Search the archive:
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
I'm interested in a combat flight sim. (Read 1891 times)
Reply #15 - Sep 20th, 2006 at 10:20am

AvHistory   Offline
Colonel
Kinder & Gentler
NC, USA

Gender: male
Posts: 577
*****
 
Quote:
And why is that?


You have already posted one of the answers.

Quote:
mind you that the FM has been updated serval times.




 
IP Logged
 
Reply #16 - Sep 20th, 2006 at 1:42pm

pepper_airborne   Offline
Colonel
Voorhout - The Netherlands

Posts: 2390
*****
 
Yes, always an improvement, in my oppinion the first FM was already better then the CFS  flight engine.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #17 - Sep 20th, 2006 at 1:45pm

Woodlouse2002   Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender: male
Posts: 12574
*****
 
And by what experience have you to compare the flight models with? Smiley
 

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!
IP Logged
 
Reply #18 - Sep 20th, 2006 at 4:37pm

pepper_airborne   Offline
Colonel
Voorhout - The Netherlands

Posts: 2390
*****
 
From my own flying on both of the sims, reading some articles on how those planes work back on those days, and a WWII Hurricane pilot from the 151th wing in vienna.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #19 - Sep 20th, 2006 at 8:18pm

AvHistory   Offline
Colonel
Kinder & Gentler
NC, USA

Gender: male
Posts: 577
*****
 
Quote:
From my own flying on both of the sims, reading some articles on how those planes work back on those days, and a WWII Hurricane pilot from the 151th wing in vienna.


I guess it must be a fact then if you say so.  Grin

Problem is which of the 20 or so versions is the one since there is no, nada, zip linier progression from one FM to another?  The flight models just randomly jump around based on who was whining the loudest about there favorite planes on-line performance.Roll Eyes

 
IP Logged
 
Reply #20 - Sep 21st, 2006 at 7:10am

pepper_airborne   Offline
Colonel
Voorhout - The Netherlands

Posts: 2390
*****
 
Thats your oppinion.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #21 - Sep 21st, 2006 at 7:22am

Woodlouse2002   Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender: male
Posts: 12574
*****
 
And thats one opinion to take very seriously in this game I find. Tongue
 

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!
IP Logged
 
Reply #22 - Sep 21st, 2006 at 1:25pm

macstu23   Offline
Colonel
Drink for Victory !
Scotland, UK

Gender: male
Posts: 81
*****
 
Expect heavy flak.

IL-2 is loved by those whos systems cant handle CFS3.
I must admit it is a great arcade game, but in IL-2, can I fly bombers as well as fighters and operate the turrets and bombardier positions ? ...No. Are there lots of aircraft, ships and scenery models available that I can download and add to it ?...No...Well that's a shame.

It's not the first time a dedicated IL-2'er has used this forum to take a knock at our FLIGHT SIM and likely wont be the last....Pity.
 

A lonely impulse of delight&&Drove to this tumult in the clouds.
IP Logged
 
Reply #23 - Sep 21st, 2006 at 8:22pm

gregoryp   Offline
Colonel
AvHistory.org

Posts: 22
*****
 
I’m more a meat and potatoes man, so let’s look at the facts as relating to Combat Sims:

CFS3 default FM = poor, reason is the specific FM developer was allocated only one hour per aircraft and doesn’t have the tools most of the 3rd party developers do. In fact they were amazed at what we had. Not all tables and parameters are used. The FSX FM are developed the same way.

IL-2 = poor quality as a simulation. Reason, uses a simplified force model, the developer is biased and has blatantly lied and used strong-arm tactics against anyone that dares say different. Published third party testing shows all aircraft do not meet performance criteria and have some UFO like qualities. Developer also thinks making aircraft very hard to fly makes them very accurate. Throws out physics in favor of unreliable anecdotal evidence and opinion by unknown and unverifiable sources.

Shockwave Add’ons = poor, reason, doesn’t have a clue on how the MS parameters work. Thinks lying and saying they have a “certification” system magically makes the FM parameters accurate. Few aircraft meet performance criteria. Also thinks making aircraft very hard to fly makes them very accurate. Throws out physics in favor of unreliable anecdotal evidence and opinion by unknown and unverifiable sources. Makes use of arcade parameters and tables to fudge performance and stability.

AvHistory 2.xx = fair, reason, followed MS lead for how the MS 6DOF parameters work. Most use a seed aircraft for stability derivatives. All aircraft meet performance criteria. Aircraft overly easy to fly.

AvHistory 4.0 (shameless plug) = above excellent, Meets all performance and stability criteria. Fully uses all MS tables and parameters of the aircraft (may be the first to do this). Designed using physics by USAF DATCOM and Dr Roskam and AvHistory Team. Relies on actual measurements of the aircraft and flight test data instead of unreliable anecdotal evidence. All stability and performance data used included with each aircraft for user review. Users are encouraged to participate in the process to improve the accuracy. Only one to meet the “as real as it gets” slogan and comes closest to simulating WW2 aircraft. Also, contains fixes to errors in MS flight equations. Quality because of participation in the group that decoded the files used to define aircraft in MS FS/CFS.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #24 - Sep 25th, 2006 at 3:43pm

Saitek   Offline
Colonel
UK

Gender: male
Posts: 7555
*****
 
Thanks for the information. 8) I'll probably go for a CFS2 or 3 rather than than any of the other versions.
 

Windows 7 Pro 64bit
Intel Core 2 Duo E2180 2GHz
GA-P35-DS3L Intel P35
Kingston HyperX 4GB (2x2) DDR2 6400C4 800Mhz
GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
2 x 22" monitors
200GB Sata
Be Quiet! Straight Power 650W

Flying FSX with Saitek's pro flight range:
Radio
Switch panel
Auto-pilot
Yoke and throttle quad
Pedals
IP Logged
 
Reply #25 - Sep 30th, 2006 at 5:50pm

pepper_airborne   Offline
Colonel
Voorhout - The Netherlands

Posts: 2390
*****
 
Mac:

i never took a knock at CFS, read again.
I'd hardly call it an arcade game, Also ive been told that they used fixed crosshairs in CFS, not sure bout that tough.

Well. they didnt allow costum content in IL-2 wich is quite understandable in a Combat FS, but that is just my view.

Gregory, nice post, i guess that puts it quite good. Lets hope someday someone finds enough time to bring us a accurate combat FS.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #26 - Oct 6th, 2006 at 5:34pm

dcunning30   Offline
Colonel
This is me......really!!!!
The Land of Nod

Gender: male
Posts: 1612
*****
 
<pulls up chair and grabs popcorn>

This is interesting!

BTW, my worthless $.02.  I own Il-2 and Pacific Fighters.  They didn't last long on my HD.
 

TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE 34 RR THE WORLD WONDERS
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print