PDA

View Full Version : Best Flight Sim Contrails?



XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 04:34 AM
I tried the LOMAC demo (and deleted it) and the contrails are the same as in Flanker 2.5 and the contrails are darker than the sky at night and that is bull--although that could change.

FB:: I know that contrails are very visible at night under a bright moon. And the FB contrails are so darn pretty against the FB sky.

I don't know any other sims like MiG~Alley or Rowan BoB or MS 3FSC. Please tell. Thanks. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 04:34 AM
I tried the LOMAC demo (and deleted it) and the contrails are the same as in Flanker 2.5 and the contrails are darker than the sky at night and that is bull--although that could change.

FB:: I know that contrails are very visible at night under a bright moon. And the FB contrails are so darn pretty against the FB sky.

I don't know any other sims like MiG~Alley or Rowan BoB or MS 3FSC. Please tell. Thanks. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 04:38 AM
FS2004 contrails, and you can also have fuel dumping effects, smoke effects, wet weather touchdown effects, and vapour off your flaps in certain situations too....



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

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 05:57 AM
http://www.avhistory.org/Bear257Images/mollycontrail.jpg

http://www.avhistory.org/Bear257Images/mollycontrail1.jpg

The ones some guy made for AvHistory's CFS3 1% B-17G Molly II.

Zeke



Message Edited on 10/18/0302:59PM by reisen52

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 02:32 PM
fs2004 is pretty damn amazing on the ground in the air and high alt, i wish ms would make a combat flight sim with fs2004s engine would be fun

http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 02:38 PM
Hmm, I think you should post this on the Lomac forum.

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

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 04:45 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- fs2004 is pretty damn amazing on the ground in the
- air and high alt, i wish ms would make a combat
- flight sim with fs2004s engine would be fun



AFAIK, CFS3 uses a very large percentage of the FS2004 engine.
Or is it FS2003?
Dang, i can't remember, but FS2004 can certainly take the crown in graphs, when horribly compared with CFS3 and they'r crappy..............well, everything, from the cockpit to the terrain, and placement of all structures.

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/1-picture1.gif?0.8490278826190298 (http://oksquad.free.fr)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 05:06 PM
>>>with CFS3 and they'r crappy..............well, everything, from the cockpit<<<

http://46th.net/pictures/b17-2.jpg

http://46th.net/pictures/b17-4.jpg

http://46th.net/pictures/b17-7.jpg

The terrain is not very good but the cockpits are very nice especially when you have all the stations player usable on heavy bombers.

Zeke

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 05:44 PM
reisen52 wrote:
- The terrain is not very good but the cockpits are
- very nice especially when you have all the stations
- player usable on heavy bombers.



I was refering mostly to the fighters, wich only one or two are minimaly decent, and even those are not eccurate, but if you wat to go with those pics, fine.

Take a second look to them.
The models are only so so, and the textures make it look like it just rolled out of a factory, brand spanking new, and not as much as a single particle of dust inside that core.

All in all, looks like an aircraft that as never seen battle. Hell, has never seen the light of day is even more appropiate a thing to say about it.

"look at me, me shinyyyyy!"


tsk tsk.

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/1-picture1.gif?0.8490278826190298 (http://oksquad.free.fr)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 06:49 PM
This one has a dirty floor if that's what is important to the game.

http://www.avhistory.org/Bear257Images/3-emil3.jpg

I think its hard to compare a B-17G with a factory fresh paint job with no B-17G at all. Even thought I prefer weathered to factory fresh myself I much more prefer player flyable to AI only or to non existant. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I have just about all the WWII flight sims & find the one-issue guys with the mindset that mine is better then yours silly. The fact that I will not be able to land my IL2/FB Reisen on the Akagi is just one of the things I will accept and just be happy to have the plane at all.

Taking the B-17G as example and make it a non flyable AI so you will not have to look at it since it does not have dirt on the floor. In J-WWII-F, CFS1-2-3 & EAW among others I can fly my Me-262 up to 35,000feet and shoot the B-17G down.

In FB my Me-262 is sucking wind at 30,000ft. Does the presence of a great cockpit in the IL2/FB Me-262 with the lack of adequate high altitude flight model and the limit on the number of planes in a mission make FB a bad sim? No, not really as it does a number of other things well.

http://www.avhistory.org/Bear257Images/eaw3.jpg
One thing that really adds immersion to me is being able to put up 250 aircraft in a mission like in EAW.

That being said I do find it interesting that guys can get all bent out of shape over the rivet count an instrument being 2mm out of position or floor dirt in a cockpit but have no problem with the same plane not flying so good.

The same feeling goes for the sims, they each will do some things well and others not so well. I have no interest in doing a mine is better then yours thread since I have most of them and can find faults in any of them with out trying to hard, but prefer to enjoy the good things each has to offer instead.

Zeke



Message Edited on 10/18/0307:12PM by reisen52

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 07:20 PM
Yes its amazing what can get some people to go postal...I do not get it myself at least we have something to complain about.I cannot go back to EAW after IL2 and FB. Is not perfect but neither am I.

Happy hunting and check six!

Tony Ascaso, RN

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 07:22 PM
I think you may be picturing me a little bit too soon.

I don't have biased opinions about any sim, or any other genre of game for all that matters.

I do however, demand that a game i play, to be as accurate as possible, in the measure of avaiable tecnology.

I don't favor IL-2 anymore than i do Pong.


Just assimilate this for an instance.

In IL-2, the FM is based on a coded language, that as far as i have perceived, relies on some sort of java construct.
This in return, allows for an unprecedented number of tweaks that can, and have to be made inhouse, thus, relying not on an open source sistem, but instead on high quality standarts from 1C.


CFS is still stuck with the old open source table atributte sstem philosophy, wich in return makes the end user responsible for whatever he may want to add to the game.
If you want to give 4000Hp to each engine, on a P-38, you can, and you can even take it online with no sort of restrain!!!


If the evaluation of a game, relied in this point alone, CFS would never even have a chance.
But then there's the eyecandy factor, and CFS relies basicaly on this point alone, and doesn't even make a good job at it.


You may defend CFS, for any point you may gather, but as long as you don't have quality assurance from the producers, then you will never realy have a flight sim worth its name.


I don't need to resort to a biased opinion, when the obvious is allready in front of me, in stock format of all things!

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/1-picture1.gif?0.8490278826190298 (http://oksquad.free.fr)</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-18-2003, 07:22 PM
Reisen 52- Good post-Well said.

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:18 AM
Resev,

The system used by IL2 & FB according to Oleg himself had to be greatly dumbed down to run on a home computer, the lack of a discrete high altitude & takeoff model clearly demonstrate this. The system does not even fully model each individual aircraft because it can't and still run so he uses a lot of common fixed code to cover the holes.

In Olegs own words "We just do it partially. Simplified in many ways. And I never told that we do exact copy of each single aircraft...isn't it? Simply if we'll calculate say only airfoil in terms of all real time calculations - we'll get freezed PC"

One of the methods he uses to dumb down the physics program to suit a home computer is to use what he describes as 'module's.

Oleg said" So we are going for some predifined terms or moduals and we simplify the formulas to the level that possible to use in real time on a current PC together with other real time calculations"

The module is pre written code that will make a plane do a specific thing when specific conditions are met. Maybe you can explain to me what the difference is between the modules & tables as they both do the exact same thing.


EAW the CFS series Falcon 4, JFWWII fighters and the rest except for one non-combat sim use a table based systems that will run full out on home computers & they have full startup to service ceiling flight models.

If The Lockheed Martin can build the F-35 joint strike fighter & the F-22 Raptor with table based simulations I think they are pretty much OK for a computer game.

>>>If you want to give 4000Hp to each engine, on a P-38, you can, and you can even take it online with no sort of restrain!!!<<<<

The restraint is that you cannot get into an online game with it unless everybody else has the same 8000hp P-38.

The upside of this process is in CFS3 for instance there are at least 6 very high quality player flyable freeware Bf-110 versions.

http://www.groundcrewdesign.com/shots/shark0.jpg
listed as a 'work in progress' at sim outhouse

In Falcon 4 user intervention has taken a game that was pretty general in its usage to what is the most intense flight simulator running on a home computer. It takes over 100 individual switch throws, button pushes, and lever movements to go from a cold aircraft to the point where you can make the 'ready to taxi' radio call.

What really says a lot about user developed improvements is that the LOMAC publishers have stated very openly on their forum that they will not even try to produce a cockpit operating environment at a level of detail equal to Falcon 4SPx. They are shooting for a more general market to get greater sales

As I said earlier the "my thing is better then your thing" is a waste of time as there are so many really cool flight sims out there it seems like a shame to make any one of them into the be all end all in your own mind.

Zeke


Message Edited on 10/19/0306:10AM by reisen52

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:34 AM
Ow come on, the cockpit is not too bad on this one

http://46th.net/pictures/b17-2.jpg


But, some of the gauges are from the wrong type and their placement is totally crap!!

If maddox will make a B-17 fully flyable, we should compare them.

It still is better then the default CFS3 cockpits, I agree.

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

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 12:38 AM
resev wrote:
-
- reisen52 wrote:
-- The terrain is not very good but the cockpits are
-- very nice especially when you have all the stations
-- player usable on heavy bombers.
-
-
-
- I was refering mostly to the fighters, wich only one
- or two are minimaly decent, and even those are not
- eccurate, but if you wat to go with those pics,
- fine.
-
- Take a second look to them.
- The models are only so so, and the textures make it
- look like it just rolled out of a factory, brand
- spanking new, and not as much as a single particle
- of dust inside that core.
-
- All in all, looks like an aircraft that as never
- seen battle. Hell, has never seen the light of day
- is even more appropiate a thing to say about it.
-
- "look at me, me shinyyyyy!"
-
-


They look like a model-kit to me. So shiny and fresh, not a speck of oil or dirt!

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

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 04:13 AM
Platypus_1.JaVA

>>> and their placement is totally crap!!<<<

http://cybermodeler.com/aircraft/b-17/images/pima_b-17g-16.jpg

If you say so http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zeke

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 11:27 AM
reisen52 wrote:
- Platypus_1.JaVA
-
- >>> and their placement is totally crap!!<<<
-
- <img
- src="http://cybermodeler.com/aircraft/b-17/images/
- pima_b-17g-16.jpg">
-
- If you say so /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- Zeke
-

Oops, I'm sorry, looks like i'm wrong on this one /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I automatically assumed that CFS add-ons where just crap. But I still think it is a pitty that you'll have to pay for something like this and that you have to have a big wallet if you want have the latets goodies.

This is a pretty good interior. It doesn't feel as real as Il-2 cockpits but, it really stands out.



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

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 06:33 PM
"-But I still think it is a pitty that you'll have to pay
- for something like this and that you have to have a
- big wallet if you want have the latets goodies."

The word at sim outhouse is the guys who did the 109 cockpit above are going to do the interior of the freeware B-17G Molly which is out in beta form with a very basic, way below FB standards & even below CFS3 stock standards, but fully functional interior.

I do hope when they do it that they weather it up as I agree the payware one is too clean and looks very sterile /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif That being said I have never purchased a payware plane for any game & don't really thing I will start now.

http://www.avhistory.org/Bear257Images/3-p51dah.jpg

BTW I have added 50+ really nice freeware planes like the P-51 BBD to the game and have not spent anything past the initial purchase of the game which I got on sale.

J-WWIIF also has a number of new freeware add-ons. IMHO even though its getting pretty old, got mine in 1998, it still has some of the best VC's yet put into a flight sim.

I have gotten a number of enhancements and new campaigns for EAW also. There is a very active EAW forum in addition to the LOMAC & IL2/FB ones at SimHq

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=41

Zeke