cfs3 or PF

[Mathias]

OMG, have just been visiting this threat http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s ... 5901011952
What a bunch of fanatics!
A few level-headed guys over there but allover what a sad corner of the www?
Talking about religion, LOL.

[Mathias]

@ chuck:
Is that your post?

<>>

Cool, so after installing Firepower you've been finally able to give the P51 a run with the 109?
Particularly interesting since firepower does not alter any of these both flight models nor any other of the stock planes

[Chuck_Older]

You prefer to be in a confrontational situation, don't you, AvHistory?

We are not enemies here. All I ever wanted was to get the background on what you claim.

And now you stand back and say "hey, you're not important enough to bother with", as if I had asked for an audience with you!

Should I point out that this is a cop-out, or is that already clear?

You don't have to re-load the game, I said you could send me a TRK file or back yourself up with something more substantial than "I am right".

Making me out to be incapable of understanding your comments doesn't make you any more right than just making claims.

If you haven't noticed, I'm quite atriculate. I am also not a fool. This 'my time is precious' thing...I am sorry, but I do not buy it.

Since the last quote I provided you with was so over my head, maybe I should counter that with what you followed it up with?

"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"

Now this here is a statement we can discuss, is it not? You have touched on stall models in FB, and called it "too aggressive" and also that the planes "handled [this] badly"

Would you care to explain how you come to the conclusion that the stalls are overly aggressive, and that the planes handle badly in FB/PF?

Would you also care to listen to how joystick input selection is a factor in the sim?

Do not bother to tell me how my delsuions of importance do not earn me the right to ask these questions. This is a public forum, not your throne room. Answer, or don't, but don't pretend to lower yourself so that I may snap up bits of your wisdom. The kid ain't buying that dirty laundry, OK?

[Chuck_Older]

@ chuck:
Is that your post?

<>>

Cool, so after installing Firepower you've been finally able to give the P51 a run with the 109?
Particularly interesting since firepower does not alter any of these both flight models nor any other of the stock planes

yes, I have the same username here as I do there.

I prefer to try and be one of the 'level heads' over there I hope it's noted that I don't bash CFS3 a whole lot...

If FirePower doesn't fix flight models, I must be thinking of one of the other downloads? It's been a little while since then. Can anyone help out on this? I recall FirePower as making the sim better overall...

[Mathias]

Only new P51 and Bf109 FM's that I know of are those by the 1% AvHistory crew.
Maybe you flew some of those?

[Bearcat99]

[quote]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

[AvHistory]

Yo Chuck,  

Instead of making demands on my maybe you should deal with this one first & enhance your credibility in discussing simulated flight models. The operative part of Mathias post is the Fire Power CFS3 add-on has NO effect at all on the P-51 or Bf-109

BEAR - AvHistory
http://www.avhistory.org


@ chuck:
Is that your post?

<>>

Cool, so after installing Firepower you've been finally able to give the P51 a run with the 109?

Particularly interesting since firepower does not alter any of these both flight models nor any other of the stock planes  

[Bearcat99]

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.

Like the CFS community there are an extremely dedicated and [i]very[i] talented bunch of lads over at the FB community. There is a user made workaround to that little problem as far as multiengined bombers go so that point is moot.

[RocketDog]

[quote]


To be honest I never could get CFS3 to run properly on my PC out of the box.

[snip]

I still find the cockpits terrible... especially after experiencing the 3D cockpits of FB.  

[arjisme]

OMG, have just been visiting this threat http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s ... 5901011952
What a bunch of fanatics!
A few level-headed guys over there but allover what a sad corner of the www?
Talking about religion, LOL.

I am a new member here (yes, directed here from the FB thread you cite.).  While reading through this thread I thought the same thing about folks posting here.  Then I saw your comment!  I guess whenever it is "us vs them", the other guy is always the fanatic! LOL!

Seriously, I'll never understand the need for there to be an us vs. them mentality, especially wrt games.  The best comments I have seen here are that both titles have their strengths and weaknesses.  That, and that folks should put aside any prejudices and try whatever is available and then play what you like.  Or is bashing the "other" product a way to get some kind of needed validation?  Pretty sad, if true.

[AvHistory]

Interesting - I Wonder if this is the same Adlerangriff ?

"""Adlerangriff

posted Sun January 02 2005 13:41

[CV8_Dudeness]

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.

seriously , to get planes in FB requires you to be a hamm fist

yes the spin after a stall does happen too eaisly

[Woodlouse2002]

Oh shut up and go back to Ubi-land.

[Chuck_Older]

Yo Chuck,  

Instead of making demands on my maybe you should deal with this one first & enhance your credibility in discussing simulated flight models. The operative part of Mathias post is the Fire Power CFS3 add-on has NO effect at all on the P-51 or Bf-109

BEAR - AvHistory
http://www.avhistory.org


@ chuck:
Is that your post?

<>>

Cool, so after installing Firepower you've been finally able to give the P51 a run with the 109?

Particularly interesting since firepower does not alter any of these both flight models nor any other of the stock planes  

Again, I have already addressed that. My confusing the 1% planes with FirePower has nothing to do with what I am asking you. If you had read ahead to my next post, you would see I was asking if that could be cleared up. Obviously I had remembered incorrectly that FirePower used the 1% planes. I must have installed them at about the same time? As you can tell, it's been a little while since I used it. You even could have helped out a member here by feilding that one, but instead, it's "yo Chuck".

Your insistence on changing the subject tells me what I need to know, AvHistory


Those screenies are gorgeous. And yes, a big mis-step in FB/PF is bombers. Again, I'm not one to argue FB/PF is perfect. that's patently ridiculous


Is there anybody here who can objectively compare and contrat the FB and current CFS3 flight modelling? What source would be best for planes, since they are basically user-defined in CFS3? that's one of my concerns about CFS3, now that I am talking about shortcomings...MS doesn't thrill me about anything. Leaving it up to 3rd party to get it "Right" doesn't thrill me. How could it? But still, I am objective about my flight sims.

Who can tell me constructively how CFS3 and FB/PF compare and contrast? I'll  start with how I remember CFS3 less than fondly:

"Mush" in all three axes regardless of joystick settings

Disconnected feeling in ailerons and rudder-oddly, not in elevator, which had authority

Campaign "points" and "buying" A/C

AI that had the A/C stalling as if the planes 'bobbed'- can't recall if that got fixed with my D/Ls, I bet it did

Gunsight dead center in the razorback P-47. Was this fixed by 1% planes?

Things I miss about it:

Airfeild attacks seemed spot-on: First pass was OK, second was deadly

Dynamic campaign play: That Ship I blew up in dry dock was there the next day, still burned out and on it's side. the next few days, new trucks and equipment was there, as if repairing it!

Weather conditions

Radio commands

The Map. that lovely huge map


FB/PF elements I dislike:

The Maps. Restricted by the game engine. I am currently making an AVG campaign using the "Kuban" map for Rangoon. That bugs me. Plus, you can't 'erase' an airbase or it's principle elements

Rudder is a bit... easy in the FM. I can't explain it, but rudder usage was way too easy to master

the Publisher dicatating the Developer's actions. Par for the course. Doesn't mean I like it

Mission Builder: No triggers. Why? Dunno

Things I like about FB/PF:

The illusion of flight. This is element #1 that must be had for me. If it isn't there, it just isn't, and Il2/FB/PF has it for me

the user interface. I cringe at CFS3's. Why the pull-downs? To show off Windows? It's clumsy. Il2FB/PF always used a nice linear progression through buttons, which appeals to my logic

Developer Support. Say what you will, Oleg Maddox does more than just pay lip service in this area. I've been playing flight sims since...well, Microprose made the Hot sims and Dynamix was the new comer with AoTP

Static Campaign and mission building. The tool is clumsy and awkward, but it's also a huge draw for me, much the same way I spent half my time with OFP making missions, I do the same with FB/PF

A Biggie for me: the planes can't get changed online or off, independantly of one another. For my way of thinking, this is the most effective way to ensure consistent modelling


Can anyone add or detract from that list? I'm completely willing to check out how CFS3 has evolved, I've always said that it's a shame it wasn't better. I love FB/PF, but that doesn't mean I can't play two sims. if CFS3 is so great now, show me. Tell me what to do, I'll try it and then compare my notes again

Also, what specs your PCs are would be helpful. Yes, we always know they are never good enough, but give me a hint here. CFS3 was even a bigger memory hog than Il2, if I recall. What's the average system for CFS3 nowadays?

Also, what is planned for CFS3 in the foreseeable future?

I have to warn, though: I have promised a tentative date on my AVG campaign for next weekend, and it's 17 missions short

[Woodlouse2002]

I'm running CFS3 on the following:
700mhz AMD Duron processor,
256mb RAM,
geForce4 ti4200 graphics card,
Windows XP home.

Anything else important in there i've ever forgotten about or don't know about.

It's far lower than anything people suggest to get CFS3 at its best. But I can run it with graphics set at 4 over all, which looks good to me, and while campaigns don't run too well, they use up the ram within three or four missions and require a reboot, it's fine for what I like doing in my Combat flight sims, a quick one on one duel on a sunny afternoon.

Now thats on what is considered now to be a stone age pc. I remember IL2 ran in a fairly similar manner. But since then i've updated my OS from 98 to XP.

Now, i've seen scores of Maddox vs. CFS discussions, and not a single person involved has had their opinion changed. All I can say is buy both, play both intill you find out which you prefer. Then once you've done that leave others, and their opinions alone.