PDA

View Full Version : How does IL2 compare to MS Combat FS?



FunGus1968
11-08-2005, 03:47 PM
Hello all.

I recently got MS Combat Flight Simulator 3 as a birth day present. I've only had it for about a week but I have to be honest - it's not doing anything for me. Maybe I have to give it a little more time.

Has anyone here used this simulator and if so, what are your impressions?

Personally, I find the choppy hat switch views hard to get used to - especially when compared to the smooth movement of the mouse in IL2. I would also like to be able to slow the game down every now and then but this doesn't seem to be available in MS.

Anyway...

crazyivan1970
11-08-2005, 03:50 PM
I gave it honest 3 hours...and then managed to return it lol.

tomtheyak
11-08-2005, 04:05 PM
I don't own CFS3 and am so happy with Il2 that I probably will never bother. However, I hear that CFS3 does have Il2 bettered in a couple of areas - some of the screenies showing the clouds in CFS3 look very very pretty and some of the a/c mdels have higher poly counts, but I think thats where the good stuff ends... personally (from screenies) I prefer the whole environment in Il2 - just looks more consistent, the whole thing is a more convincing package, the water especially and I love the FMs - this seems to be where the STOCK CFS3 falls down - can't comment on the 3rd party stuff, tho the 1% collection available for CFS2 seemed to at least be trying for it and I know they do stuff for CFS3.

Please tear me a new ******** if any of this is wromg but I have looked long and hard at CFS3 (it was my next holy grail from CFS2 before discovering the Il2 series and I have never looked back...)

arcadeace
11-08-2005, 04:07 PM
I played it for a number of months before FB hit the shelves. Aside from the fuzzy ground textures and uncontrollable stutters, I was enjoying it. The intro music really put me in the mood. But after coming here what did I learn?... I was a dummy. Seriously tho it does not have the refined realism and sophistication of FB/PF. I've since thrown my CFS3 disks in the trash.

Zeus-cat
11-08-2005, 05:35 PM
Someone at work loaned me his CFS 3 disks and I loaned him my Forgotten Battles disks.

I spent 30 minutes loading, playing and uninstalling CFS3. He came into work the next day and returned my disks. He didn't need them anymore as he went out and bought his own!

Zeus-cat

Chuck_Older
11-08-2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by FunGus1968:
Hello all.

I recently got MS Combat Flight Simulator 3 as a birth day present. I've only had it for about a week but I have to be honest - it's not doing anything for me. Maybe I have to give it a little more time.

Has anyone here used this simulator and if so, what are your impressions?

Personally, I find the choppy hat switch views hard to get used to - especially when compared to the smooth movement of the mouse in IL2. I would also like to be able to slow the game down every now and then but this doesn't seem to be available in MS.

Anyway...

Wrong place to ask about CFS3 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Honest assement of CFS3:

Out of the box, as shipped, with no mods, the sim it actually not bad. It does have it's shortcomings (P-47 cockpit springs to mind), but gameplay is good. For example: I saw the invasion fleet at Normandy on June 6th 1944 playing CFS3's campaign. Another little 'wow' moment was I had attacked and destoyed a ship in drydock on one mission, and the very next mission I had a fighter sweep over the same area. The ship and drydock were still destroyed, but lots of trucks and equipment were present- repairing the drydock!

Il2:FB's campaign will not do anything like this

However, the strategic aspect of CFS3's campaign never wroked as designed. I vividly recall being online discussing the campaign's strategic aspect, in which you select targets and can buy things with your 'points' (Ug!)

Some players had an east time 'winning' the war- they could push the front line back easily, with almost no trouble. Other players (like me) had the front line move more quickly when they selected to fly no mission on that day! So there was a huge bug, obviously

If I recall correctly, MS actually admitted somethign was amiss, and again, if I recall, for the first time ever made a patch for one of their games

Big troubles with CFS3 though- skins- you can't really change them in-game. It's one paint job, you can select wing fuselage and cowl bands and that's it. Luftwaffe fans probably bristled with that, the colors were almost certainly wrong. You have to select and install manually a skin, before you play the game, and then all planes of that type have the skin if I recall

You can download planes- but these planes can be so out of wack with reaility it's laughable


the 1% Team does a stellar job with CFS3 in my opinion. Check out their stuff if you want to try CFS3 again

Il2:FB has shortcomings as well: stock campaigns and high altitude flight model are two big ones

however, with the latest updates of il2:FB, high altitude FM is arguably better than it's been, and things like skins? Just choose one from an in-game menu. Doesn't sound like a big deal until you think about how realistic having correct skins for every plane in the air can be- in CFS3 this is difficult to do, and a real pain to change in-game if you can even do it

A big Plus for Il2:FB is the mission builder- which CFS3 doesn't have at all. this means guys like me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif can sit down and create scenarios or complate campaigns, with accurate, historically correct skins and interlude movies, for other people to play. literally thosuands of skins, single play missions, campaigns, and co-operative and dogfight online missions are available


I really admire what guys like the 1% Team have done with CFS3. But for me, and many others, the biggest thing is that Il2:FB gives a better feeling of flight in a small plane than CFS3 does. The illusion of flight is much more beleiveable for me than CFS3. of course, new planes (with custom flight models) are available for CFS3.

that's the major difference right there- the developer of this sim doesn't allow mods like that- my P-51 is your P-51. Your Bf 109G2 is my BF 109G2. No discrepancies or 'tweaked' flight models for better flight characteristics from one plane to another of the exact same type


I think you can change the snapview in CFS3 by the way

I played a lot of CFS3 and I'll tell you what, the single player campaign is pretty good. You can do your mission, land, re-arm, and take off again. Il2:FB doesn't allow that. I wish it did


But CFS3 falls short in many areas, more than Il2:FB does in my opinion. Especially in regards to missions- simply put, the Il2:FB community can do this, the CFS3 community cannot. It's not quite the same way with skins for planes, but man, is it a pain to change them in CFS3 and so easy in Il2:FB.

Also, MicroSoft to my knowledge doesn't support the game in any way anmore

F19_Orheim
11-08-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
...the a/c mdels have higher poly counts, but I think thats where the good stuff ends...

This does not necessarily mean "better graphics"....


I expect a LOT of Battle of Britain by Maddox when it comes out. But it is a misconception to think that more polys makes better "gfx".

More important are the use of texture space or even more importantly: SELFSHADING! Take a look at Doom3 for example. The polys of the objects were actuelly not far from those of Quake 3, but the use of latest texture techniques and SELFSHADING! made it outstanding.

Man I can't wait for this, when the lighting becomes realistic, when you see shadows "creep" over you aircraft and especially cockpit as you turn from the sun....

As Oleg said himself in a thread regarding a seceen of a Hurri:

Oleg Maddox: I think we have right colors... Simply in tools without lighting and selfshading it looks not so good like will be in final in the sim itself.

We were a little afraid that Oleg and team would go beyond demands regarding polys, making A/C models with so high polys that it would kill older rigs. However by looking at what have been said from Maddox and by looking at screens from cockpits, polycounts are still hight but optimised, there are actually still some 2D (rudders etc) when not needed to be 3d and ... it's a good thing!

sorry for getting out of topic
and thanx Haddock for making me a bit more "knowledgable" about these things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Skycat_2
11-08-2005, 09:38 PM
I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time defending CFS-3 here. I will say:

1. CFS-3 was released a few months before Forgotten Battles. Until the FB v1.21 patch and AEP came out, CFS-3 offered a different plane set than the IL-2 series. Forgotten Battles 1.0 did not have these as flyables while CFS-3 did:
- P-51B
- P-51D
- P-38J
- P-38L
- P-80A Shooting Star
- Spitfire LF IXc
- Spitfire LF IXe
- Gotha Go229A

2. Also remember that FB 1.0 did not yet have the Normandy Coast maps or Ardennes maps. So CFS-3 had more value a few years ago if you primarily wanted to fly western Allies planes over Europe. It still has appeal because of the large continuous map of Europe that includes all of Britain (with London), the English Channel, France, Germany, Holland, Norway and Switzerland.

3. There are still some flyables in stock CFS-3 that have not yet been included in FB/PF. Some of them are arguably very important:
- Typhoon IB
- Tempest V
- Mosquito B. IV, F.B. VI, F.B. XVIII
- B-25C, H, and J "Mitchell"
- De Havilland Vampire F.1
- B-26C, G "Marauder"
- Ju 88 A, C, P bombers
- Dornier Do-335A-1, B-2 Arrow.

Unfortunately CFS-3 just wasn't as polished as it should have been. Out of the box the terrain begged for attention from modders, for example, and online play was only possible if everybody's files matched. The offline dynamic campaigns worked better on paper than in reality IMO. Many of the cockpits looked horrible. But there were good things about the sim, like the detail of the air bases, V-1 sites, radar sites, factories and train stations.

4. My favorite feature of CFS-3 was the quick combat menu that allowed instant action; I'd select unlimited ammunition and go 'hunting' for ground targets that randomly and infinately generate below. You can strafe/rocket/bomb trains, ships, trucks, tanks, etc. all day long if you want to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Afterwards your debrief would tell you your accuracy percentage and what targets you destroyed.

5. The FirePower add-on adds many flyable bombers and fighters and brings CFS-3 up to the level that it should have been released at. The FirePower planes are some of the nicest looking planes ever made for CFS-3, and you get the B-17, B-24, B-29, Lancaster, Ar234, and others. I picked up the pack for $10 and I think for that money it was well worth the price. With FirePower, CFS-3 can be used as a strategic bomber sim; it's big map and excellent high-altitude model and graphics really make CFS-3 superior to the FB/PF series in this regard (although FB/PF's bombsights are far, far better).

6. Free mods have have kept CFS-3 viable. There are the usual mods, paints and fixes of course, but you can't overlook packages like The Dogpatch Crew's Korean Theater Construction Kit and the upcoming Mediterranean Air War and Over Flanders Field mega-mods.

Enforcer572005
11-08-2005, 09:49 PM
YOU MEAN MS RELEASED A PATCH FOR A CFS?!?!!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

I dont F-ing believe it! I was heavily involved for 2 yrs wiht cfs2, made a cmpn for it (87 days of cactus) and tried to make more, but....

Il2 is far far better, as there is no support other than the afore mentioned one patch for the MS sims. CFS3 is pretty similiarto cfs2 as i understand and has pretty much the same lousy bugs. There were so many serious game affecting bugs in 2 but no support of fixes....the sim was released FAR FAR too early, was nowhere near finished, so i kinda expect taht from cfs3. I wont go much into the bugs, but you had to dnload endless user made fixes....dozens of them, if you wanted to actually fly the sim and enjoy it. Some stuff was never fixed by the users.

The user made adons were great, alot ot them anyway, adn im sure htey still are. However, what good are they if the lousy FMB doesnt work at all....totally unreliable and unpredictable, unlike the excellent one il2 has. And god forbid if you try to use the adon planes in it....the driving miss daisy sydrome of planes trying to taxi to their target and even taxi over water, nearly drove me nuts. All those great adon planes, and i couldnt use hardly any of htem.

CFS is pathetic compared to this sim. Pity, because it had the potential to be the best of all of htem, if htey had just put a little support behind it. Dont waste your time. i got into il2 and havent looked back. cfs2 had some great stuff (the AA was actually better, as was the gun firing effects and some other minor stuff), but what good is it if you cant enjoy it and you get more frustration than fun.

Skycat_2
11-08-2005, 10:05 PM
I thought I'd post one of my old screenshots:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/Skycat/TBolt_01.jpg
It's not so great an image, but I'd like to point out a few things:
1. The P-47 was a free download from Avhistory.org and is one of their "1%" aircraft.
2. The autumn trees are part of Winding Man's Revised Terrain package.
3. I like the house hidden away in the trees. Also in the area (but not visible) is a creek that looks really nice.
4. The pyrotechnics of the convoy come from FirePower. You can see steam coming out of the radiator of one of the trucks, and another truck is exploding after a delay I think. The smoke effects are greatly enhanced by FP.

Enforcer572005
11-08-2005, 10:15 PM
yeah, very nice. All the best stuff is of course, user adon. Nice road to. I miss all the great stuff Greg Law and the 1% guys made, but as i said, without a decent FMB, it was almost useless. Had such great potential....really a waste of some good unfinished work.

In cfs2, you could tell there was alot of unfinished stuff, like gunners canopies and hatches that would open once a user made a fix for it, and other stuff. I liked the carrier ops to. such a pity. I alwys enjoyed the community also, but alot of them have migrated to us.

LEBillfish
11-08-2005, 11:08 PM
It sounds odd........Yet if you want a tough opponent for IL2, get Red Baron II & 3d.

Now you have to consider RB3d is a much older sim, yet when you look at all 4 seasons and some of the really stunning terrain, then consider the dynamic campaign which really far exceeds anything I've still seen......Then more so see "player made patches" like FiF and that even with limited code resources.......

It puts up a good battle for a 10+ year old product......Yet IL2 due to advances in both PC power, graphics, sound generation (sound not great yet considering how it works impressive) and most of all a dedicated developer is miles ahead...........

Yet if RB3d had not folded and continued to advance.......We might all be flying WWI.

However, nothing as far as I know that is currently available compares to IL2.....My guess is BoB will be a great leap even from that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Deedsundone
11-09-2005, 07:28 AM
Maruader nose gun section.....say no more.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2005, 07:40 AM
Anyone else ever notice in CFS3 that when you shoot down bombers, instead of bailing, the gunners STILL shoot at you?

han freak solo
11-09-2005, 07:44 AM
For someone that's going to do what I did, I recommend IL2:FB/AEP/PF. The whole shooting match.

Back when CFS3 was new, I bought it without hesitation due to my previous experience with CFS1 and CFS2. I really enjoyed those sims!

I had the original IL2 for a short time before I bought CFS3. For some reason I liked the original IL2 better than the CFS3, not by a lot, but I did.

Then after a few months of CFS3 play time, I finally stepped up and bought the IL2:FB/AEP Gold Pack. I just never found the time for the CFS3 anymore. IL2:FB/AEP consumed that much of my simming time. Then Pacific Fighters came out and consumed my simming time further still.

There's other sims out there. I could play Lock On, Falcon 4.0, CFS3, or older ones. Even with these options, I still only play IL2:FB/AEP/PF.

So, it's not a question of whether I should choose CFS3 or the IL2 series. The answer for me is that I choose the IL2 series over everything else.

Bearcat99
11-09-2005, 07:55 AM
Out of the box CFS3 was garabage. After tons of user made add ons.. most notably the 1% planes.. and some decent scenery fixes.. the sim became tolerable but still pound for pound, considering all the things I want in a sim... it is still a distant runner. It is no longer on my HD and hasnt been for 2 years. All things considered with my time factor.. I barely have time for FB.. I wont waste my time with CFS3 while this is around.

FB is better in terms of graphics, FMs, DMs, AI and AC fidelity. CFS3 has better sounds, wider variety of planes.. and objects for that matter although FB is no slouch.. still the lack of a good torp bomber or flyable bombers is a minus for this series and a plus for CFS3. Still though... I prefer this sim.

Jumoschwanz
11-09-2005, 08:22 AM
I had a blast with cfs1 and cfs2, I used to enjoy downloading the german planes that were 1% and the planes from knifemaker in France.

But when I got IL2, despite all the time I had invested in cfs2, I quit flying it whithing a matter of a few weeks. Il2 just blew it away. I always thought that if someone really wanted to, they probably could have made cfs2 into something at least as good as the original Il2.

That is the problem with corporations though, with profit driving them, instead of love and passion for what they are doing as in the case of Il2, they will rarely produce anything that is close to being a work of art. They just don't get it. And in the case of Microsoft, not "getting it" got them exactly what they deserved.

Jumoschwanz

OldMan___
11-09-2005, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by F19_Orheim:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
...the a/c mdels have higher poly counts, but I think thats where the good stuff ends...

This does not necessarily mean "better graphics"....


I expect a LOT of Battle of Britain by Maddox when it comes out. But it is a misconception to think that more polys makes better "gfx".

More important are the use of texture space or even more importantly: SELFSHADING! Take a look at Doom3 for example. The polys of the objects were actuelly not far from those of Quake 3, but the use of latest texture techniques and SELFSHADING! made it outstanding.

Man I can't wait for this, when the lighting becomes realistic, when you see shadows "creep" over you aircraft and especially cockpit as you turn from the sun....

As Oleg said himself in a thread regarding a seceen of a Hurri:

Oleg Maddox: I think we have right colors... Simply in tools without lighting and selfshading it looks not so good like will be in final in the sim itself.

We were a little afraid that Oleg and team would go beyond demands regarding polys, making A/C models with so high polys that it would kill older rigs. However by looking at what have been said from Maddox and by looking at screens from cockpits, polycounts are still hight but optimised, there are actually still some 2D (rudders etc) when not needed to be 3d and ... it's a good thing!

sorry for getting out of topic
and thanx Haddock for making me a bit more "knowledgable" about these things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a correction.. Doom3 does not use selfshading.. it uses full shadow projection. That is a whole level beyond(more than) selfshading.

Dew-Claw
11-09-2005, 08:33 AM
How does IL2 compare to MS Combat FS?
Might as well ask
"How does Beluga Caviar taste compared to Carp fish eggs ?"

MAILMAN------
11-09-2005, 07:46 PM
I have all the MS Combat Flight Simulators and the IL2, FB + AEP, and PF. I really didn't care for CFS 3 especially the "what if" feature (hint 109Z from FB) and have played it only about a half a dozen times since I made the purchase quite a while ago. I wish I hadn't made the purchase of CFS3.

I enjoyed and played the entire campaigns for all countries in both CFS1 & 2. I liked the option of flying the entire mission or jumping to the next waypont if the combat in that area was completed. I am playing the campaigns in PF sim and am disappointed in the lack of content. So far each and every mission is almost identical (ie. Iwo Jima)

In CFS 1 & 2 forces for Force Feedback sticks was adjustable and editable (crashes could be turned off, I mean who needs to have the stick jerking wildly when you are already dead). The option in this sim is all on or all off. The stick is awfully heavy (return to center spring) at all times except when rolling down the runway.

Graphics here are head and shoulders better than those two sims. I think the sounds were better in the CFS sims, especially the .50 MG. I know that in the CFS 3 sim they acutally had microphones all around the ME262 up in the state of Washington to get the sounds correct.

For the person immersing himself/herself in the details of flying one of these planes I think that the CFS 1 & 2 were better. If a plane had 5 flap settings you got to use all 5 (although the flaps in those games just created drag, but not lift). You could switch fuel tanks, important for example in the F4U-1A so you could drain the port wing tank first like the real planes to reduce stalling of that wing. Online in dogfighting servers the option to land (if you could) and refuel, repair and rearm were an option. I am not a pilot so I can't argue with any authority as to whether a flight model was close or not to the real aircraft in ANY flight sim. In each flight sim it is what it is and you have to just deal with it.

I think the PF game is so much more hi tech than the CFS series especially in the form of graphics although I like the way the CFS tracers floated out to the targets and were of a uniform color. But for straight out of the box for offline play I think CFS1 & 2 were more interesting. I didn't care for the air starts in online play for CFS series, but your choices of map (and the maps could be huge) locations and airfields in CFS2 beats PF hands down. I think the overall online play in PF is better. I still can't understand why the ships in the dogfight arenas are static and cannot be given waypoints and move on a set course and speed like they do in the COOP servers or online campaigns.

Overall this sim is tecnically better than the CFS series, but it should be since it is still being produced and tweaked and better hardware is available today. I would, however, gladly give up some of the eye candy for some more substance in the offline missions and campaigns without having to create it myself. If this feature is not improved with the BoB release I can honestly say that I won't be one of the customers.

From what I can see this game is geared towards misssion building and online dogfights (air quake). I must admit that I did enjoy the heck out of playing Friday night in VFC's online missions especially the Pacific maps because there were actual objectives for both sides.

Sorry for the rambling. Tired, sinus head ache and cold, and lastly police just knocked on the door, going house to house, telling us that the city water was found to be contaminated with bacteria and we have to boil water for cooking and drinking until further notice. This is a first for this town. The town (in western maine) water is of a quality that is rated near the top in the entire nation every year. It was until today, the best in Maine. They have not determined the cause. I hate the thought of bottled water. This is a small inconvience compared to what the people of the Gulf Coast went through. At least I can go to the next town for water.

Anyway that is my take.