cfs3 or PF

[IndioBlack]

[quote]

Now, you want a REAL nerve shattering simulation?

[Stormtropper]

[quote]Damn,

[IndioBlack]

The "Fly Bombers" promise in PF is a bit of a rip-off too, because for the allies, you only get the B-25J - the one with the heavy nose armament and no Bombardier Compartment.  So allied level-bombing doesn't happen.

In CFS3, of course, you get the Mitchell C model, along with B-24s, B-26s and the Mosquito, plus third-party B-17s.  This means that for aficionados of multi-engine aircraft performing medium and high-altitude bombing, then CFS3 is the Simulation of choice.

[WhiskeyBravo]

The "Fly Bombers" promise in PF is a bit of a rip-off too, because for the allies, you only get the B-25J - the one with the heavy nose armament and no Bombardier Compartment.  So allied level-bombing doesn't happen.

Another incorrect and illinformed post.  People really should check the facts before posting.  

WB.

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]

Another incorrect and illinformed post.

[WhiskeyBravo]

We will if you will.

No, no, I said it first. So it should be I will if you will.

And besides, my mouse is bigger than your mouse!  ;D

WB.

[Felix/FFDS]

[quote]


No, no, I said it first. So it should be I will if you will.

And besides, my mouse is bigger than your mouse!

[Woodlouse2002]

Well get you.

[IndioBlack]

My apologies, I was wrong about the B-25J Mitchell. In PF, it is a Bomb-nose version. In reality, a lot of them were converted to gun-nose, beacuse Medium-level Bombing wasn't too much use in the Pacific, so they were converted for low-level attack, where the Bomb-sight became redundant.
So yes, you can level-bomb for the allies in PF. Which I think is fantastic.

A few more questions:

Why are there key assignments available for magnetos, in PF when the magneto switches in the cockpit don't move, and the only way to tell is by a pop-up message on the HUD. In CFS3, Magneto switches move.

Why does the PF Corsair Flaps lever not move when you operate the flaps? It moves in CFS3.

Why are their keys available to select 8 separate engines, when there are no 8 engine aircraft to fly?

Why can you fly all night in CFS3 and get consistent frame rates, but in PF you start to get slowdown and stutter?

Just wondering.

[Microsoft Corporation]

My apologies, I was wrong about the B-25J Mitchell. In PF, it is a Bomb-nose version. In reality, a lot of them were converted to gun-nose, beacuse Medium-level Bombing wasn't too much use in the Pacific, so they were converted for low-level attack, where the Bomb-sight became redundant.
So yes, you can level-bomb for the allies in PF. Which I think is fantastic.

Admitting you were wrong  ???  I didn't think it was allowed in this forum  :P

Why are there key assignments available for magnetos, in PF when the magneto switches in the cockpit don't move, and the only way to tell is by a pop-up message on the HUD. In CFS3, Magneto switches move.

Some planes have the moving magneto switch modelled, but not all.  I recall it moves in the IL-2.  Maybe Oleg realized that there is rarely a reason to turn off magnetos?  

Why does the PF Corsair Flaps lever not move when you operate the flaps? It moves in CFS3.

prob. not modelled, need to check.

Why are their keys available to select 8 separate engines, when there are no 8 engine aircraft to fly?

Same reason men have nipples.

Why can you fly all night in CFS3 and get consistent frame rates, but in PF you start to get slowdown and stutter?

Some maps have a memory leak, but not all.  The big Gulf of Finland map is famous for this.  I've played for 4  - 5 hours on dog-fight servers many times without any slow-downs, however occasional "spawn lag" is unavoidable when you have 30+ people ramdomly connecting/disconnecting.  Also Flak is a huge frame-rate killer.  There are settings for servers that allow reduction of firing rate of flak.

PF is quite memory hungry in general.  1GB min. is recommended.
Just wondering.[/quote]

[Felix/FFDS]

[quote]

Admitting you were wrong

[Microsoft Corporation]

This is where the CFSx/IL/PF series doesn't hold my attraction.  FOr an online sim, I prefer less eye candy (I don't need a superbly modelled aircraft when a simpler 8 sided fuselage will do) but give me better frame rates.  Again, to with, Aces High (which is my regular poison) will have anywhere from 200 to 500 people on at the same time, and I still get reasonable frame rates (typcially 25-29, although other setups get 50+), and that's with people spawning in and out.

hmmm...
I wonder if the "eye candy" is what really causes the FR problem.   The FR problem in PF, in a decent PC, is mainly a result of CPU bogging down on all the ballistics tracking.  My understanding is that, since FB, every single bullet and projectile is tracked and each individual hit is registered and damage is calculated based on a detailed damage model (for example, you can target and shoot off an individual aileron, or put a hole in a specific part of a fuel tank, i.e. the hole higher up won't drain all the fuel out, etc, etc.).   This obviously makes for a very convincing gunnery experience, but doesn't scale well with larger numbers of A/C.  (In IL-2, only about 1 out of 4 projectiles' hits were tracked)  There are only 2 solutions for this:

1.  Increase CPU power.
2.  Simplify ballistics calculations and DM (hit boxes or ), 2a. make a "low" ballistics setting, comparable to "low" graphic detail settings.

I would be interested to know how Aces High models gunnery and damage.

[Felix/FFDS]

I would be interested to know how Aces High models gunnery and damage.

You have a point, there.

I remember that in Air Warrior (1987-1999), there were "hit bubbles"  Hit calculations in Aces High  appear to be closer to averaging the projectile 'stream' and where on the target it hits.  One can lose parts of the plane - ailerons, flaps, elevators, etc. - so I would venture that target-specific calculations are done.

Even in Aces High there are people that "swear" by PF, as well as those that "swear at" PF (more evidence that the "best" sim is whatever the user likes more -hehe)

I like the compromises taken in Aces High for the sake of accuracy v playability.  You are, however, forcing me to reach out and buy PF, if only to "find out what it's all about".  Then I'll be able to give an better subjective opinion of my likes and dislikes.

(Note:  Any "box" sim that the AI can easily shoot me down is not a "good" sim in my opinoin!  :)   which at this time is my main gripe against IL2)

[IndioBlack]

[quote]

Admitting you were wrong

[Microsoft Corporation]

You have a point, there.

I remember that in Air Warrior (1987-1999), there were "hit bubbles"  Hit calculations in Aces High  appear to be closer to averaging the projectile 'stream' and where on the target it hits.  One can lose parts of the plane - ailerons, flaps, elevators, etc. - so I would venture that target-specific calculations are done.

Even in Aces High there are people that "swear" by PF, as well as those that "swear at" PF (more evidence that the "best" sim is whatever the user likes more -hehe)

I like the compromises taken in Aces High for the sake of accuracy v playability.  You are, however, forcing me to reach out and buy PF, if only to "find out what it's all about".  Then I'll be able to give an better subjective opinion of my likes and dislikes.

(Note:  Any "box" sim that the AI can easily shoot me down is not a "good" sim in my opinoin!  :)   which at this time is my main gripe against IL2)

"averaging the projectile 'stream' and where on the target it hits" is a very smart compromise to conserve CPU cycles, and made IL-2 playable on a lot of machines that can't run PF.  It works great too, with AC that have high ROF weapons (MGs).  In fact, with all the peashooters on the early Hurricanes, it would be overkill to track every hit.  

The problem ppl had in IL-2 was with the  slow firing cannon like the P-39's 37mm.  
You could get 50m behind a FW-190, pop off a single round right into its wing, and it would fly on as if nothing happened, because there weren't enough projectiles to average out what the results would be (I guess).

The AI has certainly "evolved" in PF, but it is still to be avoided.  Here's an experience I had just a couple of days ago:

I was practicing off-line in the F6F-3, 8 v 8 against A6M5a's.  After all the Zekes were down, I went back to my carrier and went into the pattern.  The hole in my right wing threw off my first attempt, so I gave her full power and passed the boat on the left, slightly below the level of the deck.  My AI wing man stayed in tight formation with me the whole time, and smacked right into stern of the boat.  The explosion blew off my rudder and right aileron, but luckily no fire on the carrier.   I did manage a decent trap on the next attempt, so all's well that ends well  :)