Interview: Combat Flight Simulator 2

------------------
Ed Reddy
Managing Editor
COMBATSIM.COM

------------------
Todd "Stardog" Garner
v355th Fighter Group
Adjutant v358th FS

His question is valid and I don't think anyone should criticize him for it.

PIII 500 OC'd to ~533MHz
Hercules 3d Prophet II GTS 32MB
ASUS P2B-F MoBo
196MB SDRAM 7ns PC100 CAS2-125MHz
IBM DeskStar 14GXD 14.4GB 7200RPM HD
Monster Sound MX300
Mitsubishi 19" DP900U NF Monitor

I'm a closet CivSim guy to some extent, and a fairly regular user of MS FS2K.
I have found since the addition of the Guillemot card that I get damn good frame rates at 1024 x 768 in FS2K- much better than with my old Voodoo3. Since I use FS2K primarily as a tool to practice VFR flight practices and navigation- including looking out of a window- I keep the realism and graphics sliders pretty well maxxed out. While processor type and speed is probably paramount in squeezing good FRs, and gobs of RAM helps, it seems that FS2K is much more sensitive to what video card you use than, say, F4 is.
But I digress. And those run-on sentences get tiring.
While I have not yet had a chance to wring out a Beta of this promising propellerhead sim, I would suspect that CFS2 will run decently on any system- like my decidedly pedestrian rig, for example- that runs FS2K smoothly.

Add the wingman commands and "real" campaign and it's gotta be a winner.

-keeping my fingers crossed

Hope the FMs don't turn out to be porked.

And the IJN carriers represented is an odd choice - the HIRYU was fairly small (18,800 tons) and the JUNYO not much bigger. The HIRYU also has the distinction of being one of only 2 carriers w/ the island on the port side (the AKAGI was the other).

A better choice IMO would have been the SHOKAKU class.

If you look at the answers in the article closely I think you will be somewhat disappointed with the finished product.

I have a feeling that this is going to be a "sim lite" combat simulator.

The communications are going to be lacking. Minimal wingmen commands, no package, tower, or SAR communication commands.

No persistent damage modeling within the campaign. Notice he said you could do it in the mission builder.

Will we be able to take off from runways and the carriers?

Will we be able to land on runways and the carriers?

Do the missions start and end in the air?

Im not a real big Mircosoft Flight Sim fan, but I hope it's aleast up to par with European Air War.

quote:

---

The communications are going to be lacking.

---

quote:

---

Minimal wingmen commands, no package, tower, or SAR communication commands.

---

quote:

---

No persistent damage modeling within the campaign. Notice he said you could do it in the mission builder.

---

quote:

---

Will we be able to take off from runwaysand the carriers? Will we be able to land on runways and the carriers?

---

quote:

---

Do the missions start and end in the air?

---

Brandor.

What kind of an answer is that? Sounds like Clinton to me. Why doesn't he just come out and say that damage will not be persistant during user created missions. (I can't think of any other sims where it is, so it's no big deal anyway.) He never answers whether damage will be persistant during the campaign, but his dodge of the question leads me to believe it will not be.

This game sounds like a good one if you're into FPS's. Beautiful graphics and no point or purpose to it.

I saw and played CFS-II at E-3. This sim goes to exceptional lengths to be as realistic as possible in every aspect including the campaign.

I am totally astounded by your statement that you think the game is stupid and pointless because the Allies win the war.

Do you honestly think that the actions of one pilot will win the entire war??? That is absolutely impossible and absurd. Very few pilots made the minimum requirement of 5 confirmed kills to even reach the title of ace. And the maximum number of kills any one pilot made was something like 80. You think 80 kills will win the entire war?

That is one of the things that IS realistic about CFS-II. You are just one pilot of an entire Airforce and you do the best you can. Just like the real lives of real pilots, you either end up a hero or causality, but you will not not be responsible for winning the entire Allied-Japanese war.

Good luck.

Salut!

JG2”FireCat!”

quote:

---

I am totally astounded by your statement that you think the game is stupid and pointless because the Allies win the war.

---

I'll have to agree with Rufus, it may not be realistic, but it is far more entertaining to have some type of goal your working for instead of just flying and shooting (I'd love to win as the Japanese). This is what I though made old Lucasfilm games like Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe and BOB: Their Finest Hour. So fun to play, you COULD lose the Battle of Britain, or you could win as the Germans. Not very realistic flight models or campaigns, but hours of fun. You as one pilot couldn't change the war, but how well you did was applied to other computer controlled air groups to determine success or failure. If you have never played the before games I mentioned, you probably think I'm nuts (and showing my age).

CFS-2 could appease both crowds by having a realistic and Fantasy campaign option. Now where did I put those 5.25" floppy disks....

My 2 yen.

• Attack - Padlock and Un-padlocked (attack padlocked tells two planes from your flight to attack the currently padlocked target, land, sea, or air. Un-padlocked sends two aircraft at a time to peruse their mission directive, i.e attack ships, ground targets, or aircraft)
  
• Rejoin (pull everyone back together)
  
• Help Me (closest wingmen comes to your aid if possible)
  
• Split (splits your formation in two)
  

[Ed]Will we be able to take off from runways and the carriers?
[Rob]Yes.

[Ed]Will we be able to land on runways and the carriers?
[Rob]Yes

[Ed]Do any of the missions start and end in the air?
[Rob]Yes some are designed that way, plus you always have the option of ending the mission in the air.

To answer FTZ's questions about the lack of a Ki-61 Tony, remember that the SDK will be available for CFS2. You will be able to import CFS1 and FS2K aircraft plus be able create your own missions using the imported planes.

Cheers.
Ed

The goal is to accomplish each of your missions without getting yourself or your wingmen shot down or killed. That in itself should be quite difficult. As you progress through your tour(s) of duty, you will gain more and more responsibility and earn medals and rank; missions will become more and more challenging.

It seems to me, however, that CFS-II is not the right sim for either yourself or Rufus. But fortunately, both of you are in luck. There are 4 recent flight sims that should be perfect for you. Probably the best of the lot is "Crimson Skies", also by Microsoft and just released. This game is similar to SWOTL in that you can fly exotic or fantasy aircraft and is designed specifically for the "fun" factor you appear to be looking for.

There are also three other recently released WW2 flight sims that were designed to meet your interests. "Nations: Fighter Command", Wings of Destiny", and "Luftwaffe Commander" all combine a "fun" factor into a flight sim. A bonus is that you can probably buy all three of the latter for the same price as CFS-II.

Salut!

JG2”FireCat!”

CSIM: "How is the campaign structured? In other words, does it span the whole war- from Pearl Harbor to Midway to island hopping to Iwo Jima to the Atomic Bombing- as a continuous campaign, or is it broken up? How is it broken up"?

Rob Brown: "As a pilot you will start just shortly after Pearl Harbor and wind your way through the Solomon and into the island hopping campaigns. It culminates with the big battles for Siapan and Tinnian. We decided to stay away from Kamikaze attacks and attacks on the Japanese mainland for political sensitivity reasons. Users can, however, create any of these if they so chose".

I am truly perplexed by the revisionist history or should I say the deniability of history with regards to what happened in a previous war. The same crowd that wanted to deny the Enola Gay her rightfull spot in history because it might offend the Japanese.

Guess what, the Japanese have never appologized for Nanking atrosoties, where the soldiers would toss babies in the air and spear them with their bayonets, or the biological testing they did on the civilians of Peking, using them as human guiney pigs to test weapons of mass destruction.

Thatll kill this sim for me. Can we go into
more details on this topic please?

It's not that there will be no multiplayer in CFS-II, it's just that they are not improving it from it's current state except in the areas of cheating. In other words it'll be the same multiplayer as CFS-I, only with better security.

Salut!

JG2"FireCat!"

You HAFTA be kidding, right?

What year is this? .... 1996?...
c'mon guys....
the ONLY Thing I was looking forward to
was getting up in the sky with a buddy and (making/playing) some missions.

VERY DISSAPOINTED ..

"I am totally astounded by your statement that you think the game is stupid and pointless because the Allies win the war.

Do you honestly think that the actions of one pilot will win the entire war??? That is absolutely impossible and absurd."

War is so absurd and unpredictable that the actions of one individual can never be quantified relative to how they effect others in the bigger picture.
The truth is, this type of "cause and affect" principle may never by able to be implimented into software such that a campaign can reflect these actions. In other words, software would need to reflect such concepts as motivation, inspiration, and it's resultant chain effect, etc.

One individual can affect another who can inspire a small group who can affect a minor camgaign whom might motivate another group to affect an entirely different campaign (that's what military journalism is for--to report (with alot of pr/hype) and motivate others). All this may change nothing until a general might have an apiphany and change his strategy and etc, etc. Kind of crazy, but you can actually rewrite this kind of scenario an infinite # of times.

This was the beauty of the avalon hill games. All this happened within the player's mind. Anything was possible. Now, this all has to be modeled into the software. A very tall order indeed. Of course this is far more immersive than an avalon hill game, or is it? The immersive sensation with av games is purely psychological. With modern computer games, it's purely code!

I can never second guess any one's actions and how they affect the bigger picture--expecially in a war.

What I previously said leans far closer to a strategy game then a sim game. What I would like to see is a game that combines both. Complex campaign modeling leans very close to a strategy game without player imput. And a rudimentary strategy game like Battlezone 2 uses a rudimentary sim interface to control strategy of the big picture.

I think the potential for creating new sim fans is enormous. Think about it: You buy this game, and after playing the strategy side, you get an inkling to to try it in first person. You've never played a sim before, but now you can try it in a game environment you're very familiar with. Or vice versa. After playing Battlezone 2, I was inspired to try a strategy game, but heck if I was going to buy a new game and learn a whole new protocol, but If Battlezone 2 could be switched out of first person, I would be very tempted to learn more of the strategy protocol.

Most non-simmers are very intrigued by the immersion concept but are too afraid to put in the time to learn the protocol and then learn to get good at it. Most of my gaming friends play strategy games and are appalled at the learning curve to enjoy a sim. I know they would try it if it was in a game they already were familiar with.

On the flip side, simmers could try and play the same game from the squad or campaign level with the AI not dictating every action. Say, while flying, you pause it (the turn-based aspect of a strategy game), switch to the campaign level and make some major decisions, then go back and fly. I think the immersion factor could be really cool. You might be alot more conservative so as to live and continue with the strategy of the overall campaign.

Just some thaughts. I see too many games with too little substance. Too many categories. All segregated by preference. The irony is they are all part of the bigger picture (combat oriented games, that is).

Just how many add-ons were there for EAW, SDOE, or WWII Fighters? What's that? None! Naha. Nothing. The sim community was forced to come up with their own mods, except for SDOE which has a SDK like CFS1. Lots of new planes and stuff BUT no vendor picked it up.

At least Micro$oft has the balls to keep on supporting their product well after the release which is more than I can say for Hasbro[has-been], Activision[actwithnovision], and Jane's[jane who?]. To the rest of you microsoft-hating wankers/hardcore flunkies out there, I'm looking forward to CFS2 and CFS3 and CFS4 because I know there is a future for it. Not to mention the add-ons I can expect from compaines like Wilco Publishing and others.

Bring it on microsoft! As least you give a damn.

Bozz.

No you don't. I too have CFS-1, and I've seen and played CFS-2. Sorry, but you are only fooling yourself.

Salut!

JG2"FireCat!"

CFS2 is for eye candy, it looks so cool most sim fanatics will buy it. They get hooked on it and gladly anticipate the release of CFS3 to get the multi-player enhancements that were intentionaly left out of CFS2. Six months later you hear about CFS4 and it's great new features. Like a robot you (or should I say "I") plop down another $40 for Bill Gates' retirement.

History repeats itself again. Microsoft wants the "Combat Flight Simulator" series to perform and be marketed the same as "MS Flight simulator" was - endless upgrades at retail prices. MSFS has been a consistant top ten seller since the microchip stone age. It didn't take a genius to figure the combat sim fanatics had deeper pockets than those geeky civilian sim types.

Keep complaining, Microsoft is watching and is way too smart to ignore our suggestions. What better way to keep the upgrade path perpetual?

Each generation is a major advancement from the previous, not merely in graphics, but pushes the envelope in every aspect of the game. To claim that they are nothing but eye-candy from the previous is absurd.

You then claim to know with certainty the reason the Multiplayer aspect of the game was not developed. The reason, according to the programmers themselves, is that the concentration this time is on the other aspects of the game, that being flight models, weather effects, SP campaign, moving ships, tanks, ground vehicles, trains, and making sure the terrain is modeled perfectly and accurately right down to the depth of the water! And that all these things interact perfectly with each other.

That, my friend, is a huge job, and hopefully they will be done by Christmas with a minimum of bugs. Then you come along and say: oh, the real reason is they just want to make us wait another 3 years so we'll buy another one. Uh-huh.

And on top of that, you seem to think that $40 is like $4,000 or something. What, you think that all the retail stores sell this stuff for free? You think the publisher gets the entire amount? No, they usually get about 1/2, that means $20. That, in case you don't know, is an extremely tiny amount of money.

And finally, Gregg, I highly doubt that the financial executives of Microsoft are reading this thread.