Quote:


Almost a dozen of you, according to the poll results. 

Yes there is a flyable Bf-110 in FB, and the cockpit looks  better than the one Bear posted IMO.

I certainly don't hate CFS3, I haven't even played it.  It's funny to learn that some think if you like one you must hate the other.  How strange!   I originally came to this forum to try and find out if CFS3 supports the "mouse view".  I was considering getting CFS3 & Firepower addon.  So far, as far as I can tell CFS3 doesn't support using the mouse to look around, and if that's the case, it's a "show stopper" for me cause that's the only way I know how to look around since I've been doing it that way since Jane's WWII fighters.

Then I saw this thread and thought I would point out some of FB's strengths in comparison to CFS3, and dispell the misconception that FB's maps are flat or whatever.

I like what Mathias wrote:
Quote:


That's how I see FB: a great air-to-air combat game.  My squadmates and I study and practice Real Life combat tactics used by the Luftwaffe, and put them into use flying our virtual Fw-190s against the VVS's best (humans), and we get the same results that we read about from the Experten.  I could personally care less if the 190 in FB stalls 10 KPH slower than in real life or whatever.   Overall the experience is very convincing to me, a non-pilot.  BTW we have a couple of real pilots in my squadron, one was a T-38 instructor in the USAF and built and flys his on lite AC -- FB is good enough for him, so its good enough for me.

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.

Seems like FB's big claims to fame are the dirt texture & the quality of the cockpits. At least 99% of the CFS3 vs FB debates always come back to those issues.  When you talk about ground handling models, takeoff models, damage models, high altitude models, roll inertia, excessive spin/stall,  torque, P-factor, differential steering etc the guys all want to go back to the dirt & cockpits

I think dirt I something to avoided in a flight sim so how great its represented is of no great shakes to me.  As long as I can belly land on it or shoot an object on it the dirt has served its purpose.

Also I have never been a big fan of head down flying especially in a game with non clickable cockpits & zero navigation requirements.  

The two only combat sims that make any kind of head down flying worth while is Falcon 4 in its SP versions with fully functional cockpit controls  (104 individual clicks, pushes turns & lever moves to start the engine & get ready to taxi) along with CFS2 that has a clickable cockpit & world wide navigation, something that is missed in CFS3.

In all the others I tend to be looking out the window for the guy who wants to shoot me as opposed to obsessing if the clock bezel is 2mm too big.

BTW its very telling about exactly where you are comming from, its more important how it looks then how it flys,  by saying in a flight sim that the cockpit visual & dirt texture are more important to you then the developer screwing up the stall speed on an aircraft by 10mph. 

Wonder how many F4U pilots (eliminated ensigns) would have liked the stall speed to be 10mph slower then it was 

That being said CFS3 has texture budgets that will allow the creation of higher fidelity cockpits then FB can support should anyone feel like doing them.

>>>Yes there is a flyable Bf-110 in FB,<<<

Actually the 110 comment was a joke as I was just remembering how much crying there was at UBI & SimHq for a flyable 110 in the game going all the way back to when IL2 was first released without it  It took how long to get it?

>>>the only way I know how to look around since I've been doing it that way since Jane's WWII fighters.<<<

Interesting I think Jane's WWII fighters came out about 11 or 12 years after I started on flight sims & I was a newbie compared to some of the other guys

I am happy the T-38 instructor likes it & if its good enough for him so be it, for him:)

That being said the members of our development team that have real life military fighter pilot time (especially those also with war bird time) &  the AC-130 pilot (does our multi engine work) put FB the needs work category on its flight models.  

Our aerobatics instructor pilot & fluid dynamics programmer also thinks it needs work.  

Then there are our consultants at "The Air Museum / Planes of Fame" http://www.planesoffame.org  and so on.......but then everybody should be able to choose what pleases them to play without getting things "pointed out" to them in their own forum by someone who is totally unaware as to what there flight sim library actually contains, don't you think?

BEAR - AvHistory

Woodlouse,

>>>Be fair. I think the very latest addon pack for IL2 has a B17.<<<

Yeah but you can't fly it 

Stormtropper,

I also fly HOTAS & have not yet developed a third hand.  That being said a quality track IR type system would be really nice.

Tomtomcat,

>>>( how come they didn´t include working ammo-counters?)<<<

We managed to get them in our CFS2 planes but not the CFS3 versions.

Agree EAW is the best overall prop sim ever done for the war in Europe.  125 B-17's defended by 50 P-51's attacked by 40 long nose Fw-190's & 35 Bf-109's is really something to see.

Also think Jane's WWII fighters aircraft visuals both inside & outside were years ahead of there time.

BEAR - AvHistory

Well guys I really enjoyed this discussion.   I'm especially flattered that BEAR - AvHistory took the time to respond to my posts.  If I said anything against CFS3, it wasn't against anyone who's participated in this topic.  Anyone who enjoys WWII history is "top shelf" in my book.  As a token of my respect and appreciation, I leave you with these unretouched screenshots I made from FB, just for you.  Enjoy!








Salute!

It may be not flat, but look at those mountains, they look like from CFS 1, they have such hard corners, and another thing i dislike is that, for example in Berlin, quick flight, and there is an Allied Base below you, and the german base just in the neighbourhood, just as if they would have been the biggest friends... That´s really mad i think.

But time to point out the things that are good in my opinion:
- The Aircraft, Do335, Ho229, B25, and so on, i always waited for a sim featuring these ones.
- Torpedo Attacks
- The campaign mode, even if it was boring i think.

But i still like Il-2 much more, the thing why i not use it as my only flightsim is, that i have just 1Ghz, and 256Md SdrRam, and it needs long to load, and it´s not running really smooth.

Without AvHistory, CFS 2/3 would be a very poor sim.  MS develops the graphics engine and provides poor flight models.  Intended that way because 3rd party developers, free and pay, finish the sim.  CFS3 stumbled badly because the graphics engine required substantial computer/card resources and the format was oriented to ground attack. Compounded by slow develpment of drivers as for example by ATI.  I had and abandoned IL2 because I didn't like the format nor the air combat presentation.  CFS2 air combat format is more of interest and the sim still sells well.  Likely MS will go back to an enhanced CFS2 format for their next offering.

The stock US aircraft are so bad in CFS2, that I conclude we could not have taken the J's with them in WWII.  Not only do they fly bad; they shoot bad.

Landings CFS2 stock?  In the noise.  Likely few do it and wouldn't know if flap drag/lift was modeled or not.

MS sim group must show P.  So out the door, ready or not.  The fact that 3rd party could model aircraft saved their behinds.  And kept sales going much beyond expected life.

Model is GMax.  Fair but hopefully better in the future.

F4U and CFS3:  War in Europe.  None participated.

CFS2 F4U:  Why was it so effective?  Cannot run from a Zero; cannot outturn a Zero, cannot outclimb a Zero.  I much prefer the F4F.  Even the 2US F4U is a poor flying machine.  Unless propensity to stall/roll is a good fighter characteristic.  A  Ensign eliminator and thats about all it's good for.  I think it is not well represented in GMax and the real deal was a much better machine.

Question is whether the next MS offering will be as accepted given the promo and bust by CFS3.  No one told it like it was.

I trust that Bill needs $ for his modest home loan payments and we will see another offering in the near future.