PDA

View Full Version : 4.03 Finally puts CFS3 to rest



Mongoose117A
02-15-2006, 09:19 AM
There can no longer be any reason to fly CFS3 with the new update. The only aircraft missing is that swept wing pusher-prop plane it has (I forget what it's called) and it, like all the rest of CFS3's planes, was poorly done anyway. Anyone disagree?

Tim

Shrike_UK
02-15-2006, 09:24 AM
CFS3-returned my copy a few hours after i bought it, i will never forget the arcade style looks of the planes with totally unrealistic markings. awful. No competition right from the start in my opinion.

Old_Canuck
02-15-2006, 09:44 AM
For discerning flight simmers, CFS3 died a long time ago. Now it's lurching about like a Frankenstein monster plastered with cosmetics and singing "I'm so PRETTY."

BSS_Goat
02-15-2006, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
For discerning flight simmers, CFS3 died a long time ago. Now it's lurching about like a Frankenstein monster plastered with cosmetics and singing "I'm so PRETTY."

LOL

Markku38
02-15-2006, 09:59 AM
When "Over Flanders Field WW1"-mod come I bought new CFS3...still haven't yet install OFF mod http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif and have try two times quick play when waiting patch...now have even thinking whole CFS3 because have so much fun with new planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Riper-Snifle
02-15-2006, 10:08 AM
CFS3 did offer some other aircraft that we don't have yet in Pacific Fighters, i.e. the tempest( <--- I meant the Typhoon, sorry), B-26, B-17, B-24, B-29, Me-410, Lancaster, etc. I am sure that Oleg will finish these some day, concluding his flight sims as the best WWII flight sim ever. I tried Over Flanders Fields, and it was a good concept, haven't seen many WWI flight sims of any interest, but it took up too much hard drive space and didn't perform that well anyways. CFS3 clearly missed the mark in stepping up in the world of flight sims. CFS2 was great for its day, but vast improvements were needed before the new sim came out in order to compete with flight simmers like Oleg. But is it even possible for pc game company's to compete with Oleg's imacculate detail in aircraft?? You be the judge!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chuck_Older
02-15-2006, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Mongoose117A:
There can no longer be any reason to fly CFS3 with the new update. The only aircraft missing is that swept wing pusher-prop plane it has (I forget what it's called) and it, like all the rest of CFS3's planes, was poorly done anyway. Anyone disagree?

Tim

It's the Ascender

What was poorly done about it? Graphics? The plane never realised it's potential in real life, and M$ put it on steroids. It was OVER-done if anything, and it saw combat only when two design engineers argued over it

CFS3 has some aspects that FB/PF could really use

I've said it before: In CFS3, I happened to fly a June 6, 1944 mission in campaign mode, and through breaks in the clouds, I saw the Invasion fleet off of Normandy

Two things going on there that FB/PF doesn't do as well as CFS3-

1) weather
2) campaign immersion

Mongoose117A
02-15-2006, 10:21 AM
Chuck_Older, you make a very good point. When I mentioned that the Ascender was poorly done, I meant all the aspects of it in-game, not in real life. I don't know anything about the real bird. I do wish the weather in IL2FB/AEP/PF was better, but it's not really an issue for me; my computer isn't powerful enough to really run much more visually.

And here's a question: When is someone going to come up for a new name to replace that large string of acronyms we call IL2/AEP/PF?

Cheers!
Tim

Skycat_2
02-15-2006, 10:49 AM
Stock CFS-3............... PF 4.03m
P-51B........................ P-51B-NA
P-51D........................ P-51D-5NT; D-20NA
P-47D-24..................... P-47D-10, D-22
P-47D-25..................... P-47D-27; "boosted"
B-26C........................ No
B-26G........................ No
P-80A........................ Yes
P-55 Ascender................ No
Typhoon IB................... No
Tempest V.................... Yes
Spitfire LF.IXc.............. IXc; L.F. 'clipped wing.'
Spitfire LF.IXe.............. IXe; L.F. 'clipped wing'; IXe HF.
Mosquito B.IV................ (AI)
Mosquito F.B.VI ............. Yes
Mosquito F.B.XVIII .......... No
B-25C........................ (AI)
B-25H........................ (AI)
B-25J........................ B-25J-1NA
De Havilland Vampire F.1..... No
Bf 109G-6.................... G-6; G-6 late; G-6 AS
Bf 109G-10................... Yes
Fw 190A-5.................... A-5; A-5 51/65 ata.
Fw 190A-8.................... A-8; A-8 Mistel
Ju 88A....................... Ju-88A-4
Ju 88C....................... No
Ju 88P....................... No
Me 262A-1a................... Yes
Me 262A-1a/U4................ Yes
Me 262A-2a................... Yes
Do 335A-1.................... Do 335A-0
Do 335B-2.................... No
Go 229A-0.................... Go 229A-1

Skycat_2
02-15-2006, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Riper-Snifle:
CFS3 did offer some other aircraft that we don't have yet in Pacific Fighters, i.e. the tempest, B-26, B-17, B-24, B-29, Me-410, Lancaster, etc.
Of those you've listed, the Tempest is now in PF as a flyable and the rest (except the B-26) aren't part of the stock CFS-3 line-up. Shockwave's independant add-on "FirePower" adds nice, flyable versions of the B-17, B-24, B-29, Me-410, Lancaster, etc. After the bombers, FirePower is most notable for its late-war Luftwaffe fighter designs.

I think it is fair to include FirePower as an 'essential' expansion to CFS-3 when comparing CFS-3 to the FB trilogy. The "Battle of Britain" commercial expansion for CFS-3 should probably also be considered because it does add some new flyables. If you count all the free download mods for CFS-3 including the OFF and Korean War Theater Construction Kit packages then CFS-3 absolutely dwarfs the FB series in terms of possible flyables.

BuzzardHead
02-15-2006, 11:20 AM
CFS3 has unrealistic armament and loadouts,on all aircraft in the game.The FM also is questionable.

Hologram3
02-15-2006, 11:37 AM
Apples to oranges, unless you mean the stock CFS3.

If anyone has ever tried the Firepower addon for CFS3, you would never consider getting rid of it. It changes the effects completely. Add the Winding Man scenery pak, and it becomes visually much better, especially at low level.

I love flying IL2, but I love shooting things up with the Firepower addon even more. Strafing is incredible, and the 6DOF feature for TIR is great. And, although the dogfighting might not be as good/realistic, the damage model, explosions, smoke effects (again with Firepower) are just beautiful. When you get a good hit on another plane, you KNOW it!

If I had to choose just one, it would be IL2 hands-down, but you're not putting CFS3 to rest that easily! In some ways, it's a lot more satisfying than IL2. (ducks now to avoid what's surely coming)

major_setback
02-15-2006, 11:41 AM
I don't fly CFS3 very often, but: It does have very well detailed objects. Docks, V1 lanch sites, train stations, marshalling yards, airfields etc. are all well detailed, well rendered and nicely skinned. (Ground) explosions are much more realistic than in FB/PF, this is the aspect of CFS3 like the most - ground atttack. Aircraft have high poly' counts. Roads and rails have curves.

Other aspects might not be as good as in FB/PF, but I think it's sad that it's dismissed so flatly just because it isn't as perfect as FB/PF in all areas.

(I have the Firepower add-on).

leitmotiv
02-15-2006, 12:30 PM
I had CFS3 with FIREPOWER. I liked the Me410 and that was about it. When I tried IL-2, FEB, and AEP, I completely lost interest. A big spoiler for me was the primitive viewing controls in CFS3 compared to the Maddox designs---I had a great deal of trouble following a target when I had to use that stupid hat button.

Hologram3
02-15-2006, 12:39 PM
I had a great deal of trouble following a target when I had to use that stupid hat button.

That's true. But, for those who have TrackIR, CFS3 offers 6DOF, which IL2 doesn't, so the viewing can actually be better in CFS3. I know that can't be implemented in IL2 and I accept it, but it sure would be nice...

Wild.Bill.Kelso
02-15-2006, 01:02 PM
At least we could fly the B-17 and also drop the a-bomb...

joeap
02-15-2006, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mongoose117A:
There can no longer be any reason to fly CFS3 with the new update. The only aircraft missing is that swept wing pusher-prop plane it has (I forget what it's called) and it, like all the rest of CFS3's planes, was poorly done anyway. Anyone disagree?

Tim

It's the Ascender

What was poorly done about it? Graphics? The plane never realised it's potential in real life, and M$ put it on steroids. It was OVER-done if anything, and it saw combat only when two design engineers argued over it

CFS3 has some aspects that FB/PF could really use

I've said it before: In CFS3, I happened to fly a June 6, 1944 mission in campaign mode, and through breaks in the clouds, I saw the Invasion fleet off of Normandy

Two things going on there that FB/PF doesn't do as well as CFS3-

1) weather
2) campaign immersion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Addons saved CFS3 like they helped the other MS sims. That said what do you mean by immersion? With all the criticism of the default DGen in Il2, everything I know about the CFS3 dynamic campaign makes it sound rather unrealistic (one pilot wins the war kind of thing). Still don't hate it, it just got shafted by MS with only one patch.

HarlockGN
02-15-2006, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
2) campaign immersion

This is helped a whole lot by DCG, expecially with heavily self-modified campaigns. They rquire a lot of work to create, but then the immersion factor is great.

theDutchman1962
02-16-2006, 12:52 AM
CFS3 will rise from her ashes like a phoenix..here's some WIP,YEP it's really CFS3!
And the best thing is that it's for FREE!
http://www.medairwar.com/
http://www.argumentet.dk/maw/fw_pit.jpg

Capt.LoneRanger
02-16-2006, 01:58 AM
ROFLOL - and it took the FW190-screenbar-bug for real, too. Must be aimed at the IL2-customers used to this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

MercilessFatBoy
02-16-2006, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by Riper-Snifle:
CFS3 did offer some other aircraft that we don't have yet in Pacific Fighters, i.e. the tempest( <--- I meant the Typhoon, sorry), B-26, B-17, B-24, B-29, Me-410, Lancaster, etc. I am sure that Oleg will finish these some day, concluding his flight sims as the best WWII flight sim ever. I tried Over Flanders Fields, and it was a good concept, haven't seen many WWI flight sims of any interest, but it took up too much hard drive space and didn't perform that well anyways. CFS3 clearly missed the mark in stepping up in the world of flight sims. CFS2 was great for its day, but vast improvements were needed before the new sim came out in order to compete with flight simmers like Oleg. But is it even possible for pc game company's to compete with Oleg's imacculate detail in aircraft?? You be the judge!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I remember my days in CFS2... the day the designer was gona have a 1 hour or less live chat wiht the cfs comunity, they made A HUGE!!!! deal out of it.. when ppl asked questions if they were not lame... the designer who now i dont recall who he is didnt even know what was ppl talking about. that certanly show what type of entusiast microsoft has making simulators.. you know like all 3rd party programs we have... and oleg shows that he knows of them..... what a constrast wiht the type of interest.... oleg here listen to us every day.... that dude one hour each 5 years... amazing..... certanly that day gave me the idea that microsoft just got some dude who could write some code and gave him models of ww2 airplanes and told him... hey make me a simulator... done overnight........

wonder if that guy ever play one of his simulators more than onces... i am sure he plays il2 now

henriksultan
02-16-2006, 05:14 AM
Tried CFS3 for about one hour and went back to Il2... its not even in the same leauge...

VVS-Manuc
02-16-2006, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by BuzzardHead:
CFS3 has unrealistic armament and loadouts,on all aircraft in the game.The FM also is questionable.
Hey, it's like IL-2/FB/PF ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chuck_Older
02-16-2006, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mongoose117A:
There can no longer be any reason to fly CFS3 with the new update. The only aircraft missing is that swept wing pusher-prop plane it has (I forget what it's called) and it, like all the rest of CFS3's planes, was poorly done anyway. Anyone disagree?

Tim

It's the Ascender

What was poorly done about it? Graphics? The plane never realised it's potential in real life, and M$ put it on steroids. It was OVER-done if anything, and it saw combat only when two design engineers argued over it

CFS3 has some aspects that FB/PF could really use

I've said it before: In CFS3, I happened to fly a June 6, 1944 mission in campaign mode, and through breaks in the clouds, I saw the Invasion fleet off of Normandy

Two things going on there that FB/PF doesn't do as well as CFS3-

1) weather
2) campaign immersion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Addons saved CFS3 like they helped the other MS sims. That said what do you mean by immersion? With all the criticism of the default DGen in Il2, everything I know about the CFS3 dynamic campaign makes it sound rather unrealistic (one pilot wins the war kind of thing). Still don't hate it, it just got shafted by MS with only one patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I mean is that FB/PF gives you a cookie-cutter set of missions, prefaced by an intro in a breifing for whatever part of a campaign you're in. It's all start stop start stop start stop, it's not fluid. The CFS3 campaign is fluid, there's info you receive, for example, when you're not about to fly

Also, in CFS3 campaings, if I blow up a ship in dry dock on May 1st 1944 and then I revisist that place on May 5th 1944, the ship is still bombed out in dry dock. If I go back on the 12th of May 1944, there might be trucks all around it (I have seen this) as if the dry dock is being repaired

Also, the way radio comms are in FB/PF are poor. I can't even tell my flight leader I just spotted bandits

FB/PF could use a few things that CFS3 does very well

Chuck_Older
02-16-2006, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by HarlockGN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
2) campaign immersion

This is helped a whole lot by DCG, expecially with heavily self-modified campaigns. They rquire a lot of work to create, but then the immersion factor is great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well yes, and if you make handmade campaigns and missions, they can be quite detailed- I have spent literally hundreds and hundreds of hours on campaigns for this sim, and only one (so far) has been good enough to release, so I can tell you first hand, that this is not a time-efficient way to make immersive missions, and the standard campaign generator in CFS3 is superior on that factor alone. CFS3 has a more "you are there" feeling concerning actually flying the missions in a campaign, compared to the stock FB/PF campaigns

I'm not talking about 3rd party/user-made missions and campaigns, I'm talking about out-of-the-box stuff

But detail in-flight, in regards to obejct placement, is only one type of immersion. Unfortunately, it's the only type of immersion FB/PF offers, aside from briefing text, and in this regard too, FB/PF campaigns (out of the box) really, really suffer. The typos notwithstanding, the briefings are bare-bones, adequate at best affairs. Check out the way static campign makers (I suggest myself as a good example http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) approach this- there are limitless styles for addressing a breifing, and we campaign and mission makers generally do a far superior job at creating suspension of disbelief in a mission brief

Consider EAW. Immersion out the yingyang. It doesn't need to be a huge all encompassing thing, EAW covered it by things like the briefing screen. Speech is nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Imagine if the stock FB campaigns were kicked off by an audio track, or if we mission and campaign makers had that tool. It's 2006, we can get recording software very easily and cheaply. Imagine hearing my voice, and the inflection I can give it, instead of reading my bland words on a PC screen. EAW also had a nice interactive 'hangar' screen which helped immersion

FB/PF get by because of it's superior quality in modelling. Whatever folks complain about, it's still the best modelled WWII flight sim ever, in my and many other opinions

But all other aspects were left in a very much unpolished state.

CFS3 covered those bases better, probably because it was lacking in other areas, but FB/PF should be polished in those areas, too- and it's not

TacticalYak3
02-16-2006, 10:34 AM
As mentioned many times, the drawback with the detailed modelling done for almost all aspects of this sim is that the scale has to be significantly reduced in our to achieve playable frame rates.

In other words, Maddox Games didn't take liberties in certain modelling to allow for those epic bomber runs, or massive naval fleets, but choose to model everything that moves.

While one can be a purist about these things and argue that's the way it should be, most folks can't ever enjoy the immersion of - say - a Battle of Britain saga or any of those amazing Western and Pacific confrontations with the sky full of planes.

We saw what this would be like in a game from screenshots of that "other BOB." Certainly not an easy job for the Developer, trying to make detailed FM/DM for planes, while also using other programming techniques to allow for massive bomber raids. My understanding is that Maddox Games is trying to wrestle with such choices with their BOB game.

TS!

mslx56
02-16-2006, 10:39 AM
CFS3 has better sound frankly.

joeap
02-16-2006, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mongoose117A:
There can no longer be any reason to fly CFS3 with the new update. The only aircraft missing is that swept wing pusher-prop plane it has (I forget what it's called) and it, like all the rest of CFS3's planes, was poorly done anyway. Anyone disagree?

Tim

It's the Ascender

What was poorly done about it? Graphics? The plane never realised it's potential in real life, and M$ put it on steroids. It was OVER-done if anything, and it saw combat only when two design engineers argued over it

CFS3 has some aspects that FB/PF could really use

I've said it before: In CFS3, I happened to fly a June 6, 1944 mission in campaign mode, and through breaks in the clouds, I saw the Invasion fleet off of Normandy

Two things going on there that FB/PF doesn't do as well as CFS3-

1) weather
2) campaign immersion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Addons saved CFS3 like they helped the other MS sims. That said what do you mean by immersion? With all the criticism of the default DGen in Il2, everything I know about the CFS3 dynamic campaign makes it sound rather unrealistic (one pilot wins the war kind of thing). Still don't hate it, it just got shafted by MS with only one patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I mean is that FB/PF gives you a cookie-cutter set of missions, prefaced by an intro in a breifing for whatever part of a campaign you're in. It's all start stop start stop start stop, it's not fluid. The CFS3 campaign is fluid, there's info you receive, for example, when you're not about to fly

Also, in CFS3 campaings, if I blow up a ship in dry dock on May 1st 1944 and then I revisist that place on May 5th 1944, the ship is still bombed out in dry dock. If I go back on the 12th of May 1944, there might be trucks all around it (I have seen this) as if the dry dock is being repaired

Also, the way radio comms are in FB/PF are poor. I can't even tell my flight leader I just spotted bandits

FB/PF could use a few things that CFS3 does very well </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well in Lowengrin's DCG destroyed units stay destroyed. That's for sure. But you are right it should have been in the default program.

You have pointed out one of the most annoying aspects of the radio communication in IL2/PF. It is REALLY annoying to see the bandits take off after them and hear "What the hell? Get back in formation!" "Cause I SPOTTED THE ENEMY YOU DIMWIT LEADER"

MiamiEagle
02-17-2006, 07:37 AM
I"m sorry to disagree with you Chuck_Older. But for me CFS3 does not have immersion that it has for you. It does have its own remedial qualities but mission immersion is not one of them. It simply the best ground attacking World war two sim the market but its mission immersion factor are minimal as far as I"m concern. It also superior sound quality but its very limited in scope. You cannot due a Pacific Torpedo run. You cannot fly a mission outside the European Theater.

In other words if you want to change the menu one day and you decide to fly with a Ki43 over New Guinea you cannot do that. No Eastern Front and no Russian plane are available with the appropiate Map. Forget about flying a carrier mission over the Pacific. No it cannot be done. Yes it does some thing better. Like you mention before. No Sim is perfect. They all have their good points and weak points.

As for quality planes and especialy panels no one does it better than PT/FB. As for mission immersion its EAW. They are still the best. As for diversity and ability to represent all the different campaigns and and every planes available with most of the ships in World war two you have to go with CFS2 after all the updates from its dedicated community.

CFS3 those have a project in the making that looking good for the future. Its call MAW and is looking very promising.

I"m looking forward for it. That in no way means that I"m giving up on PF/FB or CFS2 and EAW. its just mean that I will enjoy this wonderful World war two Sims a bit more.

I also want to Thank all of those that hae done so much for us all this years.

These genre is geting better every day. I hope it will continue.

Miamieagle

reisen52
02-17-2006, 08:58 AM
Agree, looking foward to flying in the MTO that the MAW people are are doing.

http://www.medairwar.com

Zeke

Beirut
02-17-2006, 03:17 PM
I bought it the second it came out. Gave it away a week later for free.

I liked the Mosquito options, like the 57mm cannon, but the whole thing was so buggy it was no fun at all. Horrible, horrible terrain graphics as well. I really wanted to like CFS3 (I loved CFS1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif) but it was completely unlovable.

I'd consider getting CFS3 again from the wholesale bin just to fly the Wings of Power Lancaster though. Heck, I'd send Oleg $20 right this second if he'd make a Lancaster for Il2. $40 if it comes with the Grand Slam bomb. $60 if it comes with the Dam Buster bouncing bombs and a dam to bust. Wouldn't that be the cat's whiskers!

lairdperkins
02-17-2006, 06:23 PM
Was it a Lancaster or a Halifax? =P

Bearcat99
02-17-2006, 06:40 PM
AFAIC CFS3 was dead with IL2.. FB danced on it's grave.. FB 2.0 removed it's headstone... FB 3.0 plowed up the cemetary it was in.. and FB 4.03 is the 110 story building tyat was built on the site.

steve_v
02-17-2006, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
AFAIC CFS3 was dead with IL2.. FB danced on it's grave.. FB 2.0 removed it's headstone... FB 3.0 plowed up the cemetary it was in.. and FB 4.03 is the 110 story building tyat was built on the site. Just need to add it here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/The_Presz/cliche.jpg

jds1978
02-17-2006, 06:56 PM
V: that is the most horrific group of images i've seen in a bit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Feathered_IV
02-18-2006, 05:01 AM
Ban and lock... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-18-2006, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by joeap:

Well in Lowengrin's DCG destroyed units stay destroyed. That's for sure. But you are right it should have been in the default program.

You have pointed out one of the most annoying aspects of the radio communication in IL2/PF. It is REALLY annoying to see the bandits take off after them and hear "What the hell? Get back in formation!" "Cause I SPOTTED THE ENEMY YOU DIMWIT LEADER"

Yes. DCG really does everything that FB default should, but doesn`t do. I don`t even play with modifying the campaign, I just set up the basic settings of how many aircraft in whatever campaign in what year and get going. DCG tracks EVERYTHING, destroyed, tanks, vehicles, supplies, bridges, amount of aircraft and flak available at each location, even oil availability. You can set up paintschemes for your squads aircraft, have Aces develope and noted in the debrief, even nickname pilots that have flown a while with you!

Add Stab 6.0 for enhanced goodness in DCg or default!

Now Chuck is right that CFS3 did somethings better and the sound maybe be better (maybe), but what`s the point when every time you take to the air you get so many problems that you wanna puke? And I gave that thing 2 months cos I so wanted it to work, but empty FW190s shooting at me simply doesn`t float my boat!

Gimme IL2/FB with even the basic DGEN and I`ll live with it.

VF2_Sarge
02-18-2006, 08:35 AM
Why are we still talking about this. CFS3 has been dead for how long?

"Well....I remember...." WHO CARES!!!!!

Microsoft had a good product during its time. I'm sure that in 5 more years, when we all have super computers in our basements. We all will be saying "WOW...do you remember IL-2...yeah man....that game really sucked" The weapons were all work....the skins were all wrong....and do you remember how bad the graphics were."

Yes, IL-2 is better than CFS3....just like CFS2 was better than CFS1...just like PAC-MAN is better than Donky Kong.

GIVE IT A REST ALREADY!!!!

Cheers..

jds1978
02-18-2006, 08:48 AM
Pac-Man was not better than Donkey Kong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VF2_Sarge
02-18-2006, 08:50 AM
Is to!!!

Wild.Bill.Kelso
02-18-2006, 09:10 AM
I agree. Donkey Kong kicked Pac-Man's A$$. Sounds like we need a poll!

Aaron_GT
02-18-2006, 09:27 AM
CFS3 can be fun as a survey sim as you can fly all sorts of aircraft. It's like FS2004 but you can shoot stuff a bit. It really benefits from the Firepower add on. The Firepower Me 410 is lovely, and I say that primarily as an RAF flyer. I'm not sure I'm prepared to pay out for more RAF add ons though.

CFS3 has some serious flaws, though. The user interface is horrible (CFS2 was fine - I don't know why it was changed) and the damage and terrain modelling when ground pounding leaves a lot to be desired. Even air to air combat, especially bomber intercepts, gets a bit old as the AI is not very interesting. (I still think EAW is one of the best sims for AI. I wish I knew where my EAW disk was and could get it working with my sticks and pedals under Windows XP).

Old_Canuck
02-18-2006, 11:46 AM
Here you go ..

Pong (http://www.rcs.k12.va.us/csjh/pong.html)

Kapteeni
02-18-2006, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by jds1978:
Pac-Man was not better than Donkey Kong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Akwar
02-18-2006, 02:44 PM
CFS3 will never be a good sim,

The damage model/Flight model is totally trash.Take a few bullets in your plane....get a huge list of damages and the only effects are the more you get hit the less ability you have to turn or pitch your plane up and down.That one aspect of CFS3 made me shelve it in 1 day and never look at it again.Garbage!!!!!!I highly doubt Over Flanders Fields will be able to use a different damage model then the original CFS3 had since OFF uses CFS3.

The only real part of CFS3 I liked was the campaign and ability to pick/choose missions/start offensives,and obtain new planes.Other than that it was just worthless.

Spinnetti
02-18-2006, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Mongoose117A:
There can no longer be any reason to fly CFS3 with the new update. The only aircraft missing is that swept wing pusher-prop plane it has (I forget what it's called) and it, like all the rest of CFS3's planes, was poorly done anyway. Anyone disagree?

Tim

FInally? You mean there was ever a reason to fly CFS3? Its so bad I never flew it. Got it free and still threw it out.

Tully__
02-18-2006, 10:53 PM
Both products have their place but so far I've not seen anything in CFS3 to make me consider making it my primary WW2 combat simulation.

Aaron_GT
02-19-2006, 01:58 AM
The damage model/Flight model is totally trash.Take a few bullets in your plane....get a huge list of damages and the only effects are the more you get hit the less ability you have to turn or pitch your plane up and down.That one aspect of CFS3 made me shelve it in 1 day and never look at it again.

Yes - this is a very weird DM, and CFS2 had some similar effects. I have no idea why every sort of damage seems to be control damage.

Wild.Bill.Kelso
02-19-2006, 07:56 AM
I have a question...

I see the game 'Battle Of Britain II Wings Of Victory (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/GMX%20BOB/index.htm)' over at AirWarfare.com and was wondering if that was a standalone game, or just another CSF3 Addon like the Firepower Addon. I bought the FirePower Addon for CFS3 and this Bob2WoV game is made by the same company, so thought it might be just an Addon. But I can't see anywhere it says that it's just an Add-on for CFS3. I downloaded one of the movies and it had some text on the screen that said something about using the default FS2004 installation. Not sure what it meant by that either... Can someone clear this up for me?

SeaFireLIV
02-19-2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Wild.Bill.Kelso:
I have a question...

was wondering if that was a standalone game, or just another CSF3 Addon like the Firepower Addon... But I can't see anywhere it says that it's just an Add-on for CFS3.

That`s because it is a standalone. No CFS3 or anything else required.

Skycat_2
02-19-2006, 02:17 PM
BoB:WoV is not just a standalone game, it is actually an updated version of "Rowan's Battle of Britain." It has nothing to do with CFS-3.

Wild.Bill.Kelso
02-19-2006, 03:22 PM
Ok, Thanks.