PDA

View Full Version : This game compared to microsoft combat flight sim



snipe21
07-09-2003, 04:25 PM
How does this game compare to microsofts combat flight sim?

<CENTER>http://jaih.optus.nu/img.php/SSSnipe21.JPG <CENTER>

snipe21
07-09-2003, 04:25 PM
How does this game compare to microsofts combat flight sim?

<CENTER>http://jaih.optus.nu/img.php/SSSnipe21.JPG <CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:30 PM
"Microsoft combat flight simulator" has more letters in it - at least the later versions. It also comes from a different supplier. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

There's this thing called r-e-v-i-e-w-s, reviews, at places like www.gamespot.com (http://www.gamespot.com) (that was a URL, you can click it and come to a whole new page on the internet). Here you'll find plenty of stuff about the 3 different versions of Microscat's flight sim, and the 2 different versions of Ubi Softs. That should get you started.

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:34 PM
FB is a FLIGHT SIM, and CFS3 is just a game...see the difference?

<center>PATRIA Y HONOR
<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgC0BAYXu3Ft4dbPEzs6M4eZf0A!qec0t1WkurDrK6Q0TV0lY fpkeHHrD5LuaVzXJQ6qOkKtYgnXXYbwSV39vh30VyRPTjG81fM rhMoRCs4YRhDD5Qo3Og/Cueceleches0.jpg?dc=4675424998946727344"></center>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:37 PM
FB:Moses
CFS:Peasant

-My Mommy said the patch is men being on time. It never comes.
http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/jacktheripper.jpg<br \>Which Evil Criminal are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/criminal/)

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:42 PM
CFS3 = waste of time

------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:42 PM
cueceleches wrote:
- FB is a FLIGHT SIM, and CFS3 is just a game...see
- the difference?


Actually you are are wrong. The word "simulator" is in the title of CFS3, while it does not exist in the title of IL2/FB. Neither are more one than the other, in fact both are just games.

I know it sound pretty cool to say that one is a sim and the other is a game but they are both the same theme.

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:44 PM
Ow, and CFS is UGLY. BUTT-ugly. Planes are nice, but the cockpits... OH! the horror! Hated the terrain too. Ow, and FB runs better on lower machines.

<center>http://www.habwusifu.com/fw.jpeg
</center>
-On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:46 PM
I didn't think you could compare them. Back in the day of cfs2 i would ask the zone Nazis what they thought about the up coming cfs3 having everything il-2 already has. They never would answer, i was even given a private message that if i repeated it i would be banned. LOL

But as of now my new comp is in the shop go figure, and now using my artifact until it gets back i can't play FB so i reinstalled cfs2 on it. Again there is no way to compare them other then the joy of a carrier landings again il-2 and FB blow the cfs family away. Hell i tried cfs1 first i had to take that out couldn't believe we use to fly like that.

As of now i have unistalled 2 as well, i guess i'll just play Medal of Honor until my new comp gets back.

PlatinumDragon...

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:48 PM
Yes well, at least CFS2 had nice looking cockpits. I actually enjoyed CFS2. But the crap that is CFS3 has resided on my HD for about... One or two days...

<center>http://www.habwusifu.com/pics/fw.jpeg
</center>
-On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 04:51 PM
C´mon RBJ! You know very well what I mean! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>PATRIA Y HONOR
<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgC0BAYXu3Ft4dbPEzs6M4eZf0A!qec0t1WkurDrK6Q0TV0lY fpkeHHrD5LuaVzXJQ6qOkKtYgnXXYbwSV39vh30VyRPTjG81fM rhMoRCs4YRhDD5Qo3Og/Cueceleches0.jpg?dc=4675424998946727344"></center>

snipe21
07-09-2003, 04:57 PM
Thx guys as I have CFS2 and have had it since it came out but never got CFS3 and I was wondering if this game had any improvement over Microsoft's with realistic gaming or graphics. I suppose the best way to find out is to DL the demo if there is one. Once again thx for the input and your views.

<CENTER>http://jaih.optus.nu/img.php/SSSnipe21.JPG <CENTER>

michapma
07-09-2003, 04:57 PM
Don't be put off by rude replies. Some apparently don't think that it's valid to come to a forum to ask people their opinions.

RayBan is right, it's "only" a game. What cuec means and I agree on is that we get a much greater feeling of immersion with IL-2/FB than with CFS3.

Regards,
Mike

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</td><td align="center">

SKULLS_Chap

<a href="http://www.skulls98.netfirms.com/il2/index.html" target="_blank" style="color: #191970; font-size: medium">The
SKULLS</a></p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top">Hardware:
Flight Simulation Performance Analyzed (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_062a.html)
Building a home-made throttle quadrant step by step (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkavv)
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</td></tr></table>

snipe21
07-09-2003, 05:02 PM
To michapma,

I don't get put of by rude replies as some people just can't help themselves to go that little further to help a fellow gamer who is 38 years old gain some info from the guys that have the game.

<CENTER>http://jaih.optus.nu/img.php/SSSnipe21.JPG <CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:05 PM
Yep, Mike made the point...FB is much more inmersive than CFS3...And I still think that graphics are way better than CFS...cockpits are really really ugly...It´s a shame, as after CFS2, which I think was a good game, I expected much more from CFS3...I pray that at least they won´t commit the same error with FS2004!

<center>PATRIA Y HONOR
<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgC0BAYXu3Ft4dbPEzs6M4eZf0A!qec0t1WkurDrK6Q0TV0lY fpkeHHrD5LuaVzXJQ6qOkKtYgnXXYbwSV39vh30VyRPTjG81fM rhMoRCs4YRhDD5Qo3Og/Cueceleches0.jpg?dc=4675424998946727344"></center>

michapma
07-09-2003, 05:13 PM
snipe21 wrote:
- Thx guys as I have CFS2 and have had it since it
- came out but never got CFS3 and I was wondering if
- this game had any improvement over Microsoft's with
- realistic gaming or graphics. I suppose the best way
- to find out is to DL the demo if there is one. Once
- again thx for the input and your views.

Of course there is no demo to CFS3. I've had fun with it, but unless you love CFS2 to death go with FB. Does CFS3 have "any improvement over Microsoft's [CFS2] with realistic gaming or graphics"? No, not really. IL-2 or Forgotten Battles? Yes, very much so.

Cheers,
Mike


<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10"><tr valign="middle" bgcolor="#3e463b"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#515e2f"><td width="40%">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</td><td align="center">

SKULLS_Chap

<a href="http://www.skulls98.netfirms.com/il2/index.html" target="_blank" style="color: #191970; font-size: medium">The
SKULLS</a></p></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top">Hardware:
Flight Simulation Performance Analyzed (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_062a.html)
Building a home-made throttle quadrant step by step (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zkavv)
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:16 PM
Actually, I think CFS3's graphics are much worse than those of CFS2

<center>http://www.habwusifu.com/pics/fw.jpeg
</center>
-On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:21 PM
well lets put it this way

I own both and CFS3 has been uninstalled from my computer with the CD sitting in the top drawer of my desk. I just become too anoyed with the game, performance issues, flight modeling, etc, .. I just lost interest.


I play WWII fighters now more than both but the best overall is FB.

<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/jcs-gc-il2.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:30 PM
With the right settings CFS3 can look almost photorealistic, but it does require some extensive tweaking. The one striking feature of the CFS/FS series is that there are no limits to customization, infact you can custom tailor the whole game to your individual liking.
As for immersion, the only WW2 flightsims i played that feature some hint of immersion are EAW, WWII Fighters and B17 II. CFS3, just as IL-2/FB are as steril as a hospital imho.

============================
When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about "pushing the envelope." They're talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that's where the postage gets canceled, too.



Message Edited on 07/09/0304:33PM by Oak_Groove

snipe21
07-09-2003, 05:31 PM
To michapma/johann63/teccie,

Thx for the advice and I didn't know that CFS3 went down hill after CFS2. So what I'm reading is if I'm going to get a new combat flight sim then this is the game to get./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<CENTER>http://jaih.optus.nu/img.php/SSSnipe21.JPG <CENTER>



Message Edited on 07/10/0303:33AM by snipe21

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:45 PM
While CFS3 is inferior to FB in many ways, it's also better than FB in others. Overall FB is better but don't listen the the biased "FB Fanboys" in here because there's a whole school of CFS3 people that prefer it over FB too...

In here FB is "the best" no matter what anyone says.



<p align="center"> http://www.1stclassproperties.ca/mr/Spit.jpg
Tongue-tied & twisted,
just an earthbound misfit,
I.
</CENTER>
</p>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:48 PM
michapma wrote:
Does CFS3 have "any improvement over Microsoft's
- [CFS2] with realistic gaming or graphics"? No, not
- really. IL-2 or Forgotten Battles? Yes, very much
- so.


I strongly disagree. The planes look phenominal from externals in CFS3 (better than FB), and the virtual cockpits are WAY better than CFS2. The terrain is also decent (and has more land classes than bland old FB), and the clouds, rain, lightening, and sound of CFS3 kick FB in the "boules".



<p align="center"> http://www.1stclassproperties.ca/mr/Spit.jpg
Tongue-tied & twisted,
just an earthbound misfit,
I.
</CENTER>
</p>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:51 PM
As one who went from CFS2 to IL2 I can say that IL2/FB is a huge step up in quality. It will require you to re-set your expectations as far as the learning curve goes. My biggest relearn from CFS to IL2/FB was the gunnery. It is MUCH harder (realistic) in IL2/FB than CFS. But don't get discouraged, with practice will come the rewards.

So get FB (then dl the patch when it comes out soon /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) and don't look back. It's the best WWII flight sim out. Period.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 05:58 PM
Look, m8, just get FB. Nuff said!

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 06:03 PM
i like CFS3 better offline.
FB rocks Online.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 07:27 PM
CFS3 = waste of good money

------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 07:35 PM
The definative difference between FB and CFS3:

I play FB
I don't play CFS3



<font face="Courier New">
&nbspBaldieJr
_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.
Whiners don't play vulchers
(er, winners)
</font>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 07:43 PM
<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)">Simulation:
Attempting to predict aspects of the behavior of some system by creating an approximate (mathematical) model of it. This can be done by physical modeling, by writing a special-purpose computer program or using a more general simulation package, probably still aimed at a particular kind of simulation (e.g. structural engineering, fluid flow). Typical examples are aircraft flight simulators or electronic circuit simulators.</table style>

IL-2 is a simulation of WWII aerial combat, regardless of whether they wanted to market it as one. By definition IL-2 is a better simulation than CFS3 because of IL-2s Flight Models that better appropriate the actuality of WWII aerial combat.



CFS3 = Drink Coaster or over-priced frisbee
IL-2 FB = A solid WWII aerial combat game (simulation).



(btw, don't listen to Dex he sleeps with a pug /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif )


<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/bp_geminiCombined.gif

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.</table style></center> <center><table style="filter:glow[color=red,strength=1)">Heaven Forbid.</table style></center>
<table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=1)">
<font size=+2><font color="black">Still loving my P-39</font></font> </table style>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
<table style="filter:glow[color=green,strength=4)"> www.blitzpigs.com</center> (http://www.blitzpigs.com</center>) </table style>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 08:00 PM
I have cfs2 cfs3 and both IL2 versions.
Take it from me stay away from CFS3 it is a total waste of money. The game only runs good on select systems, it laggs worse than any game I have ever seen, targets appear small and stay small as you reach them.
CFS3 is one of Microsofts disasters, they did not do good beta testing on it so basically what you get is a game that runs like it should still be in development. They will need many patches to fix the mess they made.
Do yourself a favor save the $40.00 you were going to spend on it and just go get a good set of coasters. or bookends, as that is what most people I know including myself have done with the game. I would send mine to anyone simply for the cost of shipping, but I'm afraid I would not sell it and would have to pay someone to take it off my hands. It is the worse excuse for a sim the world has ever seen.
Oh btw once you buy the flop microsoft will not refund the money I know I already tried.


<table style="filter:glow[color=blueviolet, strength=3"><tr><td> <font color="FFCC66">Colonel Eagle
Commanding Officer
31st Fighter Group
Blue Dragons ~

"Return With Honor"</font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 08:20 PM
Cfs2 & Cfs3 are like arcade games as opposed to flight simulators.The flight models of all planes is incorrect.Hell,you can't even stall some planes.
The cockpits suck in both (cfs2 & cfs3) games.The land looks good but the water is fake.The outside view of aircraft (skins) are decent.Where as IL2 FB is awesome on all counts.Enough said!

Abandon all hope.Ye who enter here.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 08:44 PM
Well erm. See for yourself:

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0902/cfs3_screenshots/cfs3pics.html
They are PROUD to show these shots? Yeesh!

Yes, and while THIS looks nice:
http://netwings.org/pages/preview/cfs3_2/tempest.jpg


...THIS is your office 8P
http://netwings.org/pages/preview/cfs3_2/me262_cockpit_view.jpg


...and it aint the worst. Wait untill you see the gunner positions on the B-25. Ack!

<center>http://www.habwusifu.com/pics/fw.jpeg
</center>
-On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 09:40 PM
hi,
I bought cfs3, i played it once and gave it away.
I bought il2/forgotten battles once and i don`t play anything else.

Martin van Vuuren
rotterdam/holland
(hornetsting)

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 10:18 PM
I´ve played Il2 since the demo days and when the original IL2 was released I ran to the shops and bought it. With FB i did likewise, The thing is: Both games ran totally smooth and practically bug-free, out of the box, whereas CFS3 did NOT!

I struggled and tweaked, bit my nails, downloaded new drivers (and older) for every piece of hardware in my pc, cursed microsoft, bit my toenails, and finally i got to fly a mission with purple textures but what the heck... Here we go: Big disappointment, the fm wasnt very realistic, the FF on my stick was reversed (its a ms stick). Plus its a slideshow at 800*600. When I finally hit my target the whole cockpit went white. Argh.

CFS3 lasted 3 days on my Hard drive, too bad cause I really enjoyed CFS2.

Plus, the CFS3 official site havent had that many updates since the release.

I gave the box for my parrot to chew to pieces, take my advice and go for IL2 FB. It´s been on my HD for years.

/Andreas

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 10:24 PM
Ehr.. well maybe not FB, but IL2 has...

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 10:26 PM
Ah, you're all just poor pilots that can't handle the real challenge CFS3 puts to you so you settle for FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I have to agree that CFS3 runs like crap for many people. Me? Well I get better performance from CFS3 than from FB... Can you blame me for liking it?



<p align="center"> http://www.1stclassproperties.ca/mr/Spit.jpg
Tongue-tied & twisted,
just an earthbound misfit,
I.
</CENTER>
</p>

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 10:30 PM
Dex

Sounds like to me, you've become a BI-SIMUAL

CFS3 = fairly good game & lousy flight sim

--------------- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 10:35 PM
Are you perhaps employed somewhere in Silicon valley?



"A soul in tension that´s learning to fly,
condition grounded but determined to try"

Get it? Grounded http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 10:36 PM
Ow and the biggest fault that M$ made is, that they doesn't allow any third-party aircraft, cockpits and sounds anymore. The previous M$ series, allways allowed for third party devellopers to add their own stuff. When I first flew CFS3, I almost threw up, because of the cockpits! They where sooooooooo ugly. I wanted to replace them right away with some nice looking, old ones.

But this was impossible.

This game is just made for cockpit-off flying! It looks like the devellopers didn't want to make a cockpit at all but, they had to do it from their bosses.

ANd about the sounds... I don't expect the 2000hp merlin engine to sound like the Cessna 172 in FS2002... So, I wanted to replace the sounds also. Impossible...

And I don't like the combination of fuzzy terrain with very high-res objects. It is really hard to spot a bridge from the air without using padlock. If you look for a bridge, you look for something blue (the river) being crossed by something darker (the road or a rail) and you know what? In CFS3, you should look for some high-res spot in the fuzzy terrain and look for a line of blue pixels, near it. Most of the ground objects, look like they are floating a little above the terrain.


The Il-2 terrain is not so beautifull as the CFS3 terrain but, at least it is finished and, all the ground objects fits nicely onto it. The way the terrain is modelled here, makes flying VERY low possible but, it is harder to do the same in CFS3.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://members.chello.se/ven/ham-pin.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 10:42 PM
CFS3= Cr*p F****** S*** 3

IL-2/Forgotton Battles= MUTTS NUTS

CFS3 isn't even good enough for a budget playstation game.
If you spend $40 or 35 on this game instead of FB. You will be spending another $40 on beer to get over the disappointment.
It's worse than waking up with an ugly bird. BLAAAA!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Do You Think That's Wise?

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 10:58 PM
CFS3 ripped me out of $80.

IL2-FB gave me tons of fun.

I gave my CFS3 away to the first person who responded to my post. Bye-bye Microsoft. Never trust you again.

XyZspineZyX
07-09-2003, 11:15 PM
One of the biggest gripes I have with CFS3 is the lame skill points.

Getting more G tollerance is feasable but health and vision?
Give me break, your either healthy or not and you either have good eye sight or you don't.

And when you start your campaign you hardly see anything, even my gramps can see better then you when you start the campaign.

Then the water, it doesn't even looks like water, I can draw better water in MS paint.

The AI is boring as hell, even on ace level they are not even a remote challenge.

Damage model is really poor as well.

There are some good parts in CFS3 but not enough to actually spend hard earned cash on it.
I am glad I didn't pay for it.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 12:49 AM
You will get nothing but cfs3 bashing here,

Both have strong and weak points




http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

snipe21
07-10-2003, 05:11 AM
Thx guys for all your input and I have taken a neutral stand here that's why I posted because I do have CFS2. FB looked like a great game but where better to come and get a good debate and that's the forum of FB. I even learnt some things I didn't know about CFS3 so I'll get the demo of FB and see for myself. Once again thx for all the trouble you guy/girls went too.

<CENTER>http://jaih.optus.nu/img.php/SSSnipe21.JPG <CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 05:14 AM
Snipe, I defend CFS3 because it doesn't get a fair shake around here IMO.

Buy FB and forget about the demo. You simply cannot regret it.

CFS3 is great for those like me that try every single sim that hits the market and tries to find a nugget of good in it. I enjoy CFS3 sometimes in a way that a chess player might like checkers for a mindless break.

FB, you can't go wrong.



<p align="center"> http://www.1stclassproperties.ca/mr/Spit.jpg
Tongue-tied & twisted,
just an earthbound misfit,
I.
</CENTER>
</p>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 05:15 AM
I fart in CFS3's general direction! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/CindyII.jpg> </center>

snipe21
07-10-2003, 05:32 AM
To Dexmeister,

CFS2 was my first true flight sim I got and don't get me wrong CFS2 was a awesome game and I did enjoy it. But then CFS3 came out and I had lost the interest in flight Sims so after some time FB started to catch my eye and this is the first real attempt back to flight Sims.

I suppose the real reason I gave up on the game CFS2 was I fly 1/4 scale Radio controlled planes and that satisfied my need for flying. I know that where ever I go someone is going to support one product over another and I'm the same with Ghost Recon.

However with me posting this I see that there is good debate for both versions but I know what CFS2 was like and thought that maybe FB would re-spark that interest in flight games.

<CENTER>http://jaih.optus.nu/img.php/SSSnipe21.JPG <CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 05:38 AM
snipe you should definatly pick up forgotten battles if you have the chance the demo is just a bad demo of il2 sturmovik.

Its only 40 bucks and you can find it cheaper on ebay

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2 F&krd=1&from=R8&MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&query=il2+forgotten+battles

there use to be over 100 people who sold thier copies but theres only about 30 now which range from 5-20 bucks


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

snipe21
07-10-2003, 05:55 AM
To LeadSpitter,

Thx for the advise as I think I will get the full version because you are so right with Demo's. They don't give a true account of just how good a game can be but rather an indication of "is this your next game you will like"./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Thx guys

<CENTER>http://jaih.optus.nu/img.php/SSSnipe21.JPG <CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 06:35 AM
Since you already have CFS-2, I'll try to compare CFS-3 to that ...

First, CFS-3 "improved" the graphics over CFS-2 (and undeniably CFS-1, because CFS-3 returns the series to Western Europe as an updated version of the original) but somehow made it less believable an experience than its predecessors. Don't ask me how Microsoft accomplished that amazing feat; the 3D models are the best yet and possibly the best of any WWII air combat sim to date ... sure, we can argue that FB's planes are *possibly* just as good but I'm also meaning the ground vehicles. The tanks, jeeps, trucks, etc. are extremely highly detailed and could hold their own in a First Person Shooter like Medal of Honor. Unfortunately, you'll have a hard time actually enjoying those ground objects unless you a) taxi right up to them on the airfield; or b) turn off your cockpit and really zoom the view in as you strafe them.

Speaking of strafing, the explosion and fire visuals are really CFS-3's strongest suit. When you blow up convoys or knock down an enemy AC, you're treated to these Hollywood flame effects and smoke, flying parts, etc. Ghost Pony (an independant CFS series effects tweaker) calls CFS-3 a 'cinematic air combat simulator.' (Link: http://theghostfiles.org/CFS3.html )

Less spectacular, however, is CFS-3's terrain. It doesn't look so bad from high altitude but when you come down to the deck to attack ground vehicles, the terrain usually looks like cat barf. On that same thought, many of the specific buildings around the CFS-3 world are nicely detailed but the world is generally populated by villages of boxey looking buildings that kind of remind me of randomly scattered monopoly pieces. In fact, they're so random that sometimes you'll find them on the sides of cliffs or sitting sideways on a mountain. So in general, while CFS-3 tries to 'amp up' the terrain there is something that is completely unsatisfying about the new approach.

Sadly, the increased object and terrain detail comes at a performance cost that nearly brings CFS-3 to its knees. Most people have problems running the game out of the box despite often owning impressive PC systems. Microsoft has offered a patch (and rumors of a second are in the air) and recommends users install DX9 to get better performance. I did that and installed newer Nvidia drivers and finally got decent framerates and colors.

Is it worth it? Well, the flight models and damage models of CFS-3 really aren't much better than CFS-2. In fact, when out of curiousity I purchased CFS-1 after CFS-3 I came to the personal conclusion that the P-51D's FM hadn't been changed at all. The damage model is also just as frustrating as in the earlier CFS-2 ... Incidently the flak seems to follow you behind hills and mountains; I think that the flak model was also imported from the Pacific version and doesn't really recognize rolling terrains. The AI is fairly similar as in CFS-2, in my opinion.

One of the things I can, in retrospect, say I like about the very first CFS (and ultimately the Pacific CFS-2) was the interactive control panels. The CFS series is basically an extension of the Flight Simulator series, so the focus was originally on operating aircraft during combat conditions, as opposed to being an easy-to-fly air shooter. With CFS-3 Microsoft removes itself from this approach by making the cockpits 3D and in the process removing the interactive switches. The 3D cockpits are mostly disappointing; the American planes fare the worst and look like junkyard salvages stripped of essential components. The Luftwaffe cockpits are a mixed bag, but the RAF fighters are actually decent looking. None are as immersive or as accurately detailed as the IL-2, IL-2:FB cockpits -- or for that matter as nicely done as the venerable "Jane's WWII Fighters" cockpits.

What bugs me most about the new 3D cockpits? Well, for one thing you can't pan around with your mouse -- you're stuck with the snap views. Also, the gunsight is still a fixed circle or crosshair in the center of your screen, so you don't get that feeling of inertia that you get with IL-2 or Jane's WWIIF. And, as I said before, the interactive 2D panels are now gone.

As in the past, CFS-3's only truly marketable strength is that it can be easily expanded or tweaked by third party developers and enthusiasts. For better or worse. So far, to my knowlege, there aren't any new terrains or theaters available though.

Am I bashing CFS-3? Not really. It has plenty of fun value if you don't take it very seriously. It has its own charm and can be entertaining if you just want to 'go down range and break stuff.' But if you're a history Grognard or you're looking for a dynamic campaign that makes sense, then you probably ought to avoid this title.

As for IL-2/FB, I can only recommend it. Yes, there are a few problems that will hopefully be resolved with the upcoming patch that is at this moment being finalized. However, FB runs smoother and with less hassles than CFS-3, plus it is has more convincing physics and ballistics models. In general, nearly every aspect of "IL-2: Forgotten Battles" is better than comparible features in CFS-3. Plus FB is $10 less.

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 06:55 AM
I prefer FB to CFS3 for it's graphics, FMs, DMs, versatility, programmability, and price. More bang for the buck for sure. To each his own....CFS3 runs great for some people but I could never get it to run right. The scenery looks worse than the scenery in CFS1 IMO, The FMs are not as good as FB to me and the views are too arcady. No track record, lousy sunsets and the sound track all leave a sour taste in my mouth.....but thats just me.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

snipe21
07-10-2003, 08:54 AM
To JT_Skycat,

Thx for the reply and it's great to see another forum offer so much help for a fellow gamer.

<CENTER>http://jaih.optus.nu/img.php/SSSnipe21.JPG <CENTER>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 09:44 AM
Actually played CFS3 for the first time in a very long time last night.

If we did not have IL2/FB then CFS3 would be a reasonably rated simulator. But I'm afraid it really does not compare with IL2/FB

Was playing with medium bombers last night. The flight modelling is so unrealistic that a JU-88 feels like a Red Arrow. Hit hard on the rudder & the plane will instantly twist at 90 degrees to the angle of flight.

I know there are 1% models that correct some of these deficiencies, but with all the other flaws in game play I can not be bothered to download them.

CFS3 now goes back on the shelf until such a long period passes that I forget what a mediocre game it is.

Great Clouds.

Tully__
07-10-2003, 11:06 AM
I haven't tried CFS3. I found both IL2 Sturmovik & IL2:Forgotten Battles to be much more satisfying than CFS2 in both graphics and flight/damage modelling departments.

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>


Salut
Tully