When ever I look behind me i'm faced with a headrest.

CFS3 has more potential that PF will ever have. The Groundcrew and 1% aircraft transform it into easily the best sim out there and there are more and more 3rd party addons by the day. I would uninstall PF to make room for more CFS3 stuff.

i'm sorry but i tried everything and CFS3 just looks cartoonish compared to PF! the flight characteristics just doesn’t do it either!
sorry but that’s the way it is...i wish i could get my 30 bucks back!

Get the 1% planes and you'll be in for a shock. They're hellish to dogfight. While I can kill anything in the stock Tempest, I'm just cannon fodder in the 1% Spitfire MkXIV.

As for the gunsight, each country has it's own design. And thats the American one. It's more accurate than you'll think.

one last thing about the stalls...i can recover from them its just not very easy. also if i keep up my airspeed and watch my angle of attack i don't stall. what i'm saying is the planes in PF don't fly bad you just have to be a little more careful on your flying than in CFS3 (maybe not as real though).

About a year ago, I got a $10 Atari version of CFS and installed it on the work laptop (only computer avail. to me at the time). Got a little Saitek wireless joystick, and had a blast. Loved it. Then I built my current PC (mostly to run FS9), and figured "golly, I just gotta get CFS3 now!"... and frankly, I hated it. For example: after changing to an external view, one loses one's carefully-setup forward cockpit view, etc., etc. I was amazed that the cheapo version on the laptop was more enjoyable and user-friendly than the full version on my new PC with the X45 controller! Then a friend who's a hopeless IL2 junky turned me on to the ubisoft combat sims. IMHO, IL2 and PF are WAY superior to CFS3. The textures are better, the graphics in general are better, the flight characteristics are more real (and fully adjustable), the aircraft and combat sounds, damage, etc. are better (it's insane with my Kinyo 5.1 headphones on- when someone gets on my 6 and puts a few rounds in the airplane, I still jump- after  many hours on this sim!). The "flyby" view is fantastic, too... I could go on and on. I've been meaning to go back to CFS3 to make a more in-depth comparison, but I've been having too much fun playing with PF.  My only beef with PF: not enough location options in the "Quick Mission Builder" mode. I haven't checked out the campaigns yet... anyway, it's all subjective, but the above is my two cents, submitted for your perusal and consideration.  Gotta go now- I think  I hear sleigh bells on the localizer for 04 Right at EWR!!

Hmmmm... I feel the opposite: most of those fighters were pretty squirrely (instability means better maneuverability), and some simply were not OK for some maneuvers (the P38, for example, was not placarded for snap rolls). As far as stalling and spinning, ANY aircraft can be stalled at ANY airspeed, and when banking, due to increased load factor and increased induced drag, the speed envelope where you're safe from a stall decreases considerably. You stall in aturn, and one wing will go first, causing a spin. Almost any WWII fighter was prone to flat- or tailspinning. And many of those birds had cannon and heavy-cal machine guns that would, in fact, jerk the nose around a bit.  Again, I've never flown a real WWII fighter, but from what I hear, PF is pretty accurate. And I've never seen symmetrical damage in IL2/PF- it's odd that you'd say that. And smoke.... if you're on fire, there's gonna be plenty of smoke.  Surely you've seen nose camera footage from that war. I'll grant you that an oil leak should produce white, not black smoke, but... whatever. To each his own. As I said, I want to do another A/B comparison, but right now I'm tweaking my FS9 sim.

WOW rottydaddy, what a load of half-educated nonsense!
Did you base your knowledge of WWII piston engined aircraft and their performance on a quick google search or what? :D