CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

[RAAF453_Goose]

Will do. Anyone point out the site for a demo?

[HawkerTempest5]

I've bored you all many times with my thoughts on CFS3 so I will not repeat myself too much here. It lacks historical accuracy and has far too many bugs to be a true classic. However it is a fun game to play and there are some first class add-ons now available. It looks like M$ has gone cold on the CFS series and if this is to be the last one it seems a shame that M$ have bowed out on this sim without giving us the classic sim we expected. As for best combat sim, CFS2 still rules.

[RAAF453_Goose]

Here here.Someone hand this man a beer.

[Iroquois]

I've bored you all many times with my thoughts on CFS3 so I will not repeat myself too much here. It lacks historical accuracy and has far too many bugs to be a true classic. However it is a fun game to play and there are some first class add-ons now available. It looks like M$ has gone cold on the CFS series and if this is to be the last one it seems a shame that M$ have bowed out on this sim without giving us the classic sim we expected. As for best combat sim, CFS2 still rules.

CFS3 does lack historical accuracy but it's supposed to. The dynamic campaign gives it an added spice, you don't know what's ahead, just like real war. In fact, that's what makes a really good war game. I think Microsoft needs to go beyond WWII in it's CFS series. It's already been done to death. WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars 1 & 2, and Cold War are all excellent areas for a combat fight sim to cover.

As for WillUMarryMeBill's screenshots, I haven't seen anything like that in Il-2 FB yet. What I don't like is you cannot select airbases in quick combat (quick mission). Campaings seem to run slow on my system as well. I'll have to wait for my Athlon XP 2000 to arrive to see any real action in Il-2.

[fm3]

Well, I wasn't thrilled with the IL-2 stuff myself, but I suppose it's all a matter of taste. I must admit that MS has won me over with their flight sims, despite the bugs.

[1danny]

I haven't posted here for months thats about how long ago i last played cfs3.There is no ILs2 here so....
I realyenjoy AEP

[Scorpiоn]

CFS3 does lack historical accuracy but it's supposed to. The dynamic campaign gives it an added spice, you don't know what's ahead, just like real war. In fact, that's what makes a really good war game. I think Microsoft needs to go beyond WWII in it's CFS series. It's already been done to death. WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars 1 & 2, and Cold War are all excellent areas for a combat fight sim to cover.

As for WillUMarryMeBill's screenshots, I haven't seen anything like that in Il-2 FB yet. What I don't like is you cannot select airbases in quick combat (quick mission). Campaings seem to run slow on my system as well. I'll have to wait for my Athlon XP 2000 to arrive to see any real action in Il-2.

He doesn't mean that.  Hawker means stuff like, oh, say, planes having the wrong type of drop tank?  [cough]spitfire[/cough] And I must admit, after I saw what Hawker meant a few days ago, I'm with him.  It is a horrible mistake.  Hawker's mentioned others, but I've already gone and forgot them all.

[BEAR_-_AvHistory]

Yep, agree the graphics in CFS3 are really poor compared to IL2.



They can't even get the fuel tanks to fit right. Just look at the way the fuel tank is hanging out the bottom of the Spitfire in the picture.

BEAR - AvHistory

[Mr.Mugel]

I think Il-2 is worlds better, the realism is very nice, you may know that for example an Bf109G was loaded with way to much weapons, and was very critical for that, and CFS3, it flies like an Arcade i think, nothing to do with realism, and the scenery, it

[BEAR_-_AvHistory]

Agree, is way to dark especially where the sun is setting on a cloudy evening.



BEAR - AvHistory

[farmerdave]

[quote]and the scenery, it

[BEAR_-_AvHistory]

Maybe he meant the ground was too flat.



Looks just like Kansas; 10 ball in the side pocket  ;D

BEAR - AvHistory

[nickle]

Don't know where Bear is getting the Br fighers.

[Woodlouse2002]

Call me a fool but I would think that Bear is using the Spitfires from AVhistory. Basically nickle, they're MkV's and not MkIX's like the CFS3 defaults. And the one with the "Hurri nose" is in fact a Spitfire MkV fitted with a vokes tropical filter. And in my mind those equal anything IL2 can come up with.

And Bear, could you tell me the location of the last shot please?

[Scorpiоn]

I just got IL-2: FB yesterday.

My criticism in one point is CFS3 takes the cake, but I can't run campaigns in CFS3 without nuking my computer.  If CFS3 ran without glitches, it would be a bit better than IL-2, but since it doesn't, I can't give an "official statement".  It's not fair to give a game bad marks because your computer isn't up to the job.  Plus, IL-2 runs with less than stellar performance, with less detail than CFS3.  What I will gice IL-2, is what it does have, is done well.  I don't find the flight models ridiculous.  But for a simulator that acclaims itself so much on realism, to not have an in-depth start-up process is sort of pitiful.

IL-2 does have the Ju-87, and that's the crucial factor.

Basically, I'm still where I started.  We need to combine FS2004, CFS3, CFS2 and IL-2.