though because the damage modelling especially looks amazing in Great Battles.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy 46 was the best in it's day, and there were something around 300 different aircraft (not all flyable), including variants. It was pretty much the sim to play. Plus, there were some early jets and I think 3 rocket planes (Me 163, BI-1, and Ohka). The standard Me 262, He 162, Gloster Meteor, and my favorite, the Arado Ar234. Plus some designs that never left the drawing board. The Pacific theater was the most fun, IMHO, and there is nothing yet to really scratch that itch.
hey, good video concept ! Are there any WT sim guides that you would recommend for people who wants to try it ?
I’m not actually aware of any unfortunately, the sim community is extremely niche - do you play WarThunder already or would you be starting fresh?
@@Bullet4MyEnemy I've played a bit before but always arcade with mouse and keyboard... never played long enough to unlock jets though ( but I'm close, like 2 or 3 planes to unlock before jets) but I've been playing DCS for a couple years now...
the reason i won't pickup DCS over WT is that i don't want to deal with the systems and learn a manual for every plane
It’s really not that bad once you map the basics, start up can be done automatically with 2 buttons, then you can get everything else mapped on your HOTAS
love the video, hoping to see more videos like this
great video. I haven't flown War Thunder personally, only DCS...but might give it a look.
It will be a tough transition that feels like a bit of a downgrade in terms of flight modelling, but certain mechanics are handled much better.
Primarily things like radar wave modelling and RWR frequency bands, as well as missile seeker differences actually affecting their capabilities.
What’s War Thunder like in terms of the physics and science behind notching missiles? I played WarThunder before I got in to DCS years ago but I only played low tier planes. In DCS it’s extremely difficult to evade missiles. You have to know how radar works and why plus you need to know stuff like terrain masking and the reflection of radar off of mountains. Plus the different types of radar returns. Also the different types of radar lock e.g STT vs RWS vs TWS and how the enemy aircraft’s RWR responds to them. How is that stuff in War Thunder?
The wave simulation is consistent across all aircraft so for some aircraft it’s implemented better than it is in DCS.
Reflections off the ground creating interference, notch gates, the difference between mono pulse and pulse doppler radar tracking and missile seeker heads, it’s all modelled quite meticulously.
In DCS only a few aircraft have things modelled to as high a standard, the Tomcat, Strike Eagle and Mirage 2000; with the upcoming F-4 being amongst them too.
The other aircraft have rough shod approximations at best, and at worst it’s mostly smoke and mirrors backed up by RNG.
The MiG-21’s radar in DCS for example, is just using the code from the Su-25T’s Shkval targeting pod, it has ridiculously unrealistic performance at low level, having a “filter” which effectively removes ground clutter completely.
Similarly the Mirage F.1’s radar is basically a viewfinder, with a looping gif of backscatter interference making it marginally difficult to pick out contacts, but once you do there is no difficulty locking them up.
DCS dresses things up to look more realistic by using the real radar symbology for each aircraft; whereas WarThunder applies the same superimposed UI for everything with radar in the game which gives people the false assumption that it’s quite basic.
Dogfighting in WT is a lot different to DCS, but fear the man who has many hours annihilating people with the F/A-26 and EF-24 in VTOL VR.
I personally feel like playing vtol has enhanced some skills like formation flying and dogfighting in DCS, but that’s just me.
Makes sense the skills would carry over - VR’s biggest gain for flight sims is the sense of scale and depth perception, makes formation flying and aerial refuelling much easier than flat screen.
Any flight game can teach you the BASIC IDEA of dogfighting but that doesnt make it a sim. If War Thunder is a sim, it wouldn't allow me to sustain 29 Gs for 3 seconds in realistic with no repercussions whatsoever which is exactly what happened
I am very much for the option of diversity with ever increasing fidelity.
Although I am still planning my transition to DCS, there are relatively few vehicles that I'd like to fly there.
The A-4E, UH-1, AH-64 and Mi-24 at this point.
This is nothing compared to the slew of interesting stuff in WT.
I actually don't require 110% fidelity because I am, and never will be a 100% fighter pilot.
At this rate I wonder if I will see the advertised F-8J before I get admitted to a care home.
exactly, don't be afraid to try DCS just because you play WT, ACM, BFM principles all apply in all games, so you wouldn't have a problem, start with simple stuff, like WWII or early cold era planes, they are super basic and simple to use, just a bit of caution on taking off and you will be fine xD, then you can go to modern jets, they are a lot more complex and BVR is a lot harder and dynamic than simple BFM, but you can slowly work up the ranks in DCS,
first start in Newby servers like 107Th server or Growling Sidewinder server, then go to medium servers like Tempest and Blue flag servers, then go to medium-hard servers like 104th server, and lastly join the top 1% of DCS PVPrs and play in DDCS Hardcore Dynamic server, its a fully dynamic campaign with full PVP focus, you need to fight for bases, control resources, gain resources, built defenses, do 150 miles flanking maneuvers with tanks, air and ground ambushes, gather intel behind enemy lines for slammer/JDAM attacks, coordinate with ground JTACs, Air Magics, move missiles from one base to another, air refuel and return to battle, etc. Campaign's can last for weeks to months before someone wins
for 70 bucks you get a reskinned copy paste plane in WT with the same boring combat system since 2013, for the same price you can get a fully muddled plane in DCS and enjoy a fully dynamic PVP campaign, just look at the new Heatblur F4 trailer, and compared with what you can buy for the same price in WT, its cheap once you realize that, and no, you dont need lots of extras, 1 joystick, OpeTrak AI track, and a webcam its all you need to play DCS effectively :)
My personal opinion about war thunder and il2 is that both are handled in a very similar way, il2 is a little more complex but what you learn in one is useful for the other, I also have dcs with the f16 but I like airplanes more a propeller,,, Point in favor of war thunder is that you find action faster, although any sim like DCS or il2 looks prettier
what maximum BR u play in WT to not get BVRed in second you take off?
I tend not to bother with the top tier lobbies, the maps aren't really big enough for how many players there are, how fast the jets are or the ranges they can engage at.
BVR is a bit of a meme in WarThunder though, just hug the deck and notch and you'll never die to a Fox-1
i tried playing WT in sim mode but i have a very hard time seeing things. maybe if i had a higher res screen
Tbh I think you overestimate the thinking ability of war thunder players in dogfights too much. xD from my own experience wt always develops a furrball, which doesn't necessarily happen in DCS. That's why I like DCS more even tho the DMG model is outdated by 10 years probably. For me it's 70% the player base which makes DCS my first choice
Good stuff bullet! I haven’t touched WT air in like six years, however I’d like to get back into it. Only thing that stops me is the grind 😂
Happy Thanksgiving if you celebrate! If not, happy 3rd Wednesday in November 😂😂
3rd Wednesday in Nov it is ha, glad you enjoyed.
DCS is weirdly low skill in terms of actual combat ability of the playerbase.
DCS players certainly have a leg up in terms of procedures thanks to full fidelity, but unfortunately it sometimes seems (or feels) like this comes at the cost of good BFM and ACM.
It's weird, but looking at the stats for ECW and generally observing the population of players on the server, most of the top pilots are players who transitioned quite recently to DCS and most of them have cut their teeth in War Thunder or IL-2.
Games like WT or IL-2 by default seem to throw people into a lot more fights and the larger populations mean that you get more people that are good.
It's become a joke on ECW, but I firmly believe that the best way to get good at DCS is to go play other flight sims for a couple of months.
I would agree that wt can teach you bfm at a basic level. However you said something in the video that i think is very untrue. Dcs damage models are still quite good, aim for the stabs, your gonna make it harder to control the aircraft, and even if you hit their aircraft, there may not be visual damage, but there is still some damage that the pilot has to deal with. It also simulates well what systems you lose when you get hit. I don’t know much about the MiG, but in the A-10C for example, depending on where you get shot, can restrict usage of certain systems like the mfd or tpod, etc. ultimately, any game that allows an f-14 to pull a spinning cobra maneuver in less than 2 seconds and recover from it easily without snapping off a wing, can never be a good simulator. The MiG in my opinion is one of the more old modules when it comes to when it was created and such so it may not be up to par in comparison to other aircraft modules… many modules have very good damage models and the aircraft you chose I think plays well into your experiences and opinions.
The A-10C is a special case in terms of damage modelling because it’s famed for being able to take a beating, so they kinda had to make it a feature.
Where your comment went eventually is my main point - there’s no consistency across modules.
A-10C? Great damage model.
But what about the MiG-19? I’ve had both my elevators literally shot off in that thing and still had some level of pitch control…
Then there’s the Sabre, which can tank multiple hits from the MiG-15’s 37mm without a care in the world, I have been a Sabre that’s done so, it’s not always the case that visual damage is lacking but systems fail internally.
A sim needs the level of attention to detail to be uniform across the board, if one thing is modelled extremely well but exists in a universe where the same thing on something else isn’t, it kinda renders the effort moot.
Nothing has beaten Il2 1946 over the years in my opinion from variety to deepness ratio
I’ve never played it, but it does seem quite expansive
Two things I would point out:
1) Using MiG-21 is not totally good idea for total comparison. It was first 3rd party module in DCS and while its FM got enriched at some point since these times it is still was not updated generally in a long time regarding it. Comparing F-16s would be better
2) Your damage modeling point does not stand for WW2 aircraft. I think in DCS WW2 prop aircraft has better damage modeling than WT. When same damage model will be applied to jets then...
It was more the flight modelling being compared than anything else so which aircraft wasn’t that important, plus it was the easiest thing to get footage for at the time.
Viper would be hard to get footage that was comparable because the gameplay loops are vastly different between games.
I am basically living for the WWII DMs being applied to jets, it can’t happen fast enough, might even be higher on my wish list than the Phantom 😬
Next aircraft to be compared will probably be the F-5, Farmer or maybe Mirage F.1
War Thunder is much more easier to approach to be honest, easier to start with
And most of the logical applies, yes
But the UI elements you talked about actually can change the way you play the game at some point
Either you have Data Link or not is really switching tables in DCS for situation awareness
You can shoot someone without he even knows a Fox was coming, and the other way around, obviously...
Not as much in War Thunder
As I play both DCS and WT, my opinion is that air battles in WT are much better.
Where DCS shines is air to ground as better modelled avionics has more role here.
Helicopters are different story. DCS wins hands down.
Dcs does not shine in air to ground, wth is so boring in dcs there’s no life to it what’s so ever
@@RW-zn8vy Next to War Thunder DCS has much better air to ground gameplay
@@hresvelgr7193 war thunder is too arcade and dcs is just static 🫠
@@RW-zn8vyDCS is static? You know ground vehicles can be set to move right?
@@hresvelgr7193 yea but it’s more than just an apc moving. There’s a lot more to it and alot that needs to be worked on in dcs. Also yes that is another thing. The movements aren’t that great by default.
You keep harping on dogfighting aspects for both games. Something to keep in mind is that dogfighting is only a small fraction of the overall flight experience irl (and simulated as such in DCS). Go to talk to any real world pilot - they’ll tell you that they spent much more time training on takeoffs/landings, emergency operations, refueling, air to ground and sensor operation than they did on actual dogfighting. Also dogfighting is not the end all be all with modern jets - a lot of combat in the jet ages is BVR. Launch your missile and get out of harms way.
DCS is meant to replicate the real world experience, as imperfect as it might be. WT is an arcade-like game that has some elements of realism. Two very different games with different visions. I’m sure that a player could learn something about dogfighting from WT, I doubt that learning will even begin to scratch the surface of what really goes into operating a real life military platform.
I play both for different reasons.
Yeah, and WT has better net code ,do a loaded roll in dcs,and your plane will teleporting around from the other guy perspective because dcs net code cant handle high aoa and roll at the same time. Whats worse ,people who knows abusing this to evade missile.
I don't think it's true that DCS doesn't model damage impacting performance. I've experienced it for sure. I think that in DCS damage model, the damage with aircraft of this era is often catastrophic, so you are either fine or you snap the wing and die. But getting shot up by lower caliber rounds definitely has an effect on the flight model. I remember one case where I had a hole in my wing in an F-86, the wing was buffeting, and I couldn't turn for my life. This felt really realistic actually.
There are definitely aspects of it that do work that way, but there are just as many where it doesn’t.
Using the MiG-19 as an example, you can lose an aileron or take a wing hit and have to fight the roll for the rest of the flight.
Then by the same token you can lose an elevator and have your pitch authority reduced and have the imbalance of your control input being asymmetric causing roll when you try to adjust pitch.
But…
Then you lose your second elevator…
And can still fly the plane as if you still had elevators.
I forget the video title now but one of my MiG-19 videos has me lose both elevators to a guy, and then manage to still manoeuvre onto him and kill him with a missile.
Comparing that experience to any other module and you’ll get bits where it makes sense and bits where it doesn’t.
Or even worse, feels a little bit too scripted - like once I was flying the F-15C with a mate and we both ate an R-60 and suffered identical damage; lost an engine, the nose cone/radar, and a wing, but both managed to limp back.
In WarThunder if you lost both elevators you’d need to use flaps to manage nose position, but more often than not you’re just boned.
And equating back to the missile example, where the missile detonates means shrapnel will hit and damage specific parts, and short of the difference between surviving and dying, the way that damage is visibly displayed is dynamic and could be different every time.
In DCS I’ve landed a bit hard before and suddenly it looks as though my airframe has been riddled with shrapnel as if it was caused by enemy fire.
I think a lot of it is half arsed in DCS, relying on the excuse that it’s a sim and should be more about the effect the damage has than how it looks - similar to how crashing in some driving sims shows no damage to the car.
But when part of the sim is “combat”? It’s a poor excuse and we should be pushing them to do better not trying to make excuses for it.
The lack of consistency by nature of different developers doing the same thing in different ways is the biggest issue with the sim imo, and damage modelling is just one small part of that.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy I hear you. A lot of things in DCS need work for sure. Seems like some of it is just bugs too. I think they are working on some changes to the damage model now. It might be underwhelming because in the modern era BVR fights, most hits are kills anyway, so there's no room for subtle damage. Now that you say this, I do recall landing a SU-25 T with no rudder, but it still responded to rudder input. I chalked it up to FC3 being not full fidelity...
I play both, warthunder only by mouse :P
I wish that DCS implemented some settings to reduce the unecessary set-up clutter, like why do I have to boresight the maverick before taking off? that's just clutter to me.
If you spawn into a hot started jet then the faffy stuff can be toggled in the mission editor.
Downside of that is that you have no control over how it’s set up in a multiplayer server.
If Gaijin didn’t neglect sim the way they do, this could genuinely rival DCS. With hundreds more aircraft, less punishing gameplay, better graphics (imo), and a more beginner friendly start, war thunder beats DCS in most ways outside of full realism and hardcore gameplay. War thunder is also insanely cheap (it’s free after all), and buying aircraft at most will cost $70 when DCS modules cost way more at times. If Gaijin dedicates a few updates in part to just improve sim, war thunder could genuinely build a dedicated sim community
I agree with the general point of your comment, but I think the landscapes and aircraft models are undeniably better looking in DCS - it’s borderline photo realistic.
But WarThunder has WAAAAAYYYYY better particle physics, things look much better when they take damage, catch fire or explode.
The cost comparison is a tough one as well, I think £70 for a premium in WarThunder is insanity, personally. Considering the most expensive DCS modules are roughly the same cost but offer so much more value for money.
But the difference is that in WarThunder it’s not really the plane you’re paying for, it’s reducing the length of time you need to grind the next unlock.
Whereas in DCS you’re buying a study level recreation of a real aircraft.
Within their respective economies the value is appropriate, but compared against each other it seems ridiculous WarThunder can charge that much for a new airframe skin pasted over the same controls everything else uses.
Dcs has created this "I am a fictional fighter pilot therefore I can judge those who plane another video game" All of them play either growling sidewinder or hoggit servers the most brain dead community. Yet none of them realize it's just a fucking game both. While WT is more approachable for the majority of people and dcs is for a more niche crowd it doesn't change anything they are both video games.
I like to say that the best measure of a simulator's realism is in the decisions players make. If your decisions in the sim lead to that outcomes that we'd expect in the real world, then it's a good simulator. It doesn't matter if you have extremely realistic flight modeling or cockpit switchology if players use gimmicky tactics that no real world pilot would ever consider. If the simulator encourages pilots to use realistic tactics, then it's realistic. In this respect, I actually think War Thunder is just as good as DCS, if quite different in its game modes.
I enjoy both WT and DCS, and other sims. It's natural for people to be invested in their preferred game, to justify it in spite of its flaws, and to want it to be The Best, but that sort of tribalism doesn't seem very useful to me. There's no reason we can't enjoy multiple sims, and do it without denigrating other players' choices.
The difference between WT and DCS is like Forza Horizion and Assetto Corsa. The arcade/sim games are a great intro to the mechanics and the techniques, but can lack in realism and immersion. What makes DCS far better than WT is the depth of knowledge in the game that isn't just how to dogfight. There is more variety of mechanics in DCS that are lacking in WT just as there are more planes in WT than there are in DCS. The games are two sides of a coin