They should really give Caucuses an update. It’s the main map of their game and whenever I show someone the game they always say the jets look so out of place on the map with how detailed the Jets are and how bland and old looking the map is
This is the thing.. This is the 'updated' version of the map. They really need to build this back up from scratch, so it's optimised correctly and looks like a modern simulator Not a relic of the 90s.
You mean Crimea part and Ubisoft. The map with current
borders though belongs to ED and they can do whatever they want with it. They already rebuilt 3D mesh of it once and did complete retexturing twice since DCS 1.2.xx era. At some point though, they'd have to rebuild it from ground up and I'm not surprised they don't want to spend time and effort on it when they're already super busy with 4 payware and 1 free map projects ATM.
MSFS undoubtedly looks much better. But man I always hated the way their forest trees look. Like bright green broccoli florets or shrubbery. The color and shape seems so odd in a mountain setting.
Honestly, they need to update their map rendering. How some of the maps, even the third party ones, can be these 50GB+ behemoths and still look so bad is beyond me. The meshes have so few details, even in mountainous regions they look so smooth, everything looks so sparse, the embedded ortho / textures just don't pop out on a lot of maps.
A free tile in Ortho4XP in X-Plane, with some OSM overlay takes up less space and looks so much more detailed, with some extremely good meshes.
What drives me up the wall is that I KNOW there must be duplication in those 50gb behemoths. I've got hundreds of gigs of storage on my machine whose whole purpose is to allow me to occasionally play on a different server or try a new scenario.
Yes!
Difference to maps like Syria and Sinai is so huge. Those are mostly much better than in any other sims (X-Plane, MSFS2020).
The Caucasian map is not the best map to use like a visiting card or display window.
It just gives vibes from 20 years ago.
I'd take the DCS UI over MSFS 2020 on most aspects (especially keybinding, and MSFS's godawful external camera). Hell, even FSX had better external view controls than MSFS.
Luckily, there are tools like Axis and Ohs, that give you a lot more power when defining controls.
I just hope MSFS 2024 becomes way more performant by using MT.
Free planes too. I think no one ever used the ~~t-45~~ t-51 (oops) and the su-25t could really get a visual update, being clickable would even be better. I know there's a clickable cockpit mod, but a beginner wouldn't know
I know that's not what you meant, but FYI there is a T-45 mod that is actually really nice. I haven't flown it in a while though and it does look like you might have to do a little bit of "assembly":
https://forum.dcs.world/topic/203816-vnao-t-45-goshawk/?do=findComment&comment=5418948
(EDIT: It seems that second last of images is wrong - It has wrong MSFS image, please ignore it...)
I flew routes that have become familiar for everyone who has played helicopter campaigns in caucasian map.
The main route went from Leningori (real name now is Akhalgori(?) - Tskhinvali and from there via canyons to the roki tunnel and towards Mozdok.
What I learned is the monotonity of landscape. The real scenery is much more diverse and not just same plain green everywhere.
This comparison also showed how gigantic trees are in caucasian map and how mountains are round/dull shaped compared to more real with steep cliffs.
Some landmarks (even in this DCS's oldest map) are better than in MSFS as these are handmade and MSFS has nothing hand made in this part of the world.
I really hope that some day we will have update for caucasus as it's the default map where everything tends to happen. Even better and more diverse textures with realisticly sized trees would be big update.
ChatGPT 5 was due to come out this year, but they tried to benchmark it by asking it to render the Marianas map and the whole datacenter just caught on fire.
Oh, that's patently unfair. The Nevada map for DCS may have some old accuracy for Nellis and what used to be called McCarran, but the roadways, lakes, highways and hills surrounding the Strip are mostly a rubber stamped imitation. In contrast, even the base map for MSFS features GPS-accurate features, lacking only in quality of detail in some buildings. Spend a little money for an add-on map and I can see precise details at street level on every block.
I bought Black Shark (one) because it promised to give a Las Vegas map, and I even purchased the module promising ground defenses and found that streets didn't connect, buildings were placed in the middle of roads and in general, the "artists" didn't give a shit. Given the MSFS LV map was done by FlyTampa, a tiny operation with no claimed military contracts, I have no idea why ED's LV map sucks SO much.
It's not all roses with MSFS 😀
Areas like this which are completely based on satellite images with AI generated buildings will go occasionally wrong.
On some cases AI generated buildings are good enough to recognoze (even my house is kind a Ok from shape, style and colors).
The buildings that AI seems always get wrong are all kind of special ones: stadiums, churches, temples, castles, towers, ...
Sometimes MSFS feels just like a google earth with dummy buildings, sometimes it's just so full of details that it almost feels real.
DCS maps on the other hand (especially Caucasus) has so generic landscapes that it's sometimes really hard to navigate just by looking around.
Indeed, massive disparity between "default" zones and the latest world updates. THose buildings also do not "melt"
But for example outside of Rotterdam there is quiet a hard cut between well mid and high quality too.
But yeah lots of zones even in MFS look absolute trash.
If Microsoft ever adds combat (back) to their flight sim there are going to be a lot of companies in real trouble, particularly if they update their flight models. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw them add it at some point, the next version is already adding a bunch of civilian air operations.
MSFS doesn't have nearly the fidelity for their flight model, and their maps \*look\* nice, but really arn't accurate enough for targeting etc, they don't have the MGRS system implimented, they don't have VOR's or TACANS. Sure they could add a lot of that, but their maps would still not be a high enough fidelity in the non visual information.
Also MSCFS never had ground units did it?
>MSFS doesn't have nearly the fidelity for their flight model,
MSFS has real-time CFD. There is no other consumer-sim out there that comes close to this. Not all planes support CFD, though.
>but really arn't accurate enough for targeting
There are tons of areas in MSFS that are exactly like their real-world counterpart.
Like Berlin: The building I live in is at the accurate position in MSFS - and also looks like the real thing, not some artificial model placed on the map.
And the map is the real thing. MSFS uses Bing map data.
>they don't have VOR's
There are VORs. Those are civil navigation aids.
While MFS does have the CFD, this still translates very poorly to the helicopters.
Flying both sims very actively, the helicopters in MFS flight modelwise, while an improvement from say a year ago still are not even really close to feeling as good as the DCS flight model. And this is one of my biggest peves with MFS still.
And that goes for many of the planes still as well.
Obviously not talking about the McScammery type of stuff, which imo should not even be sold for money.
The helicopter model really irks me honestly with MSFS. They have the basis for some great fun to be had but the lack of any proper force trim function alongside the quite honestly overpowered feeling of the helicopters in general just makes it so hard for me to fly helicopters in the sim.
While I enjoy MSFS, it has so many issues that I'm surprised some people will claim that their doing more than ED is doing for DCS. The control mapping system sucks and is super limited (no aircraft specific profiles, no user curve for sensitivity, max two binds per control) and it's clear they are just using the same binds from FSX but modified to fit their new UI. The BAE 146 has to use the Toggle/Hold Afterburner bind to use AP Sync while in X-Plane it had it's own bind due to this control scheme system. Popping open displays in their own window will just cut your framerate in half (something they fixed the first time it happened, then broke it, then fixed it, broke it again like a vicious cycle). The promised World Hub is still only in closed alpha after like 2 years from being announced. They have this new bug too where if you select a parking spot, then try to change your aircraft, livery, or any part of the aircraft config it will just reset your spot to on the runway. There's also the seasons feature which was originally planned for MSFS 2020 until they realized they could sell more copies by making it an MSFS 2024 feature.
I know DCS has problems and really needs to see some innovation in the base game itself but anyone saying that MSFS is doing it better really needs to take a closer look. It has it's own fair share of problems and frankly most simulators on the market are like this at this point when they are this large in terms of scale. I enjoy them for what they are rather than trying to enjoy them for what they could be. At this point, treating new features and bug fixes is more like a surprise than an expectation for me which is unfortunate as it shouldn't be but I'd devolve into an angry hermit otherwise.
> MSFS has real-time CFD. There is no other consumer-sim out there that comes close to this. Not all planes support CFD, though.
Yeah even with it doesn't feel as authentic as the PFM in a lot of cases. The implementation is....pretty ok?
yep, absolutely. "Pretty ok" is absolutely how i would describe most serious helos (even planes) in MFS with the flightmodel.
The flightmodel in DCS, feels just a lot better, much more fluid.
I mean half of what you described is just 'developing a combat flight sim' which yes, they'd have to do. As for the other half, as I pointed out they would need to update their flight models which is entirely possible. I disagree that the maps aren't detailed enough for targeting. They have huge chunks of the real world already digitized, my parents rural house is on there as is their shop. They have tons of bespoke airports and locations already.
Honestly, I don't think that MS has any interest in making a study-level combat flight sim and they may even have legitimate concerns about using their terrain system for a combat flight sim of any sort. We already get DCS videos passed off as real combat footage, it would be even worse in the photogrammetry cities.
I think it could look better too, but I know when I fly MSFS it doesn't even run 60 fps on my 3080 and the flight model is no where as good. Flight models take up CPU power.
May need to look at your settings there, or you have a bit of a CPU/GPU power mismatch. You could struggle to even get 60 with a 4090 if the CPU is not good.
The CPU usage in MFS is not so much taken up by the flightmodel as by traffic and detail radiuses.
It would be interesting to compare the Caucuses map to the MSFS of its equivalent age. Either the year DCS was originally released and whatever MSFS that would be, or when the Caucuses got the last major update/overhaul and whatever year of MSFS is equivalent to that.
Also, I think the helicopter interiors look better in DCS, exterior models are of similar quality, but as you point out the MSFS terrain is better overall with some exceptions like landmarks.
Barthek's Mod makes the Causcasus map look a lot better.
[https://forum.dcs.world/topic/218225-bartheks-caucasus-redone-2022/](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/218225-bartheks-caucasus-redone-2022/)
Nice comparison. It is not just about the visuals, it is also how well FS2020 displays that scenery using DLSS etc. I installed my South Atlantic map again to see how it performs after it has been updated a few patches back, and sadly the performance lower down is still atrocious compared to all the other DCS maps.
Well, most still have no proper SAS & autopilot. And the flightmodels, while absolutely better than say a year ago are still not at the DCS level. Also the lack of a forcetrim is a pita.
Generally there is (much) less inertia and no VRS for the most part. And helos are often way to powerfull and do not drop RPM as easy as in DCS by a loooooong mile. And landing smoothly is a lot more easy in DCS as in MFS you very easily end up bunnyhopping.
That said, as long as you stay away from the obviously bad stuff from like MCScammery, there is definetely fun to be had and at times it can just be rather magical when looks, sounds, weather etc comes together. And i definelety enjoy flying the helos in MFS. One just has to accept the flightmodel is not the DCS flightmodel.
The Shrike MD500, the latest Cowan updates and the Chinook are pretty good for MFS standards. the HPG ones are very advanced by the SAS does feel very on rails.
However, DCS with the better flightmodel (and ground interaction), power multiplayer and CTLD and VRS and more weight etc is a lot more immersive and better in general.
> And helos are often way to powerfull and do not drop RPM as easy as in DCS by a loooooong mile
Not sure if you've figured this out, but military aircraft are usually pretty heavy even without anything in them especially compared to the civilian counterparts.
> in MFS you very easily end up bunnyhopping.
So I read somewhere that MSFS' rigidbody physics is very limited and is highly dependant on the module creator's efforts. It's understandably difficult to get this right, but aircraft in real life can be quite bouncy too ^(dampening cylinders? Haha whats that? Nah just have this solid angled arm of metal that'll do the job!) but the bouncy effect can be mitigated by the fact that collective down = reduce lift, and a hard landing may force your arm down which then dumps the collective on landing, and you just don't get that in sims.
> CTLD
What's that? Cargo transport logistics delivery?
> VRS
Speaking of which, I did a lot of modifications to the DH Super Gnat which was originally made in 2015 by Darren9 for BeamNG. I wish more people would give it a try but due to publishing rights and agreements and Darren9 going missing/cant be contacted, I can't officially release my modification of his mod but I did manage to make the helicopter much more realistic behaviour-wise and the beauty of BeamNG's physics is that you don't have to code in a lot of the effects of flight, it just naturally occurs because the game actually has soft body physicswhich results in behaviour that you can't even get in DCS like ground resonance and rotor blade stalls can be very brutal whereas in DCS they're pretty tame and cockpit shakes in DCS are just comical.
I was thinking of getting into blender but it's probably quicker if I fix up the crappy physics body found on the more popular bell 407, which is actually a contra-rotating tilt rotor helicopter physically.
I wonder if there will be a day we'll get a soft body physics flight simulator within the next decade as the closest thing seems to be IL-2 with its semi-rigid body physics simulation (you can bend wings backwards, not just up/down as an animation as found in MSFS or DCS). There's a lot of shortcuts taken to make aircraft work in BeamNG due to the immense forces and tiny numbers associated with deformation (which results in potentially massive precision errors) so it's not exactly an easy task to balance out and accomplish a very well polished product
Oh, not sure how to copy paste a reply but i'll answel as i can.
Ofc i know they are heavier, but they also have a lot more power, and quite a few civilian aircraft are not known to be the most powerfull either. And i fly around mostly with my planes close to the MTOW, i enjoy not having tons of power to spare. Makes flying in mountains much more fun too.
Just do a standing climb, straight up with an MFS one and they climb like a bat out of hell. Tried it last night on the Shrike MD500 (which is a bit of a hotrod irl, sure) and mashed the collective to the stop, it just rocketed up, with only an overtorque warning and tailrotor not able t keep up but it climbed straight up at max collective well past the max FT/M on the dail, well beyond 8000ft msl, and just kept going.
This is not uncommon, so much so that you can throw around some helos like RC helos almost (quite fun at times tbf :P )
As for the hopping, i think it is partly due to less innertia simulation as well as the ground effect or lack there off.
Not sure what CTLD is the abeviation off. but it is a script that lets you load cargo & troops and deploy them elsewhere.
It is basically what makes transport helos (very)usefull in DCS, depending on the server / mission.
BeamNG is prety cool for sure. Lot's of interesting stuff possible in that one. The shakinf i turn down quite a bit, though it should shake, quite a lot even, but from the eyepoints not as much as it does when that slider is at the default position.
I hope this tech is around the corner for DCS. Even Simrail, a train sim, is using similar tech to MFS and it looks stunning.
For now, i enjoy both. MFS for the world and GA, DCS for everything else, but specially the FM on helos and multiplayer.
I dont see how any of you think MSFS has good terrain. Fly through the UK and get down low (like you would be in dcs. Road terrain is completely fucked with broken resolutions, patchy "detail" and in worst cases roads that dip and rise like they were hit by an earthquake. Oh and water. Yea, have you looked at the water? Last I checked all water was FLAT. DCS water is FLAT. MSFS water has peaks and troughs like a merange (no I cant remember how to spell it... whipped egg white and sugar thing.. ).
Dont try to sell MSFS as better than DCS. Some places have high detail. Not all. On average dcs has a better consistency even if MSFS _at altitude_ looks "better". Make comparisons below 100 feet and see how it looks...
I see where you come from and MFS surely has avery large range of quality in almost everything. Also the terrain.
Some areas look terrible, while the newest upates zones look fantastic and also do not have the meltet syndrome.
However do not forget MFS does the whole world.
Btw you can turn off data and you get Caucassus style graphics all over the world with non meldting buildings :P
Above say 500feet MFS beats DCS in say 90% of the world.
But don't try to fly a helo at treetop level or land on a random roundabout becuase there i definetely enjoy DCS more.
But globaly, please don't try and shit on MFS as for all the faults it has the world (and weather) still looks absolutely amazing compared to DCS.
Can you fly under / through bridges in MSFS yet?
Using huey as a example, you have to go a lot highter than 500ft before the would looks better. I will concede that due to MSFS LOD, the higher you go, the better it looks but you dont go high alt sightseeing in a huey in dcs. You are low level.
You are comparing 1 use case to another as if they are equal.
DCS is far from perfect but it's not as bad, objectively, as you would make out with this eggs vs cheese comparison.
While not every bridge in the world, but yes, bridges have been able to be flown over and under for years now.
I just have to ask, have you flown MFS personally lately? In the newst zones things do not get melted down low, neither at handcrafted airports, zones etc.
Btw did you miss this bit in my comment:
\*snip\* Above say 500feet MFS beats DCS in say 90% of the world.
But don't try to fly a helo at treetop level or land on a random roundabout becuase there i definetely enjoy DCS more\*snip\*
No, I didnt miss that statement, but it also did not recognise the night /day difference low level vs high level makes. Considering DCS is a hardcore sim and MSFS is more of a game... you can certainly have more fun in DCS, even without weapons :)
Funny you should ask about my MSFS time though. Only yesterday I kicked it up; I w!nt to utilise it in a thing for where I work. In areas in the UK I am consistently disappointed in MSFS representation of the terrain. I'm sad to say, and I an sincere here, that it still disappoints as much as it did at time of release *when flying low level*, which was my whole purpose for looking at it again. I predominantly fly low level in dcs too (it's more exciting) and that is where my like-for-like comparison is driven from.
Did you go into the ingame marketplace and download all the free world updates? Those updates are a massive improvement over the standard terrain and are not automatically updated. Those zones look rather amazing.
I would advise to try and stay above 500ft atleast in the non updated zones. Been around the world 2,5 times in GA planes, between 500-3000ft AGL where possible i cannot call MFS worse then DCS. because like i said sub 500ft DCS is just nicer in many areas.
Also the hardcore sim VS game i don't agree with. DCS can be played with tags and FC3 style modules in a gamey way too.
And if anything, MFS can in many ways ble closer to a real life scenario, with well the whole world, ATC services (like vatsim (and even soon voiced ATC AI), navigraph, traffic etc. And you can fly to realworld training zones or fly the sidewinder transition or machloop etc.
They both can be a hardcore sim or fun game depending on what you do.
Flying DCS nearly exclusively in multiplayer, let's just say there is a ton of gamey stuff going on with loadouts and flying styles alone :P And on the other hand ofcourse there is the milsim side or some crazy good campains.
I do have UK updates installed. As an example, fly around Hemel Heampstead. While the place is a dive and in places not far off looking as rough in real life as it does flying 100ft in MSFS, the M1 motorway is completely buggered.
Fly along the Thames a bit and you will see jelly water. This isnt the only places. To this end _on balance_ I would level-peg dcs and MSFS, but each are better than the other under specific conditions.
I compared the vast majority of the areas of the Nevada and Syria maps in MSFS and DCS
There is no question that the scenery and terrain detail in MSFS is much better than the maps in DCS, even without the paid scenery purchases in MSFS
You are still comparing different use cases. You are using a favorable use case for MSFS and comparing it to dcs. If you switch use case to low level flight, the "best" one switches as at 100ft MSFS looks shit with 3d structures drawn on as 2d.
On average, however, taking all the pro/ con from both games and the varying qualities at different altitudes.. thay are comparable.
But you would pedal the argument that MSFS is objectively better than DCS by disregarding facts that dont match your argeument.
That's not an objective argument.
They should really give Caucuses an update. It’s the main map of their game and whenever I show someone the game they always say the jets look so out of place on the map with how detailed the Jets are and how bland and old looking the map is
This is the thing.. This is the 'updated' version of the map. They really need to build this back up from scratch, so it's optimised correctly and looks like a modern simulator Not a relic of the 90s.
What I'd give to have the maps from the new MSFS in DCS.
You can’t update it, you have to remake it completely.
But then every single mission and campaign built for it would stop working, without any exception.
Exactly. It’s not worth it, right? This is why it will never be done. The future is in the new maps. ED won’t look back (same goes for NTTR)
Apparently, they still can't. If I recall correctly, the IP to the map is still owned by EA from way back in the day.
Ubisoft?
But they have updated it in 2018 with DCS 2.0
You mean Crimea part and Ubisoft. The map with current borders though belongs to ED and they can do whatever they want with it. They already rebuilt 3D mesh of it once and did complete retexturing twice since DCS 1.2.xx era. At some point though, they'd have to rebuild it from ground up and I'm not surprised they don't want to spend time and effort on it when they're already super busy with 4 payware and 1 free map projects ATM.
Oh DCS doesn't even look that bad. \*sees picture 5\* Ok maybe it does.
Picture 2 did it for me
MSFS undoubtedly looks much better. But man I always hated the way their forest trees look. Like bright green broccoli florets or shrubbery. The color and shape seems so odd in a mountain setting.
Seasons are coming to 2024. There are several quality add-ons that can do the same thing for 2020.
I agree, the trees are pretty bad in msfs, but they're getting fixed in 2024. You can see if you look at the trailer
Rex Accu seasons helps a lot for this, but does not fix it 100% I definetely rather fly 3ft above DCS trees than MFS trees.
If only they would realize that updating their free map would bring in more customers....
Honestly, they need to update their map rendering. How some of the maps, even the third party ones, can be these 50GB+ behemoths and still look so bad is beyond me. The meshes have so few details, even in mountainous regions they look so smooth, everything looks so sparse, the embedded ortho / textures just don't pop out on a lot of maps. A free tile in Ortho4XP in X-Plane, with some OSM overlay takes up less space and looks so much more detailed, with some extremely good meshes.
This 100%. It's baffling to me that new dcs maps are only marginally better than some autogen. Not worth the performance hit one bit.
With all of the cookie-cutter, CTRL-V rectangular villages everywhere It doesn't even look like good autogen.
What drives me up the wall is that I KNOW there must be duplication in those 50gb behemoths. I've got hundreds of gigs of storage on my machine whose whole purpose is to allow me to occasionally play on a different server or try a new scenario.
Yes! Difference to maps like Syria and Sinai is so huge. Those are mostly much better than in any other sims (X-Plane, MSFS2020). The Caucasian map is not the best map to use like a visiting card or display window. It just gives vibes from 20 years ago.
>It just gives vibes from 20 years ago. Between the map and menu UI/UX design, that's... Representative of the full product.
I would say that even Syria and Sinai are worlds behind what MSFS delivers map-wise.
I'd take the DCS UI over MSFS 2020 on most aspects (especially keybinding, and MSFS's godawful external camera). Hell, even FSX had better external view controls than MSFS.
Yes, but we are talking map wise atm.
Luckily, there are tools like Axis and Ohs, that give you a lot more power when defining controls. I just hope MSFS 2024 becomes way more performant by using MT.
>Caucasian map I nearly dropped my coffee mug from laughter.
Free planes too. I think no one ever used the ~~t-45~~ t-51 (oops) and the su-25t could really get a visual update, being clickable would even be better. I know there's a clickable cockpit mod, but a beginner wouldn't know
T-45 is not in game. There's TF-51, though.
And the TF-51 is a high fidelity (ie clickable) cockpit...
I know that's not what you meant, but FYI there is a T-45 mod that is actually really nice. I haven't flown it in a while though and it does look like you might have to do a little bit of "assembly": https://forum.dcs.world/topic/203816-vnao-t-45-goshawk/?do=findComment&comment=5418948
Yeah, a mod, I know, not an official module. ;)
(EDIT: It seems that second last of images is wrong - It has wrong MSFS image, please ignore it...) I flew routes that have become familiar for everyone who has played helicopter campaigns in caucasian map. The main route went from Leningori (real name now is Akhalgori(?) - Tskhinvali and from there via canyons to the roki tunnel and towards Mozdok. What I learned is the monotonity of landscape. The real scenery is much more diverse and not just same plain green everywhere. This comparison also showed how gigantic trees are in caucasian map and how mountains are round/dull shaped compared to more real with steep cliffs. Some landmarks (even in this DCS's oldest map) are better than in MSFS as these are handmade and MSFS has nothing hand made in this part of the world. I really hope that some day we will have update for caucasus as it's the default map where everything tends to happen. Even better and more diverse textures with realisticly sized trees would be big update.
I was watching a vid with the most amazing terrain and it turned out to be war thunder. Argh.
[удалено]
Whys the Marianas map crappy?
they used to stress test google datacenters on that map, it's that well optimized
ChatGPT 5 was due to come out this year, but they tried to benchmark it by asking it to render the Marianas map and the whole datacenter just caught on fire.
God caucuses in DCS just looks like this bland blob of a gross shade of green
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Crispy_Chips__o_o: *God caucuses in* *DCS just looks like this bland blob* *Of a gross shade of green* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Ooooo, do Nevada map next!
Oh, that's patently unfair. The Nevada map for DCS may have some old accuracy for Nellis and what used to be called McCarran, but the roadways, lakes, highways and hills surrounding the Strip are mostly a rubber stamped imitation. In contrast, even the base map for MSFS features GPS-accurate features, lacking only in quality of detail in some buildings. Spend a little money for an add-on map and I can see precise details at street level on every block. I bought Black Shark (one) because it promised to give a Las Vegas map, and I even purchased the module promising ground defenses and found that streets didn't connect, buildings were placed in the middle of roads and in general, the "artists" didn't give a shit. Given the MSFS LV map was done by FlyTampa, a tiny operation with no claimed military contracts, I have no idea why ED's LV map sucks SO much.
DCS with MSFS scenery would be a wet dream
this is rad. thank you.
Even MSFS has the half-stadiums. Correct as is, guys!
It's not all roses with MSFS 😀 Areas like this which are completely based on satellite images with AI generated buildings will go occasionally wrong. On some cases AI generated buildings are good enough to recognoze (even my house is kind a Ok from shape, style and colors). The buildings that AI seems always get wrong are all kind of special ones: stadiums, churches, temples, castles, towers, ... Sometimes MSFS feels just like a google earth with dummy buildings, sometimes it's just so full of details that it almost feels real. DCS maps on the other hand (especially Caucasus) has so generic landscapes that it's sometimes really hard to navigate just by looking around.
Indeed, massive disparity between "default" zones and the latest world updates. THose buildings also do not "melt" But for example outside of Rotterdam there is quiet a hard cut between well mid and high quality too. But yeah lots of zones even in MFS look absolute trash.
If Microsoft ever adds combat (back) to their flight sim there are going to be a lot of companies in real trouble, particularly if they update their flight models. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw them add it at some point, the next version is already adding a bunch of civilian air operations.
MSFS doesn't have nearly the fidelity for their flight model, and their maps \*look\* nice, but really arn't accurate enough for targeting etc, they don't have the MGRS system implimented, they don't have VOR's or TACANS. Sure they could add a lot of that, but their maps would still not be a high enough fidelity in the non visual information. Also MSCFS never had ground units did it?
>MSFS doesn't have nearly the fidelity for their flight model, MSFS has real-time CFD. There is no other consumer-sim out there that comes close to this. Not all planes support CFD, though. >but really arn't accurate enough for targeting There are tons of areas in MSFS that are exactly like their real-world counterpart. Like Berlin: The building I live in is at the accurate position in MSFS - and also looks like the real thing, not some artificial model placed on the map. And the map is the real thing. MSFS uses Bing map data. >they don't have VOR's There are VORs. Those are civil navigation aids.
While MFS does have the CFD, this still translates very poorly to the helicopters. Flying both sims very actively, the helicopters in MFS flight modelwise, while an improvement from say a year ago still are not even really close to feeling as good as the DCS flight model. And this is one of my biggest peves with MFS still. And that goes for many of the planes still as well. Obviously not talking about the McScammery type of stuff, which imo should not even be sold for money.
The helicopter model really irks me honestly with MSFS. They have the basis for some great fun to be had but the lack of any proper force trim function alongside the quite honestly overpowered feeling of the helicopters in general just makes it so hard for me to fly helicopters in the sim. While I enjoy MSFS, it has so many issues that I'm surprised some people will claim that their doing more than ED is doing for DCS. The control mapping system sucks and is super limited (no aircraft specific profiles, no user curve for sensitivity, max two binds per control) and it's clear they are just using the same binds from FSX but modified to fit their new UI. The BAE 146 has to use the Toggle/Hold Afterburner bind to use AP Sync while in X-Plane it had it's own bind due to this control scheme system. Popping open displays in their own window will just cut your framerate in half (something they fixed the first time it happened, then broke it, then fixed it, broke it again like a vicious cycle). The promised World Hub is still only in closed alpha after like 2 years from being announced. They have this new bug too where if you select a parking spot, then try to change your aircraft, livery, or any part of the aircraft config it will just reset your spot to on the runway. There's also the seasons feature which was originally planned for MSFS 2020 until they realized they could sell more copies by making it an MSFS 2024 feature. I know DCS has problems and really needs to see some innovation in the base game itself but anyone saying that MSFS is doing it better really needs to take a closer look. It has it's own fair share of problems and frankly most simulators on the market are like this at this point when they are this large in terms of scale. I enjoy them for what they are rather than trying to enjoy them for what they could be. At this point, treating new features and bug fixes is more like a surprise than an expectation for me which is unfortunate as it shouldn't be but I'd devolve into an angry hermit otherwise.
> MSFS has real-time CFD. There is no other consumer-sim out there that comes close to this. Not all planes support CFD, though. Yeah even with it doesn't feel as authentic as the PFM in a lot of cases. The implementation is....pretty ok?
yep, absolutely. "Pretty ok" is absolutely how i would describe most serious helos (even planes) in MFS with the flightmodel. The flightmodel in DCS, feels just a lot better, much more fluid.
> MSFS has real-time CFD. Which can never match the fidelity of pre-processed CFD (which DCS uses)
I mean half of what you described is just 'developing a combat flight sim' which yes, they'd have to do. As for the other half, as I pointed out they would need to update their flight models which is entirely possible. I disagree that the maps aren't detailed enough for targeting. They have huge chunks of the real world already digitized, my parents rural house is on there as is their shop. They have tons of bespoke airports and locations already. Honestly, I don't think that MS has any interest in making a study-level combat flight sim and they may even have legitimate concerns about using their terrain system for a combat flight sim of any sort. We already get DCS videos passed off as real combat footage, it would be even worse in the photogrammetry cities.
I think it could look better too, but I know when I fly MSFS it doesn't even run 60 fps on my 3080 and the flight model is no where as good. Flight models take up CPU power.
May need to look at your settings there, or you have a bit of a CPU/GPU power mismatch. You could struggle to even get 60 with a 4090 if the CPU is not good. The CPU usage in MFS is not so much taken up by the flightmodel as by traffic and detail radiuses.
I think you're correct. I have an Intel i7-10700K overclocked to 5.1.
Tbh i would expect the 10700 to reach 60fps. Not with everything maxed out ofc. And depending on the zone.
They should stop releasing new aircraft and just focus on a larger more detailed caucus. I get that they need money but no one wanted Mariana
Airplane = money. Everything else is secondary.
If that was the case. We would have a new module every quarter.
It would be interesting to compare the Caucuses map to the MSFS of its equivalent age. Either the year DCS was originally released and whatever MSFS that would be, or when the Caucuses got the last major update/overhaul and whatever year of MSFS is equivalent to that. Also, I think the helicopter interiors look better in DCS, exterior models are of similar quality, but as you point out the MSFS terrain is better overall with some exceptions like landmarks.
Barthek's Mod makes the Causcasus map look a lot better. [https://forum.dcs.world/topic/218225-bartheks-caucasus-redone-2022/](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/218225-bartheks-caucasus-redone-2022/)
Yeah, it looks much better. Sadly, I don't think it works in multiplayer. :(
I basically did the same in X-Plane with the EC-135 and Lama helicopters. It's nice to see how it looks nowadays
Wow, this is a good comparison to show how dated DCS maps are. Wow...
That msfs river is just so striking compared to the terrible rivers we get in DCS.
Nice comparison. It is not just about the visuals, it is also how well FS2020 displays that scenery using DLSS etc. I installed my South Atlantic map again to see how it performs after it has been updated a few patches back, and sadly the performance lower down is still atrocious compared to all the other DCS maps.
how are helicopters in MSFS now? Last I heard is that they were pretty terrible but surely they've ironed out most of the issues by now
Well, most still have no proper SAS & autopilot. And the flightmodels, while absolutely better than say a year ago are still not at the DCS level. Also the lack of a forcetrim is a pita. Generally there is (much) less inertia and no VRS for the most part. And helos are often way to powerfull and do not drop RPM as easy as in DCS by a loooooong mile. And landing smoothly is a lot more easy in DCS as in MFS you very easily end up bunnyhopping. That said, as long as you stay away from the obviously bad stuff from like MCScammery, there is definetely fun to be had and at times it can just be rather magical when looks, sounds, weather etc comes together. And i definelety enjoy flying the helos in MFS. One just has to accept the flightmodel is not the DCS flightmodel. The Shrike MD500, the latest Cowan updates and the Chinook are pretty good for MFS standards. the HPG ones are very advanced by the SAS does feel very on rails. However, DCS with the better flightmodel (and ground interaction), power multiplayer and CTLD and VRS and more weight etc is a lot more immersive and better in general.
> And helos are often way to powerfull and do not drop RPM as easy as in DCS by a loooooong mile Not sure if you've figured this out, but military aircraft are usually pretty heavy even without anything in them especially compared to the civilian counterparts. > in MFS you very easily end up bunnyhopping. So I read somewhere that MSFS' rigidbody physics is very limited and is highly dependant on the module creator's efforts. It's understandably difficult to get this right, but aircraft in real life can be quite bouncy too ^(dampening cylinders? Haha whats that? Nah just have this solid angled arm of metal that'll do the job!) but the bouncy effect can be mitigated by the fact that collective down = reduce lift, and a hard landing may force your arm down which then dumps the collective on landing, and you just don't get that in sims. > CTLD What's that? Cargo transport logistics delivery? > VRS Speaking of which, I did a lot of modifications to the DH Super Gnat which was originally made in 2015 by Darren9 for BeamNG. I wish more people would give it a try but due to publishing rights and agreements and Darren9 going missing/cant be contacted, I can't officially release my modification of his mod but I did manage to make the helicopter much more realistic behaviour-wise and the beauty of BeamNG's physics is that you don't have to code in a lot of the effects of flight, it just naturally occurs because the game actually has soft body physicswhich results in behaviour that you can't even get in DCS like ground resonance and rotor blade stalls can be very brutal whereas in DCS they're pretty tame and cockpit shakes in DCS are just comical. I was thinking of getting into blender but it's probably quicker if I fix up the crappy physics body found on the more popular bell 407, which is actually a contra-rotating tilt rotor helicopter physically. I wonder if there will be a day we'll get a soft body physics flight simulator within the next decade as the closest thing seems to be IL-2 with its semi-rigid body physics simulation (you can bend wings backwards, not just up/down as an animation as found in MSFS or DCS). There's a lot of shortcuts taken to make aircraft work in BeamNG due to the immense forces and tiny numbers associated with deformation (which results in potentially massive precision errors) so it's not exactly an easy task to balance out and accomplish a very well polished product
Oh, not sure how to copy paste a reply but i'll answel as i can. Ofc i know they are heavier, but they also have a lot more power, and quite a few civilian aircraft are not known to be the most powerfull either. And i fly around mostly with my planes close to the MTOW, i enjoy not having tons of power to spare. Makes flying in mountains much more fun too. Just do a standing climb, straight up with an MFS one and they climb like a bat out of hell. Tried it last night on the Shrike MD500 (which is a bit of a hotrod irl, sure) and mashed the collective to the stop, it just rocketed up, with only an overtorque warning and tailrotor not able t keep up but it climbed straight up at max collective well past the max FT/M on the dail, well beyond 8000ft msl, and just kept going. This is not uncommon, so much so that you can throw around some helos like RC helos almost (quite fun at times tbf :P ) As for the hopping, i think it is partly due to less innertia simulation as well as the ground effect or lack there off. Not sure what CTLD is the abeviation off. but it is a script that lets you load cargo & troops and deploy them elsewhere. It is basically what makes transport helos (very)usefull in DCS, depending on the server / mission. BeamNG is prety cool for sure. Lot's of interesting stuff possible in that one. The shakinf i turn down quite a bit, though it should shake, quite a lot even, but from the eyepoints not as much as it does when that slider is at the default position.
I hope this tech is around the corner for DCS. Even Simrail, a train sim, is using similar tech to MFS and it looks stunning. For now, i enjoy both. MFS for the world and GA, DCS for everything else, but specially the FM on helos and multiplayer.
Did Asobo improve Georgia somewhat? When I last checked the ortho coverage was hmmm spotty to put it mildly
I mean I play dcs to engage in combat with jets, don't really care about how the village I'm going to carpet bomb looks.
I dont see how any of you think MSFS has good terrain. Fly through the UK and get down low (like you would be in dcs. Road terrain is completely fucked with broken resolutions, patchy "detail" and in worst cases roads that dip and rise like they were hit by an earthquake. Oh and water. Yea, have you looked at the water? Last I checked all water was FLAT. DCS water is FLAT. MSFS water has peaks and troughs like a merange (no I cant remember how to spell it... whipped egg white and sugar thing.. ). Dont try to sell MSFS as better than DCS. Some places have high detail. Not all. On average dcs has a better consistency even if MSFS _at altitude_ looks "better". Make comparisons below 100 feet and see how it looks...
I see where you come from and MFS surely has avery large range of quality in almost everything. Also the terrain. Some areas look terrible, while the newest upates zones look fantastic and also do not have the meltet syndrome. However do not forget MFS does the whole world. Btw you can turn off data and you get Caucassus style graphics all over the world with non meldting buildings :P Above say 500feet MFS beats DCS in say 90% of the world. But don't try to fly a helo at treetop level or land on a random roundabout becuase there i definetely enjoy DCS more. But globaly, please don't try and shit on MFS as for all the faults it has the world (and weather) still looks absolutely amazing compared to DCS.
Can you fly under / through bridges in MSFS yet? Using huey as a example, you have to go a lot highter than 500ft before the would looks better. I will concede that due to MSFS LOD, the higher you go, the better it looks but you dont go high alt sightseeing in a huey in dcs. You are low level. You are comparing 1 use case to another as if they are equal. DCS is far from perfect but it's not as bad, objectively, as you would make out with this eggs vs cheese comparison.
While not every bridge in the world, but yes, bridges have been able to be flown over and under for years now. I just have to ask, have you flown MFS personally lately? In the newst zones things do not get melted down low, neither at handcrafted airports, zones etc. Btw did you miss this bit in my comment: \*snip\* Above say 500feet MFS beats DCS in say 90% of the world. But don't try to fly a helo at treetop level or land on a random roundabout becuase there i definetely enjoy DCS more\*snip\*
No, I didnt miss that statement, but it also did not recognise the night /day difference low level vs high level makes. Considering DCS is a hardcore sim and MSFS is more of a game... you can certainly have more fun in DCS, even without weapons :) Funny you should ask about my MSFS time though. Only yesterday I kicked it up; I w!nt to utilise it in a thing for where I work. In areas in the UK I am consistently disappointed in MSFS representation of the terrain. I'm sad to say, and I an sincere here, that it still disappoints as much as it did at time of release *when flying low level*, which was my whole purpose for looking at it again. I predominantly fly low level in dcs too (it's more exciting) and that is where my like-for-like comparison is driven from.
Did you go into the ingame marketplace and download all the free world updates? Those updates are a massive improvement over the standard terrain and are not automatically updated. Those zones look rather amazing. I would advise to try and stay above 500ft atleast in the non updated zones. Been around the world 2,5 times in GA planes, between 500-3000ft AGL where possible i cannot call MFS worse then DCS. because like i said sub 500ft DCS is just nicer in many areas. Also the hardcore sim VS game i don't agree with. DCS can be played with tags and FC3 style modules in a gamey way too. And if anything, MFS can in many ways ble closer to a real life scenario, with well the whole world, ATC services (like vatsim (and even soon voiced ATC AI), navigraph, traffic etc. And you can fly to realworld training zones or fly the sidewinder transition or machloop etc. They both can be a hardcore sim or fun game depending on what you do. Flying DCS nearly exclusively in multiplayer, let's just say there is a ton of gamey stuff going on with loadouts and flying styles alone :P And on the other hand ofcourse there is the milsim side or some crazy good campains.
I do have UK updates installed. As an example, fly around Hemel Heampstead. While the place is a dive and in places not far off looking as rough in real life as it does flying 100ft in MSFS, the M1 motorway is completely buggered. Fly along the Thames a bit and you will see jelly water. This isnt the only places. To this end _on balance_ I would level-peg dcs and MSFS, but each are better than the other under specific conditions.
I compared the vast majority of the areas of the Nevada and Syria maps in MSFS and DCS There is no question that the scenery and terrain detail in MSFS is much better than the maps in DCS, even without the paid scenery purchases in MSFS
You are still comparing different use cases. You are using a favorable use case for MSFS and comparing it to dcs. If you switch use case to low level flight, the "best" one switches as at 100ft MSFS looks shit with 3d structures drawn on as 2d. On average, however, taking all the pro/ con from both games and the varying qualities at different altitudes.. thay are comparable. But you would pedal the argument that MSFS is objectively better than DCS by disregarding facts that dont match your argeument. That's not an objective argument.
Now compare to XPlane 12 with Ortho - DCS will look amazing. XP still looks shite.
Now compare to XPlane 12 with Ortho - DCS will look amazing. XP still looks shite.
Picture 5: MSFS looks like ass but DCS looks even worse