PDA

View Full Version : Some thoughts on PF from a long time IL2 fanatic



Bomber_Dude
11-15-2004, 10:18 PM
Not trying to be a troll here or stir up any hornet€s nest. I have loved the sims starting with the original IL2 and everything that followed. I don€t post a lot here but I do try to keep up with things. Just felt like airing my opinions on a few things.

I didn€t jump on PF the minute it was released and when I finally did get it, I installed it as a stand alone to get a feel for what had changed compared to FB+ Aces before I did the merge. What follows are my initial impressions€¦

The planes€¦ Wow, what€s not to like. Love the B-25, A-20, Corsair and Beaufighter. While the Beaufighter may not have the looks of the Mosquito, it€s a killer and has already become my favorite mount! Nice to have some allied planes with heavy armament. Set up a scenario in QMB with the B-25 or A-20 and some enemy fighters to chase you around and jump into the turret and you get a new respect for the men who manned these. Trying to target a fighter on your tail while the pilot takes evasive action is a real challenge.

I found it interesting to read the posts from folks talking about carrier landings. Amazingly enough I nailed my first one in a Wildcat. I think it was a combination of luck and all the time I spent figuring out how to pull off a respectable landing in the Go229. I will note however when I tried it in some of the hotter fighters my luck wasn€t nearly as good!

The features and effects€¦ Outstanding! Carrier ops, the sparks that fly when the tail hook hits the deck, the new landing light effects, and my favorite, the return of
the non disappearing AI. That alone was worth the price of the disk to me! It may just be my imagination but it seems like the muzzle flash has been toned down a bit at least on some planes, noticed it most on the Me262 after I merged the programs.

Missions€¦ I haven€t tried any campaigns yet but single missions are lacking in quantity. Most all are concerned with carrier landings leaving the player to either fly QMB€s or build his own on FMB. No improvements in FMB either and what to me would be even more confusing to someone not familiar with previous offerings is the fact that if you weren€t careful you could end up with US or Japanese planes with Russian and German markings!

Over all, in my opinion PF is a little lacking as a stand alone game, at least I would have been disappointed myself. That said, combining it with FB + AEP creates an awesome game with much more potential. The B-25, A-20 Beaufighter and others add much to those interested in the Western front.

My installation both as stand alone and when I combined them went without a hitch and I€m quite pleased with the final product and can€t wait for more updates and add ons!

VF15_Muto
11-16-2004, 12:49 AM
Coming from one who is biased to Microsoft Flight Sim products....

PF PROS:
-Love the details on the carriers and other ships, carrier ops a lot of fun.
-Good immersive feel in the cockpit, as long as you don't look outside of the cockpit at anything other than other aircraft.
-The usual good IL-2 battle eye-candy, tracers, damage, explosions, etc.
-Water and terrain look pretty good near the surface.
-Lighting dynamics on aircraft very nice.
-Multiplayer functionality appears to be very good, though I didn't explore it too much.

PF CONS
-The usual flight model issues. How an F6F can split-S away from a zero above corner speed from 8k feet, border on compression dive, and pull out at sea level and still have the zero planted right on its tail is utterly inexplicable. Didn't happen...
-Terrain from 5k feet up looks silly, cartoonish. The spherical earth effect at this altitude and the blur in the distance so no discernible features can be ascertained from on high is silly as well.
-Ships and wakes are simply not discernible from realistic distances ... not a single flight sim has gotten this right, and I fully expected PF to tackle it. But it failed.
-The physical world is a myth - winds aloft absent, air density non-existent, terrain features fictitious, no magnetic declination, no icing, no turbulence, no wind shear, no humidity ... real piloting considerations mostly absent thus rendering PF a game rather than a sim ... yet all these things have been present for more than four years in MS sims, including CFS2.
-Still wish more dynamic flight modelling with changing COG as fuel is burned and ammo dispensed would be integrated into a sim that trumpets its flight models so boldly.
-Thumbs down on the campaigns.
-FLAK can kill performance on even Uber-PCs.
-Lots of other bugs common to new software products which we purchase anyway on the promise of future patches.

Net, I'm disappointed ... I was expecting more out of this one. Will fire PF up from time to time when I feel like doing some traps, cuz those are a lot of fun, but will go back to other tried and true products for more complete flight and WW2 combat pilot simulation.

sapre
11-16-2004, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF15_Muto:
Coming from one who is biased to Microsoft Flight Sim products....

PF PROS:
-Love the details on the carriers and other ships, carrier ops a lot of fun.
-Good immersive feel in the cockpit, as long as you don't look outside of the cockpit at anything other than other aircraft.
-The usual good IL-2 battle eye-candy, tracers, damage, explosions, etc.
-Water and terrain look pretty good near the surface.
-Lighting dynamics on aircraft very nice.
-Multiplayer functionality appears to be very good, though I didn't explore it too much.

PF CONS
-The usual flight model issues. How an F6F can split-S away from a zero above corner speed from 8k feet, border on compression dive, and pull out at sea level and still have the zero planted right on its tail is utterly inexplicable. Didn't happen...
-Terrain from 5k feet up looks silly, cartoonish. The spherical earth effect at this altitude and the blur in the distance so no discernible features can be ascertained from on high is silly as well.
-Ships and wakes are simply not discernible from realistic distances ... not a single flight sim has gotten this right, and I fully expected PF to tackle it. But it failed.
-The physical world is a myth - winds aloft absent, air density non-existent, terrain features fictitious, no magnetic declination, no icing, no turbulence, no wind shear, no humidity ... real piloting considerations mostly absent thus rendering PF a game rather than a sim ... yet all these things have been present for more than four years in MS sims, including CFS2.
-Still wish more dynamic flight modelling with changing COG as fuel is burned and ammo dispensed would be integrated into a sim that trumpets its flight models so boldly.
-Thumbs down on the campaigns.
-FLAK can kill performance on even Uber-PCs.
-Lots of other bugs common to new software products which we purchase anyway on the promise of future patches.

Net, I'm disappointed ... I was expecting more out of this one. Will fire PF up from time to time when I feel like doing some traps, cuz those are a lot of fun, but will go back to other tried and true products for more complete flight and WW2 combat pilot simulation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, the classic "patch will never come out we are doomed"/"i dont care about patch because 1C should have released without any bug" whine.

WUAF_Badsight
11-16-2004, 02:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sapre:
Ahh, the classic "patch will never come out we are doomed"/"i dont care about patch because 1C should have released without any bug" whine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
wheres the whine ?

he pointed out pros & cons , & compared missing features to the older MS FS & CFS that have them

thats not whining

initjust
11-16-2004, 09:36 AM
Yes sir. Where's the whine sapre?

Seems a solid point-by-point comparison if viewed with even a miniscule amount of objectivity.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-16-2004, 10:09 AM
Hi,

I'm afraid you've missed the point - if you post anything that doesn't amount to sycophantic fawning, you're a whiner, much in the same way that if you post a review that highlights negative points, you are suddenly satan and have to justify yourself to all.

My view of PF really is like Peter Snow's swing-o-meter that has gone off on one; sometimes I fly a co-op and think 'wow, that was really amazing' and another time something ridiculous happens and I just think, 'I don't think so - I think I'll off it to the pub, instead.'

Any news on the patch or should we still be sending 'get well soon' cards to the programmer concerned?

Cheers,
Norris

initjust
11-16-2004, 10:28 AM
Oh no. I haven't missed the point.

In fact, I am well aware of the nearly global effects of stating anything less than, what did you call it? Oh yeah, "sycophantic fawning".

NorrisMcWhirter
11-16-2004, 10:48 AM
Hi

^ Did I miss something "good"?

Cheers,
Norris

initjust
11-16-2004, 12:28 PM
Nah. It was really just the standard fare here when a less than "sycophantic fawning" is posted albeit with a bit of uneccessary "pot stirring" on my part I will admit.

And it just proves something the Portugues are fond of saying, "Quanto mais se mexe na merda o mais ella enjua".

flyingbullseye
11-16-2004, 01:05 PM
I would add some things to VF15_Muto post.

-adding the Dutch, Aussies and British is a nice touch not forgetting those that helped in the PTO.
-if you fly USAAF what the hell happened to the latter part of 1942 through all of 1944?
-I second the flight model problem, though the ability to slow down with flaps and gear when landing would also be nice.
-the game is smooth with no stutter or freeze on highest graphic levels and I have a AMD 1.67Ghz and Ti4600, nice that we with a lower system can still enjoy this sim
-the clouds are still second rate at best, MS has the best IMO.
-the damage models are well done, the IJN planes burst into flames easy and the allies are a pain to shoot down with the IJN fighters.
Not much else to rant or rave about most everything else has been discussed.

DuxCorvan
11-16-2004, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by initjust:
Oh no. I haven't missed the point.

In fact, I am well aware of the nearly global effects of stating anything less than, what did you call it? Oh yeah, "sycophantic fawning". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditirambic panegirics? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
11-16-2004, 02:26 PM
I find it funny that an MS simmer would ding PF (or any IL2 product) for terrain. While I haven't played MSFS, I HAVE planed all 3 CFS's. 2 looked good for it's day, but isn't up to even IL2 1.0. CFS3's ground looks like absolute and total **** down low. I'll take the altitude visual issues that IL2 has over the low level **** look that CFS3 has anyway (personally).

Also, while he had a valid point in the particular example cited, I do also find it humorous that an MS simmer dings PF on the FM. As I said, specific example cited is valid, but....in CFS2 you can do a full power split S in a Hellcat and lose no more than 500 feet.

As much effot as the 1% guys put into their FMs, M$ is too silent on all the aspects of the FM, and, gravity is really hosed up in that engine as well (which isn't really fixable in the plane FM files).

Nothing is without problems. And certainly not this sim series, but really, it's world better than the M$ attempts. (at least as far as combat goes)

VF15_Muto
11-16-2004, 08:16 PM
Bullseye,
-Spot on with the comment on Aussie/Dutch etc contribution in PF ... very nice.
-Regarding drag from flaps and gear ... ROGER!
-Agree clouds better in MS series.

Blitzpig,
-I said terrain down low in PF is pretty good near the surface, and in fact IS BETTER than the MS terrain (except for FS9). HOWEVER, up high, i.e. above 5k feet the terrain in even the 'ancient' CFS2 looks much better and more realistic than PF.
-Completely agree on the stock flight models in the CFS series. But that's the genius of CFS ... somebody can come along and do it better, with the graphical performance data to back it up. And in fact, that's what's happened with 1%, KM, and other modellers' aircraft in the CFS series. In PF, the customer is slave to the programmer's determination of authentic. In CFS, the customer can decide. The gravity and yaw dynamics in the CFS series, which can be exploited to the fullest extent by 3rd party developers, are superior to the FMs in IL-2 series in my very humble opinion.

S~!
VF15_Muto

VW-IceFire
11-16-2004, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF15_Muto:
Bullseye,
-Spot on with the comment on Aussie/Dutch etc contribution in PF ... very nice.
-Regarding drag from flaps and gear ... ROGER!
-Agree clouds better in MS series.

Blitzpig,
-I said terrain down low in PF is pretty good near the surface, and in fact IS BETTER than the MS terrain (except for FS9). HOWEVER, up high, i.e. above 5k feet the terrain in even the 'ancient' CFS2 looks much better and more realistic than PF.
-Completely agree on the stock flight models in the CFS series. But that's the genius of CFS ... somebody can come along and do it better, with the graphical performance data to back it up. And in fact, that's what's happened with 1%, KM, and other modellers' aircraft in the CFS series. In PF, the customer is slave to the programmer's determination of authentic. In CFS, the customer can decide. The gravity and yaw dynamics in the CFS series, which can be exploited to the fullest extent by 3rd party developers, are superior to the FMs in IL-2 series in my very humble opinion.

S~!
VF15_Muto <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We'll see about the clouds when Patch 2 comes. Oleg has some new cloud system in development...something of a beta test of a more fully realized version for BoB but I hear its really really cool! We'll have to wait and see...

Doctor_Feelgood
11-16-2004, 10:46 PM
you're forgetting that the lomac clouds look good.

sapre
11-16-2004, 11:38 PM
I guess I overreacted.
My apologie Muto.

actionhank1786
11-17-2004, 12:36 AM
One thing that bother me is people stating that CFS2's flight model is better than Pacific Fighters (i'm not saying anyone's done this in here, this is just an "in general" thing)
CFS2's flight models sucked.
I dont care what atmospheric conditions, Magnetic whatnot, and other realistic things that they borrowed from Flight Simulator, the Flight models felt like i was flying a fighter kite. I could pull any plane all over the sky.
Now this is something that really gets to me, people stating that CFS2 is better because of say 1% mods or other things.
I dont think you can include those, Microsoft didnt support people with that game.
That was one thing that bothered me.
You wanted the game better? Well from Microsoft, you can screw yourself, it was up to the great community to help.
And i'll admit with that community CFS2 became a great game, but looking back, i think that if PF was half of what CFS2 was then, we'd have a whole hell of a lot more whiners on our hands.
Everyone's so spoiled, Oleg has fixed most things that have been proven to be bugs, and now people seem to think that he is required to fix things on a person by person basis.
He isnt required to do anything.
I dont think people realize that when they complain about the game.
Oleg could drop PF as is right now.
but he doesnt, and i dont think people give a man who's dedicated his life, and i'm sure more of his personal time from family and friends than he ever planned on enough respect.
That is why "whiners" are bashed so much.
People who support with facts, or calmly and politely state what they like and dont like (as the original poster has done i'm happy to see)
they usually get a fair bit of respect.
My 2 cents

killer2359
11-17-2004, 01:14 AM
Actionhank1786 - nonsense! The points made above are valid - some people here are a tad too fanatical and quick to attack in response to queeries or criticism - respect is a 2 way street.

And in addition to my trimming control problem (which I'm learning to cope with) I'm also becomming aware as has been mentioned above that the energy bleed situation in PF is way out of whack.

TonyEH
11-17-2004, 04:54 AM
CFS2's flight models sucked

Yes but the option to alter them was there in CFS2. In FB/PF we get what Oleg finally decides upon and in a lot of cases its off.

IMO the offline game NEEDS to be made more open to allow the user and community to tweak the game's FM and DM to the way they want it, like EAW's "aircraft edit" program, which improved the game's enjoyability 100 fold.

As the situation stands in the offline game we have frankly stupid occurances happening every single mission we fly...like...ahem..."rookie" AI I-16's slaughtering "ace" AI 109's, which is just bollox.

Tony

Athosd
11-17-2004, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TonyEH:
_CFS2's flight models sucked_

Yes but the option to alter them was there in CFS2. In FB/PF we get what Oleg finally decides upon and in a lot of cases its off.

IMO the offline game NEEDS to be made more open to allow the user and community to tweak the game's FM and DM to the way they want it, like EAW's "aircraft edit" program, which improved the game's enjoyability 100 fold.

As the situation stands in the offline game we have frankly stupid occurances happening every single mission we fly...like...ahem..."rookie" AI I-16's slaughtering "ace" AI 109's, which is just bollox.

Tony <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like an easy fix for you then - just play CFS2/3 and EAW with whatever version of flight model rows your boat.


IBTL

Edit P.s. - Just tested out a set of 8 on 8 AI only matches in QMB. 109F4 Aces vs I-16-24 Rookies.
The Aces cleaned up in three matches straight - lost only 3 machines and destroyed 24.
Ran another one with 109E4s and they lost none for 8 kills.
The situation was no advantage at 2000m on Smolensk map. Such a furball is hardly ideal for 109 v I-16 - yet the Aces handled it well enough, and certainly didn't get slaughtered.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-17-2004, 07:18 AM
The gravity in CFS2 was porked. No amount of plane tweaking could get around that. If you made them heavy enough to behave properly in one regime, they were too heavy to perform properly in another. In short, there just wasn't enough gravitational pull in CFS2.

And CFS3......oy! When that first came out it was pre-229-AEP. So the first thing I did was take the 229 up and try it out. Well, by stressing the FM intentionally I managed to put it into a tumble. Not just a spin, a 720 degree tumble. .......I didn't lose ANY altitude.

I stumbled on the "next way point" key and warped, then came out of the warp in perfect flying trim again.

That, combined with the **** look (and down low is where it matters - it's where DFs end up, and take offs and landings are made) is enough to totally write CFS off forever. It's not even worth trying to fix since you have the IL2 series. And if you absolutely need open FMs, there's Targetware or OpenPlanSims.

XyZspineZyX
11-17-2004, 08:20 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Hello,

First, never compare IL2+FB+AEP+PF to CFS, they are not the same games and one give you corrections the second never (I have never seen a patch for a FS or CFS).
Second, this is a GAME, not reality. You cannot put a world with all is complexity into a game. Try ite and it shall be like trying to put an elephant into a small size matchbow.
Enjoy a game and do not try to find defaults but qualities to it.

Sensei... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

LilHorse
11-17-2004, 08:43 AM
Sorry, no comparison between IL2 and the CFS series. The flight models were off in CFS and, sure, the ability for a third party to alter the FM is great if that third party is honest and does their research (still there's the problem with gravity mentioned by DDT). But there's also the ability for that person to screw it up. While ground crews had some leeway in modifying a/c they didn't have the ability to "customize the ride". You got, to a very large extent, what came from the factory.

And CFS ballistics were garbage and the damage model a joke. I could practically guess with my eyes closed on deflection shots in CFS and bring planes down. And damage? Could a Betty's 20mm stinger disable a Wildcat's engine? Sure. Could it tear the whole R-1830 off it's mounts? I don't think so. But I can't tell you how many times that happened.

Don't get me wrong. I liked the CFS series. I thought CFS2 was the best of them. And yes, there were features in them that were very cool (ammo cooking off in a fire on the wing for example). But IL2 was a huge step forward in FM, DM and ballistics.

VF15_Muto
11-18-2004, 12:47 AM
"I thought CFS2 was the best of them. And yes, there were features in them that were very cool (ammo cooking off in a fire on the wing for example). But IL2 was a huge step forward in FM, DM and ballistics."

Stock CFS2 versus IL-2:FB, I would agree the latter was a step forward (but I would not say it was huge by any means).

However 1% FM and DM are every bit as good, if not better, in CFS2 than IL-2:FB (and there are now modellers with new assembly lines that have arguably surpassed 1%...). Not sure about ballistics, IL-2:FB might have the edge there.

S~!
VF15_Muto

Shrike_UK
11-18-2004, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF15_Muto:
Coming from one who is biased to Microsoft Flight Sim products....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

why bother!
why do we still compare old crud when there were good flight sims like F117 stealth from microprose, gunship on the C64 & amiga, and of course Falcon 4, which was the most accurate sim of all time. why do i think that? heres my top 3 reasons:
1. Realtime Dynamic campaign, the only sim/game in history to do this, im sure the military have some tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
2. because it has full ATC and AWACS ATC, and hordes of flight commands with accurate tactics, formations navigation etc.., all this in the original version, no addons to buy. it has reralistic carrier or runway landings, light on carrier runways, true ILS or TACAN navigation done accurately. it has a nearly complete accurate replica ANPG-68 radar, which is modelled exact. and HUD is modelled with all correct display. and you can interact with the actual cockpit pressing the buttons IN the cockpit, thus you didnt need too many buttons on your stick. you get all of this without buying addons like you do with Microsoft FS jobs. it has sky that looks right, even if there isnt much in the way of clouds. and you dont need to buy MS FSClouds to get clouds, LOL.
3. no people making there own aircraft addons which dont fit into game and having the cheek to sell them!, like i had a helicopter in cfs2 once which would spit fire out of the rotors, and didnt perform anything like anything real.
no pressing page up to go up 1000 feet, LOL, children.

okay, there more than 3 reasons above, but you get my drift, MSCFS are way lacking and have been far outclassed by less talked about sims, not worth talking about IMHO. roll on F5. Im a ww2 planes fan really, but IL2 has been the only decent one.

VF15_Muto
11-18-2004, 06:10 PM
"Im a ww2 planes fan really, but IL2 has been the only decent one."

Only as a combat action game.

As a WW2 flight simulator, IL2 has barely scratched the surface.