Interesting but it's a question of 'apples & oranges' really. MSFS is trying to model the entire world of aviation. DCS specializes in the military aspect. They're both excellent in their own way.
@@EJ205T MSFS as a simulation platform is far more advanced than DCS, as you would expect something a decade newer would be. Nothing about MSFS is "arcade" like you claim, and if you are basing your opinion on the simplified vanilla aircraft that ship with the game, that is why. Its apples to oranges to compare a free update "cool to have" plane with one that has gone through a lengthy development process to model every last system onboard that plane.
@@NWA744 used to fly in MSFS since FS98, there were always good 3rd party planes with dozens of systems modelled, but flight model was often strange and unreal, even with additional soft. I coudn't feel weight of the plane, it's inertia. And very often planes in MFS were overpowered. Ground behaviour were awful, only FS2020 made a little step forward. And for example, X-Plane had way better flight physics. And DCS too.
At least dcs allows you to click the buttons inside the hornet, unlike MSFS. Love MSFS for flying general aviation aircraft and airliners, but fighters are not a strong point.
@@rinzler9775 true. looks very good too. i dont think anyone is really holding it against Microsoft for giving us a _free_ GA-FA18 (and I think its the Super Hornet). we are only noting that it is limited to GA function, which is pretty much what the FS is. Personally I don't mind. It's actually nice to just fly around. Although I wish there were more working functions on the displays.
Just started dcs two weeks ago. Flying the Tomcat with my brother as RIO. Absolutely love it. Got cold start, taxi and take off from airbase learned now. Our way out is still crash or ejection seat atm 😁 We are putting in the time to get landings right. Gotta say I love the reality of the game and steep learning curve.
practice field landing before carrier. When I first started Tommy, I always do the quick break landing since with wings extended, it will climb to the heavens LOL
Good luck! Been playing for a year now and I'm still learning the F-18 (I am moving at snail's pace due to not playing every day or every week sometimes too). Currently also learning the AH-64D Apache which I would not recommend doing until you're more comfortable with the game because it's definitely a difficult module to learn especially since it's my first helicopter one haha
@@bagelsecelle9308 Early on I actually was better at carrier landing than field landing. I dove straight into carrier operations. Just got the new Raven 1 campaign and starting that tomorrow.
DCS supercarrier now simulates the "burble", which is the air turbulence created by the "island" (tower). It makes all the difference and makes landings more difficult and realistic.
@@daveg5857 Are you being sarcastic? You said originally that the burble is caused by turbulence created by the island, which is wrong, so I thought you hadn't known that it was actually caused by the round-down
@@hoteltrivago8186 No. I thought I knew what caused it, but I'm delighted to know it's something else because I learned something. So thank you for that.
As I see a few comments compairing DCS and MSFS, I'd say that DCS is far superior in modern day simulations, There's so much things altogether that makes it one of the most if not the most detailed and high tech simulator out on the market. NOTE: This was made by an average DCS enjoyer.
There are so many legacy/outdated system and assets in DCS, AI, flat map, weather system, S3 model... But, when it comes to "flying the plane"...IL2, XP, P3D, BMS were good but DCS can beat up every competitor.
@@whatsup448 DCS originally came out in 2008 lol. The fact that it is still a strong competitor to this day is very telling how skilled the devs are and how versatile the software is
MSFS’ strength is on civilian aviation. It has been doing that for over 30 years. DCS is stronger on military aviation. Both are great in their own right.
@@mattmurphy7030 Well, considering the old ACES studio was shut down by Microsoft, they kind of had to find a new developer. I'd say Asobo is doing a fine job carrying the MSFS torch.
DCS, Caucasus map and standard Carrier is for free and you can use free mods such as A-4 Skyhawk. Its extremelly good mod and there are many missions you can fly and have fun for hours. Also you can easily create own missions.
@@thelupo9481 yeah I know they just don't really give a good experience compared to a full fedility module. DCS you also should have head tracking and a hotas and it can get expensive fast
@@wg4112 Especially A-4 is almost Full fidelity module, try it :-) And there are quite good hotas not so expensive like X-56 and good and quite cheep headtrackers, for example Delanclip. And now there is Summer sale right now on DCS
@@thelupo9481 yeah I have tried the a4e a while back and it was amazing for a community free module . I made a DIY tracker last year and it's nice it only cost around $15. I have a t1600m so my whole setup with a pc costs around 1100.
Just modules get expensive once you start playing for a while . Each module is $100 for me but I always buy them onsale , so to get maybe one modern aircraft, a cold war aircraft and a map can cost around $110 just for a few aircraft
@@lzedelliottIt’s not. MSFS is though. DCS will need a moderately powerful PC and I’d suggest a flight stick and throttle. You don’t have to get super nice ones to be great at DCS though. Cheap ones work just fine for most flying
I mainly play MSFS for my flying fun, I'm not a serious flight simmer, I have dipped my toe in the world of DCS and it is really good, the VR is much better than MSFS in my opinion . They both have lots to offer for different genres and the pricing reflects the quality. DCS individual DLC's are in the main considerably more expensive than those in MSFS unless it's a study level aircraft. In that respect the modelling and graphics , buttons and realism I would expect it to be better for the money paid.
I have both and they are widely different. In DCS, you have the aviation aspect but also study level military planes that can engage all kinds of targets using tech from WWII up through the modern era. It also comes with campaigns and mission editors. MSFS is unmatched in civil aviation. They have study level civilian planes that can immerse you in a completely different way. Managing aircraft systems, flight plans, proper take-offs and approaches and you can implement that experience anywhere in the world at any airport or landing field. Both are exceptional.
@@RKDriver This is true. I did an introductory flight in a Cessna 172 the other day. I was blown away by how close the MSFS plane is to the real thing. I think it was a different Cessna model in MSFS. But the aspects and controls were the same. I have never set foot in a single-engine plane or flown before, but I was able to taxi, take off, and fly, 90% by myself for the first time. I credit a whole lot to MSFS.
You have to bear in mind that DCS is constantly being upgraded, so the 3rds party Devs have to constantly update the modules as DCS evolves every couple of weeks (If you run Open Beta, which 99% of anyone who plays online does), those updates take a fair amount of manpower to keep updated, and it's all included in the price of the module. If you wait for sales which happen a few times a year, you can get stuff for up to 30-50% off the usual price, so that helps keep the costs down, you just have to be patient and wait a year or so after the module is released.
@@Kevin-438 I have over 350 hrs in C-172, instrument, multi-engine rating with complex and high-performance endorsement. 650hrs total flight time. I probably flew more than ten C-172s and all of them fly a little differently. Fly a C-172 with wheel pants then fly another without one - you'll notice how different they behave especially on landing. Yes, MSFS does model the C-172 decently. I've never flown a hornet in real life but tried both in MSFS and DCS and I have to say that DCS definitely feels more real. MSFS hornet feels massless and dragless. Pulling gs in MSFS does not bleed energy and you don't have to fly the real thing to know that's impossible.
If you're a serious flight simmer BOTH should be in your playlist. I'm a Hornet guy, so I prefer DCS; that said -- I also moonlight as an airline pilot. MSFS has always been my anchor game since FS2.
As others have said, it really depends on what you are trying to get out of each simulator. DCS is focused on military aircraft while MSFS encompasses worldwide aviation overall. If you like military simulations, DCS cannot be beat. As seen in this video, the level of detail in the graphics cannot be matched by MS. If you like flying commercial flight simulations and all that comes with that type of simulation (not just flight but ground as well), then MSFS has to be your choice. DCS cannot match the reality of commercial flight simulation that MSFS brings to the table. While both simulators have overlap, they are focused on different aspects of the flight simulator experience.
iL-2 does better at the ww2 plane sim experiance than dcs with a better damage and flight model. It just lacks interactive cockpits and four engine support.
DCS is the best until you spend 5 minutes configuring your aircraft just to get smoked by an AMRAAM two minutes after you take off lol. MSFS Mavrick DLC in VR is visually incredible, casual, and an overall great flying experience. Everyone should play both, especially in VR, but your home will definitely be DCS
Yeah. A couple of friends of mine were double-crewing a Tomcat. I was floating about in an A-10. They hadn't been practicing much, but decided they wanted a tussle. They came down low and slow - RIGHT into my domain. They didn't last long...
Thanks for the vid. The comments are far more entertaining, this is almost as fun as comparisons of the DCS Viper to Falcon BMS! and the ensuing arguments, great stuff. I am a purely arm chair aviation nerd and I feel serious cringe when I see a straight in landing in VFR conditions to the carrier.
Id like to see the MSFS players do an actual Case 1 landing. Fly 800ft ASL, 350KIA. pasS the carrier on its right so you can look out the left and verify the deck is clear. Before you are 1nm pass the boat break level turn. Throttle to idel and pull Gs equal to 1% airspeed ie 350=3.5g as you slow you pull less Gs to match speed. 250kia dirty up (gear down, flaps full). you should be 1.1nm-1.4nm when you are 180°the BRC (the boats direction of travel) decend to 600ft ASL and trim for On Speed AOA. Fly this direction till you can see the white if the Round down on the carrier (about 5° past the ship when the HSI is set to the 10nm range). Then turn into the boat while decending. You should pass 370fr just as you pass tge wake of the carrier. Roll out in the groove (BRC -9°) and line your Velocity Vector with the crotch of the ship (where the landing area breaks to Catapult 2 and 1at the front of the ship). The groove should be about 14-18s of flight. ¾nm call the ball (Side number, aircraft type, Ball, Fuel state) catch the 3wire. Have drinks.
Stares and blinks... With respect, what you have described here has been accomplished to an incredibly high degree of professionalism and accuracy in MSFS since before DCS was a proverbial wink in the milkman's eye, indeed paving the way for DCS. MSFS; VUSN, RAFv (RN HMS Ark Royal) and many other virtual groups circa 1998/9 onwards.
Cool video. Interesting to see the comparison. The controls are so much better modelled in DCS, but you also can see that MSFS has more "life" to the air and all. The twitches and bumps and little bits of turbulence are really neat. Shame the MSFS Super Hornet feels so lifeless.
@@hotjonmw90 Isn't it only for the F-14 and super carrier? :( But yeah most people neglect the wind settings in DCS. That said I still find MSFS gives a much better dynamic representation of moving air and whatnot.
DCS is way better hands down! Absolutely love how a lot of modules are 1 to 1 with the real aircraft irl. No comparison in my eyes but I do enjoy both games quite a bit. It would be cool to have an all encompassing simulator!
Did this right away myself... night and day difference but ya need to fly both to really see/feel/know the difference. (functional systems/controls with DCS is magnitudes more). DCS for more realistic sim, MSFS for sight seeing. But most important, HF
2 роки тому+5
MSFS: Better envirnonment graphics (watter, clouds...) DCS: Better simulation overall (full cockpit, gameplay, weapons...) Veredict: DCS all the way, baby!!!
The main thing I dislike about MSFS is how unpolished the base experience is. The menus are really unresponsive and often buggy. The feature set is inferior to what FSX had to offer. I started playing DCS for how much better it runs, and though there aren’t as many aircraft in the base (free) game, it just feels better to play.
I've been playing MSFS since FS95. MSFS is a radical departure from the previous installments in that it's intentionally made to be incomplete so you have to pay for DLC, where as previous iterations were basically the complete game, but could be expanded on with thousands of freeware mods. I'm sticking with FSX. Same level of realism (if not more) and far more free mods available. MSFS's only improvement over FSX is basically aesthetics, and evne then only if you have a high end gaming PC
@@floydm.4159 Seriously what are you on about? MFS is better then stock FSX in every way. Has decent free planes, the VFR friendly terrain unlike FSX. Ofc FSX as the much, much older sim has more content be it free or paid, however MFS is rapidly getting better stuff too. Also FSX relied heavy on paid 3rd party content as well as free content this is really not exclusive to MFS
@@XCougar85X You said it. It's better than Stock FSX. But with the thousands of freeware addons available, FSX is way better in every department except for graphics, and unless you have a supercomputer, you cant even run MSFS.
The carrier landing in MSFS is not even close to how the manual says to do it. DCS is wild. It’s as close as you can get. Tbf adding as the fact trim for me doesn’t always work in DCS (bugged for some reason, might be a key bind conflict or something.) It makes it even harder to maintain on speed AoA.
@@d3us3xmach1na5 I'm not sure with the FA18, but if I run DCS without trackir, the A10C trim switches on my hotas gets remapped to view up, down, left and right.
@@aboriani yeah I also use track ir. I have trim bound to the stick trim hat. I think there was an axis detection issue. It’s working now. I also realized there was a conflict with my radar elevation antenna axis and fixed that too. Hornet flying a lot better now.
I like how the pilot's hand is continuously moving to correct his attitude. In MSFS, landing is almost like a regular landing, with the differences being 1) runway is incredibly short and 2) you get a lot more instructions to correct your plane's attitude, speed etc. And the short runway doesn't make it much more difficult because on any runway, you're aiming for that sweetspot and on the carrier you have the added bonus of a wire arrested landing. I only wish they had arrestor wires at Lukla Airport (Nepal).
I like the graphics of DCS better (at least for the cockpits, MSFS has the upper-hand when it comes to the environment but not by much as DCS still has gorgeous environments) and you can definitely tell that the flight model is more realistic in DCS as well just by this video (which I can also confirm because I own and fly in both programs as well) as evidenced by the micro-inputs being made by the pilot when you look at the stick in both planes. In MSFS, there is very little movement at all (as if there is no wind variation, gusts, turbulence, etc...) whereas in DCS the micro-inputs are constant as the flight dynamics change more realistically...
@@caribbaviator7058 not a DCS fan boy. I love MSFS. It's just facts for now. MSFS is not for fighter jets obviously. DCS is there for long and MSFS is a new sim, needs a lot improvements to be compared
MSFS is the best deal you can get, you have a fighter jet (among a hundred other aircraft) and the whole world to explore for less than $100 But DCS is lightyears ahead in terms of physics and functioning systems, including radar. Not to mention the most important part of a fighter, weapons.
Dcs is also free, sure some aircraft are expensive but you can get like 7 modern day fighters from America, Russia, and China for only a total of $25 (fc3 bundle)
@@oceanmango3368 Flaming Cliffs doesn't have full fidelity aircraft. Meaning, the cockpits aren't clickable. DCS is more expensive, but you get what you pay for. Full fidelity aircraft, functioning weapons, radar, physics etc.
@@jonathonmcrae5671 FC3 aircraft while yes aren't clickable are very advanced when it comes to flight characteristics, probably better than the F-18 shown in the video Edit: The MSFS F-18
I mean, I'm DCS has the F-18C Hornet while I'm pretty sure MSFS was using the F-18E Super Hornet. They're basically entirely different aircraft, so I'm not sure you can compare the landing speeds like that.
Both have there positive and negative points. My opinion is from a VR user's viewpoint. I have never flown a real plane so I could be way off the mark but I feel like the physics are more realistic in DCS, But MSFS has the entire world mapped which is a huge trump card IMO I am sure everyone's first flight is over the town/city they live or grew up . I think MSFS is easier to get started and has a easier learning curve which is neither a positive or negative point really. I played DCS first and I was able to transfer what I had learned in the Hornet to MSFS it just felt like a simplified version. Within 5 minutes I was flying and landing safely where in DCS it took a lot longer to get to that point lol. Graphics wise when MSFS looks good it really really looks good! but due to the scope of mapping the entire planet some parts look much nicer than others. Likewise in DCS it depends on the modules themselves both with the map pack's and planes. Overall I think MSFS looks better more of the time but I prefer the VR clouds in DCS. MSFS represents much better value IMO for £60 you have all the entire world to explore with lots of base Aircraft. In DCS £60 = A premium plane and 2 areas in the world to fly it in, OK I know there are 2 planes and 2 maps given free which is fine to test the water but if you enjoy the game you will want to expand. And it can get very expensive fast. For a example you may want to fly a Spitfire? so you buy the plane which would be fine on its own but really you want to buy the channel map so you can battle over the White Cliffs of Dover ok this is almost still fine if the spending stops at this point but if you want to fly realistic missions you also need the WW2 asset pack which costs the same as the map or plane and is a requirement for the mission packs you can also buy. #waitforthesales VR performance? well both games need a good rig to run in VR not just the CPU and GPU but when someone says that you only need 16GB of RAM in a gaming PC you know they have never played either of these games. I think that DCS has the edge in performance but it does depend on various things like the map, plane, how busy the server is etc. But even on a lower RES VR headset (like the Rift S) you still need a 3060+ to run at Medium ish settings with acceptable frame rates on either game. Both look great in VR and both incredibly immersive. Damage modelling? well DCS obviously wins this one. And yeah you can make things go boom. Truth is both are brilliant and which I play depends on my mood, if I want to relax MSFS every time, I do not mean this in a bad way but it can send me to sleep. If I want more excitement then DCS is the way for me.
There is something with the scale in DCS that makes everything look too small/toy like. Including cities etc when you're playing. In every other regard (except graphics) DCS is far superior.
I will tell you that when you’re in the air with a good view of a city or an amusement park it all looks very small, like you could hold it in your hand.
@@RW-zn8vy It’s mainly the lighting engine (I think), every time I play DCS I just think ‘meh’. It’s all a bit bland. I play both MSFS and DCS World (open beta), on a RTX2070 Super paired with an Odyssy G7, so it’s not like I can’t run the game or have a shit monitor. - It’s like you said, ‘fine’. I just think it’s easy to make them ‘fantastic’. 😀
It's is in the works with I believe the new Unreal engine. Unlike MS, DCS has been continually updated throughout the years as opposed to new big releases like MSFS. One day the graphics will as good if not better (which in some cases DCS still looks better to me and a lot of others). It's coming though and it's gonna be sweet when it does!
MFS a fun Civilian flight sim to keep your skills up or to learn more about civilian aviation and a good way to enjoy flying. DCS WORLD is a Digital Combat Simulation That is used by Real Governments All Around the World to Train Combat Pilots. FACT Governments don't play games.
@dishdoggie gaming Microsoft Flight Simulator is a FLIGHT simulator, and therefore any aircraft that ever existed is entirely appropriate within it. It can be military, civilian, a glider, a balloon, a duck - if it flies, it has a place in MSFS.
The closest is not even listed - that would be Prepar3D V5 using either the VRS F/A-18E SuperBug. They are probably about as close to a real Super Hornet as you are likely to get. DCS' F/A-18C is a very close second, but offers an immersive theater of war to fly in as a plus. MSFS 2020 is a (very) distant third place, especially in terms of weapons and mission systems modelling.
I wouldnt call MSFS a simulator in terms of flight handling and characteristics of aircrafts, particularly in GA. DCS has a far better feel in terms of the principles of flight. If I want to practise aerobatics, stalls, x wind landings ect I jump on DCS and fly an old warbird. Although if I need to brush up navigation, IFR and general cockpit instrumentations and Garmins then I jump MSFS. I feel that X-Plane has always led the way for realistic civil aviation simulators. Looking forward to XPlane 12
I always felt that the stall characteristics in X-Plane 11 were lacking compared to RL. I think MSFS feels a bit better in that category IMO. That said none of them are better at EVERYTHING compared to the others. VFR flying and overall looks goes to MSFS hands down though DCS is catching up in some regards. I've always used X-Plane for NAV systems and GA instruments though that's because before MSFS came out I had a lot more time to hop on and fly in sim so compared to MSFS I'm not sure how it exactly compares in those areas. I'd have to give weather and other air traffic to MSFS as well. X-Plane is pretty dated so I'm also looking forward to version 12. When it comes to military/warbirds , aircraft flight modeling, realism and overall attention to very exacting detail especially when it comes to correct/realistic operation of the A/C then DCS takes that win all day long by a long shot and IMO the multiplayer is the best as well especially with the flexibility of what you can do with it. Either way though it's a good time to be into flight sims! It was only X-plane 11 and Prepar3d for a while with how old MSX was getting lol. They all have their places I guess and is still WAY cheaper than going out and renting a C-172 @ $200 an hour lol.
@@jackraylongiii9663 yep, way cheaper than renting, especially with current avgas prices lol. I find MSFS super helpful for pre-flight planning, I can fly the route Im planning on doing in real life and run through my plan and find any obvious reference points that I can use which is super helpful. Its so detailed in that regard, that there is a single tree up on a hill which I sometime use for reference at my local aerodrome IRL, and when I saw that same tree in the sim I was impressed.
For my background, I'm *not a pilot and probably won't be in the near future* but I do 'fly' flight sims for a good quarter of a century now, (among other things, not really safe to mention here... 😂) so here's my take on the comparison. MSFS, at its best, is still a dumbed down representation of generic flight modeling ... - as it always used to be - For example, the relationship between g loads and stall characteristics are *still not* modelled. MSFS always felt cumbersome and lifeless compared to, say, X Plane, which has a much more believable flight experience. Also, worth mentioning, that X Plane can be used - in fact, in specific circumstances, it is actually used - for testing real life experimental aircraft, which tells a lot about flight modeling authenticity... MSFS? I would not really put my life to the line on anything tested on MSFS... DCS is excellent at replicating flight dynamics, even to the extreme end of it ... Not to mention actual system authenticity, sensors and weaponry. Disclaimer - as of now, I fly DCS solely. I flew both MSFS until the end of the FSX era, along with X Plane ... And I used a myriad of other flight sims from Hornet 3.0 on to Hornet Korea, Eidos's JSF 🎉 DCS Black Shark (the original) and a lot of other things like Il-2, Lock On and even hobby projects, like Vertigo ... I still prefer X Plane over anything MSFS, and for combat, DCS for sure. Based on countless hours of 'flying' experience. 😅
Except the simulation of anything related to combat, dcs still wins from many aspects. The most accurate flight model(only when the module is fully released), the level of details how temperature, air pressure affect the engine, and map details with awsome looking(The graphic looks more natural to me). Not to mention there are radar images, thermal images, damage model, and almost all avionics are decently simulated in DCS. It's not flawless but It's the best if u want any of the military aircraft. MSFS is all about entry level simulation unless u get third party support and i see no point to make a full fidelity simulation in MSFS for military aircraft.
Honestly you're comparing apple to oranges. But DCS imo isn't really anywhere near as good as people make it out to be. The things you say about how the enviroment affects aircraft performance is universally done across all sims. Also idk what drugs you're on if you think maps like the Caucuses look good lol. Overall MSFS will never attempt to make a 1st party high-fi fighter because there is no point as there is no combat. It's like me wanted a full-fidelity 747 in DCS with a fully modeled FMS.
@@arussian_spy Caucasus and other terrains in DCS makes their job. In my opinion they look very nice. ED does not have Azure clouds which can provide 2TB of terrain data like in MSFS. But, the DCS terrains contains things like heat map for roads, buildings,e.t.c... Those are important to make FLIR more realistic.
@@hansloyalitat9774 Literally all of the 3 major sims P3D, XP11, and MSFS have exactly that. Also I doubt MSFS physics are bad as most of the FlightSim community and pilots I discuss with seem to agree that MSFS physics are really good until you start pushing the envelope.
Aside from the fact that one is focused on military aviation and the other is not all I want to know if on MFS the physics for airliners like say the A320 are good aswell as atmospheric physics. I need advice as someone who only plays DCS this far and wants to get some realistic airliners experience in another game.
you know what would be amazing? if you could get the world scenery like you do in msfs in dcs. that would be incredible. but you would need rediculous graphics to run that
How natural and real it looks in DCS and how twitchy and arcade it looks in MSFS. Not everyone knows to do the aerodynamics and flight dynamics in flight simulators!
Very nice. Although I feel, even though the simulation side is not on par, the MSFS side just looks and feels more "lifelike" due to the dynamic camera movements. DCS just looks... meh in that regard.
im kind of shocked, I expected MSFS visuals (other than the actual cockpit detail) would be superior, but DCS really holds it own. Granted they aren't modeling the entire earth
There's a super hornet mod for DCS with a custom cockpit available btw. Might have made for a better comparison. That said, I'm a bigger fan of the A/C Hornets myself.
Isn't it just a replacement for the Legacy Hornet, where the UFC doesn't work right and without any flight model changes? I assume we're talking about the Superbug mod. The Rhino IRL is a very different beast to the A/C, so i can't see the point... except for the prettiness.
Why does the MSFS screen look like you were essentially not touching your stick during approach whereas DCS looked, quite properly, like you were wrestling the plane all the way to the deck? Is the MSFS one a vastly simplified challenge?
I've done the challenge, it isn't simplified and is true to life. I'm guessing it just comes down to sensitivity differences either on the player's end or the game's end
I have both but rarely fire up MSFS, mainly because the interface is so counter intuitive, everything from assigning controls to flight playback is awkward.
You can't compare the two, because one is more focused on civilian flying and the other on military flying. That pretty much narrowed it down to who will like which one better, because if you want to fly a fighter (use weapons, fight), you won't like MSFS. If you're not really into fighter planes, you're not going to play DCS. Also, I wouldn't say MSFS is an arcade because it's unplayable without a joystick. And for me, that's where the simulator starts, which requires a joystick or steering wheel (if it's a racing game). Overall, they are both top simulators, one for this and one for that.
I agree with the general opinion here. If you want the eye candy, go for MSFS. If you want more immersive gameplay, go DCS. If you are into combat simulation, I would say stick with DCS.
If your looking for a graphical opinion, that's all you will get, is opinions. It's apples and oranges. One is simply flying and exploring the world. The other is in the name "Combat". For me: It's DCS all the way. I love the feel of the cockpit and all the bells and whistles work.
No one buys DCS to just fly A/C. It is an intense combat simulator. I think MSFS could be THE top dog in combat simulation with the talent and money they have, but I think the company is to woke to have a game to simulate war.
The MSFS has great graphics and is fun to fly. But it’s not a serious simulation, MS left that road some time ago. DCS is a fully fledged study sim with a realistic flight model. Try doing high AOA stuff in msfs and then the same in DCS, you’ll instantly see the difference- it’s vast.
msfs is built on the previous versions (a lot of carry over systems and variables within the flight model itself) and those old ones are actually used in literal simulators that are certified to give you FAA sim time hours. but hey, what do you know. let me know when the air force uses dcs to train lol lOL LOOOOOOL. honestly man, learn, then type.
If you want a real challenge, do a carrier landing on MSFS X (the one from 2006). I spent all day getting it ONCE because the plane would keep doing a forward roll and "crash" after hitting the wires. Meanwhile MSFS 2020 I did it first try cleanly.
Can a plane do that, roll forward and crash *after* capturing a wire? I would think it would just slam into the deck, nose foward, tail aft, in one piece at least.
Ok, i fly both games myself and the the downright ignorance of many fellow DCS players towards MFS is downright sad and cringeworthy. Seen the same on Reddit. Seems like many never even tried MFS recently or any of the good payware aircraft, or used any stuff like Vatsim, Navigraph, and used planes with good flight models etc. Come on people.
The graphics of the world/water etc are WAY better in flight sim, but the grapchics of the cockpits and pilot in dcs are better. Someone needs to mix them together!
@@mattmurphy7030 The current MSFS F-18 is a free, casual level update. If any developer decides to create a full fidelity F-18 for MSFS, the sim is entirely capable of accurately modelling every last detail other than weapons currently.
DCS planes are just hardcore compared to MSFS planes, pretty much the whole game is but you do end up paying for it. DCS doesn't have much in the way of big old liners to fly though and fighters aren't everyone's cup of tea. That might change when the paid for module of the C-130J gets released (which is already a cracking mod BTW if you didn't know MSFS fans). Now the question is, would DCS be better were it to be running on the MSFS engine... graphics, physics etc... it would certainly need some modification but it would look pretty - not that DCS doesn't mind you. I'm just thinking it would stop maps being produced.
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
Interesting but it's a question of 'apples & oranges' really. MSFS is trying to model the entire world of aviation. DCS specializes in the military aspect. They're both excellent in their own way.
also the msfs Hornet is a much more modern version of the hornet. While the DCS hornet is pre 2000s atleast.
@P4RK3R As I understand it, DCS has the Legacy Hornet an MSFS has the Super Hornet
MSFS is an arcade game "about planes" compared to DCS.
@@EJ205T MSFS as a simulation platform is far more advanced than DCS, as you would expect something a decade newer would be. Nothing about MSFS is "arcade" like you claim, and if you are basing your opinion on the simplified vanilla aircraft that ship with the game, that is why. Its apples to oranges to compare a free update "cool to have" plane with one that has gone through a lengthy development process to model every last system onboard that plane.
@@NWA744 used to fly in MSFS since FS98, there were always good 3rd party planes with dozens of systems modelled, but flight model was often strange and unreal, even with additional soft. I coudn't feel weight of the plane, it's inertia. And very often planes in MFS were overpowered. Ground behaviour were awful, only FS2020 made a little step forward.
And for example, X-Plane had way better flight physics. And DCS too.
At least dcs allows you to click the buttons inside the hornet, unlike MSFS. Love MSFS for flying general aviation aircraft and airliners, but fighters are not a strong point.
the cockpit is clickable in MSFS too, it's just... not good
@@Galf506 yes it's pretty much "limited" to GA stuff
MSFS fighters are horrendous. I think if they release an expansion, the quality will be much higher.
The "free" F18 with MSFS is quite basic - there are high fidelity add on planes though just like DCS.
@@rinzler9775 true. looks very good too. i dont think anyone is really holding it against Microsoft for giving us a _free_ GA-FA18 (and I think its the Super Hornet). we are only noting that it is limited to GA function, which is pretty much what the FS is. Personally I don't mind. It's actually nice to just fly around. Although I wish there were more working functions on the displays.
Just started dcs two weeks ago. Flying the Tomcat with my brother as RIO. Absolutely love it. Got cold start, taxi and take off from airbase learned now. Our way out is still crash or ejection seat atm 😁
We are putting in the time to get landings right.
Gotta say I love the reality of the game and steep learning curve.
Welcome to the suck
practice field landing before carrier. When I first started Tommy, I always do the quick break landing since with wings extended, it will climb to the heavens LOL
Good luck! Been playing for a year now and I'm still learning the F-18 (I am moving at snail's pace due to not playing every day or every week sometimes too). Currently also learning the AH-64D Apache which I would not recommend doing until you're more comfortable with the game because it's definitely a difficult module to learn especially since it's my first helicopter one haha
The F14 is great fun for 2-seat gameplay, spent a lot of time last year as the RIO for a friend.
@@bagelsecelle9308
Early on I actually was better at carrier landing than field landing. I dove straight into carrier operations.
Just got the new Raven 1 campaign and starting that tomorrow.
DCS supercarrier now simulates the "burble", which is the air turbulence created by the "island" (tower). It makes all the difference and makes landings more difficult and realistic.
And there will be the emergency catch net
It's actually air turbulence caused by the downdraft of air at the round-down (at the stern of the landing area)
@@hoteltrivago8186 Seriously?! I had no idea. That is so cool to know!.
@@daveg5857 Are you being sarcastic? You said originally that the burble is caused by turbulence created by the island, which is wrong, so I thought you hadn't known that it was actually caused by the round-down
@@hoteltrivago8186 No. I thought I knew what caused it, but I'm delighted to know it's something else because I learned something. So thank you for that.
As I see a few comments compairing DCS and MSFS, I'd say that DCS is far superior in modern day simulations, There's so much things altogether that makes it one of the most if not the most detailed and high tech simulator out on the market.
NOTE: This was made by an average DCS enjoyer.
I'd agree. Fighters are DCS' main, while airliners and GA aircraft are MSFS.
There are so many legacy/outdated system and assets in DCS, AI, flat map, weather system, S3 model...
But, when it comes to "flying the plane"...IL2, XP, P3D, BMS were good but DCS can beat up every competitor.
@@whatsup448 DCS originally came out in 2008 lol. The fact that it is still a strong competitor to this day is very telling how skilled the devs are and how versatile the software is
@@whatsup448 The AI are so much better than they used to be and the weather system is pretty good
@@whatsup448 There kind of has to be. Majority of the newer stuff is still classified.
The aggressiveness of that left-hand throttle movement almost matches that of my right hand.
Ooooo
MSFS’ strength is on civilian aviation. It has been doing that for over 30 years.
DCS is stronger on military aviation.
Both are great in their own right.
@@mattmurphy7030 Well, considering the old ACES studio was shut down by Microsoft, they kind of had to find a new developer. I'd say Asobo is doing a fine job carrying the MSFS torch.
@@NWA744 they arent lol bad physics, bad weather system, bad graphics
@@hansloyalitat9774 Bad graphics? 😂 In what way?
If you go back in time eagle dynamics/ the fighter’s series with its own sims back then, i started this world with the “ su-27 Flanker “
first civil aviation sim that you cannot plan an IFR flight
dcs is all-around better than msfs for military aircraft. Even just flying. It is just more expensive and equipment demanding
DCS, Caucasus map and standard Carrier is for free and you can use free mods such as A-4 Skyhawk. Its extremelly good mod and there are many missions you can fly and have fun for hours. Also you can easily create own missions.
@@thelupo9481 yeah I know they just don't really give a good experience compared to a full fedility module. DCS you also should have head tracking and a hotas and it can get expensive fast
@@wg4112 Especially A-4 is almost Full fidelity module, try it :-) And there are quite good hotas not so expensive like X-56 and good and quite cheep headtrackers, for example Delanclip. And now there is Summer sale right now on DCS
@@thelupo9481 yeah I have tried the a4e a while back and it was amazing for a community free module . I made a DIY tracker last year and it's nice it only cost around $15. I have a t1600m so my whole setup with a pc costs around 1100.
Just modules get expensive once you start playing for a while . Each module is $100 for me but I always buy them onsale , so to get maybe one modern aircraft, a cold war aircraft and a map can cost around $110 just for a few aircraft
I play msfs for airliner and dcs for millitary aircraft, both good on their own ways
Do you know if dcs is available on xbox
@@lzedelliottIt’s not. MSFS is though. DCS will need a moderately powerful PC and I’d suggest a flight stick and throttle. You don’t have to get super nice ones to be great at DCS though. Cheap ones work just fine for most flying
@@Yeager123123 Thanks!
@@Yeager123123 Chuck Yeager…
I mainly play MSFS for my flying fun, I'm not a serious flight simmer, I have dipped my toe in the world of DCS and it is really good, the VR is much better than MSFS in my opinion . They both have lots to offer for different genres and the pricing reflects the quality. DCS individual DLC's are in the main considerably more expensive than those in MSFS unless it's a study level aircraft. In that respect the modelling and graphics , buttons and realism I would expect it to be better for the money paid.
I have both and they are widely different. In DCS, you have the aviation aspect but also study level military planes that can engage all kinds of targets using tech from WWII up through the modern era. It also comes with campaigns and mission editors. MSFS is unmatched in civil aviation. They have study level civilian planes that can immerse you in a completely different way. Managing aircraft systems, flight plans, proper take-offs and approaches and you can implement that experience anywhere in the world at any airport or landing field. Both are exceptional.
@@RKDriver This is true. I did an introductory flight in a Cessna 172 the other day. I was blown away by how close the MSFS plane is to the real thing. I think it was a different Cessna model in MSFS. But the aspects and controls were the same. I have never set foot in a single-engine plane or flown before, but I was able to taxi, take off, and fly, 90% by myself for the first time. I credit a whole lot to MSFS.
@@Kevin-438 they are easy to fly though.
You have to bear in mind that DCS is constantly being upgraded, so the 3rds party Devs have to constantly update the modules as DCS evolves every couple of weeks (If you run Open Beta, which 99% of anyone who plays online does), those updates take a fair amount of manpower to keep updated, and it's all included in the price of the module. If you wait for sales which happen a few times a year, you can get stuff for up to 30-50% off the usual price, so that helps keep the costs down, you just have to be patient and wait a year or so after the module is released.
@@Kevin-438 I have over 350 hrs in C-172, instrument, multi-engine rating with complex and high-performance endorsement. 650hrs total flight time. I probably flew more than ten C-172s and all of them fly a little differently. Fly a C-172 with wheel pants then fly another without one - you'll notice how different they behave especially on landing. Yes, MSFS does model the C-172 decently. I've never flown a hornet in real life but tried both in MSFS and DCS and I have to say that DCS definitely feels more real. MSFS hornet feels massless and dragless. Pulling gs in MSFS does not bleed energy and you don't have to fly the real thing to know that's impossible.
The MSFS pilot is a real baddass. Look mom, no hands.
yeah.. they should add the option to turn the body on/off in MSFS
Well DCS is going to be leagues ahead of MSFS in this sort of scenario.
If you're a serious flight simmer BOTH should be in your playlist.
I'm a Hornet guy, so I prefer DCS; that said -- I also moonlight as an airline pilot. MSFS has always been my anchor game since FS2.
As others have said, it really depends on what you are trying to get out of each simulator. DCS is focused on military aircraft while MSFS encompasses worldwide aviation overall. If you like military simulations, DCS cannot be beat. As seen in this video, the level of detail in the graphics cannot be matched by MS. If you like flying commercial flight simulations and all that comes with that type of simulation (not just flight but ground as well), then MSFS has to be your choice. DCS cannot match the reality of commercial flight simulation that MSFS brings to the table. While both simulators have overlap, they are focused on different aspects of the flight simulator experience.
It can
iL-2 does better at the ww2 plane sim experiance than dcs with a better damage and flight model. It just lacks interactive cockpits and four engine support.
@@geronimo5537 yeah, even War Thunder has a better damage model and there moving wings don't change the hitbox (probably engine limitation)
I think dcs looks better tbh the world and planes
DCS is the best until you spend 5 minutes configuring your aircraft just to get smoked by an AMRAAM two minutes after you take off lol. MSFS Mavrick DLC in VR is visually incredible, casual, and an overall great flying experience. Everyone should play both, especially in VR, but your home will definitely be DCS
learn to notch, crank and use the RWR properly
@@v0id683 so "just get better"
@@kermittoad yeah, git gud
@@mattmurphy7030 get good
Yeah. A couple of friends of mine were double-crewing a Tomcat. I was floating about in an A-10. They hadn't been practicing much, but decided they wanted a tussle. They came down low and slow - RIGHT into my domain. They didn't last long...
Thanks for the vid. The comments are far more entertaining, this is almost as fun as comparisons of the DCS Viper to Falcon BMS! and the ensuing arguments, great stuff. I am a purely arm chair aviation nerd and I feel serious cringe when I see a straight in landing in VFR conditions to the carrier.
Id like to see the MSFS players do an actual Case 1 landing.
Fly 800ft ASL, 350KIA. pasS the carrier on its right so you can look out the left and verify the deck is clear. Before you are 1nm pass the boat break level turn. Throttle to idel and pull Gs equal to 1% airspeed ie 350=3.5g as you slow you pull less Gs to match speed. 250kia dirty up (gear down, flaps full). you should be 1.1nm-1.4nm when you are 180°the BRC (the boats direction of travel) decend to 600ft ASL and trim for On Speed AOA. Fly this direction till you can see the white if the Round down on the carrier (about 5° past the ship when the HSI is set to the 10nm range). Then turn into the boat while decending. You should pass 370fr just as you pass tge wake of the carrier. Roll out in the groove (BRC -9°) and line your Velocity Vector with the crotch of the ship (where the landing area breaks to Catapult 2 and 1at the front of the ship). The groove should be about 14-18s of flight. ¾nm call the ball (Side number, aircraft type, Ball, Fuel state) catch the 3wire. Have drinks.
aiming for crotch isn't that good ;)
Easy. Just another day in the office
Sounds boring
Tbf I'd also like to see even Growling Sidewinder pull it off IRL. Sims =/= the real thing. Gives you an idea, but nothing beats flight hours.
Stares and blinks... With respect, what you have described here has been accomplished to an incredibly high degree of professionalism and accuracy in MSFS since before DCS was a proverbial wink in the milkman's eye, indeed paving the way for DCS. MSFS; VUSN, RAFv (RN HMS Ark Royal) and many other virtual groups circa 1998/9 onwards.
Cool video. Interesting to see the comparison. The controls are so much better modelled in DCS, but you also can see that MSFS has more "life" to the air and all. The twitches and bumps and little bits of turbulence are really neat. Shame the MSFS Super Hornet feels so lifeless.
He probably doesn't have wind set in DCS trust me DCS even has the burble modeled behind the tower
@@hotjonmw90 Isn't it only for the F-14 and super carrier? :( But yeah most people neglect the wind settings in DCS. That said I still find MSFS gives a much better dynamic representation of moving air and whatnot.
@@eatleadcobra LOL, get caught in somebodies wake turbulence off takeoff and you'll find out real quick.
@@jonathonmcrae5671 yeah wake turbulence always on for me lol. Moreso talking about weather related air movement
@@eatleadcobra Burble effect got added to the Supercarrier for the F/A-18c a couple of patches ago.
DCS is way better hands down! Absolutely love how a lot of modules are 1 to 1 with the real aircraft irl. No comparison in my eyes but I do enjoy both games quite a bit. It would be cool to have an all encompassing simulator!
Did this right away myself... night and day difference but ya need to fly both to really see/feel/know the difference. (functional systems/controls with DCS is magnitudes more).
DCS for more realistic sim, MSFS for sight seeing.
But most important, HF
MSFS: Better envirnonment graphics (watter, clouds...)
DCS: Better simulation overall (full cockpit, gameplay, weapons...)
Veredict: DCS all the way, baby!!!
Not sure about the clouds in 2022. DCS had a huge update concerning clouds in the past and they look insane.
@@ATP-Flo you can get a free add on that enhances msfs clouds and cloud patterns, removes every bit of graininess
Next you should compare Bus Simulator to Train Sim World...
it is now your earthy duty to @ me when this happens, i will be waiting and depend on you.
the radar stops sweeping when u put weight on wheels , you have to love DCS
The main thing I dislike about MSFS is how unpolished the base experience is. The menus are really unresponsive and often buggy. The feature set is inferior to what FSX had to offer. I started playing DCS for how much better it runs, and though there aren’t as many aircraft in the base (free) game, it just feels better to play.
Menus work fine here and no bugs.
I've been playing MSFS since FS95. MSFS is a radical departure from the previous installments in that it's intentionally made to be incomplete so you have to pay for DLC, where as previous iterations were basically the complete game, but could be expanded on with thousands of freeware mods. I'm sticking with FSX. Same level of realism (if not more) and far more free mods available. MSFS's only improvement over FSX is basically aesthetics, and evne then only if you have a high end gaming PC
@@floydm.4159 Seriously what are you on about? MFS is better then stock FSX in every way. Has decent free planes, the VFR friendly terrain unlike FSX. Ofc FSX as the much, much older sim has more content be it free or paid, however MFS is rapidly getting better stuff too.
Also FSX relied heavy on paid 3rd party content as well as free content this is really not exclusive to MFS
@@XCougar85X mfs is for vfr not airliners
@@XCougar85X You said it. It's better than Stock FSX. But with the thousands of freeware addons available, FSX is way better in every department except for graphics, and unless you have a supercomputer, you cant even run MSFS.
The carrier landing in MSFS is not even close to how the manual says to do it. DCS is wild. It’s as close as you can get. Tbf adding as the fact trim for me doesn’t always work in DCS (bugged for some reason, might be a key bind conflict or something.) It makes it even harder to maintain on speed AoA.
It's not bugged, trim only works with flaps... unless u're saying it doesn't work even with the flaps down
@@aboriani yeah it doesn’t work at all for me even with full flaps. I’m assuming it’s a conflict with keybinds or hotas detection.
@@d3us3xmach1na5 I'm not sure with the FA18, but if I run DCS without trackir, the A10C trim switches on my hotas gets remapped to view up, down, left and right.
@@aboriani yeah I also use track ir. I have trim bound to the stick trim hat. I think there was an axis detection issue. It’s working now. I also realized there was a conflict with my radar elevation antenna axis and fixed that too. Hornet flying a lot better now.
I play DCS, but both are fantastic in their own ways. That ocean in MSFS is very impressive.
i feel like msfs focusses more on the graphics where dcs focusses on the mechanics and how the planes would work irl
MSFS también es bueno en mecánica, pero es más funcional para la aviación comercial. Para la simulación de combate, DCS es mucho más funcional.
I have to admit, I do like the head jostling effect in MSFS. I almost lean forward when it stops. DCS feels kinda static by comparison.
you can turn it on in dcs settings but he didnt
I like how the pilot's hand is continuously moving to correct his attitude.
In MSFS, landing is almost like a regular landing, with the differences being 1) runway is incredibly short and 2) you get a lot more instructions to correct your plane's attitude, speed etc.
And the short runway doesn't make it much more difficult because on any runway, you're aiming for that sweetspot and on the carrier you have the added bonus of a wire arrested landing.
I only wish they had arrestor wires at Lukla Airport (Nepal).
That head movement is unrealistic
@@hansloyalitat9774 perhaps, but I’ll bet the feeling it invokes in me when I see it is realistic
I like the graphics of DCS better (at least for the cockpits, MSFS has the upper-hand when it comes to the environment but not by much as DCS still has gorgeous environments) and you can definitely tell that the flight model is more realistic in DCS as well just by this video (which I can also confirm because I own and fly in both programs as well) as evidenced by the micro-inputs being made by the pilot when you look at the stick in both planes. In MSFS, there is very little movement at all (as if there is no wind variation, gusts, turbulence, etc...) whereas in DCS the micro-inputs are constant as the flight dynamics change more realistically...
Flight dynamics of DCS is far way superior to MSFS.
What DCS fanboy would say.DCS just has better camera movement!
@@caribbaviator7058 not a DCS fan boy. I love MSFS. It's just facts for now. MSFS is not for fighter jets obviously. DCS is there for long and MSFS is a new sim, needs a lot improvements to be compared
@@caribbaviator7058 lmao MFS flight dynamics feels like a arcade game
@@caribbaviator7058 You're just flat out wrong bro.
@@caribbaviator7058 camera movement?
MSFS is the best deal you can get, you have a fighter jet (among a hundred other aircraft) and the whole world to explore for less than $100
But DCS is lightyears ahead in terms of physics and functioning systems, including radar. Not to mention the most important part of a fighter, weapons.
Dcs is also free, sure some aircraft are expensive but you can get like 7 modern day fighters from America, Russia, and China for only a total of $25 (fc3 bundle)
@@oceanmango3368 Flaming Cliffs doesn't have full fidelity aircraft. Meaning, the cockpits aren't clickable. DCS is more expensive, but you get what you pay for. Full fidelity aircraft, functioning weapons, radar, physics etc.
@@jonathonmcrae5671 FC3 aircraft while yes aren't clickable are very advanced when it comes to flight characteristics, probably better than the F-18 shown in the video
Edit: The MSFS F-18
@@human1080 I agree, but they are all based on the DCS platform so they will perform alike.
@@jonathonmcrae5671 Apparently, there's a mod that makes at least some of the FC3 cockpits clickable.
Roger: Maverick has the Ball.
Next compare the lawn mowing simulators please
That was a 30-40 knot difference. After years of playing DCS, MSFS 2020 messed me up.
I mean, I'm DCS has the F-18C Hornet while I'm pretty sure MSFS was using the F-18E Super Hornet. They're basically entirely different aircraft, so I'm not sure you can compare the landing speeds like that.
everyone here is like "the $80 standalone F-18 is better than the free included one in a game with 20 other free planes!" like yeah no duh
It's sad that world doesn't work like that free stuff is on par with expensive stuff
Right? Its like comparing a Corvette to a Civic you got to your 16th birthday.
Both are excellent, if you've been into flight/combat sims for at least 20 years.
MFS excellent for civilian aviation, DCS excellent for military aviation
Both have there positive and negative points. My opinion is from a VR user's viewpoint.
I have never flown a real plane so I could be way off the mark but I feel like the physics are more realistic in DCS,
But MSFS has the entire world mapped which is a huge trump card IMO I am sure everyone's first flight is over the town/city they live or grew up .
I think MSFS is easier to get started and has a easier learning curve which is neither a positive or negative point really.
I played DCS first and I was able to transfer what I had learned in the Hornet to MSFS it just felt like a simplified version. Within 5 minutes I was flying and landing safely where in DCS it took a lot longer to get to that point lol.
Graphics wise when MSFS looks good it really really looks good! but due to the scope of mapping the entire planet some parts look much nicer than others. Likewise in DCS it depends on the modules themselves both with the map pack's and planes. Overall I think MSFS looks better more of the time but I prefer the VR clouds in DCS.
MSFS represents much better value IMO for £60 you have all the entire world to explore with lots of base Aircraft.
In DCS £60 = A premium plane and 2 areas in the world to fly it in, OK I know there are 2 planes and 2 maps given free which is fine to test the water but if you enjoy the game you will want to expand. And it can get very expensive fast.
For a example you may want to fly a Spitfire? so you buy the plane which would be fine on its own but really you want to buy the channel map so you can battle over the White Cliffs of Dover ok this is almost still fine if the spending stops at this point but if you want to fly realistic missions you also need the WW2 asset pack which costs the same as the map or plane and is a requirement for the mission packs you can also buy. #waitforthesales
VR performance? well both games need a good rig to run in VR not just the CPU and GPU but when someone says that you only need 16GB of RAM in a gaming PC you know they have never played either of these games. I think that DCS has the edge in performance but it does depend on various things like the map, plane, how busy the server is etc. But even on a lower RES VR headset (like the Rift S) you still need a 3060+ to run at Medium ish settings with acceptable frame rates on either game.
Both look great in VR and both incredibly immersive.
Damage modelling? well DCS obviously wins this one. And yeah you can make things go boom.
Truth is both are brilliant and which I play depends on my mood, if I want to relax MSFS every time, I do not mean this in a bad way but it can send me to sleep.
If I want more excitement then DCS is the way for me.
There is something with the scale in DCS that makes everything look too small/toy like. Including cities etc when you're playing. In every other regard (except graphics) DCS is far superior.
Or maybe mfs scale is bad idk what ur talking about
Yes dcs desperately needs a new mapping system but 🤷🏻♂️
I will tell you that when you’re in the air with a good view of a city or an amusement park it all looks very small, like you could hold it in your hand.
All the people in the comments defending DCS... Why not instead wish Eagle Dynamics improves the graphics some more?
The graphics are fine do you not see how much more realistic the colors and details in dcs are compared to msfs
@@RW-zn8vy It’s mainly the lighting engine (I think), every time I play DCS I just think ‘meh’. It’s all a bit bland. I play both MSFS and DCS World (open beta), on a RTX2070 Super paired with an Odyssy G7, so it’s not like I can’t run the game or have a shit monitor.
- It’s like you said, ‘fine’. I just think it’s easy to make them ‘fantastic’. 😀
It's is in the works with I believe the new Unreal engine. Unlike MS, DCS has been continually updated throughout the years as opposed to new big releases like MSFS. One day the graphics will as good if not better (which in some cases DCS still looks better to me and a lot of others). It's coming though and it's gonna be sweet when it does!
MFS a fun Civilian flight sim to keep your skills up or to learn more about civilian aviation and a good way to enjoy flying. DCS WORLD is a Digital Combat Simulation That is used by Real Governments All Around the World to Train Combat Pilots. FACT Governments don't play games.
Hate to say it but both games are sims that specialize in two vastly different things…
@@potatopilot16 I agree and that is one of the points I am making. Fighter jets in MSFS are a joke. It's MSFS not MS Combat Flight Simulator.
@dishdoggie gaming Microsoft Flight Simulator is a FLIGHT simulator, and therefore any aircraft that ever existed is entirely appropriate within it. It can be military, civilian, a glider, a balloon, a duck - if it flies, it has a place in MSFS.
The closest is not even listed - that would be Prepar3D V5 using either the VRS F/A-18E SuperBug. They are probably about as close to a real Super Hornet as you are likely to get. DCS' F/A-18C is a very close second, but offers an immersive theater of war to fly in as a plus. MSFS 2020 is a (very) distant third place, especially in terms of weapons and mission systems modelling.
Hey, how's that? I heard about it ages ago... Is it worth considering even though I have the DCS Hornet. (and the Tomcat 🎉🎉🎉)
I wouldnt call MSFS a simulator in terms of flight handling and characteristics of aircrafts, particularly in GA. DCS has a far better feel in terms of the principles of flight. If I want to practise aerobatics, stalls, x wind landings ect I jump on DCS and fly an old warbird. Although if I need to brush up navigation, IFR and general cockpit instrumentations and Garmins then I jump MSFS.
I feel that X-Plane has always led the way for realistic civil aviation simulators. Looking forward to XPlane 12
I always felt that the stall characteristics in X-Plane 11 were lacking compared to RL. I think MSFS feels a bit better in that category IMO. That said none of them are better at EVERYTHING compared to the others. VFR flying and overall looks goes to MSFS hands down though DCS is catching up in some regards. I've always used X-Plane for NAV systems and GA instruments though that's because before MSFS came out I had a lot more time to hop on and fly in sim so compared to MSFS I'm not sure how it exactly compares in those areas. I'd have to give weather and other air traffic to MSFS as well. X-Plane is pretty dated so I'm also looking forward to version 12. When it comes to military/warbirds , aircraft flight modeling, realism and overall attention to very exacting detail especially when it comes to correct/realistic operation of the A/C then DCS takes that win all day long by a long shot and IMO the multiplayer is the best as well especially with the flexibility of what you can do with it. Either way though it's a good time to be into flight sims! It was only X-plane 11 and Prepar3d for a while with how old MSX was getting lol. They all have their places I guess and is still WAY cheaper than going out and renting a C-172 @ $200 an hour lol.
@@jackraylongiii9663 yep, way cheaper than renting, especially with current avgas prices lol. I find MSFS super helpful for pre-flight planning, I can fly the route Im planning on doing in real life and run through my plan and find any obvious reference points that I can use which is super helpful. Its so detailed in that regard, that there is a single tree up on a hill which I sometime use for reference at my local aerodrome IRL, and when I saw that same tree in the sim I was impressed.
@@eraserlaser Yeah absolutely the VFR planning in MSFS is awesome. I've only been on it a few times but when I have been I am impressed as well!
DCS is much more realistic
MSFS is a little better looking
yeah
I think dcs looks more natural and realistic.
@@mr.simulator4724 I agree, I feel MSFS is trying TOO hard to look realistic.
@@jonathonmcrae5671 MSFS is a bit warmer looking which looks more real, and theres reflections on the displays as there should be
DCS F-18 is $80, MSFS F-18 is $0, thats the difference.
What is up with your throttle inputs? Are you having a seizure?
For my background, I'm *not a pilot and probably won't be in the near future* but I do 'fly' flight sims for a good quarter of a century now, (among other things, not really safe to mention here... 😂) so here's my take on the comparison.
MSFS, at its best, is still a dumbed down representation of generic flight modeling ...
- as it always used to be -
For example, the relationship between g loads and stall characteristics are *still not* modelled.
MSFS always felt cumbersome and lifeless compared to, say, X Plane, which has a much more believable flight experience.
Also, worth mentioning, that X Plane can be used - in fact, in specific circumstances, it is actually used - for testing real life experimental aircraft, which tells a lot about flight modeling authenticity...
MSFS? I would not really put my life to the line on anything tested on MSFS...
DCS is excellent at replicating flight dynamics, even to the extreme end of it ... Not to mention actual system authenticity, sensors and weaponry.
Disclaimer - as of now, I fly DCS solely. I flew both MSFS until the end of the FSX era, along with X Plane ...
And I used a myriad of other flight sims from Hornet 3.0 on to Hornet Korea, Eidos's JSF 🎉 DCS Black Shark (the original) and a lot of other things like Il-2, Lock On and even hobby projects, like Vertigo ...
I still prefer X Plane over anything MSFS, and for combat, DCS for sure. Based on countless hours of 'flying' experience. 😅
Except the simulation of anything related to combat, dcs still wins from many aspects. The most accurate flight model(only when the module is fully released), the level of details how temperature, air pressure affect the engine, and map details with awsome looking(The graphic looks more natural to me). Not to mention there are radar images, thermal images, damage model, and almost all avionics are decently simulated in DCS. It's not flawless but It's the best if u want any of the military aircraft. MSFS is all about entry level simulation unless u get third party support and i see no point to make a full fidelity simulation in MSFS for military aircraft.
Honestly you're comparing apple to oranges. But DCS imo isn't really anywhere near as good as people make it out to be. The things you say about how the enviroment affects aircraft performance is universally done across all sims. Also idk what drugs you're on if you think maps like the Caucuses look good lol. Overall MSFS will never attempt to make a 1st party high-fi fighter because there is no point as there is no combat. It's like me wanted a full-fidelity 747 in DCS with a fully modeled FMS.
@@arussian_spy Caucasus and other terrains in DCS makes their job. In my opinion they look very nice. ED does not have Azure clouds which can provide 2TB of terrain data like in MSFS. But, the DCS terrains contains things like heat map for roads, buildings,e.t.c... Those are important to make FLIR more realistic.
@@arussian_spy mfs has worse physics not all sims have what you said they have
@@arussian_spy but imagine tho, would be cool to be escorted by f/a-18C hornets
@@hansloyalitat9774 Literally all of the 3 major sims P3D, XP11, and MSFS have exactly that. Also I doubt MSFS physics are bad as most of the FlightSim community and pilots I discuss with seem to agree that MSFS physics are really good until you start pushing the envelope.
I love both! But I feel msfs is more "accessible" somehow. It's got something for everyone. DCS is near perfect in what it does though.
Now if only dcs can have MFS ground details that be amazing. They both enjoying in each respects
Bro what are you doing with the throttle in dcs
About the aircraft realism DCS with no doubt. Talking about the environmental graphics MSFS.
Very nice to see the difference. Now I would like to see DCS do the 747 Queen of the skies. :-)
"A little low Cougar, YOUR TOO LOW COUGAR"
Those throttle adjustments were *way* too coarse
Aside from the fact that one is focused on military aviation and the other is not all I want to know if on MFS the physics for airliners like say the A320 are good aswell as atmospheric physics. I need advice as someone who only plays DCS this far and wants to get some realistic airliners experience in another game.
Boutta do a cobra with an a380
@@VyarkX tell the passengers they should call their loved ones first
Graphics are both really good, but owning both, DCS has a much more realistic and challenging flight model.
you know what would be amazing? if you could get the world scenery like you do in msfs in dcs. that would be incredible. but you would need rediculous graphics to run that
How natural and real it looks in DCS and how twitchy and arcade it looks in MSFS. Not everyone knows to do the aerodynamics and flight dynamics in flight simulators!
Very nice. Although I feel, even though the simulation side is not on par, the MSFS side just looks and feels more "lifelike" due to the dynamic camera movements. DCS just looks... meh in that regard.
DCS has head movement option, it is turned off in this video.
@@mehrdadtube1 Cool, good to know, thanks.
im kind of shocked, I expected MSFS visuals (other than the actual cockpit detail) would be superior, but DCS really holds it own. Granted they aren't modeling the entire earth
What about a triple split ? Real life vs msfs vs DCS.
Good idea
The sim that dabbles vs the dedicated
DCS aerodynamics are one of the best i've seen.
MSFS seemed more cinematic visually, but the avionics in DCS seem more realistic and realtime.
There's a super hornet mod for DCS with a custom cockpit available btw. Might have made for a better comparison. That said, I'm a bigger fan of the A/C Hornets myself.
The legacy hornet is just sexier
@@ace.texaco6774 superhornet feels so... busty
Isn't it just a replacement for the Legacy Hornet, where the UFC doesn't work right and without any flight model changes? I assume we're talking about the Superbug mod.
The Rhino IRL is a very different beast to the A/C, so i can't see the point... except for the prettiness.
@@Tigermoto no i believe it's just a mod
Why does the MSFS screen look like you were essentially not touching your stick during approach whereas DCS looked, quite properly, like you were wrestling the plane all the way to the deck? Is the MSFS one a vastly simplified challenge?
I've done the challenge, it isn't simplified and is true to life. I'm guessing it just comes down to sensitivity differences either on the player's end or the game's end
I have both but rarely fire up MSFS, mainly because the interface is so counter intuitive, everything from assigning controls to flight playback is awkward.
If you could merge over MSFS ocean effects into DCS then it would be 10x better, the detail in the ocean really conveys the sense of speed
You can't compare the two, because one is more focused on civilian flying and the other on military flying. That pretty much narrowed it down to who will like which one better, because if you want to fly a fighter (use weapons, fight), you won't like MSFS. If you're not really into fighter planes, you're not going to play DCS.
Also, I wouldn't say MSFS is an arcade because it's unplayable without a joystick. And for me, that's where the simulator starts, which requires a joystick or steering wheel (if it's a racing game).
Overall, they are both top simulators, one for this and one for that.
It'd be great if i knew which one is which...
I agree with the general opinion here. If you want the eye candy, go for MSFS. If you want more immersive gameplay, go DCS. If you are into combat simulation, I would say stick with DCS.
MSFS es más inmersivo para la aviación comercial. Para la aviación de combate, DCS es más funcional.
Does MSFS allow Dogfights or only you get Free Flight with military jets?
If your looking for a graphical opinion, that's all you will get, is opinions.
It's apples and oranges.
One is simply flying and exploring the world. The other is in the name "Combat".
For me: It's DCS all the way. I love the feel of the cockpit and all the bells and whistles work.
You are using the free carrier here right? I do not see any deck crew.
CTRL E x 3.
Its just the way it always ends up
Next time put the sun in the same position and set the same time. I think it would be really cool.
DCS has better Cockpit Details, MSFS has more Realistic Sceneries.
Tough call they are both pretty nice!
Well, I've done an 18 hour flight in MSFS from Singapore to New York so there.
What controllers do you use?
No one buys DCS to just fly A/C. It is an intense combat simulator. I think MSFS could be THE top dog in combat simulation with the talent and money they have, but I think the company is to woke to have a game to simulate war.
The MSFS has great graphics and is fun to fly. But it’s not a serious simulation, MS left that road some time ago. DCS is a fully fledged study sim with a realistic flight model. Try doing high AOA stuff in msfs and then the same in DCS, you’ll instantly see the difference- it’s vast.
Ok....
Try taking an A320 from Gatwick to Barcelona in DCS then do the same in MSFS, you'll instantly see the difference- it's vast.
msfs is built on the previous versions (a lot of carry over systems and variables within the flight model itself) and those old ones are actually used in literal simulators that are certified to give you FAA sim time hours. but hey, what do you know. let me know when the air force uses dcs to train lol lOL LOOOOOOL. honestly man, learn, then type.
If you want a real challenge, do a carrier landing on MSFS X (the one from 2006). I spent all day getting it ONCE because the plane would keep doing a forward roll and "crash" after hitting the wires. Meanwhile MSFS 2020 I did it first try cleanly.
Can a plane do that, roll forward and crash *after* capturing a wire?
I would think it would just slam into the deck, nose foward, tail aft, in one piece at least.
@@AudieHolland I doubt it, I think it was just crappy physics.
dunno what you are talking about, I landed Cessna citation x using only breaks
Ok, i fly both games myself and the the downright ignorance of many fellow DCS players towards MFS is downright sad and cringeworthy. Seen the same on Reddit. Seems like many never even tried MFS recently or any of the good payware aircraft, or used any stuff like Vatsim, Navigraph, and used planes with good flight models etc. Come on people.
People play dcs for a reason and like msfs presents itself in such a bad way once you first play it. So I’m not surprised.
Heh...I have a Zephyrus G14, too. Can't imagine hooking all my HOTAS stuff up to it, though...that'd be kind of a pain on a laptop...
The graphics of the world/water etc are WAY better in flight sim, but the grapchics of the cockpits and pilot in dcs are better. Someone needs to mix them together!
The legs and arms make all the difference for me. I just feels less like a game in a way.
Which is the most accurate HUD for the planes?
DCS
@@archer1133 thank you!
DCS has both HUD’s and aircraft systems that run laps around MSFS
@@mattmurphy7030 The current MSFS F-18 is a free, casual level update. If any developer decides to create a full fidelity F-18 for MSFS, the sim is entirely capable of accurately modelling every last detail other than weapons currently.
Which one is which ? you don't show it.
Anyone know why the maps are so similar, looking at the ships surrounding the carrier?
DCS is just incredible. Nothing comes close!
If you can fly a F14-Tomcat both in MSFS & DCS really well, chances are can fly you it in real life as well?
DCS planes are just hardcore compared to MSFS planes, pretty much the whole game is but you do end up paying for it.
DCS doesn't have much in the way of big old liners to fly though and fighters aren't everyone's cup of tea. That might change when the paid for module of the C-130J gets released (which is already a cracking mod BTW if you didn't know MSFS fans).
Now the question is, would DCS be better were it to be running on the MSFS engine... graphics, physics etc... it would certainly need some modification but it would look pretty - not that DCS doesn't mind you. I'm just thinking it would stop maps being produced.
DCS is about combat. MSFS is about the flight experience. But you also get tha with DCS. Winner? DCS by a mile
Maybe one day we'll get the Super Hornet for realz.
Which side is which simulator?
First has better irl lighting, 2nd is better visuals
End?
What is the reason of two HUD glass plates?
@peterpickguitar i mean in collimator... and their angled shape
so no Ace Combat 7 carrier landing too?