PDA

View Full Version : To all you CFS3 haters out there. . . MAW is closing in to Oleg's detailed cockpits!



BrewsterPilot
04-15-2006, 04:24 PM
I was one of the few who actually enjoyed CFS3 for many years. (Allright, kill me, but do it fast!) Now that I'm a part of IL2 instead, I can admit, CFS3 did suck when it was first released. BUT. . . All the addon scenery, planes, FirePower (costs to buy), and such really have made it a great sim after all. And the best. . . 99.5% of all great addons released for CFS3 have been Free, and made by a great community! That rocks! So now that the free OFF-Over Flanders Fields (http://off.oldbrowndog.net/) WWI addon has been released, another great addon, MAW-Mediterranean Air War (http://www.medairwar.com/new.html) will be released this spring. Look at the screenshots. Those cockpits are completely free made by people who don't get any kind of payment for it! I really http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif to such persons.

Here are some screenshots of MAW cockpits:

http://www.medairwar.com/planes/tomahawkMKIIb/tomahawkMKIIb-4.jpg

http://www.medairwar.com/planes/cr32/163/cr32_163_4.jpg

BrewsterPilot
04-15-2006, 04:24 PM
I was one of the few who actually enjoyed CFS3 for many years. (Allright, kill me, but do it fast!) Now that I'm a part of IL2 instead, I can admit, CFS3 did suck when it was first released. BUT. . . All the addon scenery, planes, FirePower (costs to buy), and such really have made it a great sim after all. And the best. . . 99.5% of all great addons released for CFS3 have been Free, and made by a great community! That rocks! So now that the free OFF-Over Flanders Fields (http://off.oldbrowndog.net/) WWI addon has been released, another great addon, MAW-Mediterranean Air War (http://www.medairwar.com/new.html) will be released this spring. Look at the screenshots. Those cockpits are completely free made by people who don't get any kind of payment for it! I really http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif to such persons.

Here are some screenshots of MAW cockpits:

http://www.medairwar.com/planes/tomahawkMKIIb/tomahawkMKIIb-4.jpg

http://www.medairwar.com/planes/cr32/163/cr32_163_4.jpg

CornbreadPattie
04-15-2006, 04:25 PM
can you show us the gunsights?

BrewsterPilot
04-15-2006, 04:28 PM
More MAW shots:

http://www.medairwar.com/scenery/Impressions/mg_bunker.jpg

http://www.medairwar.com/scenery/Impressions/bf110e_desertvillage.jpg

http://www.medairwar.com/scenery/Impressions/benghazi.jpg

http://www.medairwar.com/scenery/Villages/village2_4.JPG

http://www.medairwar.com/planes/Hurricane/I(T)BW/bw1.jpg

http://www.medairwar.com/planes/Hurricane/I(T)Y/yellow1.jpg

http://www.medairwar.com/planes/Hurricane/I(T)BW/bw2.jpg

triggerhappyfin
04-15-2006, 04:29 PM
THAT´S a THREAT??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

BrewsterPilot
04-15-2006, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CornbreadPattie:
can you show us the gunsights? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.medairwar.com/planes/gladiator_brit/gladiator_3.jpg

http://www.medairwar.com/planes/Hurricane/I(T)Norm/norm2.jpg

http://www.medairwar.com/planes/tomahawkMKIIb/tomahawkMKIIb-3.jpg

MadBadVlad
04-15-2006, 04:38 PM
Not impressed! I prefer the extremely high and rigorous standards of IL-2 better. Those cockpit textures by direct comparison, where possible, are in no way a match for the Il-2 versions and the ground detail is still way off, as it always was in CFS3.

VW-IceFire
04-15-2006, 04:40 PM
Well those are starting to look as good as some of the better cockpits that came with Forgotten Battles or Ace Expansion pack. Its an admirable effort indeed...but its not that threatening http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Something is wrong with that Hurricane. Its nose sticks out too far...or its just a really strange perspective.

Nice to see the Desert Theater done tho...its a neat one and I can't wait for Oleg's version.

BrewsterPilot
04-15-2006, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadBadVlad:
Not impressed! I prefer the extremely high and rigorous standards of IL-2 better. Those cockpit textures by direct comparison, where possible, are in no way a match for the Il-2 versions and the ground detail is still way off, as it always was in CFS3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're free though. . . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MadBadVlad
04-15-2006, 04:48 PM
Who cares if they look cr@p though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BrewsterPilot
04-15-2006, 04:48 PM
Edited title from "threatening" to "closing in to". Happy now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

BrewsterPilot
04-15-2006, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadBadVlad:
Who cares if they look cr@p though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bo_Nidle
04-15-2006, 04:49 PM
The problem with CFS3 is that the majority of people who have been on these forums for some time bought it when it came out and were left profoundly disappointed by it in all aspects. So its not an illogical hate, its more of a bitter experience and no matter how hard it tries it cannot compete.

BrewsterPilot
04-15-2006, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
The problem with CFS3 is that the majority of people who have been on these forums for some time bought it when it came out and were left profoundly disappointed by it in all aspects. So its not an illogical hate, its more of a bitter experience and no matter how hard it tries it cannot compete. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Troll2k
04-15-2006, 04:51 PM
Get what you pay for.

Treetop64
04-15-2006, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BrewsterPilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MadBadVlad:
Not impressed! I prefer the extremely high and rigorous standards of IL-2 better. Those cockpit textures by direct comparison, where possible, are in no way a match for the Il-2 versions and the ground detail is still way off, as it always was in CFS3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're free though. . . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, well the plethora of patches we've received since FB and PF are free, too (planes, maps, FM improvements and enhancements, etc...).

What else you got? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

slipBall
04-15-2006, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was one of the few who actually enjoyed CFS3 for many years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bought it years ago, after I was playing IL_2. My reaction was instant disapointment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif, I was spoiled by Maddox, so I never played cfs3 again. After reading your post, I'm gonna give it another try. Are there alot of patch's that I have to get, how bout the add-on's, do you have a good link, thank's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BrewsterPilot
04-15-2006, 04:55 PM
OK guys, bed-time for me now. I bet I've got 10 pages of anti-CFS3 propaganda to chase up with tomorrow morning! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

thefruitbat
04-15-2006, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
The problem with CFS3 is that the majority of people who have been on these forums for some time bought it when it came out and were left profoundly disappointed by it in all aspects. So its not an illogical hate, its more of a bitter experience and no matter how hard it tries it cannot compete. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

my own personal experience was of buying it when it came out, flew it for couple of weeks, couldnt get it to run at nearly the same level of smoothness as il2 even with all settings turned really low, uninstalled. When i upgraded my computer some time later, i tried it agian, and found the same thing.
it has remained uninstalled ever since, although i have been tempted by OFF

fruitbat

arcadeace
04-15-2006, 05:04 PM
They don't look bad, I'm glad you like it. I enjoyed it before playing il2 just didn't know what I was missing, but like you say alot's been added since. Its nice if you can appreciate the hobbie with choice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Treetop64
04-15-2006, 05:11 PM
Brewsterpilot, it's not that we "hate" CFS3, because we don't. There is simply no point in hating a subpar product, which is what CFS3 is, no matter what third party enhancements are included. I would guess that virtually everyone in this forum, myself included, has tried CFS3, and have all walked away dissapointed.

Admittedly, CFS3 does some things better than IL-2, IMO. The gun sounds are better, I think. The visual effects (explosions and smoke) resulting from ground attack and anti shipping missions are rendered better since the FirePower add-on. I also liked the dynamic campaign engine. But that's about it. It all goes "Poo-Poo" from there.

I450IVex
04-15-2006, 05:42 PM
why does the hurricane have a late war gyro sight reticle?

The-Pizza-Man
04-15-2006, 05:55 PM
That's not a hurricane.

I450IVex
04-15-2006, 06:00 PM
tomahawk then.

Xiolablu3
04-15-2006, 06:27 PM
I tried it for a few hour and uninstalled, I am glad the community has got togther and made some good stuff.

The fact that they have made cokcpits almost as good as IL2/FB is admirable.

I dont htink they rival FB/PF cockpits tho, even the older ones.

The Gladiator,Me110 and Ki84 cockpits in FB/PF are in a different class however. Its hard to believe its a totally outdated engine which is soon to be replaced.

DarkWolf29
04-15-2006, 06:37 PM
I played CFS3 for several years, with Firepower + some 3rd party add on aircraft and other mods. Only recently did I get PF, and plan to get FB+AEP.

There are things I like about each sim, things that I think one does better than the other. But the thing that got on my nerves to the point where I finally uninstalled CFS3 was the AI. Playing in campaign mode, friendly bomber gunners that can't hit ANYTHING, friendly AI who get wiped out (thus you fail a mission) when the player can get kills left and right with impunity.

Unless someone can mod the AI, I don't think I'd go back. To me CFS3 is an excellent flight simulator, but I think the combat flight simulator element was very poor.

DW

Megile_
04-15-2006, 07:12 PM
CFS4 would take the graphics to a new level

IL2 and FS2004 do different things better, graphics wise.

LEBillfish
04-15-2006, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
CFS4 would take the graphics to a new level </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As we expect BoB to....

The-Pizza-Man
04-15-2006, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by I450IVex:
tomahawk then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno, send them an email and ask them why. It's probably an early model though. If it is in fact wrong and you point it out to them they will change it.

You could also post here:
http://forums.netwings.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=26

Spider_439th
04-15-2006, 09:50 PM
Never see any positive proof of a possible CFS4
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif
Maybe in another life http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Lucius_Esox
04-15-2006, 10:11 PM
I brought it, installed it, had the same experience as most here seem to, and uninstalled it.

Serious question though. Why do so many play it, eulogise over it, go to a lot of hard work and effort for it if it's still that c.r.a.p.

Surely most people who are into flight sims know of the IL2 series, so whats the appeal?

I know squat about the sim, I'm just curious.

_VR_ScorpionWorm
04-15-2006, 10:28 PM
I unsed to install it just to fly the Tempest and Typhoon, now that we have the Tempest... it may sit awhile longer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Nothing beats destroying any ship with the four cannons on a Tempest... why can't we do that in IL2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


I have OFF, enjoy it and look forward to the MAW expansion, however the terrain needs alot of work as does the AI.

The-Pizza-Man
04-15-2006, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Spider_439th:
Never see any positive proof of a possible CFS4
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif
Maybe in another life http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen a few screenshots. It was at an alpha stage but then MS canned it. It's a pitty because those screen shots were bloody impressive.

BrewsterPilot
04-16-2006, 12:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Spider_439th:
Never see any positive proof of a possible CFS4
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif
Maybe in another life http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen a few screenshots. It was at an alpha stage but then MS canned it. It's a pitty because those screen shots were bloody impressive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you know if those screenshots still exist somewhere?

The-Pizza-Man
04-16-2006, 12:38 AM
I can't remember who posted them over at simouthouse, but you might be able to find them if you do a search the forums for them.

EDIT: I just searched the sim-outhouse forums and apparently the guy who posted them, bear, got in trouble with MS for doing so. As a result he had to take them down. That was well over a year ago. But rest assured they existed, I saw them with my own eyes. If you look hard enough around the place you might find them.

RocketDog
04-16-2006, 03:57 AM
Yep - that was my understanding. Development started on CFS4 (and MechWarrior 5, for that matter) and then was stopped. Some of it may have been because of MS's changing emphasis onto Xbox products. Some of it may be because of the amount of abuse they got for CFS3.

At present, it looks like Flight Sim 10 will be released later this year, but there seems to be no plan to have a companion combat sim. In fact, the FS developers seem keen to keep FS as a pure civilian product.

I wonder if the programmers involved in CFS3 ever found employment in something more suited to their abilities? Burger King, perhaps?

All of which means that the future of combat flight sims rests with Ubisoft and outfits like 1C.

Cheers,

RocketDog.

SeaFireLIV
04-16-2006, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RocketDog:




I wonder if the programmers involved in CFS3 ever found employment in something more suited to their abilities? Burger King, perhaps?



Cheers,

RocketDog. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ow! Cruel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I tried CFs3 and less said about it the better. A very shoddy piece of work. I also heard that Mechwarrior was canned cos forum goers hated their business practises.

Taylortony
04-16-2006, 08:38 AM
My they are getting close to IL2 but then

Game, Set and Match BOB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I rest my case..........

http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/IL2BOB/images/updates/aircraft/Ju-88A-1_12.jpg

http://airwarfare.com/Sims/IL2BOB/images/updates/08-2005/bf109e3_co1.jpg

http://airwarfare.com/Sims/IL2BOB/images/updates/08-2005/bf109e3_co2.jpg

http://airwarfare.com/Sims/IL2BOB/images/updates/aircraft/ScShot010.jpg

heywooood
04-16-2006, 09:00 AM
yeah Oleg can simulate a pretty cockpit and some darn near perfect airframes....the real test will be whether or not he can simulate a players' involvement in the Battle of Britain with any degree of immersion....any degree at all.

..or will he scrap single player mode altogether...after all - its kinda late in the game to be asking his forum members (predominately online players) only, whether or not they even want a campaign generator... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Chuck_Older
04-16-2006, 10:18 AM
BP-

Don't take this the wrong way, please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You're 14 now, and you enjoyed CFS3 'for many years'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I don't know how seriously I would take the opinion of an 11 year old about what's a better sim, when I played (and more or less enjoyed) CFS3 myself (and CFS and CFS2 before that), and then upgraded it with all the 3rd party 1% stuff, when I was 31 and had been playing flight sims since the C128 (that's a Commodore 128, just before the Amiga) days, with titles like Jet, Gunship, Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer, and F-15. Microprose was great.

I got CFS3 and I liked many things about it. However, the muddy (and shoddy) cockpits were terrible. There was very little research put into some of them. CFS1 was better. When I got back into 1C:Maddox games' sims with FB (I had enjoyed Il2 before that), I saw how much more concerted and genuine the efforts were from Maddox Games

In particular, Maddox Games uses the most reliable and repeatable FMs it seems to me, whereas the CFS series (including the 1% stuff) uses...less than reliable data. Please, now. I've discussed this at length with the CFS3 crowd. The data is, especially with the 1% Team's stuff, very good. But it's not as reliable, I feel, as Maddox games' data. Why?

Simple- the planes in FB/PF tend to underperform compared to some data (But not all), rather than overperform, which frankly a lot of third party stuff (including 1%, in my opinion) does seem to do. I feel that a lot of the third party stuff for CFS3 is optomistic, using optimal fuel, or equipment, or optimal maintenance, or even a factory-fresh finish- multiple layers of paint can slow a plane down, since paint has weight...I don't think the CFS3 planes- (any of them) even consider the weight of paint versus an unpainted plane- they don't see this effect or maybe some others. I just don't get the feeling that these 3rd party guys are all "on the same page" with their data

Now the cockpits you show look good. Good enough in fact to be on a par with what we have gotten ( for free, no fee to get the download ), in say the last 2 years

The CFS3 guys have been working hard- and they are now within grasp of what we here have had, cockpit-wise, for the last 24 months. Our newest planes' cockpits look so much better than their newest efforts on many levels- not the least being that all the CFS3 pits I see, including the ones you've shown, frankly look like slick polygons. they are very angular and precise. Not a lot of suspension of disbeleif. It's as if Renoir had made a black line around every element of every object he masterfully painted, and then filled in color. It's lacking. And the research into some of the pits...is still just not there

joeap
04-16-2006, 10:21 AM
Chuck. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Taylortony
04-16-2006, 10:35 AM
Please don't encourage him, he will only post more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Gerfaut_
04-16-2006, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

In particular, Maddox Games uses the most reliable and repeatable FMs it seems to me, whereas the CFS series (including the 1% stuff) uses...less than reliable data.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm... I have to disagree, for FB/PF flight models are constantly changing from the beginning, even for the older Bf109 crates : in one patch they get more torque, and in the following patch Luftwhiners get smoother models.

When 1% models are released, they of course can be updated, but never with such huge variations in modelling.
FB/PF models will be the more reliable when they'll definitely stop to follow whinings, thus bei,g constantly drawn on the right and on the left.

danjama
04-16-2006, 10:53 AM
I wasnt that impressed by the pictures on the first page, its great that its free, and its great that its in the MTO. Thats about it though. Nothing over this game graphically and im guessing flight wise to.

Chuck_Older
04-16-2006, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gerfaut_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

In particular, Maddox Games uses the most reliable and repeatable FMs it seems to me, whereas the CFS series (including the 1% stuff) uses...less than reliable data.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm... I have to disagree, for FB/PF flight models are constantly changing from the beginning, even for the older Bf109 crates : in one patch they get more torque, and in the following patch Luftwhiners get smoother models.

When 1% models are released, they of course can be updated, but never with such huge variations in modelling.
FB/PF models will be the more reliable when they'll definitely stop to follow whinings, thus bei,g constantly drawn on the right and on the left. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't follow you- what you're saying is that when a new way to use the FM was discovered, or when a new way to interpret the data was figured out, they shouldn't use it

That's a really wierd argument I've seen a lot-
"Well if it were right to begin with, why's the change it!" and the answer is uaully said to be "because of whiners"

Well, let me ask- if CFS3's FMs were so great and reliable, why did the 1% Team change those FMs?

It;s the same reason- they feel that they have better info now, or a more relibale sourse, or thhat they can use an euqation now that was too complex for the real-time engine to use before.

the same would hold true for this sim. The sim has gotten better and better. The wat the raw data is interpreted has changed- but you see this as all new data, not a new way to use it, when you look at the FM's evolution

if you ask me, you're looking for fault and then filling in the blank spots with the good oled "the whiners got it changed" reasoning, and the stagnant "If the FM was right before why did it change" argument.

When i say reliable, i do not mean "absolutely correct". No sim will ever acheive that. but I did not say that our FM was "correct" while CFS3 has "incorrect" FM. I said that the data was more reliable in this sim, in my opinion. You are over-simplifying how this works I think . What evidence do you have that CFS3 uses more relibale data? the fact that MS obstinately refused to change anything?

PC modelling and design theory for flight sims has not stopped getting better. I do not expect this sim to remain static in regards to how FM data is used. if it did, it would certainly be "wrong", while in evolving, it hope to get things "right". reliable data does not ensure that the ways the PC can use the data, or how the theory behind how it's programmed, doesn't change, and i think you're confusing that with 'unreliability'

HOWZAT_99
04-16-2006, 06:29 PM
I found that in the CFS series that the best AI they had was in CFS1, CFS 2 I found that I could out-turn zeros in my wildcat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

_VR_ScorpionWorm
04-16-2006, 06:38 PM
And blow up anything from small objects to big ships using just .50s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

RAF92_Moser
04-16-2006, 07:12 PM
I have been following MAW development from its early days. These developers have been working their tails off for free, in between time from their friends, family, and jobs. They have been trying to help out the simulator for free way before MAW. A lot of the Avhistory developers are on the MAW team. Give them there credit where it is due because their hours of work compares just as hard as to the professional designers.

I know CFS3 is not IL-2. It never will be. The engines are completely different. Some things in the code just cannot be fixed. The FM are not IL-2 quality. The graphics are not as strong even though CFS3 contends sometimes.

CFS3 out of the box isn't great. Tweak it a bit. Most of you gave up after an hour like you said so. There's plenty of tweak guides. Some of you can run IL-2 with perfect water, stuff I wished I had and cannot run CFS3? Stuttering too much? Easily fixed. Frame rates too low? Well, they don't exactly have to be 60 to be great! I have a 16Mb onboard laptop video card, CFS3 runs fine. It can be tweaked. Trust me.

People just gave up to easily. Others dreamt and made improvements. Give it a chance. These developers deserve it.

Taylortony
04-16-2006, 07:33 PM
Bl++dy well said RAF92_Moser, and i totally agree with you, especially as most people that deride stuff coming out tend to have neither the skills or a clue where to start........... case of put up or shut up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It used to annoy me when I was skinning that after 2 months of constant work to produce a new skin that someone would tell me I have the wrong shade of green when shape, size, weathering, enviroment and the lack of paint at the end of the war meant that often than not it was thinned or any old junk was shoved on to help it blend to its locality... and the fact that my base coat was from the sampled ww2 colours..

my post showing the BOB cockpits was to show that as such the game develops and moves on a stage from what came before, these cockpits you show are coming up to the il2 stuff and no doubt when or if the CFS4 comes out they will move on another notch.......... such is development of soft and hardware alike.

Old_Canuck
04-17-2006, 01:19 AM
Does it have a recording feature that comes anywhere close to IL2 series? CFS3 was an epiphany for me where I had my eyes opened to how skilled marketing tactics can exploit hopeful consumers.

M$oft has the resources but no desire to produce a superior flight sim. Why would they when it would satisfy their future market of hopefuls waiting for the next "as real as it gets" killer software offering? .. and the next one to sooth the disappointment over the last one .. and the next one ..

CFS3 had a great fall and all the kings horses and all the king's mods can't put it back together again. But CFS3 threads are always good for a little entertainment in these parts.

Dolemite-
04-17-2006, 03:12 AM
http://www.ciudad.com.ar/online2005/00000000000115708.jpg

Erik Estrada says this is a joke topic.

jermin122
04-17-2006, 07:53 AM
Nice sim, indeed!

Looked at the aspect of the consumers, flight simulation market nees some new bloods. Monopoly wont do any good to the growth of the market. More competitions, more better. To be honest, IL2 has great potensial. If Oleg gives up his discriminations and envisage IL2's flight model, IL2 will of course hold up the majority of the market. But recently large numbers of skilled players (mostly blue) have left this game in succession. And many other excellent sims are gathering their power. For us players, it is a good news, but not necessarily the case for IL2.

Asgeir_Strips
04-17-2006, 07:59 AM
I think this addon looks promising.

Although the IL2 is much easier to set up and run properly compared with the never ending framerate issues of cfs3, CFS3 still had a good campaign engine. something that IL2 completely lacks.

Also the A,I in IL2 was and still is bloody horrendous, but hopefully Oleg will change that with the next game.. every sim has its pro's and cons.. if the IL2 AI could only do the same as you (not see through clouds, sniper aiming, infinite amount of G's) and a good campaign engine,IL2 would render all the other ww2 sims obsolete, thats for sure. I cross my fingers that Oleg manages to do that when the new game comes out in 2059. But until then im only playing IL2 for the thrill of carrier ops!

jermin122
04-17-2006, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Taylortony:
My they are getting close to IL2 but then

Game, Set and Match BOB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I rest my case..........
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Real simmer wont consider too much on the graphics. The emphasis of a sim should be on the FM.

Gerfaut_
04-17-2006, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

Well, let me ask- if CFS3's FMs were so great and reliable, why did the 1% Team change those FMs?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CFS3 stock FM are ****, but 1% ones definitely aren't. That's all.

The fact is that, the more Oleg's adding new planes, and the more FMs are smoother and fade, thus reducing even well known peculiarities of crates like FW190.
ATM, with the last patch, you barely distinguish differences between aicraft, for example. That's bad, for the FMs tend to be smoother, so inevitably more arcadish to facilitate medium pilot's catching in hand.

Other well known issues :
- the designed-for-online-dogfights-only maps' size,
- the crappy sounds,
- the arcadish possibility of hearing opponents' engines approaching from six o' clock,
- the poor weather effects,
- the possibility for all-seeing AI a/c to shoot thru clouds,
- the hopeless reduced number of aicraft able to be airborne at same time (definitely a BIG issue for BOB immersion),
- the lack of triggering when designing missions, etc etc...

Well, I could go on that way, but the subject dealt with FMs.

Chuck_Older
04-17-2006, 09:52 AM
You don't understand what I'm saying at all.

I am not talking about "correct". I am talking about "most reliable information".

reisen52
04-17-2006, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
You don't understand what I'm saying at all.

I am not talking about "correct". I am talking about "most reliable information". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know for sure that it has the most reliable info when Oleg dismisses NACA data as US propaganda and a PF Zero can out dive an F4F as an easy example of either bad info or bad implementation?

Then there was the roll rate issue with the P-47 which went on for a year or so even though its one of the most documented of WWII planes.

Zeke

Chuck_Older
04-17-2006, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
You don't understand what I'm saying at all.

I am not talking about "correct". I am talking about "most reliable information". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know for sure that it has the most reliable info when Oleg dismisses NACA data as US propaganda and a PF Zero can out dive an F4F as an easy example of either bad info or bad implementation?

Then there was the roll rate issue with the P-47 which went on for a year or so even though its one of the most documented of WWII planes.

Zeke </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holy cripes I said that "in my opinion". I refuse to sit here and defend every syllable I say when folks can't be bothered to at least read what I've posted before they comment on it. Not gonna do it

joeap
04-17-2006, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gerfaut_:



ATM, with the last patch, you barely distinguish differences between aicraft, for example. That's bad, for the FMs tend to be smoother, so inevitably more arcadish to facilitate medium pilot's catching in hand.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with your other points but not that one at all!!! The planes fly VERY differently! What the heck does "catching in hand" mean?

reisen52
04-17-2006, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Holy cripes I said that "in my opinion". I refuse to sit here and defend every syllable I say when folks can't be bothered to at least read what I've posted before they comment on it. Not gonna do it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey lighten up. I was just curious as to what facts or special knowledge your opinion was based on.

Remember you asked the question "What evidence do you have that CFS3 uses more relibale data?" so why do you have a problem when the same question is asked of you about IL2?

If you are a pilot, have special knowledge of war birds or know how the flight models in these games are built & how the software interprets the supplied data your opinion may be more valid then some one who lacks these credentials.

carguy_
04-17-2006, 02:43 PM
No disrespect for those hard working guys...


Cockpits shown are not even close to which we`ve had in IL2 since day one and that was 2001.The P40 cockpit in direct comparement is so much better in IL2!I`ve read here somwhere that Oleg is not really satisfied with some pits like the 109 pits.But actually my impression is that they`re great!Well...not like Tempest or Gladiator but certainly far better than in CFS3 and satisfying all my graphic "needs".

Good call there Taylortony.Gawd look at that 109 pit.Hard to believe this comes in 2 next years.Ju88 pit detail simply mindblowing...

Chuck_Older
04-17-2006, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Holy cripes I said that "in my opinion". I refuse to sit here and defend every syllable I say when folks can't be bothered to at least read what I've posted before they comment on it. Not gonna do it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey lighten up. I was just curious as to what facts or special knowledge your opinion was based on.

Remember you asked the question "What evidence do you have that CFS3 uses more relibale data?" so why do you have a problem when the same question is asked of you about IL2?

If you are a pilot, have special knowledge of war birds or know how the flight models in these games are built & how the software interprets the supplied data your opinion may be more valid then some one who lacks these credentials. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it looks as if I misunderstood you, but your reply comes off as very challenging when I read it

here's what I know about the flight models-

FB/PF- The man in charge, Oleg Maddox, was a successful Aeronautical Engineer. Also, a WWII aviation enthusiast, just like we all are. I know that real pilots, who have flown warbirds, have commented that his FMs feel realistic in many instances, when given joystick settings that those pilots feel reflect reality. I know that as the FM has evolved, better ways to do things have been implemented. I know that the goal is more accuracy, whether or not that is attained, is for the individual to decide, but the idea behind any changes were to reflect realism, or to change the compromises inherent in any FM to better reflect realism, given new wys to interpret flight data within the FM. The FM has gotten more complex, so naturally the math concerned, which can't just be plunked down 'from the real world' without some sort of interpretation (so that the game's engines, which do not model the real world perfectly), so that the FM can make sense of those numbers, must be changed. It appears to be some degree of give and take. We all know for example, the less than perfect high altitude model. I know for myself, having been in the right hand seat of a single engine plane (once), that this sim certainly gives me the same sensation of actually moving through 3 dimensions, whereas many other sims (CFS3 out of the box for example), felt like a nervous car that drove in 3D

CFS3- I know that MS uses some pretty good solid FM data- but how it fails to deliver, out of the box, is not something I know. I know that real pilots have commented that they like it, and certainly MS can make a flight sim, the FS series is outstanding. However, something isn't quite there in CFS3. I don't quit know what. I always felt anchored, while the world moved around me. Now the new FMs made by third party- those feel a lot like FB/PF to me in many cases. I have a 1% P-51 (If I recall) that feels very good. But this is what I know about the 1% team- they work very hard. they are enthusiasts. I never traded ideas or words with them online; I don't know their names. I don't know who they are beholden to. I don't know what standards they have, I don't know what data they use, or if they use modern data or vintage data. I don't know how their reputation is at stake, since the FM can be esily re-interpreted (which isn't neccesarily bad as it indicates they know they aren't perfect- a wise move). I've heard (OK read) that some real pilots find their FMs accurate. of course, for both FB/PF and CFS3, I take that with a grain of salt because a P-51 today, for example, would not be allowed to fly the way it did when it was new- guns, ammo and all, no modern avionics, and most notably- an engine built like it was in the '40s, flaws and all. However, a lot of evidence exists that can give a pretty good indication of how the planes should fly

On one hand- CFS3's new FMs benefit a lot from not being shackled into the mindset we have in this sim. On the other, I don't see a level playing field for FM interpretation for many reasons- such as the FM being constantly open for that very thing- reinterpretation, I don't know how the FM is developed or even why, and biggest of all- each plane could have it's own reinterpreatation of the FM and be mostly right- but who's to say when the re-worked FMs are 'right' and 'wrong' except the community and the 3rd party folks within it? that's a little like our situation, with the added benefit and curse of being able to tweak this here and there on one plane and not another- but in the end, you can have 20 planes with 20 re-worked FMs. What's the goal? Accuracy? Jingoism? Parity? How do I know what the goal was? Enough folks online say it's XY or Z and that the FM is "good" so I beleive it?

Of course most of that goes for this sim too. But everything is changed globally, for better or worse, and to me that system's better by far than the one the CFS3 crowd got hornswoggled into, and a world better than their initial out of the box situation. If I recall, the first ever patch for an MS game was released for CFS3, and then they pretty much dropped support, telling their (still loyal!) fanbase to do it themselves

For my money, since overall I find the sensation of flight better in this sim still, I can look at it and say, yes, OK, XY and Z is probably wrong, but that's because of compromises in the FM- just like in any other FM. I could say the same of the 1% FMs, because I know they cannot be perfect, Howver, having one person keeping track of these things, and also how these things fit overall within the scope of the sim, is better than the apparent revolving door of some other FMs, where the eyes on the prize aren't necessarily even in agreement, let alone the same pair of eyes since day 1

Oleg has proven that he's in for the long haul. that's a huge credential right there for me

Now of course I don't know what he's rejected on NACA data or why, but I can see that his command of English may make quoting him or even understanding the nuances of what he posts an not an easy job. I disagree with many things he believes, I can take the example of the P-51 and find direct quotes from the men on the project and also from both Allied and Axis pilots who say the plane was capabale of various things in my own reference library that say Oleg's interpretation of a few things is probably off base and putting the plane at disadvantage. But then too, for all I know, other aspects of the plane are incorrect, giving me an advantage

But I have to wonder- is NACA data complete for all planes we have? All of them? is it possible that his data source does, while the NACA data isn't? And I also wonder- which data would I likely use, if I was Oleg, sitting at my desk, with two sets of data, once that I see might be incomplete, and one that is not only complete, but is in my native tongue, and is data I used as a professional engineer and relied on? I can tell you which set I'd use, and i bet you can guess

Finally, I also have to wonder about repeatability. Data from one source that isn't repeatable in an FM...for instance one particular area of data for each planes adds up in the FM except for one...and that one plane has inconsistent performacne because of it, doing things too well in the envelope and doing other things too poorly in another, because of this number...I'm going to have to make a decision- skew the FM for all planes to make this one plane 'right', or use data that always gives consistent results?

I can see a lot of decisions like this having to be made