Why would anyone play this over DCS?

[๖คፈɬเς Ꮄน∂Ꮛ]

I play DCS and I just don't see a point to this. Is this supposed to be kiddo's first flight sim? It seems like a joke to someone like me but people play this game for some reason. No idea why.

[醉仙望月]

VR interaction support in DCS sucks.
I got my first VR headset with the sole intention of using it to play flight sims. The very first time I tried it in DCS, as I couldn't see my hands with the headset on, I was immediately frustrated by having to feel around for my mouse & keyboard and peek through the nose hole to make sure I was pressing the right keys to access the different cockpit functions. This was not the level of immersion I was looking for.
VTOL VR is the only flight sim that does VR cockpit interaction right.

1. In DCS, when the player grabs the throttle or joystick, it jumps to the hand position, causing unexpected (often dramatic) input to the aircraft if the hand was a few centimeters away from the control when pressing the grip. In VTOL VR, the hand jumps to the control, not the other way around.
   
2. Unlike VTOL VR where you hold the trigger and then flick the controller up/down for a lever or rotate it for a knob, the way it works in DCS is that levers and knobs require horizontal movement of the thumbstick instead of vertical or rotation movement of the hand to manipulate. And unlike VTOL VR where you use the trigger to click buttons and pinch switches, in DCS any switches and buttons your virtual hand happens to collide with will instantly be actuated. Obviously that's far from ideal because it leads to numbers of accidental presses on your way to activating the control you wanted and feels completely detached from the movement you would perform in real life to actuate each kind of control.
   
3. You can use a laser pointer in VR, but it uses the abominable "hold down laser pointer button, twist your wrist to a certain position, then point and click" actuation method which is cumbersome and unintuitive. It requires you to first think about how you wish to actuate the control first, move your hand, and THEN reach for the control and press a button while not moving your hand - completely backwards.
   
4. Of course you can use a combination of HOTAS and finger tracking in VR, BUT...
   Here are some videos showing how bad it is
   https://youtu.be/Fwiz5250VF4?t=585
   

   If I grab my real life HOTAS which isn't in the exact same position as the virtual one, any controls that near your real life HOTAS will be accidentally activated which is really really annoying.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyZzN7Orte8&t=60s
   

   They sometimes interfere with buttons without you want them to activate them because you are moving your hands around through the cockpit.

It's clear that VTOL VR has been developed with careful consideration for VR players. The game strikes a sensible balance between accessibility and deep simulation. Not only does it demonstrate that motion control is viable for this genre, but it also enables a greater sense of immersion when interacting with cockpit controls.

[๖คፈɬเς Ꮄน∂Ꮛ]

Originally posted by 醉仙望月:

VR interaction support in DCS sucks.
I got my first VR headset with the sole intention of using it to play flight sims. The very first time I tried it in DCS, as I couldn't see my hands with the headset on, I was immediately frustrated by having to feel around for my mouse & keyboard and peek through the nose hole to make sure I was pressing the right keys to access the different cockpit functions. This was not the level of immersion I was looking for.
VTOL VR is the only flight sim that does VR cockpit interaction right.

1. In DCS, when the player grabs the throttle or joystick, it jumps to the hand position, causing unexpected (often dramatic) input to the aircraft if the hand was a few centimeters away from the control when pressing the grip. In VTOL VR, the hand jumps to the control, not the other way around.
   
2. Unlike VTOL VR where you hold the trigger and then flick the controller up/down for a lever or rotate it for a knob, the way it works in DCS is that levers and knobs require horizontal movement of the thumbstick instead of vertical or rotation movement of the hand to manipulate. And unlike VTOL VR where you use the trigger to click buttons and pinch switches, in DCS any switches and buttons your virtual hand happens to collide with will instantly be actuated. Obviously that's far from ideal because it leads to numbers of accidental presses on your way to activating the control you wanted and feels completely detached from the movement you would perform in real life to actuate each kind of control.
   
3. You can use a laser pointer in VR, but it uses the abominable "hold down laser pointer button, twist your wrist to a certain position, then point and click" actuation method which is cumbersome and unintuitive. It requires you to first think about how you wish to actuate the control first, move your hand, and THEN reach for the control and press a button while not moving your hand - completely backwards.
   
4. Of course you can use a combination of HOTAS and finger tracking in VR, BUT...
   Here are some videos showing how bad it is
   https://youtu.be/Fwiz5250VF4?t=585
   

   If I grab my real life HOTAS which isn't in the exact same position as the virtual one, any controls that near your real life HOTAS will be accidentally activated which is really really annoying.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyZzN7Orte8&t=60s
   

   They sometimes interfere with buttons without you want them to activate them because you are moving your hands around through the cockpit.

It's clear that VTOL VR has been developed with careful consideration for VR players. The game strikes a sensible balance between accessibility and deep simulation. Not only does it demonstrate that motion control is viable for this genre, but it also enables a greater sense of immersion when interacting with cockpit controls.

The whole point of VR in DCS is to use a joystick that's safe to use with VR where the buttons are all where you should recognize and distinguish such as X-56. Also, that's what you should be doing if you want to fly a modern aircraft, using the VR grip for switching buttons by pointing and joystick for flying. I agree DCS could use improvement to its system but it's not that bad. It's great for flying Helicopters like the Hind and even Ka-50, as well as more simple aircraft as well as flaming cliffs aircraft. Sure you could do some VTOL VR to get into it at first, but I find that it pales to the experience of flying in DCS on high settings. Hopefully ED improves on the VR switch system even though I don't mind how it currently operates. I barely even need to do it anyways with my HOTAS setup.

[醉仙望月]

The whole point of VTOL VR is to interact with cockpit instruments without using the keyboard or any bindings.
In conventional flight sims like DCS, the only effective way of interacting with realistically placed switches is to literally build a physical cockpit based on a specific plane. Multi-purpose cockpits don’t have this luxury, so they prioritize the primary controls, meaning that secondary inputs are either performed with button shortcuts or a mouse pointer. The act of physically reaching out to interact with a specific switch is something normally limited to high-end simulators with physical cockpits, but VTOL VR’s "motion controls for all" scheme means you can easily decouple yourself from the flight controls and reach out to interact with an array of switches, buttons, and instruments in a very satisfying, immersive manner. Although it may be technically possible with a mouse, head pointing, or some combination of HOTAS and motion controls in DCS, it won't be without the clunkiness of having to put up with the awkward switching between them, especially with all of the cockpit systems like the MFDs and touch screens.
I agree that it’s a bit of a trade-off, but I think there are huge advantages to relying only on the motion controls. It’s much more accessible since you don’t need any extra hardware, and it helps to maintain immersion since your hands are consistently being tracked. The game can also add any configuration of a vehicle or virtual cockpit and you wouldn’t need to reconfigure any physical controls to match it.
With the support of the wonderful community that has grown around it, VTOL VR has totally exceeded what the dev had initially envisioned. Many players tried it with an open mind and enthusiasm, and enjoyed this totally new way of playing a flight sim.

[rmooney01]

This isn't twitter, but sometimes there are a few twits that get in.

[achillies665]

Comparing this to DCS is like comparing BF4 to ARMA. Different games, very different play styles, and very different target markets. VTOL is aimed at players who want to play a flight based combat game in total VR. DCS is aimed at people who have tons of money and seem to want to complain about other games. Seriously though, this isn't aimed at the milsim or realism players, and it doesn't pretend to be. You want DCS, go play DCS.

[Thermal]

Originally posted by ๖คፈɬเς Ꮄน∂Ꮛ:

I play DCS and I just don't see a point to this. Is this supposed to be kiddo's first flight sim? It seems like a joke to someone like me but people play this game for some reason. No idea why.

A community who posts things like this is exactly why I prefer VTOL over DCS. You should stick to DCS, buddy - we'll all be happier for it.

[๖คፈɬเς Ꮄน∂Ꮛ]

Originally posted by Thermal:

Originally posted by ๖คፈɬเς Ꮄน∂Ꮛ:

I play DCS and I just don't see a point to this. Is this supposed to be kiddo's first flight sim? It seems like a joke to someone like me but people play this game for some reason. No idea why.

A community who posts things like this is exactly why I prefer VTOL over DCS. You should stick to DCS, buddy - we'll all be happier for it.

Lol

[醉仙望月]

The developer explained his reasons for making this game:

Originally posted by Paolo:

When I got an HTC Vive, I was impressed by how accurately the controllers were being tracked and wanted to see if I could use them as flight controls in a virtual cockpit. Since I was prototyping a vehicle in a very small environment, it had to be a VTOL to prevent it from moving too fast and going off the bounds of the world. It was working so well so I built the rest of the game around that.
The VTOL VR plan was originally to fly around (vertical thrust only) a small procedural city completing short strike and transport missions, but then I made the engines able to tilt, so the map had to be bigger, then I wanted to do hook and catapult, so ok now we need a big ocean, so now the city seems like a dumb flat island, so we need terrain, now the terrain island is getting boring so we need procedural maps, etc.
I hope you are as excited as I am to see how far this game has come, and where it will go in the future.

[A Lamp]

You say that with having 1,400 hours in War thunder whats that supposed to be? Babies first flight/tank sim? It seems like a joke to someone like me but people play that game for some reason. No idea why.

or maybe we just want to play different games depending on our moods. I have DCS and VTOL and when I want to try hard and learn complex systems I'll play DCS. When I want to relax and not try hard as much but still get the immersion of VR and operating realistic systems (though not as in depth than DCS but still enough that you have to learn them) I'll play VTOL. I prefer VTOl because it's a lot more approachable and the less system simulation depth does not matter because of the extra immersion VR offers.

so get off your DCS high horse and realize people want to play different games on different days and not everyone wants a full simulation.

[๖คፈɬเς Ꮄน∂Ꮛ]

Originally posted by A Lamp:

You say that with having 1,400 hours in War thunder whats that supposed to be? Babies first flight/tank sim? It seems like a joke to someone like me but people play that game for some reason. No idea why.

or maybe we just want to play different games depending on our moods. I have DCS and VTOL and when I want to try hard and learn complex systems I'll play DCS. When I want to relax and not try hard as much but still get the immersion of VR and operating realistic systems (though not as in depth than DCS but still enough that you have to learn them) I'll play VTOL. I prefer VTOl because it's a lot more approachable and the less system simulation depth does not matter because of the extra immersion VR offers.

so get off your DCS high horse and realize people want to play different games on different days and not everyone wants a full simulation.

Yes War Thunder is baby's first flight sim and then IL-2 or DCS depending on WW2 or Modern/Cold War. I no longer play War Thunder and I dislike the game very much now. It used to be much better when I played sim battles. I understand now that this game is meant to be more of a game. I was unaware. Thanks!

[醉仙望月]

DCS simulates the cockpit instruments of real aircraft very realistically, but in places you can't see, such as radar and countermeasures, the modeling is often simple and crude.
VTOL VR is not a seriously realistic flight sim, but it models some mechanics even better than DCS.

Radar Cross Section (RCS)

RCS currently implemented in DCS is a single static value for each aircraft. For example, the RCS of the in-game F-16 is 4.0, Su-27 is 5.5, and an A-10 is 10.0. The value is completely static and doesn't change based on the aspect of the aircraft or external mounts.
For example, the F-16 in reality has a fairly small frontal profile, resulting in a lower frontal RCS, but this is not the case for side/top/bottom aspect angles, where the RCS would obviously be different to frontal aspect. DCS doesn't express all the nuance there is in terms of how visible your aircraft will be on radar depending on your aspect, and a clean F-16 will have the exact same RCS as an F-16 loaded with 6 mk-82s, 2 wing tanks, and 4 AIM-120s. This obviously doesn't make any sense, and it results in a radar detection range that's much lower than what you should get in reality.
However, on the other side, VTOL VR uses a shader to precompute RCS values from various angles, so the RCS is affected by the cross section and the angle of reflection, then it takes a dot product of the view direction, with those different direction vectors, weighted by the precalculated RCS values in each direction. The view angle dependent RCS value was calculated with retracted gear and no weapons. For simplicity's sake, things that can change on the fly like attachable equipment add some value to the overall RCS.

Countermeasures

In DCS, countermeasures work based on RNG (Random Number Generator). Every piece of chaff is essentially some dice with a chance of success that's decided by the missile's ECCM value. And this probability is multiplied by some coefficient of targets aspect. The closer you are to a proper notch, the more "chances" you have. Flares have some level of preflare modifier, the engine thrust value (Afterburner/MIL Power) and each piece of flare also has a dice roll. The more countermeasures in the missile's field of view, the more "chance" you'll have to roll high enough. Do you know the difference between a novice and a veteran AI pilot in DCS? It's just that they have different RNG values for missiles. Roll for deception!
VTOL VR doesn't roll dice. The way it checks if the countermeasures have successfully defeated the lock is if the affected predicted target position is offset from the target's actual position by a certain amount. The predicted position is extrapolated based on the last known position plus velocity times the elapsed time.

IR signature

The IR signature implementation in DCS is also relatively simple. The aircraft have two values for IR signature, one for military power and one for afterburner. This practically means that there's actually no difference in IR signature between being at MIL power and Idle.
In VTOL VR the IR signature value changes depending on the engine power. Remember this next time you slam your throttle to idle and deploy flares when defending an IR missile.

All of the above lead to, ironically, the least realistic part of Digital Combat Simulator is actually the Combat.
It seems like a joke that the developers of DCS didn't introduce these mechanisms for some reason. So don't take DCS too seriously. It's just a game originally made by the Russians.

[GhettoScouser]

Because VTOLVR actually runs in VR? DCS might as well be a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ slideshow. Not everyone has 1tb of VRAM, and 2.8 has utterly bombed performance for vr now. last playable was 2.5 for me. VTOLVR is just better for VR players in every possible way

[Donoghu]

Both games has their own PROs and CONs.

DCS is basically in the classic high-price-high-fidelity simulator market like with other simulators such as Bus Simulator, Train Simulator, Plane Simulator and so on where you pay $30+ per vehicle in separate DLCs. It's half-a-game-half-an-experience with an high price tag as, due to the rights acquisitions and high level of details required, lots of money has to be invested into the models, stats and other details that might only be recognized by really hardcore fans of the subjected vehicles. (It's basically like buying a $20 coffee at Starbucks.)
This is why any player who plays DCS and want to try anything else than the 2 free included vehicles has to pay an insane amount (comparatively speaking) on a per-vehicle fashion.

With that said, due to the complexity of the systems involved, DCS has simplified some part of the simulator as, otherwise, it would be too much niche and expert-relevant in a VR environment, hence why you got the option to basically use your own flight controller or other source of inputs to controls your aircraft.

VTOLVR is basically a concept simulator that takes physics and general concepts of flight and apply them to a modified version of something that "could" exist, but make it viable for a VR environment (such as spacing the tools enough to avoid mixed controls issues and making use of the VR controllers' buttons for meaningful inputs.)
You could say that VROLVR is basically a VR combat flight simulator alike to Kerbal Space Program being a space travelling simulator. (It's like paying for a 5$ for a coffee + 2 donuts at that store on the corner of the street.)

This focus on functionalities above graphical fidelity (like DCS) makes VOTLVR compatible with mid-end PCs. If you don't count the free demo (2 aircrafts) of DCS, you get to play VTOLVR for only a fraction of the price of a single aircraft from DCS, making it much more new-users-friendly and amateur-friendly.

Why would people play VOTLVR instead of DCS? Well, in DCS you got to shell out quite an amount of money up front just to try a vehicle you might not even like. Of course, if you like the 2 free aircraft, nothing stops you from playing DCS all the time for free, but you'll be facing or play with other players who have paid for better aircrafts or even controls of the battlefield while you'll be stuck in that seat.

Yes, DCS is pay-to-win as much as real war is pay-to-win. That's a reason why people might be willing to play VOTLVR instead of DCS. What gives DCS an upper edge is that it appears in the top of the Free-To-Play list in VR, giving it an insane amount of additional views and PR. I learn about DCS from that ranking that appears right in the default home in Steam VR, but at the same time I learned about VOTLVR by looking up the alternative to that money drain that is DCS.

If you consider VOTLVR as a "simulator for kids" because its graphics are simpler, you're just ignorant of the value of graphics in a game where you move faster than the speed of sounds. If you truly want facts, I can tell you that DCS is faking quite a few things about their aircrafts, but it's all on a relative concept of a game so that you don't end up with 95% of the players crashing their aircraft in the ground within the first few maneuvers. It's a balance thing in the same way as how Train Simulator doesn't put a real amount of trains on tracks or Bus Simulator doesn't display how crazy real drivers actually are on roads all around the globe as otherwise, it would just be unplayable (for fun at least).

[๖คፈɬเς Ꮄน∂Ꮛ]

Originally posted by Donoghu:

Both games has their own PROs and CONs.

DCS is basically in the classic high-price-high-fidelity simulator market like with other simulators such as Bus Simulator, Train Simulator, Plane Simulator and so on where you pay $30+ per vehicle in separate DLCs. It's half-a-game-half-an-experience with an high price tag as, due to the rights acquisitions and high level of details required, lots of money has to be invested into the models, stats and other details that might only be recognized by really hardcore fans of the subjected vehicles. (It's basically like buying a $20 coffee at Starbucks.)
This is why any player who plays DCS and want to try anything else than the 2 free included vehicles has to pay an insane amount (comparatively speaking) on a per-vehicle fashion.

With that said, due to the complexity of the systems involved, DCS has simplified some part of the simulator as, otherwise, it would be too much niche and expert-relevant in a VR environment, hence why you got the option to basically use your own flight controller or other source of inputs to controls your aircraft.

VTOLVR is basically a concept simulator that takes physics and general concepts of flight and apply them to a modified version of something that "could" exist, but make it viable for a VR environment (such as spacing the tools enough to avoid mixed controls issues and making use of the VR controllers' buttons for meaningful inputs.)
You could say that VROLVR is basically a VR combat flight simulator alike to Kerbal Space Program being a space travelling simulator. (It's like paying for a 5$ for a coffee + 2 donuts at that store on the corner of the street.)

This focus on functionalities above graphical fidelity (like DCS) makes VOTLVR compatible with mid-end PCs. If you don't count the free demo (2 aircrafts) of DCS, you get to play VTOLVR for only a fraction of the price of a single aircraft from DCS, making it much more new-users-friendly and amateur-friendly.

Why would people play VOTLVR instead of DCS? Well, in DCS you got to shell out quite an amount of money up front just to try a vehicle you might not even like. Of course, if you like the 2 free aircraft, nothing stops you from playing DCS all the time for free, but you'll be facing or play with other players who have paid for better aircrafts or even controls of the battlefield while you'll be stuck in that seat.

Yes, DCS is pay-to-win as much as real war is pay-to-win. That's a reason why people might be willing to play VOTLVR instead of DCS. What gives DCS an upper edge is that it appears in the top of the Free-To-Play list in VR, giving it an insane amount of additional views and PR. I learn about DCS from that ranking that appears right in the default home in Steam VR, but at the same time I learned about VOTLVR by looking up the alternative to that money drain that is DCS.

If you consider VOTLVR as a "simulator for kids" because its graphics are simpler, you're just ignorant of the value of graphics in a game where you move faster than the speed of sounds. If you truly want facts, I can tell you that DCS is faking quite a few things about their aircrafts, but it's all on a relative concept of a game so that you don't end up with 95% of the players crashing their aircraft in the ground within the first few maneuvers. It's a balance thing in the same way as how Train Simulator doesn't put a real amount of trains on tracks or Bus Simulator doesn't display how crazy real drivers actually are on roads all around the globe as otherwise, it would just be unplayable (for fun at least).

DCS has a free-to-play system now where you can test any vehicle for two weeks and keep doing it for the same vehicle after 6 months. I think it's pretty good if you don't know if you want a module or not. Also, I don't know what you mean by DCS simplifying systems. I fly JF-17 and nothing there is simplified. Even IFF is properly modelled.

[醉仙望月]

Originally posted by ๖คፈɬเς Ꮄน∂Ꮛ:

Also, I don't know what you mean by DCS simplifying systems. I fly JF-17 and nothing there is simplified. Even IFF is properly modelled.

As I said above, DCS fundamentally lacks an adequate simulation of the electronic spectrum in modern combat. Individual aircraft do implement their own radars and passive sensors very realistically. However, there are not enough models of the interaction of electronic systems and EW, very simple models of the vast majority of radar sensors and communications, and very simple models of the effects of Radar Cross-Section and airborne weapons cross-section. While the modeling of the aerodynamics and guidance principles of the aforementioned weapons is excellent, the modeling of the sensors that guide these weapons is quite simple.
What DCS also lacks in the context of its gameplay is the very simple implementation of ground units, naval combat and naval weapons. Yet in DCS system damage is not modeled for ships. While visually parts of the hull can be missing, it's impossible to disable a ship's turrets, radars, vertical launchers, etc.
In VTOL VR you can blow up a tank's turret, destroy a ship's radar to disable its anti-air missiles, etc.