RLGaming.com

Folks,
I have been wanting to fly one for quite a while, and have spent quite a bit of time researching them... From the oldies with the add ons bringing them up to date, to the brand new ones...

I am pretty settled on IL2 and IL2 Forgotten Battles. Nothing but good has been said about these games...even the user community has toned down their aggresiveness over the last year (the reason I ditched the game in the first place). In talking with Raptor we feel there are two ways to go with this. We can outright start with Forgotten Battles or we can get IL2 to see if folks really like this and want to do this. Pros and cons....below. Please post what your thoughts are on choosing between IL2 and FB. Thx.

Forgotten Battles cons:
A bit higher end machine needed than for IL2
more costly
brand new not yet patched (minor issues)

Forgotten Battles pros:
MORE eye candy
Dynamic campaign
a LOT more planes, including P-47 and Hurris...
Medium/Heavy bombers (TB-3 and HE-111)
includes all IL2 content except for campaigns and missions (i.e. maps and planes)
user skins show in multi-player

IL2 cons:
not as many planes
not quite the eye candy that Forgotten Battles is
no dynamic campaign

IL2 pros:
pretty much the same game at a cheaper price (get it used now, or 19.99 as opposed to 39.99)
easier to get into due to less complexity (don't have to use Complex Engine Management in FB, but it is there if you want it)
easier on your pocketbook if you decide you don't like it

Well, seeing as I have both games, I can go either way. But if I had to choose, I would have to say IL2 FB. It just feels so much better than the original IL2 and the dynamic campaign is a BIG plus.

As far as it requiring a bigger faster system to run the game, I think it's time for an upgrade for those that don't meet those requirements. I mean seriously, it does not cost all that much to upgrade these days. We all buy these new games that come out and if you think about it, for the cost of about 3-4 games, you can completely upgrade your computer. A new MB(ECS $59), a decent CPU(AMD 1900XP $74), RAM(if necessary, some new MBs will use SDRAM), and a new video card (GF4 MX440 is about $60) will run you about $160 -$200.

Whatever we decide, I will fly either one. For someone that might be on the fence, IL2FB is a much better bang for your buck.

I've got a P2 400MhZ 256MB RAM with a full 10.5gig hard drive I may be able to upgrade this summer when I've got a job, but not while I'm here at college.

I also hear GREAT things about IL2 FB, noticably the flight models. What are your guys' thoughts on them? To me, a sim can be crappy overall, but if its got a good flight model, it will always be on my HD.

Maybe you could join us on a Monday or Tuesday night for some MP co-op Falcon 4. We have had some really great flights the last few weeks, and another human pilot would help. Sorry I missed your JF18 flight last night.

I wouldn't mind flying Janes WWII Fighters either, I have heard good things about it. The graphics are sub par compared to IL2, but that's not an issue for me. And I'm sure that most all computers old and new can run it. Does anyone know of any problems running Janes WWII Fighters on Win XP? Of course I will have to dig my Janes WWII Fighters out of the grave yard of old games I have, but I'm sure I can find it.

WW2 Fighters runs on XP Pro as well... If you have an Nvidia card you need to be at 40.xx drivers or 43.xx to see the intro and hangar videos. Probably cut scene videos as well... The current release on Nvidia's site does not work.

This is definitely one of the games I looked at. If just does not compare to IL2 for look and feel... We can definitely give it some kicking around to see how folks like it and what it's MP limitations are. One thing I think everyone will agree on as a requirement is that the sim MUST have MP Coop mission capability, preferrably in campaigns, and an added bonus would be live players on the other side as well...

Orion,
PLEASE come fly Falcon with us. We don't care if you are new at it or not. We even get folks coming in from outside the unit to play with us that have never done MP before. It is a bit different, but not hard. It is probably easier to talk you through it before we connect that to try and type it out... Post in FTS section and we'll get you started.

Folks,
I would like this to be more than a 4 way conversation. I KNOW we have more folks around than that! Let us know what you think, even if it is the fact that you feel prop sims suck and are beneath you... ;)

got both. would prefer fb.

Opposed to Kat, I LOVE prop sims. Probably has something to do with being a prop aircraft PILOT (I'm biased), I love having to fight/use torque effects to swing your aircraft around at 70 knots

yeah; those Cessna 172's make bitchin' war machines. I did not know they had much torque effect.

or are you talking about the sim planes Kamikaze? :roll:

actually, the 172 that I own (partly) has quite some torque effect at full throttle - since it puts out 210 HP. About 1/3 to 1/2 right rudder on takeoff, maybe even more. And if you are not compensating as you add or decrease power while airborne, it will take you off your course by 30+ degrees in no time...

You have a 210hp 172?!?! A turbo-charged 172SP??? We've got the stock SP models, with 180hp. But still, the torque is quite noticably. You need it on takeoff, climb, and ESPECIALLY slow flight with the power put in. It'll spin you right around.

Actually, on my cross country the other day we made a descent at 2,000fpm just for the helluvit- all I could think was, "Riddle 487, in hot! Off to the south!" lol I play too many games

Madrus- both! In CFS1 I loved the way you need the rudder on takeoff, and how dogfighting without a rudder control is near impossible. My friend Jon flies without a rudder control- needless to say, I can SLAUGHTER him every time.

:lol:

Dare I say that the torque effect from a Merlin or Rolls Royce is a wee bit more than a Cessna 172 - even with 210 HP?

I'm also willing to bet that the aircraft housing that Merlin engine weighs quite a bit more than our 2,000lb Cessna's!

yes Madrus, exactly my point. if there is quite a torque effect on a 172, imagine it on a warbird...

I am glad you agree Steel; that has been exactly my point.

i don't think anyone is being touchy - just iterating the perceptions we have from RL in relation to torque and how it is applied in sims. the point i made (at least tried to) was that if the 172 i fly has this much, imagine how much there actually is in the warbirds in the sims...!!!

that would be interesting Madrus... I wonder if those figures exist somewhere??? It is highly possible that designers would try to reduce the power torque effect as much as possible - makes for a easier to fly/control plane...but that is a LOT of torque to try and mitigate!

I dunno what you're arguing over! More torque means more fun!!

once again - i don't think anyone was arguing???

WE'RE ARGUING OVER WHETHER WE'RE ARGUING!!!!



:lol: :lol:

When are we gonna stop arguing(LOL) and fly this bad boy? I will look for my Janes WWII CD tonight.

Just Do It!!

no we're not!