The much awaited successor to CFS2 is near completion so our Chuck "SmokingCrater" Norton climbs into the cockpit for a hands-on, in-depth look at the inner workings of the air combat sim that will take us back to WWII Europe. Does the public relations hype match the reality? Read on to find out.

As a flightsim fanatic, I will probably end up with it, as I did the last two. Whether
or not I wait until it's been out a while will depend on the review! I hope the full
release addresses these multiple points you've reported.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FinnN:
Yep interesting review - one little thing, you can pan around the cockpits though.

Have fun
Finn

---

You're right, Finn, it is possible to pan around the cockpits, although I have found that in-cockpit panning seems very limited compared to say IL-2 (not that we need to look at our feet all the time, but it did seem restrictive). Still, it was an oversight, thanks for bringing this up.

--------------------

Nice preview indeed!

When I first started seeing the screenshots the alarm bells started ringing, now having read your preview, on the rest of it. I seem to have had my fears confirmed, so will be giving this half cooked sim a rather wide birth....Shame really, for more than one reason too M$ does it again...Ho Hum..

Thanks again

Biggs

--------------------

Looks like Microsoft has bunged another great opportunity. The possibility that they've used a Crimson Skies flight model in a sim begging for the FS2002 FM makes one wonder what's in the water in Redmond. Don't these development teams even talk to each other? It seems that they don't even exchange dirty jokes via email, let alone communicate on a substantial level...

Sheesh, I was looking forward to nursemaiding those finicky early turbojets and dealing with the problems of transsonic compressibility when I should've been crossing my fingers that they'd at least give Newtonian physics a wink and a nod. A "tumbling climb" indeed.

Great job, Chuck. Way to wring out a sim!

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FinnN:
Yep interesting review - one little thing, you can pan around the cockpits though.

Have fun
Finn

---

Yep, my mistake on this one. Apologies for that. I guess I was looking for the level comparable to Il-2, but its just not there. Again, my apologies for this mistake.

Groucho, that thought crossed my mind too. To tell you the truth the aircraft in the game handled more like they were built around the Crimson Skies FM rather than that in FS2002. Since I didn't have any factual information to base that suspicion on, I didn't want to bother putting it in my article. I'd be interested in hearing the final word on this one though.

It's good to see a critical view on the new CFS 3. The FS2002 not installing on a D: partition seems strange. I had absolutely no problem installing it that way myself. Don't know how I did it but I tend to just edit the install path by hand (replace C: with D and don't bother with the interface.

I have some background questions for you.

• Did you try the 1% airfiles (http://www.avhistory.org/) with CFS2 and if so how do you rate them
  
• How do you rate the standard FS2002 Pro flight models
  
• Have you tried the SIAI Marchetti 260 by www.realairsimulations.com and if so how do you rate tjhat fligh model (the first FS2002 aicraft that properly spins)
  

Just curious - What type of Pilot Certificates and ratings do you hold?

I am amazed at the difference between the pre Beta screenshots released by Microsoft and the ones seen in this preview. They are truly horrific. The cockpit of that Tempest is a disaster.

What about these clouds everyone keeps going on about? I'm actually surprised that some people are making such a song and dance about them. Can clouds really be any better than those in IL-2? Mein Gott! Now i'm going on about clouds!

It's good to hear from someone who flies planes to give their opinion on the feel of a flight model. Talking of flight models. I was led to believe the 1% team were working with Microsoft on CFS3 and everything would be rosey?!

quote:

---

Didn’t anyone at MS take a look at IL-2 and wonder, if only for a moment, if they were doing the right thing? The moral implications are for another time and another venue

---

I think that speaks volumes and when you talk about Microsoft having amples resources and more than enough money, if they're not going to ask or listen. With all the money in the world, it aint going to happen.

I'd love to know what lies in store with MP...actually, no I won't I'm sure I'll give this a miss.

Again, thanks Our Chuck, I enjoyed the read.

--------------------

"Thingmies? We don't need no stinking Thingmies"

quote:

---

Originally posted by boshar:
I have some background questions for you.

• Did you try the 1% airfiles (http://www.avhistory.org/) with CFS2 and if so how do you rate them
  
• How do you rate the standard FS2002 Pro flight models
  
• Have you tried the SIAI Marchetti 260 by www.realairsimulations.com and if so how do you rate tjhat fligh model (the first FS2002 aicraft that properly spins)
  

---

Hi boshar,

1) No, I did not. CFS 2 did not have a very long tenure on my hard drive. I played it for a while, but once I grew tired of the carrier landings I deleted it.

2) On average, less-than-perfect. The latest editions of the Cessna Skyhawks are quite atrocious. The in-game Chickenhawk climbs like a rocket which is total BS. Hawks do all right in real life, but nothing like they do in FS2002. The 182RG is okay, but again not quite right. I've got plenty of time in both aircraft types (and more) and both of them are a bit questionable. In all, I'd say they do feel much better than any of the aircraft in CFS 3, but you have to look at the envelope in which they're operating. As I said, you keep a P-80 straight and level and you won't notice any issues. But, where I feel both games falter is when you start pushing the boundaries of the flight envelope.

3) No, I don't have any custom aircraft for FS2002 because I pretty much just use it for practicing instrument approaches. That's one area where I think MS shined in FS2002. The realm of IFR pretty spot on... at least in the area that I usually fly.

As far as the installation goes, my D: drive isn't a partition per se. Its an actual, physical second hard drive. I don't know if that has anything to do with my problems, but if I ever need to reinstall FS2002, I will use your idea and see if it works! Thanks!

Petedog, I currently hold a private pilot certificate with instrument rating and will have my Airframe and Powerplant certificate by December 2002.

Rodger, again, thank you for the compliments. The truth is, I didn't talk about the clouds because they're nothing stellar. They don't really add or detract from the game to a significant degree. Also, I didn't fly into them too much to see how they affected flight or combat, so I didn't feel that I could speak very well on that point. In my opinion, the volumetric clouds in Il-2 look a lot better. The CFS 3 clouds are a bit bland, but again, I didn't investigate them too heavily. I guess if there's a consensus on it, I could go and take a really close look at it and let you know what I find. Any takers?

I know you're unable to try it, but what's the info on MP?

Does it give you much more than CFS2 and I thought there was word that there was some sort of system being set into the game that could stop the alteration of the files?

--------------------

"Thingmies? We don't need no stinking Thingmies"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodger Bilko:
Our Chuck,

I know you're unable to try it, but what's the info on MP?

Does it give you much more than CFS2 and I thought there was word that there was some sort of system being set into the game that could stop the alteration of the files?

---

I have no word on MP. My internet service is still down. I've been checking this forum thread from work on my breaks.
This means no Il-2 Online, no AA, no MoH:AA... nothing. !!!!!!
Sorry I can't help!!

Groan. Great review like I like them. Honest and fair. I am a pilot too and like realism. CFS3 sounds like Red Baron 2... a messup of a good idea.

It sounds like M$ screwed up again. If CFS3 is released unfixed, it shows M$ is as arrogant and uncaring as ever. When will Congress put these losers on track? These guys have a virtual monopoly on everything.

Oh well, good review, Chuck.

I've heard the FM isn't complete and still being worked on. How can you test something incomplete?

--------------------

"Thingmies? We don't need no stinking Thingmies"

In addition, I spoke to Microsoft's Simulations Product Manager yesterday, and he said, that CFS3 has moved on a great deal, since the production and release of the beta to the press, in terms of flight modelling, terrain graphics and the Campaign engine. Seems like the beta was released just to give people an idea of the 'design' of the sim, rather than an indication of what the final thing would look like. In fact it's more like an advanced Alpha than a Beta.

So perhaps it's best to wait and see what happens, come the final release.

Isn't that what Beta testing is about?

Like, how can one test something if it's going to be different? I don't get it.

--------------------

"Thingmies? We don't need no stinking Thingmies"

But to offer an answer to your question:
"Like, how can one test something if it's going to be different? I don't get it",
this would seem to confirm what I said in my previous post that this is not the 'final' Beta, but a 'work-in-progress'.
I hear another Beta is to be released pretty soon.

quote:

---

...CFS3 has moved on a great deal, since the production and release of the beta to the press...

---

Fair enough, Derek, but I don't know if "moving on" will necessarily help these flight models all that much. In my opinion they don't just need a simple tweaking. (Or even a thorough tweaking.) They need a complete overhaul. Besides, I'm not sure if its the individual flight models, or the underlying physics model that's the problem. Perhaps its both. (?) Anyway, my original quote in the article was taken directly from the press kit saying that most of the flight models are complete or very nearly so. (I forget the exact quote, reference the article if you want it.) To me that says that they're just going to tweak the FM's make a few adjustments here and there and not really make any drastic changes.

I also agree with Rodger's point. It is fair to judge something that as of yet is "incomplete." And while this preview wasn't a beta test per se, this is the same game that a lot of beta testers are looking at and perhaps they'll see what I wrote and get busy trying to reproduce the bugs on an official level. But maybe they won't.

The final point of the matter is that the FM's are morbidly flawed and if they don't get a serious overhaul, they won't be anywhere near realistic by the point of release.

Perhaps our views of this will just be something that we'll have to agree to disagree on.

On another note:

Rodger, I went back today and took a good look at the clouds. My initial opinion stands. They are nothing spectacular. I don't know if its a beta issue or what but they flicker in and out all the time. One moment they'll have reasonably nice textures and the next they'll be the ugly grey blobs covering the vast majority of your screen. All in all, not terribly impressive.

As far as volumetrics go, they're good. Fly into one and fly out of it again later where you'd expect to, so no complaints there. IMHO, the volumetric clouds look a tad better in Il-2 where at the thunderheads in CFS 3 take a slight edge. That is, when they're textured and not showing their void form.

Hope this helps.

Final note:

The issue of views was bugging me too, so I spent quite a bit of time today fiddling with the view system. Here's my final say on the matter.

The virtual cockpit view can be fully panned 180 degrees either direction but... not with the joystick POV hat. The only way to do it is with the numerical keypad. When I attempted to remap these controls to the POV hat, the game wouldn't let me. It kept overwriting each previous attempt as I tried to input the successive assignments. (i.e. when I selected "eyepoint forward" by pressing the POV hat forward, it saw that this command [labeled POV1] was already assigned to "eyepoint left." So, when I confirmed it, it erased the POV1 for "eyepoint left" and assigned it to "eyepoint forward.") Thus making it impossible to use the hat to pan the internal views. The external views are and always have been panned by using the POV hat.

Additionally, I mapped the padlock to my joystick which eliminated my earlier problems with this control. The actual padlock view doesn't follow the target around the world as you maneuver (as in Il-2) but rather puts a 3D cone on your screen pointing towards the selected target.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

But just a small point, re:
"The virtual cockpit view can be fully panned 180 degrees either direction but... not with the joystick POV hat."

I think you may be incorrect on that point, as I too have the beta of CFS3 and using my 'old' CH Force FX stick, you can actually pan the virtual cockpit using the POV hat. You may have tried this already, but have you tried pressing the Scroll Lock key...this toggles the "Scroll/snap view".
Hope this helps

quote:

---

Originally posted by Derek:
...have you tried pressing the Scroll Lock key...this toggles the "Scroll/snap view".

---

My mistake then. Previous comments withdrawn.

Sounds like I'll play it about as much as CFS 1&2, which was not very much. Maybe not though, the campaign sounds interesting, and I am sure the FM's will be adjusted, if not fixed, by the user community.

Just a shame that MS can't produce a sim at least equal to Il-2, though.

Aside-anyone else besides me think the planes look a lot worse that CSF2? I guess you touched on that, though.

--------------------

Are the flight model files written like CFS2 was? If so they are dead easy to mod. If you can paint your plane you should be able to add wear to it. Can you? Terrain is a more complex issue but EAW modders did wonders. There's more and better software for this now. What kind of file extensions do those terrain files have?

Sorry for the esoteric questions but since I mod I'd like to know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twitch:
Are the flight model files written like CFS2 was? If so they are dead easy to mod. If you can paint your plane you should be able to add wear to it. Can you? Terrain is a more complex issue but EAW modders did wonders. There's more and better software for this now. What kind of file extensions do those terrain files have?

Sorry for the esoteric questions but since I mod I'd like to know.

BTW the orignal pre beta for EAW had simply ridiculous flight models that were fixed by release- let's hope.

---

Indeed, let's hope. Twitch, email me @ cdouglasn@aol.com and tell me exactly what to look for and I'll let you know what kind of files they are.

I almost hate to see pre beta and sometimes even a beta disc to review as we try to read too much into it. The company is damned if they do and damned if they don't produce a disc for the media to look at. It's hard to know what is raw and what is completly done sometimes. I like being pleasantly surprised that something on a pre beta that was bad is cleaned up for release. I remember the Spitfire in EAW barely flew at all!! When the final version was released it was fine. I hope at least some of the points you noted are upgraded.