IL-2 Sturmovik by UBI Soft

[Katahu]

I think Microsoft should get some advice from the UBI developement team.

[Woodlouse2002]

IL-2 Forgotten has only been around since March 2003 and already the price is dropping like a brick. It's already $20. Compare that to M$'s CFS and MSFS.

This is because no one is buying it. If people were flocking in their thousands to buy forgotten battles then it would still be at its original asking price.

Those bombs that ignite after they are dropped are Phospherous and bloody useless.

I will agree that IL2 has a lot to be said for it. It is a fantastic sim and theres no denying it. But I still think that it misses something that CFS has. God knows what it is but there is something. When I first brought IL2 I though it was the best thing since sliced bread. But then it got boring, then I rediscovered CFS2 and havn't looked back.

[Katahu]

Remember, both versions of IL-2 always refer to the least documented parts of the war such as the battle of Stalingrad.

I guess the combat sim community is more interested in fighting with American or British planes rather than Soviet ones because most of us don't know how the Soviet planes handle in the air.

I also don't know [and don't care] what's missing in IL-2 that CFS has. However, my heart and money goes to the IL-2 series.

Many people, who use IL-2 often, feel that for as long as Oleg Maddox [UBI game developer] is making the sim, the IL-2 series will be great.

[Katahu]

As for the bombs, they are not useless.

Remember, IL-2 also relies on realism [not just graphics] as well. So, the bombs will need to be dropped DIRECTLY on top of the target.

In CFS, the bombs are a joke. I can drop a bomb just 10-20 yards from a tank and that tank will be rendered as destroyed. How fake. :-/ The bomb was just 50-100 lbs and they all act like 1,000 pounders.

They way how IL-2 renders the bombs are great. Because of the extreme accuracy needed to hit your target, my bomb-dropping skills have greatly improved.

Oh, Woodlouse. If the bombs are useless to you, have you ever bothered to set the bomb-delay down to 0?

[Woodlouse2002]

Oh, Woodlouse. If the bombs are useless to you, have you ever bothered to set the bomb-delay down to 0?

I was talking about the Phospherous bombs. They have no use. The other bombs are fine. And I kept the delay on 10 seconds to save myself from the explosion.



As you can see, bombs arn't much use at that hight. Also, talking about realism, why don't I have a prop strike there?

[Katahu]

Well, Like someone else said.

No game is perfect.

I said, long ago, that UBI has to most reliable games out there. I didn't say that they are 100% flawless.

Everytime I buy a simulator or game, I always expect a few bugs here and there because, DUH, it's just a simulator.

[Ambassador]

Someone wrote this in the CFS3 Forum:

Call me a troll, but CFS3 is still nothing compared to the realism found in IL2 and IL2 FB.

Yes IL2FB may not have the open user interface found in the CFS series, but that is the only advantage that they have over FB. I've "converted" serveral friends who were die hard CFS players, hell I even played the hell outa these sims...till I bought IL2 two years ago.

I think MS should stick to is regular flight similator...which by all means is the best out there.

There, thats my two cents on the subject.

[Katahu]

So that's what's missing in IL-2? An open user interface? That's nothing.

In CFS, you need to download the mission editor from the internet. And you all know that these type of programs tend to be huge, especially for 56K users like me.

In IL-2, they already have the mission editor installed after doing the main installation. No need to download. Not only that, it comes with a "Quick Mission" editor for those who want to get into the fighting A.S.A.P.

Well, IL-2's only downside [IMO] is the music is has. Well, who cares about the music since we want to get fighting A.S.A.P.

[ATI_7500]

i like the music...

[farmerdave]

Have any you people ever played IL-2 Sturmovik?

It's a GREAT COMBAT FLIGHT SIMULATOR that FAR surpasses any other combat simulator in existence. Microsoft's CFS series is NOTHING or Lower than human waste compared to the IL-2 series.

I used to have IL-2 for a long time. But i gave it away [a year after buying it] because I finished the combat sim already. Trust me, it's the best. I have seen it with my own eyes.

[Clouds]

Microsoft's clouds are nothing more than 2D objects that are clumped together to make it look 3D. But IL-2's clouds are ACTUAL 3D models that look and FEEL realistic from far away AND when you fly through one.

[Ground Scenery]

The rivers are perfect, especially when they REFLECT the sunlight. The ground scenery is not that much detailed because [for sure] you will be more distracted by the detailed sky, detailed aircraft, 100% realistic aircraft damage, very well made flight dynamics and a good dogfight.

Microsoft, however, just.........oh........forget it. I have the sudden urge to take their CFS games and throw them out the window and have fun with UBI Soft's combat sim forever.  

[Dynamics and Handling]

Very realistic indeed. In fact, everytime I fire my Yak-9's guns, the aircraft just wobbles by the force of the recoiling machine guns. Not only that, the sound of the machine guns sound and feel dominating.

Microsoft's CFS doesn't do that. In CFS3, the machine guns sound like B-B guns or marbles falling into a glass container. Their aircraft doesn't even wobble to the force of the machine guns.  

[Gunner Stations]

IL-2 allows you to control your rear or side-gunner's machine guns with just the use of your mouse. This makes it a whole lot easy to aim.

Microsoft's CFS3 is awkward in that case. Instead, you are forced to aim the guns with your joystick. How pathetic and unwise.  

[Warping]

IL-2 uses a warp method that allows you to manually control your aircraft EVEN if you are in warp mode. The warp method is pretty much the same as found in the civilian version of M$ Flight Simulator

In M$ CFS3, however, you can't control your aircraft while in warp. Not only that, the scenery gets ugly as you warp.

[HONESTY!!!!   ]

UBI Soft's system requirements are completely honest and to the point. Especially for a combat sim like this one.

Microsoft's system requirements are [as everyone points out] a complete JOKE!!!!!! They lie to you by saying that this sim requires only an 8MB video card. BS!!!!!! Not only that, their advertisements are more fake than a $3 bill. And you all know that.  

[Bugs]

IL-2, like any other simulator, has its share of bugs. However, those bugs are nothing and you'll usually forget about them because your mind will wonder off with all the beautiful details and realism.

M$'s simulators [all of them] are full of bugs. Mostly, these bugs involve MAJOR [not minor] imcompatability problems with video cards. easpecially the ATI Radeaon types. Not only that, many of our hi-end systems are not even powerful enough to handle M$'s sims.

[Price]

There are already 2 versions of IL-2 in stores [especially Best Buy]. IL-2 Sturmovik and IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles. Both of these combat sims have been around for quite a fair amount of time.

The latest version only costs around $20. Like I said, these sims have been around long enough for their prices to drop. The next version [still under development] will be released in 2005. These people are more patient than M$.  

M$ just likes to concentrate more on your wallet and less on your demands.

Fact:

IL-2 Sturmovik came up with the idea of a non-2D panel. All that Microsoft did was copy UBI's idea. M$ has no imagination at all.  

Are you working for UBI?

IL-2 allows you to control your rear or side-gunner's machine guns with just the use of your mouse. This makes it a whole lot easy to aim.

IMO this would be a pain in the @$$; the less you have to take your hand off the stick the better.

the scenery gets ugly as you warp

I quite frankly could care less about this; warp is there to get you to your target and back, not to look at the scenery.

Not only that, I never saw any Italian fighter planes or bombers. Not even one. Just German huns coming after me.

You can download Italian A/C for CFS3 at AvHistory.

you can't pan your view via mouse

The hat switch is there for a reason.

Personnaly, as you might have guessed by my post,(sorry it's so long) I am a diehard CFS player.

[Ambassador]

Wwatkins, everything you said I agree with.

[Katahu]

Personnaly, as you might have guessed by my post,(sorry it's so long) I am a diehard CFS player.

Wwatkins, everything you said I agree with.

I guess both of you are use to putting up with Microsoft's CR*P.

Are you working for UBI?

No. The information I gave on my topic post is based on YEARS of experience with Microsoft's products and UBI's products.

I have flown every simulator since FS95. After one FS release after another, I am seeing that Microsoft is losing its touch with its customers in terms of video card issues and how they care little about bugs in their simulators.

I have played many games from UBI. I have played Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell, IL-2 Sturmovik, and so on.

Ghost Recon did have a few setbacks of its own, but at least it was real good and fun. Especially online. Well, there are occasions where you get lots of flame wars in the Ghost Recon chat rooms.

Splinter Cell was the best I have ever seen. I have never seen so much features in just one game. I heard that another is coming out soon. It's called Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow.

IL-2 does setbacks as well. But at least it never stutters and the functionality is outstanding.

Microsoft ranks first place in customer service. Well, except when you ask them what systems they use to test the simulators. There, they start to get a little evasive.

However, UBI ranks ALMOST first place for popularity. Games such as Halo, Rainbow Six, many more are slowly becoming big hits. Believe it or not, the FS community is just a small blip on the radar screen [no offense] compared to EA Games, Lusas Arts, and UBI Soft. I use to play Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit [EA Games]. Fun game, until I lost it by accident.

My heart also goes out to the X-Plane sim community. They may not have much graphics, but the level of realism is huge. I like the way how the creator makes the flight dynamics. It's better than just punching in numbers.

[SabreHawk]

Well..............really both these combat sims have their strong points & weak points.
I personally love both of them & love to fly both, it just depends upon my mood that week/day, and well, im really into CFS3 right now, but then next week I may get bored and swithch to IL-2.
I have CFS2 also and well, I found it to be just as good, but CFS3 puts me in the planes and theater I like best, the European one, flying Spit's & Stangs for the Queen.

As for UBI, I might point out that they havent allways supported their software well................Silent Hunter II as an example which they totally dropped support alltogether, and it took the dedication of alot of talented fellows at Subsim to make into something useful and stable(BTW they had to convert it's multi-player interface to "Microsoft's Directplay" to make it work online at all.) And none of these fine individuals got paid for it either, the upgrades are free, and was called "Project Metzerwetzer" (One who sharpens Knives)

[Woodlouse2002]

I must say that controlling the rear gun with the mouse was one thing I liked with IL2 and I wish CFS3 had that function. However, panning round the cockpit and looking around with the mouse is quite simply a pain in the arse. You have to be ambidextrous to fly and look around at the same time and that I am not. I find the hat stick far more useful.

[ATI_7500]

The hat switch is there for a reason.

hahaha,good joke!

not everyone has an 1337joystick....

greetz ,SE (whose wingman light (two buttons) works perfectly since 1997...)