PDA

View Full Version : Is FB As Good As CFS3?



XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:13 AM
Well?

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:13 AM
Well?

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:17 AM
never flown any of the CFS series so cannot really say




<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:26 AM
Nobody knows?



************************************************** **************
I'm Earl
<center>

http://www.hansontrailers.com/trailer18.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:26 AM
Better ... BY FAR!
I have BOTH and haven't installed CFSIII since last year.
IL2 Sturmovik was better and that was a year older than CFSIII. IL2FB soars past it in a strafing run to ground CFSIII
If you by chance haven't tried IL2FB then go buy it. Even in it's non patched variation it is still a GREAT SIM/GAME.
You'll need a fairly strong computer but even an anemic computer by todays standards will play FB pretty darn good.
Just move the detail sliders down a bit.
CFSIII won't....and even if you move the detail sliders down it will take a BIG hit in detail.
Maybe........... JUST maybe CFSIII will play as it should with the next generation processor/video card. (Pentium 5)
I had great hopes for it but......... ALAS

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:29 AM
better is not an option in this thread knightflyte


the only answers allowed by the original question are "as good as" or "worse than" .. no better was permitted





<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:31 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LMFAO



<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~lenazavaroni/images/tva_01a.jpg

<font size="+4">What a fox!</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:34 AM
No. It's BETTER than CFS3. Better technical performance and immersion, and more "flying feeling". I use both and I don't think CFS3 to be so bad as some guys here are always claiming, but since I use IL-2, I simply don't find the time for CFS3.

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:37 AM
Anybody need an end dump driver? I need the work so I can buy FB.

************************************************** **************
I'm Earl
<center>

http://www.hansontrailers.com/trailer18.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:38 AM
Well, I played CFS3 first. Then I bought the original IL-2.
And I was amazed by it.

Regarding IL-2fb/CFS3 thereÔ┬┤s no contest.
IL2-fb is better in every aspect.
Well, maybe opening video is only execption.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:41 AM
Wait for LOMAC

The planes in LOMAC will apparently fly rings around the one s in both CFS3 and FB.





<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 07:45 AM
ROFLMAO!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Mercy,"Earl" you just won't stop..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 08:02 AM
End_Dump_Earl wrote:
- Anybody need an end dump driver? I need the work so
- I can buy FB.
-


Sell your cab chick. You could raise the rest by shifting this for me.

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/ip/ip71/07%20manure%20monroe.jpg

<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~lenazavaroni/images/tva_01a.jpg

<font size="+4">What a fox!</font></center>



Message Edited on 09/10/0309:05AM by homeless1

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:16 AM
ROFLMAO! It's a joke. Yes?

<center><img src=http://www.uploadit.org/files/080903-mmsiga.jpg>

<center> Flying online as McMatt

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:36 AM
It is much much better!

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 09:57 AM
FB is WAYS better!

Played FB first, then some later tried some CFS3, recently even played CFS2 and I think they both could NEVER keep up with FB.

Its more complex and detailed an almost any possible way - just have a look at the variety of tracer types available in FB.
The only thing I miss is more detailed ground and better design of cities. Its boring always just seeing the same flat green below you and also all cities look the same.

But I think the designers of the game decided to give the FMs the preference over environment comlexity and in my opinion its ok.

Tully__
09-10-2003, 10:01 AM
All I can say is that in general, users appear to be more satisfied with IL2:Forgotten Battles than with CFS3. You will find people who think CFS3 is better, but not in this forum. My experience with Microsoft's sims has me firmly on the "FB is better" side of the equation.

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>
<center><font size="-2" color="#88aadd">IL2 Forums Moderator</font></center>


Salut
Tully

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 10:03 AM
Mmmmhhhh...I donÔ┬┤t think Lomac and FB should be compared, as one is a modern fighter sim and the other one is a WW2 sim...Would you have compared Falcon 4 and EAW when both came out? But, graphically speaking, FB in Perfect mode is just wonderful, and the water effects are just as good as in Lomac, as far as I have been able to notice in the Lomac preview videos...Nevertheless, both sims are top notch in their own category: Lomac will be the reference in modern air warfare, as Fb is in WW2 warfare, and both will remain that way for a loooong time, I guess.

<center>PATRIA Y HONOR
<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SgC0BAYXu3Ft4dbPEzs6M4eZf0A!qec0t1WkurDrK6Q0TV0lY fpkeHHrD5LuaVzXJQ6qOkKtYgnXXYbwSV39vh30VyRPTjG81fM rhMoRCs4YRhDD5Qo3Og/Cueceleches0.jpg?dc=4675424998946727344"></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:11 PM
No it is not...it is far better.

Reiskapappa

"Be your own disciple"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:20 PM
CFS3 isn't good in the first place, knucklehead!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.gorman/mortimer3.jpg

Nevermore!</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:24 PM
CFS3 is very bad.

I bought it not to long ago to see for myself.

I thought having all the extra AC would be nice - but it's just so poorly done I don't use it.

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Wars Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://forgottenwars.dyndns.org
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:31 PM
THE MSFT CFS3 sets the whole tone when you start it. That friggin' idiot pilot hanging around the garbage cans is just too much for me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Now if you want to talk about problems, issues, compatibility and all the stuff that keeps nerds jumping...load up the CFS3. Those loyal to the sim are still dealing with a myriad of problems...unresolvable.

MSFT had the most popular CFS2. The idiot developers ignored their users and did a complete ego trip on MSFT's money.

I would rate it is a WORLD CLASS SCREWUP /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

------------------ /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:35 PM
End_Dump_Earl wrote:
- Well?
-
-

CFS3 is a computer virus with no tech support from the creators. I had some minor problems with a video codec that wouldn't let the game load, so I called M$ support. I waited a half hour for a guy that did not listen to me when I told him what my OS was. While on the phone, he had me DL a Windows upgrade and run it. It was for the wrong OS, and resulted in a reformat (shudder), and me having to reload Windows(tm).


Contrast that with this:
I posted a problem that I had with FB here on this forum. When the answer came, it came directly from the creator of IL2/FB himself, and was exactly what I needed to know. Let me know when you hear from Tucker, or Ron, the developers of CFS3.



So, if CFS3 looked as good as FB (which it doesn't), and had flight models as good as FB (it doesn't even come CLOSE), and was anywhere near as much fun to play (it's not), then I would still pick FB over CFS3 for the support that everyone here is so used to that they take it for granted.

http://www.uploadit.org/files/010903-nedChristie.jpg

Tsalagi Asgaya Equa!

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:38 PM
"Is FB As Good As CFS3?"

By judging from the number of noobs flying the Ha-ha Hurri in FB 1.0, by how many Bf-109k's I had met carrying the MK-108 gondolas (and they were amazed how I was able to turn in a FW better than them)...by how the percentage of flown plane online is changing with every version of patches...

Yes,,,we have a bunch of CFS3's players around...what can you say when you read: "landing is very hard to do in FB"!!!?? What? Try an airfield circuit in a G-6 with flaps and gear down in IL-2...than come back and try that landing again in FB...


What pi$$ed me off is that they modified Il-2 to become FB thus much more likeble(spelling?) for noobos over at CFS3 flying their UFO FM planes. They corrected some of the FM also in the process but overall they tamed the game a lot.

Why don't they just recognize that FB and the next add-on is just a marketing drive to increase IL-2/FB sales on the North American market? Who gave a damn about the Jug or an AI Mustang? We are still missing the Ju-88, Hs-129, He-112, IAR-80, etc...yeah, some of them will come in an Add-on, but packed with a bunch of "US" aircraftshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And while in Il-2 we got new planes with the patches, now they will come separately and even possible they will ask for money for them...as if $39.99 TWICE is not enough for a game...

<center><img src=http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~socrate/bazu11.jpg>



Message Edited on 09/10/0307:42AM by sobolan

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:55 PM
sobolan wrote:
FB was made easy in order to steal M$ customers.

Ok, that was a paraphrase.



I don't believe that for one minute. IL2 is a great game, and CFS3 is a joke. MS lost their pilots the day the FIRST Il2 came out, no lessening of the gameply needed. Otherwise you wouldn't be here.


Tsisqua

http://www.uploadit.org/files/010903-nedChristie.jpg

Tsalagi Asgaya Equa!

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:40 PM
I don't think you can fairly compare them.

CFS, like FS, has bottomless pockets, a huge 3rd party support community (due to the fact that MS never patches any of their sims) and consequently attracts a broader population. I'm sure if you were to ask the casual gamer which flight sim they preferred, they would not even be aware of anything beyond what Microsoft offers. Personally, I think that gives IL-2, Aces High, EAW, et. al. an edge in terms of attracting the more "serious" simmers.

Now, if you want to talk about online play. CFS loses big!! Because of the open-architecture nature of the MS sims, cheating rules in ALL their sims. Nothing will kill an online game quicker than even the suspicion of cheating! If Oleg were to provide ANY ability for the general community to adjust FMs in any way to the planes in FB, the online aspect of the game would absolutely die!

I went online one time in CFS, and a P51D shot by me doing at least 600 mph and I immediately logged off. This is common place with that game because anybody and everybody can contribute to it's development. In a way that's kinda fun but certainly nothing to take seriously.

IL-2 FB has a niche audience whereas CFS appeals more to the general public.

Just MHO of course.

===
-mark
Bo.Deenamah

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:43 PM
Lol! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

You have all been owned! I just thought you would like to know.

"I find your lack of brains disturbing"
http://ourworld.cs.com/Demolisher%20SWE/signature01.jpg
Former W├╝rgerwhiner extraordinaire


Message Edited on 09/10/0301:47PM by Demolisher_

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:44 PM
I'll be a dissenting vote. I like CFS3...a LOT. The truly dynamic campaign is interesting and very challenging. The ability to add on 1% planes (like the B-17) is awesome. The diversity in the cooperative missions is cool. Flying in the rain and snow is really well done (comparitively). The immersion factor is excellent. Flying the western European theater planes is a blast. Flying around Paris and buzzing through the Eiffel Tower is way cool, then zipping over Notre Dame and seeing the Louvre and trying to make it through the Arc de Triomphe...very cool.

It has its downsides, too, just like anything else. It takes a lot of tweaking to get the game settings right, as well as a high end machine. The late model British planes are potentially overmodelled. The multiplayer interface sucks--it has no true lobby.

I really enjoy both CFS3 and FB. It comes down to your money and time. If you have the dough and a pretty high end machine, get both. You also need more patience to get CFS3 up and running well.

* SithSpeeder *

RichardI
09-10-2003, 02:53 PM
Actually, I like both. I consider FB to have the "edge", though only slightly.

CFS3 has a better plane set for my tastes. The open architecture gives it a big advantage over FB in terms of the number and variations of planes. The sound in CFS3 is MUCH better than in FB. That's really kind of surprising too, given the quality of the rest of FB. The 1% flight models bring CFS3 close to FB, very close.

FB has better visuals overall. Both external and internal. FB's cockpits are nothing short of stunning. The effects in FB are SLIGHTLY better, IMO (explosions, etc.).

Funny thing is, my time flying is mostly spent on 1-CFS3. 2-Jane's WWII Fighters, 3- FB. In that order.

And in the fall, I'll likely be playing this one:
http://www.totalsims.com/slicks/blitz_mktg.php

Rich /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

Message Edited on 09/10/0309:56AM by RichardI

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:05 PM
Demolisher_ wrote:
- Lol! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- You have all been owned! I just thought you would
- like to know.
-


Hey, I'll take every chance I get to say something bad about CFS3. My best bud, and squadmate recieved a copy from me as a Christmas gift, and I bought one for myself. We were getting ready to move our cfs squad to CFS3, and I was the only one that could (eventually) run the game. His system was WELL within what the box said he needed, but the problems that came with this game were endless. It was really sad because I knew that he wanted it to work, especially with it being a gift and all. I shelled out a hundred bucks to Microsoft, and in return they crash my PC so bad that I needed to reformat to fix it.

http://www.uploadit.org/files/010903-nedChristie.jpg

Tsalagi Asgaya Equa!

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:07 PM
Hey, Rich. Will that BOB be available only online? It looks incredible!

---------------------------------------
http://www.swafineart.com/images/30.4.02/spitfire.jpg


I'm still a 109 fan but you've gotta love the Spitfire!

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 03:43 PM
I think that LOMAC and IL-2/IL-2 FB are very different games and sincerely i hope that, when LOMAC is released, UBISOFT and C1/Madox don't forget this excelent simulator.
About CFSIII and IL-2FB, i'm sure that the second option is much better than the first one.
Look's like Microsoft think's more about graphics than realism... CFS and Flight Simulator can prove this afirmation. Even on the FS. 2004 we don't have a FMS on our Boeings... We still claiming for add-ons developers... It's just one example.
Forgotten Battles show's that a excelent simulator doesn't need of a very expensive computer to make the users happy.

Oh, and the real inventor of the aircraft was the brazilian ALBERTO SANTOS DUMMONT, that in 1906 made the first flight at Paris flying the havier than air 14-bis aircraft. He doesn't need of any catapult to take off!

http://sites.uol.com.br/disco_virtual/cmte_carvalho/compartilhada/Forgotten_Battles/Assinatura_III.gif

RichardI
09-10-2003, 03:47 PM
MackZ:-
Nope...it will be playable as offline too..from the link:

Battle of Britain is an action-oriented, single player, World War II aerial combat game that transports the player into the cockpit of any one of over 70 fighter and bomber aircraft, putting them right in the middle of some of the most fierce air battles history has ever seen. The game allows the player to fly in over a dozen missions, each loaded with white-knuckle thrills and high-caliber excitement.

There's even an off-line campaign.

70 flyable aircraft? Sounds great to me.

Rich /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:10 PM
I had bought CFS3 and found it to be a pig on system resources, typical Microsoft software, sucks up everything. It was slow on my system and I found that the graphics were of lower resolutions, probably 512x512 size textures. The AI programming was so predictable and the same, game physics for the aircraft was arcade like at best, didn't have responses like in FB. The only thing I liked was the rain and weather effects, lightening was good. IL-2 FB is by far the best simm out so far.

<center>http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/backgrounds/Luftwaffe_poster.JPG
<marquee>Sturzkampfflugzeuge 66</marquee>

<center>http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/backgrounds/Luftwaffe_poster.JPG
<marquee>Sturzkampfflugzeuge 66</marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:11 PM
FB is much better than CFS 3, but than again MS FS 2004 is better than FB/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hot Space

An Antelope is not just for Christmas - It's for putting in Sandwich's as well!!!

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:20 PM
Il2 and FB are the best out there so far. While not perfect they are 100% better (quality wise) than CFS3.
That said, I still do a little flying in CFS3 and CFS2 due to 3rd party addons....If CFS3 had been crafted with the same quality level as FB it would be a kickass sim.

"Nothing difficult is ever easy"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 04:27 PM
HeavyDelta is funny.

<HR WIDTH=100% ALIGN=CENTER SIZE=2>
<center>http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:10 PM
Hello,

the biggest difference in my opinion are the cockpits. They are important for me because I don't use the "no cockpit view".
In FB you have VERY nice and detailed cockpits. The instruments have a correct layout and are all working. The cockpits use high-resolution textures so you can read all signs and they are historical correct (you can use a real manual to learn which instrument is at which place).

In CFS3 the cockpits are very bad done. The instruments don't have the real layout and there aren't very many (In FB you have many different instruments of each type for each plane. In CFS3 e.g. the Me 262 uses the same fuel gauge as the Bf 109 and all other German planes) and the layout is totally wrong (e.g. no ammo counters in German planes, instruments in wrong places, much too few instruments in Me262). Also, the textures have a very low resolution, so you can't read texts on signs.
All in all CFS 3 cockpits are fictional while FB cockpits are accurate. If you fly with cockpit off, you wouldn't notice this, but for FR pilots it is very bad.

Pilot99



Message Edited on 09/10/0304:12PM by Pilot99

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:17 PM
WTE_Galway wrote:
- better is not an option in this thread knightflyte
-
-
- the only answers allowed by the original question
- are "as good as" or "worse than" .. no better was
- permitted




http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'll go back under my rock now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:18 PM
what a stupid question!! lol ofcours FB is better/i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

<center> http://www.uploadit.org/files/060903-avia_036.jpg1.jpg <center>
<marquee> <FONT COLOR="red">[b] http://www.uploadit.org/files/070903-flugzeug4.gif <marquee> <FONT COLOR="red">[b]
<font color="red">I</font> <font color="blue">c</font><font color="green">a</font><font color="orange">n</font>
<font color="yellow">d</font><font color="pink">o</font> <font color="purple">c</font><font color="red">o</font><font color="blue">l</font><font color="lime">o</font><font color="yellow">r</font> /i/smilies/16x16_robot-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:21 PM
CFS-3 is 'Western Europe' while IL-2:FB is 'Eastern Europe / Soviet Union. Many westerners, especially Americans, will naturally choose CFS-3 over FB simply because of the locations featured (Britain, France, Belgium, Germany) and the planes included out-of-the-box (P-51B, P-51D, P-47, P-38, Spitfire, Typhoon 1B, Tempest) are more familiar and attractive to them. Also, Microsoft has a well-known franchise with the CFS and FS series.

This does not mean that CFS-3 sets the standard for WWII combat simulations. In fact, CFS-3 is sadly a mediocre rehash of many better titles that have been released over the last five years and even abandons some of the very features that were notable strengths of CFS-1 and CFS-2 and the Flight Simulator series, namely interactive cockpits.

When the Microsoft team designed the latest CFS offering, they seemed to be trying to create a visually-loaded action game rather than a high-fidelity historic simulation. Furthermore, they apparently borrowed ideas from previous titles like Jane's WWII Fighters, European Air War, B-17:The Mighty Eighth, and IL-2.

Unfortunately, the effort was a mixed bag of success and disappointments and didn't really ossify into a truly remarkable simulation. While the 3D models for the aircraft and vehicle exteriors are actually very nice looking, the cockpits are usually ugly and sparse in detail. The terrain is blurry and odd looking. Auto-gen buildings are scattered nonsensically across the terrain. And all of the high-detail, high polygon, high autogen detail really drags down the frames-per-second to a crawl at times.

Don't get me wrong here; I actually like some elements of CFS-3. It's not so bad for mindless quick missions like ground attack, or for 'sightseeing' if you don't feel like buying FS 2002/2004. There are also plenty of free and retail add-on planes and fixes that allow you to insert new aircraft and customize them to more historic performance levels. This is both a strength and a major downfall ...

CFS-3 suffers for online play because all users must have the exact same setup for FMs and planes folders. Unless you're flying against people you know, this can make entering a server difficult or impossible. There is something to be said for standardization.

IL-2:FB (or its earlier and now 'lite' version, IL-2), is the better sim/game for online play simply because its file structure is closed and users can't tamper with the FMs and DMs of the planes. While this may frustrate many players who do not feel their favorite plays are modelled fairly, at least everybody who is online is playing with the same performances.

Even for offline play, FB is still arguably the better game overall. The AI performs more realistically than in CFS-3 and will often amaze you with how 'human' their tactics and decisions are. While there are still coding issues that remain to be tweaked or addressed in FB the latest patch has really helped to smooth out performance and graphic rendering.




http://www.battlefield.ru/gallery/ww2_tanks/t35_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:39 PM
But you have to admit that some of the screen shots from CFS3 are simply amazing...

Take a look at this : http://www.txsquadron.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=269


Blue Skies!

TX-Blackknight
Black2

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:44 PM
VMF513_Wolf

Are you calling Earl stupid?

************************************************** **************
I'm Earl
<center>

http://www.hansontrailers.com/trailer18.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 10:39 PM
End_Dump_Earl wrote:
- Well?
-

No, it's better, in FB you really feel like flying, in CFS not.

But maybe we shouldn't compare an (even good) arcade game (CFS3) to a real sim (FB).

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 11:08 PM
Demolisher_ wrote:
- Lol! You have all been owned! I just thought you would
- like to know.



All?

Don't think so, n00b!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.gorman/mortimer3.jpg

Nevermore!</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 11:11 PM
better

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>On your six 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

http://www.escadrila54.com/logo_sm.jpg

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Flying High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:36 AM
(I love being asked this.)

CFS3 is crapware. A dog's breakfast of bugs and horrid graphics. A putrid mass of unholy horridness.

I bought and played CFS 1 (great!) & 2 (pretty good) and supported them even when everyone else made fun of them. Then I shelled out $80 Cdn. the day CFS3 came out. I loaded it up and my machine coughed, burped, puked and crashed on that disgusting waste of pixels. Even when it worked, the terrain was terrible. I mean really, really bad.

I tried to trade my copy online. No takers, not even a trade offer for a cup of coffee.

I gave it away.

Back to IL2!



"Official Lancaster Whiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:48 AM
Nobody really asked../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

************************************************** **************
I'm Earl
<center>

http://www.hansontrailers.com/trailer18.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:10 AM
Oh, and all this time I thought you did when you started this thread with a question about CFS3.

Maybe the "CFS3?" part of your thread title wasn't what it looked like.

Most humble apologies.



"Official Lancaster Whiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:26 AM
Don't think so much next time, and don't always believe what you read. Especially on this forum.

************************************************** **************
I'm Earl
<center>

http://www.hansontrailers.com/trailer18.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:39 AM
Gotcha. When I see one of your threads I will know that thinking has no part of it.

Thanks for the heads up.



"Official Lancaster Whiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:51 AM
Now your catching on noob.

************************************************** **************
I'm Earl
<center>

http://www.hansontrailers.com/trailer18.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:59 AM
You're just begging for a flame war aren't ya there brother. Are you bored or what?

Anyway, have a nice thread. Later.



"Official Lancaster Whiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:46 AM
Flame war? Not at all. You seem to be the one upset. I'm just playing. If you'd read every post on this thread, you'd catch on.

Tip..Game forum. Not to be taken seriously.

************************************************** **************
I'm Earl
<center>

http://www.hansontrailers.com/trailer18.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:48 AM
Earl - your sig pic looks like crap!
And it too damn big, Im telling realkill!

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:50 AM
Your sig looks like crap too.

************************************************** **************
I'm Earl
<center>

http://www.hansontrailers.com/trailer18.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 03:08 AM
Better....

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 03:18 AM
... Better get a bucket!

http://www.battlefield.ru/gallery/ww2_tanks/t35_1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:18 AM
Earl takes a late summer vacation/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.eslkidstuff.com/images/fisherman.gif





<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~lenazavaroni/images/tva_01a.jpg

<font size="+4">What a fox!</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:12 AM
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/focus/images/66-trawler.jpg

<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.gorman/mortimer3.jpg

Nevermore!</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:14 AM
commie1 wrote:
- Demolisher_ wrote:
-- Lol! You have all been owned! I just thought you would
-- like to know.
-
-
-
- All?
-
- Don't think so, n00b!
-

Of course I was referring only to the poor UBI-lings./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




"I find your lack of brains disturbing"
http://ourworld.cs.com/Demolisher%20SWE/signature01.jpg
Former W├╝rgerwhiner extraordinaire

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 12:23 PM
cmte_carvalho wrote:
-
- Oh, and the real inventor of the aircraft was the
- brazilian ALBERTO SANTOS DUMMONT, that in 1906 made
- the first flight at Paris flying the havier than air
- 14-bis aircraft. He doesn't need of any catapult to
- take off!

I guess you're Brazilian and you are full of admiration for this great man, indeed he was. He was the father of modern airships, and he made some of the most interesting designs in early aviation era.

He was able to make the first real take off of a heavier-than-air artifact in Europe, as you've said, with a canard plane that needed no catapult. But he's not the inventor of aircraft, mainly because the 14bis WAS NOT ABLE TO MANOEUVER IN THE AIR. It could not get back to its departure point, for it lacked roll surfaces or controls, and hence it was just another step in the history of non-controlled jumps inaugurated by Ader, Maxim, Langley and so many before him.

Wright Flyer could stay in the air, make controlled turns and land in the very same point of departure. Wright Bros. didn't invent the first aircraft, but they invented controlled flight, and that's why they are considered the fathers of aviation.

Anyway, Santos-Dumont should be even more credited than he is, actually.


- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 01:23 PM
now go to the CFS forum and ask this question....../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 01:53 PM
http://chum-king.com/images/ck_anim.gif



http://www.jw-design.net/SIGGINEW.jpg


The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

Miss A. R.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 01:57 PM
Seriously though, CFS3 sucks donkeys' thingies.

FB rules, no contest./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.gorman/mortimer3.jpg

Nevermore!</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:04 PM
I loaded CFS3 once. It was totally fecking shat.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:10 PM
Well Earl, try FB, you won't be disapointed.

*cough* bump...

<center>

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/slow-gold/florent/signature.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:39 PM
yes


http://www.jw-design.net/SIGGINEW.jpg


The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

Miss A. R.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:48 PM
I think this question has been made moot by FS2004.

-------
I'm just saying...


<Center><img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QwC4BKYUc8NdMGbLmK6nXDVLh2PHDHXJaQ1bq!8G7LP4M88wB FsyxFjf4d*z6zBGsbDWqHu7YGhkgzyCM27ZtHoOdC*BEG5*v4s Dst1JT1g/sig.jpg> </Center>