Depends. 3rd party developers are only just starting to scratch the surface of what CFS3 can do. CFS2 is established and it's limitations are fairly well known. Having said that, more is discovered everyday about what is possible in each game. Best thing to do is to buy both.

Wait for MAW then reconsider.

We have gone thru the process before. This a silly post if you ask me. It really matter at this point. I like them both and they both have their have atribute and short commings.

I played with both of them and want to thank the developers for their contributions in improving this games where they today.

Out of the box CFS2 was a pretty good game but not very exiting. Its Campaigns where leniar and lack a level of excitment that the real Pacific war had. But with the contributions of many dedicated deveelopers it has become a under rated Master piece.

CFS3 was a great disappointment out of the box. It lack the charm and easy of the two previous programs. It lacked a World map and a functional MB.  That and many other short commings made it almost unplayable at first. Thanks to group of dedicated people now CFS3 is a pretty good game today.

Its the best ground attack Simulator in the Market today. It also has the best third Dimention qualities in the market.

It still has many short comming to over come but I still like it.

My advice to buy both and enjoy them instead of dividing the comminity on witch one is the better Simulator.

Just remember without CFS2 we will not have the possibilaty to have the complete Pacific war since Pacific Fighter will not be completed at this point.

The CFS3 team is developing the MAW project. Its sound like its going to be a fantastic addition to World war two Simulator experience.

Lets develope both to their maximum and enjoy them both.

James007

Neither. I think CFS1 (Europe) got CFS2 and 3 beat by a mile. CFS3 was a great dissapointment.  The guns sounded like pea shooters, its high performance (vintage) aircraft engines sounded more  like Briggs and Stratton mowers. CFS2? I uninstalled that game shortly after I bought it. further, how come there are very few if any available  downloads for CFS3? and for the other two CFSs for that matter.

Bubblehead

CFS3 downloads
http://www.avhistory.org/

more CFS3 downloads:
http://www.groundcrewdesign.com/

Quote:


But there are more for CFS2, and you can import CFS1, FS2000, and some FS2002 addons. Infact, someone uploaded all the CFS1 default planes for CFS2. Can't be done for CFS3.

woodlouse2002 is completely right :
the file format is not the same, and building a model for cfs3 now requires more 3D skills from the modellers.

Furthermore, I don't think that's a matter of quantity, but of quality : I don't need to have 300 planes if they don't have a good VC, and most planes that have been converted from cfs2 to cfs3 have poor ones. I really prefer to have 5 planes but of outstanding quality. The other planes may become good targets though, but I'll never fly them.

cfs1 planes in cfs3 : no, thanks.

I personally prefer CFS2.  I remember when CFS3 first came out, it seemed somewhat unpopular (maybe disappointing is a better word) at the time (comparing to CFS2 when it came out).  But, once it had been out for a little while and people began to work with the new engine it really took off.  I really like CFS3, but I perfer CFS2.

What I meant was that CFS3 3rd party models are only made in gmax and only a select few of the most talented designers actually build 3rd party aircraft. This is in comparason to CFS2 where you do get some extraordinary aircraft but you still have a lot that are built by people inexperienced with gmax or built in FSDS1 which doesn't offer the quality avaliable. Whats more a CFS3 aircraft download will seldom go above 4 mb for a fully functional plane with virtual cockpit and the full works. With CFS2 to get that sort of quality you need to really look at files that are 5mb or more.

It's not a jibe at the CFS2 modellers. It's just that CFS3 demands as standered aircraft that are almost par with some of the better CFS2 models.

As for the cockpits, well thats just M$ being slack. If you see some of the finished Groundcrew cockpit's you'd see that they hold their own with the best of IL2/PF.

It has nothing to do with the engine : actually, we should have better looking cockpits in cfs3 because the engine allows for a more important poly count than in FB and the use of specular maps allow modelers to create dynamic lighting effects that should put FB pre-painted lighted effects to shame. 

So it's all down to the amount of detail and time that modellers want to put in their VCs. 

What's coming soon to cfs3:






taken from this thread about VCs in cfs3 :
http://www.cfcforums.com/showthread.php?t=16683

Oh yes, now those are beginning to look good. The Me110 is certainly equal to PF standard. It's unfair to compare with LOMAC, because that's just a whole generation ahead.

Do you get big frame-rate hits when the cockpits are as detailed as this?

Then that is absolutely fantastic.  8)

Quote:


Now that could be cool 8)

Regards,
Stratobat

Gentelmen I beleive CFS3 was never intended to replace CFS2. CFS3 is a total different type of game with a different concept in mind.

Its like comparing Oranges to Apples.

Its almost ridiculous to compare them on equal terms. One if base on the Pacific and the other on Europe.

One has carriers and sea battles to content with and other the one is the best ground attack is Simulator in the business.

In my opinion their both good Simiulators. It all depend on what your looking for on a Simulator.

One cannot replace the other. Between the two you might enjoy the whole spectrum of World war two Aviation history.

Now if you like CFS2 better thats fine. But do not come in here and try to rub in.

Thats like like going to some one elses dinner party, and you tell them their dinner taste bad when no invited you in first place.

Their is a lot to be done to improve to CFS2. So join the CFS2 community and help out.

I own both Simulators and I enjoy them both. I recommend you do the same.

James007

Thanks for this most precise and argumented post... Don't know why, but I'm really convinced now.

That cfs3 is more power hungry than cfs2 is quite normal : the number of objects to be drawn is much bigger than for cfs2 (plane models, trees, houses etc...) : in comparison, the cfs2 landscape seems quite bare. Furthermore, thanks to a very good management of LODs, cfs3 can handle more planes in the air without fps to suffer. Try having a mission with 140 planes in the air with cfs2 : my computer can't handle it, it gradually slows down to a halt while I have a constant 20 fps with cfs3.

Cfs3 is as flexible as cfs2 : however, the tools are less known and quite different from cfs2 format. So cfs2 is indeed more easily modded but the extent to which we can modify cfs3 is mind-staggering.