This Gentelment in another forum claims he was chosen by MS to answer a survey with a questionair obout what we most like see in the next CSF installment. To my astonishment most of the questions where about CFS3. That gave the impression they are problably going back to CFS3 and try to give us the same defunk Game in a  upgraded version. Don!t they get it . That game was a failure and they should leave it as is . It did have some remedial qualities to it but overall it was not what we wanted. I think what most of us wanted was a upgraded CFS2 with more planes and accessories. Intead they change the formula . Look what Oleg did . He stayed with the same format and it has been a resounding success for him and his company. I  also would like see them change Theater of war . Lets finishing the Pacific war so would get different menue instead of always having to fight the Nazis. Do you guys realize if it were not for CFS2 there would not be a serious Combat flight simulator representing the Pacific War. Now I love to play in the European theater war but we do need a littlle more representaion of the Pacific war as is sorely needed. Afterward we could go back to Europe and perhaps do one on the Mediterreanean theater of war. Thankyou for hearing my complain . I hope to hear from Others. Its important to me. James007

It is doubtful that MS would abandon the CFS 3 engine.

To my memory that number of complaints about CFS 3 is quite in line with those of earlier generations. The complaints are about different things though.

Standard complaints:

• Lack of MP anti-cheat (1&2)
• Lack of online ground targets (1&2)
• Lack of online cooperative play (1&2)
• Add-ons don't work like stock (1&2, later corrected in 2)
• It's a resource hog (all)
• Why didn't you patch it? (all)
• X Did it better, why can't you do it like them?(all)
• Why can't we fly bombers?

Many of the changes that went into making CFS 3 were in response to player complaints...look at the top of the list.

My self, I think they went too far. It is also important to me that they work with Louis Sinclair to ensure that FSDS is compatible with CFS 4...I don't do GMax.

Quote:


Amen to that Astrobat.
For me CFS2 is THE BEST combat flight sim around, ,even after all the years it´s been around it is getting better and better with time, like good wines and really beutifull women.
CFS3 is a big dissapointment in every way, IF ms wants to sitck with it, there is nothing more we can do but not buy it. period. CFS4 should be fs8 or fs9 with guns, doesn´t matter the theatre of operations. Until we see waht comes next , CFS2 will rule.

c´mom, just look at the great planes that keep coming and coming!

anyway, with that and 25 cents you get your cup of coffe.

best regards

Prowler

Quote:


Sadly to say, ,that´s true.
MS have a tradition on this, and one day cfs2 will fade and go away, with no real sucesor on the horizon. Or maybe one day they´ll come up with e real sucesor for it, like i said, fs9 with guns. Who knows, dreams can come true.
best regards
Prowler

It's been said before, but I will say it again, what we want is FS9 with guns. But, we are not going to get it, so we had better get used to it.
When I finally got CFS3 to run on my machine, I found it to be better than I had thought, but after a while a few things started to bug me. I never liked that repaint feature because it just looks crappy, having a Spitfire with daft coloured wingtips ??? I'm sure this is great for multi-player, but it just makes it look too arcade game-ish.
Dogfights just are not the same. I find it hard to get into those tight turning close in dogfights that were such a great feature of CFS1 & 2.
It would have been nice to have a 2-D panel view and that fish-eye lens effect makes external views look strange.
M$ Totally screwed up the load outs on some of the aircraft. This is just me being picky now, but little things like getting the location of the .50 cal machine gun on the Spit IXe wrong and not having the correct type of drop tanks on any British fighters really bugs me no end. It's this lack of attention to detail that annoys me most. There are whole volumes written about the Spitfire and it would not have taken too much effort on M$'s part to just do a bit of research into weapons loads would it?
Now, on the plus side, ground attack is just fantastic. I have never been a big ground attack person, but now I find myself flying fast and low and blowing up stuff all the time, and I love it!
Some of the third party add on stuff now coming through is also first class. AvHistory and Groundcrew are doing some great things with this sim and helping make the whole CFS3 experience so much better.
What would I like to see in CFS4? Korea would be great, but I hear it will be the Pacific Theatre again. Still we should get proper carrier landings again. I just hope M$ include the British, Australian and New Zealand forces this time as well as US and Jap.
Best combat flight sim? CFS2, without doubt. Even now, new stuff is still being developed and uploaded on an almost daily basis. Add to this carrier landings, great dogfights and compatibility with other M$ sims and you have the best combat flight sim ever.
Wow, I feel better now I've got that off my chest

I can't say that I've flown CFS3 but I have spent many hours over the past years with CFS2. I was considering purchasing CFS3 when it was first released but decided to wait. I'm glad I did. I agree with Stratobat regarding the "arcade game" type appearance of the screenshots; very unappealing. Add to that all of the limitations with regards to add-ons and I could see right away, it wasn't for me.

I did however, recently purchase FS2004. I've never owned any of the regualr Flight Simulator series until now but I have to say, if we could get the performance of FS9 in CFS4, I'd be a happy camper. The graphics are outstanding. The screenshots look much better than those cheesy shots I see from CFS3.

I'm not against progress. If M$ came out tomorrow and said, "We are completely reworking everything and building a new and better simulator that will offer much improved and REALISTIC graphics and will provide for relatively easy expansion (add-ons)..." I'd be very open to listen to what they have to say. The problem I have with the current situation is, we have a combat flight simulator (in CFS3) that has obvious limitations, bugs etc., but here they are planning to create something else just like it, with complete disregard for what we, THE CONSUMERS ($$$$$$) want to see.

If CFS4 is released using the same engine as was used with CFS3, I'll definitely keep my distance to see what happens before I buy.

You know, with all of this talent I've seen from CFS2 add-on developers, Microsoft had better keep an eye on their six. There's enough talent out there for an aspring company to put to work and create a rival that could blow MS Combat Flight Simulator into the past, along with some of its early counterparts.  8)

I think Mr. Clark is on the right track, at least for now. FS9 has superior graphics and frame rate performance and provides for add-ons. I've been very impressed with it.

FS9 with guns, yup, that's the first thing people ask me about when I show them ACOF.

How do I blow something up?  LMAO

But wouldn't it be nice? I dropped the CFS2 a6m5 zeke in there, had to get the CG back a tad, but WOW! What a nice little flyer!

God Save the Virtual Airlines! LOL  Hmmm, the mind boggles!

Quote:


I think a few people are getting the wrong idea here. FS9 with guns means CFS based on the FS9 engine. FS9 type scenery and clouds and visual models, not blowing up cities in "tooled up" 747's. What most CFS fans would like is a compatible Combat sim, set in the Pacific in WW2 or better still in Korea using the FS9 engine rather than the CFS3 engine.

Do any of you fellows remember FS2000? That was absolutely riddled with bugs and defects just like CFS3. Now look at Fs2002 and FS2004. Two outstanding games that work well.

CFS3 was a huge leap in graphics and things. Fly low over land on CFS2 then do the same with CFS3 with the Autogen on. I think thats an amazing difference.

Sooner or later M$ needed to change the graphics engine used by CFS. CFS2 is just about the best that can be got out of that engine so to move forwards a change was needed. And CFS3 was that change. Of course there were bugs and glitches, there are in all software. Especially new software. CFS4 will have the performance of CFS3 with better graphics, better hardware compatability and fewer glitches. Remember the change needed to be made at somepoint. And M$ thought that CFS3 was the time to do it.

I personally like CFS3. The planes look good and sound good. Whats more I can fly around my part of the world and recognise features in the landscape. (If you hadn't noticed, CFS3 offers the most accurate terrain mesh I've seen in FS and CFS.)

I know Tempest misses the turning fights of CFS1 and 2 but I personally found these fights too easy. Especially when you could single handedly tackle a flight of 8 Oscars in a Hurricane. I find a duel with an Go229 in a Tempest MkV in CFS3 most rewarding. Especially when you finally get a good hit and you see his engives catch fire.

And as for future sims, I want an North Africa/Mediteranian CFS. Just think about launching an attack on Taranto with a dozen Stingbags. Sadly though this is unlikely to happen because the Yanks didn't really play a part in that theatre. And I don't think Americans are too willing to buy games that don't really involve their country in any way at all.

I still think they made a mistake. I cannot agree that the aircraft look good in CFS3. From Spot View it's like looking at a goldfish in its bowl.

Until CFS3 raised its head FS/CFS had always allowed ongoing development of the sim as a whole. My old friend Bill Potvin always used to say there is only one Flight Simulator. CFS is simply a version of it*. Each new version had some improvements over the previous one & 3rd party files were compatible to some extent. This allowed ongoing development that contributed to FS & CFS alike. They took a step backwards with FS2000 & CFS2 was the improvement it should have been. This allowed the DVC & multi-LOD models to be developed ready for FS2002. Right - we're back on course - until CFS3 arrives. Arrrrrgh........! They did it again..............! What a complete cockup. These people couldn't run a pissup in the proverbial brewery.

FS9 came back on course & proves that you can improve the graphics considerably without changing the complete format. I agree with the others that a CFS4 based on the FS9 graphics engine is what I would like to have seen.

As I said previously this is completely irrelevant as the format has already been decided upon. This means that FS & CFS will go their separate ways from now on. I think this is a darned shame.

*PS. FS2000 = FS 7, CFS2 = FS 7.50, FS2002 = FS 8 etc.

PPS. Compare the amount of 3rd party aircraft already developed for FS9 in the few months since its release with the handful available for CFS3. I think this says it all.

i'm no usual guest in the CFS 2 forum,but i gotta say that i really would like to see a dynamic campaign again in CFS4. not like in CFS3, i want it more accurate,just like in falcon 4. of course this will be a much bigger effort to develop since the theatre of operations is quite big, but most of it is squaremiles of empty water. although many factors would have to be analyzed and processed by the computer, i think that this isn't a real problem since modern hardware i capable of doing so.

just my 0,03 €...

Can aircraft be created for IL-2?

I think most people stick with CFS because so much of it is compatible with the FS series.

Regards,
Stratobat

Quote:


CFS2 (With add-ons) betters IL-2 for me...... (I do own both IL-2 & F.B.) CFS3, hmm, don't start me!

By the way there are beaucoup missions and campaigns for the russian game. Th emissionsand campaigns a very easy .Don't do quicks any more just make up my own.
Just like in this game

One nice feature of CFS3 to those of us on 56k is the fact that aircraft are a lot smaller in file size. You can have a fantastically detailed aircraft that comes in a smaller file than a mediocre CFS2 or FS aircraft. I don't think i've seen a CFS3 aircraft yet in a file bigger than 3mb. Where i've seen CFS2 aircraft in files as big as 11mb.

Did I hear "dynamic"?? 
Where can I download it??

A) Can't find a download link (probably too stupid).

B) Those are dynamic missions,a dynamic campaign is something different. 

Hi all. Been reading the debate about CF3 and the proposed CFS4 with interest! Personally, I like CFS 3 - I agree, it's not as good as CFS 2 and definitely has a different "look" about it, but is still pretty cool. My only problem is that I can't get it to run smoothly when the action is happening low down with lots of bombs or rockets flying and buildings or vehicles blowing up. Then it just stutters like hell, the screen often freezes, and it's as though the action is going on but you can no longer see it! Next thing you know you've exploded in a fireball on the ground and there was nothing you could do to prevent it! It's fine in free flight mode, or when in a dogfight, but otherwise......

I have downloaded Direct X 9.0, but it seems to make no difference. I have a reasonably high spec computer and have fitted a GFX 5600 graphics accelerator card, so I can't believe it's my system, and the only way I can get it to run stutter free is to turn down all the detail, which ruins the experience somewhat.....anyone got any suggestions? Adam.