CFS3 vs Il-2 FB

[Iroquois]

I was just curious. A lot of people have been raving about Il-2. I just got it and I don't think it's that spectacular. Here's my opinion on the two.

Il-2 Forgotten battles (AEP)

Advantages:
-Well rendered aircraft. DVCs look excellent.
-A wide array of aircraft both flyable and AI.
-Lots of different nations to play from.
-Good looking ordinance and effects.
-5.1 surround sound a nice touch for a combat sim.
-Designed with high end systems in mind but plays ok on midranged.

Disadvantages:
-Aircraft seem to fly unrealistically. Stalls are always very violent and almost imposible to recover from.
-Once again, historical markings left off Luftwaffe aircraft.
-Gun effects look cartoonie.
-Scenery looks like it was thrown together. Doesn't look very realistic.
-Controls not clickable in DVC, no 2D cockpit.
-Keyboard controls can be a bit confusing at times and you have to program most of the keys.
-Not very expandable, few addons.

Conclusion: Good sim but doesn't live up to the hype. Reminds me of CFS2 which I think is the worst in the CFS series. It's not all bad. I love the 5.1 surround sound. Great for combat. No more "Where did that come from".

Combat Flight Simulator 3

Advantages:
-Very realistic scenery reflects the real European country side.
-Aircraft very well done. Excellent DVCs.
-Historically accurate paints (Missing swastikas though)
-Endlessly expandable like all MS sims. Lots of decent addons.
-Fairly simple and familier key controls.
-Dynamic non-linear campaign sets a new benchmark for combat sims.
-Excellent weather.
-All aircraft are flyable.
-Great effects

Disadvantages:
-Does have a lot of bugs. Requires a lot of tweaking to get it to operate smoothly.
-Terrain way too dark. A common problem with many recent Microsoft flight sims.
-Some more aircraft including heavy bombers would have been nice.
-Would have liked to see more than just Western Europe rendered. USSR and Italy did fight in the Battle for Europe too.
-Controls in DVC not clickable.

Conclusion: Has it's problems but it's an excellent combat sim once you get it running right. Still room for improvement.

[Tom-boy]

I agree with you in almost everything, though I still voted for Il-2 It simply boils down to what you personally like and I just happen to like it better. But there are a couple of things I disagree with:
-You need to map keys on Il-2. I like it much better than unmappable keys. It's hardly a chore to do it and then you can completely ignore some commands you never use, leaving other keys for the important commands. No more Ctrl+Sft+whatnot for something you need often/quickly.
-Effects. Again, up to you what you like but I'm not looking for geewhizz pyrotechnics in particular. That gets old too in a long run.
-Il2 flight modelling. It's very tricky and yes, stalling is simply too 'hard' but these guys (=devs) went to pains to model the planes as realistic as possible. In comparison to that, CFS series is closer to arcade games but that doesn't mean it sucks or anything.
-swastikas. That's something the devs couldn't do much about, since in many countries it's illegal to show swastikas in certain contexts. Not a great loss, though.
Otherwise, I agree with what you said. What I'd recommend? Get them both I've CFS 1& 3 (can't find CFS 2 ANYWHERE, goddamit), EAW and Jane's WW2 Fighters plus all Il-2 discs and I'm quite happy with all of them. They all have their pros and cons but still are worth all the money and time spent on them.

[Stormtropper]

CFS3 FOREVER

.........Sorry, just had to do that.

Nothing is perfect, but in the long run, sure IL2 have way better graphics and stuff, but if you want your skills tested in realistic World War 2 dogfights, go with CFS3.

Cheers
Jeff

[Tom-boy]

I dunno if you can call CFS3 any more realistic than Il-2. Both have some severe flight modelling issues, so to test your skills, we'll have to wait some yet to come sim. Fine with me

[Woodlouse2002]

I think CFS3 is far better than IL2. And i've tried both. However, if you want true realism in a dogfight then the Sim you want is EAW. It's amazing how realistic it looks when going into combat. In the BoB campaign you get the call of "Bandits spotted 12 o'clock low!". Then a couple of minutes later you'll see a couple of dots comming at you from the swarm of enemy aircraft then the call goes out "Fighters spotted 1 o'clock!" Then you see a couple of flights peeling off to the left to take on the fighters. Then your attacking the bombers, which scatter. And if you don't watch your tail you're going to have a 109 on your arse and your engine on fire. It's the only combat sim where I spend more time keeping the enemy off my tail than I do shooting down the enemy. And that's saying something.

[Iroquois]

I must admit that Il-2 did the Me262 and Gotha better than CFS3. The Jumo engines actually burn out if you push them too hard, just like the real ones.

[Stormtropper]

Woodhouse, are you sure thats not the only combat flight sim that would even run on your system..........

Now that you brought it up, it is a very realistic sim, you even get gun jams if you push too many G's. but its bit old, wish they updated it though.

[Tom-boy]

EAW really is good. I was quite (badly )surprised when I dowloaded the demo, thinking it's just some old arcade shooter and then the feathers started to fly If there's one game they should update/ add expansions, EAW would definitely be it. And deal with the stalling and landing issues while at it (hmm- that sounded familiar ).

[Woodlouse2002]

Woodhouse, are you sure thats not the only combat flight sim that would even run on your system..........

Well, with the state my computer is going into what you say will be correct before long. For those who don't know, it's slowly collapsing like a flan in a cupboard.

[Microsoft Corporation]

For those who dont have IL-2 Forgotten Battles, here are some screenshots showing "-Scenery looks like it was thrown together. Doesn't look very realistic"

[Woodlouse2002]

I don't think he was complaining about that. I think what he means is the forests. Those three layers of textures look very good but when you get down low they start looking rather silly. Whats more the landscape is always rather flat. CFS3 however has (for once) a reasonably accurate terrain for europe, to the extent that I can recognise hills, valleys and rivers around my local area.

[Microsoft Corporation]

"always rather flat".  uh-huh.   You might try installing it and using it for more than 30 minutes before making yourself look like a fool with statements like that.  :-/



FB has it faults, but lets try to be realistic in our evaluations.

[Woodlouse2002]

Please note that my experiance comes from the original IL2. Where you have but three flat landscapes to fly in.

[RAAF453_Goose]

Now I personally have never played on IL-2. But I find CFS3 the better. I enjoy the scenery, which is getting better. If you head over to Sim-Outhouse and dowload some of Winding Mans scenery. I must admit, there are two things that bug me. One) The trees. Why are there trees simply everywhere? More open fields and woods and meadows to crash my plane in   Two) The ai acts like it's on some kind of drug. It's slow and unresponsive. If only the enemy were much dangerous. A kind of Janes WWII Fighters dangerous. I'm done.  :D

[Woodlouse2002]

If you want dangerous enemys get EAW. It will come as a horrible suprise to find the enemy acting on their initiative.