What's Wrong with CFS - FSIC Messageboard

FSIC Messageboard

What's Wrong with CFS

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: What's Wrong with CFS
bomber Pilot	posted 05-12- 08:37 PM I just saw the E3 site and along with the x box Microsoft looks pretty good to me. CFS2 will have tons of user made planes but all the serious simmers seem to stay away. Is this do to a subconscious hatred of MS? Detailed explanation wanted. IP: Logged
Sebulba Pilot	posted 05-12- 09:10 PM Hello BomberBoy, I like CFS just fine. What tends to drive away my friends from CFS and MSFS (I dont know if anyone else feels this way) are a few bad things. First the atrocious camera. Second the crappy collisions, a wing touches the ground you go up in flames. Third, the user made planes dont have nearly as much time put into them. Fourth, the difficulty in creating missions. Fifth, you cant use any other stations in a bomber, you are stuck in pilot. Anywho, so from my perspective, Microsoft brought it on themselves. P.S. If you wan a great site for FlightSim add-on planes and other stuff check out www.FlightSim.com ! ------------------ Sleek design, thats all I care about. IP: Logged
Whirlwind Pilot	posted 05-12- 09:47 PM I think either Luftwaffe Commander or CFS stole each other's special effects. It could, of course, been a collaborative effort. MS has a good ear when it comes to listenning to gamers, so I immagine that CFS2 will be near 9 or 9.5 on a 10 when it comes out. Please don't say 'B-17 II will whomp its patootie' because you can't expand B-17II unless you inflate the shrink wrap it shipped with. IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 05-12- 09:59 PM I'd rank CFS towards the bottom of the barrel for WW2 sims released last year. IMHO the terrain was poor, the AI was inexcusably incompetent and the campaign was not immersive. Online play was not that hot either I can't remember what turned me off it. The only saving grace were some finer points on the flight models like sideslip. I'm a big fan of Microsoft software otherwise, Visual Studio is the best development package I've used on any platform, IIS 4 and Active Server Pages rock for web server software, and MS Office is very good as well. I hope they pull their heads out and realize people want something more than MS Flight simulator with guns though. TS ------------------ Patch It! TS Aircombat [This message has been edited by Tailslide (edited 05-12-2000).] IP: Logged
juzz Pilot	posted 05-12- 10:54 PM quote: Please don't say 'B-17 II will whomp its patootie' because you can't expand B-17II unless you inflate the shrink wrap it shipped with. LOL! Being that CFS "whomped" every other WW2 sim the first time around, I think it's safe to say CFS2 with it's Pacific theme and inflatibility will "whomp" them all again. IP: Logged
bomber Pilot	posted 05-12- 11:24 PM Thanks for the comments guys! I was reflecting on having placed all my hopes on B17 2 being the next sim to spend my free time with. I have enjoyed SDOE and this community alot. The community at Bombs away seems nice, they even have a lot of guys from SDOE in the forum. The problem is it looks like there may be a great crop of sims this year and we only have a limited amount of time to spend playing online. The ranking of Qualities that are important to me for online fun are as follows. 1. Missions (no online sim has been able to provide good missions with the possible exception of Janes FA and Warbirds SL's.) 2. Community (the people you play with have got to be fun. All of you in the SDOE gang and especial the 225th thx for beening here.) 3. FM (The planes have got to feel right and they have to have a place in the sim where every pilot feels like he is making a contribution to the game at hand. No one wants to be just a big human piloted drone.) 4. Damage model (nothing is more stressfull than hitting a plane with all your ammo and having it fly off. Perhaps with the exception of a KI43 shooting at the pilot armor of a F6F. Sometimes you know going in that it would have been real tough in real life to bring a plane down.) 5. Number of planes in a mission (Unless you have been there its hard to explain how a big formation feels. I have flown fighter cover in Warbirds for 50 B17s with maybe 60 Fighters!) 6. Graphics (Is there anyone other than my Ace buddy in DOA that still plays in 2d.) 7. Motion (some sims feel like your standing still I felt that way in EAW and F4.) 8. Head movement ( Have you ever been flying along and wished you could move your head the two inches it would take to look at a plane in front of you thats behind a cockpit brace.) 9. Patches (We will always need them and I hope that every sim I buy keeps coming up with improvements as long as its practical.) 10. Addons are nice if they work right. (Its fun to come to the forum and see the thrill you guys get out of making something new.) IP: Logged
JT Pilot	posted 05-12- 11:33 PM I love the Microsoft flight model, but I thought the sim was a mess in almost every other way. The frame rate was horrible even though the graphics were mediocre... in fact, the stated minimum system specifications were, in my opinion, outright fraud. The 3d cockpits were a mess. The clouds were awful. You couldn't adjust fog/horizon distance. There was no physics model beyond the flight model. Ground handling was phony. There were no visible damage effects other than engine fire/smoke.... oh and the bright red text telling you that the whatever has been hit. The multiplayer options were very limited (at least when I played). You couldn't direct wingmen. Given enough time, the AI would run itself into the ground for no reason. The list goes on and on. There was just very little to like about it. About the only stuff I liked about CFS was the stuff it inherited from FS 98, on which it was built. Even so, I'm more than willing to give CFS 2 a chance... I'm almost positive Microsoft won't have the guts to put out a demo, so I will have to be careful and rely on reviews and user comments before I decide to buy. IP: Logged
Spanky the Mad Dog Pilot	posted 05-13- 12:23 PM Spanky here... Limited damage model. HORRIBLE terrain. I can't stand that pixel effect down low in almost ALL flight sims. ugg. I really only played it a couple times and thats what bugged me right away. IP: Logged
Mirthain Pilot	posted 05-13- 04:48 PM I just got a copy of CFS and comparably, the graphics are disgusting at all levels. I do like CFS for the ease of importing aircraft and terrain, and it is fun to arm up your favorite civilian aircraft and blow something up, but really it isn't an immersive experience. You don't really FEEL the plane and the sounds are about rude. When a plane passes you it sounds like the gardeners just went by with a lawnmower. The FM is slow and roll rates are enough to make you throw up. The user made planes are typically better for FM but many don't have the Virtual cockpit so panning and padlock is really a nasty experience. I like it for general flying and will be loading up terrain from FS98 so I can play around with it there, but mostly FS and WW2 fighters will be the big winners for me. WW2 fighters for the great Ground attack missions and FS for obvious reasons... ;} Keep up the good work boys, Mirthain=FC= IP: Logged
dauntless851 Pilot	posted 05-13- 07:46 PM I like CFS because of all of the aircraft and terrain you can add to it. I've got 150-200 planes and I just like to fly them around in free flight mode. Thanks bomber for saying that the motion in EAW is like standing still. I thought I was the only one around here who's been saying that. ------------------ IP: Logged

All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center

(This site Copyright (c) 1999 Inertia LLC)

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c