Bill Bill,

>>>Well certainly if you think FB sucks,<<<

There you go again. Y'all are really reaching with your word games & now are just making things up.  It will be very interesting to see you to post the thread where I made that statement.

>>>It is technically possible to have both products installed on the same PC afterall.<<<

I hope you wouldn't be kidding me on this but I wonder how you would actually know for sure.  

Thing is, unlike you who have been pushing comparisons of the merits of FB over CFS3 in every post you made to-date I actually do have both games on my machine & YOU DO NOT.

This is from post to you in this thread from 24 June & 9:20PM should act as a reminder.

"""WillUMarryMeBill,

>>>Then I saw this thread and thought I would point out some of FB's strengths in comparison to CFS3<<<

But just about all of us HAVE FB and you DON'T have CFS3 so what are you  pointing out in comparison based on actual knowledge of both games?  

I personally have IL2 - IL2/FB - AEP & have had a lot of time to go through them & have been less then impressed with the whole thing.  I get them for free from one of my martial arts students that is a developer for Red Storm so the price is right & expect I will have Pacific Fighters well before most of the loyal fans."""

BTW I know as per your statements you don't really care all that much how they planes fly (>>> I could personally care less if the 190 in FB stalls 10 KPH slower than in real life or whatever.<<<)    But many of us do.

Y'all might find Oleg's comments from a debate with AvHistory at SimHq of interest.

Oleg Maddox
Member
From: Moscow, Russia

Here you are perfectly right. We just do it partially. Simplified in many ways. And I never told that we do exact copy of each single aircraft...isn't it? Simply if we'll calculate say only airfoil in terms of all real time calculations - we'll get freezed PC. So we are going for some predifined terms (again not table) and we simplify the formulas to the level that possible to use in real time on a current PC together with other real time calculations. That is only the right way for the current moment of the simulation word if we'll speak about simulator that is able to work on home PC, but not to use the separate restricted computers for different tasks (like for big military simulators of single aircraft).

Perfect way when all _real_ time calculations will be possible to handle in one PC. For that thing its
still long way.

Oleg Maddox

Since he & I are saying basically the same thing about IL2/FB y'all best yell at Oleg for 'bashing the genre' as you put it in your somewhat over the top rant    

BEAR - AvHistory

This is kind of ridiculous.  Like Woody said, nobody's opinion is going to be changed, so why in the world is everybody getting so flustered?

I, personally, like CFS3 better, although I would say it's way too arcade-ish.  I like the fact that IL-2's flight models aren't so simplified as CFS3's but you're either stalled-out-of-of-your-mind, or flying normally, there is no in between, and you're stuck with what Ubi Soft decides is best.  At any rate, Il-2's scenery is hideous, and the most of the aircraft are just different variants. (There's only a handful of distinct German aircraft) The tracers are much better than CFS3's, which is pretty dang important.

CFS3 actually runs better on my ol' 500Mhz system with full settings that Il-2 does with half settings, and the sound in Il-2 is screwier than CFS3.

Basically, out of the box, with only official updates, Il-2 is better than CFS3.  But CFS3 has potential to expand much faster than IL-2 can ever dream of.  I quite frankly don't truly like either of them all too much, because CFS3 plays like an oversimplified console game, and I have yet to find an add-on I like, and Il-2 is much too limited.  I'd go back to CFS2, but CFS3 has spoiled me with it's auto-gen scenery. I'm basically still wishing for a CFS3 engine and FS2004 realism fusion.

All that talk, and I don't think I said anything new.

605,

>>>the Groundcrew's Bf 110<<<

What's to be sorry about, if you read the words you will see the GC Bf-110 has our models in it 

Mathias & his Ground Crew have provide a large number of excellent visuals to AvHistory over the years & we have in return provided flight & damage models to them.

>>>CFS3 actually runs better on my ol' 500Mhz system with full settings that Il-2 does with half settings<<<

This I find amazing since I personally cant get full settings on any of my machines under 1.6 & even the 1.6 can get slow.

It would be of great interest to learn your game settings, cfs.cfg choices including options, Composite texture budgets.xml,  composite scenery budget.xml & screen resolution as you have somehow made a major breakthrough.

This info could be used to update the CFS3 tutorials at SOH.

In my case CFS3 from the early betas was playable at very reduced settings on both my 1000 & 950 machines but will not run at a playable level on my 450.

My full settings machine is an AMD 2.4: 

System - Home Made
AMD XP2400
Memory 1 GB PC2100
FX-5600/128MB
SBlive 5.1
XP-Pro
DX-9.0b Final

Game Settings
1280X1024X32
Overall slider @ 5
Aircraft slider @ 5
Terrain slider @ 5
Scenery slider @ 5
Effects slider @ 5
Clouds slider @ 1
Shadows Button ON
Reflections Button ON
T&SL Button ON

BEAR - AvHistory

605,

No problem with the visual as beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  My F4U-4 looks like this to me.



Dirty weather beaten, patched up & ready for retirement.



I can't really duplicate the cockpit problem you mentioned, maybe a screenshot from you would help.

About the wing fold, tail hook thing, I think we can manage it OK.  


FG-1D on Enterprise.

Since they are of no value in the game other then cosmetic they get added when we get around to it as our main goal is getting nrw usable planes out & older versions updated to V-2.85.07.  Think all the F4F's fold along with all the Skyraiders & some of the F4U's & the Zero.  I will have to take a look at the new Korean era F4U-4B that is in the paintshop now.



For the picture I probably should have put the Zero on the Ahagi, Hiyru, Soryu or Kaga.

As for the pixilation I have to wonder if your system is shedding a lot of the settings & going automatically into low res default mode.  Reason I say this is you are getting 10+fps on a 500 & forcing the settings will only net me 1-2fps and many times less then 1fps on a 450.

 Again a screenshot from you of the pixilation would be of help.

>>>but for some reason around bomber formations or airfields FPS drops to around 4.<<<

The bomber formation visuals & AI management are overloading your machine & the Airfields have bad code which would have been fixed had MS released the next CFS3 patch which now seems to be a dead issue.

Also it would be interesting to hear if anyone else is getting the game to be actually playable on machines of less then 750mhz & what their settings are.

By playable I mean run the campaigns without display or flight model problems or play online without hardware issues.

BEAR - AvHistory

Quote:


you can get the enterprise and other AC carriers from
http://www.isoliti4gatti.com/index.htm

Quote:

I run CFS3 on a 700mhz Duron.
Overall slider @ 3
Aircraft slider @ 5
Terrain slider @ 3
Scenery slider @ 3
Effects slider @ 4
Clouds slider @ 1

I get playable framerates most of the time. The exception being when the sky's get crowded. No display or flight model problems that I know of. The only times I get problems is when I start to run out of RAM. Then the terrain textures start doing funny things.

I've been getting used to Il-2 and it's not so bad. No as bad as Lock On. I've got both CFS3 and Il-2 to run smoothly now. BTW, Il-2 fans, theres a 2.04 patch out not that fixes some minor issues and adds a few things to the game.
http://www.il2sturmovik.com/#news0