If I want a BoB sim then I'll reinstall EAW. I don't think anything's going to beat that game for many years in terms of realism.

And as for MAW, I eagerly await it's release and pray that I will be able to run it on my pc.

CFS3 Supports Individual control of engines, prop pitch and mixture by separate axes. PF does not.
In other words: no contest.
If you want to fly Bombers like the B-25 Mitchell using the CH Quad Throttle, where you can assign separate levers for each engine's throttle, prop pitch and mixture, then CFS3 is where you go.
If you prefer flying multi-engine bombers where you have to select engine 1, move the throttle for engine 1, deselect engine 1, select engine 2, move the throttle for engine 2 to get any kind of asymmetrical thrust, then PF is definitely for you.
However, if you're flying single engine fighters, then I couldn't care less, because CFS2 is the one.

Quote:


To echo the above, BoB appears to be a completely new piece of software and is not a development of the IL-2 code. It will form the basis for the next generation of 1C flight sims with releases planned to cover other theatres.

There is not much information about it available yet, but it is known that it addresses some of IL-2's limitations (e.g., high-altitude flight model/graphics). The screenshots released to date show absolutely georgeous 3D cockpits for the Spitfire - significantly better than anything I have yet seen in a flight sim.

It remains to be seen if it will add anything to IL-2's rather sterile feeling campaigns, but with a well-defined background like the BoB it should have a good chance. I'm looking forward to it.

Regards,

RocketDog.

[quote author=AvHistory l
Tradeoffs are made in all sims, CFS3 has no LCOS while PF has no high altitude model, unique ground handling & takeoff model or inertia/weight in the roll regime. They are all pretty generic in PF. Here's what Oleg has to say about his flight models when we had a little debate on one of the forums.

""Oleg Maddox
Member
From: Moscow, Russia
Registered: Feb 2000

Here you are perfectly right. We just do it partially. Simplified in many ways. And I never told that we do exact copy of each single aircraft...isn't it? Simply if we'll calculate say only airfoil in terms of all real time calculations - we'll get freezed PC. So we are going for some predifined terms (again not table) and we simplify the formulas to the level that possible to use in real time on a current PC together with other real time calculations. That is only the right way for the current moment of the simulation word if we'll speak about simulator that is able to work on home PC, but not to use the separate restricted computers for different tasks (like for big military simulators of single aircraft).

Perfect way when all _real_ time calculations will be possible to handle in one PC. For that thing its
still long way""

So what you get instead with PF are planes that stall at the drop of a hat & do a merry-go-round ride into the ground because that's what guys who have seen to many air war movies, disaster films & TV shows expect. 

Pilot dies plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; plane runs out of gas plane stalls & spins to a fiery death, engine catches fire plane stalls & spins to a fiery death;  Dirt gets on the windscreen plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; oil leaks out  plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; stewardess spills the coffee plane stalls & spins to a fiery death.

If the real WWII planes handled that badly there would have been no WWII airwar because 90% of the pilots would have killed themselves in training & the remaining 10% would not have flown.

Since the P-51B/C was a better dogfighter then the D I am happy to give up the LCOS in exchange for a quality flight & damage model.



BEAR - AvHistory [/quote]


OK, I have to interject here.

You make some good points about CFS3. And yes, CFS3 has more potential than PF. PF is an evolution of an add-on to Il2Sturmovik:Forgotten Battles. So that's academic

And yes, a big problem with the il2:FB series is high altitude modelling

Could I ask you when that quote by Oleg was made? Was it about the original Il2, or about Il2:FB?

regardless, your good points come to a screeccing halt when I read your take on flight modelling in PF.

I'm an Il2:FB fan. I stuck with CFS3 a long while, and in stock form, i was very disappointed. With FirePower, graphically i was impressed, but control surface 'feel' is just not what I think is right (I studied Aeronautical Engineering at University, I have some basic notion of how 'tight' control cables feel in some aircraft. I am hardly an expert, but there you go, who here is?) However good FirePower looked, it did not capture the essence of what the sensation of flight is to me. SO, unfortunately, CFS3/FirePower took a back seat to FB.

I read your comments about the FM in the FB series with a little shock. Have you ever played Il2:FB? I can scarcely beleive you have.. "Flat spin at the drop of a hat"..."Can't make a shallow climb without spinning and stalling"

Are you serious? Those claims are ludicous and absolutely without merit. Could you back up those claims with some tracks from Il2:FB, please? You do have Il2:FB, so making a TRK file and e-mailing it to me should not be out of the question.

You make some excellent points showcasing CFS3's strong points, and I can understand your defense of the sim against "other" sims in competition with it. I feel the same way about Il2:FB, but the difference between us, I think, is that you make wild claims without a shred of evidence to back it up, while I will admit the sim I like is not perfect, and then explain why i prefer it to CFS3.

Pacific Fighters is an excellent investment if the Il2:Sturmovik series is your cup of tea. If not, CFS3 may be the way to go. For me, having tried both, it is the Il2:FB series.

Oleg Maddox's 1C:Maddox Games is working on it's next generation air combat sim. I won't turn this into an ad for Oleg's work; i don't work for him.

But neither will I say: "blindly stickf to MS's flight sims". Try the sims that are out there, and stick with the one you like. this shouldn't be a popularity contest, and you should make spurious claims without backing them up, or at least without given reasons for your making them

Older out

Oui, Monsieur "Je sais Toute". Vous.

Ici:

this is what you said, on page one of this thread:

" Pilot dies plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; plane runs out of gas plane stalls & spins to a fiery death, engine catches fire plane stalls & spins to a fiery death;  Dirt gets on the windscreen plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; oil leaks out  plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; stewardess spills the coffee plane stalls & spins to a fiery death." 

I cannot curently find the part in which the shallow climb was mentioned. Was that editted out?

I would very much like to see the TRK file that proves these conditions you complain about make a plane stall or spin in FB.  Of course, you realise that airspeed and attitude has something to do with it? And your wing's AoA? But please do e-mail me a TRK that show that, under normal flight, a simple 10* or 15* climb produces spin in any of the FB or PF planes, or that some other condition exists that makes the planes "Spin at the drop of a hat"

Oleg is not "bailing" by the way. I cannot understand your venom, but you are not putting me down by trying to heap scorn on Mr Maddox.  Bringing up how Oleg is "Bailing", when it has nothing to do with what I am talking about, proves to me only that you have no reply to my post.

Don't change the subject or cloud the issue. If you have proof of your claims about spinning and stalling in PF or FB, make that proof available. If not, please do not expound on things you don't know about, somebody might beleive you.

I have explained why CFS3 is not for me. Apparently, your devotion to CFS3 is because of how much you hate Il2:FB. that's fine, have at it, but it doesn't prove your points. All it does is state your opinion.

Like I have said, I do not find that planes in FB/PF, or even in the original Il2 exhibit these traits. I can only conclude that unless you can prove these claims. you are exaggerating to the point that truth has stopped bending for you.

Dislike FB/PF as much as you like, but posting untruths  or wild exaggerations doesn't make you Right, respected, or even clever. We both know that simple manuevers in FB/PF do not make the wild gyrations you describe, so why do you bother? I will not come out and call you a liar, but i will and am calling you out to prove your claims. I currently fly version 3.02m of FB, that means the 3.02 patch on the merged FB/PF install.

If you would like to prove your claims, take the time out to make the TRK file and send it to me via e-mail. if you would like to prove you are just blowing smoke, please do not send the TRK file. I'm not going to come on here and quack about how I've shown you up; I'm a grown-up now.

Quote:


A quick note here -  Maddox responded to questions about the F4F and Zero flight models saying that the issue was recognised and would be addressed shortly (I guess in the 3.04 patch). One has to learn patience when dealing with small outfits like 1C.

I don't want to start point scoring for either sim (both have strengths and weaknesses), but it is notable that Maddox does often reply personally to emails about FM and other issues and equally often changes things in response to community investigations.  In contrast, the fate of poor old CFS3 does not reflect well on Microsoft or that game's developers.

Regards,

RocketDog.

>>>" Pilot dies plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; plane runs out of gas plane stalls & spins to a fiery death, engine catches fire plane stalls & spins to a fiery death;  Dirt gets on the windscreen plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; oil leaks out  plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; stewardess spills the coffee plane stalls & spins to a fiery death."<<<

Nice reach Chuck, but since the sim does not have stews or coffee most people would not read this so literally but rather as a spoof about how easy it is to turn a stall into a spin in the game which is not the case in real life.

It also fits in well with what is expected by the "harder is more real crowd" at UBI that always yell 'learn how to fly' when someone has anything negative to say about the series flight model.

I really loved the one at UBI with the guys defending "pop the flaps & take off on the right wheel" to launch a loaded F4U from a carrier, didn't you?  Guess that guy really learned how to fly

""""That being said I still don't see that part where I said "Flat spin at the drop of a hat"..."Can't make a shallow climb without spinning and stalling" do you?

>>>>cannot curently find the part in which the shallow climb was mentioned. Was that editted out? <<<<""""

Not nice to put a cheap shot in there Chuck & you being a Judge and all;  your venom is showing.

Nope it was never there. Y'all were so hot to make a case for yourself you jumped on the post at UBI which credited me with a number of statements I did not make.  Best to do your homework before you launch the attack, don't you think.

Guess now you are going to do the right thing & correct the guy at UBI that you copied the bad info from that you posted here.  8)

You might think his stall spin module is good may of us don't.  The spin after stall is modeled much to aggressively IOHO.  Since the sim uses models which are pretty much hard coded & cant be changed or when the are have undesirable side effects like these that he talks about, its doubtful they can be uncoupled.  


"""OLEG MADDOX

Changed the climb at different angles and speeds. More greater changes beween low and high speed climb as was "requested"
this was don by changes in FM formulas for all aircraft at once.
So the specifications for optima climb are not changed, but changed in critial modes of climb.  So it isn't just for Coupel of carrier based aircraft but for all in the sim.  We willl evaluate with F4 nd for some reports F6F... We can here in office take off from moving carrier with full loadout .... It seems some users - not.

Anyway if we got the bug there with several aircraft - we will correct it in future in 3.04, but it will be not early than 3 weeks from now."""

It just not important enough to me to reload the game over something in it I did not say in the first place. As I said we believe the spin after stall is over modeled you don't.  

I have no problem letting our models stand for my position.  

Anyway just to keep you a little bit happy in these days of miss-trust the last word on FB page 9 is 'manual' - the ACE key card last words after "pause game" in the Time compression section are " * user cannot define those controls" and so on.

Just small commercial as an aside, we now have had over 1 million AvHistory aircraft downloaded since the original Micro Prose Falcon 1.5 sim patch back in the dawn of time.


BEAR - AvHistory
http://www.avhistory.org

>>>If you feel that is a 'cheap shot', that is your problem. I made a mistake, something you have done yourself.<<<

"""cannot curently find the part in which the shallow climb was mentioned."""  This would have been a mistake


"""Was that editted out?"""  To me this is a cheap shot implying I changed what was written after the fact. Other people mileage may vary

>>>I have no idea what you're on about concerning how the time compression "* is not able to be user defined."<<<

Just to help you along here, I put in a statement I copied from the ACE key card to show I actually have the game which is not currently on my computer, understand now?

>>>>Saying "We think it's too aggresive" may be  good enough for you. For me it is not.<<<<

As I said before your issues with my statements are not worth my time in reloading the game especially when y'all have a big problem even knowing what my statements actually are.

You might feel your important enough to make demands of my time,  I don't.

BEAR - AvHistory