Which is worth it?

[Fly2e]

I have been reading all the comments about LOMAC and IL2 Forgotten Battles. I have both but have not loaded either. My question is this, I like all the CFS sims, I have them all but fell off the wagon when CFS3 came out due to my other slow computer. Now with my new one I want to do some search and destroy. I don't "need" to load them, but if it is worth it, I will. I always fly FS9 but want to see some action sometimes. My question.......

Which is worth giving a try, LOMAC or IL2 Forgotten Battles?  


Thanks for your comments....
Dave

[Stormtropper]

I don't have LOMAC, but I have IL2 FB, but don't even play it anymore. From what I hear LOMAC is very buggy, so you might consider that, but IL2 has lots of eye candy, lots of aircarfts to choose from (not as many as CFS3 if you got all the addons ), but, IMHO, has little realism. The last time I played it, like 6 (more or less) month ago, the FW-190 stalled on me while in a dive and I have NEVER seen symetrical (sp?) damage in my life, and don't think I will either.

But it all comes down to what you want, if your looking for realism, IL2 is not the game for you, go with CFS3, on the other hand, if you are willing to sacrifice alittle (I mean alot, IMHO those little things adds up big time ) realism for better graphics, then go with IL2 FB

Jeff

[Woodlouse2002]

Your choice mate. Install em all then tell us which one your still playing in a couple of months time.

[Iroquois]

Il-2 definately. Don't get LOMAC, it's a peice of crap. Read my huge CFS3 vs Il-2 post in the CFS3 forum.

[ATI_7500]

IL-2. More fun blowing arm thick holes into a russian bomber from thirty metres than shooting it to pieces from miles away.

[Fly2e]

Thanks guys, I think I will load the IL2 Forgotten Battles. For what I am looking to do is kind of how Exploder summed it up and the game itself sounds more of jump in and fly!

Posted by: Exploder Posted on: Sep 2nd, 2004, 6:00pm
IL-2. More fun blowing arm thick holes into a Russian bomber from thirty metres than shooting it to pieces from miles away

Thanks again!!

Dave

[Woodlouse2002]

IL-2. More fun blowing arm thick holes into a russian bomber from thirty metres than shooting it to pieces from miles away.

Yet it's still possible to destroy bombers from three miles away with three cannon rounds...

[Stratobat]

Load up both, kinda seems a waste to have them and not play them

Regards,
Stratobat

[ATI_7500]

Yet it's still possible to destroy bombers from three miles away with three cannon rounds...

..with rockets,I wanted to say.

No problem,Dave. Have fun and check your six!

[Woodlouse2002]

If you now have a super computer then reload CFS3. Like I said, only you can decide. And once you've decided nothing will change your mind.

[4_Series_Scania]

If you now have a super computer then reload CFS3. Like I said, only you can decide. And once you've decided nothing will change your mind.

Sadly, a super computer isn't the Holy Grail of CFS3 smooth operation....I've seen CFS3 stutter on an Athlon 64 with a 6800 Ultra Card & 2GB of System RAM yet equally, a friend of mine plays it happily with a 1.3ghz p3,GF4 ti4600 & 384MB System RAM go figure that one!

Fly2e, having looked at your specs, you should be fine.... I've now given up with CFS3, congo put me onto IL/2 fb (2'nd time around, this time, a better pc) and its beautiful. MUCH (imho) harder than CFS3 but in some respects CFS3 is the better sim.
Sadly, It seems that I can't be guaranteed a decent game if I run CFS3 wheras everytime I've fired up IL/2 or IL2/ fb the sims run fast and without a glitch.

Have you any idea how annoying it is to have guys like Groundcrew doing there fine stuff for CFS3 yet not being able to truly enjoy it!

[Stratobat]

A friend of mine plays CFS 3 on a Pentium 733 with 256Mb SD Ram and an ATI 9600 card

Performance isn't bad neither

Regards,
Stratobat

[Woodlouse2002]

I play CFS3 on a 700mhz duron. For some reason all this crap about cfs3 needing a next generation pc to run on doesn't cut at all with me.