PDA

View Full Version : I want to know how committed is Oleg and his team to finish Pacific Fighter?



MiamiEagle
01-01-2005, 11:56 PM
I love this installment of the Sturmavic series so much that the other day I bought my secound copy. Just incase my first CD gets damage I could still play with my secound CD.
I have been waiting for a Pacific base Simulator for years. For years there was only one Simulator dedicated to the Pacific CFS2. While a fine and dandy Combat simulator that I occationally still fly. I aslo wanted a Improved version of the Pacific war. I was extatic when I heard Oleg was starting this new project.
Now I was browsing thru the Web tonight to find whats new and I read this post that claim that Oleg has given up on the Pacific Fighter project in favor of The Battle for Britain.
That would be very frustating and disappointing to hear.
While the Battle of Britain would be a interesting subject to follow. There have been many Simulators dedicated to the Subject before while the Pacific Air War has been for the most part ignored far to long.
I will buy the Battle of Britain when it comes out. But I rather wait for it untill the Pacific Fighter project is finished.
I know most of you are addicted to the European Theater of war. I for one am Addicted to the whole World War Two Simulation aspect of it.
Since I beleive that the Pacific Theater is under represented . I been hoping and wishing He will finnish in it before going back to revisit BOB.
The article that I read claiming that Oleg is giving up on Pacific Fighter is located at www.Simviation.com (http://www.Simviation.com)
Its on the CFS3 Forum. Topic CFS3 vs PF page 3. By AvBear.
All I want to now is for Oleg to be frank with us and tell us the Truth.
Miamieagle

MiamiEagle
01-01-2005, 11:56 PM
I love this installment of the Sturmavic series so much that the other day I bought my secound copy. Just incase my first CD gets damage I could still play with my secound CD.
I have been waiting for a Pacific base Simulator for years. For years there was only one Simulator dedicated to the Pacific CFS2. While a fine and dandy Combat simulator that I occationally still fly. I aslo wanted a Improved version of the Pacific war. I was extatic when I heard Oleg was starting this new project.
Now I was browsing thru the Web tonight to find whats new and I read this post that claim that Oleg has given up on the Pacific Fighter project in favor of The Battle for Britain.
That would be very frustating and disappointing to hear.
While the Battle of Britain would be a interesting subject to follow. There have been many Simulators dedicated to the Subject before while the Pacific Air War has been for the most part ignored far to long.
I will buy the Battle of Britain when it comes out. But I rather wait for it untill the Pacific Fighter project is finished.
I know most of you are addicted to the European Theater of war. I for one am Addicted to the whole World War Two Simulation aspect of it.
Since I beleive that the Pacific Theater is under represented . I been hoping and wishing He will finnish in it before going back to revisit BOB.
The article that I read claiming that Oleg is giving up on Pacific Fighter is located at www.Simviation.com (http://www.Simviation.com)
Its on the CFS3 Forum. Topic CFS3 vs PF page 3. By AvBear.
All I want to now is for Oleg to be frank with us and tell us the Truth.
Miamieagle

deltorro
01-02-2005, 12:10 AM
Ummm...I think that just by reading around these forums here, which are from people who actually play the game, not some CFS3 people, that Oleg is not giving up on pacific fighters....

_VR_ScorpionWorm
01-02-2005, 12:41 AM
Pfft, first of all if you have to ask that question, you are a total n00b and need to become an addict and hang around here more often. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Second, come one dude, a 1C. Maddoxx sim being talked about on a CFS3 forum, enough said there.

F4U_Flyer
01-02-2005, 12:59 AM
Oleg has already stated that the pressure from ubi to " move on " to the next sim (bob) and stop wasting time on patches will have an effect on how much support we get for this game. The il2,fb,aep.pf is the end of the line for this engine , so how much supports is left is still up in the air! I agree we havent really been told if the pf game will get any updates after 304 which i am sure will not complete the game. How many more planes will we get , how many pacific maps to fill in the places left out or just slightly given ( solomons , guadalcanal , phillipines et-al ) and the poor missions included in the game. This right now is the new and improved pacific game all us pto fans have been waiting for but will it get the support and finishing if the demand for bob is so great they can't complete it? I hope they can but without conformation from oleg i'm not convinced. But i am hopeful as i see a lot of possibilities with this game.

3.JG51_BigBear
01-02-2005, 01:20 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if 3.04 turned out to be the last major patch. Maybe one or two "tweak" patches after that but I definitey think things are winding down. Oleg did say that they were using the Il2 engine to test physics that they planned to model into BOB once the game's engine was complete. He hinted that we might get a taste of those in the future in PF (maybe some sort of beta test of new feautres for BOB). It sounded very tenous though so I'm not really expecting it. I just hope that the third party modelers aren't left out in the cold. Its obvious that a lot of hard work goes into those models and it seems that there are quite a few nice ones completed or nearing completion and it would be a shame to lose them.

Fliger747
01-02-2005, 02:19 AM
All of the items expounded on by Bear AvHistory are to some degree(a lot?) true. I do believe that the 1C team is capable of a better and more complete performance than has been presented here. The probable reason, marketing pressure in a difficult, competetive and in this case niche market. Limited resources have been allocated. The pressures must be terrific and Oleg and team must have little hair left by now.

What PF COULD BE with sufficent development is amazing. After eons in the current sim world, people are still flying CFS2. Not that MS did that great of a job on the basic game, but it's fans (especially the AvHistory bunch) have had the tools to do a lot more with it.

I hope PF can have a similar 'life'.

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 02:26 AM
OMG !

WTF !

LOL !

this guy "AvHistory" at that forum is a TOTAL _N_E_W_B_I_E_

as LOOOOOOOOOOOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this is him about IL2:FB , & i quote :

"what you get with PF are planes that stall at the drop of a hat"

"Pilot dies plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; plane runs out of gas plane stalls & spins to a fiery death, engine catches fire plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; Dirt gets on the windscreen plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; oil leaks out plane stalls & spins to a fiery death"

"If the real WWII planes handled that badly there would have been no WWII airwar because 90% of the pilots would have killed themselves in training & the remaining 10% would not have flown."

"As good as the IL2 sims are they are highly exaggerated in every way . You shouldn't stall a plane by going into a shallow climb"

"and the simple act of turning a plane should not put you into a flat spin."

AND MY PERSONAL FAVOURITE :

"In IL2 a flat spin is achieved merely by making a sudden movement. You have to try **** hard in CFS3 to achieve the same effect."

BUWHAHAHAHAH !

as soon as i opened that forum up my ****** alarm went off . . . . what a freakin newbie !!!!!!!!!!!

sapre
01-02-2005, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
OMG !

WTF !

LOL !

this guy "AvHistory" at that forum is a _TOTAL_ _N_E_W_B_I_E_

as LOOOOOOOOOOOL _!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!_

this is him about IL2:FB , & i quote :

"what you get with PF are planes that stall at the drop of a hat"

"Pilot dies plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; plane runs out of gas plane stalls & spins to a fiery death, engine catches fire plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; Dirt gets on the windscreen plane stalls & spins to a fiery death; oil leaks out plane stalls & spins to a fiery death"

"If the real WWII planes handled that badly there would have been no WWII airwar because 90% of the pilots would have killed themselves in training & the remaining 10% would not have flown."

"As good as the IL2 sims are they are highly exaggerated in every way . You shouldn't stall a plane by going into a shallow climb"

"and the simple act of turning a plane should not put you into a flat spin."

AND MY PERSONAL FAVOURITE :

"_In IL2 a flat spin is achieved merely by making a sudden movement. You have to try **** hard in CFS3 to achieve the same effect._"

BUWHAHAHAHAH !

as soon as i opened that forum up my _******_ alarm went off . . . . what a freakin newbie !!!!!!!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
THIS IS GREAT!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

carguy_
01-02-2005, 03:49 AM
Hmmm I get a flat spin every 50missions,last time it was in the Zero cuz I dunno the plane yet.

I like this:
"The good thing in CFS3, the user can fix it even if tedious in some areas while in the IL-2 series of games you are stuck with what the developers give you that's why it's CFS3 for me all the way until a better open architecture Sim is there (whenever that is, LOL)"

and

"So lying to your customers about a major issue is OK so long as you fix the issue you are lying about within 4 years & let the customers have the privilege of paying full price for the fix, interesting marketing concept"


I`m sorry for anyone who believes in saying this.

And frankly cold fear strikes me when I think those ppl actually have any type of influence over Oleg and his team.

Athosd
01-02-2005, 03:51 AM
Each to his own - but that thread is full of utter nonsense.
I noticed that someone from this forum has already hopped in to tell them how misguided they are.
Thanks MiamiEagle, for starting an inter forum flame war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV
01-02-2005, 04:00 AM
Wow! I can`t believe such utter rubbish! But I guess it is a CFS3 forum and this guys coming out with what can only be termed `propaganda`.

I cannot even begin to say where this guy is wrong because it`s all TOTALLY inaccurate and half of it shows he doesn`t know how planes actually flew!

Such utter purile ****.

@ MiamiEagle
You should know better than to come on an IL2 forum with stupid hearsay from a CFS3 forum!

RocketDog
01-02-2005, 04:04 AM
I think PF is clearly the swan song of the IL-2 series. There's no surprise about this because the game engine is beginning to show its age and a new design is likely to be far better than tinkering at the edges of the existing code.

No doubt with BoB we will see better modelling of behaviour around non-accelerated stalls (a long standing weakness of IL-2). We should also see better ground details and a more realistic "world" at high altitude. I'm looking forward to it.

Regards,

RocketDog.

RocketDog
01-02-2005, 04:15 AM
I thought this bit was particularly strange:

"As good as the IL2 sims are they are highly exaggerated in every way and therefore lack realism. You shouldn't stall a plane by going into a shallow climb...the simple act of turning a plane should not put you into a flat spin."

It is hard to understand how anybody with any knowledge of how aircraft fly could make aircraft behave like this in IL-2. I can't do it.

Maybe we should send him a track showing how to climb and turn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif?

Of course, both CFS3 and IL-2 have their strengths and weaknesses and which one anybody prefers is a matter of choice, but some of the criticisms in the avsim thread seem either selective or uninformed.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Athosd
01-02-2005, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
I think PF is clearly the swan song of the IL-2 series... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely - its well known that PF will be the last major release using the IL2FB engine (don't know if there are any payware addons in the pipe).

The question asked by the original poster concerns whether or not PF will continue to receive support for an appropriate amount of time.
Indications are that it will get just as much support as previous releases - which has generally been 2 to 3 major updates.

Given that Oleg has indicated that PF may be used as a test bed (ie public beta) for various features planned in BoB, we may even see more support/updating than has previously been the case.

Cheers

Athos

SeaFireLIV
01-02-2005, 04:24 AM
I`ve just had another look at the site and can hardly believe the ways these guys talk about IL2... I mean if there were some truth to what they say, yes, but everything`s just wild anti-IL2 stuff. Nothing said is measured or considered, and one of them`s even a moderator! I still find it hard to believe! If I were new to flight sims and had seen CFS3 site first I`d think IL2 was completely c r a p and wouldn`t even begin to touch it! How can such lies be so easily spoken like this? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

rottydaddy and willumarrymeBill stood up to this admirably, but it was CV8_Dudeness who finally posted the truth!

Still I think the CFS3 guys really are suffering from denial.

RocketDog
01-02-2005, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Athosd:
Indications are that it will get just as much support as previous releases - which has generally been 2 to 3 major updates.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you're absolutely right. One of the best things about the IL-2 series has been the updates and free content released. I am sure we will see continued support for PF beyond the next patch. It's also impressive the way that Oleg Maddox posts in the forums and responds to player feedback. The contrast with what happened to poor old CFS3 is striking.

Regards,

Rocketdog.

Akwar
01-02-2005, 04:30 AM
At the end of the day and I believe a good deal of the flight sim community back me on this is that I could CARE LESS about flashy new graphics engines.Sure its nice but as long as playability and realism is there and fun factor Im totally satisfied.I guess thats why I flock back to old classic games that have never been beaten like,

BOB
EECH
Falcon 4.0
F22 TAW
Super EF2000

Of course I love IL-2 and its expansions but this **** that UBIs been pulling really pisses me off.Nothing but capitalist rats they could care less about us or fixing and improving PF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif.

RocketDog
01-02-2005, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Akwar:
Of course I love IL-2 and its expansions but this **** that UBIs been pulling really pisses me off.Nothing but capitalist rats they could care less about us or fixing and improving PF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hang on, that makes no sense at all. PF has been supported by a series of patches and is about to have several new aircraft added (inc. the lovely Ki-100), so 1C/Ubi are fixing and improving PF all the time. The sim that didn't get fixed or improved was CFS3.

Incidentally, which commercial software publishers do you know who aren't capitalists?

Regards,

RocketDog.

CV8_Dudeness
01-02-2005, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
but it was CV8_Dudeness who finally posted the truth!

Still I think the CFS3 guys really are suffering from denial. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you knows it spa

i went there to have a quick look . . . . & man are they living in that little dreamworld i like to call denial

Howie A
01-02-2005, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
rottydaddy and willumarrymeBill stood up to this admirably, but it was CV8_Dudeness who finally posted the truth!

Still I think the CFS3 guys really are suffering from denial. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's my impression too after reading it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Its almost humerous but that's human nature.

Its hard to believe most there have given FB/PF much time. In my time with CFS3 the FMs were much easier, maybe most who've stayed with it have been disuaded with more difficulty (probably realism) of the Il2 series.

amguy
01-02-2005, 10:27 AM
No, it just means he has a life and does not soend his whole day sitting at a computer playing games. Geek

Chuck_Older
01-02-2005, 10:52 AM
The AvHistory stuff and Bear (if this is the same guy I'd be shocked!) are known to me from my CFS3 days, back when the CFS3 community howled and screamed for a patch and holy smokes, we GOT it! I was speechless

When the patch still made it feel as though my stick was connected to control surfaces by weak rubber bands, I gave up on CFS3 , but CFS3 still has given me the best sim experience, ever- seeing warships off of Normandy, pounding inland targets on June 6th, 1944, and i could see explosions inland, about 30 miles away. Wow. I wish CFS3 could deliver the goods flight wise, though.


To me, the reason the CFS3 planes are "user tuneable" is because MS can't be bothered to say: 'this is the right flight model as far as we can tell, from ever source we can possibly find'. 1C:Maddox has the guts to say that, though

Letting players "fix" the planes is a complete joke. What does "Fix the planes" mean? And by a PLAYER? Right, Aeronautical Engineers to the man, the players know what's right and what's wrong with the FM. Sure. Unbiased Aeronautical Engineers with minors or perhaps Majors, post graduate, in Military History, who know what to tweak on flight modelling. I had no idea the CFS crowd was so sophisticated. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif perhaps I should renew an account over there and ask why players know more than the flight modelling programmers. Could the answer be: the guys who programmed the FM got it "right enough" and then relied on players to make it "just right"? Surely, that is not a path to follow for perfection or even for consistency

Chuck_Older
01-02-2005, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by amguy:
No, it just means he has a life and does not soend his whole day sitting at a computer playing games. Geek <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really need to quote whoever you are violating the rules of the Terms of Service against, by posting an insult like that.

That way, he can tell you off before the thread is locked. Fair's fair

clint-ruin
01-02-2005, 11:27 AM
There will still be people in the CFS sped forum saying that CFS3 is better than BOB in 2006. Good. Keep them there, and away from here :&gt;

Chuck_Older
01-02-2005, 11:30 AM
I just asked AvHistory to send me a TRK file showing how PF planes spin or stall while attempting a shallow climb

joeap
01-02-2005, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I just asked AvHistory to send me a TRK file showing how PF planes spin or stall while attempting a shallow climb <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haha, good luck getting an answer Chuck good to try though. Still I can't say I didn't enjoy CFS1 and 2, I just never tried CFS3 and so don't comment on it. I just don't like people saying what I consider lies to put down our game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Chuck_Older
01-02-2005, 11:48 AM
Some folks here disagree with this, but CFS3 is a good game. With the FirePower upgrade, it was finally playable, but the planes feel so 'sloppy' to me, that all it's good points were moot to me.

When I say 'finally playable', what I mean is: the experience of flying say, A p-51D against a Bf109G was a losing prospect in a turn fight. fair enough. But when I was in the Bf109G, flying against the P-51D, I would also lose the turn fight. Annoying. With FirePower, i could win the turn fight with the Bf109G.

Aside from the flight 'feel', the main drawback is/was the campaign structure. It's a bit of a role-playing game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Not what I had in mind, to make a 'character' who could have his "G-tolerance" limit increased, or make his "eyesight" trait better. Fantasy land, in my opinion.

Small things like the Ascender being an uber-plane didn't bug me; I just didn't fly it.

I do miss taking off in a P-47 from England, in the driving rain, breaking through the squall over the channel, and taking out a dry dock on the Calais coast, though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif the potential for CFS3 was enormous, and the illusion of flight just isn't there for me. This is the area in which Il2:FB shines, in my opinion

SeaFireLIV
01-02-2005, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

but CFS3 still has given me the best sim experience, ever- seeing warships off of Normandy, pounding inland targets on June 6th, 1944, and i could see explosions inland, about 30 miles away. Wow. I wish CFS3 could deliver the goods flight wise, though.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this was one of the nice bits of CFS3, ground explosions, killing ships were enoyable. Drop a 1000 bomb would give you really great explosions and Fighting over St Pauls against invading troops - But THIS DOES NOT A FLIGHT SIM MAKE! The SIM has to work! It could have been good, I`m afraid it`s not imho.

RocketDog
01-02-2005, 01:07 PM
Does anyone know how exactly CFS3 got so left in the lurch? There did seem to be some potential there, but as released it was almost unplayable. Was it contracted out by MS to an inappropriate company, or did they run out of development budget? Are any of the same developers still in the flight-sim business?

Regards,

RocketDog.

Akwar
01-02-2005, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Akwar:
Of course I love IL-2 and its expansions but this **** that UBIs been pulling really pisses me off.Nothing but capitalist rats they could care less about us or fixing and improving PF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hang on, that makes no sense at all. PF has been supported by a series of patches and is about to have several new aircraft added (inc. the lovely Ki-100), so 1C/Ubi _are_ fixing and improving PF all the time. The sim that didn't get fixed or improved was CFS3.

Incidentally, which commercial software publishers do you know who aren't capitalists?

Regards,

RocketDog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point is Ubi could care less we all know that it isnt Ubi releasing patches its Oleg and his team.

Bearcat99
01-02-2005, 01:56 PM
Oleg said that UBI did the right thing by him and 1C... thats good enough for me. People sometimes get so blinded by the BS that they just fail to see the real deal. When 1C ws deciding to release PF they asked us the community how we wanted it.. stand alone or merged.. we got both because we asked for it. Most developers wouldnt even have asked. If you look at PF as an add on that can be run as a stand alone you will be better off. Since it is the same engine there is only so much and understandably so that can and should be done with it.

When I think of an incomplete product I think of something that cannot run because all of its pieces are not there..... that in my humble opinion of course is not the case with PF or as I prefer to call it FB3.0. There are some things that I would like to see done better... some things that arent here that I would like to see, however if nothing else were forthcoming from 1C I would still get an immense amount of enjoyment from this series and would have nothing to complain about.... particularly when comparing it to the other products of its genre. There are no showstoppers in PF. You want to know how committed Oleg is? Just read the stuff coming down the pike and look at what has been done not only since PF has been released but even before that from IL2... and you will find the answers to your question. If we dont get some things that we would like to see does tha mean that Oleg is not committed? Hardly..... will we get a more polished product when it is all said and done? Id be willing to wager on it...



amguy wrote: "No, it just means he has a life and does not soend his whole day sitting at a computer playing games. Geek"

Since you only have 3 posts I will cut you some slack.. but we dont do that stuff here. If you cant repect the other community members then dont post here. If I see it again you will get a short vacation.

RocketDog
01-02-2005, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Akwar:
Point is Ubi could care less we all know that it isnt Ubi releasing patches its Oleg and his team. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume you mean "Ubi couldn't care less".

Ubi can't release patches because they are a publisher who contract 1C to produce the games. Oleg Maddox and 1C produce patches because it is part of a commercial deal they have with Ubi. Ubi pay 1C to produce the games and patches as a result of a deal they have negotiated between them. 1C are a business like any other and do work in return for funding.

Now, Oleg Maddox has made a name for himself as a capable, open and enthusiastic producer of flight sims - and all to his credit - but don't fall into the trap of seeing him as a martyr being persecuted by Ubi. He's not. He's a businessman, programmer and aviation enthusiast, not Albert Schweitzer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Chuck_Older
01-02-2005, 02:34 PM
Hey all-

What is the download for CFS3 that alters the flight models of the planeset? I could have sworn it was FirePower, but it looks like I'm mistaken. All my bookmarks from my CFS3 days are long gone. Anyone know what the d/l was that I'm thinking of? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Bearcat, you used to have it, do you recall?

Bearcat99
01-02-2005, 02:39 PM
Do you mean the 1% planes? I dont have that cr http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif..... stuff. I have nothing to do with CFS anymore since I left CFS 1 3 years ago.

Adlerangriff
01-02-2005, 02:41 PM
I am a little shocked that such a baseless Post would get so many responses.

Those of us who have played the game since it first came out, have seen more people make excuses than we can count.

My favorite is when people talk about being unable to crack the game code open, so they can "create" new aspects. I wonder what this is actually trying to say? cough,cheat,cough,plane weights,cough

Our community is much better off with these people on some other board, saying whatever they want and playing whatever they want.

clint-ruin
01-02-2005, 03:47 PM
The worst aspect of the CFS line is the way it has made open architecture and cheating synonymous in the minds of other flight simmers.

Don't assume that just because Microsoft did a terrible job with their online code [and then refused to do anything about post-release exploits] that this is the only way it can be done. The lack of cheating in PF and FB is much more due to Olegs attention to traffic encryption and file-validation issues than it is to the sim simply being 'closed'.

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 04:36 PM
having re-read that thread , they are equal parts in denial / inexperienced with FB

good luck to them & their "ever shrinking community" as one guy put it

LEXX_Luthor
01-02-2005, 05:03 PM
FB has not begun yet.

JGBigBear:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I wouldn't be surprised if 3.04 turned out to be the last major patch. Maybe one or two "tweak" patches after that but I definitey think things are winding down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They are working for Russian FB addon pac for releace in Russia and surrounding countries (ex~former Soviet Union).

If interested, we must get UBI to at least sell us through the mail Russian addon pac as "CD Patch" and charge full addon pac price. We can live with unlabled blank CD and readme even if its in Russian (crazyivan will translate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ). We don't need any Fancy Box....look what trouble PF Fancy Box caused by naming names "Grumman" "Vought" etc...

Chuck_Older
01-02-2005, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
The worst aspect of the CFS line is the way it has made open architecture and cheating synonymous in the minds of other flight simmers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's very true

GT182
01-02-2005, 05:25 PM
I'd buy the Russian Addon Pack cd in an instant if it was available. But, I think all of us out of that loop will be left holding our hands out for a long long time. I don't think UBI will help us at all after the copywrite fiasco.

I for one would gladly send my money for it directly to Oleg and 1C. No box and no names on it would be just fine with me. All we'd need is to be able to install it in the standalone and merged versions without too much trouble.

james_ander
01-02-2005, 05:47 PM
I would be happy if more aircraft and maps were released as payware add-ons. While I don't think much more can be got out of the flight models and graphics engine I think there is a lot of life in this sim in terms of adding more maps and aircraft.

I would gladly pay for downloadable add-ons. I don't expect freebies beyond what is required to patch PF. I would even welcome an Ace Expansion Pack type of add-on; just maps and planes, no earth shaking innovations.

roybaty
01-02-2005, 06:34 PM
One thing I disliked about that simaviation thread was the outright negativity to civil inquiries regarding the game. They don't even want to hear that their sim has problems and just because people can "fix" the FMs doesn't mean it's better.

I believe 1C really tries to be true and accurate within reason, who's to say a third party modder will have more accurate information/implimentation than the developer?

MiamiEagle
01-02-2005, 11:29 PM
I only wrote this post to express my concern that Oleg was leave this Project before it was finished.
Please lets not make it a CFS3 vs PT post. I just wanted to know if its true that he is leave it to concentrate on BOB.
Their is no need to insult or degrade anybody.
They have their own opinion and we have ours. I beleive that PT is the better Simulator but thats just my opinion.
Let keep this topic cordial. AvBear is probably not a bad person. He is member of a Website that developes Planes of high quality for CFS2 and CFS3.
He is Bias and thats fine with me.
We all have the right to our own opinion.
What I looking for is to know if what was reported by him was true.If that the case. That would bee a darn shame. I hope you all feel the same way. I hope we can express our opinion to Oleg and hopefully He will tell us whats in the Future of Pacific Fighter?

clint-ruin
01-03-2005, 01:34 AM
MG / 1c are very committed to continuing in the flightsim business until probably well into 2006 at the least. UBI is a bit less well known, it does not appear that they will be distributing some of the new commercial work MG are doing on the Il2 line of sims, which is being distributed by 1c in the FSU market. Whether this is because they are simply not interested in the project -now-, or whether it is something deeper is not known. They are however distributing the BOB project.

Typically a developer will sign a contract with a publisher that guarantees a certain number of projects [games, addons, with certain sets of features] in a certain period of time. MG are still obligated to produce at least one new full price, AAA-production values style game for UBI as far as I know.

From what Oleg has said about the financial future of continuing in the flightsim business it seems that piracy is a major concern. Don't forget that flightsims generally are seen as a very small revenue segment of PC games, which are a fraction of the total computer games market - and MG have had to fund and develop 2 or more projects at a time for a while now. That's expensive as hell to do, no matter whether they're paying in rubles and paid in euros or not, especially when you're talking about the sheer volume of work that has gone into their projects.

AvBears posts smack of jealousy - most of his gripes either haven't been true about the series since Il2 v1.0 or haven't ever been true about the entire line of sims. The inaccuracy of his comments and the venom in his tone can't help but sound like anything other than sour grapes - it's like, well, sorry to hear his sim sucks, and has absolutely no future, but that ain't Olegs fault - noone held a gun to the MS studios collective heads and told them to make something as bad as CFS3.

WUAF_Badsight
01-03-2005, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
AvBears posts smack of jealousy - most of his gripes either haven't been true about the series since Il2 v1.0 or haven't _ever_ been true about the entire line of sims. The inaccuracy of his comments and the venom in his tone can't help but sound like anything other than sour grapes - it's like, well, sorry to hear his sim sucks, and has absolutely no future, but that ain't Olegs fault - noone held a gun to the MS studios collective heads and told them to make something as bad as CFS3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WORD !

Aaron_GT
01-03-2005, 04:51 AM
I think UBI has its mind on not being taken over and games that will rake in huge profits and enable it to not be taken over. I doubt PF is a priority for Ubi at the moment, even if Oleg says they were at least supportive over the trademark issue.

sapre
01-03-2005, 06:59 AM
It seems AvHistory is pushing up his offensive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
-------------------------------------------
Your results are what was expected.

NACA found the P-39 to generally have "normal" stall spin characteristics that could be recovered from. The trouble most P-39 pilots got into was the aft CoG shift when the 50's and 37mm were fired removing the ammos weight from the nose.

The thing you need to remember about CoG is as it moves forward it makes the aircraft more stable & less maneuverable. As it moves aft it provides full maneuverability
but this increased capability makes easier to stall/spin the aircraft.

Unfortunately your results suggest that PF does not appear to model a dynamic CoG.

This issue is also common in the P-38 where depending on fuel requirements the amount of ammo was actually adjusted to keep CoG within acceptable limits.

The 109E should be very difficult to spin as it was very benign in its post stall behavior. The wing slats will give the outer panels a very high max AoA. The center stalling far in advance of the outer panels, it will pitch down with the minor wing drop as mentioned in the RAF test reports.

The FB version is no where near this with it's canned spin algorithm. Most reports of these planes spinning occur when one of the slats hangs up & does not deploy.

Fun thing to try with the P-51D.

http://www.avhistory.org/movies/fl1.avi

AvHistory P-51D-30 Falling Leaf "warning its 3mb" will shorten it up if I can figure out how.

This video shows a falling leaf maneuver. It's a training maneuver used to teach student pilots the power the rudder has past max AoA. Notice in the upper right red readout that the wing is fully stalled. I'm holding full stick back and using rudder to alternately pick a wing up and preventing spin entry.

We called this a falling leaf but it might be called something else in other places. The plane is falling more like a stone then a leaf but is still under control, no spin & recovers easily on command at the end of the vid.

BTW this is the exact same P-51D in the AVI further back in this thread that was spinning out of control on a yank & bank maneuver that CV8_Dudeness said it can't do.

Maybe y'all can have CV8_Dudeness the ace who so graciously taught all us noobies that planes do stall in real life run a PF "falling leaf" track for you & see how it compares to CFS3's arcade mode.

BEAR - AvHistory
-------------------------------------------

arjisme
01-03-2005, 05:01 PM
Actually, I'm curious what folks here think about what he says about the COG modelling in PF. I know no FS is perfect and it may be true that PF falls down in this regard. I'm also curious what flaws CFS3 suffers from, particularly in its FM. AvHistory acknowledges problems with managing fuel consumption (i.e. which tank to consume first). Similar complaints could be made about FB. But is anyone aware of any other issues with CFS3's FM?

WUAF_Badsight
01-03-2005, 05:32 PM
FB doesnt have 1G stalls , planes in FB go into spins too eaisly in a stall

thos guys going on about bomber engine & fuel controls tho , as if thats the be all & end all , are living in a dream-world if they think CFS has anything like a FM in their game if you compare it to FB

clint-ruin
01-03-2005, 05:42 PM
A recording of the new multi-COG FM was leaked a couple of weeks ago - currently undergoing testing in the PF engine for inclusion in the BOB project. Unlikely to improve in PF patches though. Maddox has said that the calculations involved require a lot more grunt than is available on the typical home PC right now.

1G stalls vary between aircraft - for some this is realistic [Il2, Corsair] - for others the wing drop seems to kick in too early. There are a few real life pilots who can go into the shortcomings of the PF flight model .. er.. "model" in detail if you ask nicely.

Fuel tanks are still modelled as one large tank that drains equally.

People tend to be quite open about flaws in PF - you will see no end of posts about it in the ORR forum. But it is far more right than wrong in most realms of flight from the discussions I've seen on the general FM.

What tends to annoy is quotes from the thread such as "hit one wing and both wings are damaged! the il2 series sucks!" which are flatly untrue and have never been true about the sim.

Razman23
01-03-2005, 05:55 PM
After reading some of these posts on this thread, its no wonder that Oleg and his whole crew dont feel as if they need to be "committed".

arjisme
01-03-2005, 06:41 PM
I'm well aware of the copious criticisms that get levelled in this forum wrt IL2/AEP/FB FMs. Many complaints are poorly informed, some are actually valid. And I am quite thankful that Oleg is so willing to patch the sim to correct provable flaws, plus throw in other goodies with the patches that don't fix bugs, but simply give us more good stuff to play with.

I am curious what people here perceive as the flaws in the CFS3 FM though. And it does no good to just post saying its flight model sucks or it doesn't have one. If you are able, please provide objective criticisms. I'd like to hear informed opinions about its FM.

arjisme
01-03-2005, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What tends to annoy is quotes from the thread such as "hit one wing and both wings are damaged! the il2 series sucks!" which are flatly untrue and have never been true about the sim. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I definately agree! Mindless banter just tearing the other sim down in order to build up and/or validate the sim the poster has decided is best. Very lame. I'd like to avoid that here as well, wrt CFS3.

Slammin_
01-03-2005, 06:56 PM
And add us all together and we are but a dime in the 'bucket of profits' for these companies.

To even atempt to provide 'us' with what we want requires a certain passion for what WE want. Make no mistake. Nobody is getting rich doing flight sims these days. Sure, they may get above the RED in profit margin sometimes, but for the most part, that is not something a company can do and still survive in todays' environment.

Let's just give them CFS3 boys a big hug (keep one hand on your wallet though) and bury this topic, eh?

SeminoleX
01-03-2005, 09:23 PM
Never understood the either one or the other attitude.

I have played both and both have characteristics I like and that I dislike. Neither is perfect nor totaly imperfect.

Asgeir_Strips
01-04-2005, 06:36 AM
As long as PF is patched up to acceptable standards im okay with it.. and since Oleg Maddox and co Lied about the feats of the game i think the updates should be free.. Just my opinion though.

CFS3 is fairly good, it has its advantages, but in almost every aspect The iL2 series is superior, allthough i think the Mission Builder feature of CFS2 is Way better than the FMB..

A thing i would like to see in Bob (I hope there will be a pacific expansion for that game with its new engine etc) is that the A.I will make inflight errors, Missing the wires when they are landing at a carrier, accellerated stalls at altitude, also stall when they attack an enemy, and also that they are affected by g-forces also....
But final point, and i think i speak for everybody here, PF,Sturmovik,FB, AEP cannot be compared against the CFS series, because all the AM (Aircraft models) are much more superior in terms of stalling, spins etc..

Long live Oleg and 1C !

Chuck_Older
01-04-2005, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
As long as PF is patched up to acceptable standards im okay with it.. and since Oleg Maddox and co Lied about the feats of the game <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's a fairly strong accusation. Please indicate what lie they told

Fliger747
01-04-2005, 07:00 AM
My two bits:

As a 17,000 hr pilot who has flown aircraft from Supercubs to the 747-400, I find the stall/spin charcteristics of the IL2 series it's weak point.

That said, it is a difficult mode to model correctly, and wasnt even understood well by the designers of the real aircraft portrayed in the game. Lots of emperical testing was done, with often the less than helpful admonition 'don't do it' the result.

The AvHistory folks are a great resource to the sim community as a whole, and work with the MS products because they have open architecture. That is not available here. The IL2 series products are more oriented towards ONLINE PLAY, and many prefer a closed shop to keep everyone on a level playing feld. AvHistory has done an outstanding job in taking a good sim engine (M$) which was in many ways an indifferent product with it's stock aircraft, and done many good things with it.

They know as much about making and tweaking flight models as anyone. Different products for different purposes. I 'fly' both.

arjisme
01-04-2005, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
CFS3 is fairly good, it has its advantages, but in almost every aspect The iL2 series is superior[...] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Can you elaborate a bit on this? What are some of the ways in which IL2 is superior to CFS3? Any points here regarding FMs?

madsarmy
01-04-2005, 09:07 AM
I found that thread an excellent example to us all.

"Don't Do Drug's"

Geraldsp
01-04-2005, 01:18 PM
there are still a number of issues to be remedied even after patch 3.03...how to "user define" a control such as extend tail hook when there is no provision to do so...or when by pushing "g" your landing gear will go up or down, but doesn't!...the latest patch does not fix certain aspects of getting your "ship" to fly right...will there ever be a patch that will fix basic flying protocols? In the pacific war, not being able to put your landing gear down or extend tail hook, or open canopy..that's pretty basic stuff.....Geraldsp

Chuck_Older
01-04-2005, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geraldsp:
there are still a number of issues to be remedied even after patch 3.03...how to "user define" a control such as extend tail hook when there is no provision to do so...or when by pushing "g" your landing gear will go up or down, but doesn't!...the latest patch does not fix certain aspects of getting your "ship" to fly right...will there ever be a patch that will fix basic flying protocols? In the pacific war, not being able to put your landing gear down or extend tail hook, or open canopy..that's pretty basic stuff.....Geraldsp <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Are you trying to tell me that in FB, I cannot use "G" to raise or lower my manual landing gear? Or that I cannot define that control myself?

Are you telling me I can't lower a tail hook?

Are you telling me my PF plane's cockpits don't open?

Are you serious, Gerald? Tell me you're kidding. If you like, for instance, I can post some pics of tailhooks down, and cockpits open an non-Naval aircraft as well as Naval aircraft from PF.

SeaFireLIV
01-04-2005, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geraldsp:
there are still a number of issues to be remedied even after patch 3.03...how to "user define" a control such as extend tail hook when there is no provision to do so...or when by pushing "g" your landing gear will go up or down, but doesn't <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your lack of knowledge of FB REALLY shows here. The aircraft you`re flying is probably one that doesn`t have an automatic gear. It needs to be manually cranked.

Go into the config and set a key to `Manual Gears` then by magic you can raise gears up or down. Also useful for auto gears if they won`t lower due to damage.

Any more unthought-out criticisms? The stuff you come out with is pure farce. A 2 year old could do better.

Chuck_Older
01-04-2005, 01:31 PM
Tough day, Seafire?

SeaFireLIV
01-04-2005, 01:34 PM
Well... I just find some of this rubbish hard to stomach... sorry. (And it was a tough day too... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif )

tascaso
01-04-2005, 01:43 PM
Absolute dribble...really...bad day at the lake. Try the purple worms they work Great!

TROLL's abound!

Tony

Geraldsp
01-04-2005, 02:07 PM
I sit corrected...all the while I thought I had game issues but it turns out I had hardware issues...hardware corrected, game issues such as lowering landing gear, etc. not an issue..but I do want to thank all of those out there who were willing to go the extra mile to making me feel like a piece of defecation...and to those who really tried to assist me....thanks....Gerald

Chuck_Older
01-04-2005, 02:07 PM
Troll's abound what?

Chuck_Older
01-04-2005, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geraldsp:
I sit corrected...all the while I thought I had game issues but it turns out I had hardware issues...hardware corrected, game issues such as lowering landing gear, etc. not an issue..but I do want to thank all of those out there who were willing to go the extra mile to making me feel like a piece of defecation...and to those who really tried to assist me....thanks....Gerald <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, at least you got it to work

The thing that 'got' some people is, if you read your post, you say that after 3.03, there are still problems.

This implies that yes, you know your way around PF, but after the latest patch, you still can't lower a tail hook or open a cockpit. You got some strong replies, but if you consider how you couched your complaint, it's hardly surprising

Geraldsp
01-04-2005, 02:16 PM
you're right...I didn't express myself in the correct manner...but not to make excuses, I was jaded by the fact I had to wait 3 days before "support" contacted me to download "rts.dll.exe" to get my game running...then after all that...part of my "rig" craps out, unknown to me until just a little while ago....some days you just can't seem to get it up...in the air...that is...Gerald

RocketDog
01-04-2005, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliger747:
I find the stall/spin charcteristics of the IL2 series it's weak point.

[snip]

The AvHistory folks are a great resource to the sim community as a whole, and work with the MS products because they have open architecture. That is not available here. The IL2 series products are more oriented towards ONLINE PLAY, and many prefer a closed shop to keep everyone on a level playing feld. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is pretty much my take on the PF/CFS3 perspective.

I don't think there's any doubt that the 1% CFS3 aircraft have FMs that are equal to PF's over most of the flight regime and much better in/near the 1 g stall and in ground handling. It's well know that all stalls in IL-2 result in spins and that the ground handling is comically overdone (try taking an I-16 off from a grass strip to see this at its worst). We also have oddities like the way compression is implemented in the P-38 and painfully-slow-to-be-fixed bugs like the current F4F/Zero comparison. However, in a combat flight sim like PF much of this is an acceptable loss because few players are going to fly endless circuits and bumps, most stalls are going to be accelerated ones and some aircraft can be put to one side until fixed. It has to be said, however, that carrier operations have exposed the weakest elements of the FM in relation to 1g stall and no wind. I wonder if we will finally get wind introduced because of this?

I don't have CFS3 anymore, but from what I remember and have seen recently, even if the FMs have been fixed by the 1% crew it still suffers from dreadful cockpits and some very cartoonish skins. The Beaufighter here http://www.avhistory.org/ is a particularly unfortunate example. I suspect that the Avhistory people are rather better at FM details than texturing. It's something of a pity that the clumsy way in which skins are implemented in CFS3 has prevented a skinner community from developing as it has for IL-2. All of this is enough to resign CFS3 to a fading group of die hards because with dated graphics it's not going to win many new players. Anyway, despite all this, it's very cheap now and I will probably buy a copy just to play around with the 1% FM stalls and spins.

I hope BoB manages to correct IL-2's FM defects (and the signs are that it will) whilst still retaining the robust multiplayer and skinning that has kept IL-2 alive for so long.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Chuck_Older
01-04-2005, 02:57 PM
I think 1%'s skins are not all the 'cartoony' standard, RD, but I can see your point.

For example, the P-51D "Big Beautiful Doll" that AvHistory showed; well that's a very nice skin! I'd d/l that for FB any day of the week, it's that good.

But look at FB skins from last year; they all have the standard P-51D cockpit, the 1% skinners also re-do the 'stock' CFS3 P-51D cockpit. Unfortunately, this last year's CFS3 skin for the P-51D "Ferocious Frankie" I d/l'd is, well, about 10 years in the past for graphics quality, and that is not a put-down, it is just a fact. the cockpit works fine, but it's gauges are what I remember being last year's news when I played AotP. I had quite a nostalgic feel- for the days when sprites were used in sims!

But I can't beleive that "Big Beautiful Doll" uses anything less than a pretty cockpit, perhaps as good as FB's.

It's much too bad that CFS3 left out options for skin management. FB beats it black and blue in this regard. Also, external views always have a peculiar perspective issue to my eye in CFS3. In FB, you simply hit the "DELETE" key, and any perspective issue for externals is history

(hint for those who don't know- it's almost always best to use the "DELETE" key befor you take an external screenshot- this is no BS, try it, I'm no troll)

Trink_Afri-Cola
01-04-2005, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
Does anyone know how exactly CFS3 got so left in the lurch? There did seem to be some potential there, but as released it was almost unplayable. Was it contracted out by MS to an inappropriate company, or did they run out of development budget? Are any of the same developers still in the flight-sim business?

Regards,

RocketDog. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't agree at all- CFS3 is an excellent sim just like il2 and I'm glad they made it.

Trink_Afri-Cola

JG51Beolke
01-04-2005, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geraldsp:
there are still a number of issues to be remedied even after patch 3.03...how to "user define" a control such as extend tail hook when there is no provision to do so...or when by pushing "g" your landing gear will go up or down, but doesn't!...the latest patch does not fix certain aspects of getting your "ship" to fly right...will there ever be a patch that will fix basic flying protocols? In the pacific war, not being able to put your landing gear down or extend tail hook, or open canopy..that's pretty basic stuff.....Geraldsp <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gerald, you need to map the keys under "Input". And if your trying to use "G" for the gear on the F4F or a few other planes, it'll never work. You need to map keys to manually lower the gear on those planes. And as far as getting the plane to fly right, you'll have to trim it out. Those keys are already mapped, but you can remap them. To map a key sequence, find the function you want, click on where the keypress goes and then map what you want. It will tell you if you have a conflict somewhere. It's best to write it down before you start mapping. Good Luck and I hope this helps.

Akwar
01-04-2005, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't agree at all- CFS3 is an excellent sim just like il2 and I'm glad they made it.

Trink_Afri-Cola <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Youve got to be joking.The damage model alone is a joke.

JG51Beolke
01-04-2005, 08:04 PM
In all honesty, You can get CFS3 looking good, but that's after spending about a week installing all the mods. But that's as far as it goes. Any type of dogfight or ground attack is a slideshow, even on today's most powerful pc's. My 13 year old son thought it was awsome though. I have to give the modders for CFS3 a lot of credit though and the 1% people. If CFS3 looked and played as well as Forgotten Battles or Pacific Fighters, it would be pretty good but the graphics and effects look a little cartoonish. The could have done a much, much better job on the graphics, given the period it was released. The tweaking of CFS3 in the setup utility is something i'll never forget as well.
My son plays it every night and he's enjoying it. At least It's finally getting some use.

arjisme
01-04-2005, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trink_Afri-Cola:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RocketDog:
Does anyone know how exactly CFS3 got so left in the lurch? There did seem to be some potential there, but as released it was almost unplayable.
[...] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't agree at all- CFS3 is an excellent sim just like il2 and I'm glad they made it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmm. You should re-read what he posted. He said "as released". You are saying it was excellent "as released"? Most comments I have seen here and over at simviation suggest it needs patching, and after that it is "excellent".

arjisme
01-04-2005, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
In all honesty, You can get CFS3 looking good, but that's after spending about a week installing all the mods. But that's as far as it goes. Any type of dogfight or ground attack is a slideshow, even on today's most powerful pc's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't believe people are playing CFS3 today and are just putting up with it being a slide show. I guess that it could be that if you max all possible graphics settings to get it as nice looking as possible? But that is even true with FB. I figure people that play CFS3 set it up to an acceptable level of graphic goodness and then enjoy the flying.

JG51Beolke
01-04-2005, 08:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
In all honesty, You can get CFS3 looking good, but that's after spending about a week installing all the mods. But that's as far as it goes. Any type of dogfight or ground attack is a slideshow, even on today's most powerful pc's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't believe people are playing CFS3 today and are just putting up with it being a slide show. I guess that it could be that if you max all possible graphics settings to get it as nice looking as possible? But that is even true with FB. I figure people that play CFS3 set it up to an acceptable level of graphic goodness and then enjoy the flying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said my 13 yr old son who really doesn't know better enjoys it. I paid for it, so If my son enjoys it, at least it's not a total loss. I gave up on it 2 days after I bought it when it first came out. I'm a die hard Oleg fan.

Bearcat99
01-04-2005, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
In all honesty, You can get CFS3 looking good, but that's after spending about a week installing all the mods. But that's as far as it goes. Any type of dogfight or ground attack is a slideshow, even on today's most powerful pc's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't believe people are playing CFS3 today and are just putting up with it being a slide show. I guess that it could be that if you max all possible graphics settings to get it as nice looking as possible? But that is even true with FB. I figure people that play CFS3 set it up to an acceptable level of graphic goodness and then enjoy the flying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you can bet no one is trying to climb up MS's behind and tell them how crappy and incomplete their product is...... at least no one who does it regularly here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

arjisme
01-04-2005, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
I said my 13 yr old son who really doesn't know better enjoys it. I paid for it, so If my son enjoys it, at least it's not a total loss. I gave up on it 2 days after I bought it when it first came out. I'm a die hard Oleg fan. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I saw that you said that in your first post. My point wasn't about you or your son, but about the many other people who do play that sim.

I love Oleg's sims too, btw.

John_Stag
01-05-2005, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
In all honesty, You can get CFS3 looking good, but that's after spending about a week installing all the mods. But that's as far as it goes. Any type of dogfight or ground attack is a slideshow, even on today's most powerful pc's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't believe people are playing CFS3 today and are just putting up with it being a slide show. I guess that it could be that if you max all possible graphics settings to get it as nice looking as possible? But that is even true with FB. I figure people that play CFS3 set it up to an acceptable level of graphic goodness and then enjoy the flying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you can bet no one is trying to climb up MS's behind and tell them how crappy and incomplete their product is...... at least no one who does it regularly here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

which is pretty much a sign of 1c's success. I've said it before and I'll say it again; nobody really complains about the mediocre, because nobody really cares that much. Credit where it's due; the 1% team and others seem to have done a good job of keeping CFS3 alive after MS made a hurried and embarrassed exit, but if it's the same basic game engine as came out of the box, all that work, to me, seems wasted; I don't have a Cray to bring graphics and performance standards up to what my present PC can handle without too much effort in FB/PF. I got the game when it appeared, and this was before I'd even bought IL2, and I was unimpressed, and went back to mucking around with CFS2.

I bought IL2 (out of the bargain bin, no less), and within the week had FB. AEP and PF were pre-ordered as soon as I saw them listed with a price.

I've never been this enthusiastic about a sim since EAW; CFS3 never did that. I'm afraid I can't see that it ever will.

Bearcat99
01-05-2005, 07:26 AM
Im feelin ya.... I think this (http://www.avsim.com/pages/0105/Pac_Fight/pacflt_review.htm) sums it up about as honestly and fairly as I have ever seen. There is a thread about this in here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=5231008952).. People like Gerald are typical though.. just like that reviewer who was complaining about not being able to take off from a carrier or certain gear not working. The guy from AVSIM put in 40 hours before he wrote the review...... some guys boot up and strap in and find a dozen "bugs" before the night is out. This sim is by no stretch a "perfect" product... but IMO it delivers... online and offline.. and as a merged product it is hands down the only WW2 flight sim on the market...... of course thats just me talking..

John_Stag
01-05-2005, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> hile 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, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, well you're bound to like him after that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif