PDA

View Full Version : CFS3 comparison...



vanjast
01-24-2006, 02:54 PM
I've been playing a bit of SH3 and there seems to be a few guys there that like CFS3. They say that Out-The-Box version is cruddy, but the patched versions are better than IL2, especially with respect to the Flight Modelling.
Does anybody here have experience on the patched versions and what are their comments. I generally don't like MS-sims as they are cra.ppy. Is this just a lot of "It's made here and those ruskkies can never outdo us" hype (which I suspect it is), or is it something genuine.

Thanks
Dah Van

vanjast
01-24-2006, 02:54 PM
I've been playing a bit of SH3 and there seems to be a few guys there that like CFS3. They say that Out-The-Box version is cruddy, but the patched versions are better than IL2, especially with respect to the Flight Modelling.
Does anybody here have experience on the patched versions and what are their comments. I generally don't like MS-sims as they are cra.ppy. Is this just a lot of "It's made here and those ruskkies can never outdo us" hype (which I suspect it is), or is it something genuine.

Thanks
Dah Van

BaldieJr
01-24-2006, 03:00 PM
CFS3 has innovative features as indicated on the box. I don't know what you've been smoking, but you might want to get your glasses fixed before some dude in a dress takes your wifes place when you aren't looking.

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-24-2006, 03:02 PM
M$ sims are open sourced, allowing modification by anyone who wishes to do so, for whatever reason or bias - think of it as a plank of wood. Now with time and patience, a little knowledge, a lot of skill and the right tools it's possible to fashion an inspiring work of art from said piece of wood. Most people make cr@ppy looking bookshelves though, don't they?
And there's no guarantee that if someone moves in with you their books are going to fit.

Steven190
01-24-2006, 03:06 PM
I like CFS3 and with the mods it is a good sim. Out of the box it was very bad, but it has come a long way. Even a WW1 OFF add on which is fun to fly. IL2FB has it advantages also and is the most stable to use especially online..

You will probably hear from the other side more than from the CFS3 users, I like it because you can mess with everthing and change it around, planes, payloads, effects, sound...etc. This is the best part trying the new add ons and customizing it.

vanjast
01-24-2006, 03:09 PM
Hey Baldie, you look like that guy in your avatar. Where DID you get your Perm done ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Don't get me wrong, IL2 is it. I'm just a bit curious how so many people can really believe in MS sims. But as you say, with all the MOD'ing it'll will be a complete balls up as experienced with SH3. This makes on-line play virtually impossible
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Edt: I suppose as Steven190 says it's really a sim to play with, and probably not for hardcore simmers.

Skycat_2
01-24-2006, 03:36 PM
I have tremendous respect for groups like Avhistory.org that attempt to make CFS FMs "accurate to within 1% error." That said, despite all these modders' assurances that Microsoft's code allows very sophisticated modelling that simply wasn't utilised by Microsoft in the stock CFS planes, I believe that AvHistory's "1%" workbook-whatever FMs make the planes too hard to pilot (they fly like lead bathtubs pushed by sooty lawnmower engines). Additionally, the planes in Shockwave's "FirePower" addon -- the one that brags using authentic military test data and pilot feedback to ensure accuracy -- are too nimble; their Ta-152 is the best low-level ground attack plane in the bunch, IMO, and their Me-410 outclimb, outdive and outturn any of the stock propellor planes.

Whatever praises that the MS code-tweakers have for CFS, I have never found a replacement FM that transcends the feeling of physically cutting through air; they're just elaborate mathematical formulas for computing motion. You don't get the feeling of buffeting or turbulence, for example. There's gravity, but in the sense of "I'm pulling my nose up and applying full power but my plane is slowly drifting towards those trees like a balloon without helium!"

Years ago when IL-2 Sturmovik had viscious stall characteristics, Bear from Avhistory.org defended CFS as more realistic by arguing that military planes weren't so unpredictable in their handling as IL-2 had made them. I think that FB/PF has toned that characteristic down to where that old 'CFS is better' argument doesn't apply. Furthermore, the Microsoft FM's begin to fall apart in extreme actions like skidding or using hard rudder in a tight turn; I've actually had CFS planes slide sideways through the air in turns like racecars do on a dirt track.

I might be completely wrong in my comments; I stopped taking CFS-3 seriously a long time ago. Maybe there are some truly excellent custom FMs out there.

partic_3
01-24-2006, 04:18 PM
I recently bought the Firepower add-on and played it for about a week. I won't be going back.
I hate the view system in CFS3. It doesn't have the same sensation of flight the Il2 has. I don't like the effects, even with Firepower.
I played Over Flanders Fields for about a week before I bought Firepower and I thought that was better, especially the terrain. Before that I spent a couple of weeks playing BOB WOV.
After a month or so off I came back to Il2. For me it is just so far above the competition and that's that.

IL2-chuter
01-25-2006, 02:57 AM
Both IL2 and CFS3 have not to insignificant issues, but I would have to pick IL2 over CFS3 (at least from what I've seen of CFS3 - I haven't tried all the mods.)


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Aaron_GT
01-25-2006, 04:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">M$ sims are open sourced, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No they are not! They are open ARCHITECTURE but definitely not open source.

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-25-2006, 04:13 AM
And the difference is?

OD_79
01-25-2006, 04:19 AM
79vRAF used to play CFS1 and then CFS3 before we came over to IL2 last november. At the time I would say it was better for as a pure flight simulator as the flight model was far better. BUT it had major problems in multiplayer with stupid lag, its graphics were just too hard for most machines to cope with at the time and it looked cr*p out of the box. With all the add ons out there such as Winding Man's scenery you could get it looking great without hitting framerates, FOX's effects and clouds made excellent replacements, which again didn't hit FPS. The stock planes were a bit dodgy and the AI was as intelligent as a moth around a light. I won't go back to it, I have tried to, but IL2 is now a lot better and the fact that there are constant updates for it from Oleg and Co. unlike the support given from Microsoft, which was non-existent!
One area where it is still better than IL2 though is in sound, far better in CFS3.

OD.

Jetbuff
01-25-2006, 04:22 AM
Low_Flyer, I like your wood analogy, very apt. Open source means you have access to the source code. i.e. you can change ANYTHING in the game including make it an FPS instead of a flight sim. Open architecture means dweeby would-be master wood-workers can mess around trying to make their plane more realistic. (or just plain better)

Moddability aside, my biggest gripe with CFS3 is the lack of sensation of flight. The best way I can describe it is that it felt like the plane was standing still and the world was moving around it. Throw in the original porridge terrain and I was about to vomit. I'm getting a free copy though to try out OFF to experience 6DoF. The latter imo is the only indisputable advantage that CFS3 has over the IL-2 series.

Tully__
01-25-2006, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkII:
And the difference is? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>HUGE!!!

Open source means anyone can mod the core software.

Open architecture means the FM data, skins, scenery tiles etc. are stored in a user accesible fashion with an SDK provided by the developers to aid users modding these factors, but the core software is still secured.

IL2 is closed architecture, with everything except aircraft & pilots skins, some (but not all) sound files and mission files closed to the user.

Edit: If the CFS series were open source it's possible by now that users might actualy have made add-ons that converted it into an overall good sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for my own comments, I got CFS3 for christmas and so far I've only got about half an hour of actual play time (a fair portion of which was spent with the game paused trying to work out how to make the controls work how I want).

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-25-2006, 04:33 AM
Thanks chaps, that's much clearer now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The-Pizza-Man
01-25-2006, 05:28 AM
If you are willing to invest the time into downloading new aircraft, fox's effects, editing your campaign files to replace the default aircraf t with 1% aircraft then you end up with a really great single player game, even if the AI is a bit daft. If it hadn't been released half baked it might have been one hell of a game. You can find bits and pieces of what MS were heading towards in the directory, things like late war guided weapons.

Hurricane_320
01-25-2006, 06:02 AM
Vanjast, subsim.com?

Marhkimov? CV-707?

~S~

Bearcat99
01-25-2006, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
79vRAF used to play CFS1 and then CFS3 before we came over to IL2 last november. At the time I would say it was better for as a pure flight simulator as the flight model was far better. BUT it had major problems in multiplayer with stupid lag, its graphics were just too hard for most machines to cope with at the time and it looked cr*p out of the box. With all the add ons out there such as Winding Man's scenery you could get it looking great without hitting framerates, FOX's effects and clouds made excellent replacements, which again didn't hit FPS. The stock planes were a bit dodgy and the AI was as intelligent as a moth around a light. I won't go back to it, I have tried to, but IL2 is now a lot better and the fact that there are constant updates for it from Oleg and Co. unlike the support given from Microsoft, which was non-existent!
One area where it is still better than IL2 though is in sound, far better in CFS3.

OD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only thing CFS3 has on FB is bigger maps and better sound. It's FMs were no where near the quality of IL2 let alone FB 1.0 and certainly arcadia whn compared to FB 4.02. Even the much vaunted 1% planes were inferior to any incarnation of FBs FMs.... the DMs were a joke as well. It's graphics never could compare to those of IL2 or FB with that mottled down low effect that MS has become notorious for. For me the fact that I had to download a googob of diffderent 3rd party add ons from as many different sources and the one patch ( or were there 2?.. I thoink I remember something about a second one) just to make the thing flyable... and tolerable to my senses was enough to make me pass on it. Perhaps if I had been exposed to CFS first and saw it even if erroneously as my only option enough to the point where I let it grow on me I would feel different, but I got IL2 about a week or so before CFS3 came out and from day one with CFS3 I was extremely disapointed. I never did see the graphical quality of that teaser movie with the P-47 pilots that they put out.... at least not from CFS.... IMO OFF and Korea might make it more palettable.. but if your thing is WWII action... this is the only dog in the hunt.

vanjast
01-25-2006, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hurricane_320:
Vanjast, subsim.com?
Marhkimov? CV-707?
~S~ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Hurricane_320
01-25-2006, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vanjast:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hurricane_320:
Vanjast, subsim.com?
Marhkimov? CV-707?
~S~ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh, nothing

Jumoschwanz
01-25-2006, 07:16 AM
I recently went to a big LAN party
to see if anyone there was into flight sims, I only found one guy, the rest were first person shooter addicts. That one guy was a MS pilot though, and said he would give a new power-supply to anyone who could beat him in MS combat flight simulator. He really liked how he could add planes and mod them at a whim.
Good for him, glad he is having fun, but those who fly MS combat flight sims, seem to be more of the "gamer" than the simmer.

I have not flown cfs1 or 2 on "the zone" for years, but I remember the 1% were the coolest, and also I remember mor ons flying around in 700km/hr zeros with cannons that shot 500lb. bombs.

If someone can fly any of the Il2 series well in virtual combat, I have a heck of a lot more respect for them than those who have "mastered" any of the cfs combat offerings.....


Jumoschwanz

Hurricane_320
01-25-2006, 07:24 AM
I can do both. I am a CFS3 ACE (I'm famous on the internet) and also a good average IL2:FB/AEP/PF

John_Wayne_
01-25-2006, 07:29 AM
Welcome back RBJ.