I fly CFS3.

Uhhhh,.............fly combat missions? Shoot stuff, blow stuff up, 

8)Me toooooo!!

I use it as a $50.00 coaster. Had originally thought to use it as a frisbee, but its too expensive to be used as one.

I used it as a means to an almost endless quest to get the f"@kin thing to work! 

When CFS3 came out, I had a nice little pIII 667 that ran CFS2 great, I produced some nice screen shots with it!
Alas, CFS3 popped up and I met my new curse in life.... Stutter!

Thankfully, CFS3 now runs fairly stutter free, by comparison though CFS2 is an absolute blast despite rediculous settings, anti alaising, added effects, scenery and loads of great planes!

No comparison.

I'll look CFS3 up again, once I've got a Pentium 5 6ghz!

I fly it intill it crashes. Then I reboot and play it some more. I feel that it is far better than CFS2 and I cannot wait to see what CFS4 will yield. Should be what FS2002 was compaired to FS2000....

And I imagine that the planes I am shooting down are actually people that curse other people's hard work and trash it! like aminx and pcyco

It's even fun simming it with an F-16 Falcon. The missiles aren't guided but that's what LO:MAC is for. They still blow stuff up. And speaking of that, the cluster bombs are really a hoot.

You're a very negative sounding person aminx but I'm sure your mother has already told you that. Remember in grade school when you got those "Doesn't work well with others" comments on your report card and those special trips to the school nurse and "guidance counselor"? We understand.

And the F-16 even comes in tiger stripes.

Where did you get that F-16??

Well said Bob.

paul if you dislike cfs3 so much how did you become a resident here?By the way i'd much rather read an intelligent letter by you thatn a smart alec trying to take the rise out of me for something i like.Yes the campain is STOOOOPid, but all the ad on have made it for me
windows xp
504mb ram
geforce fx5200
2.4ghz pent 4
17' flat screen
aircraft-5
scenery-3
terrain-3
effects-5
clouds-0 some times  i'll set to one

my first computer i've added the new vid card and 256 ram
gonna boost it to 1024mb this week endsale on ddr this week end at circuit city

Hi 4_Series_Scania,

I'm serious when I say that CFS2, CFS3, FS2000, FS2002 Pro and now LO:MAC have never CTD or BSOD. I can't remember when any program has done that to me. I could say that I've just been lucky but maybe my computer (especially my motherboard) is just very stable. But if I had to really nail it down to just one thing I'd have to say that it's because I keep my OS very clean and uncluttered. Over the past 3 years as long as I've had this old Alienware I must have formatted and clean installed WinME, Win98SE and starting in October of 2001 when XP Pro was first released over a dozen times. And every time I do it I learn a little about what makes it run better. And what programs are cool and which ones are dogs!

The order in which I install everything (recommended by Intel) is important.

Installation & Configuration Order
   
1 Fresh Operating System Installation.
2 Latest Service Pack or Patch.
3 Motherboard drivers.
4 All other device drivers starting with the video card.
5 Intel® Application Accelerator if wanted/needed.
6 Microsoft* DirectX* 9.0(b) should be installed in SP-1.

And you have to take the necessary steps to protect yourself when you're hooked up to the Internet so your pristine OS doesn't get raped. Especially if you have broadband and you visit some of the not so savory websites. The ones where even if you have a popup blocker program running you still get dozens of popup ads attacking you. They will load you up with Gator and Alexa type crap and a truckload of bandwidth sucking cookies/trojans/worms/virii in just mere seconds. In just one hour of surfing around I had 28 tracking cookies on my computer with one instance of Gator/Alexa having been written to my registry already. Who knows what nasty things these small programs are doing to your computer. So you need to be vigilant and keep your OS maintained.

And I partition my Seagate 120GB 8MB cache hard drive so it doesn't get fragmented so easily. You can combat flight sim CFS3 for a few hours and it will fragment your whole OS if it's on the same active (C:\) partition. Some people don't recommend partitioning even a large capacity hard drive because of WinXP's ability to use large capacity hard drives to its advantage. But I think the advantages of multiple partitions far outweighs any advantage that XP gets from having a large capacity capabilities and in my case the proof is in the speed and stability of my OS. It just runs great.

C:\ 20gbs for XP and small programs and utilities.
D:\ 02gbs for the paging or swap file.
E:\ 30gbs for games.
F:\ 30gbs for mp3s, jpgs and videos.
G:\ 20gbs data storage or whatever.
H:\ 15gbs for storing downloaded programs/drivers etc.

Your wants and/or needs will differ so partition accordingly.

But I would recommend that you make your D:\ partition around 2gbs just for your paging file. Having a small separate partition for your paging/swap file can speed your gaming up a bit and maybe even keep your active C:\ partition from fragmenting so much. After you get XP installed you just change the location of your paging file to your D:\ partition. I have my paging file set to 1024MB minimum and maximum so that it's a non-changing, static paging file. I have 512MB of system RDRAM installed.

And don't run a dual boot system especially on the same physical hard drive because you need to install the older OS first so you don't conflict the MBR etc. And don't slave another hard drive onto your master either. It slows up the boot sequence. Or at least first try a non-dual boot system with just XP formatted in NTFS without another hard drive slaved to your master. You can then always add a slave drive later and you'll be able to quantify what performance hit you're taking. I just temporarily slave up my old hard drive when I need to access something from it. Keep it simple until you know that everything is running right.

I bought this Alienware with a P4_1.3GHz processor. I then upgraded to a P4_2.0 and noticed a big difference. Then I maxxed out this old 400MHz Intel D850GB motherboard with a P4_2.6GHz and it really started to sim right. Then about a year ago I upgraded my old GF2 Ultra 64MB with a Radeon 9700 Pro and it really allowed me to sim CFS3 at pretty good framerates with most things set to medium/high etc. I wrote how I have it setup (CFS3 and LO:MAC) in my above post. The graphics need a powerful GPU and the AI etcetera needs a powerful CPU.

You could upgrade/max out your motherboard from your P4_1.8GHz to a P4_2.6GHz for $200.00
Upgrade to a Radeon 9700 Pro for $250.00. Or better if you can afford it.
Partition, format and clean install XP like I described above and I think you'll have enough power to run CFS3 at acceptable/fun settings. There's just no real substitute for a clean OS and raw processing power with these newer simulators.

I know it's all about the money but CFS3 and LO:MAC need the power.

Hey, even an 800MHz FSB, P4_3.06HT, 1GB RAM and a Radeon 9800XT can't run these newer sims with all the settings maxxed out. Which is kind of a good thing in that they'll be around for a few years while our hardware catches up. They could have designed these sims to be maxxed out using a PIII and a GF2 Ultra but that would deny everyone the added realism and overall life span of the sim. I'm sure they spend their valuable time trying to optimize the code so it's as efficient as they can get it because they want to sell the most units possible. Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it!

The good news is that CFS2 is still a fun a combat simulator and will run fine on most medium grade computers.

Thanks for the comments guys!

I'm seriously thinking of a partition with XP for just CFS 2 & 3, having said that I have problems with CFS3 even after a "clean install"


1danny, No problem, people taking the mick & having a general well humoured  dig at each other is the life blood of forums like these!!!  - And owning an admitedly cheap Jetway mobo, I deserve all the flak I get! 

:sigh:, I guess I just have to keep on smashing my piggy bank.... Sadly though, with my finances, my PC takes a very low priority after the Mrs & kids (Not to mention the x-wife and my daughters' maintenance payments....) etc etc have all taken their cut.

I'm more than sure, with unlimited funds, I could have a CFS3 experience bar none! -  Alas, Spending peanuts on PC flight simming is a very frustrating experience!


Paul.

I'm currently (but very slowly) building a new system. The one I have Compaq P3 766 Mhz 384 Mb SDram, Integrated Intel, is absolutely useless for CFS3.

In fact, I can still only use CFS2 for a couple of hours, before it slows right down to a crawl. CFS1 and FS2002 will go at 35 fps all day long.

I've given up trying to figure out what's wrong with CFS2, but back to the subject.........Even with the spec's that my new rig will be (see below), I'm not expecting to be able to get anything other than a reasonable look at CFS3 (which I've only been able to do on a PC at work, that had a Graphics card that passed the initial "Sorry pal - your card's not good enough for our wonderful, ground breaking new Sim" test.  )
And I realise that what I list below is far from the 'state of the art' in available PC's today.

Which ever way you look at it, Microsoft advertised, displayed and sold a Sim with published 'System Requirements' which ended up being out an out rubbish. consequently thousands of people ended up buying something that they couldn't use without updating or, at least, doing some serious upgrading on their existing systems (which incidentally, were more than adequate for their current Simming needs i.e. FS2002, CFS2 etc). Many people can't do that, not for a $50 - $100 sim!.
That's the main reason, I think, there's still alot of resentment among simmers with regard to CFS3. I would even go so far as to say, that there would probably less people using the Sim regularly with satisfaction than there are those who have either shelved it (pending their next $2,000 investment), or have given up all together.

I think microsoft will have to wait a long time to recover from the consumer distrust and anger generated by CFS3 debacle. And rightly so! 

(Personally, I would like to see CFS4 be a return to an improved version of the CFS2 format (afterall, I don't think the graphics quality in CFS3, even on a GREAT PC are all that different to CFS2 - and also the flight models are nothing to crow about either!), in a European Theatre setting (the continuation that CFS3 was supposed to be), without the boring repetitive, mundane mousing that you have in the CFS3 mission setup. Possibly even incorporating some Atlantic sub warfare in the Mission Scenarios.
That would be a popular Sim. 

I have both CFS3 and LO:MAC installed and they are equally tough on my hardware. They both run fine but over all I probably have the graphic settings on both at around medium. People with brand new top of the line P4_3.06, Radeon 9800XT 256mb and a gig of DDR RAM can't max out LO:MAC and I assume CFS3 either.

The newer combat flight simulators with eye popping graphics and lots of AI are just resource hogs. No doubt about it.

If you want to you can check out everyone bellyaching about it over at the LO:MAC General Discussion forum.

http://www.lo-mac.com/

And while you're there download the 125MB LO:MAC demo and check it out.

If CFS2 or CFS3 starts to get choppy of stuttery after extended play I imagine it's because something isn't releasing your memory so that it can be used again. If it's CFS2 or CFS3 then I guess all you can do is restart the sim or better yet restart your computer. It's possible that another program or process running in the background is using up your memory and not releasing it. You may want to close down those unnecessary programs using EndItAll2. It's simple to use. After you install it just go up on the menu bar under "Action" and choose "Close All". That's it. Everything that gets closed will go back to normal when you restart your computer. At the default setting EndItAll2 closes 14 of the 16 processes/programs that I have running in the background.

I guess a badly fragmented OS can cause this too.

http://www2.whidbey.com/djdenham/enditall2.htm

Good luck.

PS. I just found this Gamespot review of LO:MAC and I'll paste the portion of it that relates to it's performance. So CFS3 isn't alone.

"Admittedly, all of the graphics in Lock On, from the aircraft to the ground units to the cities and landscapes, are excellent and are sure to please even the pickiest sim fans. But here is where the first problem rears its head. In addition to odd graphics glitches that pop up here and there, if you turn all of the graphics details on high, such as heat blur, high quality water, reflections, and so on, your computer will not be able to run Lock On smoothly through all of the various environments in which you will fly.

The A-10 can take an enormous amount of damage and will still come home.
It doesn't matter if you have a P4 3.2 GHz machine with one gig of RAM and a Radeon 9800 XT; it will bog down at quite a few points in the game (bog down: defined as frame rates dropping into the single digits). The good news is that the game is designed to allow you to toggle a wide variety of graphics options down or off. The bad news is that even with most of these turned down, high performance systems will still occasionally experience poor frame rates. For example, flying just above a cloud base will result in unacceptable stuttering on even the heftiest system. If you have a "moderate" setup, say an AMD Athlon 2200+ or a P4 2.4 GHz, with a midrange GeForce or Radeon video card, you'll find it difficult to find any settings that will allow you to play the game with consistently smooth frame rates under all conditions (such as when flying low and encountering a high density of ground units and terrain). Until you either get a higher-end system or patches are distributed that improve the graphics performance, midrange computer pilots would be well advised to stick to missions with fewer ground objects and clear skies, and even users of bleeding-edge systems will have to be willing to put up with occasional periods of molasses-slow frame rates."

To read the full review go to:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/lockonmodernaircombat/review.html

I agree cfs3 was an incoplete product.
However since i was stuck with a lemon I decieded to make lemonade.So far it is a pretty good drink.
ocassionaly i put something in the pitcher I shouldn't and have to make a whole new batch.
The missions I have been downloading as well as scenery
saved the game for me really. most of the missions came from 46th-designs

bobc1, Thanks for your comments. Firstly, I must say, the water texture in the screenshot is indeed, realistic.  

Secondly, I must agree with almost everything you say. The world of Flight Sims (and indeed the real part of it) would be a pretty dull one if we settled for the "current state of the art", and shunned advances of any kind because of the need to use more sophisticated, and hence more expensive hardware, to make it work.

None of my points were intended (nor do I believe they inferred) that there should not be advancement and a general "pushing of the envelope" in favour of the tried and tested. I would never be so narrow minded or dogmatic to suggest such a 'backward' approach to anything.

My argument (for want of a better expression), and my only one, I believe, was that this Sim was held up to be one thing, and turned out to be another. I allege it was falsely advertised, in my opinion. That's all. And that's what I believe most people are upset about.  

I defy anyone to get any kind of reasonable Sim experience out of a PC with the Specifications which are on the CFS3 box. I know they are MINIMUM specs, and I know what the term means and what to expect. But if you literally double (or even triple) these specs, the Sim will not go anywhere near it's medium settings and perform reasonably.

Those specs are, for those who may not know (as I understand that there are some people who, for some reason, have never seen the box??)  

400 Mhz or better Processor
64 Mb Ram for Windows 98/Me
128 Mb Ram for Windows 2000/XP
16 Mb 3D Video Card
A sound card with speakers or headphones!

You must admit, these spec, even as MINIMUM Specs , are absolutely ridiculous, and anyone would have to agree with my 'tripling' suggestion.  

I'm all for progress, otherwise we wouldn't have what we have now, but a little bit of 'reality' in their published expectations of the Sim would really have saved alot of people much frustration. Also, and probably most of all, I think a better approach in "pushing the envelope" is to do it in such a way that the 'New Development' (whatever it may be) is still within the capabilities of the 'average to highend' PC and not confine it's abilities to the few 'super performance' PC's around at the time.

The fact that the Sim works well for you and a few others, who have 'high end' machines is good, and I believe you obviously deserve the rewards you receive from all the work you have put into building up (and maintaining) your system.
It's just that buying a Car to suit the new set of tyres that you have, seems a little back-to-front for me, and obviously a few others.  

I don't have a PC that will come close to running CFS3, so I don't know what you mean with regard to your assertion that my hardware must be at fault, if your identical hardware is running it OK. Unless you are speaking in 'General terms' to those who have your level of PC but cannot make it work.  8)
If this is the case, I can only agree, because I have not had the opportunity to use the Sim on anything other than a low end machine.

Steve

Quote:


I've got shares in the Sydney Harbour Bridge available also, mate!  

I know these specs have probably been mentioned here a number of times before, but I think we all (those of us whose expectations of CFS3 were wide of the mark) should occasionally remind ourselves of the (alleged) brilliant 'con job' that was perpertrated on the Sim community by the makers of CFS3.
These specs really do bely explanation, and I would love to hear from just 1 person who has managed to get this Sim to run (just reasonably) for at least 5 minutes, with any one of these component specs, let alone all of them!  

As I said, that's really all I think everyone is angry and frustrated about.   At least, that's it as far as I'm concerned.
I received CFS3 as a Christmas gift from my kids (after having requested it), but I would now have preferred something that my kids could see me enjoying, rather than have to explain to them that what they got me was just far too advanced for my PC (and probably the next one too), and is of no use to me at all (even tho' the box says otherwise).  ???

If MS had included on there box (instead of these specs), something like:
"This Simulator will only perform with a reasonable degree of quality and regularity if it is used on 'top of the line' PC with an above average 'dedicated' graphics card after having been 'tweaked' an fiddled with for months by only those who have years of experience in Flight Simulator programs and good deal of knowledge in PC operations and maintenance.
P.S. There is also a good chance that some people in the above catagory could still become 'frustrated Morons", everyone would be happy.