PDA

View Full Version : About to give up on Pacific Fighters



dcunning30
01-24-2005, 02:31 PM
With great anticipation, I got Pacific Fighters for christmas. I was looking forward to it replacing CFS2, which I've amassed lots of planes, mods, and ships for. Upon first blush, Pacific Fighters offered me lots of eye candy, then the problems surfacerd. I tried, I really have, to overcome them, but I found myself having to fight the game, so I find myself playing CFS2, exclusively.

So with that, I come to you for help, before I give up on PF. Here's my issues. I hope the community can help me so I can enjoy PF as it seems everyone else is:

undocument basic features: I sat on the akagi deck for as long as 30 minutes trying to figure out why my plane won't move. i finally, after much frusturation, learned that i must remove the chocks. but alas, the chocks weren't mapped. how could a necessary feature not be mapped? and the training video is excruciatingly slow to watch.

warp takes too much time: i was in the midway mission flying a dauntless. i wanted to warp to the battle area, so i invoked the warp. my screen wehtn black, and i sat there staring at that black screen for at least 2 whole minutes. am i doing something wrong? that seems ridiculous.

no help for aircraft modelling quirks: i understand the zero cuts out upon negative g's, but how do you restart it? i tried to restart the engine, and could never get that to happen.

hat control for 3d cockipt seems klunky: i tried to use the hat control to look around the 3d cockpit and it seems it hangs at certain places. this seems like a design decision, but it's inconvenient. i'd rather it remain smooth.


after experiencing these problems, i just gave up on pf, in spite of the BEAUTIFULLY modeled akagi. the main issues for me were the warp and the undocumented nature of several features and plane quirks. please, can someone help? because i'm assuming that i'm doing something wrong, because i've read the reviews, the il2 franchize comes highly honored.

thanks,
dcunning30

nearmiss
01-24-2005, 02:40 PM
GO HERE FOR HELP WITH TECHNICAL ISSUES. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=frm&s=400102&f=49310655)

You do need to read the manual carefully. You'd be surprised what pearls of wisdom are hidden in those words.

The average age of players between MSFT CFS2-3 is pretty low compared with IL2 series. The Il2 series is more of a grown ups game. There is a learning threshold and you'll just have to pay the price (take the time to learn it) or go to simpler things.

ytareh
01-24-2005, 02:45 PM
I had the same'stuck on the deck wondering why I cant move' problems.You just go into 'Controls' and click to the right of the name of the control you want and then select a key to represent it..(this is not at all obvious).As for the general instability problems you do need a fairly good system and it must be optimised(loads of guides linked from these forums)In general youre much better to sacrifice 'eye candy' for playability.Get all the patches too.Be patient its worth it!If youve an older system why not try Forgotten Battles or even IL2(sound effects better than later versions of game!?)till you upgrade...

DD_NL
01-24-2005, 02:49 PM
You are right about some of the issues, but are they really that bad for you to give up on a great game?

The chocks that aren't mapped, yes bad call, but we all had to figure it out the hard way.

The warp feature was put in because of player requests, it wasn't part of IL2 FB, it is a great feature. But yes, some of the PF maps (oceans) are a wee bit too large. No biggie, you can add a few lines to your conf.ini file to decrease mission distances.

There are several AC that have carburators, so the engine will cr@p out if you push a negative G. Try to learn the planes you fly and you will notice they all behave different in some ways, some are Arcade to fly, others require delicate touch.

Yes, using the hatswitch to pan around the cockpit sucks, you can either a) use the mouse with your left hand to look around, or b) download a small utility called JoytoKey to emulate mouse movement to your hatswitch and youll be able to pan around as smooth as silk.
(Or c)get a TrackIR... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

And lastly: You can always come to these boards with questions, people are glad to help. Be sure to check out the general forum as well, alot of the veteran IL2 players hang there alot.

dcunning30
01-24-2005, 02:50 PM
heh,

now you gone and hurt my feelings! - just kidding.

i'm 43 and my first flight sim was microsoft flight sim II for the atari 800XL. but anyway, i got your drift. i'm just gonna have to invest the time to learn the game. since i read alot of military history, especially the pacific war, i'll give it another wack. tbw, i just finished flyboys and oliver north's war stories ii. both are good reads, though i had some issue with bradley's agenda.

one more question: i was looking to see what capital ships were modelled in the game and i came upon the feature that allowed you to view the ships. are there more ships besides those that can be viewed? if not, is there a way to use gmax or some other tool to include more ships?

thanks,
dcunning30

Bearcat99
01-24-2005, 02:50 PM
Not to sound elitist or anything but basically nearmiss is right... take your time. I have been flying in 1C sims since I left CFS 3 years ago and I still find new stuff.. I still have good days and bad days.... Read the readme... come here.. that was a good thing. Folks here are very helpful. PF is an awesome product.. I have it installed as a mege so I have no clue as to what the stand alone is like.. and I dont mid the long wait times while flying... to me it adds to immersion.. I just dont like toi do it by myself. I would suggest that you get the FB ACes GOLD pack and do a merged install so you can fly online and hook up with some other folks who can get you through the adjustment. After years of CFS it IS indeed a hard adjustment... but one that is well worth the money and time spent making.

Covino
01-24-2005, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dcunning30:
undocument basic features: I sat on the akagi deck for as long as 30 minutes trying to figure out why my plane won't move. i finally, after much frusturation, learned that i must remove the chocks. but alas, the chocks weren't mapped. how could a necessary feature not be mapped? and the training video is excruciatingly slow to watch.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's pretty much part of the procedure to check and assign controls before playing a simulation. And yes the training videos are long and boring to some but they're there for a reason.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
warp takes too much time: i was in the midway mission flying a dauntless. i wanted to warp to the battle area, so i invoked the warp. my screen wehtn black, and i sat there staring at that black screen for at least 2 whole minutes. am i doing something wrong? that seems ridiculous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The warp feature doesn't instantly warp you to where the action is. It simply turns off the graphics and sound of the game so your CPU can speed up the game to its maximum capabilty. Since AI and everything still has to be calculated, this might still not be EXTREMELY fast depending on your CPU. The faster your PC, the faster the warp and you should see the elapsed time in the bottom-right.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
no help for aircraft modelling quirks: i understand the zero cuts out upon negative g's, but how do you restart it? i tried to restart the engine, and could never get that to happen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many early war aircraft use need positive G's to get fuel to the engine. If the engine is starved of fuel long enough, it will stop running and you won't be able to restart it.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>hat control for 3d cockipt seems klunky: i tried to use the hat control to look around the 3d cockpit and it seems it hangs at certain places. this seems like a design decision, but it's inconvenient. i'd rather it remain smooth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you try pressing F9 to switch between snap and pan view? Select the one you like better. You can also use your mouse to look around or use trackIR. I think IL-2 has the most versatile viewing options than any other flight sim.

CapBackassward
01-24-2005, 02:51 PM
First, you shouldn't give up on this sim. I don't know of anyone who has spent some time with this sim that played CFS2 and has gone back to CFS2.

Second, remapping keys goes with the territory and can be done while flying a mission. Just hit escape and go to the controls screen. Once you've mapped them to your liking - your set.

Third, the warp could be better and the IC Maddox team will probably get around to fixing it eventually. They always have with most all problems in the game unless it is something limited by the sim engine itself.

I've never had the problem with the Zero engine cutting off but in IL 2 (the Eastern Front part of the sim) when I have had the Fiat 2 winger cut off on me I had no problem restarting it. I'll test the Zero and see if it's different.

The hat switch will hang in certain places if you have that feature turned on. I think it is the F9 key by default which switches it from smooth pan or 45 degree stops.

Last, make sure you have all the patches up to date. They make a difference in performance.

It would be ashame for you to chunk this sim all because you need to learn the little ins and outs to the sim. It's the best flight sim ever and it recieves the best tech support ever.

Hang in there,

Rick

dcunning30
01-24-2005, 02:52 PM
excellent! thanks for the help!

my machine:
celeron 1.8G
512Megs
Radeon 9200 128Meg

gates123
01-24-2005, 03:00 PM
be sure to map your elevator trim for accurate gunnery, and be ready to use it....ALOT

tora-2
01-24-2005, 03:02 PM
The Zero engine cutting doesn't sound right. It was sorted out in one of the patches.
If you haven't already I'd recommend patching to 3.04 which should cure that.

Capt._Tenneal
01-24-2005, 03:06 PM
Once I've seen the training missions the first time, I usually run one or more again as a sort of warm-up procedure for the program before getting to playing. Same thing with the tracks, although Lord knows I've seen the Black Death a lot. I use them to test new video drivers or a new patch, so the training missions and tracks, to me, still have their uses.

Supr
01-24-2005, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dcunning30:
excellent! thanks for the help!

my machine:
celeron 1.8G
512Megs
Radeon 9200 128Meg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, no offense, but thats a pretty weak system for someone into flight sims. I can see you having trouble with the time skip. Your right, its not the fastst on any system. On mine it averages about 12X normal speed, so i generally just go with the 8X time compression so I can still look at stuff.

Anyway, I think you deserve an upgrade in the near future, at least get you a decent vid card and cpu. That vid card is very entry level, and a clery cpu is really not for gaming. Your flight simming will be much better.

Good luck. keep learning, if you decide you like it, it wont be as painful buying a new system.

TATSADASAYAGO
01-24-2005, 03:10 PM
Along with what the others have said, there is a certain amount of adjustment that comes with flying the IL2/FB/PF series.
Many of us came from other sims where we were comfortable and knew just about everything about our beloved game. IL2 made us n00bs again, and for many, that was a tough pill to swallow. I have so BEEN there with the frustration of feeling out of sorts in flight. It is human nature to expect and assume, but IL2 has so much more to offer and we have to get over our discomfort and spend time with it. Personally, I think that if you are truly serious about learnign a new sim, you start by reading the manual...many times. I kept the book in the john as my only reading material for weeks and must have read the thing 20 times....
Each time I learned something new that I'd missed before. Once I got out of my :This is BS, I didn't have to do that in ww2f, I began to see improvements in my flying in the game. Another issue if POV:
I recently got the TIR3 V and started flying with it rather than using externals...
To my surprise, I found a HUGE difference in SA from the 'Pit than I did with external views. If I used externals, my opponent would appear to be at the opposite side of our turn circle. With TIR3V I realized that my enemy was actually 3/4 the way through the turn while external showed him opposite from me. Suddenly, I was turning with and getting solutions on my enemies where before I was always a 1/4 turn behind them.
If I held onto my "My old sim was better, I'm giving up" attitude, I'd never have found this out....to my loss.
I've tossed this sim onto the desktop and walked away 4 times since it came out. I now am friends with it and things seem to be going better with my attitude adjustment.

Just some thoughts

dcunning30
01-24-2005, 03:59 PM
thanks for the comments!

and no offense about my hardware. reality is reality. i'm looking forward to digging into it. but i'll probably keep the manual in the john, err, uhh, library for a while, then get at it again.

also, what about the number of capital ships? is the kaga there?

Uber_4ce
01-24-2005, 04:14 PM
Don't give up! I kinda quit playin it too for a while too, but i still loved the chocks thing, very realistic, and i do have CFS2 and i playe dthat ALOT trust me u will love this game WAY mote that CFS2 its much more fun, and i did't even know there was a warp option, tyhere is an option that can make u speed up time but thats it, its still VERy fun!!! Keep playin it man!! UA

WorldShatterer
01-24-2005, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dcunning30:
thanks for the comments!

and no offense about my hardware. reality is reality. i'm looking forward to digging into it. but i'll probably keep the manual in the john, err, uhh, library for a while, then get at it again.

also, what about the number of capital ships? is the kaga there? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

is the kaga there?

Sadly no. Neither is the Soryu, the Hiryu, the Shoho, the Shinano, the....

Still love the program though.

VF15_Muto
01-24-2005, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CapBackassward:
First, you shouldn't give up on this sim. I don't know of anyone who has spent some time with this sim that played CFS2 and has gone back to CFS2.
Rick <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do now ... flew PF for 2 months and shelved it. In my opinion, CFS2 is the only Pacific Theater sim to simulate realistic piloting conditions (with the proper add-on aircraft of course), and that's what I'm interested in ... not the pretty eye candy or visually intense air combat that PF offers. I really wish CFS2 offered the same level of multiplayer functionality that PF does, but .... the ability to drop bombs and launch torpedoes and damage targets mutually in PF multiplayer does not, in my mind, make up for its severe shortcomings in the lack of wind layers, missing atmospheric conditions, no real global physical map, no magnetic declination, the irrelevance of rhumb-line trigonometry and great circle navigation, poor visuals at altitude, unmodeled flight dynamics like changing COG as you burn fuel and spend ammo, non-clickable cockpit gauges/buttons/dials, the inability to build your own aircraft and use a test panel to verify its flight model accuracy, or the inability to add scenery/bases anywhere in the world to construct a theater as it was at any given time in World War 2. CFS2 has all these features, so for my purposes, it is a superior simulator hands-down.

Oh, and sir Nearmiss ... the average age of the 19 members of our CFS2 squad who fly online at least once a week is 38 yrs old. Not sure where you got your data from...

S~!
VF15_Muto

ZG77_Nagual
01-24-2005, 04:43 PM
I started out with the quick missions. This way I get all my flight keys mapped and have some time to sort them out and memorize them while getting shot to pieces. I also like how it initially seems impossible - then suddenly one day you're looking for challenges.
From that I progress to taking off and landing - which by then is fairly easy. Addresses my need for instant gratification and allows gradual development of skills and keymaps.

InyerEye
01-24-2005, 04:47 PM
Hit the "]" key to speed up time,x2 x4 x8.It speeds up more with each key press and the "[" key slows it back down,while still in-game (no blank screen).It gets you to the action pretty quick.
Dont give up.Its worth it!It took me awhile to "bond" with the first IL-2 after playing EAW for 2 years. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

papaboon
01-24-2005, 04:47 PM
Good points are all stated in earlier posts! I've been playing the IL-2 series since it first hit the store shelves and as Bearcat put it, I too find new stuff in game almost everyday. That's what makes this game so special!
After playing IL-2, I've moth-balled all my other flight sims, they just don't compare!

J_Weaver
01-24-2005, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dcunning30:
excellent! thanks for the help!

my machine:
celeron 1.8G
512Megs
Radeon 9200 128Meg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

M8 we both need an upgrade. My system is not far ahead of yours. I find mine to do ok, but I need more power. The age of my system really shows its age in campaign mode or in some of the realisticly sized missions I've made in the FMB.

But don't give up on PF. You'll find that it has some gaps in it but all in all its the best around. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

nickdanger3
01-24-2005, 05:31 PM
Try remapping a bunch of controls now that you have an idea what you use and how often. If you don't have a multibutton/slider throttle (x-45/52) then you're stuck doing it on the keyboard, but it's a useful exercise nonetheless.

As for restarting a killed engine, make sure that you throttle down and you might even have to lower the prop pitch. It's not just flipping a switch - I sometimes hit the "Engine Toggle" instead of the "Gear Toggle" on takeoff and I get to spend the next minute or so trying desparately to get that enigine going again before I hit the ground. Sometimes it takes me three goes before it catches.

One person mentioned TrackIR - I'll second that. Fanstastic to get away from the Hat Switch / Mouse.

And thanks ! I didn't know there was a WARP ! I always used speed up/slow down time. And here I've been playing for almost 2 years ! Hidden gems.

EnGaurde
01-24-2005, 05:45 PM
no no no dont give up.

of course you are talking to the converted here, but imho il2 is the greatest flight sim ive ever bought.

why?

the solid feeling the models have

the smoothness despite the higher system reqs (which i never have a problem with, racing improves the breed?)

the fact the planes have that feel to them a la good fps games that give the impression of weight and inertia to the world objects

the lower price compared to other later games.

the huge community support

the immense range of planes.

i simply keep going back, only two other games keep doing that and that is steel panthers and good ol' civ gold.... i have MANY piles of dusty disks... (eyes Ebay thoughtfully)

betcha you wont play HL2 as much or as consistently as this little gem. Years from now.

i tried cfs2 and it just doesnt have that real world feeling i like. Too much clutter, a plastic feel? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

yes, it has some rough edges. I put those down to a schedule set to release th game, limited resources to polish it.

meh

i'll map those keys, i'll wait for the betty, i'll still kill zeros easier than 109s, i'll shoot using that fm2 gunsight, but most of all i'll focus on the oceans of what i really like instead of the few pebbles of what i dont.

VF-29_Sandman
01-24-2005, 06:07 PM
the machine is rather weak, especially in the ram dept. i'd avoid getting another 'store bought' comp tho. makes alot more sense and is better to have 1 custom built, and that comp will be easily upgradeable later on. the machines u get in the stores are the 'what u see is what u get'; u wont be able to upgrade just 1 or 2 things like u would if it was custom built.

track ir is essential. not all that expensive either. untill u do get it, u could probably map the hat switch to behave as a mouse for the time being. if u have a programmable stick, go to the programming software and have the hat report as a mouse.

as far as eye candy goes: the radeon u have will cut the mustard, but u have 2 bottlenecks. 1 is the cpu, and the other is the amount of ram. i just upgraded to the radeon 9800 xt, and my fps went up from high 20's to low 30's, to mid 50's/60's. the higher meg video cards require alot of power. the 9800 xt requires at least 300 watts to run it, and has to be connected to the power supply. ur machine might need a complete overhaul to run the latest gear. ur video card will do u untill the 256 meg cards come down to an affordable price. if u want to upgrade rather cheap, u could get what i've got:

mobo: asus a7n8x deluxe. runs roughly about $100 . with bios upgrade, will run to a 400 front speed bus, built for amd xp/t-bred/barton cores up to 3 gig, enough memory banks to hold 3 gigs max, though 1 gig is plenty at a 400 fsb and using 2x512 pc3200 ram chips. asus recommends corsair or kingston chips; from what i've reconned, ocz's are a bit faster, but alot more expensive. i'm planning on upping to the 3.0 barton from the 2100xp+ i have in right now before too long.

eye candy means little if ur machine cant handle it smoothly when online. is just like cfs2; if machine boggs at high grafixs, u have to turn them down. even the latest nvidia 256 meg cards will cause a rather high powered machine to choke running 'water=3' in an online dogfight.

final thing about upgrades: that video card that's 400 bucks right now will be under 200 within a year or less. same for the other components. my mobo is roughly 3 or 4 yrs old, and still running strong.

Philipscdrw
01-24-2005, 06:52 PM
It seems that poor user-interface is a national characteristic - I just downloaded a Tu-144 for FS2004 which was a zip file full of zip files that required individual unzipping into different folders within the FS9 folder - why they couldn't just be in one zip folder, which just unzips everything to the right place, which is what everyone else does, I don't know. I think that on the other side of the Iron Curtain-rail, people think more of the substance of a product and less of the interface.

goshikisen
01-24-2005, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dcunning30:
one more question: i was looking to see what capital ships were modelled in the game and i came upon the feature that allowed you to view the ships. are there more ships besides those that can be viewed? if not, is there a way to use gmax or some other tool to include more ships?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately no... we have to rely on the good work of 3rd party modellers that 1CMaddox then incorporates into the game. I've been asking about this issue (take a look at my sig image)for some time in Oleg's Ready Room but have never received an official response... I don't think Oleg spends much time in his Ready Room anymore.

I hope you stick with the sim... it is outstanding but I think it lacks in the immersion department with so few ships in the various digital fleets.

Regards, Goshikisen.

TATSADASAYAGO
01-25-2005, 06:46 AM
Hmmmmm

"You do now ... flew PF for 2 months and shelved it. In my opinion, CFS2 is the only Pacific Theater sim to simulate realistic piloting conditions (with the proper add-on aircraft of course), and that's what I'm interested in ... not the pretty eye candy or visually intense air combat that PF offers. I really wish CFS2 offered the same level of multiplayer functionality that PF does, but .... the ability to drop bombs and launch torpedoes and damage targets mutually in PF multiplayer does not, in my mind, make up for its severe shortcomings in the lack of wind layers, missing atmospheric conditions, no real global physical map, no magnetic declination, the irrelevance of rhumb-line trigonometry and great circle navigation, poor visuals at altitude, unmodeled flight dynamics like changing COG as you burn fuel and spend ammo, non-clickable cockpit gauges/buttons/dials, the inability to build your own aircraft and use a test panel to verify its flight model accuracy, or the inability to add scenery/bases anywhere in the world to construct a theater as it was at any given time in World War 2. CFS2 has all these features, so for my purposes, it is a superior simulator hands-down."

And CFS has all this?
You must have the AST HAWK confused with Combat Flight Sim.....
OR, perhaps you are thinking of FS2xxx?
Show me Great Circle nav in CFS2, I am wondering how you managed to fly that far where it was needed?
Sounds like alot of BS to me, but hey, it's your gig.
One thought, if the franchise is so terrible, why do you waste your time in a PF forum?
Could it be the cheats and poor manners of the average player in CFS, which ruin it....and therefore you have nothing better to do?
I liked CFS2 alot and flew it for a long time--OFFLINE as the zone was so bad that I wouldn't visit again. There are alot of CFS people in Hyperlobby now, and the quality of conversation and level of honor have dropped dramtically since the migration.

So, I challenge you to show me where all these cool nav, met and physics goodies are hiding inside CFS.

Tats

joeap
01-25-2005, 07:09 AM
dcunning30, just to repeat what another poster made. The Zero g cut out was a bug or mistake rather, Oleg got some information from Japanese sources that fixed this bug in later patches (get up to 3.04 btw). Some planes though still have this becasue it was like that IRL. Hurricane I and I-16 for example. Makes it more fun, quirks like that.

TacticalYak3
01-25-2005, 07:13 AM
Nice to see folks are providing good advice instead of criticism.

I believe your comments have real merit. Right out of the box there's not enough information, especially for someone new to flight simulations (but this doesn't include you I know).

I would like to see more training videos (with the ability to pause/fast forward/ rewind - etc), and a comprehensive PDF manual (not unlike some third-party/gamer's sites) that really expand upon the existing printed manuals.

And yet folks are right about the "gems" contained in the manual, which I thought did get much better with PF. Plus those Readme files are very informative (i.e., PF's readme mentioned about the chocks for instance). As a newbie a few years ago myself, I really enjoyed the PDF manuals that came with IL-2 FB with regards to flying and combat flying.

Maybe we will see a more "newbie-friendly" content in Battle of Britain. Until then I think the Internet can and will provide you with a wealth of information (and mis-information http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Check out the IL-2 Essentials list of sites (if you haven't already mate).

And last come join us over at the Fightin' Irish Squadron! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Ok, Ok any fine squad of Rogues will do mate. Things might go smoother if you can discuss things via comms.

Regards,
:FI:TacticalS!

VW-IceFire
01-25-2005, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dcunning30:
With great anticipation, I got Pacific Fighters for christmas. I was looking forward to it replacing CFS2, which I've amassed lots of planes, mods, and ships for. Upon first blush, Pacific Fighters offered me lots of eye candy, then the problems surfacerd. I tried, I really have, to overcome them, but I found myself having to fight the game, so I find myself playing CFS2, exclusively.

So with that, I come to you for help, before I give up on PF. Here's my issues. I hope the community can help me so I can enjoy PF as it seems everyone else is:

undocument basic features: I sat on the akagi deck for as long as 30 minutes trying to figure out why my plane won't move. i finally, after much frusturation, learned that i must remove the chocks. but alas, the chocks weren't mapped. how could a necessary feature not be mapped? and the training video is excruciatingly slow to watch.

warp takes too much time: i was in the midway mission flying a dauntless. i wanted to warp to the battle area, so i invoked the warp. my screen wehtn black, and i sat there staring at that black screen for at least 2 whole minutes. am i doing something wrong? that seems ridiculous.

no help for aircraft modelling quirks: i understand the zero cuts out upon negative g's, but how do you restart it? i tried to restart the engine, and could never get that to happen.

hat control for 3d cockipt seems klunky: i tried to use the hat control to look around the 3d cockpit and it seems it hangs at certain places. this seems like a design decision, but it's inconvenient. i'd rather it remain smooth.


after experiencing these problems, i just gave up on pf, in spite of the BEAUTIFULLY modeled akagi. the main issues for me were the warp and the undocumented nature of several features and plane quirks. please, can someone help? because i'm assuming that i'm doing something wrong, because i've read the reviews, the il2 franchize comes highly honored.

thanks,
dcunning30 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't give up on it yet. The games very much worth it...but its got some idiosyncracies that every player has to work through first.

Once you do...its smooth sailing.

For missions, I suggest you check out some of the better third party material. There really is some great stuff done thats more scripted and given the human touch to make more interesting.

I shy away from the Coral Sea and Midway campaigns because of the insane flight times. But the dynamic Okinawa, Marianas, and New Guinea campaigns tend to be more fun.

KarayaEine
01-25-2005, 08:40 AM
Kind of a shock going from a MS flight sim and a 1C one, huh?

You've gotten some good advice here. basically you're in a different world with the IL2/PF sims when compared to MS CFS. Things you got used to and learned with MS have to be 'unlearned' here.

For me I went the other way; IL-2 to FS2004. That was a bit of a change but not as drastic as the one you're experiencing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stick with it and you'll get the hang of things. One of the best gems you'll find with the IL-2 series is the mission builder.

Welcome aboard!

Johann

initjust
01-25-2005, 08:45 AM
"And CFS has all this?
You must have the AST HAWK confused with Combat Flight Sim.....
OR, perhaps you are thinking of FS2xxx?
Show me Great Circle nav in CFS2, I am wondering how you managed to fly that far where it was needed?
Sounds like alot of BS to me, but hey, it's your gig."

Yes it does have all these. It includes mag declination. It includes settable wind, cloud, temp layers (including humidity and dew point) so icing can be a factor and the IAS/TAS differential changes depending on these atmospheric conditions.

The length of a degree of Longitude changes with the Latitude so you need to take that into account when doing your nav calcs and flight planning.

You can fly as far as you like. You can do the nav calcs for a flight from Hawaii to Tokyo with refueling stops at any number of bases (or moving carriers if you like) and then make the flight and fly it using only your airspeed indicator, clock and compass. Then, IF you did your nav calcs correctly (taking into account all of the factors mentioned above plus the movements of the carriers if you included them) AND you managed to hold course and speed you will be able to land at your refueling points and complete the flight.

Just because you never explored these aspects of CFS2 doesn't mean they do not exist.

As far as returning to the PF forum is concerned it is because we like to keep an eye open for whatever comes along that might add to the experience. We were hoping that it would be PF but PF lacks some of the aspects that we feel are important in a PTO sim. This is not to say that PF does not have some great features. It most certainly does. It is just that when it comes to modeling the real world and the physical environment it is a bit lacking.

actionhank1786
01-25-2005, 09:40 AM
Dont quit, you'll hate yourself for that.
That's all i have...
i dont have any long winded schpiel about how it's the best flight sim i've ever played, because i think if you base it on developer support alone, it beats anything else hands down

Atomic_Marten
01-25-2005, 09:47 AM
This game isn't newbie friendly that's for sure..
But for every new user that persist in his intentions to learn about this game (and it's features) it's well worth it. I'm playing this game for years, and I still do not know everything about it (for example some of the FMB features).

But it is the best flying sim outhere. For sure.

plumps_
01-25-2005, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but alas, the chocks weren't mapped. how could a necessary feature not be mapped? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem is that most people who play the IL-2 series already have customized key mappings for FB/AEP which they'd lose if the settings.ini got overwritten by a new version.

dcunning30
01-25-2005, 10:54 AM
Thanks guys for all your comments. I appreciate you discerning the spirit of my original post and not flaming me. I'm getting pumped about pf. but for now, i'll do a bunch of reading before i go at it again.

but regarding cfs2..... once you've amassed a bunch of the community mods: aircraft, scenery, ships, and missions, it becomes quite a compelling immersion experience. my cfs2 is significantly different from the stock cfs2 right out of the box.

but anyway, i'm looking forward to getting deeper into pf and actually end up offering advice in the future.

thanks again!

actionhank1786
01-25-2005, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dcunning30:
Thanks guys for all your comments. I appreciate you discerning the spirit of my original post and not flaming me. I'm getting pumped about pf. but for now, i'll do a bunch of reading before i go at it again.

but regarding cfs2..... once you've amassed a bunch of the community mods: aircraft, scenery, ships, and missions, it becomes quite a compelling immersion experience. my cfs2 is significantly different from the stock cfs2 right out of the box.

but anyway, i'm looking forward to getting deeper into pf and actually end up offering advice in the future.

thanks again! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had CFS2 installed for a while but i couldnt get back into it, the flight models just turned me off after playing Il-2 for so long. Although i still did enjoy it.
I kind of want to go home and reinstall it, just to download that Ki-44 Tojo that guy made, that thing looks nice

dcunning30
01-25-2005, 11:29 AM
if you don't like cfs2 flight models, then download a tool or faq and you take a whack at improving the flight models yourself! you can do that. or you can just download air files and dp files that fix flight model issues.:-)

also, you can download a 1% aircraft that the creators of these claim are 99% accurate to the real planes.

ZG77_Nagual
01-25-2005, 11:36 AM
I had cfs2 too - particularly a lovely p38 I bought online. No contest in my mind - I just don't use cfs2 anymore.
After a few weeks of feverish struggle I'm sure you'll agree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On the computer issue. homebuilding them is fun - I've done dozens - but you won't necessarily save any money - and if you are not into overclocking it can be worthwhile to just buy one. I used to build them for people but now I just tell them to put together a dell that suits their purposes. The 3 year warranty means basically free parts for three years and they save you the aggravation of tweaking the parts - which gets to be significant with really hot systems.

MGBurrows
01-25-2005, 01:24 PM
Actually, I found CFS 2 to have only 4 points where it was better than PF.
1: Weather. Multiple cloud layers and thicknesses and coverage. Better wind. That sort of thing.
2: Maw Deuces. They sound just like the real thing and had a more realisitic firing arc. The tracer was nearly flawless. It looked almost exactly like gun camera footage I have seen, lacking only the squiggly look of the real thing.
(For those of you who don't know that term, "Maw Deuce" is the old Army term for .50 cals. It comes from the Army nomenclature: Browning M2 HB, M = Maw/Ma, 2 = Deuce.)
3: You can take-off from Guadalcanal and actually fly to Port Moresby if you have the range. You don't run off the end of the world. Why do I like this? Because that's how it works in real life, that's why. PF blew the Kokoda Trail on New Guinea, it's no where near that wide in reality and is almost never actually visible from the air. To call it a goat track would be an exaggeration. The Maps are one of the most significant draw-backs to all Il-2 series games. I like contiguous campaigns that run realistically like the real world works, rather than spotty engagements over limited points of the War. Right now, for example, my Ef Southern Front operations are being hampered by the lack of any representation of the South Ukraine and the Perekop Isthmus. My VVS pilot in 286th IAP (Replacing the deceased SL Alexei Kurdanov), ML Ivan Petrofsky Skevar is flying out of Sevastopol and cannot fly into the south Ukraine. His opposite, Obfw Joachim Rausch, 3 / III / JG77, is based out of Askaniya-Nova north of the Perekop Isthmus. I cannot take-off from base and fly into the opposing map. Also, I have to use the Gulf of Finland map to represent the area of the Perekop Isthmus. Closest I can get. But then, I was using the Kuban Map to represent the Southern Coast of the Ukraine west of the Perekop Isthmus in the Khersonskaya Oblast because it distantly resembled the area. Distantly. I used the Stalingrad map in the June to July time frame to represent Brest-Litovsk. The FB AEP Ardennes Map is worthless, considering that all the potentially German bases are on ground held by the US at the start of the battle and it takes about 5 minutes from take-off to reach the far end of the map. I am using the Moscow 1 map to represent the Ardennes. (That is aside from the fact that that is the flatest Ardennes region I have ever seen. Thor must have taken his hammer to it.)
4: Bomber defensive fire is so much more realistic.

Otherwise, Il-2 / PF is decisively superior. The screw-heads at Microsoft still haven't figured out that the mouse is the best POV device. The only thing that gives me any chance in a furball in CFS anything is that little radar screen because I suck at using the numbers pad or POV hats on the joystick and constantly lose sight of my opponents. In CFS3 P-38J's are actually P-38F's that suffer from compressibility. The Spitfire is super-fighter that can out-roll an FW-190 or Thunderbolt. It's pretty cool in that you can fly most anywhere in Europe; I once took-off in a Ju-88 from Corsica, flew to Interlaken in Switzerland, thence to Paris, thence to my base in Belgium and it was a beautiful flight over the Alps. I've flown from Marck near Calais to London just for fun. But, the "Taxi-terror" problem annoys the screw out of me. Taxiing in any CFS is deadlier than combat and I just won't do it. Once my aircraft was on the ground and stopped I ended the mission. Because your aircraft is a flying bomb I wouldn't dare try bellying-in - at which I am quite expert in any other simulation - because it invariably resulted in an explosion on contact with the ground. Even the most gentle, slow speed turns resulted in a crash and explosion. I also found it ridiculously difficult to control an aircraft during taxi, anyway, on those few occasions I managed to do it without tipping the thing over (and promptly blowing to smithereens) during a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000010 MPH turn with only the gentlest of pushes on the rudder. Many times I sat there with an exasperated look on my face, arms folded over my chest as my Wildcat spun in circles on the runway after I had applied full opposite rudder and reduced throttle to absolute 0 and found it to no avail while in my head "Spinning Wheel" by Blood, Sweat & Tears or "Dizzy" by Tommy Roe played. The superior graphics of PF have made all the difference as well. In CFS2 no matter how many times I tried it I could not land on a carrier. I used to practice it assiduously. I built a mission near Espiritu Santo NAS where I would take-off from Espiritu Santo, fly a short distance to a circling carrier, then make repeated attempts to land. Best I ever managed were touch-downs, one after the other, then a dejected flight back to Espiritu Santo NAS where I would make a nice, smooth landing on the runway. As a result I expected to have a long period of flight training in PF to get a handle on carrier landings. The graphics made all-the-difference. I was swiftly able to safely touch-down on a carrier. It was great.
Hint about carburated engines: To restart it you first have to turn it off. Push the engine key once and it will display an "engine off" message. Push it again and your engine should restart. In his third mission in an I-153 Vladimir Rasputin cut his engine out three times evading 109s, I was able to restart each time. Oh, it's also a good idea to level-off and fly right-side-up first, too.

Bearcat99
01-25-2005, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dcunning30:
if you don't like cfs2 flight models, then download a tool or faq and you take a whack at improving the flight models yourself! you can do that. or you can just download air files and dp files that fix flight model issues.:-)

also, you can download a 1% aircraft that the creators of these claim are 99% accurate to the real planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of my MAJOR gripes with CFS aircraft. I would rather have a sim that I know.. for better or worse... all the FMs are set by one source and are untamperable. That way just as in real life you have to learn to fly each AC to its strengths.... the FB1.0 Jug was a PIG... but there are guys right here in thos community (Who are in Jug heaven now BTW ecept for thier missing N http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) who learned how to be killers in that plane.. as it was.

One of the most important and most widely overlooked aspects of this sim by newcomers and oldtimers alike is.... a HOTAS. This sim is MADE for a HOTAS. CH,X45,X52 Cougar.. whichever you prefer or can afford.... but get a HOTAS setup. Having your controls mapped to asticks and freeing yourself from the keyboard is a whole nother ball game. And just when you strt to get really comfortable with one set of settings then you can always crankl it up a notch.. stay in the pit... take off the icons...... this sim is ultra versatile.. and while I would love to see dynamic weather and be able to fly from London to Berlin and back (LOL we have guys complaining about mission lenth too...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif), Ill take what I have over any other WW2 sim on the market today. True.. there is more to a good flight sim than eye candy.... but eye candy coupled with a lot of immersiveness and a hard dose of accuracy as far as FMs, DMs etc go carry a lot of weight to me. The magnetic compasses work.. the radio compasses work at least the ones on the Pony and the Corsair do.... I havent looked at some of the other ones..... the pitch controls and superchargers work..... the scenery is top notch.. just not enough... Im a happy camper.... Im not too crazy about the scale of certain things either.. like the way the buildings look when down low.... some of the houses look like outhoses.. but they look good.. just a tad too small... but it isnt a show stopper.

dcunning30
01-25-2005, 04:51 PM
heh,

i have that "buy war bonds" poster in my basement. i bought it when i was visiting los angeles and went to battery macarthur at the tip of san pedro.

if anyone remembers the scene in pearl harbor with ben affleck where the japanese planners were looking at a pool which represented pearl harbor, that's the place. but in reality, that was a big hole where a coastal artillery gun once sat.

VF15_Muto
01-25-2005, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TATSADASAYAGO:

And CFS has all this?
You must have the AST HAWK confused with Combat Flight Sim.....
OR, perhaps you are thinking of FS2xxx?
Show me Great Circle nav in CFS2, I am wondering how you managed to fly that far where it was needed?
Sounds like alot of BS to me, but hey, it's your gig.
One thought, if the franchise is so terrible, why do you waste your time in a PF forum?
Could it be the cheats and poor manners of the average player in CFS, which ruin it....and therefore you have nothing better to do?
I liked CFS2 alot and flew it for a long time--OFFLINE as the zone was so bad that I wouldn't visit again. There are alot of CFS people in Hyperlobby now, and the quality of conversation and level of honor have dropped dramtically since the migration.

So, I challenge you to show me where all these cool nav, met and physics goodies are hiding inside CFS.

Tats <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, CFS has all this and more ... and it's not hiding, you just never found it.

Here's a question ... which are the only two places where you can fly a WW2 prop plane from Midway to a moving carrier 270 nautical miles away using Great Circle Nav or Rhumb-line trigonometry through winds, atmospheric density and varying pressure altitudes, with the trim of your aircraft changing as you burn fuel, and then land on that carrier (assuming you find it)?

Answer: The real world, and CFS2.

Can't do it in IL-2/PF, EAW, CFS3, FS2004 or any other PC-based sim I know of. Only the real world, and CFS2. And that's why, for me, CFS2 beats PF hand's-down.

You challenge me to show you where the "cool nav, met and physics goodies" are hiding in CFS2? Hmmm, I'm afraid that's a bit like challenging me to prove to you the earth is round. It simply is.

What I can do is show you the Nav Calcs I made for my Final Navigation Exam in CFS2 required by my squadron to earn Navigator's wings, and this should explain two things -- first, how real-world physics, aerography and mathematics work in the CFS2 world just as they do in the real world; and second, why Officer Pilots in the World War 2 U.S. Navy had as many hours, if not more, of classroom trigonometry and physics than they did hours in the cockpit by the time they were deployed for combat.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VF-15 NAVIGATION FINAL EXAM
Mission Profile:
Take off from Midway Island, fly to and land on Essex.
Flight level: Pilot€s discretion but not less than 5,000€
Flight time: 1.5 hrs, +/- 5minutes

Weather Conditions:
Unlimited visibility.
Clear skies.
No Icing.
No Turbulence.
No Shear.
No Precipitation.
Surface wind: 20kts from 60?.
Winds aloft: 45kts from 282?.
No gusts.
Temperature layers: ISA Standard.
Dewpoint layers: ISA Standard.
Barometric Pressure: 29.92 in/Hg @ SL

Essex -
Start location: 290nm bearing 310? from Midway
Base Course: 60?. Essex is sailing a Zig-Zag course of 30? deviations from her base course. She sails for 00:40:00 between course changes. At mission start she just made a turn to 30?.
Speed: 30kts.

Magnetic Deviation €"
At Midway: 9.3? East.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLIGHT PLAN
By VF15_Muto
Lt Cmdr, Operations Officer
21 Mar 2004

=====================

Midway coordinates: N28"? 12' W177"? 20'
Distance per degree longitude @ N29"? = 52.61 nmdlon
Distance per degree latitude @ N29"? = 59.85 nmdlat

Distance per degree longitude @ N32"? = 51.02 nmdlon
Distance per degree latitude @ N32"? = 59.87 nmdlat


Determine Essex start location:

(Enter graphic of right triangle with 186.4 and 222.2 nautical mile bases)

Longitude Essex Waypoint 1:
E178"?33€ + 10 nm = E178"?33€ + (10 nm / 51.02 nmdlon)
= E177"?33€ + 4.2235"?
= E178"?33€

Latitude Essex start:
N28"?12€ + 186.4 nm = N28"?12€ + (186.4 nm / 59.85 nmdlat)
= N28"?12€ + 3.11445"?
= N31"?19€


Solve for Essex location after 01:30:00:

(Enter graphic of two right triangles, one 10nm x 17.3nm, the other 2.5nm by 4.33nm, connected by a 20nm line)


Longitude Essex Waypoint 1:
E178"?33€ + 10 nm = E178"?33€ + (10 nm / 51.02 nmdlon)
= E177"?33€ + 4.2235"?
= E178"?33€

Latitude Essex start:
N28"?12€ + 186.4 nm = N28"?12€ + (186.4 nm / 59.85 nmdlat)
= N28"?12€ + 3.11445"?
= N31"?19€


Solve for distance between Midway and Essex start:
258.7^2 + 125.7^2 = 82726.18
sqrt82726 = 287.6 nm


Solve for true heading to Essex start from Midway:
SIN = 258.7 / 287.6 = .8995
 = ArcSIN(.8995)
 = 64.1"?
360"? (adjacent) €" 64.1"? = 295.9"? True


Solve for wind effect on ground speed:
Wind vector = wind heading + relative north adjustment
= (80"?+64.1"?)
= 144.1"? relative port tailwind

Effect on GS = COS (180 - 144.1"?) * 43 kts
= .8100 * 43 kts
= 34.8 kts

GS = TAS + wind effect
= 190 kts + 34.8 kts
= 224.8 kts

Solve for flight time Midway to Essex Start location:
Flight time = 287.6 nm @ 224.8 kts
= (287.6 "¸ 224.8) * 60€
= 76.76 min, or 1:16:46


Solve for Essex location after 76€ 46€ of flight:
Essex location = start coordinates + (speed "¸ time of flight) @ 90"?
Latitude = unchanged at N30"? 18'
Longitude = E177"? 45' + (25 kts "¸ 76.76 min) = E177"? 45' + (31.98 nm * (60 / 52.61 nmdol))
= E177"? 45' + 0"? 36.48€
= E178"? 21.5'


Latitudinal distance between Essex and Midway after 76.76 min:
N30"? 18€ €" N28"? 12€ = 2"? 6€
= 2.083"? * 59.85 nmdlat
= 125.7 nm

Longitudinal distance between Essex and Midway after 76.76 min:
E178"? 21.5€ €" W177"? 20€ = 4"? 18.5€
= 4.30833"? * 52.61 nmdlon
= 226.7 nm

Triangle from Midway to Essex after 76.76 min:

(Enter Graphic of right triangle with bases of 226.7nm and 125.7nm)

Solve for distance between Midway and Essex:
226.7^2 + 125.7^2 = 67193.38
Sqrt671938.38 = 259.2 nm

Solve for true heading to Essex from Midway:
SIN = 226.7 / 259.2
= .8746
= ArcSIN(.8746)
= 61.0"?
360"? (adj) €" 61.0"? = 299.0"? True


Solve for wind effect on ground speed:
Wind vector = wind heading + relative north adjustment
= (80"?+61.0"?)
= 141.0"? relative port tailwind

Effect on GS = COS (180 €" 141.0"?) * 43 kts
= .7771 * 43 kts
= 33.4 kts

GS = TAS + wind effect
= 190 kts + 33.4 kts
= 223.4 kts

Solve for flight time Midway to Essex at 76.76 min:
Flight time = 259.2 nm @ 223.4 kts
= (259.2 / 224.8) * 60€
= 69.18 min, or 1:09:11


Solve Wind Triangle for wind-adjusted start coordinates assuming:
Distance blown along wind vector = wind * (flight time / 60 min)
= 43 kts * (69.2 / 60)
= 43.4 nm

(Enter graphic here of right triangle with bases of 8.7nm and 49.2nm)
SIN 10"? = 0.1736
opposite = 0.1736 * 50.0
= 8.7 nm
adjacent = sqrt(80.02 €" 8.72)
= 49.2 nm


WA start coordinates = Lat 1 €" opposite distance, Long 1 €" adjacent distance
Latitude = N28"? 12€ €" (8.7 * (60 / 59.85nmdlat))
= N28"? 12€ €" 0"? 8.7€
= N28"? 03€

Longitude = W177"? 20€ + (49.2 * (60 / 52.61nmdlon))
= W177"? 20€ + 0"? 56.1€
= W178"? 16€

Latitudinal distance between WA start pt (after 69.2 min) and Essex (after 76.76 min):
N30"? 18€ €" N28"? 03€ = 2"? 15€
= 2.2500"? * 59.85 nmdlat
= 134.7 nm

Longitudinal distance between WA start pt (after 69.2 min) and Essex (after 76.76 min):
E178"? 21.5€ €" W178"? 16€ = 3"? 22.5€
= 3.3750"? * 52.61 nmdlon
= 177.6 nm

Solve for WA heading and distance from Midway to Essex Position at 76.76 min:

(Enter graphic here of right triangle with legs of 134.7nm and 177.6nm)

Solve for distance between WA start and Essex:
177.62 + 134.72 = 49685.85
sqrt49685.85 = 222.9 nm


Solve for wind effect on new WA heading:
Wind vector = (360"? - true heading) + wind heading
= (360"? - 307.2"?) + 80"?
= 132.8"? relative port tailwind

Effect on GS = COS (180"? - 132.8"?) * 43 kts
= .6794 * 43 kts
= 29.2 kts

GS = TAS + wind effect
= 190 kts + 29.2 kts
= 219.2 kts

Solve for time to reach Essex position (after 76.76 min) :
Flight time = 259.2 nm @ 219.2 kts
= (259.2 "¸ 219.2) * 60€
= 70.95 min, or 1:10:57


Solve for wind effect on 270˚ True to intercept Essex:
Wind vector = (360"? - true heading) + wind heading
= (360"? - 270"?) + 80"?
= 170.0"? relative port tailwind

Effect on GS = COS (180"? - 170.0"?) * 43 kts
= .9848 * 43 kts
= 42.3 kts

GS = TAS + wind effect
= 190 kts + 42.3 kts
= 232.3 kts


Solve for time to intercept Essex after turning 270˚ True onto her course:

Flight time = distance between 1:16:46 and 1:10:57 @ 25 kts
= (1:16:46 €" 1:10:57) * (25)
= 0:05:49 * 25
= 2.4 nm @ 232.3 kts = 0:00:37

Total Flight time = 1:10:57 + 0:00:37 = 1:11:34

Solve for WA magnetic heading:
= 307.2˚T €" 9.3˚AOD = 297.9˚M

Solve for time to climb to 13k ft:
F6F-5 best climb to 10k ft = 4.65 min
F6F-5 best climb to 20k ft = 10.0 min
= 06:30 to 13k @ best climb 120 KIAS

Solve for average TAS during first 06:30 climb to 13k ft:
(using CFS2 logarithm y = 0.0051Ln(x) + 0.0017 )

0k-13k Avg TAS = IAS + (IAS * (avg altitude/1000 * .0112))
Avg TAS = 120 + (120 * (6500/1000 * .0112))
Avg TAS = 128.9

Solve for required TAS for second 06:30 to be on schedule at 0:13:00 :
Required TAS = Flight TAS + (Flight TAS €" Avg TAS first 06:30)
= 190 + (190 €" 128.9)
= 251.1 TAS

Solve for IAS during second 06:30 of flight and IAS for balance of flight:
IAS for 06:30 €" 13:00 = TAS ÷ (((13,000/1,000)*.0147 air density factor) +1
= 251.1/119% = 211 KIAS
IAS after 13:00 = 190/119% = 160 KIAS


Flight Plan:
-Launch Midway 12:00
-Turn heading 298˚M
-Climb at 2,000 fpm for 0:06:30 to 13k ft @ 120 KIAS
-Level out at 0:06:30 and fly for 0:06:30 at 13k ft at 211 KIAS
-At 0:13:00, reduce speed to 160 KIAS
-At 1:10:57, turn to heading 261˚M, descend at 4k ft/min
-At 1:11:34, confirm position over Essex @ 11k ft
-At 1:13:00, turn to heading 81˚M from 5k ft
-At 1:14:00, enter circling pattern at 1k ft
-At 1:15:00, enter final pattern
-At 1:17:00, land and secure aboard Essex

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I passed ... Essex appeared right smack dab in front of me.

S~!
VF15_Muto

Hiriyu
01-25-2005, 09:06 PM
So... Are they hiding? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just kidding http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tully__
01-26-2005, 02:00 AM
Regarding essential controls that have no default keys mapped, they're controls that didn't exist in the first game in the series (IL2 Sturmovik). When new controls were added, no default mapping was made so that they wouldn't conflict with user definitions made by users of previous versions. While annoying to newcomers to the game, it makes it a lot easier for the large number of people upgrading from earlier games in the series.

Iron-Works
01-26-2005, 05:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF15_Muto:
I passed ... Essex appeared right smack dab in front of me.

S~!
VF15_Muto <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting and very involved. I can see how this would be very rewarding, but I'm more interested in the COMBAT part of combat flight simulators. To each his own and a big S! for some impressive navigation.

VF15_Muto
01-26-2005, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron-Works:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF15_Muto:
I passed ... Essex appeared right smack dab in front of me.

S~!
VF15_Muto <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting and very involved. I can see how this would be very rewarding, but I'm more interested in the COMBAT part of combat flight simulators. To each his own and a big S! for some impressive navigation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and for surface attacks and aerial combat, PF can't be beat. That's really the diff between the two ... PF is a COMBAT flight simulator, while CFS2 is a combat FLIGHT SIMULATOR.

I was also, years ago, more focused on the combat part of combat flight sims. But after awhile, the fun of furball after furball wore off ... I hit a point of diminishing returns with time invested in different planes along with gunnery and ACM. Then I read Lundstrom's 'The First Team' as well as some other excellent books on WW2 naval aviation, and discovered what a small part of a naval aviator's piloting skills and daily life the combat part actually was. Definitely the most INTENSE part (except perhaps for night carrier landings), but also a very small part. The one area of combat skills where pilot training was extensive was gunnery, and this I enjoy equally in both PF and CFS2, particularly with 1% aircraft where the damage boxes are more numerous and much smaller than the horrible CFS2 stock aircraft. So gradually combat simming for me has become more about getting to, surviving and egressing from the combat zone and successfully landing in organized fashion with other pilots than about air-to-air combat ... which in turn explains my preference for cfs2.

Anyway, as you said, to each his own, and thanks for the S~ ... a big S~ to you as well.

S~!
VF15_Muto

dcunning30
01-26-2005, 02:08 PM
muto,

as a goofy aside,

have you checked out the yamato captain mission? what's really funny is you can actually have him take off and fly around the yamato as it's being clobbered.

initjust
01-26-2005, 06:16 PM
Yep. From a "Point Of Combat" (air-to-air or air-to ground) perspective PF is superior there is no question or doubt about it. So, if that is where your interest lies the choice is clear.

If your interest is more slanted toward the pre/post combat aspects (with a good dose of a few seconds/minutes of white-knuckle terror thrown in the middle) then PF may not be the best choice.

Combat sorties in the PTO were mostly long, boring flights with the very real and constant threat of instant death from an unseen enemy or a slow lingering death drifting alone in your life raft because you screwed the pooch on your navigation or failed to correctly execute your flight plan.

It is hard for me to separate the pre/post and combat dimensions of the PTO. Making long flights with no threat is enjoyable but generates no real pucker factor. On the other hand a flight during which you KNOW you will have combat also does not generate much of a pucker factor. However, put the two together where you have long flights with the POSSIBILITY (not certainty) of combat and the pucker factor goes way up! Some of my most intense, stressful and enjoyable experiences have been flights where I have been constantly keyed up and on edge watching out for enemy ac only to land safely with never seeing an enemy or firing a single round.

But then, I know I am in the minority on this point and that most here are mostly interested in what happens at the Point Of Combat. For me, combine the great qualities that PF offers in the combat realm and what CFS2 offers in the pre/post combat realm and I will have a new sim to spend my time on.

VF15_Muto
01-26-2005, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dcunning30:
muto,

as a goofy aside,

have you checked out the yamato captain mission? what's really funny is you can actually have him take off and fly around the yamato as it's being clobbered. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it's quite funny. What we're experimenting with is a 'flyable LSO' that you can land on deck, and that 'pilot' can put himself near the fantail and guide the other pilots in the squad in. Will be quite funny to see that guy flying around too.

S~!
Muto

VF15_Muto
01-26-2005, 11:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by initjust:

But then, I know I am in the minority on this point and that most here are mostly interested in what happens at the Point Of Combat. For me, combine the great qualities that PF offers in the combat realm and what CFS2 offers in the pre/post combat realm and I will have a new sim to spend my time on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would be nice. But that's why I fly CFS2 ... with PF I only get the point of combat experience. With CFS2, I can have both, even if point of combat in CFS2 is not as nice as PF.

S~!
Muto

Ritter_Cuda
01-27-2005, 12:33 AM
as someone who just upgraded his system so i could play this game . Radeon 9000 has a frame rate of 0 on line. check out http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv
you can buy by the piece or have them build it.
I bought by the piece as i knew what i wanted
went from a 1.2g AMD to a AMD 64 3500+ man what a differnce
Cuda

Hoatee
01-27-2005, 05:15 AM
Only one comment :

Pressing t on the keyboard will take you to the next waypoint. This is in my opinion a good way of getting to the action quicker if you don't want to have to fly the whole mission.

On the whole this is a fully customizable game that can be played both offline as well as online and according (or not as you will) to history.

In my opinion this is an excellent game and if you are prepared to spend some time with it it will grow on you. Have you checked out the Quick Mission Editor? This is good for instant action mode. The Full Mission Editor is even better although it does take a fair amount of time to set up scenarios (but what a brilliant interface - if you zoom in on the map close enough it is transformed into a 3d world looked at from the top down so that you can see the ships placed on the map, for example).

Unlike some straightjackets online which force you to play uhm....online.

flyboy_112th
01-27-2005, 06:19 AM
We regularly fly Co-Ops online with flight times approaching an hour. While the navigational aspects are greatly simplified (no real wind to take account of, flat earth) the thrill of flying a compass bearing and arriving at your target/destination should never be underestimated.

PF *doesn't* do the navigation as realistically as CFS, but the scope *is* there to get your pucker factor.

sapre
01-27-2005, 06:37 AM
I REFUSE TO BELIEVE CFS2 IS SUPERIOR TO PF!!
AAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Iwatapt
01-27-2005, 07:18 AM
If you're looking for the best navigation/flight simulation, then CFS is for you.

However, both CFS2 and IL2 are COMBAT flight sims, and in that regard, IL2 is the (much) superior product.

AFJ_Locust
01-27-2005, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dcunning30:
excellent! thanks for the help!

my machine:
celeron 1.8G
512Megs
Radeon 9200 128Meg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your system is very underpowered for this sim

You need to loose that celeron get another stick of 512 ram for a total of 1 gig

Your video will suffice but a 9700Pro would be lots better & there realy cheap now

Also read the Documents that come on the CD's theres a welth of information in them !!!

There in pdf format so you need adobie acrobat reader