PDA

View Full Version : i think in cfs2 skill was more important than the plane contrary to il2



raaaid
04-27-2007, 06:54 AM
this is how i outurned early planes with late planes in cfs2:

id let him in my tail dive into a yoyo to be above him in the top of the yoyo and then turn at 260 steady while he would be turning underneath me at 200

it was easy to beat early planes with late planes in cfs2

in il2 if you find an i152 on a spit you have to use 15 minutes time to beat him

it makes no sense that in WW view servers i153 are so effective

ShrikeHawk
04-27-2007, 11:24 AM
I would say the opposite. The flight models were easier, so you didn't need as much skill as a pilot. A "stall" only meant the plane would lurch through a turn and maybe drop it's nose a little bit. You had to try mighty hard to get any serious stall behaviour.

After many years flying in cfs2, I come to fly in il2 and realize I've picked up a LOT of bad habits and expectations. I'm practically having to learn to fly all over again. But at least now I'm learning how to "really" fly.

It doesn't surprise me that the I153 vs Spit worked so strangely. cfs2 was difficult because of inconsistent FMs. This happened because any developer could make his FM anyway way he wanted to, without being subject to a "peer review". This is a strength and a weakness. I had 3 I-16s. One had a pretty good FM but was a mod from cfs1 (with odd visual consequences) and the skin terrific. Another had a terrific model but was not multi-modeled and hard on the framerates. You could bang away at this machine from point-blank with 20mm and still not put it down. And it had the FM of a rusty barn!

Both developers claimed their FM was exactly correct but the A/C flew completely different. So because cfs2 was so configurable I just combined the best parts of all 3 A/C and finally got one I was satisfied with.

PBNA-Boosher
04-27-2007, 11:55 AM
Raaaid, your lack of confidence in Oleg is disappointing. CFS2 was fun, but it was no sim like we have here!

gdfo
04-27-2007, 11:58 AM
I have to agree with Shrike on this topic at least partially.

CFS and CFS2 were much loved games, inaccurate but much loved and were a great source of fun, amusement,entertainment and teamwork for those who were in squads or teams.

The simple fact is that neither CFS or CFS2 could be accurate representations of combat flight. Any FM is limited by the game itself.

CFS and CFS2 were loads of fun but the game was surpassed by the IL-2 generation. Not that I think IL and its addons are accurate either just better.

There is no Personal Computer available nor game available that can accurately replicate the actual FM and situaions of any real historical air combat, at least not at this time.

edgflyer2
04-27-2007, 12:24 PM
CFS, CFS2, CFS3. To much US BIAS in the game and why not it was made by a US developer.

IL2, to much Russain Bias and why not it was made by a Russian developer.

Would love to see a sim come out that has absolutely no bias at all. Here is what they were, go at it.

HFC_Dolphin
04-27-2007, 01:23 PM
IL2, to much Russain Bias and why not it was made by a Russian developer.

Definitely wrong.
I only fly Axis planes and some of then are just unbeatable.

ShrikeHawk
04-27-2007, 04:51 PM
CFS, CFS2, CFS3. To much US BIAS in the game and why not it was made by a US developer.

I don't think so. The aircraft that came with the original distribution - maybe. But I enjoyed flying the Japanese aircraft in it much more than the US aircraft. I fet like a world-beater in a zero (that illusion has been dispelled since il2).

The coolest thin about cfs2 is that developers from all over the world were making their own aircaft. The nicest, best flying FW-190A I had was made by a guy in Japan. He also had a fabulous P-39. I had Russian planes made by a Frenchman and great german planes made by an Italian. The best Tempest in the game was made by another Frenchman. A very cool international scene developed to make the game vastly more than the original concept. CFS3 seemed like a step back rather than forward.

Eventually, the inconsistent FMs by all the developers was all squared away by the avhistory.org site with their 1% Aircraft. All their planes went through rigorous testing and "peer review". Their more challenging FMs are on reason why I'm back into il2. Because now I don't have unreasonable expectations of an FM.

*The other reason is il2 supports carrier ops now! hehehe*

LStarosta
04-27-2007, 04:58 PM
I think raaaid is gay:

http://www.hyperborea.org/flash/bigimages/rainbow.jpg

na85
04-28-2007, 02:29 AM
The fact that there are so many threads whining about which plane is uber and which plane is over-modeled says to me that the plane-set is actually quite balanced, even if it's not true to life.

By extension, then, I'd say the pilot makes the difference. Flying a late-war P51 and doing BnZ attacks won't make you a winner unless you learn how to do it properly.

raaaid
04-28-2007, 06:34 AM
yes but i like tnb and in cfs2 you could out turn zeros easily by turning at the correct speed and an altitude advantage

in il2 bnz is the only effective vs zero

WWSensei
04-28-2007, 07:41 AM
Sorry, but CFS2 flight models were an aberration. In IL2 if you can't beat a zero using solid strategy and tactics then you simply are not a good combat pilot. CFS2 was so bad it simply let you do really stupid things and still get away with it. That didn't make it a superior sim or you a superior pilot. Just the opposite. IL2 has it ugly spots but CFS2 was a pathetic joke of a SIM. Event he inclusion of the 1% FMs was, at best, ugly lipstick on a pig.

As for the "peer" review of the 1% club that was all fine and dandy unless your "review" was contrary to their "groupthink peers" who had already decided the outcome at which point they just berated you. Yes, their FMs were "better" than the stock but that's only because CFS2 was such an abomination to begin with.

Ratsack
04-28-2007, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
Sorry, but CFS2 flight models were an aberration. In IL2 if you can't beat a zero using solid strategy and tactics then you simply are not a good combat pilot. CFS2 was so bad it simply let you do really stupid things and still get away with it. That didn't make it a superior sim or you a superior pilot. Just the opposite. IL2 has it ugly spots but CFS2 was a pathetic joke of a SIM. Event he inclusion of the 1% FMs was, at best, ugly lipstick on a pig.

As for the "peer" review of the 1% club that was all fine and dandy unless your "review" was contrary to their "groupthink peers" who had already decided the outcome at which point they just berated you. Yes, their FMs were "better" than the stock but that's only because CFS2 was such an abomination to begin with.

Yes, but what are you trying to say?

cheers,
Ratsack

Nimits
04-28-2007, 04:05 PM
Probably the best thing about CFS2 was the ability to intoduce no planes and ships. FM aside, within 1-2 years of release it was a much more complete Pacific War simulator than anything it seems we will ever get from Pacific Fighters. While there were alot of questionable planes and ships out there, if you stuck with 1%, Groundcrew, and Virtual Navy and a couple of others, you were guaranteed to get a fairly consistently accurate set of planes and ships. Perfect? No, of course not; even the best FMs are limited by engine they are created for and the preconceptions and biases (however subtle) of their creators. But then again, the FMs in 1946 suffer from the same problems. The Il-2 series is arguably the overall best WWII flight sim engine around, but it still has limitations in areas where the CFS2/CFS3 engine is superior. For example, CFS2 lacks engine overheating, it does model (semi-)realistic engine startup and management procedures, fuel tank management, and LSOs for carrier landings, all things 1946 completely lacks.

In fact, I will argue that the BoB2:WoV, while it suffers graphically compared to 1946, is in actuallity the highest fidelity WWII flight sim available right now, and considering that Maddox has so far indicated that alot of aircraft systems management will not be modeled (or at least player controllable) in the upcoming SoW series, BoB and its Flying Tigers sequel may continue to be the most realistic WWII combat flight simulators out there.

joeap
04-28-2007, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
yes but i like tnb and in cfs2 you could out turn zeros easily by turning at the correct speed and an altitude advantage

in il2 bnz is the only effective vs zero

...and what does that tell you about the relative "realism" of the two sims? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-28-2007, 04:40 PM
IL2, to much Russain Bias and why not it was made by a Russian developer.

Wrong!

BTW CFS reminds me of something you would find on a playstation.

reisen52
04-28-2007, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Nimits:
For example, CFS2 lacks engine overheating,

The 1% planes all simulate overheating.

AFJ_rsm
04-28-2007, 07:48 PM
you all missed the point of the thread


He wasnt saying cfs2 was more realistic. He said pilot skill was more important than FM differences between planes to be succesful online.


In a way I agree. CFS series sims had so much simplified FM's that the playing field was much more equal between players and the only difference in who would win the tail chase would be the one who yanked the stick better.

Nimits
04-28-2007, 08:36 PM
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 Nimits:
For example, CFS2 lacks engine overheating,

The 1% planes all simulate overheating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. But it was sort of a "hack"; by default, CFS2 does not model overheating.