So much for "to each his own"... ouch! For what it's worth, I base my knowledge of  WWII aircraft  on years of (admittedly casual) study of various sources, including talking in person with WWII fighter pilots (would that be an accurate source?), and my knowledge of aircraft performance on over 200 hrs. flying real aircraft, including some aerobatics. A world away from flying WWII fighters, I know, but the same basic rules apply- the numbers are different, that's all.  And as long as we're splitting hairs, the white smoke thing refers to oil coming in contact with the hot engine; I only mentioned it because I noticed in PF if the oil res. is punctured or whatever, the plane starts streaming black smoke. Haven't really noticed the excessive gun smoke (my bad on that misread), but I don't doubt it- ubisoft definitely goes for the drama in the exterior views.  I'll check on the symmetrical damage thing, too- that's stupid.
  I was a little annoyed at first by the tendency of most of the IL2/PF planes to stall when least expected to, but I've learned to deal with it.  I'm pretty convinced that CFS3 is more forgiving in this regard because they made it easier. But  one of the things I like about PF2 is that there's plenty of audible and visual warning (shaking and slipstream noise) of an impending stall, so my last few flights have been much better... given enough altitude, even if I do lose it for a second, they seem to recover in a realistic fashion (I don't know for sure, having never flown anything quite like these planes, but dump nose/opposite rudder usual yields the same result in PF as it has in my own experience in real aircraft).  Anyway, we could go on and on like this- what's needed to really answer the questions about realism is to put matching fighters from each sim through identical flight tests, then compare the results for both aircraft to some accepted historical description of performance, i.e. the manufacturer's manual, or perhaps their production  test results.  I'd rather be dogfighting, but maybe I'll try it.
  Both of these sims have their good and bad points, but the bottom line, for me at least, is that IL2/PF gives a more realistic experience, primarily in having a workable view and being forced to work within the aircrafts' limitations. Those two factors are what drove me away from CFS3.

Well there where certainly planes that where a bitch to fly other where certainly a pleasent experience judging by the various WWII pilots accounts.
BTW, havn't seen any pilots manual that describes a plane as a death trap (and I own quite a couple of these, LOL). It's true though that pilot manuals tend to go with savety procedures while the real aircraft could be well flown over the handbook borders.
Not to become personall or something but I believe you're trying to appear more than you are judging by the standard statements you bring in here, that sort that each 16 years old kid over at UbiZoo quotes as knowledge and fact
I'm surprised btw that the IL-2ish default scripted takeoffs stall'spin'n merry go'round escape your attention, thought one should expect some differences between different planetypes but maybe wing designs, washout and such are just for the idiots at the drawing board?

Everybody has opinions, mattsmurf, and all I've been doing on this thread  is expressing mine. If the average WWII fighter was more stable than as depicted in PF, or if ubi got lazy and cut'n'pasted when they should've done more research and/or revamped the game engine, so be it. As I said, I haven't even spent much time with CFS3, as the problems with views turned me off big-time (just a personal preference). If your research material is more accurate than mine, so be it. I'm not trying to pass myself off as anything I'm not ('tho it'd be nice to be 16 again!!). All I'm saying is that based on what I know (which is certainly not everything), IL2/PF is real enough for me, and since taking it easy,  with the few aircraft in that sim that I've flown, to get a better feel for the perf. envelope as depicted in that sim, I haven't had any problems. AND... this thread has convinced me not to write off CFS3 until I mess with it some more. 

Quote:


You're right rottydaddy, to each his his own.
My replies to you where rather rude and I appologize for that.
Still it seems that PF is for Oleg what CFS3 is for M$ in regards to release unfinished products with a gamey approach.
The good thing in CFS3, the user can fix it even if tedious in some areas while in the IL-2 series of games you are stuck with what the developers give you that's why it's CFS3 for me all the way until a better open architecture Sim is there (whenever that is, LOL)

BTW, wouldn't want to be 16 again, pimples, hormon trouble, parents having the thumb on you? No!
Mid-twenty, that was a great age

Looks like AvHistory needs more work on his gunnery.  Peppering your target only makes lots of little holes m8  

PF is still very much a work in progress, and the devs are constantly communicating with users and evaluating feedback.  I've been in the Software biz for many years, mainly in the support role, and I can tell you the customer experience with 1C:Maddox is unprecidented and a beauty to behold.

We (customers) bitched and moaned for years about the ridiculous blinding muzzleflashes, and Oleg insisted for years that it was coded into the game engine and nothing to be done.  Lo and behold, PF comes out and no more big blinding muzzleflash!!  

What has MS fixed in CFS3 in the past year as a result of customer feedback? he's holding his breath ->

In fact they just released patch 3.03 on Christmas day [EDIT: for PF!].  

If 1C:Maddox is guilty of anything, it's giving us too much.    I would have preferred that they had fully "fleshed out" the Eastern Front with more maps and flyables, rather than expand into the PTO.  We're dying over here without our Ju-88    

But the hard reality is that most of the market (USA) is not that interested in the War in Russia.  I'm just grateful that I've found a great bunch of guys who are, and continue to be, for an amazing on-line war that is still going strong, currently at Kursk July 1943.

Anyone try to e-mail MS and get an answer about next update for CFS3?  

So i'm done now, and will read all the inevitable flames from the CFS3 True Believers, since even tho I havn't said anything against CFS3, by praising the "Infidel" (Oleg) I have committed the most unforgiveable blasphemy.    

May Bill have mercy on my wretched soul!

Rottydaddy, I'm afraid there's not much you can do to avoid the views to reset when switching around.
You can customize your views though so that they fit your needs right away without zooming in or out.

You'd have to open the aircraft's xdp file in Notepad and edit the Field of view, the FovUp and FovDown portions

<Station Name="Pilot" Type="pilot_station" View="0" FovUp="20" FovDown="32">

You can also adjust the snapviews.
The following example has an offset added.
If you use your hatswitch or keyboard to look fore/right it'll turn 45° right, 5° up and move 8 centimeters to the right.

<View Event="HeadPitchUpRight" Azimuth="45" Elevation="-5" X="0.08"/>

Oh, you shure know that you can turn your snapview into a free pan view by hitting the scroll lock key?

Quote:


I was checking out the MAW site earlier today.  The screenshots there are VERY impressive.    If gameplay, even just single-player, is half as good as those screenies look, I will be a buyer. 

If you are getting tools directly from the devs, that is awesome.   I'm getting my piggybank ready.  A new system with Athlon FX55 and Geforce6800 will do those beautiful 3D models justice 8)

Yep, MAW is freeware.