I like CFS3.

I have CFS2 as well, but out of the box CFS3 looks better (in my opinion)

Some people complain that CFS3 has a 'fish-eye' perspective when you zoom in on the spot and chase views, which is true, but I think the textures of the aircraft are far superior to CFS2.

I haven't done any CFS2 online, but I know from experience that the CFS3 online experience can be a little dubious, with planes defying the laws of physics. CFS2 apparently does not suffer the same problems. It's still fun though.

Also if you are UK based then it's a bit more 'local' than the Pacific standard missions on CFS2. However it doesn't have a 'world map'......CFS2 can currently have missions made for any part of the world. As of yet CFS3 only has northern Europe (which doesn't include Scotland unfortunately, sorry Ben   )

However probably the most enticing thing about CFS3 is the impending MAW release:

http://www.medairwar.com/

And there are some truly sublime creations at Avhistory:

http://www.avhistory.org/

Not least of which is the recently updated Molly II



And of course the Zuyax MkIX and MKXIV spitfires.......wonderful machines.......

Get it Ben, it's worth the money  

Although I do agree CFS3 is a nice looking sim, CFS2 is much better. Whoever designed the stock Spitfire models for CFS3 should be shot

Oh yeah, and the scenery in CFS3 is better than I think all the other MS sims. Obviously they didn't bother to check what sort of trees grew in England but I can fly around Cornwall and all the major bumps and dips are there in the landscape.

Quote:

Yes, when?

Quote:


The natives are getting restless, huh?

If you 'd want a good Combat flightsim then i 'd go for IL-2 Sturmovik series if i were you, depends on if you want to fly online, then i would get the whole package(:Forgotten battles, Pacific Fighters, Aces expansion). If not then go for Forgotten Battles or Pacfic fighters alone.

Here's a website with some relevant flying information, mind you that the FM has been updated serval times.

http://www.il2flying.com/

And why is that?

Quote:


You have already posted one of the answers.

Quote:

And by what experience have you to compare the flight models with?

Quote:


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

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.

And thats one opinion to take very seriously in this game I find.

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.

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.