PDA

View Full Version : *GASP* CFS3?



msalama
04-03-2005, 01:42 AM
Please don't shoot me immediately for uttering this cursed 4-letter word - or if you do, use rubber bullets at least http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But yep, I _am_ interested in trying CFS3 out, having only flown M$FS2004 before. Thus, a question or 2:

* Are the default plane FMs any good?

* Are the add-on planes any good?

The reasons I'm asking you instead of CFS3 ppl are as follows:

* The CFS3 fanbois probably won't give me impartial answers, whereas you guys definitely will I'm sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

* There're a couple of well-known CFS3 personalities I find too arrogant & obnoxious to have anything to do with.

That's it. A bunchful of thanks, therefore, for any answers you care to give ladies & gents!

PS. And please bear in mind that this thread IS NOT meant to be an IL-2 vs. CFS3 flame war - I'm only asking because I need/want some perspective about things before rushing to the shops once again...

msalama
04-03-2005, 01:42 AM
Please don't shoot me immediately for uttering this cursed 4-letter word - or if you do, use rubber bullets at least http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But yep, I _am_ interested in trying CFS3 out, having only flown M$FS2004 before. Thus, a question or 2:

* Are the default plane FMs any good?

* Are the add-on planes any good?

The reasons I'm asking you instead of CFS3 ppl are as follows:

* The CFS3 fanbois probably won't give me impartial answers, whereas you guys definitely will I'm sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

* There're a couple of well-known CFS3 personalities I find too arrogant & obnoxious to have anything to do with.

That's it. A bunchful of thanks, therefore, for any answers you care to give ladies & gents!

PS. And please bear in mind that this thread IS NOT meant to be an IL-2 vs. CFS3 flame war - I'm only asking because I need/want some perspective about things before rushing to the shops once again...

Badsight.
04-03-2005, 01:54 AM
the standard planes are everything people dont like about CFS3

many add-on planes are excellent

only thing i really have to say about CFS 2 or 3 is that it would be nice to have their A/C sounds in FB

joeap
04-03-2005, 01:56 AM
M$ never had ecellent default planes. Some for the ciivie series are ok actually but you are much better off with addons.

Avhistory is considered the standard with the 1% series. Had them for CFS2 and they were great. Firepower is not bad either but a payware add-on.

Von_Zero
04-03-2005, 01:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
* Are the default plane FMs any good?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
* Are the add-on planes any good?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, some of them are really nice, and a pleasure to fly, but obviously with a strain of doubt on the accuracy of their moddeling.
Besdie that CFS 3 has some features that are really nice, so if you wan't a game for "wobbling around" it is very good, but only adding the 3rd party add-ons (i only have Firepower, and several free add-ons installed, and it is quite a nice experiance, not as good as Il2, but still).

jugent
04-03-2005, 02:06 AM
The worst with CFS3 flightmodel is that you can build your own aircraft.
The result of this is that you can get a 2500hp aircraft with 10 MG which have the effect of a bomb.
This mess the fun with online gaming.
In UBI-soft there is only one instance that gives the plane in some cases odd characteristics, like a 30mm HE isnt the same as another 30mm HE, or a HE shoot at 100m gives more damage than one fired at 300m

Udidtoo
04-03-2005, 02:31 AM
Every time you start an engine in CFS3 Oleg kills a kitty. Please, spare the kitties.

fherathras
04-03-2005, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Udidtoo:
Every time you start an engine in CFS3 Oleg kills a kitty. Please, spare the kitties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Why not just kill Oleg and let microsoft finish BoB?



that way, all the kittens are spared, and we get a top notch product! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EURO_Snoopy
04-03-2005, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fherathras:

Why not just kill Oleg and let microsoft finish BoB?

that way, all the kittens are spared, and we get a top notch product! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An Unbeliever!! Persecute!! Kill the Heretic!!! (http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-18.htm)

x6BL_Brando
04-03-2005, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted Sun April 03 2005 03:37


Why not just kill Oleg and let microsoft finish BoB?

that way, all the kittens are spared, and we get a top notch product! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, you're two days late - April 1st was on Friday! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

msalama
04-03-2005, 06:42 AM
OK, thanks for your opinions so far.

Well, I'm not 100% sure yet whether I'll buy this sim or not - I've got FS2004 already, which I think is great as far as it goes. But M$ _does_ have a reputation of being a bit shoddy in modelling the flight physics and/or aircraft behaviour near the edges of the flight envelope (i.e. near-stall conditions, ground effect etc.). So I'm not sure whether I can be bothered really - though this sim _is_ dirt-cheap nowadays of course - because I've planned this as a pre-IL2-patch-v4.0 diversion only http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But as regards aircraft configurability... well, that's a 2-sided sword really. I for 1 fly offline only @ the moment, so in that sense it doesn't really matter, and tweaking the planes can be fun in itself (done that in FS2004 a lot). But of course it does make life too easy for online cheaters, so I definitely understand the negative viewpoint too!

But we'll see. If OTOH the price is right, then why not - just for laughs y'know?

Anyhoo, no biggie 1 way or another...

OldMan____
04-03-2005, 07:18 AM
I tryed it 3 days ago. And I think is a shame for all us game developers. It is by far the worst peace of software froma Big Company with tradition that I have ever seen. CFS2 was much better.


Just one word to describe it: Pathetic.

AlGroover
04-03-2005, 07:37 AM
I've got CFS3, but only for the upcoming 'Over Flanders Fields' WW1 addon. I downloaded a good set of WW1 planes for CFS2 and had a good few hours of fun dogfighting with those. The rather 'floaty' feel of the CFS series FMs really suits the Great War aircraft.

jensenpark
04-03-2005, 09:08 AM
As a flight sim it makes for a great coaster.

fs2004 should not be used for a comparison to cfs3.

roadkill would make a better comparison - though roadkill stinks far less than cfs3.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-03-2005, 09:15 AM
Now is the time to get CFS3. You can pick up copies very cheap and you can get the all important firepower addon for as low as $15 if you look hard enough. Originally CFS3 was a mess but with the firepower addon and all the great free downloads to be found CFS3 is an excellent sim. Its not as good as the Il2 series but I think a worthy companion.

The effects in CFS3 are much better than in Il2, right now flight models are also more realistic especially in stalls (this will probably change after 4.0), ground attack is far more intense in CFS3 and the range of aircraft is limitless. You have to look out for poor quality planes but since many are free its worth the searching.

I'd say CFS3 is worth getting but only with Firepower. If you don't get both you'll never be happy. Together they really do make a very solid sim and I'd say I split my gaming time just about evenly between the two now.

EiZ0N
04-03-2005, 09:15 AM
I thought this game was pretty awful.

Infact, I uninstalled it shortly after installing

tsisqua
04-03-2005, 10:12 AM
As everyone mostly has said: not a very good game out of the box, but with the 3rd party stuff, I have actually learnd to enjoy it occasionaly.

Look here (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/~dakota/pages/history.shtml) for the best free addon I have ever seen out there for any sim for free!!! It was my saving grace for what had been a disapointing game.

What I am saying is, if you buy it, don't throw it away till you get some good 3rd party stuff for it. But be warned, the immediate urge to skeet shoot with the cd is very strong.

Tsisqua

3.JG51_BigBear
04-03-2005, 10:17 AM
That Korean war addon is a lot of fun.

tsisqua
04-03-2005, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
That Korean war addon is a lot of fun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You Betcha, BigBear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It turned CFS3 into the first Korean FS since Mig Alley. And its way ahead of Mig Alley for immersion.

Tsisqua

msalama
04-03-2005, 11:15 AM
OK, thanks again for insights / opinions.

BUT BUT... now that you mention it... how about getting _CFS2_ rather than CFS3? AFAIK many of the planes work in FS2002/2004 too, so _that_ might actually be an interesting option!

But what do you say - should I get CFS2 instead of CFS3, actually?

BuzzU
04-03-2005, 11:56 AM
If you have FB-AEP-PF. Why are you looking for another WW2 flight sim? Especially the M$ c-r-a-p.

msalama
04-03-2005, 12:12 PM
Why not?

Gotta check the competition every now & then y'know, because it gives ya perspective! But yeah, just out of curiosity I'd say...

GSNei
04-03-2005, 12:26 PM
The only reason I still have CFS3 on my hard drive is because of the multi-position B17 and Lancaster that comes with Firepower. I may be too graphics oriented but I think CFS3 has some of the ugliest plane interiors I've ever seen. The P-38 looks like the inside of a sewer pipe. CFS2 has tons of available add-ons/downloads but it is "open architecture" so FM's can be all over the place.

P.S. If you want a really nice B-29 get the Wings Of Power addon for FS2004. You can't destroy anything but it's a nice AC.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-03-2005, 01:11 PM
If you are planning to get a CFS game. Get three. Two was a great game but it just doesn't stand up anymore and as much as people like to piss and moan about CFS3 it is really good with firepower. I don't think most players were willing to try it again after its initial release. Il2 is better, but there is a lot of fun to be had with CFS3.

VF103_Moo
04-03-2005, 04:22 PM
if ur gonna get anything, get cfs2, i have it and cfs3, and there is TONS more u can do, the default birds in 2 are pretty good, but for those who flew with me in cfs2, they know that I would usually fly AB squad aircraft. i personally love cfs2

LEXX_Luthor
04-03-2005, 06:19 PM
I am thinking of CFS2 just to see what that big Pacific Map looks like, and try some warbird navigating with maybe some combat which rules out FS2000x.

Were the CFS2 mission files Text Files or some bizzare format?

han freak solo
04-03-2005, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why not just kill Oleg and let microsoft finish BoB?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's just wrong in so many ways. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

wayno7777
04-03-2005, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Udidtoo:
Every time you start an engine in CFS3 Oleg kills a kitty. Please, spare the kitties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He better watch out for this kitty...bummer, photobucket is experiencing difficulties.
Here it is...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/Killer.jpg

msalama
04-04-2005, 10:36 AM
...and again, thanks for your opinions.

Yep, you folks sure give me something to chew on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Well OK, when the payday comes I'll probably get them both if I still feel like it, or maybe _neither_ of them if I don't! Who knows - this was just a thing that popped to my mind, and as I stated it's no biggie 1 way or another...

Skycat_2
04-04-2005, 02:47 PM
The CFS-2 planes don't fly very well in FS-2004. There's something about the air files that is incompatible, I think, and the CFS-2 planes fly sluggish. A far better option is to look for free mods available that upgrade the stock CFS-2 planes' files and then repackage the whole plane (3D model, skin, etc) for you to use in FS-2004.

I suggest you try out some free planes made for CFS-2 by modders first to see how CFS-2 planes fly in FS-2004. A downfall of the free stuff is that a lot of times the models lose their propellors and other pieces after you move them to FS-2004. (The stock CFS-2 models don't have that problem, however. They just fly crappy).

Personally, I like the look and feel of CFS-3 better than CFS-2. However, the cockpits range from acceptable to really lousy, and the U.S. planes have the worst cockpits of the bunch. One other issue I have with CFS-3 (and CFS-2) is how fragile the planes are; if you play using realistic settings its highly likely that a single bullet or piece of flak will take you down ... and I swear, the AA gunners can shoot you even if you duck behind mountains.

Over the last few days I've been playing a quick mission where I intercept a small flight of B-25s in my Bf 109G-6, and every time I get shot down or severely damaged without making a single kill. Usually I hear a quick "ting ting" as I'm passing somewhere near the enemy formation and the next thing I know my engine is seized up or my tail is broken off ... People complain about the "Uber sniper gunners" in FB, but I swear they are rookies compared to CFS-3's AI gunners. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The offline dogfighting aspect doesn't feel quite as 'realistic' to me as in FB either. However in those moments where you actually get an enemy in your sights and able to pour lead into him, the visual effect can be as satisfying or even moreso than in FB. The smoke, tracer and fire effects seem more historic to me than in FB ... but that is only opinion.

I like the look of the airbases in CFS-3; the ground objects like the vehicles driving around make the bases feel very immersive. Out over the battlefield, CFS-3 gives you a more defined front line than FB, and you can see numerous ground objects fighting each other. (FB's ground objects behave more intelligently, however, so this may be a case of quantity vs. quality). Some parts of the CFS-3 map look very nice, but many areas are ugly or simply bizarre (largely because of random autogen objects populating the sides of mountains and cliffs, etc). If you are a veteran of the FS-2004 then CFS-3's terrain won't surprise you much; it's of very similar quality.

I don't know what else to tell you, really. I enjoy CFS-3 but then again I mostly use if for Free Flight and ground attack missions. The high-altitude aspect of CFS-3 looks better than FB, but on the other hand the CFS-3 planes usually don't look or feel as realistic in their interiors so that becomes a serious tradeoff in the experience.

TC_Stele
04-04-2005, 02:48 PM
Ok, I havn't bothered picking up FS2004 yet or CFS3 but I do know I want to fly a B-17 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Should I go with CFS3 and its FirePower or should I go with FS2004 and its Wings of Power. I'm looking for the most realistic flight model, etc. I don't care about dropping bombs, I'll just wait for the new B17 flight sim coming out whenever.

nickdanger3
04-04-2005, 03:21 PM
I bought CFS3 after having played IL2 for a couple months. I definitely wasn't Olegofied yet, and IL2 was my first flight sim since Flight Simulator 2 in the 80's. I'd like to think that I was pretty open minded.

My problem with CFS3 wasn't the FM since as a nonpilot I wouldn't really know good from bad. Wasn't what planes were available because way back when, both planesets were fairly limited.


What I didn't like was the graphics. Compared to the IL2 series it looked awful to me. I think that I played it for an hour and haven't looked back since then.

But what the heck...it'll set you back $10 now. Go for it and report back.

Skycat_2
04-04-2005, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TC_Stele:
Ok, I havn't bothered picking up FS2004 yet or CFS3 but I do know I want to fly a B-17 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Should I go with CFS3 and its FirePower or should I go with FS2004 and its Wings of Power. I'm looking for the most realistic flight model, etc. I don't care about dropping bombs, I'll just wait for the new B17 flight sim coming out whenever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to work the control levers and push all the panel buttons with your mouse, I'd go with "Wings of Power" for FS-2004. One of the controversial changes to the CFS series that CFS-3 implemented was that it chucked the interactive control panel. (You can still set throttle, mix, etc. through the keyboard however in CFS-3.) From what I understand, Shockwave has distributed all the copies of WoP that they planned to for stores and now are only filling small orders for online dealers ... if you see WoP in a store, you'd better grab it while you can.

Shockwave also has a download version of the B-17 at their online store for $25, but for the price you can't beat the CD-ROM version that also has the B-29, Lancaster, B-24, Arado, etc. for only a few dollars more. The big difference is that the online B-17 download gets you a PDF copy of the historic pilot's manual.

If you want to see bombs fall and explode, then CFS-3 and FirePower is the better choice. You can also download free B-17s like AvHistory.org's "Molly" for CFS-3 if you want to minimize your costs.

You might also want to consider Microprose's "B-17: The Mighty Eighth" which is a few years old now but an excellent study sim of the Fortress. The graphics are dated, but the simulation aspect is unique and worth checking out. The Norden bombsight is accurately modeled and alone makes installation worth your time. You should be able to pick "B-17: The Mighty Eighth" up really cheap I'd think, especially if you're willing to buy a used copy.

Bo_Nidle
04-04-2005, 09:54 PM
I purchased CFS3 when it was first released. It wouldn't run and when it finally did it looked terrible. I blamed my PC for not being powerful enough so got rid of CFS3.

I have a high end machine now and out of curiosity the other week purchased it again. It ran first time and I have to say it is still AWFUL!!!!!!!!!

To say its graphics are "pig-ugly" would be an insult to swine everywhere. I could not believe the crudeness of the aircraft models and the thickness of the glazing struts of the B-26 nose glass! I was stunned that such a recent game could look this bad!

Its sound is bloody terrible! Il2 sound has its faults for some aircrafts engine and gun sounds I admit (e.g. The merlin and .50 cals) but they all sound like hairdriers in CFS3.

Its flight model is probably good but I have never flown a WW2 fighter or any other plane come to that so I'm not really qualified to comment.

The best thing I can say for CFS3 is the CD fits in the case correctly!

Seriously though, I used to play on CFS1,my first sim,loved it. I would love to replace the radio speech in IL2FB/PF with the CFS1 and CFS2 radio speech. I enjoyed CFS2 as well. Then Il2 arrived and blew me away,followed by FB and now PF. Now all CFS series gather dust.

Save your money and forget CFS3. Its just zero competition to the IL2 series.

amscot
04-04-2005, 10:55 PM
It's like all the other MS sims. You gotta add, add, add, tweak, etc, until it's good for you. With the firepower and 1% aircraft plus add on scenery upgrades, I'm playing it again and finally liking it. I do really like the dynamic campaigns , much better than IL2's. Even a bit of strategy works (I'm going after all the production centers now with my Lanc's and really knocking back their numbers. Time to launch D-Day soon!)

At the end of the the day, it's good to have them both.

Badsight.
04-04-2005, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
The best thing I can say for CFS3 is the CD fits in the case correctly! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>thats pretty damming

CFS2 had great plane sounds , i wish they were in FB/PF

msalama
04-05-2005, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's like all the other MS sims. You gotta add, add, add, tweak, etc, until it's good for you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger that. Yeah, was/is the same thing w/ FS200x too!

(I've finally gotten the default FS9 DC-3 to behave like I think it should IRL BTW, now that you mentioned M$ sims... only took me 6 months or something http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With the firepower and 1% aircraft plus add on scenery upgrades, I'm playing it again and finally liking it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger that too. Any word on the FM of those planes - do they feel realistic enough?

bzhyoyo
04-05-2005, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jugent:
The worst with CFS3 flightmodel is that you can build your own aircraft.
The result of this is that you can get a 2500hp aircraft with 10 MG which have the effect of a bomb.
This mess the fun with online gaming. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but that is just plain wrong : cfs3 is not cfs2.
In cfs3, there is an online anti-cheat system which works like that : your plane xdp (the file defining the damage model and some flight characteristics) and aircraft.cfg (flight characteristics) must be EXACTLY the mirror image of your online partners otherwise you will not be able to join the room.

It works so well that some 3rd party add-ons have mismatches even if no mod were applied to them : the issue is actually being worked on to avoid any mistakes in installing new planes that may cause these mismatches (auto-installers are beginning to be en vogue with 3rd party modellers).

However if you're mainly interested in online playing, FB/PF is surely the way to go. Cfs3 has issues with multiplayer because of these mismatches currently.

About flight models : stock FMs are ****, but third party add-ons improve them a lot. The standard is Avhistory.org (aka. 1% planes). And they're always working on new models to improve realism.

If you're interested in cfs3, here are two free ground-breaking add-ons that should be ready sometime during 2005 (no precise ETA) :

WWI add-on :
http://off.synapticshock.org/index.htm
(site is down at the moment but check it out later this week - should be fixed)
Mediterranean theatre add-on :
http://www.medairwar.com/
(flight models by Avhistory).

bzhyoyo
04-05-2005, 11:39 AM
Oh btw : here are the "pig ugly" graphics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.screenshotart.com/index.php?s=058e6de101021a28c284a8c9d2c008f0&act=Attach&type=post&id=22233

http://www.screenshotart.com/index.php?s=058e6de101021a28c284a8c9d2c008f0&act=Attach&type=post&id=22232

Bo_Nidle
04-05-2005, 06:03 PM
Sorry m8 I stand by my critique and assert that IL2's graphics are far superior. http://server5.uploadit.org/files/BoNidle-DonnieBoy.jpg

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/BoNidle-VMF213Corsair.jpg

LStarosta
04-05-2005, 06:09 PM
The graphics are all right, but I have one problem with CFS3...

How much do you have to strain your PC to have graphics equivalent to FB's medium/high graphics?


Exactly...

3.JG51_BigBear
04-05-2005, 06:28 PM
You can't make a case that CFS3 graphics are better than PF graphics but I think there are plenty of things to outweigh the graphics including the massive maps and the far superior ground objects and the individual modelling of trees which make ground attack far more intense (there's just something about those pancake trees). Il2 is king, but I think with new, more powerful computers, the firepower addon, and the community starting to turn out some quality tweaks and addons, I think CFS3 makes a nice companion sim to the Il2 series.

bzhyoyo
04-06-2005, 04:02 AM
Bo_Nidle : you have every right to prefer FB graphics. I find them good too. I specifically think that the lighting engine is better for the scenery in FB. For the planes, especially those with bare metal skins, I prefer cfs3.
But if you think my screenshots are "pig ugly", then I'll say this is a gross exaggeration, or at least a statement that is VERY subjective, certainly not a fact.

My specs :
- PIV 2.6C
- 1024 Mo of RAM
- Radeon 9800 pro with cat3.9 (the best drivers to get the best image quality in cfs3)

fps are about 40 in VC with no stutters. It drops as low as 20 with a lot of action going on on but remain smooth and playable, such as this mission in a BF110G2 in which you have to intercept a whole bomber box of B17 (at least 70 planes in the air).

Jetbuff
04-06-2005, 05:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bzhyoyo:
But if you think my screenshots are "pig ugly", then I'll say this is a gross exaggeration, or at least a statement that is VERY subjective, certainly not a fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That makes 2 of us who think CFS3 graphics are "pig ugly". The pixelated vomit they call terrain just doesn't cut it for me. Sure it looks great at altitude but when do you really "look" at the ground? Right, when you're doing low level ground attacks.

The thing that really seals it for me though are the discrepancies in quality all around. e.g. great clouds, OK plane externals, crappy cockpits - the whole scene just ends up feeling disjointed.

msalama
04-06-2005, 05:26 AM
Yeah, but this same disjointedness plagues all M$ sims I've seen so far! Check FS2004 for example - the default scenery is one biiiig splash of pixel vomit, and so are many of the cockpits too...

Well, now that I think of it I might just stay w/ FS2004 & IL-2, and forget CFSxxx http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bzhyoyo
04-06-2005, 06:21 AM
The terrain is better at high altitude but it is being worked on for low altitude (go to the WWI add-on OFF site). That said, FB has its issues too with high alt modelling.
The discrepancy of quality is there : not all the cockpits are crappy IMO (especially for 3rd party planes), but there is definetely no consistency. You're free to choose what you want to install anyway.

Mslama, it's up to you : cfs3 is not superior overall to FB, it is different and I think 3.JG51_BigBear is the one with the better grasp of what cfs3 has become thanks to its community. You can't compare cfs3 now with the free add-ons with what it was when it was released. If you have the cash to spare, then go for it, you might like it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bo_Nidle
04-06-2005, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bzhyoyo:
Bo_Nidle : you have every right to prefer FB graphics. I find them good too. I specifically think that the lighting engine is better for the scenery in FB. For the planes, especially those with bare metal skins, I prefer cfs3.
But if you think my screenshots are "pig ugly", then I'll say this is a gross exaggeration, or at least a statement that is VERY subjective, certainly not a fact.

My specs :
- PIV 2.6C
- 1024 Mo of RAM
- Radeon 9800 pro with cat3.9 (the best drivers to get the best image quality in cfs3)

fps are about 40 in VC with no stutters. It drops as low as 20 with a lot of action going on on but remain smooth and playable, such as this mission in a BF110G2 in which you have to intercept a whole bomber box of B17 (at least 70 planes in the air). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now be fair. i did not say that your screenshots are "pig ugly" I said the graphics in CFS3 are. I am surprised at the appearance of the Hurricane as it does not look that bad. However I still assert the IL2FB graphics engine is superior. And I did say the radio traffic in CFS1/2 is better than IL2.

I would be interested to know how you got it looking like that as no matter what I do it still looks awful in comparison.

I'm running an Athlon XP+2800,1024ram,Nvidia 5900xt 128mb card. I run FB/PF on perfect without stutters as well as games like Half Life2, Call of Duty,Joint Operations, all at high settings. So whats with CFS3?

tagTaken2
04-06-2005, 10:32 PM
Hmph.

My personal comparison is this:

I can put the demo of Il-2 on now, and I still flinch and duck at near misses/explosions.

I don't think CFS3 ever made me blink.

The menu music for the Microsoft product is a lot better, though.

bzhyoyo
04-08-2005, 11:22 AM
Bo nidle :
Here are my tweaks, of course they are MY tweaks and may not work as such in your system. NB : the terrain is really improved by adding one of the add-on I linked at the end of the post (Winding Man's scenery manager).

After that, if you have more questions, I'd suggest to go on with this discussion there :
http://www.cfcforums.com/vbindex.php

And if it doesn't work, then go on enjoying PF, after all that's all we use this for fun - and we all have our own definition of fun : there's room for the two sims IMO has they have different qualities and different faults (cfs3 AI can't see through clouds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

All the best

Installing

1) make sure you have the latest version from Direct X (DX9c)
2) make sure the drivers of your system are up to date (including mobo chipset).
2) install cfs3 and then the patches 3.1 and 3.1a
3) use the appropriate drivers with your GPU : best for ATI are cat3.9 - all subsequent versions fail to show the reflections on planes. Don't have an Nvidia : search cfs3 forums for the answer.

Tweaking cfs3config

1) Open the cfs3config utility (cfs3config.exe in the cfs3 main folder)
2) choose your resolution - choose the highest you can (1280x1024 for example)
Cfs3 loves high resolutions (and it allows also to have smaller amounts of AA)
I play in 1280x1024x16 (I find it more stable than 32 bits for no loss in image quality)
2) choose the option "personal settings"
3) set the sliders for the image quality. Mine are at 5/5/5/3/3/1
Clouds and scenery are the big stutter offenders.
4) from "Windows" in the menu bar, go to "Parameter editor for Overrides".
- choose what you want to disable/enable
- for best performance, I unchecked "Dual pass render" and "High resolution Z buffer".
NB : "terrain detail texture" is checked.
5) Go to "parameter editor for texture info" from the "windows" menu
- I increased the max particles to 80,000 : it looks better (more subtle smoke)
- Put both "composite terrain texture usage" and "composite aircraft texture usage" to D3DUSAGE_RENDERTARGET (helps decrease a shimering of textures in the distance)
6) Go to "parameter editor for texture limits" from the "windows" menu
- under aircraftmodels, put "Texture Max Dimension" to 1024 (all the way to the right) - the default is 512 so 1024x1024 skin textures look blurry if you don't do that.

Exit cfs3config.exe through the menu. The changes may not be saved if you click on the red cross in the top right hand corner.

Eliminate stutters :
- just install this file :
http://www.fswarbirds.com/downloads/latest.php?FileID=3068

CAUTION : there is a known issue about using FSAA and AA in cfs3, you may get strange rainbow colours. Answer to this problem here :
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=cfs3;action=display;num=1110687084

ADD-ons :
everything is said in this file :
http://www.fswarbirds.com/downloads/latest.php?FileID=3186

Xiolablu3
04-08-2005, 04:29 PM
I installed CF3 and uninstalled it 1 hour later.

The only thing that is better than IL2/FB etc is the sound. I think CFS3's sound is fantastic. Its one thing that Oleg could update in IL2/FB to make the atmosphere better.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to play the game with the keyboard and my Joypad is broken. At least it is possible to play IL2 with the keyboard in emergencies.

bzhyoyo
04-09-2005, 02:35 AM
It is possible to play with the keyboard, but who in his right mind would do it?
1 hour : whoa, what thorough testing... If you don't add things to cfs3, then you're right : uninstall it, it's not worth it.
If you think that cfs3 stock sounds are good... What a laugh! They're terrible compared to the many add-on sounds you can get for free. Merlin, Griffon, DB605 : three good reasons for your neighbours to hate you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
04-09-2005, 04:13 AM
I think I`m the only perso which didn`t touch CFS3.Never.

I was anticipating its release because it was said to be IL2 destroyer.Up to this day,80% reviews state that CFS3 is poo compared to FB-ACE-PF and not very good compared to original IL2.

For me #1 case is compatibility and ability to run the game smoothly withut tweaking it few hours.That was also one of the biggest objection CFS3 had.Moreover the devs virtually left no support for it.
For me addon policy of 1C and M$ are very different.This of 1C suits me better.

bzhyoyo
04-09-2005, 06:11 AM
This, IMO, is a VERY valid point : Maddox chose complete control over add-ons (except skins); Microsoft chose to let the community of third-party modders do the work for them. While I prefer the latter (I like being able to create things myself and not having to go through someone's else agreement to do so), Maddox is to be commended for his consumer's support.
Those two different approaches are why there is room for those two sims.

That's the reason why there is a WWI add-on in development for cfs3 and not for FB.

Aaron_GT
04-09-2005, 11:48 AM
CFS3 is not entirely without merit, but only if you go and buy FirePower and a decent set of flight model parameter replacements and terrain mesh improvements. I just had to reinstall windows a couple of weeks ago, so I did have a CFS3 install that was ok as a fun alternative to IL2 now and then when I wanted to fly a different plane set. But I haven't got round to reinstalling everything yet (partly because I have system instability with my new components and CFS3 and IL2 both lock up too often).