cfs3 or PF

[Mathias]

[quote]
Mathias, does this mean that there could be two sets of files, each with noticably different performance characteristics that are playable on different servers?

[AvHistory]

[quote]


The flight modelling in FS2004 seems pretty good to me, from my pant's seat, as far as that goes, it is more like the 'flight' feel i think it should have

Two questions on that front:

1) Can someone compare CFS3vsFS2004 FM (out of the box)

2) What is the realtionship between FS2004 and CFS3 nowadays? I recall that with CFS1 there was talk about integrating CFS1 with FS.[quote]

Out of the box CFS3 leaves a lot to be desired compared to anything:)

[Chuck_Older]

Well, "never" is a long time

I just played around with CFS3 again. Kind of interesting


First, rudder usage is so much different from FB to CFS3
Next, with my X45, I can configure the stick well enough so that I feel like Don Gentile in a P-47. That's a nice change. Things still seem a bit 'loose' but I may need to play with deadband
Also, I don't know what has changed with the 'new graphics engine', but I have everything set at 5, and it's smooth so far. before, on the same PC (all I did was add 256MB of RAM since last time I tried it, around this time last year), I had to put everything at 2, and then I was tweaking everything in sight, even limiting page swap and so forth.

What got changed so much for the better?

Flight with this stick is a huge difference. I assume it's the stick, since it should basically be the same product with slightly better graphics (the graphics are better out-of-the-box now, as far as I can see). I suppose I shouldn't be surprised; FB was very frustrating until I got the X45, which will be pried from my cold, dead fingers

Perhaps rudder usage would seem better in both sims with a real rudder pedal and bar setup? In FB, it seems restricted at first, almost as if you can't put in too much input too soon, and in CFS3, it seems like it is the reverse! Maybe I'll play around with rudder axis sensitivity

So what patches from MS are available now? I recalled there being one, long ago

I had forgotten the ground scenery was so good. FB is OK, but this is just a little better

Things that still annoy me about CFS3:

No gun convergence settings that I can see
No mission builder
If I change my eye-height, as soon as I snap-view, it goes back to default
Outside views should use the mouse.
"Virtual Cockpit" does...what in CFS3?
I can see an open cockpit for the razorback P-47 on the main screen...when I try 'open cockpit' in flight, nothing happens.
Skin selection...non-existent? In FB, for example, I just have a pulldown menu, and I change the skin for any a/c I like in Quick mission. In CFS3 I have...a very, um, how shall I put this? Stylised? A stylised paint scheme for say, a P-51D. Now, this bugs me. First, a nice point about FB is that with a few exceptions that are bugs, I can choose, say, the 360th fighter group's ID numbers/letters. In CFS3, I can chose a number and letter before and after the star and bar.

Now, as a WWII history buff, that bugs me as much as things like the paint schemes on Luftwaffe aircraft (not even talking about  the hakenkruez, here)

Maybe there is another program that works with CFS3 to allow me to choose skins? I don't know...but that is a huge minus for me- I can make a scenario in FB that uses correct paint schemes for any unit involved

Campaign play is both better and worse than FB- the role playing element bugs me, as does having to be the strategist from square one. What if I want to be just a fighter pilot? My name isn't Sholto Douglas or Spaatz! but on the other hand, missions are simply more interesting than FB missions for the standard campaigns (user-made can be a different story, but they are 'static')

Another nice thing about CFS3 is all four seasons are present, and not map-dependant. A down-side is that the only sound options I have is volume. that's weird. I want to turn down sound settings; i have crummy onboard sound and I am getting crackling through my speakers. I don't need all the channels CFS3 is trying to use, I think


So- if I download, say, a new P-51D for CFS3, what happens?

I don't mean where do i put the file to make it work (although i don't know), i mean- does every P-51D have that skin now?

[farmerdave]

To answer a few of your questions, Chuck:

You can edit the gun convergance, but you have to go into the XDP file and edit the values with notepad.

MS released a mission builder a while ago.  You can download it here:http://www.microsoft.com/games/combatfs3/cfs3_sdk.asp#missionbuild  I beleive you can dowlad the 3.1 update there too.  The annoying thing about it is that you can't fly the misssion from the builder, you have to close and open CFS3.

You can open the canopy by pressing Shift +C

There are tons of skin available you can d/l for CFS3, but you can't cahnge them while the program is open, you have to switch the files in My Computer.

Also, I would definitly download all the 1% versions of the stock A/C, basically everything about them is better than the stock planes.  

Also, alll your aircraft will have different skins, the skin for one plane don't affect the skin for another.

[Cherokee]

I was wondering if some of the CFS 3 players could comment on the AI, especially your wingies.  One of the reasons I have been reluctant to purchase the sim is because of some bad reviews (All from reputable sites) about the AI.  Additionally with the program being open, the online cheating I felt would render it unplayable online.  Now, that is without hearing of the "cheat preventer "mentioned earlier.  Would someone please tell me how this is possible, in idiot terms if need be.  I just don't see it.  

Example:  I buy the game and keep everything stock.  Which by almost all opinnions is very forgiving.  I hook up with you who has all of the 1% stuff running, which is a not so forgiving flight model.  Now, all things being equal, I should have the advantage and rule the sky (actually sounds pretty good)  but i digress.  This would not be actually considered cheating, but is definately not fair.  And who would be considered as to having the correct code?  Me Right?  Wrong?  Noob?  Sorry if this sound stupid, but If get some good answers, I may purchase this to go along with the IL2 stuff.  Thanks.  

[Chuck_Older]

Who has the 'correct' code is always up in the air.

two groups who have access to the same info can come up with two different answers, each qualified equally as 'correct', if the true 'answer' is not known

Another way of putting it: you can take all the aeronuatical data you want from a real a/c (IF that A/C is equipped as it was during WWII) and put it into some formulas for a PC to interpret as a flight model. You and I are doing this seperately. You feel that in situation "X", formula "Y" only accounts for "Z" % of any given situation. I look at it another way, and say, "yes, but that "Z" factor is a function of "Y"'s input. You look at the data and say, no, in this situation, the condition of "Y" is irrelevant to the percentage.

So we disagree. In the end, our models are based on the same numbers, and interpreted differently.

I'll say this: I just d/l'd the P-51D-30 with the 1% model. It flies sweetly when 'clean'. Just like it ought to. Not stellar, but it has a sweet spot, keep the plane in that envelope.

Now, the graphics, particularly the cockpit, is not nearly as good as FB's. It is not bad at all, but the level of 'standard' is high above it, now. It might be very old for all I know, but the FB P-51D cockpits are stunning compared to this. But pretty graphics don't make the plane fly, do they? The flight modelling feels good, however. I can 'sense' when it's about to stall. I can get the plane into a situation where rudder to one side is ineffective until I 'shake' the tail. Turn co-ordination is smooth, and predictable. Acceleration is, in my opinion, smoother than the FB model's acceleration, which, given the semi-laminar wing, it should be smooth, dammit, and also quick, which I could tell by how I easily extended from Bf109G-6s after I used my E up.
And speaking of the enemy- AI seemed fairly good. Different from FB, certainly, where you can see a 'routine' develop right after the enemy 'senses' you, invariably when you are just in range and the bogey is in your sights. but I found the enemy Ai at 'veteran' (not the same as the FB 'veteran' by the way) to be at the least good. they tried high, low, vertical, it was fun following. One even cut power to make me overshoot!

My take on the P-51D-30 "ferocious Frankie" at AvHistory-

Flight modelling- feels nice. I have never flown a real Mustang, but to tell the truth, I flew it as if I was flying an FB P-51D-25NA, and it worked just the same- keep my speed up, instant turns for the most part, zoom climb- Oh- Zoom climb is better modelled than in FB for sure- zoom climb is useful. Rudder input is still the big difference to me between the flight models
Landing, though- the P-51D I d/l'd is much lower to the ground than I expected. I bounced it twice!

Graphics- inside and out, it needs an update. Quite useful, as a utilitarian cockpit it is flawless, but check out an FB Mustang cockpit for what I am used to. Night and Day. Same for the paint scheme. I suspect this is a slightly dated graphics model

[Cherokee]

Hey Chuck,

How would you compare the 2 dynamic campaigns?

Thanks.

[arjisme]

Another question on CFS3:  does it support TrackIR?  I thought I heard it did not, but I don't want to be misinformed.

Also, does it include Pacific Theater operations?  If so, can you do carrier ops?

[Mathias]

TrackIR/6DOF is supported with the latest version of the TraIR software.

Carriers, well, the community hacked in a workaround.
There is an issue with these as the landable deck can't be raised off sealevel. thus the close distance models of our carriers are at sealevel. Not pretty but it works

A pacific map is currently not available, doesn't mean that it can't happen any time in the future.
right now most of us are working on the mediterranean/african map and a couple of guys are working on a WWI addon.
http://www.medairwar.com/

Chuck, the P51 is a stock model.
Would agree on the cockpit but kinda wonder on the externals.
Maybe you should desert to flying Spitfires?
Josh Ziehbart and Bill Wilson have turned out a sweet model which is available at AvHistory.

[AvHistory]

Frankie is a year old & was put out on 12/28/04.  It will be getting our new flight models as we release them.  

Things like inverted spins need some fine tuning before they go out the door but the project is advancing nicely.

The P-51's, P-38's, non MS-based Spits,  Bf-109's & new Fw-190's should be among the first upgraded.  

B-17G Molly II & one of the B-26's should also be near the top of the FM upgrade list to get the bombers underway.

The P-51 visuals are all make overs of the MS stock versions.  I don't think they will be replaced in the near future.  :'(

One thing that will help the cockpit some is a utility by Mathias, I believe, that will sharpen up the gauges for easier reading, its well worth installing.

The MS 109s based visuals are being replaced (we have a mix of MS & 3rd party now) & the MS based Fw-190's are also very high in the replacement queue with all new 3rd party visuals by Mathias.

The old P-51 model you are flying as well as the new ones have a corner speeds in the 284mph area so it likes to be a little fast going in to offset the bleed.  

Its not a turn & burner but it can get around pretty well as long as the AoA is kept reasonable.  The combat flaps are effective in extending its maneuverability if you get slow which you should take great pains to avoid.

They way our system works is if you find quantitative holes in the work which you can document for us we will attempt to incorporate a fix as soon as we can if its within the software's capability to do so.

Our 1% Squawks boards is at

http://www.avhistory.org/scripts/MegaBB ... y-view.asp

and any comments or suggestions are welcome.

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

[AvHistory]

arjisme,

Saw your post at UBI...good questions.  To bad the very first responce out of the box was CFS3 has no flight model

BTW did you try the falling leaf drill in the P-51D?

BEAR- AvHistory

[Chuck_Older]

[quote author=Mathias
Chuck, the P51 is a stock model.
Would agree on the cockpit but kinda wonder on the externals.
Maybe you should desert to flying Spitfires?
Josh Ziehbart and Bill Wilson have turned out a sweet model which is available at AvHistory.[/quote]

I like the American iron
You guys really need a P-40B/Hawk 81A-2

In the Mustang arena, I'm not trying to put any CFS3 modeller/skinner down. Really. I know how tough it can be, and I only tweak skins

But this is what I am used to-

Cockpit- this is the stock cockpit for every P-51D-20NA:

Note that the gyro sight is switched 'on' and is working.

Here are skins done by Gentlemen who go by, in order, the names:

Fury:


CanonUK:


LeadSpitter:


These are three of my favorite P-51D skins, I have maybe 18 or 20 different ones, I think.
The LeadSpitter skin is interesting, this is one I have tweaked. He does these beautiful skins, and they are 100% historical, much like CanonUK and Fury do just gorgeous Historical skins. I can't decide who does better work! Anyway, the ID suffix and prefix, as well as the serial number, are plausible, but completely ficticious. I cut and pasted in the"Tigger with a bomb" in Paint, and I used a Paint font to put the name "Bounce Buggy" on the plane. I cut and pasted elements of three other of his 360th FS skins to make that. I manually added highlights, shadows, and rivets to the name and Tigger caricature. Simple as pie in FB. I am not graphic artist


CFS3 could really use more graphic models like "Big Beautiful Doll". I'd like to see Yeager and Anderson's planes in CFS3. I can get them for FB no sweat.

Seems like MS missed the boat in this area to me. The work the 1% team does needs to be showcased better, in my opinion. The 1C:Maddox Games' models will only get better in BoB- if it gets made! Which i hope. But graphics-wise, the bar is currently over the heads of the externals I have seen and downloaded, and about on par with the "Big Beautiful Doll" pic I have seen here.

Can anyone post a pic of that model's Cockpit? I'm interested to see it

[Woodlouse2002]

CFS1 had a gyro gunsight for the P51. And i'm pretty sure CFS2 had it too. Bloody irritating thing. Kept moving about so you couldn't hit anything.

[arjisme]

CFS1 had a gyro gunsight for the P51. And i'm pretty sure CFS2 had it too. Bloody irritating thing. Kept moving about so you couldn't hit anything.

I don't know how it was in the CFS series, but in AEP/FB, the gyro site is pretty useful.  I found it much easier to register hits with it, since it made things a bit easier to predict lead.

[arjisme]

arjisme,

Saw your post at UBI...good questions.  To bad the very first responce out of the box was CFS3 has no flight model

BTW did you try the falling leaf drill in the P-51D?

BEAR- AvHistory

LOL!  I haven't had a chance to check out that thread since I posted.  I'm sure I invited some unthinking, lame responses, but I will attempt to get the folks over there to get the discussion on a reasonable, objective level, much like this thread has become after its somewhat shakey start.  ;)

And, no, I haven't tried the falling leaf thing yet.  I've been at work all day -- gotta pay the bills, you know!  I'll give it a go sometime over the next few days and post my experiences.