100% vs. Realistic in CFS1 and 2, Rev 11/07/02
In my early days of CFS play, I pretty much went
along with the opinions of those who were more experienced and much more
skilled than I. Now, as a veteran squad leader and fairly skilled pilot,
I believe I have some valid input into what is and isn’t realistic.
Before I get into my points, let me set a few
things straight. I am NOT against 100% flight. I enjoy this type of
flying from time to time and even the 110% flight models that are made
possible by the genius of BrunHost
by GunsJammed, by turning off the radar, target lock and in CFS1,
setting the tag distance. The purpose is not to debate the points of
100% play, but rather to make an argument for simulated, realistic play.
So before you start flaming me, make sure that you understand the angle
that I’m coming from.
It seems that the CFS community has been caught up
in a delusion that anything less than 100% flight is less than noble.
Some very skilled and highly reputable squads will fly nothing less than
100% and to ask them to do so otherwise is nearly blasphemous. I guess
like all of societies current pecking orders, the best are seen as those
that attain the highest-level of skill in whatever it is they do. Minor
league ball players aspire to get to the big league, infantrymen have a
high degree of respect for Special Ops units, the guy working his way
through med school hopes to be a great doctor and the list goes on.
These are real world aspirations. But in a computer game that is titled
“Flight Simulator” denotes an attempt to recreate in the confines of
your PC a recreation of, in our case, WWII combat.
The creators of the 2 combat simulators have done a
good job in an attempt at making the game adjustable to skill levels.
But they didn’t label the flight models easy, medium and hard without
reason. Current peer pressure within the CFS community would lead us to
believe that 100% is the most realistic. But let’s look at some of the
aspects of 100% flight.
- Hard
Flight Model: Although it is difficult to fly in this mode,
it’s not realistic. When a plane can suddenly start flipping and
doing somersaults in the air after making a sharp or forced turn is
not realistic. Had that really happened, the plane would have busted
in pieces from the stress. Hard flight model also creates a very
touchy and finicky plane. Those who have flown real planes will tell
you that this is way to sensitive. I would say that Medium Flight
model is much closer to real.
- G
effects: Although this was an attempt at recreating the black
out effects of hard G’s, they went a little overboard. There were
ways of fighting against this effect that we are not afforded.
It’s a gray area even within my own mind, but because of the
sensitivity setting, I would argue that for realistic flight it
should be turned off.
The rest of the settings are reasonable. Unlimited
fuel and ammo are obviously the way that it really was, as well as sun
glare. Weapon effectiveness could be debated until the end of time, so
on this one I trust that normal is just that.
This brings me to some points that have been raised
while discussing this issue with fellow simmers. “In WWII they
didn’t have radar and target lock.” is a common point that is
raised. That’s true, but they didn’t have the blinders of a computer
screen either. Try riding your bike or car down a busy street with a box
over your head and never turn your head from side to side allowing you
to only see straight in front of yourself. Not very realistic is it? So
it is with a computer screen. You can’t easily turn your head to look
and see what’s going on around you. To offset the disadvantage of a
2-dimension screen, I am ok with radar and target lock. This goes for
nametags as well. Good visual depth is non-existent therefore for
identification purposes nametags are needed.
Fuel Dump (CFS2)
I think that the biggest objection for fuel dump is
from pilots who don’t know how to install it and are frustrated by
those who can and do use it. This was obviously and lapse in thinking on
the part of the MS crew since the ability to set the fuel level was
present in CFS1. In WWII it was not preferred to send out a plane in
close combat with all of its fuel tanks full. The most common time that
the tanks were full was when they needed to deliver a unit over a great
distance. Some of the old timers will tell you that many times one or
more of the drop tanks were full of beer, rather than fuel, to provide
the only refrigeration readily available by flying above 10k feet. Those
crazy Americans!
My only objection to fuel dump is the ability to
refuel in midair, but otherwise it’s the only fix we have for an
oversight.
1% Planes
The guys who created and developed these planes,
whether accurate or not, went through a whole lot of work. Have you ever
looked closely at the spreadsheets that come with one? I can see that
someone burnt a whole lot of company time tweaking the configs for these
planes.
I believe that the true intent was to create a
realistic flying plane. However, due to the ability to take a “mod”
and change the name to “1% XYZ”, I don’t trust their use unless
amongst friends. Even though the stock planes are perhaps lacking in the
realistic front, they are relatively equal amongst foes.
My definition of a realistic game
Would be a BrunHost config with squads starting at
appropriate locations with historically correct planes fighting against
each other. In other words, Germans fly German planes and so on.
Interlaken and Berne were never bombed, so don’t go there. I prefer an
English Channel bomb run or an attack on a position in the Solomon
Islands. I think the addition of TG2 to CFS1 is a dream come true and
encourage all to use it. Bombing an airfield is sweet!! My BrunHost
configs don’t usually require TG2 as the only ones who really need it
are those flying bombers.
Settings: 90%
Victory Req, Last Alive (None, if you want people
to stick around for a second game)
Flight Model: Medium
Unlimited Fuel: No
Unlimited Ammo: No
Sun glare: On
G effects: Off
Weapon Effectiveness: Normal
Restrict Aircraft: Yes
Target Lock and Radar are ON
These settings are my preferences, but I believe
they are arguably the closest to realistic. I would like to see more
tournament organizations and the general CFS communities adopt a more
realistic view of our combat scenarios.
I’m also wise enough to realize that I’m not
always right. If someone can give me an intelligent argument for any of
these points, I’m not apposed to putting down my pride and changing my
view.
Update CFS3
Although CFS3 has only been out for a short time at
this writing, I must comment that most of the issues above were
resolved, but new ones have arisen. I'll make comments on them when I
have more experience and thus a intelligent opinion, rather than
shooting from the hip. But I will say this, 100% flight model in CFS3 is
not realistic. The hard flight model is more reasonable and the
G-Effects are toned down, but the plus and minuses wash themselves out.
Let me be clear that I am not trashing 100% play. The squad has tried it
and at times it's a fun challenge. It does seem at this early stage,
that those playing multiplayer on Gamematch™ have come to realize that
100% is not desirable. Most games I see range from 70%-85%.
Maj Magnum
VMF323 Delta Division
