cfs3 or PF

[Woodlouse2002]

If I want a BoB sim then I'll reinstall EAW. I don't think anything's going to beat that game for many years in terms of realism.

And as for MAW, I eagerly await it's release and pray that I will be able to run it on my pc.

[beaky]

[quote]Rottydaddy, I'm afraid there's not much you can do to avoid the views to reset when switching around.
You can customize your views though so that they fit your needs right away without zooming in or out.

You'd have to open the aircraft's xdp file in Notepad and edit the Field of view, the FovUp and FovDown portions



You can also adjust the snapviews.
The following example has an offset added.
If you use your hatswitch or keyboard to look fore/right it'll turn 45

[IndioBlack]

CFS3 Supports Individual control of engines, prop pitch and mixture by separate axes. PF does not.
In other words: no contest.
If you want to fly Bombers like the B-25 Mitchell using the CH Quad Throttle, where you can assign separate levers for each engine's throttle, prop pitch and mixture, then CFS3 is where you go.
If you prefer flying multi-engine bombers where you have to select engine 1, move the throttle for engine 1, deselect engine 1, select engine 2, move the throttle for engine 2 to get any kind of asymmetrical thrust, then PF is definitely for you.
However, if you're flying single engine fighters, then I couldn't care less, because CFS2 is the one.

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]

PF is a stand alone game , it never was going to be a add-on

[RocketDog]

Secondly, it's going to take a lot more than yet another IL2 addon pack to beat EAW in terms of realism and atmosphere in the BoB.

To echo the above, BoB appears to be a completely new piece of software and is not a development of the IL-2 code. It will form the basis for the next generation of 1C flight sims with releases planned to cover other theatres.

There is not much information about it available yet, but it is known that it addresses some of IL-2's limitations (e.g., high-altitude flight model/graphics). The screenshots released to date show absolutely georgeous 3D cockpits for the Spitfire - significantly better than anything I have yet seen in a flight sim.

It remains to be seen if it will add anything to IL-2's rather sterile feeling campaigns, but with a well-defined background like the BoB it should have a good chance. I'm looking forward to it.

Regards,

RocketDog.

[Woodlouse2002]

It's not the game engine that will decide for me whether the game is good or not. It's the flight dynamics the AI and the ease at which 3rd party's can improve it. Those are the three factors which make EAW unbeatable with their BoB campaign and make IL2 and all it's offspring undesirable.

[Chuck_Older]

[quote author=AvHistory l
Tradeoffs are made in all sims, CFS3 has no LCOS while PF has no high altitude model, unique ground handling & takeoff model or inertia/weight in the roll regime. They are all pretty generic in PF. Here's what Oleg has to say about his flight models when we had a little debate on one of the forums.

""Oleg Maddox
Member
From: Moscow, Russia
Registered: Feb 2000

Here you are perfectly right. We just do it partially. Simplified in many ways. And I never told that we do exact copy of each single aircraft...isn't it? Simply if we'll calculate say only airfoil in terms of all real time calculations - we'll get freezed PC. So we are going for some predifined terms (again not table) and we simplify the formulas to the level that possible to use in real time on a current PC together with other real time calculations. That is only the right way for the current moment of the simulation word if we'll speak about simulator that is able to work on home PC, but not to use the separate restricted computers for different tasks (like for big military simulators of single aircraft).

Perfect way when all _real_ time calculations will be possible to handle in one PC. For that thing its
still long way""

So what you get instead with PF are planes that stall at the drop of a hat & do a merry-go-round ride into the ground because that's what guys who have seen to many air war movies, disaster films & TV shows expect.  

Pilot dies plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; plane runs out of gas plane stalls & spins to a fiery death, engine catches fire plane stalls & spins to a fiery death;  Dirt gets on the windscreen plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; oil leaks out  plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; stewardess spills the coffee plane stalls & spins to a fiery death.

If the real WWII planes handled that badly there would have been no WWII airwar because 90% of the pilots would have killed themselves in training & the remaining 10% would not have flown.

Since the P-51B/C was a better dogfighter then the D I am happy to give up the LCOS in exchange for a quality flight & damage model.



BEAR - AvHistory[/quote]


OK, I have to interject here.

You make some good points about CFS3. And yes, CFS3 has more potential than PF. PF is an evolution of an add-on to Il2Sturmovik:Forgotten Battles. So that's academic

And yes, a big problem with the il2:FB series is high altitude modelling

Could I ask you when that quote by Oleg was made? Was it about the original Il2, or about Il2:FB?

regardless, your good points come to a screeccing halt when I read your take on flight modelling in PF.

I'm an Il2:FB fan. I stuck with CFS3 a long while, and in stock form, i was very disappointed. With FirePower, graphically i was impressed, but control surface 'feel' is just not what I think is right (I studied Aeronautical Engineering at University, I have some basic notion of how 'tight' control cables feel in some aircraft. I am hardly an expert, but there you go, who here is?) However good FirePower looked, it did not capture the essence of what the sensation of flight is to me. SO, unfortunately, CFS3/FirePower took a back seat to FB.

I read your comments about the FM in the FB series with a little shock. Have you ever played Il2:FB? I can scarcely beleive you have.. "Flat spin at the drop of a hat"..."Can't make a shallow climb without spinning and stalling"

Are you serious? Those claims are ludicous and absolutely without merit. Could you back up those claims with some tracks from Il2:FB, please? You do have Il2:FB, so making a TRK file and e-mailing it to me should not be out of the question.

You make some excellent points showcasing CFS3's strong points, and I can understand your defense of the sim against "other" sims in competition with it. I feel the same way about Il2:FB, but the difference between us, I think, is that you make wild claims without a shred of evidence to back it up, while I will admit the sim I like is not perfect, and then explain why i prefer it to CFS3.

Pacific Fighters is an excellent investment if the Il2:Sturmovik series is your cup of tea. If not, CFS3 may be the way to go. For me, having tried both, it is the Il2:FB series.

Oleg Maddox's 1C:Maddox Games is working on it's next generation air combat sim. I won't turn this into an ad for Oleg's work; i don't work for him.

But neither will I say: "blindly stickf to MS's flight sims". Try the sims that are out there, and stick with the one you like. this shouldn't be a popularity contest, and you should make spurious claims without backing them up, or at least without given reasons for your making them

Older out

[AvHistory]

>>>However good FirePower looked, it did not capture the essence of what the sensation of flight is to me. SO, unfortunately, CFS3/FirePower took a back seat to FB.<<<

Agree I happen to like our AvHistory versions much better then FP's, also like our versions better then those in PF.  ;D

Think they will fix the PF  F4U, F4F & Zero before Oleg finally bails?

>>>I read your comments about the FM in the FB series with a little shock. Have you ever played Il2:FB? I can scarcely beleive you have.. "Flat spin at the drop of a hat"..."Can't make a shallow climb without spinning and stalling" <<<

Moi?

BEAR

[Chuck_Older]

Oui, Monsieur "Je sais Toute". Vous.

Ici:

this is what you said, on page one of this thread:

" Pilot dies plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; plane runs out of gas plane stalls & spins to a fiery death, engine catches fire plane stalls & spins to a fiery death;  Dirt gets on the windscreen plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; oil leaks out  plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; stewardess spills the coffee plane stalls & spins to a fiery death."  

I cannot curently find the part in which the shallow climb was mentioned. Was that editted out?

I would very much like to see the TRK file that proves these conditions you complain about make a plane stall or spin in FB.  Of course, you realise that airspeed and attitude has something to do with it? And your wing's AoA? But please do e-mail me a TRK that show that, under normal flight, a simple 10* or 15* climb produces spin in any of the FB or PF planes, or that some other condition exists that makes the planes "Spin at the drop of a hat"

Oleg is not "bailing" by the way. I cannot understand your venom, but you are not putting me down by trying to heap scorn on Mr Maddox.  Bringing up how Oleg is "Bailing", when it has nothing to do with what I am talking about, proves to me only that you have no reply to my post.

Don't change the subject or cloud the issue. If you have proof of your claims about spinning and stalling in PF or FB, make that proof available. If not, please do not expound on things you don't know about, somebody might beleive you.

I have explained why CFS3 is not for me. Apparently, your devotion to CFS3 is because of how much you hate Il2:FB. that's fine, have at it, but it doesn't prove your points. All it does is state your opinion.

Like I have said, I do not find that planes in FB/PF, or even in the original Il2 exhibit these traits. I can only conclude that unless you can prove these claims. you are exaggerating to the point that truth has stopped bending for you.

Dislike FB/PF as much as you like, but posting untruths  or wild exaggerations doesn't make you Right, respected, or even clever. We both know that simple manuevers in FB/PF do not make the wild gyrations you describe, so why do you bother? I will not come out and call you a liar, but i will and am calling you out to prove your claims. I currently fly version 3.02m of FB, that means the 3.02 patch on the merged FB/PF install.

If you would like to prove your claims, take the time out to make the TRK file and send it to me via e-mail. if you would like to prove you are just blowing smoke, please do not send the TRK file. I'm not going to come on here and quack about how I've shown you up; I'm a grown-up now.

[Woodlouse2002]

Our opinions arn't based on a hatred of IL2. We've all tried the IL2 series, and have all gone back to CFS.

The whole stalling thing is an exaggeration. But it's an exaggeration on the exaggerated flight dynamics and based on how we feel the sim reacts and if the people at 1% and avhistory say it's wrong, then i'm only too happy to agree. I was constantly pissed off to find myself in a spin after trying to follow an aircraft into a turn or a climb that any CFS aircraft would have handled. And thats the 1% planes aswell as stock.

Basically, none of us hate the Ubi-soft sims. We just prefer the CFS series. I don't recall seeing anyone, anywhere say they hate IL2 in this thread.

[RocketDog]

[quote]
Agree I happen to like our AvHistory versions much better then FP's, also like our versions better then those in PF.

[RocketDog]

[quote]Oui, Monsieur "Je sais Toute". Vous.

Ici:

this is what you said, on page one of this thread:

" Pilot dies plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; plane runs out of gas plane stalls & spins to a fiery death, engine catches fire plane stalls & spins to a fiery death;

[AvHistory]

>>>" Pilot dies plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; plane runs out of gas plane stalls & spins to a fiery death, engine catches fire plane stalls & spins to a fiery death;

[Chuck_Older]

I did make a mistake concerning the shallow climb, which I admit, Avhistory

But do not put words in my mouth, either. I was mistaken about the climb issue, but you are here telling me that because of my post, I'm part of the "harder is more real" crowd? Nice reach, yourself.

I can discuss this  rationally, or I can flame as well as anyone. Up to you.

If you feel that is a 'cheap shot', that is your problem. I made a mistake, something you have done yourself.

If I want to come here and take potshots, I would mention how the FM is left up to the player in CFS3. I would mention how the player makes a character as in a role playing game in CFS3. I would mention lots of things.

But those are *not* my arguments here. So let's stop playing word games, AvHistory, OK? You wish to talk about how CFS3 does so many things. I just want to talk about your claims concerning FB.

I have no idea what you're on about concerning how the time compression is not able to be user defined...and also, I cannot see how 'commercial success' proves anything but succes in terms of sales

This standpoint is called the "Presumed Conclusion", AvHistory. Did you know that? It's a standard political trick. A Pol makes a statement and then 'backs it up' with an irrefutable point about an unrelated issue that only proves itself, but the Pol lets the listener make that erroneous conclusion- he speaks as if you presume him to be right.

For example "Our children can't read, so we must raise taxes". Well, both may be true, but one doesn't prove the other.

What you're now telling me is that since you have had a lot of downloads, your models are more "right". One doesn't prove the other. All they prove are themselves.

regardless, I never said anything other than 'to me, it feels wrong' about CFS3, nothing about how "This is wrong, this is wrong"

Since I mistakenly attributed my offer to you based on another member's post, I'll ammend that

Send me a TRK file showing what you feel to be the basis for your claims

Or maybe back them up with something other than "I say so and I am right"? because that's my point here

Nothing about how successful something is in terms of anything. Nothing about specific pluses and minuses of flight or damage modelling

Just something to back up your claims.  Saying "We think it's too aggresive" may be  good enough for you. For me it is not.

You think I'm here telling you why FB/PF is better than CFS3.

I am not.

I just want you to back up your claims. maybe first you should clarify them

[AvHistory]

>>>If you feel that is a 'cheap shot', that is your problem. I made a mistake, something you have done yourself.<<<

"""cannot curently find the part in which the shallow climb was mentioned."""