CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

The latest Air Battle game from Microsoft! Running on an entirely new platform, CFS3 is raising it's fair share of problems & opinions - Good & Bad!

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby farmerdave » Thu Jun 24, 2004 4:38 pm

There was a freeware pack out there that added Interlaken to the sim along with a few other airfields. Anyone know where I can find it.


Interlaken is included with the 46th Italy scenery.

http://46th-designs.com/
User avatar
farmerdave
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:57 am
Location: St. Clairsville Ohio

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby Microsoft Corporation » Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:23 pm

The bottom line is, we all like CFS3. Most of us have brought, or at least played IL2 and still we like CFS3 more.


Almost a dozen of you, according to the poll results.  ;D

Yes there is a flyable Bf-110 in FB, and the cockpit looks  better than the one Bear posted IMO.

I certainly don't hate CFS3, I haven't even played it.  It's funny to learn that some think if you like one you must hate the other.  How strange!   I originally came to this forum to try and find out if CFS3 supports the "mouse view".  I was considering getting CFS3 & Firepower addon.  So far, as far as I can tell CFS3 doesn't support using the mouse to look around, and if that's the case, it's a "show stopper" for me cause that's the only way I know how to look around since I've been doing it that way since Jane's WWII fighters.

Then I saw this thread and thought I would point out some of FB's strengths in comparison to CFS3, and dispell the misconception that FB's maps are flat or whatever.

I like what Mathias wrote:
...are great combat games but just don't confuse them with flight simulators


That's how I see FB: a great air-to-air combat game.  My squadmates and I study and practice Real Life combat tactics used by the Luftwaffe, and put them into use flying our virtual Fw-190s against the VVS's best (humans), and we get the same results that we read about from the Experten.  I could personally care less if the 190 in FB stalls 10 KPH slower than in real life or whatever.   Overall the experience is very convincing to me, a non-pilot.  BTW we have a couple of real pilots in my squadron, one was a T-38 instructor in the USAF and built and flys his on lite AC -- FB is good enough for him, so its good enough for me.
Image

AvHistory
Gold Member Plus
***
Posts: 118
Re: cfs3 or PF
User avatar
Microsoft Corporation
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Alameda County, Germany

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby Stormtropper » Thu Jun 24, 2004 6:56 pm

[quote]That's how I see FB: a great air-to-air combat game.
Arizona State University
Viva la party!


Image
Stormtropper
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI

.Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby BEAR_-_AvHistory » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:20 pm

WillUMarryMeBill

>>>Then I saw this thread and thought I would point out some of FB's strengths in comparison to CFS3<<<

But just about all of us HAVE FB and you DON'T have CFS3 so what are you
Last edited by BEAR_-_AvHistory on Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BEAR_-_AvHistory
Ground hog
Ground hog
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:58 am

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby Tomtomcat » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:26 pm

As for me , I own both games and like them for different
reasons although I do prefer Il-2 since it looks & feels
much better.M$ doesn
Tomtomcat
Ground hog
Ground hog
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 11:14 pm

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby BEAR_-_AvHistory » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:57 pm

Woodlouse,

>>>Be fair. I think the very latest addon pack for IL2 has a B17.<<<

Yeah but you can't fly it  :o

Stormtropper,

I also fly HOTAS & have not yet developed a third hand.  ::) That being said a quality track IR type system would be really nice.

Tomtomcat,

>>>( how come they didn
BEAR_-_AvHistory
Ground hog
Ground hog
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:58 am

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby Mathias » Fri Jun 25, 2004 12:32 am

[quote]


Yes there is a flyable Bf-110 in FB, and the cockpit looks
Mathias
Image
User avatar
Mathias
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 10:20 am
Location: Germany

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby Microsoft Corporation » Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:46 am

Well guys I really enjoyed this discussion.   I'm especially flattered that BEAR - AvHistory took the time to respond to my posts.  If I said anything against CFS3, it wasn't against anyone who's participated in this topic.  Anyone who enjoys WWII history is "top shelf" in my book.  As a token of my respect and appreciation, I leave you with these unretouched screenshots I made from FB, just for you.  Enjoy!


Image

Image

Image

Salute!
Image

AvHistory
Gold Member Plus
***
Posts: 118
Re: cfs3 or PF
User avatar
Microsoft Corporation
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Alameda County, Germany

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby Mathias » Fri Jun 25, 2004 8:39 am

What I said WYMMB, nice artwork on the BF110 internals, but that's not the advertized G-2 Zerst
Mathias
Image
User avatar
Mathias
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 10:20 am
Location: Germany

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby Mr.Mugel » Fri Jun 25, 2004 8:41 am

It may be not flat, but look at those mountains, they look like from CFS 1, they have such hard corners, and another thing i dislike is that, for example in Berlin, quick flight, and there is an Allied Base below you, and the german base just in the neighbourhood, just as if they would have been the biggest friends... That
Mr.Mugel
 

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby BEAR_-_AvHistory » Fri Jun 25, 2004 8:54 am

Mr.Mugel,

Agree FB will run on a lower level machine in its base form but not when you crank it up to "Excellent" settings where i run it.

WillUMarryMeBill

>>>I'm especially flattered that BEAR - AvHistory took the time to respond<<<

Now don't go getting all gushy over it - these debates always give me the opportunity to do a long running AvHistory 1% commercial  ;D  

Hey that dirt looks flat to me!!!

As I said nice cockpits & OK dirt but crappy flight characteristics & low poly aircraft externals ;)
Last edited by BEAR_-_AvHistory on Fri Jun 25, 2004 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
BEAR_-_AvHistory
Ground hog
Ground hog
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:58 am

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby nickle » Fri Jun 25, 2004 10:44 am

Without AvHistory, CFS 2/3 would be a very poor sim.  MS develops the graphics engine and provides poor flight models.  Intended that way because 3rd party developers, free and pay, finish the sim.  CFS3 stumbled badly because the graphics engine required substantial computer/card resources and the format was oriented to ground attack. Compounded by slow develpment of drivers as for example by ATI.  I had and abandoned IL2 because I didn't like the format nor the air combat presentation.  CFS2 air combat format is more of interest and the sim still sells well.  Likely MS will go back to an enhanced CFS2 format for their next offering.
nickle
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 11:49 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Just a few points.Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby BEAR_-_AvHistory » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:07 pm

nickle,

Just a few things.

I agree CFS3 was way to far ahead of the curve for the
Last edited by BEAR_-_AvHistory on Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BEAR_-_AvHistory
Ground hog
Ground hog
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:58 am

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby nickle » Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:32 pm

The stock US aircraft are so bad in CFS2, that I conclude we could not have taken the J's with them in WWII.  Not only do they fly bad; they shoot bad.

Landings CFS2 stock?  In the noise.  Likely few do it and wouldn't know if flap drag/lift was modeled or not.

MS sim group must show P.  So out the door, ready or not.  The fact that 3rd party could model aircraft saved their behinds.  And kept sales going much beyond expected life.

Model is GMax.  Fair but hopefully better in the future.

F4U and CFS3:  War in Europe.  None participated.

CFS2 F4U:  Why was it so effective?  Cannot run from a Zero; cannot outturn a Zero, cannot outclimb a Zero.  I much prefer the F4F.  Even the 2US F4U is a poor flying machine.  Unless propensity to stall/roll is a good fighter characteristic.  A  Ensign eliminator and thats about all it's good for.  I think it is not well represented in GMax and the real deal was a much better machine.

Question is whether the next MS offering will be as accepted given the promo and bust by CFS3.  No one told it like it was.

I trust that Bill needs $ for his modest home loan payments and we will see another offering in the near future.
nickle
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 11:49 am
Location: San Diego, Ca

Re: CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

Postby BEAR_-_AvHistory » Fri Jun 25, 2004 10:23 pm

nickle,

>>>F4U and CFS3:
Last edited by BEAR_-_AvHistory on Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BEAR_-_AvHistory
Ground hog
Ground hog
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:58 am

PreviousNext

Return to Combat Flight Simulator 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 160 guests