IL2 Forgotten Battles... worth gettin'??

[Threadkiller]

hi guys, i saw a copy o'this neat trck for $20 CDN and i begged my dad to buy it but he refuse, he says (even tho he's a pilot...) tahat i have too many sims and i only use 2 so i was wondering.... is this worth gettin or was my padre right?

[Katahu]

!!!!!!!GET IT!!!!!!!!!!

[Woodlouse2002]

If you get it then the chances are in a couple of months you will realise that CFS is far better and it will be uninstalled and used as a coffee coster. Once you've played CFS2 there is no changing to IL2.

[Threadkiller]

maybe so, but from what ive heard, the addons are of better quality that CFS2 arent they?

[chomp_rock]

Maybe they are, but there are far less of them.

[Katahu]

I don't want to start a flare up around here, but IL-2: FB is far better than CFS3.

I have CFS3 and IL-2: FB. After testing both of them, I can clearly see that IL-2 deserves a lot of credit. CFS3 and CFS2 are lower than CR*P compared to the IL-2 series.

I can give you screenshots of IL-2 if you want.

CFS3 is just sitting on my drawer gaining dust while IL-2: FB is grabbing my attention.

I also went online for both combat sims. Result:

CFS3: ugly-as-h377 performance and obvious issues when it comes to addons. Not to mention glitches.

IL-2: Smooth performance [except for my 56K connection which causes lag ] and almost no issues.

I found out that IL-2 requires just a small editing [if desired] on its conf.ini file. In the file, just set the Netspeed to either 6000 or 8000 to reduce lagg.

IL-2: FB also comes with the ONE feature that I truely like: "Texture Compression". If you notice, M$ never added that option [would have been easier on our video cards] on ALMOST all its sims.

What Texture Compression does is this: It compresses any texture files that are needed at the moment so those files can pass through the video more easily. Especially the hi-res textures. Then the files are DEcompressed and rendered by the game engine as usual. This will help maintain HIGH-QUALITY while still maintaining good performance.

UBI Soft uses this feature on almost all it's PC games. Why doesn't Microsoft ever use this feature? Did UBI patent it or is it just that MSFS can't support it? Most of our video cards can support already. Mine does.

Overall, Microsoft [blinded by corporate greed] has lost its touch with its consumers in the FS market in terms of support and system requirements. UBI Soft [a French company] has a GOOD reputation of listening to its consumers.

PS: Did you know that China, Isreal, South Korea, Russia, and some other major countries are saying that they no longer want any of Microsoft's products? They prefer to use open-source software as an alternative to M$'s products.

This makes me wonder. Did Bill Gates screw up again.

[Threadkiller]

yes Katahu, i know all those facts and from what i've seen i agree on the quality compared with CFS3.... but i get mixed answers... as of now i think is just an impulse because i saw the gae so cheap. i am going to let this rest for a while and then see, maybe if i really want that game i'll end up gettin but i dont wanna get ripped off with a piece of shiza that i wont use. thats y i didnt get CFS3.

[Katahu]

Well, I learned my lesson about purchasing games the hard way.

I thought my computer could handle CFS3 [read my specs below], so I went out and bought it. IL-2: FB was sitting on the same shelf as CFS3.

After wasting $60 of my hard earn cash for CFS3, I found out [after installing] that I had to tune down almost everything. When I flew the sim, it felt like an arcade game rather than a sim because of its visual performance.

I should have bought IL-2: FB instead. It was right there. But nooooooooo, I had to be stupid enough to buy CFS3. This happened early in the year. When I went to buy it for Christmas, I found out that it was sold out and I then had to order it online.

Well, I got it and it's great. But I should have got it earlier in the year.

UBI Soft made a survey and found out that a majority of Western combat-simers prefer to do dogfights in the most documented parts of WW2.

They are now making IL-2: Battle of Britain. BUT, it's only going to be released in 2005 [next year]. Well, At least this is great news for those who love their Spits, Jugs, Mustangs, Hawkers, etc.

[_526th_Fireman]

Graphically, IL2 FB is awesome. But, I found the missions to be pretty redundant. Flight models and the dog fights are great. But as far as an all around flight sim, my vote goes to CFS2. Never tried CFS3 and probably never will from all the posts I have read on it. Maybe when it is in the $5.00 bin at Wal Mart I'll  give it a shot.

[Woodlouse2002]

I will say that it takes a certain type of person to like CFS3 but I don't think there can be a comparason between CFS3 and IL2. If you want to know the best combat sim avaliable then I will tell you. It is CFS2. With CFS2 you can do almost anything. There are endless supplies of addons and 3rd party software for it. For IL2 I have seen no more than half a dozen repaints and a load of missions. IL2 is a good sim but because of the lack of addons for it I feel that it gets boring very quickly. Once you've flowen all the planes and seen all the effects you find yourself wanting to do more. CFS2 allows you to do this. You can download almost any plane you care to mention for CFS2. With IL2 you have to wait for patches or addons before you get any sort of new plane.

Ubisoft might be making a Battle of Britain sim. But I cannot believe they are still calling it IL2. Also, for those who cannot wait intill 2005 then Justflight have made a Battle of Britain expansion pack for CFS3. I know which one i'll be getting.

Space ace, I feel that your verdict on IL2 cannot be made intill you buy it. But let me tell you this. I brought IL2 and for a couple of months I thought it was the best sim anyone had ever made. However I soon got bored and as soon as I could not find a single addon for it on the internet I fired up CFS2 again and have never turned back.

[4_Series_Scania]

maybe so, but from what ive heard, the addons are of better quality that CFS2 arent they?

LOL

[Katahu]

Well, I can see that you're the kind of person who likes addons very much.

But for me, I don't care very much about addons. I lost my interest with addon aircraft. You can see why I am making cars instead.

With IL-2, You don't need addons because all the planes have been carefully made by the best. Oleg Maddox [UBI game delevoper] is a Russian dude who helped make the visual models and graphics.

I can't see how anyone can master all the planes in IL-2. I tried to fly the Yak-9's, Migs, FW's, BF's, and the Hawkers. However, I keeped stalling in the tight turns because I have to turn tighter and tighter because of a few FW's following my tail and trying to shoot me down.

Then I tried the small, simple planes like the: I-153, P.11, I-16, and the B-235. Once I tried those planes, I got hooked because they turn so quickly. However, they lack speed.

I tried to fly the Migs, but I realized that I had to speed up in order to avoid stall on a very tight turn. But at least it reaches speeds of up to 600km/h thanks to its kick-@55 engine.

If you can't master all the planes in IL-2, then what's the point in looking for addons if you still have so much to learn? The aircraft in the CFS series are too easy to fly. As a result, I had to rely on addons.

Besides, you have the ability to fly non-flyable AI aircraft in all multiplayer sessions. Only if the Host allows it. In most cases, the Host does.

Most addons for the CFS series were made by newbies while the remainders are made by pros.

PS: So far, no flare ups. Good.

[Katahu]

Ubisoft might be making a Battle of Britain sim. But I cannot believe they are still calling it IL2.

They are calling it IL-2 because it will have more countries involved, comared to the CFS series. It will involve US, Italian, British, German, and Russian planes.

If that's not the case, then it will be because it is to show that the Battle of Britain release is part of the IL-2 franchise because it will use the same game engine as the previous releases of IL-2.

[Threadkiller]

well tes, i design add-ons myself and i dont think of them as being enough for IL2, i mean, ive heard u have to go over certain requirements before sending the source file right? like a VC and al that stuff. ive seen a few models, and came across some websites, mostly directed by Netwings. i am a fan of addons, i get bored rather quickly, im not a friend of campaigns, only a few have caught me enough to finish them, campains like the defence of australia, or the heinkell 111 by the GC... so i like my add-ons payware quality for free, and as far as i know IL2 offers this, when in CFS/FS the standard of design and quality is lower (no offence, im a designer myself)

edit: ILL BE DAMNED IF I DONT GET THE BoB IL2!!!!

[Politically Incorrect]

I did the same, went out and bought CFS3 because I was so impressed with FS9 I thought it must be as good at least.
Boy did i get taken for a ride!!
I spent a whole Saturday messing with it first telling me my computer couldn't run it etc. (yes my computer is well above the mims) and tweaking and everyting else and it just sucks!!
I know that even though I have never flew in a Mustang that they don't handle like that!!
The grapics suck, even after upgrading my ram and video card.
I just got sick of trying to set it up to run halfway decent on my machine I removed it and put it on the shelf.
I have yet to try IL2 but belive I'm going to buy it this weekend. I think if you read what is here and at other forums you'll see that it is the one to get.
I never tried CFS2 so I can't comment on it but I'm debating buying it just because of my experiance with CFS3!!
Until then I'll enjoy flying my warbirds in FS9.