¤§¤ Jeph.
I take, and accept, your points.
CFS1 realism is a debate I saw often within the chat rooms of CFS1 on the Zone during my time in the game from October 2001 onwards.
I also had the pleasure and honour to fly the game with many 'real world' pilots.
Some civilian, some military, some teachers.
The military officers I flew with had modern and historical combat and command experience within the RAF (including some of the honourable RAF662 squadron you mentioned, whom I had the pleasure of meeting up with in 2004 at RAF Duxford.
RAF_Pagan in particular was a respected friend of EURO in CFS1 days), USAF, RAAF, RCAF, and other countries air forces.
I would agree with all the experience of those people in that CFS1 was as close to 'real' as it could get.., "
in its' day", but that that is still nothing like the real thing and very inaccurate.
Nowadays, there are better, more realistic flight sim's available but they are still a long way from accurate (how long would you spend in a 'real world' WW2 combat aircraft staring into a 19" square area of your forward viewing position?).
The realism debate that raged in CFS1 was, in my view, irellevant because
none of the 'realism' settings in CFS1 are anywhere close to the 'real thing'.
I could do things with a Hurricane in CFS1 including a deliberate spin stall which would have ripped its' wings off, had it been tried in a real one. And yet, in the real world, I suffer from acute vertigo and couldn't even climb the steps to get in one. That's not too realistic.
I hope I did not convey the impression that 100% is the most realistic setting in CFS1.
I did not mean to.
It is merely the most difficult setting for CFS1.
The reason I taught people to fly 100% is because it is the best and fastest way for them to learn how learn how to play CFS1, and compete successfully against others.
It's not the best way to learn to fly a real aircraft or get the most realistic flying experience from CFS1.
I split CFS1 games online into 3 groups of game and player.
Stock:
Those who flew the 'stock' game (those who used the aircraft as they came on the cd, with no file alterations or "improvements"). These players tend to prefer the quick rush of a combat dogfight scenario.
Downloads:
Those who tried to improve the performance of the stock aircraft (to try and provide a more realistic experience). These players tend to prefer the more thought out mission style of game (which I also enjoyed but only in a locked room with other members of 607 Squadron, the 'EURO Group').
Mod's:
Those who modified their aircraft performance to gain an advantage over their opponents (I always considered this unfair and could never understand what was to be gained by it but the mod community always defended it strongly so I bow to their special preferences and do not pass judgement on it). As far as I could make out, these people tended towards flying UFO's and Muttley's biplane. Definitely not very realistic, but it takes all sorts.
I trained people to
play CFS1, not to fly.
I taught them to improve themselves to better compete in a game environment.
I would prefer they stayed with the stock version rather than the 'download' or 'mod' version but that was their choice to make after I'd taught them how to improve their abilities.
As with most things, there were some people who were better than me at it and some people who were not. I was able to learn from both and tried to help anyone who was in my game and appeared to want to learn how to play it better.
On Sundays I would actively look for people who seemed to warrant the kind of help I could offer.
That might involve me going in a room whose settings were 100%, 95%, or even 40%.
I could enjoy each game on its' merits and varied my performance accordingly (not wishing to insult my game hosts or their guests).
I never knowingly taught cheats, poor sports, or those who enjoyed ruining someone else's experience of it. I would not even go into the same rooms as those people as it is possible to learn from someone just by being in the same game and I didn't want them to learn anything from me.
Despite everything, I still prefer playing CFS1 to any of its', more "realistic", competitors that can be found today.
Your friend may be right.
It may be more realistic at 95%.
I did fly 95% as my second game choice and a lot of folks didn't know how to fly at 100% and I always like to accomodate my guests / hosts.
As long as everyone in the game agrees and is playing the same version of the game, it will be a fairer, more enjoyable game.
I flew the 'stock' version of the game because it's a game, and I liked to match my CFS1 skills (and wits) with like-minded people, not my equipment.
I never listened to anyone who said one way of playing it was better than another, or more realistic than another, because the game itself was not realistic enough to support the debate (certainly not by the time I joined it in 2001 when CFS2 had been released and was "more realistic"). My own opinion and preference is that CFS1 is best enjoyed at 100% settings (95% on Sundays because it's less taxing. lol). But that's for my own pleasures.
CFS1 was, and is, just a game.