I have seen comments from real T-45 drivers saying that the DCS mod is "super powered" and doesn't refect the real flight model all that accurately. They have gone on to say that the mod does give a similar "feel" though. It just has a lot more power than the actual one. Maybe that is why its toned down in the MSFS version? A good comparison video. I think DCS wins hands down with flight modeling and systems modeling. MSFS easily wins in scenery and that big beautiful complete world map. That's why you gotta have both :D
"DCS wins hands down with flight modeling and systems modeling" this thoroughly depends on who is doing said modelling. All that DCS has natively is a physics engine, it's up to the developer to realistically apply forces. MSFS is more like configuring your aircraft and then their flight model does the work.
@@JNelson_ That makes sense. I bump into the limits of DCS modeling all the time but I generally find the models to be much better behaved than the MSFS ones. Too bad so many of the MSFS modules don't take advantage of the better configuration options.
There was an interview with India Foxt Echo quite a while back when the main developer decided to jump into DCS development. It really highlighted the differences between the two environments. When the dev was just working on FS (and other sims) he could crank out aircraft modules pretty quickly and cheaply, but he said that all changed with DCS. FS has what would best be described as DCS's SFM flight model which made it easy to plug a 3D model into their game engine. Once he started working with ED he saw he needed a team to be able to get a module out in a reasonable time because of all the detail that ED requires, and that's how the MB-339 mod team got involved. I haven't tried FS out myself but I have compared the DCS P-51 to the one in IL-2 and I can say that the difference is noticeable. There are a lot more forces at play in the DCS version and the plane reacts to them all. It's a lot like the differences between the old DCS A-4 and the new one in beta now with the EFM.
That seems fair. I think FS is less worried about the accuracy of a highly detailed flight model than they are in providing a "simulated" experience to as wide an audience as possible in as many different environments as possible. FS is also clearly aimed at being a platform that can provide "part-task" training in things like instrument procedures. Essentially FS is accepting that a PC based sim can never provide a "professional" level of simulation - so it doesn't try to. I think both sims are successful in what they are trying to do. If I want as detailed a flight model as I can get, I fly in DCS. If I want to just get in an aircraft and practice flying - MSFS is a more accessible experience. And don't get me started on how much easier it is to use VR in FS. But, I still spend as much time in DCS as I do in FS because I do want the extra fidelity sometimes... and because I like blowing stuff up.
I think at 14:00 the terrain looks better in DCS. MSFS looks too patchwork, yet the clouds & shadows are more refined. The external model of the T-45 is lightyears ahead of the DCS model. Had the T-45 YEARS ago in FSX and that was outstanding too if I remember. Great comparison video. Would love to see more of these. Thanks for the useful and quality videos as always.
Very nice comparison video! Thanks for making it! Really hammers home the differences in looks between the two games as well. MSFS looks gorgeous a lot of the time but can also look like utter garbage at times (in areas not well optimised yet) and generally feels a bit more gamey and a bit more gimmicky. DCS still feels like serious time to me. I definitely think DCS has improved its presentation massively over the past year. Some of those side-by-side shots have more subtle differences between the two than you would expect.
Excellent summary. I think MSFS is trying to feel more "gamey" to attract a wider (Xbox!) audience. The thing that i find interesting is that they are both sufficiently high fidelity that I can actually "cross-train" between them. Flying in either one is useful training for the other. That's actually not something I've ever been able to say about two different flight sims.
Thanks for the review and especially calling out the non-collumated hud issue with MSFS. Hopefully Microsoft can add a real hud API for devs to use soon. I haven’t flown any military jets in MSFS and have just been fooling around in the Just Flight Turbo Arrow, but might try the Hawk T1 module that TacticalPascale just reviewed. Similar to the Goshawk but without the HUD issues since it doesn’t appear to have one which is fine with me. The cockpit looks more old school steam gauges and looks real sweet actually.
I agree with you that the level of detail in MSFS is higher. That is the only thing I like about MSFS. I wish DCS/ED would do a better job in that department since both DCS and MSFS are pay-to-play simulators. I don't think Wags is going to like hearing that though.
Sometimes MSFS looks amazing, but sometimes it also can look hilariously bad in some spots. The autogen scenery, particularly bridges and some buildings can look absolutely atrocious sometimes. Since everything in DCS is hand placed you don’t get those issues, but it is less photorealistic in most situations
Well done video yet again. You give me good consideration with respect to purchasing MSFS. I have been on the fence with it. I would however offer one small point and that is the terrain comparison is a bit weak IMHO. I agree with you that MSFS is extremely beautiful regarding terrain but you should not be using the DCS Caucuses map as a comparison. It is the oldest map in DCS in terms of age and technology. If you want to compare terrain with MSFS, you should use the DCS Syria and or Mariannas maps. Newer maps in terms of age and technology used. Thanks for the perspective on the HUD issues in MSFS, that was most helpful and I was not aware of that particular thing. I’ve been watching a lot of videos with the JustFlight British Hawk T1 module in MSFS and I’ve got to say I’m seriously considering purchasing MSFS because of it. I think you would love that module and I would love to see you fly it giving your opinion on that particular aircraft.
Agreed that the Caucasus are not a truly fair comparison. More content on the way on some of tbe other maps. Cyprus anyone? Btw - it is also true that MSFS doesn't exactly shine in this region of the world either. FS gets to. Whole other level in parts of the world which have been detailed. Which the Caucasus have not so this was probably a fair comparison of both sims at their worst, to be fair. I am looking at the Hawk. It does look very nice.
How do you get different places to fly in DCS Steam? I downloaded DCS and the T45 for the first time and only have a ship and a town in what appears to be Eastern Europe
DCS starts you out with access to the Caucasus map and the Marianas map. You can access the whole map using the Mission Editor - there some videos on the channel about using the ME. It's a little bit of work, but worth it. I also have some mission files available on Discord channel that already have the T45. If you drop by the Discord channel there are folks can give you a hand.
I'm having some issues...seems there might have been an update or something, but the engine switch will only go to either off or start, I can't get it to the middle "on" and therefore can't start the engine. The HUD also no longer turns on at all. Anyone else, and is there a fix?
It is similar. I think the engine in DCS is a bit more, let's say... optimistic? The DCS model is a bit more responsive and feels like it has a bit more power. The effect is not pronounced though.
I have to disagree about the visual aspect of flying in MSFS compared to DCS, other than that, the T-45 is the perfect military plane to fly in MSFS because as the reasons you mentioned. I am impressed with the scratches on the canopy, but the rest of the surfaces/materials really suck. So it boils down to want you want to ignore. Flying around enjoy the scenery at 15,000 to 30,000 feet is a joy in MSFS and that is pretty much it. I find it annoying to have things sticking out of the ground with banners stating the distances, and well I won't go into all the niggles I have a hard time dealing with in MSFS. I think the most laughable is when you crash they simply give you a screen telling you that you crashed. Quite the simulation! The actual touchdown shows a simple sickly texture on the runway that is pretty silly. DCS map is how old? and you expect it to be accurate? ED is working and hinting at World maps for the future, that could put them in the same basket but I'm not really interested in speculation.
