I absolutely love the P-47 in DCS, Everything about it is fantastic, and The sound of the engine and guns are fantastic, In IL-2 it sounds like a moped, You hit the water injection and it gives you some pep, plus the sound of that is killer in DCS.
I bought Bodenplatte dlc cause i wanted that p47. Oh well, its like lagg 3 but it doesn't choke with altitude, garbage ...at least i got tempest, 262 and fw 190 a8 to play with. Wish they would fix it, it feels like bomber and even ai has no clue wtf to do with it.
Just seeing how poorly DCS runs on this computer and knowing how it runs for me, IL-2 is a serious contender for running in VR with how well it would have to run for me.
I only get about 30-35fps in VR in IL2 with my system. Pretty much have given up on VR for this generation. When I build a bad ass new PC with a 40xx series card, hopefully it will be better then!
I agree. I flew the Hurtgen Forest campaign, which was a lot of fun, and I plan on doing the Hellhawks over the Bulge, but ... well, I'm not that eager to fly the IL2 TBolt, tbh.
@@kamicosmos Personally if DCS had better multiplayer and VR performance I'd be playing that instead of il2. Sadly, not only is everything absurdly expensive, especially the maps and assets, the multiplayer is completely dead. I love DCS for everything else though, and cold war is pretty fun.
The DCS FM is dogshit from what I've flown of all the other WW2 planes and just because the IL-2 P-47 is less powerful doesn't make it less realistic. Allied pilots love to over exaggerate their capabilities.
@@Baltic_Dude not necessarily. Obviously every side exaggerates cause everyone wants to be the best. But the P-47 I feel does under perform in Il-2. When the P-47 dropped its tanks and burnt a little fuel, it was a damn good plane in real life. Of course it wasn't quite as maneuverable as it's contemporaries at low altitude, but it was generally the best plane at escorting altitude, and it even still had some tricks up it's sleeve at lower levels. It's roll rate was among the best, it had a good turn rate, it had very good dive performance and a great zoom-climb, and it had very good firepower and durability. At high altitude, meaning escorting altitude, it would pretty much outmaneuver anything else, except some models of the Spitfire. Of course high altitude isn't used that much in Il-2, and that hurts the P-47. But the game still makes it feel more sluggish than it was in reality if you ask me. It even seems like it's firepower was nerfed. I see tons of videos of Fw 190s blowing parts off P-47s in Il-2 and not so many of the opposite. That does not line up to many real reports I've read. It just doesn't seem right to me. I do recommend you read some real after-action reports from P-47 pilots if it interests you. They're easy to find on the internet and have some awesome information. Obviously survivorship bias is at play, and I get the feel that many of the reports were written by fairly skilled pilots, but I think you'd be surprised how many kills were made at low altitude in turn fights against the Germans. Common rhetoric leads us to believe that the P-47 was nothing but a dog and it couldn't dogfight at all, but I don't believe that for a second. As long as the energy was kept up, and especially if the fight stayed in the vertical, the P-47 excelled. It was a fantastic boom-and-zoom aircraft, and could hold its own in a dogfight, contrary to popular belief. I think DCS gets its performance a lot closer to the real thing. Of course you and I could never 100% know for sure, but this just seems to be the case to me after all that I've learned. Just my opinion.👍
@@fishbed_ Well to be fair, DCS's modules are way way way more detailed that's why it's so expensive, It takes longer to build 1 airframe in DCS than a whole module like all the planes and a map in IL-2. DCS MP has way more player count than IL-2 like double or more, Just it's 95% modern planes. If they added more airframes and maps on the ww2 side it might create more MP in DCS. I play mostly IL-2 because of the player count but I much prefer DCS. IL-2 really only has a couple of busy servers. combat box and finnish though finnish seems to be dying off. Wait until the F-4U comes out.
From a graphics perspective, yes. After the fact, I also realized that the settings I have it on, are for VR! So it looks Extra Bad here. oops. Next DCS vid I make (Probably on the new Blackshark 3 upgrade I just got) I'll work to make it look Prettier!
I absolutely love the P-47 in DCS, Everything about it is fantastic, and The sound of the engine and guns are fantastic, In IL-2 it sounds like a moped, You hit the water injection and it gives you some pep, plus the sound of that is killer in DCS.
Did you try the new DCS multithreading Beta? It improves FPS considerably.
Yup, even made a video showing it's effect on my system. It did help a fair bit.
Love both but prefer DCS P-47.
I bought Bodenplatte dlc cause i wanted that p47.
Oh well, its like lagg 3 but it doesn't choke with altitude, garbage ...at least i got tempest, 262 and fw 190 a8 to play with. Wish they would fix it, it feels like bomber and even ai has no clue wtf to do with it.
The shiny is probably the skin other skins might be shiny, real life ww2 aluminum wasnt polished so it wasnt shiny
Just seeing how poorly DCS runs on this computer and knowing how it runs for me, IL-2 is a serious contender for running in VR with how well it would have to run for me.
I only get about 30-35fps in VR in IL2 with my system. Pretty much have given up on VR for this generation. When I build a bad ass new PC with a 40xx series card, hopefully it will be better then!
the p47 is garbage in il2. wish the devs would fix the plane
I agree. I flew the Hurtgen Forest campaign, which was a lot of fun, and I plan on doing the Hellhawks over the Bulge, but ... well, I'm not that eager to fly the IL2 TBolt, tbh.
@@kamicosmos Personally if DCS had better multiplayer and VR performance I'd be playing that instead of il2. Sadly, not only is everything absurdly expensive, especially the maps and assets, the multiplayer is completely dead. I love DCS for everything else though, and cold war is pretty fun.
The DCS FM is dogshit from what I've flown of all the other WW2 planes and just because the IL-2 P-47 is less powerful doesn't make it less realistic. Allied pilots love to over exaggerate their capabilities.
@@Baltic_Dude not necessarily. Obviously every side exaggerates cause everyone wants to be the best. But the P-47 I feel does under perform in Il-2. When the P-47 dropped its tanks and burnt a little fuel, it was a damn good plane in real life. Of course it wasn't quite as maneuverable as it's contemporaries at low altitude, but it was generally the best plane at escorting altitude, and it even still had some tricks up it's sleeve at lower levels. It's roll rate was among the best, it had a good turn rate, it had very good dive performance and a great zoom-climb, and it had very good firepower and durability. At high altitude, meaning escorting altitude, it would pretty much outmaneuver anything else, except some models of the Spitfire. Of course high altitude isn't used that much in Il-2, and that hurts the P-47. But the game still makes it feel more sluggish than it was in reality if you ask me. It even seems like it's firepower was nerfed. I see tons of videos of Fw 190s blowing parts off P-47s in Il-2 and not so many of the opposite. That does not line up to many real reports I've read. It just doesn't seem right to me. I do recommend you read some real after-action reports from P-47 pilots if it interests you. They're easy to find on the internet and have some awesome information. Obviously survivorship bias is at play, and I get the feel that many of the reports were written by fairly skilled pilots, but I think you'd be surprised how many kills were made at low altitude in turn fights against the Germans. Common rhetoric leads us to believe that the P-47 was nothing but a dog and it couldn't dogfight at all, but I don't believe that for a second. As long as the energy was kept up, and especially if the fight stayed in the vertical, the P-47 excelled. It was a fantastic boom-and-zoom aircraft, and could hold its own in a dogfight, contrary to popular belief. I think DCS gets its performance a lot closer to the real thing. Of course you and I could never 100% know for sure, but this just seems to be the case to me after all that I've learned. Just my opinion.👍
@@fishbed_ Well to be fair, DCS's modules are way way way more detailed that's why it's so expensive, It takes longer to build 1 airframe in DCS than a whole module like all the planes and a map in IL-2. DCS MP has way more player count than IL-2 like double or more, Just it's 95% modern planes. If they added more airframes and maps on the ww2 side it might create more MP in DCS. I play mostly IL-2 because of the player count but I much prefer DCS. IL-2 really only has a couple of busy servers. combat box and finnish though finnish seems to be dying off. Wait until the F-4U comes out.
Making a comparison saying you didn’t tweak the DCS nearly as much as IL2 makes for a very uneven comparison, don’t you think?
From a graphics perspective, yes. After the fact, I also realized that the settings I have it on, are for VR! So it looks Extra Bad here. oops. Next DCS vid I make (Probably on the new Blackshark 3 upgrade I just got) I'll work to make it look Prettier!
No comparison haha
Il cliffs of dover the winner❤