>>>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<<<

Interesting comment - y'all know this from personal experience ace?


http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/p51test1.avi
CFS3 yanked stick P-51D-30


http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/p38p1.avi
P-38J Engine takeoff single engine failure

BEAR - Avhistory

Quote:



One of the 'level-heads' at the FB boards Yes, this thread is a sort of cross-pollination between the sims. I'm sure that just like in UbiLand, there is a core group of members who make the community here. Don't let a single thread define the CFS3 community; I wouldn't want that to define the FB one

No one can tell you which is the better game. One camp will tell you one thing, the other another. Buy CFS3, and make your own conclusions. It's the only way to do it. This argument will go on for ever, and when it ends no one will have changed their opinion. So either stick with PF or what ever your playing, or buy CFS3 and make your own comparisons and conclusions. Don't rely on the opinions of others.

LOL, arjisme, don't you know "UbiZoo" is a fixed term even amongst IL-2 fans and developers for this board over there.
Talking about civilty, you don't want me to quote portions from that other threat or those who have started the crap right here in this very threat?
It's usually you guys who are unable to stick to your thing and run around spamming other boards.

Chuck, CFS3 aircraft use a base mape, a specular level map and a reflection level map plus a mosaic file which holds information for damage/unit codes/ noseart overlays.
As Bear points out specular shine and reflections are rendered in real time.
The advantage of those maps is that you can include/exclude (or just level out) certain areas from reflections/specularity just as it would happen on a real plane due to dirt, oil and such and of course position relative to light sources and such

arjisme,

>>>I assume you can configure joystick sensitivity?<<<

Yes

It might interest you to know that despite CV8_Dudeness claims that we are noobiees (whatever) the core AvHistory team has pretty much been involved in design development & testing of flight sims going back to the late 1980's. 

We have been providing public modifications to sims since the early 1990's.  The fact that we are still around after all this time & are still generating 10's of thousands of downloads might suggest we are doing something right.

I would not be overly shocked to see our planes at some historical combat flight museums as part of their demo packages.

The first sim I was involved with as an outside tester was Chuck Yeager's Air Combat. Others that I have worked on includes the USNF/FA series, Falcon series, Flanker series, CFS series, WWIIOL & a bunch of lesser titles. The others have similar experience.

All the key flight model guys are pilots only one of which is purely civil. One is an licensed aerobatic instructor pilot who's day job is developing fluid dynamics software. Air is a fluid . 

Three others are military, two ex-fighter pilots (one now a contract worker flight testing for NASA) the third is still in service & flys C-130's for the USAF. He does most of out multi engine prop work.

The guy who does our Russian aircraft recently joined Eagle Dynamics (Flanker series creator) and is working on LOMAC's flight models.

The visuals like the Fw-200 above are created by people like Mathias of The Ground Crew & painted by a large number of different guys who just like to do planes.

For us its purely a hobby as we all have day jobs are retired or in my case both.

BEAR - AvHistory

>>>Many in PF think planes should be stalling more easily.<<<

First just to set a base...do you agree a stall is a stall & a spin is a spin.  Two seperate & distint functions in that you can stall & not spin.

Just something to think about.  

The Germans were preparing for war & were secretly training pilots. They generated a lot of experience is 1930's Spain. Overall their aircraft design was suited to this class of pilots.  When they got killed off & the training cycle got short they had a very bad time of it.

The Allies especially the US were pretty much doing nothing till very late in the 30's.  The US had a huge pool of potential pilots a majority of whom had never even driven a car before they showed up for training.

What kind of planes do you design for them?  Big engine fast planes to let them pick the fight or escape when the are jumped or a turn & burner that takes an experten to fly?

With this pilot pool would you as an acceptance officer buy highly unstable difficult planes to fly that quickly turned a stall into a spin for your brand new military pilots?   Its interesting to note that most US planes were placarded with a don't spin sticker.

Another example was the early Spitfire which was not accepted by the RAF till a major league chunk of ballast was installed in the tail to reduce its tendency to spin on stall.

Guess my question is why do you think these planes should quickly turn a stall into a spin?

BEAR

arjisme

But we keep our bad attitudes to ourselves on our own board.

Don't think you will find me or the others running to PF sites or to UBI to thump Oleg's game.

Even the debates we had with Oleg himself were at our house in CFS forums not his.

Am sure because I have see it myslf as I know you have when the same question is asked at UBI or another PF site, y'all would be unable to count the number of CFS sucks,  MS sucks,  Bill gates sucks & anything that's not Oleg's sucks posts.

Some new guy signs up at UBI & wants to become one of the boys real quick he just starts a CFS sucks thread 

BEAR