cfs3 or PF

[Plumps]

If you "Select right engines", you'll be selecting 3 and 4, not just 3 as I did in my example. And if you select left engines, you'll be getting both 1 and 2, not just 2 as I did.

Sure, why should I select a single engine when both engines are just as easy to select and give me more thrust?

Plus, you always have to remember to deselect all engines after a throttle manouevre so that you don't accidentally move the wrong throttle next time you try to do something.

I hadn't even assigned a key to that function until I did some tests recently. I never needed to deselect an engine. All you need is "select all engines" as selecting one engine automatically deselects all others. All that deselecting in your example is useless.

And even if we take your simplified example, you're still doing 4 manouvres to my one.

Come on, 4 manoeuvres... I hit one key and move the throttle simultaneously, then hit another key and move the throttle simultaneously. That's two actions if your moving two throttles simultaneously is one action. Takes me two seconds to do. Not worth all the talking.

[quote]but at least I know not to waste

[Plumps]

could someone tell me why multi-throttles are so important.

Because IL-2 doesn't have them and this is a CFS forum.  ;D

[AvHistory]

I guess you've been reading your B-17 Pilot's Manual, then?

I've always paid attention to the note that says: "Use brakes only to slow down or stop the aeroplane, or to aid in making turns when necessary"

90 degree turns on narrow taxi-ways & pivot turns are considered "a when necessary" condition.

BEAR

[AvHistory]

Sure, why should I select a single engine when both engines are just as easy to select and give me more thrust?

If you don't understand why,  best read any 4 engine bombers pilots notes or just go back to the 'water' issue .  ::)

BEAR

[Plumps]

[IndioBlack]

90 degree turns on narrow taxi-ways & pivot turns are considered "a when necessary" condition.

BEAR

In the B-17 manual, there's a diagram emblazoned with the words "never pivot".
Being a relatively new Sim-pilot in Bombers, I tend to stick to the manual. When I get more cocky, I'll probably do it the way that I think feels right.

[AvHistory]

In the B-17 manual, there's a diagram emblazoned with the words "never pivot".

Yeah, but you see it in the combat films all the time

[IndioBlack]

Bear, I agree with your assessment completely.
I'm just saying that I'm not so experienced in the B-17 yet that I deviate too far from the manual. It'll come.

[AvHistory]

Check your email - new stuff

BEAR

[IndioBlack]

Thanks Bear, I noticed, but I'm away from the cockpit at the moment. I'll confirm receipt when I get back to the airfield  8)

[S-8]

I have CFS 3 and have tried it on and off for a while but the biggest hazzle I

[AvHistory]

That was a very real issue in CFS2..which was fixed by the AvHistory 1% damage models for our planes & other planes that used our tool set.

Never really saw it as an issue in CFS3....but if it was,  we use our own damage models so the 1% planes are not affected by it.

BEAR

[Microsoft Corporation]

Its also fantasy to think you can historically re-create the major Pacific battles in the carrier wars & island hopping campaigns without the 20 or so major items, like carriers, that I listed along with additional/larger maps.

who told you that Pacific Fighters was designed to "historically re-create the major Pacific battles in the carrier wars & island hopping campaigns"?  

I'm looking at my package right now -- no where does it say that.

What part of "PACIFIC FIGHTERS don't you understand?

Here's a clue since you seem to have difficulty with this concept: a fighter is an aircraft.  Typically they do not carry torpedoes nor are they ocean-going vessels sporting heavy caliber cannons.

I suggest you take your copy of PF to where-ever you bought it and try to get your money back, since the sales-clerk has taken advantage of your poor reading comprehension and tricked you into buying something that doesn't meet your high standards.

[Stormtropper]

who told you that Pacific Fighters was designed to "historically re-create the major Pacific battles in the carrier wars & island hopping campaigns"?

Urm...how about here "From the creators of the critically acclaimed IL-2 series comes an accurate and action-packed re-creation of the epic battles of the Pacific"

Its on the back of the packaging....its in bold, can't miss it

I personally perfer CFS2 over PF, sure its got some amazing graphics, but PF is the buggiest and most unrealistic piece of crap ever...

...I hit a bug even before the game started...damn CD check won't pick up on the disk...

[Microsoft Corporation]

BWAAAA  HAAAA HAAAA HAAHA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAAA HAA!  AAAA  HAAAA HAAAA HAAHA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAAA HAA! AAAH  HAAAA HAAAA HAAHA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAAA HAA!

*breath*

BWAAAA  HAAAA HAAAA HAAHA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAAA HAA!  AAAA  HAAAA HAAAA HAAHA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAAA HAA! AAAH  HAAAA HAAAA HAAHA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAAA HAA!

*cough gasp*

eh heh

eh heh heh...












BWAAAA  HAAAA HAAAA HAAHA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAAA HAA!  AAAA  HAAAA HAAAA HAAHA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAAA HAA! AAAH  HAAAA HAAAA HAAHA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAA HAAA HAA!