Simviation Forum - cfs3 or PF

Reply #45 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 4:20pm

Mathias Offline
Colonel
Toy Maker
Germany

Gender:
Posts: 558

OMG, have just been visiting this threat http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=5901011952
What a bunch of fanatics!
A few level-headed guys over there but allover what a sad corner of the www?
Talking about religion, LOL.

Mathias&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #46 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 4:26pm

Mathias Offline
Colonel
Toy Maker
Germany

Gender:
Posts: 558

@ chuck:
Is that your post?

<<When I say 'finally playable', what I mean is: the experience of flying say, A p-51D against a Bf109G was a losing prospect in a turn fight. fair enough. But when I was in the Bf109G, flying against the P-51D, I would also lose the turn fight. Annoying. With FirePower, i could win the turn fight with the Bf109G.
>>

Cool, so after installing Firepower you've been finally able to give the P51 a run with the 109?
Particularly interesting since firepower does not alter any of these both flight models nor any other of the stock planes

Mathias&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #47 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 4:27pm

Chuck_Older Offline
Colonel
Check him for stilts!

Posts: 16

You prefer to be in a confrontational situation, don't you, AvHistory?

We are not enemies here. All I ever wanted was to get the background on what you claim.

And now you stand back and say "hey, you're not important enough to bother with", as if I had asked for an audience with you!

Should I point out that this is a cop-out, or is that already clear?

You don't have to re-load the game, I said you could send me a TRK file or back yourself up with something more substantial than "I am right".

Making me out to be incapable of understanding your comments doesn't make you any more right than just making claims.

If you haven't noticed, I'm quite atriculate. I am also not a fool. This 'my time is precious' thing...I am sorry, but I do not buy it.

Since the last quote I provided you with was so over my head, maybe I should counter that with what you followed it up with?

"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"

Now this here is a statement we can discuss, is it not? You have touched on stall models in FB, and called it "too aggressive" and also that the planes "handled [this] badly"

Would you care to explain how you come to the conclusion that the stalls are overly aggressive, and that the planes handle badly in FB/PF?

Would you also care to listen to how joystick input selection is a factor in the sim?

Do not bother to tell me how my delsuions of importance do not earn me the right to ask these questions. This is a public forum, not your throne room. Answer, or don't, but don't pretend to lower yourself so that I may snap up bits of your wisdom. The kid ain't buying that dirty laundry, OK?

You don't think I'd shoot down one of OURS, do ya?!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #48 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 4:32pm

Chuck_Older Offline
Colonel
Check him for stilts!

Posts: 16

Quote:

@ chuck:
Is that your post?

<<When I say 'finally playable', what I mean is: the experience of flying say, A p-51D against a Bf109G was a losing prospect in a turn fight. fair enough. But when I was in the Bf109G, flying against the P-51D, I would also lose the turn fight. Annoying. With FirePower, i could win the turn fight with the Bf109G.
>>

Cool, so after installing Firepower you've been finally able to give the P51 a run with the 109?
Particularly interesting since firepower does not alter any of these both flight models nor any other of the stock planes

yes, I have the same username here as I do there.

I prefer to try and be one of the 'level heads' over there

I hope it's noted that I don't bash CFS3 a whole lot...

If FirePower doesn't fix flight models, I must be thinking of one of the other downloads? It's been a little while since then. Can anyone help out on this? I recall FirePower as making the sim better overall...

You don't think I'd shoot down one of OURS, do ya?!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #49 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 4:36pm

Mathias Offline
Colonel
Toy Maker
Germany

Gender:
Posts: 558

Only new P51 and Bf109 FM's that I know of are those by the 1% AvHistory crew.
Maybe you flew some of those?

Mathias&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #50 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 4:38pm

Bearcat99 Offline
Colonel
IMMERSION BABY!!!
Northern Virginia

Posts: 10

Quote:

I have been playing Pacific Fighters for about a month now and love it but wanted to fly on the west front so I decided to give CFS3 a go (also I have recently purchased IR3 and now that CFS3 supports the device I was more inclined to try). Anyway, I was not impressed with the cockpit graphics...when I looked behind me I noticed the cockpit totally disappeared...made dog fighting easier but not very realistic). Also there is no cockpit glare (small but very effective in creating a real environment). Also, the flight characteristics were very docile compared to PF (stalls were very easy to recover).
Question: is there a setting I’m missing? I put it on 100% realism. Also is the 1% planes modeled better?
???

Do yourself a favor......... get the Forgotten Battles Aces Expansion Gold pack for $29 US (any Comp USA). Uninstall PF... install the Aces GOLD in this order..... Forgotten Battle, Aces Expansion and then re-install PF in the same folder. Then start the sim. In the lower left hand corner it should say Forgotten Battles 3.0. After you make sure you do that then go here and download the 100MB patch dated Dec. 24.

Then compare the two products. Let your sim exerience decide for you. To utilize PF as a standalone product is to shortchange yourself from the entirety of the product. I look at Forgotten Battles from Forgotten Battles to Pacific Fighters as one 5 CD totally awesome flight sim.
To be honest I never could get CFS3 to run properly on my PC out of the box. It was only the 1% planes that even allowed me to give it an honest shot.. otherwise if not for the hard work of the 1% guys it was total absolute crap. I still find the cockpits terrible... especially after experiencing the 3D cockpits of FB. I was a die hard CFS fan.... I like all the other guys in the CFS squad I was in at the time waited with baited breath for CFS3. I tried IL2 in the interim and that was it for me. When I finally got my much anticipated and extremely dissapointing copy of CFS3 ironically that was the final nail in the coffin of my MS sim experience. I will admit I am a loyal fan of the work of Oleg Maddox and 1C.. but in my opinion they deserve it.

Some have talked about the FMs in FB.... or rather PF.... well first off this is not the type of product you can jump in and fly right out of the box. It is extremely challenging.... it is rare... very rare for me to go into a spin I cant get out of unless I am A)Too low atltitude wise... or B) In a P-39... an aircraft NOTORIOUS for its stalling and spin characteristics. If you want a sim that is challenging and that will lierally continue to amaze you years after you purchase it then give the FB seies a shot. Give it solid month.. then come back here.... LOL you will probably be coming back here to say C-YA!!!

I wouldnt dream of coming here... to your house and badmouthing your product all you CFS lovers here.. but to answer Max..... do yourself a favor and get the FB Aces Gold.... it doesnt have a lot of what CFS3 has to offer.. but it also has a lot more in other areas. Try it and judge for yourself. It doesnt have the extensive maps that CFS has.. but IMO the graphics are outstanding. The flight models are the best in the industry bar none. To me the fact that the product is closed source is also one of its strengths. You can bet that the FW 190 that you are flying against is the same FW 190 that is on your hard drive... not some tecno savvy person with a modded up X wing fighter masquerading as a FW. That alone makes it better IMO. True a lot of good has come from the CFS community...in fact it was the community that made CFS what it is today... MS had nothing to do with it. CFS has become a tolerable product IMO.. but a realistic WW2 flight sim? Not in my book. I have tried the 1% planes too. They are good but.... I will stay where I am.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #51 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 4:39pm

AvHistory Offline
Colonel
Kinder & Gentler
NC, USA

Gender:
Posts: 577

Yo Chuck,

Instead of making demands on my maybe you should deal with this one first & enhance your credibility in discussing simulated flight models. The operative part of Mathias post is the Fire Power CFS3 add-on has NO effect at all on the P-51 or Bf-109

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

@ chuck:
Is that your post?

<<When I say 'finally playable', what I mean is: the experience of flying say, A p-51D against a Bf109G was a losing prospect in a turn fight. fair enough. But when I was in the Bf109G, flying against the P-51D, I would also lose the turn fight. Annoying. With FirePower, i could win the turn fight with the Bf109G.
>>

Cool, so after installing Firepower you've been finally able to give the P51 a run with the 109?

Particularly interesting since firepower does not alter any of these both flight models nor any other of the stock planes

BEAR&&http://www.avhistory.org&&http://www.medairwar.com

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #52 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 4:53pm

Bearcat99 Offline
Colonel
IMMERSION BABY!!!
Northern Virginia

Posts: 10

Quote:

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.

Like the CFS community there are an extremely dedicated and [i]very[i] talented bunch of lads over at the FB community. There is a user made workaround to that little problem as far as multiengined bombers go so that point is moot.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #53 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 5:03pm

RocketDog Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 5

Quote:

To be honest I never could get CFS3 to run properly on my PC out of the box.

[snip]

I still find the cockpits terrible... especially after experiencing the 3D cockpits of FB.

That was my experience also. I'd enjoyed CFS2 a great deal, had fun with IL2 and was really looking forward to CFS3. When I installed it I loaded up the one aircraft I was most eagerly awaiting, the P-47. You can imagine how terribly disappointed I was with the cockpit. That on its own killed a lot of my interest in CFS3. I know the IL-2 P-47 isn't exactly a work or art, but at least it's serviceable. In the end, the stutters, lack of TIR support on release, skins and limited multiplayer made me take it back for a refund. Maybe I should have kept it and awaited 3rd party mods (I guess BEAR can point to some excellent P-47 cockpits available now). All in all, a terrible missed opportunity. Nevertheless, the 1% stuff looks quite good (apart from the skins) so I might pick up another copy and try it again.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #54 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 5:16pm

arjisme Offline
Colonel
Interloper

Posts: 18

Quote:

OMG, have just been visiting this threat http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=5901011952
What a bunch of fanatics!
A few level-headed guys over there but allover what a sad corner of the www?
Talking about religion, LOL.

I am a new member here (yes, directed here from the FB thread you cite.). While reading through this thread I thought the same thing about folks posting here. Then I saw your comment! I guess whenever it is "us vs them", the other guy is always the fanatic! LOL!

Seriously, I'll never understand the need for there to be an us vs. them mentality, especially wrt games. The best comments I have seen here are that both titles have their strengths and weaknesses. That, and that folks should put aside any prejudices and try whatever is available and then play what you like. Or is bashing the "other" product a way to get some kind of needed validation? Pretty sad, if true.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #55 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 6:17pm

AvHistory Offline
Colonel
Kinder & Gentler
NC, USA

Gender:
Posts: 577

Interesting - I Wonder if this is the same Adlerangriff ?

"""Adlerangriff

posted Sun January 02 2005 13:41

I am a little shocked that such a baseless Post would get so many responses.

Those of us who have played the game since it first came out, have seen more people make excuses than we can count.

My favorite is when people talk about being unable to crack the game code open, so they can "create" new aspects. I wonder what this is actually trying to say? cough,cheat,cough,plane weights,cough

Our community is much better off with these people on some other board, saying whatever they want and playing whatever they want. """

In any case y'all did not notice "these people" are the ones who are actually staying on the other board you refer too. Wink

BTW just to clear up a major misconception, the CFS3 online software will prevent any mis-matched "cough,cheat,cough" planes from getting the the game. Roll Eyes

BEAR

BEAR&&http://www.avhistory.org&&http://www.medairwar.com

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #56 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 6:31pm

CV8_Dudeness Offline
2nd Lieutenant
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 1

Quote:

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.

seriously , to get planes in FB requires you to be a hamm fist

yes the spin after a stall does happen too eaisly , but to say CFS has a FM , or even more atrocious , that its FM is even better than IL2:FB is one major leap into never never land

seriously your coming from a easy game with tabled gameplay & when you get your butt handed to you , your running back to CFS with cries of inaccuracy (whats inaccurate , you stalling ? as in you dont think you ought too ?)

guys , planes actually will stall in RL , CFS is a arcade noobie joke BS game when it comes to replicating this

you cant just yank on the stick to your hearts content in a real plane , but you can in CFS

even FB isnt as hard as RL flying is , we dont get to fly in 100% simulated enviroments that throw all the different forces at us

Chuck Older actually asked in quite a nice manner about wanting to see what you did to make stalls happen so bad , brush him off if you want as your not going to be able to show him what you described , because it dont happen in FB

to finish , id just like to quote from a post at UBI that sums up the MS v IL2 debate

Quote:

To me, the reason the CFS3 planes are "user tuneable" is because MS can't be bothered to say: 'this is the right flight model as far as we can tell, from ever source we can possibly find'. 1C:Maddox has the guts to say that, though

as users of the sim , you obviously think that having Dev control in your own hands is cool

to me , its the worst thing that could ever be given into players hands

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #57 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 6:41pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Oh shut up and go back to Ubi-land.

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #58 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 6:45pm

Chuck_Older Offline
Colonel
Check him for stilts!

Posts: 16

Quote:

Yo Chuck,

Instead of making demands on my maybe you should deal with this one first & enhance your credibility in discussing simulated flight models. The operative part of Mathias post is the Fire Power CFS3 add-on has NO effect at all on the P-51 or Bf-109

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

@ chuck:
Is that your post?

<<When I say 'finally playable', what I mean is: the experience of flying say, A p-51D against a Bf109G was a losing prospect in a turn fight. fair enough. But when I was in the Bf109G, flying against the P-51D, I would also lose the turn fight. Annoying. With FirePower, i could win the turn fight with the Bf109G.
>>

Cool, so after installing Firepower you've been finally able to give the P51 a run with the 109?

Particularly interesting since firepower does not alter any of these both flight models nor any other of the stock planes

Again, I have already addressed that. My confusing the 1% planes with FirePower has nothing to do with what I am asking you. If you had read ahead to my next post, you would see I was asking if that could be cleared up. Obviously I had remembered incorrectly that FirePower used the 1% planes. I must have installed them at about the same time? As you can tell, it's been a little while since I used it. You even could have helped out a member here by feilding that one, but instead, it's "yo Chuck".

Your insistence on changing the subject tells me what I need to know, AvHistory

Those screenies are gorgeous. And yes, a big mis-step in FB/PF is bombers. Again, I'm not one to argue FB/PF is perfect. that's patently ridiculous

Is there anybody here who can objectively compare and contrat the FB and current CFS3 flight modelling? What source would be best for planes, since they are basically user-defined in CFS3? that's one of my concerns about CFS3, now that I am talking about shortcomings...MS doesn't thrill me about anything. Leaving it up to 3rd party to get it "Right" doesn't thrill me. How could it? But still, I am objective about my flight sims.

Who can tell me constructively how CFS3 and FB/PF compare and contrast? I'll start with how I remember CFS3 less than fondly:

"Mush" in all three axes regardless of joystick settings

Disconnected feeling in ailerons and rudder-oddly, not in elevator, which had authority

Campaign "points" and "buying" A/C

AI that had the A/C stalling as if the planes 'bobbed'- can't recall if that got fixed with my D/Ls, I bet it did

Gunsight dead center in the razorback P-47. Was this fixed by 1% planes?

Things I miss about it:

Airfeild attacks seemed spot-on: First pass was OK, second was deadly

Dynamic campaign play: That Ship I blew up in dry dock was there the next day, still burned out and on it's side. the next few days, new trucks and equipment was there, as if repairing it!

Weather conditions

Radio commands

The Map. that lovely huge map

FB/PF elements I dislike:

The Maps. Restricted by the game engine. I am currently making an AVG campaign using the "Kuban" map for Rangoon. That bugs me. Plus, you can't 'erase' an airbase or it's principle elements

Rudder is a bit... easy in the FM. I can't explain it, but rudder usage was way too easy to master

the Publisher dicatating the Developer's actions. Par for the course. Doesn't mean I like it

Mission Builder: No triggers. Why? Dunno

Things I like about FB/PF:

The illusion of flight. This is element #1 that must be had for me. If it isn't there, it just isn't, and Il2/FB/PF has it for me

the user interface. I cringe at CFS3's. Why the pull-downs? To show off Windows? It's clumsy. Il2FB/PF always used a nice linear progression through buttons, which appeals to my logic

Developer Support. Say what you will, Oleg Maddox does more than just pay lip service in this area. I've been playing flight sims since...well, Microprose made the Hot sims and Dynamix was the new comer with AoTP

Static Campaign and mission building. The tool is clumsy and awkward, but it's also a huge draw for me, much the same way I spent half my time with OFP making missions, I do the same with FB/PF

A Biggie for me: the planes can't get changed online or off, independantly of one another. For my way of thinking, this is the most effective way to ensure consistent modelling

Can anyone add or detract from that list? I'm completely willing to check out how CFS3 has evolved, I've always said that it's a shame it wasn't better. I love FB/PF, but that doesn't mean I can't play two sims. if CFS3 is so great now, show me. Tell me what to do, I'll try it and then compare my notes again

Also, what specs your PCs are would be helpful. Yes, we always know they are never good enough, but give me a hint here. CFS3 was even a bigger memory hog than Il2, if I recall. What's the average system for CFS3 nowadays?

Also, what is planned for CFS3 in the foreseeable future?

I have to warn, though: I have promised a tentative date on my AVG campaign for next weekend, and it's 17 missions short Grin

You don't think I'd shoot down one of OURS, do ya?!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #59 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 6:55pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

I'm running CFS3 on the following:
700mhz AMD Duron processor,
256mb RAM,
geForce4 ti4200 graphics card,
Windows XP home.

Anything else important in there i've ever forgotten about or don't know about.

It's far lower than anything people suggest to get CFS3 at its best. But I can run it with graphics set at 4 over all, which looks good to me, and while campaigns don't run too well, they use up the ram within three or four missions and require a reboot, it's fine for what I like doing in my Combat flight sims, a quick one on one duel on a sunny afternoon.

Now thats on what is considered now to be a stone age pc. I remember IL2 ran in a fairly similar manner. But since then i've updated my OS from 98 to XP.

Now, i've seen scores of Maddox vs. CFS discussions, and not a single person involved has had their opinion changed. All I can say is buy both, play both intill you find out which you prefer. Then once you've done that leave others, and their opinions alone.

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: