PDA

View Full Version : CFS2 zero vs FB zero



FWdreamer
04-19-2004, 12:16 PM
S!
I was wondering how you guys feel about the fm of this plane. Do you think cfs2 had it modeled the best in terms of DM and flight performance or did Oleg and gang get it spot on? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif i personally think the zero with all its plus and minuses are best modeled by Oleg.Just wanting to know your thoughts on this.

fwdreamer

FWdreamer
04-19-2004, 12:16 PM
S!
I was wondering how you guys feel about the fm of this plane. Do you think cfs2 had it modeled the best in terms of DM and flight performance or did Oleg and gang get it spot on? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif i personally think the zero with all its plus and minuses are best modeled by Oleg.Just wanting to know your thoughts on this.

fwdreamer

JG7_Rall
04-19-2004, 12:20 PM
Questioning Olegs modelling are we!? Thats blasphemy! Tar and feather him at once! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-19-2004, 12:31 PM
CFS2 was the best in the series of CFS proggys as far as I'm concerned, but they are ALL different from the IL2 series. not trying to "cop-out" or anything, but I find it difficult to compare the two.

If someone put a gun to my head and said "choose or die" I would pick the FB:Aces version.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

Snow_Wolf_
04-19-2004, 12:33 PM
The cfs2 zero was slow and very fragile. I remeber that wingtips hits usually means wingtips coming off. It leaks fuel very easily and yes it was a paper plane (goes into a fireball). I flew the A6m5a over in cfs2 and it was not really that fast. It could not turn inside of the M2 which seem to turn very well. The m5 could take alittle bite more damage then the m2 in cfs2.


The fb zero seem to be very fast and got great handling in high speeds (which seems odd to me as i readed zeros controls have a problem at high speeds) not in part of damage they don't go into a fireball as fast as the cfs2 zero's (which is odd when u think about the plane don't have self sealing tanks and lacks amour plating).

I just think both fb zero and the cfs2 zeros as a different way the coding was done. It had to tell it accurate or not as real life flying sometimes have odd stuff happen which sometimes even the best of us can't explain.

They are both good planes in both games.

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jtsiekki/mono2.gif

Bearcat99
04-19-2004, 12:40 PM
I think the worse FM in FB is better than anything MS has to offer. The CFS2 1% planes come close but even they are off a tad. I dont know about the CFS3 1% planes.. I could never get that POS to run on my computer.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

TgD Thunderbolt56
04-19-2004, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I dont know about the CFS3 1% planes.. I could never get that POS to run on my computer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOl Bearcat99...me either. Oh, I got it to run, but like crap.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

FWdreamer
04-19-2004, 12:51 PM
S!
Sorry gents let me rephrase the question maybe. Which of the two modeled the zeros closest to what they were in real life then. After reading the posts i can see i was to vague in my question maybe. For me the way the plane handles in FB seems closest to the description in "Samurai" by Suburo Saki, or at least from how i interpreted his sayings of the plane.

Fwdreamer

arcadeace
04-19-2004, 01:06 PM
I think when a comparison with Microsoft is asked you're only gonna get one answer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I thought CFS2 was a blast for its time. As far as comparing the models I think you got the best answers possible; in other words none of us have flown the plane. Some knowledge of particular characteristics and how it feels determines judgment. I think FB's model is better.

tsisqua
04-19-2004, 01:25 PM
CFS: Great Fun

CFS2: Great Fun

CFS3: HUH?

FB/AEP: I'm in heaven.

Seriously, now that I have an AMD64, a gig of ram, and a 9800 Pro, I can run CFS3 wide open with no problems . . . graphically. As it shipped, it was a POS, but the community of players will continue to finish the job for Microsoft. By the time that it is dated, it will be a "good ole' game". I'd rather have a game like FB, that is way closer to finished when I open the box. No code is perfect, and that certainly includes FB, but the attention to detail has, in the words of a review that I read, " . . . raised the standards to a ridiculous level . . ."

Tsisqua

P.S. If the Zero flew the way that it does in CFS2, the poor Japanese didn't stand a chance. The real A6m5 could split S right under a pursuing Corsair.

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-nedChristie.jpg
Tsalagi Asgaya Galvladi

Covino
04-19-2004, 01:57 PM
I really think CFS2 has a better FM engine than IL-2. The stock FM's aren't that great but the 1% planes are very accurate.

Things better than IL-2 IMO:
high altitude modelling
manual engine starts are fun
very neat damage effects (lighting fuel vapor on fire with tracers)
P-factor modelled
fuel must be managed properly
prop pitch must actually be used (in 1% planes)
stress effects (in 1% planes)
I think the stalls are more realistic (in 1% planes)
Oh yeah, skids and slips are also better modelled

I have some very neat stories in CFS2 when I discover that a certain part of my plane wasn't working properly upon landing.

[This message was edited by EvilBen on Mon April 19 2004 at 01:25 PM.]

tsisqua
04-19-2004, 02:02 PM
Pick any plane that was shipped with any of the CFS series. Now, hold hard rudder while in-flight. Your plane will eventually turn completely backwards(!) on its yaw axis, and stall. Yup, that's a better FM than what IL2 series offers, alrighty. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Tsisqua

Covino
04-19-2004, 02:21 PM
"I really think CFS2 has a better FM ENGINE"!

"The stock FM's aren't that great but the 1% planes are very accurate."!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

FW190fan
04-19-2004, 02:49 PM
I liked the CFS2 Zero.

The external model was absolutely gorgeous.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Covino
04-19-2004, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
I liked the CFS2 Zero.

The external model was absolutely gorgeous.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitly.
http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/superhellninja/cfs2


Please downsize the picture size, thanks

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Mon April 19 2004 at 02:50 PM.]

tsisqua
04-19-2004, 03:46 PM
EvilBen,
Sorry, I didn't mean to pi$$ you off, and maybe I should have read a bit better. I've tried the 1% models, and you are right, they are excellent. Now, this is what pi$$es me off:

That the people who bought the cfs series not only had the ability to add third part stuff to the game, but that it was left up to the consumer to fix the problems with the game. There should never have been a need for anyone to create new flight models for a $50.00 (plus) game. Doesn't say much for the MS team, IMHO.

Tsisqua

PS Yes, the planes in CFS2 were absolutely beautiful. Very nice screen. I have hundreds that are alot like it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-nedChristie.jpg
Tsalagi Asgaya Galvladi

Covino
04-19-2004, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
That the people who bought the cfs series not only had the ability to add third part stuff to the game, but that it was left up to the consumer to fix the problems with the game. There should never have been a need for anyone to create new flight models for a $50.00 (plus) game. Doesn't say much for the MS team, IMHO.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. And sorry if I came off a bit harsh. I've got to live up to my name sometimes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

DONB3397
04-19-2004, 06:02 PM
It's been a while, but there were some functional touches in CFS2 I would like to see in PF. The ability (and need) to switch fuel tanks on long flights could get your attention. And, of course, long missions were possible without changing maps.

I used the Corsair more than the Zero. It had an interesting, "soft" feel at low speeds, and a tendency to explode at strange times (e.g. when flared out too high on landing). But it had a forgiving FM; I don't ever remember a flat spin.

We'll see how the F4U handles in PF.

Generally, I think 1C's FMs are superior to any earlier sim I owned and used(MSFS 1-2000, EAW, CFS1-3, Janes WWII,and a half-dozen others I barely remember). It also allows adjustment not previously seen. Add that performance difference to the kind of interactive relationship 1C has managed to develop, and it's not a contest IMO.

LeadSpitter_
04-19-2004, 06:24 PM
I think the cfs2 stock fm is more realisic in compressibilty, dive speed, accelaration, roll, rudder and elevator use. The 1% were even more realistic. cfs2 has superior mixture, proppitch and altitude performance of aircraft. Planes in cfs2 also have better energy management then fb.

Many may be use to people cheating and modding the stock planes in cfs2 to make them choose il2fbs zero being more realistic. In cfs2 you need flaps to take off and its difficult to get all planes off the carriers.

In fb its also still subject to change if you remember the original 5s permance and rollrate.

In fb the 2 and 5 have a better looking interior but they take off in a couple feet even without flaps, they also seem to take alot more damage and are almost impossible to stall.

But stalls in fb are alot better then cfs2 flipping poor excuse for a stall.

I think its not a problem in fm data but fbs gravity and world physics which seem unaccurate to me.

Im not saying cfs2 is a better game both have thier good and bad points. No other sim even compairs to look like fb and thier dedication to anti cheating methods which these days no other company seems to care about except 1c and maddox.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

TAGERT.
04-19-2004, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
The CFS2 1% planes come close but even they are off a tad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
The stock FM's aren't that great but the 1% planes are very accurate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I think the cfs2 stock fm is more realisic in compressibilty, dive speed, accelaration, roll, rudder and elevator use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Human nature... We *FEEL* this and that.. but who cares about *FEELING* other than a bunch o women watching a soap during the day... Give me some examples of how the sim matches flight data! That is if you really want to convince anyone! but spare me the FEELING posted like FACTS!

Dont feel bad.. we all do it.. I know I do sometimes... it is hard not too.. We are human.. but if Im trying to convince someone otherwise I try to present some hard data.. by hard data I dont mean my interptation of what some biased pilot wrote about one mission..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

tsisqua
04-19-2004, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EvilBen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
That the people who bought the cfs series not only had the ability to add third part stuff to the game, but that it was left up to the consumer to fix the problems with the game. There should never have been a need for anyone to create new flight models for a $50.00 (plus) game. Doesn't say much for the MS team, IMHO.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. And sorry if I came off a bit harsh. I've got to live up to my name sometimes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two Words:
More Cowbell!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif Love your avatar! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Tsisqua

Resident_Jock
04-19-2004, 07:51 PM
Tagert, while I patially agree, you can't deny that real flying (as virtual flying too, in a lesser sense) is not about feeling. You feel the aircraft's performance through the stick and pedals, in the form of the engine's rumble and the buffeting wings.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that thd data between the two sims would be difficult to compare and somewhat subjective anyway.

Fehler
04-19-2004, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Im not saying cfs2 is a better game both have thier good and bad points. No other sim even compairs to look like fb and thier dedication to anti cheating methods which these days no other company seems to care about except 1c and maddox. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, a kinder, more gentle Leadspitter... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nice to see you back, friend, you were missed..

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

tsisqua
04-19-2004, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Im not saying cfs2 is a better game both have thier good and bad points. No other sim even compairs to look like fb and thier dedication to anti cheating methods which these days no other company seems to care about except 1c and maddox. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, a kinder, more gentle Leadspitter... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nice to see you back, friend, you were missed..

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have always liked Leadspitter, even when he is crabby. He makes great skins, and will shoot your butt down VERY quickly if you get online with him. He is a great pilot, skinner, PERSON, and loves FB as much as any of us. One of our best community members.

Tsisqua

LeadSpitter_
04-19-2004, 09:02 PM
wow thx for the great comments tsisqua and fehler. Good to see some familiar faces are still around.

We all need to get in warclouds44+ and use thier ts channel and wing up sometime.

Hopefully we get the b25 with the patch Im planning on making a darkblueworld skin pack

hurricane
spitfire
emil
b25 aluminum based on sootys style of aluminum which i think looks the best.

and all the pilot skins from the movie.

I didnt mean to hijack the thread But S` and see you two around HL

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

tsisqua
04-19-2004, 10:59 PM
You've got a deal, LeadSpitter http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That is a great server, and from now on, I will look for ya there. Oh, yeah . . . I'll really be looking forward to your "Dark Blue World" skins. Here's hoping that the patch will correct some of the issues that have been brought up on these boards, as well as giving us that B-25, eh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tsisqua

MatuDa
04-20-2004, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Human nature... We *FEEL* this and that.. but who cares about *FEELING* other than a bunch o women watching a soap during the day... Give me some examples of how the sim matches flight data! That is if you really want to convince anyone! but spare me the FEELING posted like FACTS!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I feel the takeoff in fb series is really funny in most planes and things like torque don't feel real. I have a feeling that some things can be felt and experienced even without numbers and charts. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

michapma
04-20-2004, 05:39 AM
I always have to laugh when I take off in a Yak, because I end up on one wheel at something like a 15-degree bank. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The torque, the trim models, and the static roll stability also bother me in FB. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

FA_Maddog
04-20-2004, 07:01 AM
One of the things that I liked about CFS2 was the long black smoke trail that a plane left when shot down. The worst thing about CFS2 was the damage model, one bullet anywhere on the plane and you lost just about all control of it.

I'll give up the smoke that CFS2 had for the DM in FB anyday. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
04-22-2004, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Resident_Jock:
Tagert, while I patially agree,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Better than nothing! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Resident_Jock:
you can't deny that real flying (as virtual flying too, in a lesser sense) is not about feeling. You feel the aircraft's performance through the stick and pedals, in the form of the engine's rumble and the buffeting wings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%! But how do you *calibrate* your feelings and then *relate* them to the hard data? Can NOT do it without numbers... And sense we dont have a way to measure most aspects of the sim... it makes that hard to do... But, MOST people dont even DO that.. What we get MOST of the time is someone who has never flown a real WWII configured aircraft... let alone a pilot... READ about some situatiion that captures the *FEELINGS* of some pilot in some aircraft.. No hard numbers, Hardly enogh info to even set up the same situation in the sim to even begin to do a scintific test of it... No what we get is some arm chair pilot who has read ONE book about ONE situation where a plane out turned another plane.. And they walk away thinking that should be the case in every situaiton.. It just isnt so! The best case senario is to take some NACA type of FLIGHT TEST DATA where it does give you some prety good info for the STATE of the test which would allow you to recreate it in the sim to see if you get simular reports... But no... As I said.. it is human nature.. we all do it.. I just get a real good LOL when I see some noob going on about how there is a bug in the P51 because he could not out turn a Bf109, yet he read a book where some REAL pilot did that... Thus why cant he? Never once stoping to consider the situations, the E states prior to it, etc.. Let alone the FACT that it migth just be that the 109 pilot was better then him! That one they NEVER stop to consider... HAS TO BE A BUG!! LOL!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT