Have any you people ever played IL-2 Sturmovik?

It's a GREAT COMBAT FLIGHT SIMULATOR that FAR surpasses any other combat simulator in existence. Microsoft's CFS series is NOTHING or Lower than human waste compared to the IL-2 series.

I used to have IL-2 for a long time. But i gave it away [a year after buying it] because I finished the combat sim already. Trust me, it's the best. I have seen it with my own eyes.

[Clouds]

Microsoft's clouds are nothing more than 2D objects that are clumped together to make it look 3D. But IL-2's clouds are ACTUAL 3D models that look and FEEL realistic from far away AND when you fly through one.

[Ground Scenery]

The rivers are perfect, especially when they REFLECT the sunlight. The ground scenery is not that much detailed because [for sure] you will be more distracted by the detailed sky, detailed aircraft, 100% realistic aircraft damage, very well made flight dynamics and a good dogfight.

Microsoft, however, just.........oh........forget it. I have the sudden urge to take their CFS games and throw them out the window and have fun with UBI Soft's combat sim forever.

[Dynamics and Handling]

Very realistic indeed. In fact, everytime I fire my Yak-9's guns, the aircraft just wobbles by the force of the recoiling machine guns. Not only that, the sound of the machine guns sound and feel dominating.

Microsoft's CFS doesn't do that. In CFS3, the machine guns sound like B-B guns or marbles falling into a glass container. Their aircraft doesn't even wobble to the force of the machine guns.

[Gunner Stations]

IL-2 allows you to control your rear or side-gunner's machine guns with just the use of your mouse. This makes it a whole lot easy to aim.

Microsoft's CFS3 is awkward in that case. Instead, you are forced to aim the guns with your joystick. How pathetic and unwise.

[Warping]

IL-2 uses a warp method that allows you to manually control your aircraft EVEN if you are in warp mode. The warp method is pretty much the same as found in the civilian version of M$ Flight Simulator

In M$ CFS3, however, you can't control your aircraft while in warp. Not only that, the scenery gets ugly as you warp.

[HONESTY!!!! 8) ]

UBI Soft's system requirements are completely honest and to the point. Especially for a combat sim like this one.

Microsoft's system requirements are [as everyone points out] a complete JOKE!!!!!! They lie to you by saying that this sim requires only an 8MB video card. BS!!!!!! Not only that, their advertisements are more fake than a $3 bill. And you all know that.

[Bugs]

IL-2, like any other simulator, has its share of bugs. However, those bugs are nothing and you'll usually forget about them because your mind will wonder off with all the beautiful details and realism.

M$'s simulators [all of them] are full of bugs. Mostly, these bugs involve MAJOR [not minor] imcompatability problems with video cards. easpecially the ATI Radeaon types. Not only that, many of our hi-end systems are not even powerful enough to handle M$'s sims.

[Price]

There are already 2 versions of IL-2 in stores [especially Best Buy]. IL-2 Sturmovik and IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles. Both of these combat sims have been around for quite a fair amount of time.

The latest version only costs around $20. Like I said, these sims have been around long enough for their prices to drop. The next version [still under development] will be released in 2005. These people are more patient than M$.

M$ just likes to concentrate more on your wallet and less on your demands.

Fact:

IL-2 Sturmovik came up with the idea of a non-2D panel. All that Microsoft did was copy UBI's idea. M$ has no imagination at all.

Comments are welcome.

You may be right on that one. But in IL-2, there's no way you can hit your target at a range that is silly.

Besides, like I said before, the recoiling effects of the machine guns will tend to ruin your shots.

The shaking effect might not be well accepted by us because we [the ones who usually buy M$'s cr@p] have never experienced that in M$'s CFS series at all. So, almost all this time we have been shooting unrealistically in M$'s CFS.

One more thing. In IL-2, you have the ability to adjust the convergence of the bullets so that the aircraft can suit your needs.

For example. If you like to get real close to your enemy, then reducing the convergence distance [measured from your aircraft to the point where the bullets cross] will allow you to get real close while still delivering the maximum firepower on the vital parts of your enemy's aircraft.

If you think you're Lee Harvey Oswald and think that you can hit your target from far away, then increasing the convergence distance will be a great help. This is also helpful when you shoot at ground targets and you still want to avoid flak.

Yeah, I do like that Shuddering when firing the guns, and I didnt know you could adjust the convergence Kat, wow, yeah I really like that...............Hmmm well I may just have to break away and get back to it for a bit and get in some combat exp. Hmm, yeah ya know I dont think that shuddering effect was in before the updates I got were installed.............speaking of which, that was some kind of confusing mess figuring out those updates, and which ones to get and all, and in what sequence to install them.

Personally I prefer CFS1 to IL-2!!!
I was deeply disappointed with it, the flight dynamics were totally unrealistic (okay M$ aren't perfect either I know ).
I'll stick to CFS1 and 3 for the meantime.

Ozzy

Are you sure you have the right power from your video cards? Remember, in my first post, I you can see that IL-2 is pretty demanding.

Well, look in the bright side. Which is better?

1. Spending $30-$40 on a combat sim [from UBI] that gives you minor issues?

or

2. Spending $50-$60 on a combat sim [from M$] that gives you major compatibility issues?

I have never seen the demo version of IL-2.

I love IL-2 over all the CFS series because of its realism and stability with most systems.

I used to play IL-2 on my OLD, CHEAP-@%% computer that was made only for business type people. And believe or not, IL-2 ran perfectly on that system. The only drawback was that I had to lower the settings because of my system's low-end performance.

I played online with this sim. I loved it more than ever. There were almost NO aircraft that flew awkwardly as compared to the CFS3.

I know. The landing and take-offs can be a real b!+ch. But that's what I like about that game. My mind is totally on realism. But it was a good thing I my Saitek Cyborg 3D Gold joystick. The handle even twists to allow me rudder control.

I read the interview of Oleg Maddox [game designer from Russia].

He said that in IL-2: Battle of Britain [due to be released in 2005], there will also be Italian aircraft involved along with the Russian types.

This is great because in CFS3, I used to push the front lines all the way to Italy and the frontline stopped moving after it reached the bourders of Italy. Not only that, I never saw any Italian fighter planes or bombers. Not even one. Just German huns coming after me.

In IL-2, you can also change the formation of your squadron. Can you do that in M$ CFS?

With the ability to change formations [in case you fly bombing missions] you can choose anyone of the formations so that you can check and see which style of attacking you prefer.

There are:

Straight-line
V-formations
and so on.

You can even tell the formation to loosen up or close in a little more.

As for the position of your aircraft at the start of the missions, it's realistic even to that point.

If you start a campaign with a low rank, you'll start off every mission at the back of the formation. Just try to keep up.

If you start a campaign with a very high rank, you'll start off every mission at the front or near the front of the formation. If you are at the very front, then you are in command. If you are start at the back, then the AI aircraft that's in the front is in command.

In M$ CFS, no matter what rank you start off with, you always seem to end up in the front of the formation. Making you carry all the burden of the campaign on your shoulders.

If you notice in IL-2, the pilots that bail out always jump. And when they reach the ground, you see them run and take cover.

In M$ CFS, your pilot looks like as if he is being EJECTED rather than jumping. This I hate the most. This is why I quit using the CFS series.

I have never seen Falcon 4, but I agree with you Silent.

On a scale of 1-10 for the IL-2 series: I give it an 8 because it's demanding and it needs some patches that fix most of the bugs without causing another bug.

On a scale of 1-10 for the CFS series: I give it a 5 because the system requirements are a complete joke, the clouds are pathetic, the warp makes everything stutter and ugly, the damage realism doesn't look or even feel real, the sound of the machine guns are nonsense, and the gunner stations can only be controlled with your joystick and NOT your mouse.

F-22 Rapter, Mig-29 Fulcrum, and F-16 MRF [from Novalogic] are alright for me. On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 7 because of its limited number of missions [even though it has a mission editor of its own], arcade-like style, and the AI is kind of offset. But overall, it's good for the average player.

i'd give IL-2:Forgotten Battles a 9.5 out of ten,because it's even better than IL-2 and has the best 109s i've ever seen. the atmosphere is just soooo cool! and i like the german voices ,which even have dialects....

I brought IL-2. Thought it was the best thing since sliced bread for about a month. Then went back to CFS. IL2 just doesn't have the gameplay of the CFS series. I don't know what it is but IL2 is just missing what CFS obviously has.