CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

[Tomtomcat]

Bear-Avhistory,
>>>( how come they didn

[Tomtomcat]

"...maybe I prefer IL-2 FB because it had cost me too many nerves to get the programm o run properly.."
Correction:
"...maybe I prefer IL-2 FB because it had cost me too many nerves to get CFS3 to run properly..."
Sorry for the mistake...

[BEAR_-_AvHistory]

TC,

>>>it had cost me too many nerves to get CFS3 to run properly..."<<<

Agree, when it was released it was a major challenge to get to run properly.

[1danny]

the korea add on is fantastic and free.
thanks dogpatch

[BEAR_-_AvHistory]

Pete,

>>>In CFS3 you can mercilessly throw your toy around the sky with careless abandon. CFS3 is the most "game like" in my opinion.<<<

Whatever & y'all know what they say about "opinions"

http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/f8f2_spin.WMV
AvHistory 1% F8F-2 Normal spin pilot recovers.

http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/flatspin.wmv
AvHistory 1% P-51D Flat spin pilot dies.

http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/f4u1_spin.wmv
AvHistory 1% F4U-1 Normal "ensign eliminator" spin. Good piloting skills & sufficient altitude allow the ensign to catch the fish instead of being fish food

[Dakota93]

I had FB for a while, played it for a week, got bored with it, uninstalled it, sold it for $5 at my sisters garage sale. I got bored with it because I could not do anything with it other than fly and fight.

The biggest selling point for CFS3, the whole CFS series really, is I can add to it whenever I want, and I can build new add-ons for it and share them with others. The versatility of CFS3 puts it above IL2/FB in my opinion. If I don't like something about CFS3 I can change or replace it, if I don't like something in IL-2/FB I'm stuck with it, with the exception of textures.

As far as Bear's screenshot, screenshots don't do any game justice, resizing them can make them blurry then there are the file size limits. I found the scenery and ground textures in CFS3 to be a step above IL-2, which has a bland look.

In the end I feel CFS3 will be around longer than FB because of it's versatility. Look at how many still play CFS2 after, whats it been 5 years now.

[Iroquois]

This is starting to get a bit fierce. I'll settle this once and for all.

CFS3 flight profiles is not "gamey".  It is a game however. Il-2 is also a game. There is nothing wrong with Il-2's flight profiles other than the fact that stalls are always violent. Try playing something like Secret Weapons over Normandy or Crimson Skies, those are gamey arcade like combat flight sims.

Yes payware does suck. It's way too expensive and freeware has caught up and surpassed it in some cases. Freeware also has a certain something that payware doesn't.

Now Bear and Pete, play nice or I'll get the big bad Mods after you.

[BEAR_-_AvHistory]

Pete,

Its a debate, a clash of ideas,

[Woodlouse2002]

Can everyone just shut up now? Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and no one should have to put up with having someone else trying to change them. If you like Il2 fine. If you like CFS3, that's also fine. Everyone knows what they like and shouldn't go round challenging what others think. I have seen dozens of CFS3 vs IL2 discussions on this site and not once have I seen anyones opinion of either game changed. People are stubborn and no matter how many times you repeat something they probably arn't going to take it on board.

Both IL2 and CFS3 are great games. Each have there own camps of loyal followers who vigerously defend their chosen game to the death. All these discussions always go down to flight models though. Surely this is a COMBAT flight simulator. Hence there should be more emphasis of the realism in the dogfights. And in my opinion, both games pretty much suck at that. If you like uber realistic flight models, get Flight Simulator. If you like pretty visuals and outstanding mud, get IL2. If you want something more colourful and expandable that IL2, get CFS3. If you want a challenging dogfight, get EAW.

[Microsoft Corporation]

[quote]>>>FirePower has received the highest ratings of any flight simulation or air combat game released since 2001 according to Game Rankings review database by CNET Networks.  

When compared to the industry

[Iroquois]

Thank you Woodie for making some sense.

Bear, get to work on those wonderful AVHistory addons.

Pete, The SE5a, freeware or payware? Would love to see a CFS3 version of it. Been hunting for some WWI addons for it.

[BEAR_-_AvHistory]

WillUMarryMeBill,

>>>That's dishonest in the context of comparing CFS3 to FB.<<<


First off it looks to me the magazines made the comparison & the FirePower people are just reporting it.

They posted the following Below is a link to all known FirePower reviews:
http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2

BTW I have nothing to do with this group & am not a big fan of payware in general

So actually in "context" its 100% valid.

[Microsoft Corporation]

Well certainly if you think FB sucks, then by all means don't play it.  I don't think anyone ever said it was perfect, I know I didn't.  However the fact remains that Ubisoft and Oleg Maddox are continuing to support and develop 'serious' WWII era flight-sim combat games, and Microsoft is not (nor any other major software publishers that I know of).  So if you choose to bash Oleg's work and Ubisoft, you are effectively bashing the genre.   I personnally think it is extremely admirable that Ubisoft is making a very tangible investment in the future of this genre, a very small market niche and very risky to invest in, IMO.   Your comments reflect nothing but scorn for their ongoing efforts.  

As someone else pointed out, your snide and sarcastic swipes at FB and Ubisoft only reflect poorly on yourself and the WWII sim community in general, and do nothing to promote the future of this genre.  Rather than try to divide an already small community, why not try to promote the good in both products, and maybe even help to encourage others to join in, and cause interest genre to grow?  It is technically possible to have both products installed on the same PC afterall.  It isn't like if someone buys FB, that it takes a sale away from MS, and therefore reduce MS's resources for developing the next CFS.