Page 1 of 19
cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:28 pmby maxzepplin
I have been playing Pacific Fighters for about a month now and love it but wanted to fly on the west front so I decided to give CFS3 a go (also I have recently purchased IR3 and now that CFS3 supports the device I was more inclined to try). Anyway, I was not impressed with the cockpit graphics...when I looked behind me I noticed the cockpit totally disappeared...made dog fighting easier but not very realistic). Also there is no cockpit glare (small but very effective in creating a real environment). Also, the flight characteristics were very docile compared to PF (stalls were very easy to recover).
Question: is there a setting I
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:41 pmby Woodlouse2002
When ever I look behind me i'm faced with a headrest.
CFS3 has more potential that PF will ever have. The Groundcrew and 1% aircraft transform it into easily the best sim out there and there are more and more 3rd party addons by the day. I would uninstall PF to make room for more CFS3 stuff.
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:03 pmby maxzepplin
so, what do you think i'm missing from the whole cockpit from showing up? do you know or is this some weird bug i have?
thanks
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:23 pmby maxzepplin
i'm sorry but i tried everything and CFS3 just looks cartoonish compared to PF! the flight characteristics just doesn
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:31 amby maxzepplin
that
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:39 amby Woodlouse2002
Get the 1% planes and you'll be in for a shock. They're hellish to dogfight. While I can kill anything in the stock Tempest, I'm just cannon fodder in the 1% Spitfire MkXIV.
As for the gunsight, each country has it's own design. And thats the American one. It's more accurate than you'll think.
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:23 pmby maxzepplin
thanks for your reply...and information! i will give cfs3 more of a go...maybe a few more days of tweaking the thing will help.
question...is there a good place for more information like you posted about flight sims. although i know what i like and dislike, i would like to know how accurate and how each flight sim is modeled around the actual planes.
thanks.
maxzep
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:30 pmby maxzepplin
one last thing about the stalls...i can recover from them its just not very easy. also if i keep up my airspeed and watch my angle of attack i don't stall. what i'm saying is the planes in PF don't fly bad you just have to be a little more careful on your flying than in CFS3 (maybe not as real though).
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:29 pmby AvHistory
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Sat Dec 25, 2004 12:00 amby beaky
About a year ago, I got a $10 Atari version of CFS and installed it on the work laptop (only computer avail. to me at the time). Got a little Saitek wireless joystick, and had a blast. Loved it. Then I built my current PC (mostly to run FS9), and figured "golly, I just gotta get CFS3 now!"... and frankly, I hated it. For example: after changing to an external view, one loses one's carefully-setup forward cockpit view, etc., etc. I was amazed that the cheapo version on the laptop was more enjoyable and user-friendly than the full version on my new PC with the X45 controller! Then a friend who's a hopeless IL2 junky turned me on to the ubisoft combat sims. IMHO, IL2 and PF are WAY superior to CFS3. The textures are better, the graphics in general are better, the flight characteristics are more real (and fully adjustable), the aircraft and combat sounds, damage, etc. are better (it's insane with my Kinyo 5.1 headphones on- when someone gets on my 6 and puts a few rounds in the airplane, I still jump- after many hours on this sim!). The "flyby" view is fantastic, too... I could go on and on. I've been meaning to go back to CFS3 to make a more in-depth comparison, but I've been having too much fun playing with PF. My only beef with PF: not enough location options in the "Quick Mission Builder" mode. I haven't checked out the campaigns yet... anyway, it's all subjective, but the above is my two cents, submitted for your perusal and consideration. Gotta go now- I think I hear sleigh bells on the localizer for 04 Right at EWR!!
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Sat Dec 25, 2004 6:00 pmby Woodlouse2002
About a year ago, I got a $10 Atari version of CFS and installed it on the work laptop (only computer avail. to me at the time). Got a little Saitek wireless joystick, and had a blast. Loved it. Then I built my current PC (mostly to run FS9), and figured "golly, I just gotta get CFS3 now!"... and frankly, I hated it. For example: after changing to an external view, one loses one's carefully-setup forward cockpit view, etc., etc. I was amazed that the cheapo version on the laptop was more enjoyable and user-friendly than the full version on my new PC with the X45 controller! Then a friend who's a hopeless IL2 junky turned me on to the ubisoft combat sims. IMHO, IL2 and PF are WAY superior to CFS3. The textures are better, the graphics in general are better, the flight characteristics are more real (and fully adjustable), the aircraft and combat sounds, damage, etc. are better (it's insane with my Kinyo 5.1 headphones on- when someone gets on my 6 and puts a few rounds in the airplane, I still jump- after many hours on this sim!). The "flyby" view is fantastic, too... I could go on and on. I've been meaning to go back to CFS3 to make a more in-depth comparison, but I've been having too much fun playing with PF. My only beef with PF: not enough location options in the "Quick Mission Builder" mode. I haven't checked out the campaigns yet... anyway, it's all subjective, but the above is my two cents, submitted for your perusal and consideration. Gotta go now- I think I hear sleigh bells on the localizer for 04 Right at EWR!!
So tell me this, when was the last time you saw a real aircraft with symetrical damage?
As good as the IL2 sims are they are highly exaggerated in every way and therefore lack realism. You shouldn't stall a plane by going into a shallow climb, machineguns, no matter what time leave a smoke trail that could act as a smoke screen for a battleship, muzzleflashes have never looked like a flamethrower and the simple act of turning a plane should not put you into a flat spin.
Although the graphics and effects are very good they are wildly over done and before long the start to get boring.
Although the stock CFS3 airfiles are nothing special the IL2 ones are just stupid. If aircraft really did fly like that then there wouldn't be an aircraft industry. In IL2 a flat spin is achieved merely by making a sudden movement. You have to try damn hard in CFS3 to achieve the same effect.
All in all IL2 and all it's accessories are very pretty and for a while, fun. However CFS has so much more to offer, not just as a stock program but with 3rd party stuff too. I brought IL2. Played it, and enjoyed it. But within three weeks I was back to CFS2 and when CFS3 came out i've never looked back.
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Sun Dec 26, 2004 1:58 amby beaky
Hmmmm... I feel the opposite: most of those fighters were pretty squirrely (instability means better maneuverability), and some simply were not OK for some maneuvers (the P38, for example, was not placarded for snap rolls). As far as stalling and spinning, ANY aircraft can be stalled at ANY airspeed, and when banking, due to increased load factor and increased induced drag, the speed envelope where you're safe from a stall decreases considerably. You stall in aturn, and one wing will go first, causing a spin. Almost any WWII fighter was prone to flat- or tailspinning. And many of those birds had cannon and heavy-cal machine guns that would, in fact, jerk the nose around a bit. Again, I've never flown a real WWII fighter, but from what I hear, PF is pretty accurate. And I've never seen symmetrical damage in IL2/PF- it's odd that you'd say that. And smoke.... if you're on fire, there's gonna be plenty of smoke. Surely you've seen nose camera footage from that war. I'll grant you that an oil leak should produce white, not black smoke, but... whatever. To each his own. As I said, I want to do another A/B comparison, but right now I'm tweaking my FS9 sim.
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Sun Dec 26, 2004 2:03 amby beaky
One more thing: you mentioned stalling in a shallow climb. I've found that to be the case often in PF, but it relates to what I said about stalling in a turn (after all, a turn is just a sideways climb). You can't just yank the nose up without consulting the airspeed indicator- you may easily exceed the critical angle of attack for that airspeed. It doesn't only happen when you're in low-speed level flight! And if you dive with power on then try to pull up too abrubtly (even a tiny amount of pitch!) you'll not only stall, but she'll most likely snap-roll on you and maybe spin, if you're not quick enough.
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Sun Dec 26, 2004 4:22 amby Mathias
WOW rottydaddy, what a load of half-educated nonsense!
Did you base your knowledge of WWII piston engined aircraft and their performance on a quick google search or what?
:D
Re: cfs3 or PF
Posted:
Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:22 amby Woodlouse2002
[quote]Hmmmm... I feel the opposite: most of those fighters were pretty squirrely (instability means better maneuverability), and some simply were not OK for some maneuvers (the P38, for example, was not placarded for snap rolls). As far as stalling and spinning, ANY aircraft can be stalled at ANY airspeed, and when banking, due to increased load factor and increased induced drag, the speed envelope where you're safe from a stall decreases considerably. You stall in aturn, and one wing will go first, causing a spin. Almost any WWII fighter was prone to flat- or tailspinning. And many of those birds had cannon and heavy-cal machine guns that would, in fact, jerk the nose around a bit.