"...maybe I prefer IL-2 FB because it had cost me too many nerves to get the programm o run properly.."
Correction:
"...maybe I prefer IL-2 FB because it had cost me too many nerves to get CFS3 to run properly..."
Sorry for the mistake...

Ok I've read up to page 5 of this argument.

Lets get one thing straight. We have the main problem here of many people taking these games as true representations of real flying. Now it is silly to assume that having a 3D model representation that fits to all the numbers of performance data and say that it is correct. The fact of the matter is that CFS3 really feels lifeless compared to IL-2. You can't play a computer game and expect that flying a real spitfire is ANYTHING like this.

I have flown aerobatics in a vintage era aircraft before and must say that Il-2 gets the overall feeling right. With regards to the stalls they are not at all overstated. Real stalls are deadly incedences that a good pilot should not come across. In CFS3 you can mercilessly throw your toy around the sky with careless abandon. CFS3 is the most "game like" in my opinion. This is no bad thing but the better combat sim in overall atmosphere feeling and probably even flight dynamics is IL-2. The physics engine is miles ahead of CFS3 as well.

Oh yeah and who the hell cares about the dirt? CFS3's graphics were awful in my opinion. It is impossible to get a clear and crisp shot.

I can't wait for the aftermath of this post but its jsut my to pennies.

Pete,

>>>In CFS3 you can mercilessly throw your toy around the sky with careless abandon. CFS3 is the most "game like" in my opinion.<<<

Whatever & y'all know what they say about "opinions"

http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/f8f2_spin.WMV
AvHistory 1% F8F-2 Normal spin pilot recovers.

http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/flatspin.wmv
AvHistory 1% P-51D Flat spin pilot dies.

http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/f4u1_spin.wmv
AvHistory 1% F4U-1 Normal "ensign eliminator" spin. Good piloting skills & sufficient altitude allow the ensign to catch the fish instead of being fish food  

http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/spitloop1.avi
AvHistory 1% Spitfire - 100% power - original straight & level entry speed 350mph - stick yanked full back.

As they say in the car adds, your mileage may vary.  

The real life fighter pilots, aerobatics instructor pilots, civil pilots & engineers who build the 1% planes as well as the Warbird Rebuilders & test pilots from The Planes of Fame Air Museum  http://www.planesoffame.org   who are part of the 1% process are all quite happy with the way their work product represents the actual WWII aircraft.

>>>CFS3's graphics were awful in my opinion. It is impossible to get a clear and crisp shot.<<<







Agree they are simply terrible its a real embarrassment to have to post them but its all we've got

BTW Pete, interesting group you have there at "Tulk Aircraft Design".  I see one of your 'leads' is 13 years old & I would like to know if is anyone on the Tulk Aircraft Design Team is older then 16 or 17?  

Thing is, I am kinda wondering exactly how much real life experience your "opinions" are actually based on.

BEAR - AvHistory

I had FB for a while, played it for a week, got bored with it, uninstalled it, sold it for $5 at my sisters garage sale. I got bored with it because I could not do anything with it other than fly and fight.

The biggest selling point for CFS3, the whole CFS series really, is I can add to it whenever I want, and I can build new add-ons for it and share them with others. The versatility of CFS3 puts it above IL2/FB in my opinion. If I don't like something about CFS3 I can change or replace it, if I don't like something in IL-2/FB I'm stuck with it, with the exception of textures.

As far as Bear's screenshot, screenshots don't do any game justice, resizing them can make them blurry then there are the file size limits. I found the scenery and ground textures in CFS3 to be a step above IL-2, which has a bland look.

In the end I feel CFS3 will be around longer than FB because of it's versatility. Look at how many still play CFS2 after, whats it been 5 years now.

Pete,

Its a debate, a clash of ideas,  don't go getting your knickers all in a knot.

Y'all are entitled to your opinion & you can like what you want to like & see what you want to see.

But the thing you need to understand its experience that gives any opinion gravitas & in a debate credibility is all those that opine have to convince the readers of how valid their position is.

If your experience & credibility can be effectively challenged so be it.   Main thing is if you can't take hit as easily as you seem to be able to give them out in the arena of ideas you might consider staying on the bench.

You & your group have one level of experience AvHistory has another.  The readers are entitled to know that when forming their opinions about the two opposing positions that are being presented, don't you think?

BTW its interesting to note that in addition to getting your feelings hurt y'all are now chatting about the visuals.  

I think it was your opinion that """ In CFS3 you can mercilessly throw your toy around the sky with careless abandon"" how about them spin vids?  

As for your complaint about the climb rate section of this thread that was the issue.  It was stated that our climb rates were wrong & the game could not adequacy simulate the proper climb rate.

If someone challenges our work I have no problem at all pushing back very hard to get them to produce the support & prove their position.  In the cases where they are proven correct & the plane is in error we thank them very much & change the planes.  

We even have a major section of our messageboard - 1% Squawks

http://www.avhistory.org/scripts/MegaBBS/forum-view.asp?forumid=3  

set up specifically to as the headline says

"Use this forum to discuss issues with specific 1% Aircraft, Flight Performance, Specifications, Weapon loadouts, ect."

since the collective knowledge of the community is certainly greater then ours.

Every time our download page comes up the user sees.

""Unfortunately, all the developers cannot monitor all the message boards out there. If you want to help, or have a new source of information and want quick results/response, please make use of the 1% Aircraft Squawks Message Board.""

We have encouraged knowledgeable, informed & verifiable criticism of our work for over 15 years.  That being said comments like 'I feel like' add no real value to the development process.  

Bottom line on the climb section is that Nickle presented a valid challenge because he was willing to test his assumptions & research his position.  His work forced us to go back over our assumptions to be sure we were on solid ground & I respect that very much.   

Additionally, I hope as a result of that section a lot of "sim only pilots" now know about climb speed as it gives them another weapon to use in both on-line & AI combat that they would not have known about had Nickle not made the challenge.  I belive this kind of give & take benifits everybody.

As for the magazines the CFS3 Firepower guys like to post this about their payware project

>>>FirePower has received the highest ratings of any flight simulation or air combat game released since 2001 according to Game Rankings review database by CNET Networks.

When compared to the industry’s heavy hitters, “FirePower” came in first place with an average 89.3% review score, “Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004®” was second with 86.3%, “IL-2 Sturmovik: The Forgotten Battles®” was third at 85.8%, and “Flanker 2.5®” was fourth with 84.4%.<<<

So it would appear that the magazines are not all that consistent in their knocking of CFS3 & praising of FB which leaves it to the troops on the ground to decide for themselves with informed opinions.

BEAR - AvHistory

Quote:


That's dishonest in the context of comparing CFS3 to FB.  Of the 4 products listed, 3 are complete, standalone games --  you cannot purchase FirePower for $29.99 and use it on its own, as you can with IL-2 Sturmovik: The Forgotten Battles.    This topic is not about which add-on is the best. 

IL-2 Forgotten Battles Gold Pack is an unbeatable deal at $39.99. 

Features
The Ace Expansion Pack in itself is no lightweight addon. It comes packed with new aircraft, both flyable and non-flyable, as well as beautifully rendered environments and a new collection of missions and campaigns.  Here's the run-down on the features in AEP:


20 new flyable aircraft
7 new non-flyable aircraft
3 new environments: Ardennes, Normandy and a Pacific Theater map (online)
7 new dynamic campaigns
An innovative ranking and award campaign system
20 new single-player missions
10 new cooperative missions

The most exciting part of AEP has to be the new aircraft it includes, all of which live up to the same standards as we have seen before from Oleg Maddox, including damage modeling, beautiful aircraft skins, weapon effects, 3D-cockpits and avionics. Moving away from providing a handful of realistically modeled variants of a few core aircraft, AEP features quite a number of new fighters and bombers and less variants of each. There is also a move away from a strict focus on the Eastern European Front and the Germans versus the Russians to provide the opportunity to try out some of the other great aircraft of the war, such as the American P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt, and the Japanese A6 Zero, just to name a few.

With the recent release of the version 2.01 patch for AEP, there are now quite a few more aircraft in the sim, such as a handful of new Yak aircraft and five Spitfire variants, all of which are flyable, plus four non-flyable B-25 variants. Included in the patch is also a very lengthy list of bug fixes, showing Oleg Maddox' continued dedication to this franchise and the simulation gaming community, which is definitely much appreciated.

Graphics and Sound
Just as we saw with its predecessors, AEP packs a cornucopia of visual beauty. Personally, I believe this series has the most stunning graphics of any flight simulation on the market today. From the clouds to the aircraft and the 3D-cockpit modeling, it's hard to beat the near perfection of this title.

For owners of NaturalPoint's trackIR, you're definitely in for a wonderful experience. The support for NaturalPoint's product is near perfect in this title and it has worked for me extensively with no problems at all and greatly improves the overall experience and ease of flying. I do, however, recommend setting up a dead-spot within the trackIR software so that you're not seasick after every dogfight.

Yes I plagerized the review.  So sue me 

S!

WillUMarryMeBill,

>>>That's dishonest in the context of comparing CFS3 to FB.<<<


First off it looks to me the magazines made the comparison & the FirePower people are just reporting it.

They posted the following Below is a link to all known FirePower reviews:
http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2

BTW I have nothing to do with this group & am not a big fan of payware in general

So actually in "context" its 100% valid.  Like it or not they are still testing CFS3.

Remember although FirePower is payware, AvHistory is Freeware & all the elements of FirePower are available in freeware.

On the other side guys bought IL2  then to get the 'free' planes they were promised they bought IL2/FB. Then to get the next set of 3rd party planes they had to buy AEP.  There have been NO improvements in the basic game engine since IL2 was released.  It still has its generic ground taxi model, generic takeoff model, its over use of stall & spin, no high altitude model, no inertia on roll, tiny maps & the list goes on & on.

So what you have in the AEP add-on is that the same IL2 game engine bring sold to its fans three times over, such a deal.  BTW Pacific Fighters is also being built on the IL2 engine so you get to buy it a fourth time.  

Both AvHistory & FirePower demonstrate the built in superiority of the CFS3 engine over the IL2 engine.

Neither the AvHistory planes which are freeware or the payware FirePower planes change the CFS3 basic flight model code.  They do more fully utilize it then the stock planes, but is all already in there.  

They make no change at all to the visual code.  The game has the built in capability to render visuals at twice the resolution currently being used by us so the new work will only get better as computers can support it.  

Therefore a review of CFS3 with FirePower or AvHistory is still in fact a review of the generic capabilities of the basic game engine.  Comparing the actual game engines IL2 will always come up with less horsepower.

BTW AEP was sold as a $30+ add-on to FB (AEP will not fly without FB being installed) till sales for both started to sag.

Then after only a few short weeks in the market they combined them in a typical maximize the income, screw the guys who just paid full price yesterday, "gold" package offered when a game has run its course in the market place.

>>>all of which live up to the same standards as we have seen before from Oleg Maddox, including damage modeling, beautiful aircraft skins, weapon effects, 3D-cockpits and avionics.<<<

Did you miss posting the part about how they actually fly, something to consider in a flight sim  

BEAR - AvHistory