PDA

View Full Version : AVSIM Rates 4 Out Of 5



Sakai9745
01-03-2005, 07:40 PM
Found this today and wanted to share. Seems AVSIM was fairly impressed with the game we so love to play. I share with all an excerpt from their review on their impressions of the flight models.


Now for the moment you were all waiting for - the flight models. If you are just used to flying either MS FS2004 or CFS3, you are in for a surprise.

Unlike the compromise-filled flight models in the FS sims (which admittedly can be beaten into realism), and the horrid ones in CFS3, Pacific Fighters €flight models really give a feeling of what a WW2 fighter was like to fly. One of the best aspects of Pacific Fighters is its feeling of mass. Lightweight Japanese fighters are insanely agile, but will be outclassed by planes like the Corsair, while the American Grummans feel like flying a pickup truck. While Microsoft has been unable to deliver a spinnable flight model, that is not the case in Pacific Fighters.

This sim demands that you watch your speed and how hard you yank and bank, or one of two bad things will happen (depending on realism settings). Either the plane will fall into a stall and spin (this is bad), or the pilot will black out, which results in you losing control until you €œwake up€(also bad), or a third combination is possible whereby you black out, the aircraft spins, and then you crash (this is very bad). The aircraft all feel different in flight, and carrying ordinance and fuel must be thought out before trying to get a fully loaded aircraft off of a very short deck, or you will get a good close look at the water and splash effects. Nuances of the aircraft are also perfectly reflected here. For example, the Zero starts to get very heavy ailerons above about 300MPH, while the P-40 has more roll control at high speeds. Also modeled is the fact that the Wildcat had hand -cranked landing gear, so moving the gear necessitates many presses of the keys for manually lowering and raising the gear.

Maddox Games have perfectly captured the tactical strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft, which means that strategy is essential to winning a fight. Japanese fighters are very nimble and can outturn any allied fighter in the game. Because of this agility, though, they are not very fast (by late war standards) and lack both armor and (for the most part) firepower. This means that as an IJA or IJN pilot, you need to get the Americans into a low and slow turning fight and shots must be made at close range at wings or canopies since the Zeroes and Franks lack the firepower to down the armored Grummans and Voughts.

American fighters use a different strategy, though. Allied fighters are heavier, better armed, better armored, and in most cases, faster than their Japanese rivals. This means that Allied fighters need to keep their speed up, make quick attacks, and then get away to set up for another run. Against fighters, teamwork with flight members is paramount. Attacking bombers also needs a bit of planning in order to avoid getting hammered by gunners. Allied bombers are very hard to down with most of the Japanese aircraft, and almost require killing the pilot to down planes like the B-29, B-17, and B-24.

Damage models are very sophisticated and make getting a damaged fighter home an interesting experience. Allied fighters can take quite a few hits (the Wildcat and Hellcat can absorb a full load of .30 cal rounds from a Zero and still fly) and get home in one piece, whereas most of the Japanese fighters just blow up when hit by gunfire. Hits in the fuselage are usually not much of a danger, but they can cut control cables, which disables that surface. Hits in the wings will cripple the aircrafts ability to manuver as well as its speed, and fuel tanks can either leak or explode. The engine is a bad place to get hit since a coolant leak means that you are going to have the engine seize up, but the amount of time it takes to do so depends on the severity of the hit. To top it all off, hydraulic system hits can mean that you will struggle back to your carrier, only to find out that your gear and flaps are immobile, so you had better crank the gear down or get ready to swim.

Landings are not much of a challenge on land, but carriers make life much more fun. The first part of landing is finding where the carrier is, since it has been moving at high speed since you took off. This is accomplished by either using the mini-map, or by simply letting the autopilot find the boat for you. On final, you will be unable to see the deck due to your nose high attitude, so you can raise the seat to get a better view. Catching the wires is no easy feat, but it s simplified by the fact that the deck is always clear of other planes, a luxury that few Pacific theater pilots had.




The complete review can be found here:

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0105/Pac_Fight/pacflt_review.htm

Sakai9745
01-03-2005, 07:40 PM
Found this today and wanted to share. Seems AVSIM was fairly impressed with the game we so love to play. I share with all an excerpt from their review on their impressions of the flight models.


Now for the moment you were all waiting for - the flight models. If you are just used to flying either MS FS2004 or CFS3, you are in for a surprise.

Unlike the compromise-filled flight models in the FS sims (which admittedly can be beaten into realism), and the horrid ones in CFS3, Pacific Fighters €flight models really give a feeling of what a WW2 fighter was like to fly. One of the best aspects of Pacific Fighters is its feeling of mass. Lightweight Japanese fighters are insanely agile, but will be outclassed by planes like the Corsair, while the American Grummans feel like flying a pickup truck. While Microsoft has been unable to deliver a spinnable flight model, that is not the case in Pacific Fighters.

This sim demands that you watch your speed and how hard you yank and bank, or one of two bad things will happen (depending on realism settings). Either the plane will fall into a stall and spin (this is bad), or the pilot will black out, which results in you losing control until you €œwake up€(also bad), or a third combination is possible whereby you black out, the aircraft spins, and then you crash (this is very bad). The aircraft all feel different in flight, and carrying ordinance and fuel must be thought out before trying to get a fully loaded aircraft off of a very short deck, or you will get a good close look at the water and splash effects. Nuances of the aircraft are also perfectly reflected here. For example, the Zero starts to get very heavy ailerons above about 300MPH, while the P-40 has more roll control at high speeds. Also modeled is the fact that the Wildcat had hand -cranked landing gear, so moving the gear necessitates many presses of the keys for manually lowering and raising the gear.

Maddox Games have perfectly captured the tactical strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft, which means that strategy is essential to winning a fight. Japanese fighters are very nimble and can outturn any allied fighter in the game. Because of this agility, though, they are not very fast (by late war standards) and lack both armor and (for the most part) firepower. This means that as an IJA or IJN pilot, you need to get the Americans into a low and slow turning fight and shots must be made at close range at wings or canopies since the Zeroes and Franks lack the firepower to down the armored Grummans and Voughts.

American fighters use a different strategy, though. Allied fighters are heavier, better armed, better armored, and in most cases, faster than their Japanese rivals. This means that Allied fighters need to keep their speed up, make quick attacks, and then get away to set up for another run. Against fighters, teamwork with flight members is paramount. Attacking bombers also needs a bit of planning in order to avoid getting hammered by gunners. Allied bombers are very hard to down with most of the Japanese aircraft, and almost require killing the pilot to down planes like the B-29, B-17, and B-24.

Damage models are very sophisticated and make getting a damaged fighter home an interesting experience. Allied fighters can take quite a few hits (the Wildcat and Hellcat can absorb a full load of .30 cal rounds from a Zero and still fly) and get home in one piece, whereas most of the Japanese fighters just blow up when hit by gunfire. Hits in the fuselage are usually not much of a danger, but they can cut control cables, which disables that surface. Hits in the wings will cripple the aircrafts ability to manuver as well as its speed, and fuel tanks can either leak or explode. The engine is a bad place to get hit since a coolant leak means that you are going to have the engine seize up, but the amount of time it takes to do so depends on the severity of the hit. To top it all off, hydraulic system hits can mean that you will struggle back to your carrier, only to find out that your gear and flaps are immobile, so you had better crank the gear down or get ready to swim.

Landings are not much of a challenge on land, but carriers make life much more fun. The first part of landing is finding where the carrier is, since it has been moving at high speed since you took off. This is accomplished by either using the mini-map, or by simply letting the autopilot find the boat for you. On final, you will be unable to see the deck due to your nose high attitude, so you can raise the seat to get a better view. Catching the wires is no easy feat, but it s simplified by the fact that the deck is always clear of other planes, a luxury that few Pacific theater pilots had.




The complete review can be found here:

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0105/Pac_Fight/pacflt_review.htm

joeap
01-04-2005, 07:16 AM
Read it, a good and fair review and somewhat better than the Flightsim.com one. In fact was rather disappointed by that one as Andrew Herd (the Flightsim.com reviewer) made some pretty glaring mistakes.

angrypilot
01-04-2005, 01:30 PM
Thanks for reading the review and for the positive comments. I'm glad you liked my work.

Chuck_Older
01-04-2005, 01:37 PM
I must say the standard CFS3 FM isn't what I think is good

I just d/l'd one of the 1% models for CFS3. A huge improvement, very nice work, co-ordinated turns are better modelled in the 1% CFS3 planes than in FB/PF in my opinion.

Overall, FB/PF still feels more like what flying in a single engine small plane felt like to me, but the 1% planes seem to be very good for CFS3. In particular rudder seems better modelled, although the plane also 'pendulums' through some maneuvers were rudder input seems exaggerated; could be my joystick settings. I haven't messed with it for more than a few hours. The 1% P-51D that I downloaded flew pretty much the way I feel the FB P-51D flies, which is to say: about right

cwojackson
01-04-2005, 08:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I must say the standard CFS3 FM isn't what I think is good

I just d/l'd one of the 1% models for CFS3. A huge improvement, very nice work, co-ordinated turns are better modelled in the 1% CFS3 planes than in FB/PF in my opinion.

Overall, FB/PF still feels more like what flying in a single engine small plane felt like to me, but the 1% planes seem to be very good for CFS3. In particular rudder seems better modelled, although the plane also 'pendulums' through some maneuvers were rudder input seems exaggerated; could be my joystick settings. I haven't messed with it for more than a few hours. The 1% P-51D that I downloaded flew pretty much the way I feel the FB P-51D flies, which is to say: about right <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You should try the "Fire Power" CFS3 and "Wings of Power" FS9 addon's from Shockwave. Fire Power makes CFS3 a whole new game, and the aircraft in Wings of Power are outstanding (and UNDER priced).

Given the attention to the flight dynamics, research and detail they put into the Wings of Power series I have no doubt their Battle of Britain is going to be a hit.

Bearcat99
01-05-2005, 07:07 AM
Nice review. The stock CFS 3 doesnt even come close to qualifying as a flight sim..... the 1% planes are much better. I havent tried Firepower and I probably wont simce I am not happy with the cockpits of CFS 3 or the scenery amd I see no reason to spend anymore money on it but thank goodness someone came to the plate and did something with it. It had the potential to do great things and when I first got IL2 I figured CFS 3 would be at least as good... boy was I wrong. I like the fact that this reviewer seemed to give PF a fair treatment and take time to read the documentation before fying and writing. I like the fact that he noticed some things about the sim that a lot of the regularsd who complain the loudest here dont seem to get. Namely that the planes each fly different and you have to fly them to their strengths.

Notice under flight time he has 40 hrs... now THATS how you test a sim. My hats off and in the air to the reviewer. Is that really you ap?


Support
After the abandonment of CFS3 by Microsoft, I was acutely interested in how well Pacific Fighters would be supported after release, and I am happy to report that support is superb. There is a support forum for Pacific Fighters on its official site (www.pacific-fighters.com (http://www.pacific-fighters.com)) , and it is a bit of a mixed bag. Since Pacific Fighters is a closed code sim (meaning no 3rd party planes), the forum, in addition to hosting news about 3rd party missions and skins, also serves as a place for some people to whine incessantly about how this or that plane is either €œuber€, €œporked€or, an €œuber€plane flown only by €œnoobs€. While the bickering can get old, the forum is well moderated, so most of this stuff disappears pretty fast. The forum is inhabited by people who are VERY good at troubleshooting, and almost any problem seems to get fixed within 12 hours.

In addition to the forum, Maddox provides a good relationship with the community and actually listens to input from game owners. Every so often, a patch will come out to fix several small flaws, but invariably some more always creep in. Most of these bugs are small and won€t be noticed, but some of the bigger ones that appear, such as having the wheels or floats on fixed gear planes break off at 400KPH, are not only noticeable, but also annoying. New aircraft appear as part of a patch on occasion, and I have a feeling that something like the Aces expansion is in the works for Pacific Fighters.

Since Pacific Fighters is a closed code sim, there will never be the variety of add-on aircraft that CFS 2 saw, but this is not really a bad thing. New aircraft are added every so often, and they always raise the bar for what warbirds in a sim should be.