Yes Mathias and Bear, you guys are hard at work, but you've a lot of catching up to do, particularly as CFS3 is a lot more complicated than CFS2, so not that many people are turning stuff out fast enough.

You'll be able to crow when the 1% Lancaster comes out - I'm still waiting for that one.

Regarding performance issues - you are right: when CFS2 came out a lot of people didn't have powerful computers, but they could still run the game.
With CFS3, a lot of people just seem to have trouble getting it to work.

Quote:


I think you will find we released more CFS3 planes (105) then we did CFS2 planes (100) and in half the elapsed time.

Interesting how this boring subject has more posts & views per day then the next 70 or so posts in the forum, don't you think?

James, y'all should really lighten up a bit & try pontificating a little less. These are just computer games of passing interest nothing more, nothing less & definitely not real life items that should be cherished and adored. They are just not all that important in the real world scheme of things

Anyone who lives & dies over any one of these computer games is seriously lacking a real life.  This for me is a fourth or fifth level hobby.  Most of my higher level hobbies involve face to face, in one case foot to face, contact with other people.

Nudging each other about a flight sim of choice is no different then ford vs. chevy, yankees vs. bosox or giants vs. cowboys debates that take place anytime a bunch of guys get together for a few beers.

So, if you don't want to play just stay out of the way or at least realize that your "plea" is just a request based on your own personal opinion.

Additionally, I would question your right to unilaterally set yourself up as the official hall monitor of all things flight sim. I have not seen much contribution from you other then directives & pleas telling us how we all should act, how we should think & what we should post to these forums. Exactly who are you to take this position on yourself?

IMHO people like Mathias & me have more then paid our dues to freely express our opinions on these forms both from the point of working with the developers as the games were created & providing a significant amount of freeware after the products were released.  It really pisses me off to read your constant holier then thou lectures about what we post.

We enjoyed Bombardier101's challenge & had some fun going back & forth with him. Some people liked the thread & others did not, such is life.  

The nice thing about a forum is y'all don't have to read the threads you don't like, maybe you should take that approach and get off the soapbox.

BTW before anyone asks the other hobbies that take presidence over this one are.

martial arts
(Tae Kwon Do & Hap Ki Do)



engine building



car building



speedboat restoration

To clarify: the Lanc remark means:

Sure all those pictures of various aircraft look okay, but they don't spin my engine. If you'd put up a picture of the finished Lanc that has been promised for so long, then I'd have something else to do other than trawling these boards. 

Regarding you guys having built more for CFS3 than CFS2 - well that just applies to you. My belief is that there is more out there for CFS2, because CFS3 stuff seems slow in coming. And that may be because it's more difficult to do. I'm not going to try it, because I'm confortable with making stuff for CFS2 and enjoy flying it more than CFS3. I just use CFS3 to fly heavy bombers, because CFS3 is set up for that slightly better. IMHO.

My Martial Art is AI-DO: the drawing of the sword, the striking of your enemies, the removal of the blood from the blade, and the re-sheathing of the sword in one swift movement. But you probably guessed that.  8)

Quote:




Bottom line is we develop what pleases & interests us since we are the ones who will be living with a project for a period of time.  Its just a hobby not a job & we fully intend to enjoy what we are doing.

Quote:


There has never been a promised date on Lancaster, when it gets done it will be done just like the B-24 or any other plane.  Just to restate, its a hobby not a business & we feel no obligation to build this or that plane on such & such a time frame.

Quote:


Yes it applies to us but I believe we were the most prolific single producer of CFS2 aircraft during the time the game was in regular production. Therefore its quite easy for us to assess the level of effort required to move a plane out the door in CFS2 vs. CFS3

I would expect more CFS2 items to be available as its been out for a few more years then CFS3 & the CFS1 stuff was a direct import giving CFS2 a five or six year head start on available product.  Again, I do not believe that its any more difficult to do.

Quote:


My Korean sword style is called Haidong Gumdo.  I only hold a color belt in it but contact with the wooden practice swords (like those in "The Last Samurai") can be memorable.

Generally we stress Numchuck training during 1st Dahn, the Staff during 2nd & the Sword during 3rd.

Personally my favorite weapon is the staff or M-14.  

......
.....

Quote:


You mean the same thread where Oleg ran off because he could not answer the hard questions about his flight models?

The exact same questions he now seems to be trying to answer with BOB's all new flight models?

Interesting how the PF guys followed Oleg's lead & all bailed out really quick when the hard questions got asked about the games content and ability to re-enact WWII in the Pacific.

As for the aircraft visuals beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My pictures are direct screen captures & its funny how my copy of PF does not look as good on my screen as many of the posted PF pictures. PF does have nice water for a flight sim....

Quote:


This isn't about you so your personal excitement level is really of no importance except to yourself in this debate & is not valid as a proof of your point.

Based on requests to build & existing download patterns these planes are of great interest to many others & the fact that we like them moves them to the top of the production list.

The point you continue to miss, whether you like it or not, its our choice what to develop.  As you have said you are not happy with what we produce you can still go some where else, using the Lanc as an example,  like FP's CFS3 Lancaster or our CFS2 Lancaster which is now about 4 years old.

Hey imagine that, a Lanc is available in CFS3, thing is you had to pay for it, which may be the heart of your problem with CFS3.  The freeware guys should get off their collective butts & release these planes right now so we can get our new plane fix for free.

You ignore the fact that we have duplicated in CFS3 just about every plane we did for CFS2 and did it in less then a year. Had we stretched out production to the same rate we did in CFS2 I expect you would be a happy as pig in slop as you would be getting a new plane every now & then for the next year or so.

Problem is at the end of that extra year it would still be the same 105/100 CFS3/CFS2 split its been for the past year. Sorry we got them out so quickly.  

Picking a plane we have not chosen to release in itself is no proof of your contention, because as you stated a Lance is available in CFS3 even though y'all can't get it on the cheap.  

You don't really want the Lanc because you already have one. You really don't want any of the other planes we showed in the thread because they might already be available in some other sim.  Since you also said the Lanc that you don't really want would excite you,  one might wonder what y'all really do want?  

A freeware B-24 is under construction & like the Lanc it will be done when its done.




Those who worry that CFS3 freware development is dead or need a B-24 right now can pay FP for a copy.

I find it interesting you choose to stress the Lanc & ignore the other major RAF bombers that are now flying like Halifax, Manchester, Whitley, Blenheim, Battle & Wellington.  Then maybe these planes might be available in some other sim so, as you said,  you are not interested in them.

When its all said & done nothing you have stated demonstrates that the current state of CFS2 development is greater then CFS3 or that it has more varied aircraft available to it only that its been around longer.  

To suggest that a CFS3 is not still viable is to overlook the fact that our CFS3 B-17 has had 26,000 downloads in two years while our CFS2 version has only had 12,000 in 4 years.

BTW our CFS2 Lanc had about 9,000 downloads in 4 years so between it & the CFS2 B-17 they just about equal the CFS3 B-17's 2 year total dowloads.

Quote:


When you can demonstrate the active existence in CFS2 of two projects on the scale of CFS3's MAW & OFF, right down to the cows in the fields, you may have a point to debate. Until then all you have is an opinion, which you are entitled to, but so far there is not much hard data behind it.



Don't step on any Meadow Muffins, y'hear  

Quote:


Not to worry, this thread is just a light duty time killer.