PDA

View Full Version : FS2004 & IL2-PF



Beirut
05-25-2006, 04:41 AM
The last few weeks I've been flying lots of FS2004. DL a lot of excellent scenery and even bought some payware add-on planes. I've found that after flying FS2004 for a while, and not actually shooting anything, I tend to just enjoy the technicalities offlying more than in IL2. Then, after loading up PF, I marvel at the fantastic cockpits and water(4) graphics and really enjoy the more basic fighter combat manuevres and the thrill of the chase.

The point being that I think FS2004 and IL2-PF compliment each other perfectly. I think flying FS2004 makes you appreciate IL2 even more, and vice versa. It's not a case of one or the other - it's both! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

For those who think FS2004 has no decent planes or scenery, look at these. (Have both of these.)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/F104.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/130_ext_11.jpg

And watch this scenery video. (Don't have this yet.)
http://flightscenery.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=498

Beirut
05-25-2006, 04:41 AM
The last few weeks I've been flying lots of FS2004. DL a lot of excellent scenery and even bought some payware add-on planes. I've found that after flying FS2004 for a while, and not actually shooting anything, I tend to just enjoy the technicalities offlying more than in IL2. Then, after loading up PF, I marvel at the fantastic cockpits and water(4) graphics and really enjoy the more basic fighter combat manuevres and the thrill of the chase.

The point being that I think FS2004 and IL2-PF compliment each other perfectly. I think flying FS2004 makes you appreciate IL2 even more, and vice versa. It's not a case of one or the other - it's both! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

For those who think FS2004 has no decent planes or scenery, look at these. (Have both of these.)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/F104.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/130_ext_11.jpg

And watch this scenery video. (Don't have this yet.)
http://flightscenery.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=498

d9720267
05-25-2006, 12:46 PM
Stop it! You're not supposed to say those things here!

money_money
05-25-2006, 01:35 PM
That video is insane!

Man, if BoB is going to have scenery detail anywhere near like that, well....

Really looking forward to a next gen. Jet sim after seeing that.

thx for sharing.

<3 $

William_966
05-25-2006, 01:41 PM
Wow someone else who agrees with me. I like FS 2004, its has some cool stuff.....some off the add-on planes look cartoonish.....but I can live with that. But in the combat u have to deal with real engine fires.....I mean try flying ur Heinkel with ur engines on fire!I only wish Ubisoft had London as one of the maps.....I like to fly my spit under the London Bridge!TO mr Beirut U have have u tryed the mutilplayer on FB+AEP_PF? Im looking for someone to fly with.......email me if interested:Sailorwillieblue@Yahoo.com

Keep em flyin<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Beirut:
The last few weeks I've been flying lots of FS2004. DL a lot of excellent scenery and even bought some payware add-on planes. I've found that after flying FS2004 for a while, and not actually shooting anything, I tend to just enjoy the technicalities offlying more than in IL2. Then, after loading up PF, I marvel at the fantastic cockpits and water(4) graphics and really enjoy the more basic fighter combat manuevres and the thrill of the chase.

The point being that I think FS2004 and IL2-PF compliment each other perfectly. I think flying FS2004 makes you appreciate IL2 even more, and vice versa. It's not a case of one or the other - it's both! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

For those who think FS2004 has no decent planes or scenery, look at these. (Have both of these.)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/F104.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/130_ext_11.jpg

And watch this scenery video. (Don't have this yet.)
http://flightscenery.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=498 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Treetop64
05-25-2006, 02:51 PM
I love FS2004. I actually fly it more than PF.

That's video is from RealScenery, and it is of the Rhode Island area. It's very beautiful, but the only gotcha is that it covers a very limited area of Rhode Island.

FreeFlow Florida is similar (not quite as photoreal, though), but at least it covers the entire state of Florida and the Keys.

I'd love to see something like as nice as RealScenery that covers the entire U.S., or even the world. As it is, I'm making do with FSGenesis's 19m and 32m mesh, U.S. landclass, and Ultimate Terrain, along with 30GB of other scenery goodies!

ronison
05-25-2006, 05:21 PM
Actully the vidio is of the Portland Internatinal Airport and surrounding area in Oregon. The opening sean you can see Mt. Hood then Mt. St Helens. Along with the USAF reserve quansant hut type hangers, the Columbia River, I-205 birdge over the Columbia and Government Island, and the Five bridges over the Walamete River in down town Portland.

And being I have flown out of that very ariprot on numerous occasions I will say it looks very much like your there.

Oh forgot to add if you look in the lower right correnr you will see it says "Portland Oregon"

Bearcat99
05-25-2006, 07:13 PM
FS9 was never an issue here... the only MS sim that got regularly ragged in here and deservedly so was CFS3. The FS series and FB are two different animals.... I intend to get FSX when it comes out.. although I never did get FS9.

WTE_Galway
05-25-2006, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
FS9 was never an issue here... the only MS sim that got regularly ragged in here and deservedly so was CFS3. The FS series and FB are two different animals.... I intend to get FSX when it comes out.. although I never did get FS9. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never bothered with FS9 either .. wasnt different enough from FS2002 but i will get FSX.

I will say as a skinner the one thing the FS series has that iL2 does not is true reflective textures.

ucanfly
05-25-2006, 09:51 PM
FS9 addons have some of the best feelings of flight out there IMO. Case in point is the Realair spitfire. Landing and takeoffs feel antagonizing with the full blast of sound and the violent yaw. PF feels very easy and boring in comparison. The feeling on approach is a much smoother fluid experience using the Realair spit or WOP P-51 in FS9 for example, whereas in PF I feel more like I am dangling on wires and jerky.

That being said I feel that spins are more faithful to reality (what I've read) in the IL2 model, whereas in FS9 they are too easy to recover from (with possible exception of the Wings of Power P-51). When I want to combat sim, PF is it although BOBWOV is getting more of my time (the devs are more responsive). When I want to feel like I am flying, FS9 is at the top really, but you have to get the payware - so it ain't cheap.

I agree with original post that Il2 and FS9 are complentary, but if MS ever can better capture spins, AI, and combat with the same fluid feeling of flight they now have, they would give Oleg some serious competition.

slo_1_2_3
05-25-2006, 10:00 PM
CAn you guys post the full list of planes for what yur talking about which I thik is MSFS 2004

WTE_Galway
05-25-2006, 11:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
CAn you guys post the full list of planes for what yur talking about which I thik is MSFS 2004 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Full list of planes available for FS2004 ????? hmmm ...


There is probably about 10,000 or more aircraft for download all up if you count freeware community created multiple versions of the same plane. Virtually every military and civilian aircraft that ever existed (and a lot that havent including harry potter brooms, star wars fighters and the star trek shuttles) seems to have been modelled by someone somewhere and made available for download.

Create a login and have a search around the downloads here:

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds/main/forum.htm

this is the top 100 downloads this month from flightsim.com will give you a feel for it ..

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/top.htm

Though my personal preference in MSFS has always been varieties of the Stearman WWII trainer .. a plane I actually hope to do my RL tailwheel endorsement on at some stage. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stansdds
05-26-2006, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The point being that I think FS2004 and IL2-PF compliment each other perfectly. I think flying FS2004 makes you appreciate IL2 even more, and vice versa. It's not a case of one or the other - it's both! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Absolutely! I fly FS2004 and find it is excellent for fun and relaxing flights and for better understanding aerodynamics and the effects of weather on flight handling. So I use FS2004 for fun, basic and aerobatic training, then apply the lessons learned to IL2. Doing so has improved my flying skills.

Fighterduck
05-26-2006, 05:16 AM
use FS only for WOP addons...those models are awesome!and the sounds...that's what i'm talking about!
For the rest...dont really like it.To enjoy fliyng FS you have to climb hight...large textures are horrible at low altitude.

Bearcat99
05-26-2006, 06:11 AM
If MS was smart they would put a damage model building capability in the software so that all people would have to do would be to add period maps and planes and WAHH LAHH!! CFS4.

Metabaron2005
05-26-2006, 07:14 AM
They can do whatever they want with their FS2K4 and even FSX, the ground textures they put under the trees to imitate shadows and the other 2D aerial photo textures sucks.

It might be beautifull seen from altitude but don't get to close or it looks like ACE Combat, ... maybe to fit the flight dynamics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

And I don't even talk about water rendering or the flight dynamics or other stuffs that suck in FS ...

Bearcat99
05-26-2006, 07:40 AM
Yeah that was one of my biggest gripes with the MS series as well... the ground textures are sort of like that woman you meet in a drak br.... and thye closer you get the more youy want to walk away.

slipBall
05-26-2006, 02:26 PM
I recently downloaded the B-29, I am enjoying it alot

Beirut
05-26-2006, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metabaron2005:
They can do whatever they want with their FS2K4 and even FSX, the ground textures they put under the trees to imitate shadows and the other 2D aerial photo textures sucks.

It might be beautifull seen from altitude but don't get to close or it looks like ACE Combat, ... maybe to fit the flight dynamics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

And I don't even talk about water rendering or the flight dynamics or other stuffs that suck in FS ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep in mind that FS9 covers the whole planet and models 20,000 airports. You have to compromise a bit with that level of terrain. Mind you, some of the add-on scenery is pure Haagen-Dasz. As nice or nicer than in any other sim.

As for the flight modeling, I'll tell you right now that landing that F-104 is possibly the hardest flight sim event I've ever faced. Doing it at night in bad weather? Well, might as start praying now 'cause you'll be meeting God sonner than later. Anyone who thinks FS9 has no challenges has never flown in FS9.

I understand your apprehensions about the FS series, but the depth of this sim is absolutely without equal. It's more than just a flight sim, it's a learning tool for flying, navigation, and geography. And it's fun!

Beirut
05-26-2006, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
If MS was smart they would put a damage model building capability in the software so that all people would have to do would be to add period maps and planes and WAHH LAHH!! CFS4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rumour has it that FSX will be coded to allow modifications that will permit dogfighting and damage.

The possibilities would be endless. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Metabaron2005
05-26-2006, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Beirut:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metabaron2005:
They can do whatever they want with their FS2K4 and even FSX, the ground textures they put under the trees to imitate shadows and the other 2D aerial photo textures sucks.

It might be beautifull seen from altitude but don't get to close or it looks like ACE Combat, ... maybe to fit the flight dynamics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

And I don't even talk about water rendering or the flight dynamics or other stuffs that suck in FS ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep in mind that FS9 covers the whole planet and models 20,000 airports. You have to compromise a bit with that level of terrain. Mind you, some of the add-on scenery is pure Haagen-Dasz. As nice or nicer than in any other sim.

As for the flight modeling, I'll tell you right now that landing that F-104 is possibly the hardest flight sim event I've ever faced. Doing it at night in bad weather? Well, might as start praying now 'cause you'll be meeting God sonner than later. Anyone who thinks FS9 has no challenges has never flown in FS9.

I understand your apprehensions about the FS series, but the depth of this sim is absolutely without equal. It's more than just a flight sim, it's a learning tool for flying, navigation, and geography. And it's fun! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To have 20.000 airport modelised is not an excuse for using such awfull ground textures ...

The trees ant the terrain around all these airports are nearly the same so it's not a difficulty parameter to excuse the VERY low resolution terrain rendering at low altitudes.

The default FS4 scenery's have really very low graphic quality and if you want something more realistic you have to buy a scenery add-on ... with some more 3D buildings and ... the same sucking low resolution textures ...

If we talk about the planes bahaviour, I wonder how could somebody learn to fly with such totally ARCADE flight dynamics ...

And if you think the F104 is hard to land (I have it too in FS2K4 and also the mig21 and the F16), try to land a plane in Lock-On and you'll understand what the expression 'realistic flight dynamics' means ...

And to be totaly honnest,I think it's a shame to call 'simulator' a game with the most arcade flight dynamics after ACE Combat ;-).

The guy who practices it for a real flight, is goig to get a big surprise once in a real plane.

slo_1_2_3
05-27-2006, 01:45 AM
So do all "10,000" planes have real flight models and behave like they would in real life? and those two pics at the top are those from the game?The stuff I see looks amamzing if only microsoft could make a decent combat flight sim it'd be awsome with b29's and everything else does it have a b-17 too?

Sooocool
05-27-2006, 02:44 AM
You know,--- it€s like Coke or Pepsi. Most cola drinkers will indulge in either, few will be exclusive to one, and invariably, everyone has a preference. Without the other, we would under appreciate our favorite, and the qualities that made it our favorite might slip.
I too enjoy FS2004, who doesn€t like a little eye candy once in a while? But that€s just about it. Is it just on my computer that you feel you need a child€s booster seat to see the horizon over the glair shield? I could go on and on but, there is one thing they did get right that IL2 / PF didn€t. The right and left main wheel breaks activated by toes on top of the ruder pedals work independently as they should, but on IL2 / PF right and left are full on or off together. Out of hundreds of comparisons, this is the only technical thing they did better that I can think of.
The criteria I go by in selecting my favorite €œcola€ are prioritized as
1 Most accurate flight model
2 Highest frame rate, even on lame computers
3 Eye Candy

I never was able to get a significant increase in frame rate by trading off eye candy in FS2004.
Sure, there will always be a huge market share out there that anyone in business would like appeal to the taste of, but I certainly hope that as these Sims evolve, IL2 / PF will continue to keep real world physics in their flight models, their top priority.

clayman_52
05-27-2006, 02:56 AM
I think for the most part FS is fun to fly more due to it's addons and such than to it's FM. While IL2/PF has always had way better "feel" to me ... both can complment each other nicely. I was thinking just that while flying FSD's Skymaster over FSgenesis' Grand Canyon in real weather today. As I panned around looking at the visuals I was thinking it's all these little touches that make it interesting. The payware, the free ware (the Beech 18, the Howard, the Waco's, Kirk Olsson's work ... heck, so many) all sorts of stuff to tweak ... one could get lost in it. But the pure thrill and speed of flight has been there since day one in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You hit the nail on the head Sooocool ... it is Coke and Pepsi! And you know, it's really pizzed me off that through 3 successive rigs that now push the frames on IL2 through the roof with everything maxed ... FS9 still sits there not much faster than when I originally loaded it.

ucanfly ... the Realair Spitfire is another favorite of mine.

slo_1_2_3 ... check out SHOCKWAVE's - Wings of Power: WWII Heavy Bombers and Jets.

<span class="ev_code_GREY">.</span>

Beirut
05-27-2006, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:

...and those two pics at the top are those from the game?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pics are in-game but the planes are payware add-ons. The C-130 cost $40 and the F-104 cost $30. Also have a C-130 add-on add-on that puts floats on the C-130 for water landings. Now, is it kind of stupid to pay $40 for an add-on plane? Maybe yes. Are the planes fun? Absolutely.

We all have different views of what fun is and what we're willing to pay for it. The C-130 cost me as much as a steak, a magazine, and a few beer. It was a trade I'm willing to make.

I disagree with the criticism of the FS9 terrain. Yes, it looks (really) terrible at times, but it's good enough and sometimes it's downright great. Google Earth a major international airport anywhere in the world and then look at the same airport in FS9. From altitude, many are spot on and look great. It's really quite impresive. Also, the FS9 terrain is mod-able to the point of being insane. Look at the video link in my first post. I think anyone would have a hard time saying that's not incredible looking scenery by any standard.

For those who decry the FS2004 FMs, I'm not sure how bad they can be if real world pilot associations reward and commision FS9 aircraft as training tools. Even the US armed forces are using FS2004 as a training tool. One Air Force recruit got in a trainer for the fist time and made a textbook perfect flight. They were curious how he did so well in his first time in a plane, they investigated and found out that he spent so much time in FS2004 that he knew the instruments and terrain by heart. Each pilot candidate now has to put in over 20 hours on FS2004 under an instructor's supervision.

As for those who compare this sim to that sim in order to put one down and elevate the other, I don't think that's fair. Each sim offers fun in a different way. I have IL2-FB-ACE-PF and Lock On and Falcon4:AA and FS2004. Each has it's highs and lows and I refuse to give up any of them. Why should I limit my flying fun because of a lack of perfection?

The best mix, for me, would be FS2004's scale and real world scenery, with Lock On's terrain and pyrotechnics, Falcon4's campaign and insane depth, and IL2's planes, water, and era. Can you imagine... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Until that sim is made, I'm flying 'em all and enjoying 'em all and having every ounce of fun I can with each.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a 707 to attend to at Denver Int. Ta-ta.

NAFP_supah
05-27-2006, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sooocool:
You know,--- it€s like Coke or Pepsi. Most cola drinkers will indulge in either, few will be exclusive to one, and invariably, everyone has a preference. Without the other, we would under appreciate our favorite, and the qualities that made it our favorite might slip.
I too enjoy FS2004, who doesn€t like a little eye candy once in a while? But that€s just about it. Is it just on my computer that you feel you need a child€s booster seat to see the horizon over the glair shield? I could go on and on but, there is one thing they did get right that IL2 / PF didn€t. The right and left main wheel breaks activated by toes on top of the ruder pedals work independently as they should, but on IL2 / PF right and left are full on or off together. Out of hundreds of comparisons, this is the only technical thing they did better that I can think of.
The criteria I go by in selecting my favorite €œcola€ are prioritized as
1 Most accurate flight model
2 Highest frame rate, even on lame computers
3 Eye Candy

I never was able to get a significant increase in frame rate by trading off eye candy in FS2004.
Sure, there will always be a huge market share out there that anyone in business would like appeal to the taste of, but I certainly hope that as these Sims evolve, IL2 / PF will continue to keep real world physics in their flight models, their top priority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets go down that list:

1. Most realistic flight model, Ever tried stalling in one of oleg's planes? It's a lot but not how it is on real planes. Try flying The RealAir spitfire and then flying one of oleg's spitfire. Especially landing is unrealistically difficult in PF compared to the RealAir spitfire. Ever notice how the flight models of some planes in FB/PF change over the course of several patches? Why? Arent they claimed to be Super realistic by most in this community? Why change something that is allready perfect? Because their not. Who do you think has the most accurate high altitude flight simulation ? FS9 or PF?

2. Highest frame rate, On my PC FS9 runs fine maxed out, perfectly smooth and looks just as good as PF however that latter runs like a pig.

3. Eye candy, the realair spit and the FS9 engine win here hands down, use active sky and some good third party sceneries and you will never look back. You say some freeware planes look bad? Sure they do, as does the PF bf-109 cockpit. Inconsistent quality of cockpit models and textures is something we have in both games.

Now let me add some other points:

4. Sound, a hands down victory for FS9 especially when using the RealAir spitfire. Comparing the two is like comparing Jimi Hendrix (FS9) to that annoying neighbourhood kid on his 5 euro guitar (PF).

5. Depth of aircraft system's and function's modelled, in the Realair spitfire every switch in your cockpit works, the start up sequence is 100% realistic, mess it up and it wont go very far. Avionics, a complete stranger to the Maddox games series, can be modelled at incredible depth in FS9.

6. Not being able to see over the glare shield? That's just you not having messed with the eyepoint movement commands, You can put the eyepoint anywhere you want it, even outside the cockpit. How happy this would have made many a FB/PF FW-190 driver! Many moons of complaining about the horrible forward visibility have not brought a fix to this, in FS9 all that would have been required was a few touches of a button. Pilots move their head about in the cockpit .... but in PF this is impossible.

7. Expandabillity, a 100% FS9 victory! There is only one party that can add to FB/PF and thats maddox games and associates. Not the community. Even default scenery in FS9 looks as good as the maddox games scenery. The only thing that looks better is the water. You want to fly a spitfire mk I ? Well in FS9 you can! Want to fly from a bomber mission in a B-29 from a small island to Japan? Well apart from actually dropping the bombs you can in FS9.

8. Weather modelling, In PF this is a joke. The weather never changes and the clouds etc. are rather underwhelming, especially when compared with FS9 + Active sky. Real World Weather is another FS9 Strong point, there is no better model for fiction then reality http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Modelling of wind on airplanes is also a lot better in FS9 then in PF.

9. Cost of addons, 40 dollars for a C-130 ... wow thats a lot of money ... is it really? I tried it for a review over at Flying-legends, the system's are modelled 100% and the plane is not a breeze to fly, it will require skill and effort. Planning your flight, starting your engines and navigating are a real handfull. You will be months further for you will have fully mastered this machine and once you have mastered it you will have a fantastic rendition of a plane that is a lot of fun to fly. How much did we pay for the Pe-2 addon again? It's not like that came with an abbundance of planes. I had great fun with it but I dont think it added that much more to my enjoyment of flightsimming then the CaptainSim C-130.

The one big advantage PF has is that you can actually blow stuff up but to be honest, I have more fun flying navigation trips in my realair spitfire then I will ever have blowing yet another plane from the sky.

Oh and metabaron2005, I practiced a lot in FS9 during my flight training. No big surprises here other then how much time and money it saved me. The ability to realistically practice things before hand in a safe enviroment saves down on airtime a lot. I know F-16 pilots, operational and test pilots, who all feel FS9 is VERY close to reality. Those that I have had try PF/FB have lost interest quite quickly.

WWSensei
05-27-2006, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The right and left main wheel breaks activated by toes on top of the ruder pedals work independently as they should, but on IL2 / PF right and left are full on or off together. Out of hundreds of comparisons, this is the only technical thing they did better that I can think of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is differential braking in IL2. It is done by applying full rudder THEN brake....and it is historically accurate in most of the aircraft. Some of the IL2 aircraft did, historically, have seperate toe brakes, but I almost positive none of the Russian ones did and I can't speak for the British or Japanese ones. US aircraft were a mix.

So, at most there may a slight miss in the exact execution of differential braking in the game but it does exist.

WWSensei
05-27-2006, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know F-16 pilots, operational and test pilots, who all feel FS9 is VERY close to reality. Those that I have had try PF/FB have lost interest quite quickly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fly both. I have the T-37 Tweet aircraft. It was built and modelled by actual Tweet USAF instructor pilots. I also have several hours in the Tweet myself (ex-Viper driver myself). As best as a PC can do the FS9 Tweet model is as bang on accurate as you can get. I paid $34 for it and enjoy it very much.

There are **** models out too. In my experience both sims offer approximately 250 well modelled aircraft. FS9 just has about 20,000 additional crappy ones. ;-)

For true aspects of flying like actual engine management (sorry, but CEM in IL2 is EXTREMELY simplified), weather, procedures and approaches FS9 has it all over IL2.

In short, when I want to practice flying I fly FS9. When I want to practice combat I fly IL2.

9th_simplex
05-27-2006, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by clayman_52:
I think for the most part FS is fun to fly more due to it's addons and such than to it's FM. While IL2/PF has always had way better "feel" to me ... both can complment each other nicely. I was thinking just that while flying FSD's Skymaster over FSgenesis' Grand Canyon in real weather today. As I panned around looking at the visuals I was thinking it's all these little touches that make it interesting. The payware, the free ware (the Beech 18, the Howard, the Waco's, Kirk Olsson's work ... heck, so many) all sorts of stuff to tweak ... one could get lost in it. But the pure thrill and speed of flight has been there since day one in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You hit the nail on the head Sooocool ... it is Coke and Pepsi! And you know, it's really pizzed me off that through 3 successive rigs that now push the frames on IL2 through the roof with everything maxed ... FS9 still sits there not much faster than when I originally loaded it.

ucanfly ... the Realair Spitfire is another favorite of mine.

slo_1_2_3 ... check out SHOCKWAVE's - Wings of Power: WWII Heavy Bombers and Jets.

<span class="ev_code_GREY">.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for hijacking this one. Jsut spotted Clayman who I was looking for for ages now.

Hey mate, if you read that, you ever checked your pms at SSP? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You might pop in again with a bucket of new screenies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S!

clayman_52
05-27-2006, 08:55 PM
Hey simplex!

Good to see you mate. Summers coming on and I'll have lots of time for screens ... will swing on over! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S~
<span class="ev_code_GREY">.</span>

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2006, 09:13 PM
Crappy terrain rendering? (http://www.fengzhudesign.com/fs/)

9th_simplex
05-28-2006, 04:51 AM
Great news Clayman! Can't wait to see your stuff again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Indeed Skunk, YakYak (his name at the flightsim.com forum) surely knows how to showcase the fs9 terrain in a breathtaking way.

fuser59
05-28-2006, 05:39 PM
Simply put, I enjoy both but I wish they could combine into a single package... LOL

Damage Modeling in FS (Series) has allways been a joke. I believe Oleg Deserves a Gigantic A+ for the damage rendering in IL2AEPPF Series, that actually makes you "Feel" your crashes all the way through finally sliding to a stop, and then gives YOU the ability to decide when you want to "respawn".

Another thing that attracts me to PF, is the endless ways to set up Mission Objectives. In FS, all you do is Take-Off, Navigate, Fly-around, and land. If you crash, you are just screwed as far as realism goeshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

FSX Needs to do Much Much more in allowing 3rd parties the ability to add to the sim such things as the ability to drop bombs, fire weapons with different visual effects for different types of weapons fired/used, parachute from planes, Crew up multicrew planes with online players, get rid of the 100,000 ft glass ceiling, and fix the contact points so players can get much closer togeather before "collisions" occur.

Objective based missions, A mission, scenery and terrain creator featuring 1000's of placable movable and damagable objects would create 1000's of addons for free, and revenues for designers who opt to charge for their services. A scoring system would be a must for objective outcome based missions.

For FSX to be attractive to me (Other than scenery and acft flt mdl eye candy), they will have to go FARRRRR, in developing Damage profiles, Viewpoints that allow you extreme flexibility on outside views with mouse panning such as available in IL2. This would allow easier transitions for Movie Makershttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FSX will also need to totally redo the online play aspects of the sim. IL2 Beats them hands down in this area!

Anyways,,, you get the idea. S~

WTE_Galway
05-28-2006, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metabaron2005:

The guy who practices it for a real flight, is goig to get a big surprise once in a real plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My RT flight instructor, when i was a student pilot, banned me from FS2002 because I was learning too many bad habits. Among other things you learn to hold the stick forward after flare (rather than gradually pull it right back as you should in real life) because the stock cessna noses up impossibly when close to stall. with even the slightest stick back .

Extreme flight conditions such as incipient stall, spiral dives and spins are also poorly modelled.

On the other hand it sure looks prurtee and the third part planes scenery airports and navigation aids are amazing.

WTE_Galway
05-28-2006, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sooocool:
I could go on and on but, there is one thing they did get right that IL2 / PF didn€t. The right and left main wheel breaks activated by toes on top of the ruder pedals work independently as they should, but on IL2 / PF right and left are full on or off together. Out of hundreds of comparisons, this is the only technical thing they did better that I can think of. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually no .. Il2 pretty much has it right.

There were one or two rare aircraft in WWII (the odd german and US I believe) that had differential braking through the pedals. Most WWII aircraft (including almost all British and Russian) had a single brake control that was often a lever and the brake force was distributed left or right depending on the rudder position.

If you look in game you can actually see the brake "lever" moving on the control yoke in a lot of aircraft.

To be strictly correct Il2 should have modelled two different braking systems, but considering the majority of WWII planes had the single brake lever system they have modelled the most realistic of the two for the majority of planes.

Sooocool
05-28-2006, 08:47 PM
Thanks Mates for setting me straight on differential brakes and positive aspects of FS2004.
I€m looking forward to someday getting a way better computer and then checking out some of those add-ons.

WWSensei
05-31-2006, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metabaron2005:

The guy who practices it for a real flight, is goig to get a big surprise once in a real plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My RT flight instructor, when i was a student pilot, banned me from FS2002 because I was learning too many bad habits. Among other things you learn to hold the stick forward after flare (rather than gradually pull it right back as you should in real life) because the stock cessna noses up impossibly when close to stall. with even the slightest stick back .

Extreme flight conditions such as incipient stall, spiral dives and spins are also poorly modelled.

On the other hand it sure looks prurtee and the third part planes scenery airports and navigation aids are amazing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used the RealAir 172 and it was pretty sweet and well modelled. I actually found practicing in the sim helped me in working my procedures. Like all sims it just doesn't give you that feeling in your butt you need when really flying.

It's also a good tool for learning an airport layout when you haven't been there before...

msalama
06-11-2006, 04:47 AM
A couple of points for you all-knowing IL-2-only "aces":

To claim FS9 arcade is just plain bullsh1t. FS9 FMs can be very realistic, and flying FS9 WWII-era prop AC with correctly-done airfiles is MUCH more demanding than flying anything in IL-2. First off, the torque is much more pronounced, and you need to watch your energy carefully because the planes really are draggy and massive. Unlike in IL-2, if I may add, where you can do pretty much whatever you want and get away with it because the planes are so forgiving and weightless!

Add to this engines that DO cook if you're stupid enough to run them in full throttle all day - as is customary in IL-2 - and full cockpit / systems management, and call THAT "arcade" if you're cretinous enuff...

Now don't get me wrong. IL-2 is a great game with many brilliant aspects. It's just less of a flight simulator than FS9, plain and simple.

None of which, BTW, is saying that FS9 doesn't have its share of problems and omissions. Of course it does, like any cheapo PC software product. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it's _still_ a much more comprehensive simulator than IL-2 will ever be.

Yeah, the default planes are cr*p FM-wise. Big deal. Do you research and fix them, and that's your case closed, or download some quality AC of your choice. Now try THAT in IL-2!

Apples and oranges, granted, but when it comes to simulating real flight FS9 still wins hands down. Whereas in Oleg-world you've got your gravity-defying UFOs without engine torque you can mismanage all you want, and still call yourself a fighter ace... sheesh, guys, and FS9 is ARCADE in your book???

No offense meant, but there're some people who really need to get their rose-tinted glasses off (I did already). But hey, you guys DO have those canned spins to brag about, don't you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

UberDemon
06-11-2006, 11:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
If MS was smart they would put a damage model building capability in the software so that all people would have to do would be to add period maps and planes and WAHH LAHH!! CFS4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is EXACTLY what I have always thought. The MS FS series is absolutely stunning... and then they came up with CFS... which to me did absolutely a dis-service to the FS engine. I own CFS, CFS2, and CFS3... all of which I have uninstalled at this point.

But let's face it... Although the prospect of flying a Boeing 777 is awesome, my passion is for military aviation... specifically combat military aviation... MS has such a winner with the FS series... add weapons and damage modelling, plus a decent view system... and it would be nearly perfect, and with such awesome addons coming from the UK on the CFS side, I could guarantee the addons, free and paid would be incredible...

I can't believe MS is not going that route... CFS4 needs to be the next level in MS FS, and not CFS, I think...

joeap
06-12-2006, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:

To claim FS9 arcade is just plain bullsh1t. FS9 FMs can be very realistic, and flying FS9 WWII-era prop AC with correctly-done airfiles is MUCH more demanding than flying anything in IL-2. First off, the torque is much more pronounced, and you need to watch your energy carefully because the planes really are draggy and massive. Unlike in IL-2, if I may add, where you can do pretty much whatever you want and get away with it because the planes are so forgiving and weightless!

Add to this engines that DO cook if you're stupid enough to run them in full throttle all day - as is customary in IL-2 - and full cockpit / systems management, and call THAT "arcade" if you're cretinous enuff...

Now don't get me wrong. IL-2 is a great game with many brilliant aspects. It's just less of a flight simulator than FS9, plain and simple.

None of which, BTW, is saying that FS9 doesn't have its share of problems and omissions. Of course it does, like any cheapo PC software product. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it's _still_ a much more comprehensive simulator than IL-2 will ever be.

Yeah, the default planes are cr*p FM-wise. Big deal. Do you research and fix them, and that's your case closed, or download some quality AC of your choice. Now try THAT in IL-2!

Apples and oranges, granted, but when it comes to simulating real flight FS9 still wins hands down. Whereas in Oleg-world you've got your gravity-defying UFOs without engine torque you can mismanage all you want, and still call yourself a fighter ace... sheesh, guys, and FS9 is ARCADE in your book???

No offense meant, but there're some people who really need to get their rose-tinted glasses off (I did already). But hey, you guys DO have those canned spins to brag about, don't you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need for the atitude, most who dump on MS are dumping on the CFS series. Fact is the MSFS series can be arcadish or sim ... just like Il2 ... both emphasise different aspects of "reality", I mean no guns in MSFS, but the weapons were a joke compared to IL2.

Second, don't know if you are a pilot, I know I'm not but I have read comments that almost no MSFS plane stalls or spins correctly if at all. One or two exceptions...realair being the most outstanding. So "canned" (what does that mean) is better than nothing...especially since real ones are rather unpredictable. One thing I do know from real planes is something anyone can try...put a plane into a bank and let the stick go and the plane should stay banked. It does in Il2 but returns to the centre in MS, and I mean every plane I've tried including the good ones. Weightlessness and stuff I am not sure about, seems to be a model thing (UFOs exist in both sims). Just MHO.

WWSensei
06-12-2006, 07:36 AM
"One thing I do know from real planes is something anyone can try...put a plane into a bank and let the stick go and the plane should stay banked. It does in Il2 but returns to the centre in MS, and I mean every plane I've tried including the good ones."

Ummm, you must something not set right. Excepting those models with large dihedrals the MS aircraft I use all stay banked. In fact, that very behavior was used to demonstrate how IL2 originally had it wrong (older Il2 you could fly inverted and the aircraft would eventually right itself).

One possibility is if you have a self centering joystick then when you let it go the joystick will self-center and send inputs to the game to do the same. The problem is your use of an improper control stick (real ones don't self-center like PC joysticks) not the game.

When I fly FS9 I tend to use a non-self centering control yoke and the FS9 behaves accordingly.

msalama
06-12-2006, 12:48 PM
What Sensei said. Plus:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have read comments that almost no MSFS plane stalls or spins correctly if at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't have to believe everything you read. Robert Sanderson's Hurricanes and Stearmans (http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/perlfect/search/search.pl?p=1&lang=en&include=&exclude=&penalty=5&mode=all&q=robert+sanderson) are fully spinnable, for example, and there're others as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It does in Il2 but returns to the centre in MS, and I mean every plane I've tried including the good ones. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what it is you've tried - and how beaten-up and/or miscalibrated your gear is - but here's (http://home.iprolink.ch/metzger/) a fairly accurate and non-autolevelling Cub FM for your perusal anyway! And if you want to fly with style - and with a brilliant FM too - then by all means go and get (http://www.flightsimonline.com/) FlightsimOnline's Spartan 7W Executive. No auto-levelling there either...

HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
06-12-2006, 01:13 PM
Ok I am blushing guys....I will try these out. Got a saitek evo stick only a year old btw. I never said I dislike MSFS...I really like it. Thanks for the links...just saw though that Cub is for FS2004. I only have FS2002. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

msalama
06-12-2006, 01:31 PM
Don't blush, it'll only make ya cute in our eyes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

And sorry about the somewhat p1ssed tone in my original post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif It's just that FS9's simulation engine is actually much better than its reputation - which, again, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a c**pload of problems and omissions! It sure does...

msalama
06-12-2006, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I only have FS2002. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Acch, makes all this trying-out a bit hairy then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'm not sure what's the quality in FS2002 - never ever even tried it myself...

spitfire22287
06-12-2006, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fuser59:
Simply put, I enjoy both but I wish they could combine into a single package... LOL

Damage Modeling in FS (Series) has allways been a joke. I believe Oleg Deserves a Gigantic A+ for the damage rendering in IL2AEPPF Series, that actually makes you "Feel" your crashes all the way through finally sliding to a stop, and then gives YOU the ability to decide when you want to "respawn".

Another thing that attracts me to PF, is the endless ways to set up Mission Objectives. In FS, all you do is Take-Off, Navigate, Fly-around, and land. If you crash, you are just screwed as far as realism goeshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

FSX Needs to do Much Much more in allowing 3rd parties the ability to add to the sim such things as the ability to drop bombs, fire weapons with different visual effects for different types of weapons fired/used, parachute from planes, Crew up multicrew planes with online players, get rid of the 100,000 ft glass ceiling, and fix the contact points so players can get much closer togeather before "collisions" occur.

Objective based missions, A mission, scenery and terrain creator featuring 1000's of placable movable and damagable objects would create 1000's of addons for free, and revenues for designers who opt to charge for their services. A scoring system would be a must for objective outcome based missions.

For FSX to be attractive to me (Other than scenery and acft flt mdl eye candy), they will have to go FARRRRR, in developing Damage profiles, Viewpoints that allow you extreme flexibility on outside views with mouse panning such as available in IL2. This would allow easier transitions for Movie Makershttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FSX will also need to totally redo the online play aspects of the sim. IL2 Beats them hands down in this area!

Anyways,,, you get the idea. S~ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure how much 3rd parties can go with respect to weapons modeling and damaged modeling. I think most of that is hard-coded into the game like Il-2/PF is. However, there have been 3rd party planes designed with firing missles and effect for shooting guns (I even had a F-117 in FS2000 that would open its bombbay and drop a GBU http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif) However, dont hold your breath for 3rd parties to be able to actually model damage from other plane weapons in FSX, they are keeping it a "civil" sim, without actual combat. (This has been discussed ad nauseum in the flightsim.com forums.)

Now for good news. The 100,000 ft ceiling (I'm pretty sure) confirmed to be gone. There will be a goal-oriented mission system; the example we know is a helo rescuing people from an off-shore burning oil platform. Even better news is that there will be a mission editor/creator! Now this is exciting due to the endless possiblity of scenarios that can be thought of!
Also, scenery editors are already available...ever heard of Runway 12 scenery editor? Check it out, its pretty powerful.

More good news: its been confirmed by people who've tried FSX at E3 that the view system has been completely revamped and is much better/much more flexible. I've personally talked to an FSX tester who compared it the payware Acttive Camera view system for FS2004. So, we're going to get Active Camera as default for FSX. Secondly, there have been rumors that the multiplayer has been also completely revamped, though we dont really knoe how. The beta tester used the word "revolutionary" to describe it.

Then, he used that word to describe all of FSX. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I love both sims. Period. They both have their pros and cons, but what sim doesnt? Enjoy both of them for what they were made to be enjoyed for!

WTE_Galway
06-12-2006, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by spitfire22287:

I've personally talked to an FSX tester who compared it the payware Acttive Camera view system for FS2004. So, we're going to get Active Camera as default for FSX.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used an early version of Active camera with FS2002, it was (like most FS addons) a vast improvement over the standard system. One feature I particularly liked was the way it added a simulated "head shake" with turbulence and violent manouvers .. surprisingly convincing and something IL2 could actually use to good effect.

fuser59
06-13-2006, 07:02 PM
S~ spitfire22287

Thanks for the info. I have to admit I am still mostly "in the dark" about FSX. I can only hope that at least "realistic" damage profiles are included in the sim, along with the option to view the crash site for any length of time needed to complete screenshots and video recording. The ability for developers to include intricate Damage Profiles with pieces flying off and damagable ground objects such as buildings, trees, fences, etc. with advanced special effects would make the sim much more immersive imhohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RAF92_Moser
06-14-2006, 07:22 PM
PDMG 737 anyone? Guaranteed to crush your system into the ground! Ultimate cockpit, textures, flight models, you name it, my computer cried!

msalama
06-16-2006, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">PDMG 737 anyone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naaah, jets are for kids http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

No but seriously, I'm much more of a vintage guy myself, be it single- or multi-engined AC we're talking about... and oh yeah, speaking of heavies: four screws is always better than two *******s anyway innit? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

No but _seriously_ seriously, the PDMG 737 is said to be an excellent add-on if Baby Boeings is your thing...

msalama
06-16-2006, 06:43 AM
Oh yeah, one more thing. All you vintage aviation nuts around here might want to check this (http://www.goldenwings.info/) out... looks VERY interesting IMO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

joeap
06-16-2006, 09:15 AM
Dude given your sig, darn good thing you are not into commercial heavies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Looks excellent, they did have Golden Wings for FS2002 and FS2000 IIRC.

leitmotiv
06-16-2006, 09:20 AM
I have Shockwave's WINGS OF POWER and their He 219 and, as a flying experience, I find the FS9 FM all too easy compared with the Maddox.

msalama
06-16-2006, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...I find the FS9 FM all too easy compared with the Maddox. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't tested the WoP birds myself so cannot comment on that.

There're, however, FS9 vintage AC available that are _much_ more demanding to operate than anything Maddox has ever done. As I said previously they've got the torque and the drag (amongst other things) so you really have to watch what you're doing when taking off or landing.

Tom Kohler's Jug is one of them - search for "p47m_910.zip" at Avsim. Check the aircraft.cfg after installing, however, because the torque settings have been toned down for casual simmers (the realistic values are in there, too, but they are commented out as per default).

And please do yourself a favor and download FlightsimOnline's Spartan Executive (http://www.flightsimonline.com/) too while your at it. The FM is pretty realistic, and while the bird isn't overtly hard to fly it's _still_ at least as demanding as anything in IL-2 IMHO...

leitmotiv
06-16-2006, 01:12 PM
You definitely have 100% of my attention, msalama. No room for prejudice in this hobby! I would deeply appreciate a Top Ten list of best FS9 models, and I will try all of them! I am particularly fond of RAF bombers like the Wellington, Whitley, Manchester, Wellesley, or Stirling---if you could direct me to excellent models of these, I would be very grateful.

msalama
06-16-2006, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You definitely have 100% of my attention, msalama. No room for prejudifce in this hobby! I would deeply appreciate a Top Ten list of best FS9 models, and I will try all of them! I am particularly fond of RAF bombers like the Wellington, Whitley, Manchester, Wellesley, or Stirling---if you could direct me to excellent models of these, I would be very grateful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I haven't found any quality RAF bombers for FS9 anywhere http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif If someone knows of such beasts I'd be _extremely_ interested in them as well...

But as regards my personal favourites ATM, well, here goes:

1) Robert Sanderson's Hurricanes and Stearmans (http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/perlfect/search/search.pl?p=1&lang=en&include=&exclude=&penalty=5&mode=all&q=robert+sanderson). The Stearmans in particular are top notch, both FM- and graphics-wise. All models are fully aerobatic and spinnable.

2) The Spartan I mentioned already. A great plane - the 3D model / cockpit is a work of art, and the FM accurate and detailed.

3) Tom Kohler's Jug mentioned above. Now this is probably the hardest warbird I've come across in any simulator so far. The torque and propwash are just vicious - no way can you take off without full rudder trim & deflection and your tailwheel locked too - and the beast speed-stalls and spins pretty violently as well. Also, do watch your airspeed when flying finals all dirtied up - those flaps create a _huge_ amount of drag and it's all too easy to find yourself NOT flying anymore, and still having the fence to cross! T. Kohler has, however, decided to release the bugger in an easy configuration, so there're files to edit if you want to have it all realistic, and the tailwheel lock mechanism is also somewhat porked in that it auto-locks with full elevator deflection and auto-releases when elevator is lowered http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I don't have the foggiest why it's done that way, but it's easily fixed by editing an XML gauge if desired (I'll post the mod if you want it).

4) Alexander M. Metzger is a mechanical engineering student (IIRC) from Switzerland, and a highly regarded FS9 FM hacker as well (he's gone payware now IIRC). Check out his site (http://home.iprolink.ch/metzger/) for some great FS9 AC FM mods - I'm using the default Cub FM files myself ATM, and compared to M$'s default they're just excellent...

5) Someone released a Boeing 247 with a brilliant FM a while ago (all big FS9 sites carry the package I think). The virtual CP is a bit tatty IIRC, but the bird flies like a dream (I didn't keep her because I just plain prefer the Spartan over pretty much anything nowadays). The feelings of mass and inertia in particular are brilliantly captured - no autolevelling tendencies with this AC, and you'll notice immediately that she's no featherweight either!

That's it ATM I think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
06-16-2006, 02:36 PM
Will try that nasty Thunderbolt--with relish! Thanks, msalama! Keep us all up to speed on choice picks as you find them. Cheers!

Thanks for the tip on disabling self-centering on joysticks and yokes, WWSensei---will do. Real pilot input is fascinating. Go Air Force!

Treetop64
06-16-2006, 10:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
What Sensei said. Plus:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have read comments that almost no MSFS plane stalls or spins correctly if at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't have to believe everything you read. Robert Sanderson's Hurricanes and Stearmans (http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/perlfect/search/search.pl?p=1&lang=en&include=&exclude=&penalty=5&mode=all&q=robert+sanderson) are fully spinnable, for example, and there're others as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It does in Il2 but returns to the centre in MS, and I mean every plane I've tried including the good ones. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what it is you've tried - and how beaten-up and/or miscalibrated your gear is - but here's (http://home.iprolink.ch/metzger/) a fairly accurate and non-autolevelling Cub FM for your perusal anyway! And if you want to fly with style - and with a brilliant FM too - then by all means go and get (http://www.flightsimonline.com/) FlightsimOnline's Spartan 7W Executive. No auto-levelling there either...

HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to add strong, hearty recommendation to the entire lineup offered by RealAir Simulations, including their freeware Cessna 172. I've purchased the Mk14 Spitfire, the SAIA Marchetti, and the 2006 Enhanced Version of their American Champion Series, which includes many liveries of the Citabria, Decathalon, and Scout (including an amphibious Scout).

All of RealAir's planes have the most realistic flying characteristics of any plane offered for FS2004. They all stall (including the pre-stall buffet), spin, and side slip properly and convincingly. You can even snap roll the Marchetti and Spitfire. High speed stalls are modelled as well.

Now RealAir is working on a Beech Duke, and I absolutely can not WAIT for that to be released. Everyone on the planet will be hard pressed to beat me being the first to actually download it when it becomes available!

The Duke will have all the same sophisticated flying characteristics of RealAir's other planes, plus it's the type for being designed and equipped to be flown as a proper high altitude, long distance tourer. And it's a really great looking airframe.

msalama
06-17-2006, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...including their freeware Cessna 172. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, just got it. I'd heard about it previously but never got around to downloading and testing it until now, and what can I say? The bird is just excellent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I also notice that the FS2002 version of this AC was originally commissioned by an Australian flying school. A snippet from the documentation: "Kangan Batman TAFE theory delivery utilizes the latest technology, such as data projected Microsoft€s Flight Sim 2002 software to improve the learning experience. Additionally, Kangan Batman TAFE contracted Real Air Simulations to develop an enhanced Cessna 172 flight model. The result is a PC-based simulation that is as close as you can get to the TAFE-preferred training aircraft. The projected, fully interactive image is like bringing the aircraft into the classroom."

Vintage it isn't, but definitely a keeper anyway IMHO!

And oh yeah, talking 'bout vintage: which one is better in your opinion, the RealAir Spit or the WoP plane by Shockwave?

Treetop64
06-17-2006, 01:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...including their freeware Cessna 172. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, just got it. I'd heard about it previously but never got around to downloading and testing it until now, and what can I say? The bird is just excellent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I also notice that the FS2002 version of this AC was originally commissioned by an Australian flying school. A snippet from the documentation: "Kangan Batman TAFE theory delivery utilizes the latest technology, such as data projected Microsoft€s Flight Sim 2002 software to improve the learning experience. Additionally, Kangan Batman TAFE contracted Real Air Simulations to develop an enhanced Cessna 172 flight model. The result is a PC-based simulation that is as close as you can get to the TAFE-preferred training aircraft. The projected, fully interactive image is like bringing the aircraft into the classroom."

Vintage it isn't, but definitely a keeper anyway IMHO!

And oh yeah, talking 'bout vintage: which one is better in your opinion, the RealAir Spit or the WoP plane by Shockwave? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, IMHO, the Shockwave WoP Spit is actually very good, and there's really nothing to fault it for. But quite frankly the RealAir Spit simply blows the doors out of it. In every department. Period.

Believe me, Bro: it's that good.

In particular, RealAir's virtual cockpits have to be seen to believe. Not only are they gorgeous, (arguably the best looking VC's in FS), but the gauge operation is actually smoother than those on any aircraft's 2D cockpits. I'm basically repeating what they say themselves, but it's the truth.

msalama
06-17-2006, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Believe me, Bro: it's that good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, you convinced me, as did that freeware Cessna of theirs... Which is why I just purchased it & am downloading as we speak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Further reports following.

Beirut
06-17-2006, 05:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You definitely have 100% of my attention, msalama. No room for prejudifce in this hobby! I would deeply appreciate a Top Ten list of best FS9 models, and I will try all of them! I am particularly fond of RAF bombers like the Wellington, Whitley, Manchester, Wellesley, or Stirling---if you could direct me to excellent models of these, I would be very grateful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I haven't found any quality RAF bombers for FS9 anywhere http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif If someone knows of such beasts I'd be _extremely_ interested in them as well...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as a Top Ten list goes, one of them has to be the Captain Sim C-130. This thing is great fun and detailed to the max. It's getting fantastic reviews everywhere. Lots of fun to fly.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/130_ext_11.jpg



As for RAF bombers, I'm waiting for this...
http://justflight.com/en/(vzu5nsvvl0gew42nxwqbhabm)/index.aspx

Looks fantastic! There's a 60meg DL video of it on the home page, worth downloading. I'm buying this the milisecond it comes out.

Treetop64
06-17-2006, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Beirut:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
Sorry, but I haven't found any quality RAF bombers for FS9 anywhere http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif If someone knows of such beasts I'd be _extremely_ interested in them as well... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look up www.Alphasim.com (http://www.Alphasim.com) and click on "Shop", then "RAF". They have a pretty good selection of RAF equipment - some WWII stuff, some cold war stuff. The visual models are pretty good for the most part, but in some of the planes the systems modelling is simplified, (or in some cases, dumbed down). But Alpha builds planes that others won't touch, and does a good job.

One of the peculiarities I've noticed with AlphaSim is that their prices fluctuate from time to time, usually just by two or three dollars in either direction. Just something to be aware of.

Models I've purchased and recommend (Sorry, I haven't bought any RAF equipment from them yet!):

&gt; PBY Catalina - One of Alpha's best selections.

&gt; B2 Spirit - Again, one of their top models. This model shows the dropping of ordnance from the MFDs in the cockpit, but not from the exterior. This thing is capable of staying in the air, without refueling, for-EVER!! I did a 24 hour "mission" once from Missouri in the United States, to the opposite hemisphere, and back.

&gt; Tu-22 "Backfire" - Great exterior model, claustiphobic VC, (as it is IRL!), and fantastic sound set. Fun to fly out of Russian airports in the northwest and fly patrols over Scandinavia, the Baltics, and the North Sea. Even better if you have high resolution terrain mesh and Ultimate Terrain for Europe.

I'm dying for someone to model a Tu-95 "Bear". That is one of my all time favorite aircraft.

I have more, but it would make this post annoyingly long. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
06-17-2006, 06:01 PM
Thanks, Beirut, I, too, am waiting for that Lanc bursting with impatience! Thanks for the suggestions, Treetop64, I'll check them out! That Alphasim link was to something else here is the link:

http://www.alphasim.co.uk/

I'm getting the Wellington, Lysander, and WWII RAF Waddingham---if I like the aircraft, I'll get the Victor and the B-36! Cheers!

NAFP_supah
06-19-2006, 07:01 AM
Must say some of the alphasim stuff is a tad bit disappointing. Especially the VC's have horrible textures at times.

markimmortal
06-20-2006, 01:18 AM
I bought the RealAir Spit a couple of nights ago for FS2004 and was blown away. The virtual cockpit is a delight and the sound awesome. Opening up the the throttle to the max after +7 lbs boots for take off left me grinning with delight. lol.
It seem a bit expensive for just 1 aircraft but i don't regret it.

leitmotiv
06-20-2006, 02:10 AM
NAFP_supah or anyone---how do I go about installing Alphasim aircraft? Is the "root file" C:\Program files\Microsoft Games\Flight Simulator 9\Aircraft folder ? If so, I am unable get to it via Search on XP. This was the "root file" according to a Microsoft tech. HELP!!!!

msalama
06-20-2006, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I bought the RealAir Spit a couple of nights ago for FS2004 and was blown away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Bought it last Saturday to be exact. My impressions so far:

* The torque is much heavier than what you see in IL-2. You should never apply full throttle when taking off, and as the RL pilot's notes say +7 Lbs. of boost is a sensible maximum. But you can't just shove that in straight away either - easy does it, and gradual throttling up with corresponding rudder action ensures a successful takeoff.

* The plane is much more unforgiving than anything in IL-2. You get ham-fisted and it will go out of control. A light and smooth touch is needed.

* The plane is fully aerobatic. Spins, hammerheads, Immelmans, what have you - it's all there.

* The sounds are super. Finally, a Spitfire that sounds like one.

* The cockpit is a work of art, just superb craftmanship. And fully clickable, too!

* Stall buffeting and pilot head-shake are modelled.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It seems a bit expensive for just 1 aircraft but i don't regret it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me neither, because this is probably the best prop plane I've flown in any sim so far. Well worth the price IMHO.

NAFP_supah
06-20-2006, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
NAFP_supah or anyone---how do I go about installing Alphasim aircraft? Is the "root file" C:\Program files\Microsoft Games\Flight Simulator 9\Aircraft folder ? If so, I am unable get to it via Search on XP. This was the "root file" according to a Microsoft tech. HELP!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where does it ask for the rootfile leitmotiv? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif A screenshot of the screen where it asks that would be very usefull but a description would help. BTW Glad to see you guys liked the realair spitfire! It's one fantastic piece of work. Probably the nicest machine I have ever flown in any flight simulation.

leitmotiv
06-20-2006, 04:18 AM
The "read me" for the Alphasim Wellington and Lysander just says place the files in the "root file" for FS 9! I contacted Microsoft and they replied with the above as the root file. XP Search couldn't find it!

NAFP_supah
06-20-2006, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">C:\Program files\Microsoft Games\Flight Simulator 9\Aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi leitmotiv. That might be due to you having installed FS9 in another folder then the default one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Do you have a quicklink to the game somewhere? Right click on the icon and select properties. Somewhere it should say "Path" that path minus the fs9.exe bit is your root directory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If this doesn't help you out feel free to add me on MSN as supah@chaotic.nl and I'll see if we can get it working there.

leitmotiv
06-20-2006, 03:39 PM
Thanks a million, NAFP_supah!!!! I'll try your suggestion. First time I've ever had so much trouble getting a plane on FS9!

Dexmeister
06-20-2006, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Thanks a million, NAFP_supah!!!! I'll try your suggestion. First time I've ever had so much trouble getting a plane on FS9! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got so tired of all the different types of installs that I finally just started installing them all to c:\temp\aircraftname and then manually moving the stuff. That's a good way to be sure you know all of what it's installing, at least in the case of zip files. If it has an installer that's a different story...

leitmotiv
06-21-2006, 02:08 AM
Thanks for all the help, NAFP_supah and Dexmeister---as it so happens, Alphasim has an excellent guide for faultless installation which I found---for anybody else who wondered, here's the link:

http://tinyurl.com/fxjkr

-HH- Beebop
06-21-2006, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Beirut:
...And watch this scenery video.
http://flightscenery.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=498 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's my hometown! And yes, that's EXACTLY what it looks like. Cool! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

leitmotiv
06-22-2006, 04:44 AM
OK, I installed and ran Alphasim's Lysander. Definitely impressive. First of all the engine noise was deafening---thunderous, and it sounded like a Mercury (I used to do the UK airshow circuit). Cockpit was tres impressive. The performance of the model was alarming, convincing, and delightful. Alarming because you were airborne in seemingly ten feet, convincing because it just felt right, and delightful because it was like flying the mother of all Piper Cubs. Great visibility. Light as a feather. The grunting, belching, and trundling of the engine seemed out of place. For some reason the Wellingtons did not install. Will have to remedy this. Want to take a Wellington IC to Berlin from Alphasim's 1939-43 RAF Waddington!

leitmotiv
06-23-2006, 12:31 AM
Thanks again for the Alphasim recommendation, Treetop64. Got the Wellington up and running, downloaded their free Whitley and Mavis, bought more: B-36 and Swordfish. Will get Catalina next. Well pleased with Wimpey IC. A Wellington and Whitley! All they would have to do would be a Hampden, Stirling, and Manchester to take care of my Bomber Command "dream team."