I was just curious. A lot of people have been raving about Il-2. I just got it and I don't think it's that spectacular. Here's my opinion on the two.

Il-2 Forgotten battles (AEP)

Advantages:
-Well rendered aircraft. DVCs look excellent.
-A wide array of aircraft both flyable and AI.
-Lots of different nations to play from.
-Good looking ordinance and effects.
-5.1 surround sound a nice touch for a combat sim.
-Designed with high end systems in mind but plays ok on midranged.

Disadvantages:
-Aircraft seem to fly unrealistically. Stalls are always very violent and almost imposible to recover from.
-Once again, historical markings left off Luftwaffe aircraft.
-Gun effects look cartoonie.
-Scenery looks like it was thrown together. Doesn't look very realistic.
-Controls not clickable in DVC, no 2D cockpit.
-Keyboard controls can be a bit confusing at times and you have to program most of the keys.
-Not very expandable, few addons.

Conclusion: Good sim but doesn't live up to the hype. Reminds me of CFS2 which I think is the worst in the CFS series. It's not all bad. I love the 5.1 surround sound. Great for combat. No more "Where did that come from".


Combat Flight Simulator 3

Advantages:
-Very realistic scenery reflects the real European country side.
-Aircraft very well done. Excellent DVCs.
-Historically accurate paints (Missing swastikas though)
-Endlessly expandable like all MS sims. Lots of decent addons.
-Fairly simple and familier key controls.
-Dynamic non-linear campaign sets a new benchmark for combat sims.
-Excellent weather.
-All aircraft are flyable.
-Great effects

Disadvantages:
-Does have a lot of bugs. Requires a lot of tweaking to get it to operate smoothly.
-Terrain way too dark. A common problem with many recent Microsoft flight sims.
-Some more aircraft including heavy bombers would have been nice.
-Would have liked to see more than just Western Europe rendered. USSR and Italy did fight in the Battle for Europe too.
-Controls in DVC not clickable.

Conclusion: Has it's problems but it's an excellent combat sim once you get it running right. Still room for improvement.

.........Sorry, just had to do that.

Nothing is perfect, but in the long run, sure IL2 have way better graphics and stuff, but if you want your skills tested in realistic World War 2 dogfights, go with CFS3.

Cheers
Jeff

I think CFS3 is far better than IL2. And i've tried both. However, if you want true realism in a dogfight then the Sim you want is EAW. It's amazing how realistic it looks when going into combat. In the BoB campaign you get the call of "Bandits spotted 12 o'clock low!". Then a couple of minutes later you'll see a couple of dots comming at you from the swarm of enemy aircraft then the call goes out "Fighters spotted 1 o'clock!" Then you see a couple of flights peeling off to the left to take on the fighters. Then your attacking the bombers, which scatter. And if you don't watch your tail you're going to have a 109 on your arse and your engine on fire. It's the only combat sim where I spend more time keeping the enemy off my tail than I do shooting down the enemy. And that's saying something.

Woodhouse, are you sure thats not the only combat flight sim that would even run on your system..........

Now that you brought it up, it is a very realistic sim, you even get gun jams if you push too many G's. but its bit old, wish they updated it though.

Quote:

Well, with the state my computer is going into what you say will be correct before long. For those who don't know, it's slowly collapsing like a flan in a cupboard.

I don't think he was complaining about that. I think what he means is the forests. Those three layers of textures look very good but when you get down low they start looking rather silly. Whats more the landscape is always rather flat. CFS3 however has (for once) a reasonably accurate terrain for europe, to the extent that I can recognise hills, valleys and rivers around my local area.

Please note that my experiance comes from the original IL2. Where you have but three flat landscapes to fly in.

If you want dangerous enemys get EAW. It will come as a horrible suprise to find the enemy acting on their initiative.

I've bored you all many times with my thoughts on CFS3 so I will not repeat myself too much here. It lacks historical accuracy and has far too many bugs to be a true classic. However it is a fun game to play and there are some first class add-ons now available. It looks like M$ has gone cold on the CFS series and if this is to be the last one it seems a shame that M$ have bowed out on this sim without giving us the classic sim we expected. As for best combat sim, CFS2 still rules.

Quote:


CFS3 does lack historical accuracy but it's supposed to. The dynamic campaign gives it an added spice, you don't know what's ahead, just like real war. In fact, that's what makes a really good war game. I think Microsoft needs to go beyond WWII in it's CFS series. It's already been done to death. WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars 1 & 2, and Cold War are all excellent areas for a combat fight sim to cover.

As for WillUMarryMeBill's screenshots, I haven't seen anything like that in Il-2 FB yet. What I don't like is you cannot select airbases in quick combat (quick mission). Campaings seem to run slow on my system as well. I'll have to wait for my Athlon XP 2000 to arrive to see any real action in Il-2.

I haven't posted here for months thats about how long ago i last played cfs3.There is no ILs2 here so....
I realyenjoy AEP

Yep, agree the graphics in CFS3 are really poor compared to IL2.



They can't even get the fuel tanks to fit right. Just look at the way the fuel tank is hanging out the bottom of the Spitfire in the picture.

BEAR - AvHistory

Agree, is way to dark especially where the sun is setting on a cloudy evening.



BEAR - AvHistory

Maybe he meant the ground was too flat.



Looks just like Kansas; 10 ball in the side pocket 

BEAR - AvHistory

Call me a fool but I would think that Bear is using the Spitfires from AVhistory. Basically nickle, they're MkV's and not MkIX's like the CFS3 defaults. And the one with the "Hurri nose" is in fact a Spitfire MkV fitted with a vokes tropical filter. And in my mind those equal anything IL2 can come up with.

And Bear, could you tell me the location of the last shot please?

nickle,

Woodlouse2002 is correct.  The Hurry with the bad nose is actually an AvHistory CFS3 Spitfire Mk Vc with a tropical filter.  Its one of 11 distinct Spitfires both Merlin & Griffon (five bladed props) powered with that we have built so far.  The Merlin will run you off the left side of the runway & to keep things interesting the Griffon will run you off the right side if to are sloppy on takeoff.



The 350 Chevy Spitfire above is a Mk Vb with a 90 gal slipper tank. It was posted because someone complained about them not having the correct drop tanks.  We have 3 flavors of slipper tanks for the Spit.



We only have one Hurry  right now and it actually looks like a Hurry.  Its a Mk Ia in the livery of Squadron Leader Douglas Bader, No 242 Squadron 1940.

The Spit Vb in the valley is flying in the Interlaken region near the Swiss border.

Everything in my pictures is unretouched from my CFS3 screen (what you see is what you get) & its all freeware.

Our 1% production includes 101 CFS2 & 99 CFS3 planes.  Since we stopped doing the CFS2 versions (V-2.80) late last year their flight dynamics although much improved over MS stock are not up to the standards of our CFS3 (V-2.85) units.

BEAR - AvHistory

OOPPPS,

Mathias spilled the beans. 

Actually Gregs' dead computer has been replaced so will will be back in production this weekend.

Was thinking about the 350 Chevy Spitfire intake comment. Did yall know that the entire 4 barrel carburetor venturi diameter on a 800hp NASCAR Chevy is equal to only 4 US Quarters (25 cent pieces) ?

BTW I do Chevy's too







The '33 has a carb venturi area equal to 8 quarters (2X4)

BEAR - AvHistory

Figured it was a general comment but can't resist the chance to run a commercial & had some nice pictures of the slipper tank done

There are a lot of Spitfires in the hopper & the first of Hurries are close along with some new Italian iron.

We hope to be getting some planes out this weekend, not sure if they will be all new or updates yet.  It depends on their relative condition when Greg's computer went away.

BEAR - AvHistory

Saying CFS3 is better than IL-2:FB because you can install 3rd party addons to make it decent is like saying my 1975 MGB is better than a 2003 Porsche Boxter because I can build a super-charged V-6 and install it in my MGB and beat the Porsche in the quartermile.

Although it might be true in my mind, I don't think anyone at Car & Driver would agree with me.   

Quite simply, IL-2:FB:AEP 2.01 is an outstanding piece of software right out of the box (with addition of 1 free download).  It has never, and I mean never, crashed on me, and I've had it running 4 - 6 hours continuously on many occasions, as have many of my Squad mates.  Me and a lot of guys like me are racking up 100s of hours of flight time online, which is not necessarily a good thing   

Even with all the hours I've logged, there's a lot I haven't even used.  I've never even tried the new German Mistel, nor many of the new flyables.  There are over 100 now, and more on the way.

I haven't had the incentive to even try CFS3 because I am heavily involved in an online campaign on the Eastern Front, currently at Stalingrad.  If I didn't care about the Eastern Front, I would probably try CFS3.

CFS3 doesn't have good looking ground textures, and Bear's screenie of the Swiss valley shows the ugly grass with dark splotches.  I've been to Switzerland, and the FB Mountains map (screenie I posted earlier in this thread) looks a lot more like Switzerland than the Switzerland in Bears screenie.  Here's a pic I took in Switzerland.  Bright green grass and trees and snow without thousands of dark splotches, just like in FB.



I'm sure as a simulation of WWII flying, CFS3 can be every bit as realistic and fun as FB, just try not to fly too low or look down

You mean none like the dark splotches in this picture you posted?



I just love the way the IL2 fans jump on how well the dirt is modeled like its a tractor pull game or something.

A flight sim should be about planes don't you think?



Anyway if you have to talk about the ground its nice to be able to hide in the trees when you have too



Like somewhere in France on an OSS agent pickup.

BEAR - AvHistory

Having suffered people like WillUMarryMeBill before I can only ask why he bums around a CFS3 forum? Surely if he hates the sim so much then he should go to an IL2 forum where he doesn't annoy us with his inane comments.

The simple fact is, we like CFS3 here and some goon with IL2 isn't going to change our opinions. IL2 is an exaggeration of a combat sim. Everything from damage, to effects to flight models. Their all hugely exaggerated. After having watched film of planes flying and fireing their guns I can only say i've never seen a muzzel flash that is akin to a medievil cannon, and i've never seen rockets leave hugh clouds of dirty grey smoke behind them. Infact, all they leave is a thin white vapour trail, like you see in CFS3. To further this, having seen pictures of damaged aircraft, i've never seen small caliber rounds rip huge holes in the wings of enemy aircraft. And i've never ever seen symetrical damage of aircraft. And one more thing, you really start to doubt the realism when you completely obliterate a huge 6 engined aircraft, with one cannon round from three miles away.

When I downloaded the Groundcrew Storch and the AvHistory Lysander, for the first time in any flightsim I really felt like I was flying a plane. And the Lysander in particular is just brilliant. Far better than anything in IL2.

The bottom line is, we all like CFS3. Most of us have brought, or at least played IL2 and still we like CFS3 more. Doesn't this say something? There is nothing wrong with the terrain in CFS3. The mesh is the most accurate i've ever seen in any sim and the fact that there are dark splodges in the ground really don't bother me. Now, if you still don't like CFS3 I suggest you bugger off and find yourself a nice IL2 forum where you can speak ill of CFS3 as much as you care with people who are willing to listen.

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



Mathias, I do like the look of that Hurricane. Is there anyhope of a MkIId in the works perchance?

P.s. Any word on the Lanc?

Bear, how did you get the 110 cocpit to look like that, on my machine the cocpit texture doen't show up, do you know the fix???

Thanks
Jeff

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.

By golly you are right Bear.  RN Corsairs did fly in the European theater.  In 1943 as you state.

As a matter of interest:

What was their combat record in terms of kills in the European campaign?

How many RN Corsair squadrons were empoyed in the D Day June 1944 Normandy landings?   

Capt Eric Brown, RN, Test Pilot.  Flew all US/Br carrier fighters 1939 - 1970, 487 aircraft, last RN F4.  "Duels in the Sky" for those interested in comparisions between USN and J/N fighters.  He also flew J/N fighters for test.

His assessment Corsair v 109G: Favorable for the 109 but don't make tactical errors.

Vs 190: 190 without a doubt.

"Even the 2US F4U is a poor flying machine."
Make that 1US F4U.  Still a poor flying machine in the sim.  Unless accelerated stalls are a useful tactical manuver.  Believe it to be GMax problem.   

Interesting that CFS simmers are carrier qualified.  Just for grins; how many regularly make CV landings? 

nickle

Since you verified that F4U's were in fact in FAA active service flying combat missions in Europe & not in the "None participated" category that you originally claimed why don't you just look it up in the same place  

>>>Vs 190: 190 without a doubt.<<<

Others had a different view:



Your mileage may vary.  

>>>Make that 1US F4U.  Still a poor flying machine in the sim.<<<

You are still missing some letters & numbers in the ID but that's OK.

Very interesting comment that F4U, which ever F4U it actually is, flys poorly.   For example the 1US F4U-4B Corsair is a machine that can



roll at over 100 degrees per second at 340mph and



can pull almost 8G at 300mph.  Handles poorly, y'all got to be just funning with us  

BTW the improved Zero model 52 looks like this




When the Zero is 100mph slower & has 10,000ft less service ceiling, do you really want to be flying a 1% Zero against a 1% Corsair? Or to state the question a little differently do you have a simulated death wish  

>>>Believe it to be GMax problem.<<<

Really?  The visual development tool is effecting the flight models, I will have to look into that.  You are aware of course that not all of the 1US F4U's are created using Gmax but they all can meet their in flight numbers.



>>>Interesting that CFS simmers are carrier qualified.  Just for grins; how many regularly make CV landings?<<<

Well my old squadron VMF-257 WildBunch had approximately 330 of them because every mission started & ended on the deck.  

BEAR - AvHistory

Lt Hampton Grey, VC, RCNVR, Corsair pilot Tripitz action 1944:

http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource/Resources_Frame.html?gray.html&1

It strikes me that Mr. Meyer never flew Spitfires. In fact, as he swears so heavily on the Thunderbolt, I see that it's quite obvious that he never flew Tempests or Typhoons either.


And nickle, this is one argument your never going to win.

nickle,

And clearly you favor Captain Brown over the USN test pilots as he supports your point of view.  

Its just too bad that Captain Brown was flying a F4U-1 & not a F4U-4 in his tests Myers has the same problem in the Hellcat speed tests as its against a F4U-1 which is about 30mph slower at 6,000ft less altitude then the F4U-4.  

I don't think anyone was knocking themselves out to campaign a Hellcats at Reno although they were surplus and available.

As for your climb claims they are just like everything else you stated in this thread about how the planes in the sim fly - all opinion & no facts to back them up.

For example, your climb statement has no value as its missing all the components that make up a climb rate: What power settings are being used - How the aircraft loaded - What the speed of the climb is - What is the AoA -  Also if our planes are wrong - What specific altitudes are they off at - How much are they off & so on.  

We have no real problems with the America’s Hundred Thousand as we all use it as one of our sources, but only one of our sources.

If you don't like the way our F4U's & P-47's fly just put up some solid data where they are off & stop trolling. Its easy all you need to say is your plane does A & the real one according to (name of source) does B so you are off by X.

You talked all about how the F4U was so bad but instead of saying specifically what the issues were you tried to change the subject.

You first started with comments that the 1% Spitfire had the wrong 350 Chevy intake, but you had the wrong Spitfire.

You stated the "Hurricane" was all messed up with the wrong nose, but you again had the wrong plane as it was not a Hurricane but a Spitfire with a tropical filter.

You stated there were no F4U's is Europe, but the FAA flew them in combat operations.

You said the CFS2 1% F4U flys badly but were never able to tell us which one since they fly differently.

You said it stall/rolls? too much, but our numbers dispute that on any version.

You blamed Gmax for bad flight properties & causing accelerated stalls, but Gmax has nothing to do with the flight models.

You said the model is Gmax, but some of them are stock MS visuals, other are FSDS & you were unable to tell us which one it was.

You said Grumman used the Fw-190 as a base for the Bearcat, but this is just an urban legend created by embroidering on the fact that Leroy Grumman viewed some captured German planes in the UK in early1943. It was actually built to meet a USN contract requirement that it could operate from all carries not just the big CV's.

You said no one ever landed & took off from the carrier is CFS2, but this is just smoke & mirrors on your part to move off the subject.  

We had about 350,000 CFS2 carrier based planes downloaded which were created at the specific request of people for carrier operations.  We even converted MS/AI planes into carrier capable units because of the demand.



When the guys discovered no carriers in CFS3 it hurt sales & no carriers in the still born CFS4 sparked protests on the messageboards & petitions to MS.

As for your cheap shot at the sim guys in the 257th a number were military pilots taking a busman's holidays playing with a computer.  Chameleon & his wingman used to log in from the Gulf where they were running No-Fly zone patrols in F-16's.  They enjoyed playing Navy & trapping

One of the biggest fans of the CFS2 1% F4U series day job is a USN test pilot at Naval Weapons Center China Lake working on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet project.  The Corsair was at the top of his wish list to own.

You were doing so well with your comments above you started the lets talk about Hellcats or 109's or 190 or anything else but not explain why to you the 1% F4U flys badly in the sim.  

So back to your no content comments - I never said the P-47 was a dog you did.  Your saying it was a dog sort of completes the circle you started with the F4U flys bad comment.

You make statements with absolutely no content other then a non quantifiable "its a dog", "it flys bad" which is total rubbish especially from a guy who thinks a desert Spitfire is a Hurricane with a bad nose job

I said it was heavy & flys like a heavy plane.  If you think a single engine plane with a maximum TOW of 17,500 pounds was an agile lightweight who am I to disagree with you.

Its interesting to note that the P-38F another agile lightweight had two engines to pull its maximum TOW of 18,000 pounds off the ground.

You might not be aware of it but getting a plane to feel heavy in the game to a sim pilot is a major big deal.  

Bottom line here is climb performance is not MIA in this sim & its not missing in our P-47 series which meets its climb rate numbers.

>>>Does not mean that a $50 sim running on a (maybe) $1500 computer is going to duplicate the real deal or close to it.<<<

Really, no kidding?

BTW: Which part of our readme statement "It is the intention of the AvHistory 1% project to over time build the most accurate aircraft that the CFS3 software can support." don't you understand.

You want to continue this, stay focused & put up something verifiable,  not just some more vague comments about the planes with no backup.

BEAR

Gee Bear you took it so personal.

Yes indeed: Capt Brown and Meyers over BuAer.

Best carrier fighter by record:  F6F.

Corsair prone to stalls and rolls in sim.  Not representative of the real aircraft.

None of the 3US fighters will climb per specs.  Since you have the reference; check for yourself.

To paraphrase T Hanks:  Fighter Pilots don't cry.

Nickle,

>>>Corsair prone to stalls and rolls in sim.  Not representative of the real aircraft.

None of the 3US fighters will climb per specs.  Since you have the reference; check for yourself.<<<<

In addition to the references I also have the output charts of their specific climb performance taken real time in the game that demonstrate they are on the climb numbers listed in those same references.

Anyway, You are just continuing to repeat the same circular augment & adding nothing of value as it goes around since your opinions are all unsupported  by any evidence. 

Does not seem like there is anything more to say other then,  if you really believe, as you said earlier that



this is a  Hurricane how informed can your unsupported opinions on how the planes fly  possibly be

BEAR

Yowsa Bear!

Who did the external paint job on that Spitfire?

Bear, when are you guys gonna release those Hurricanes and that Avenger???????

The Hurry's will start to come out soon, but there is no Avenger planed for CFS3 short term.

Next out today or tomorrow will be a Yak-9M in


BEAR - Avhistory

Ran additional climb test 47 from 10k to 20k.

Mixture lean to stumble at mil power then run smooth results in significant increase in climb performance.

Still poor 47 climb performance.

USAAF specs 4 min 10k to 20k full fuel and ammo.
These were performance tests running the engine at mil power.  Not operationally permitted for normal climbs. 

Mine was 9 min (8:55) 10 to 20, 50 pct fuel.

Ability to climb is a critical fighter characteristic in a dogfight.  Mil or WEP power is used as necessary.

For test I set elevator and aileron sensitivities to 0.950 in cfg from 1.000.  Target r/c 1500 to start at 305 IAS, 10K.

I don't use auto mixture.
Mathias was refering to Auto Trim.  Not fuel control.

The norm in a climb is rich mix.  The technique I used is more appropriate for max range.

The a/c is 3US P47D-26.

Are those climb specs from 10k to 20k?

If not, what do they represent?

>>>sorry, but that's getting silly.<<<

Agree, maybe someone else can do "fuel mixture vs altitude 101" for this guy but as of now I am out of here

BEAR - AvHistory

After several AI encounters 1v1 P47 v 109/190.

Neither are much of a problem.  190 easiest of the two.

I changed my Energy tactics based on the 169 climb performance.  I want E for manuver but know that the 47 has good performance at 169 if out of E. 

Setting the Mix to lean plus a few bumps is a significant performance increase. One encounter the Mix was too lean and engine wanted to cut out.  Bump up and reset.

Combination makes the Truck a very good sim dogfighter. 

Makes me happy.

Inspired by the performance of the P-47, I downloaded the BR F4U. 

Wow: None of the nasty stall habits of the CFS2 versions.

Very nice flying machine. 

Takes more turns vs the 109 because it doesn't have WEP.

Good machine

Bear-Avhistory,
>>>( how come they didn´t include working ammo-counters?)<<<
Sorry or the misunderstanding , I wasn´t referring to Avhistory but to Microsoft!
You guys at Avhistory do an outstanding job!!!
...maybe I prefer IL-2 FB because it had cost me too many nerves to get the programm o run properly..

TC,

>>>it had cost me too many nerves to get CFS3 to run properly..."<<<

Agree, when it was released it was a major challenge to get to run properly.  It was way too far out in front of the available hardware.

That all being said;  guys with current systems can get the game to run with little or no pain by following the set-up tutorials on sites like Sim Out House.

All my screenshots are taken on a pretty much middle of the road computer:

System - Home Made
AMD XP2400 runs @ 2.0G
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

I use Winding Man's "Scenery Project" & Max_Devils clouds (allows the cloud setting of 1) all else is stock. The cropped pictures are direct unretouched screen captures.


BEAR - AvHistory

the korea add on is fantastic and free.
thanks dogpatch

I'm sorry I insulted your precious CFS3 but I just don't think it's that great.

Granted the first shot is nice but the other two really aren't crisp. Your shot of the Avenger in CFS2 was just as nice.

And my so called "opinion" is as valid as yours.

TLUK design has published its own payware aircaft succesfully and been contracted twice so I'll thank you kindly to shut yer trap. I have flown in a Harvard more than once and done some aerobatics and have about 33 hours worth of flights all at the tender age of 17.  True it isn't like being a fighter pilot it's just I want to try and reproduce the feeling I get when flying. Not that you should pay attention to me or anything it's just that I feel IL-2 has the sensation of flying closer than any game ever has. To me I really don't mind if it is one mile and hour out of range what it really comes down to is which one you enjoy the most. Otherwise why would you play the game? After all thats all they both are.

You can throw statistics at me all day long but at the end of the day Il-2 had most of that out of the box. I don't wish to have to invest several hours of work into something that cost me £40 until it starts giving a little bit back.

Don't patronise me mate. I see you are obviously respected around here and I very much enjoyed your 1% work for CFS2 that doesn't mean you can start insulting people. Most of the posts I have seen you make in this topic have resorted to either sarcasm or trying to undermine the credibility of the person you are having the debate with. For a wonderfull fully grown adult you sure are acting like us kids down here at TLUK. To put it quite simply your being a pratt. Can you not respond to people's posts without being childish? If someone is wrong then by all means correct them. Don't make fun of them because they don't know how fast a Splodbager Mk.1415 climbs at 7000ft. Just because you put a smilie at the end of a sentence doesn't make it allright.

Most of the more reputable flight simulation magazines seem to recognise  how these two games compare. PC Pilot gave CFS3 3 out of five and described it as "too gamey!" And the same magazine gave IL-2 Sturmovik 5 out of 5. They have reviewed many many games and flown in a veriety of different types, they didn't seem to have a problem with the flight model.

This is starting to get a bit fierce. I'll settle this once and for all.

CFS3 flight profiles is not "gamey".  It is a game however. Il-2 is also a game. There is nothing wrong with Il-2's flight profiles other than the fact that stalls are always violent. Try playing something like Secret Weapons over Normandy or Crimson Skies, those are gamey arcade like combat flight sims.

Yes payware does suck. It's way too expensive and freeware has caught up and surpassed it in some cases. Freeware also has a certain something that payware doesn't.

Now Bear and Pete, play nice or I'll get the big bad Mods after you.

Can everyone just shut up now? Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and no one should have to put up with having someone else trying to change them. If you like Il2 fine. If you like CFS3, that's also fine. Everyone knows what they like and shouldn't go round challenging what others think. I have seen dozens of CFS3 vs IL2 discussions on this site and not once have I seen anyones opinion of either game changed. People are stubborn and no matter how many times you repeat something they probably arn't going to take it on board.

Both IL2 and CFS3 are great games. Each have there own camps of loyal followers who vigerously defend their chosen game to the death. All these discussions always go down to flight models though. Surely this is a COMBAT flight simulator. Hence there should be more emphasis of the realism in the dogfights. And in my opinion, both games pretty much suck at that. If you like uber realistic flight models, get Flight Simulator. If you like pretty visuals and outstanding mud, get IL2. If you want something more colourful and expandable that IL2, get CFS3. If you want a challenging dogfight, get EAW.