What does FSX tell us about CFS4?

[Jehovah_of_Jive]

From the FAQ:



Q: Will aircraft from FS2004 be compatible with Flight Simulator X ?
A: Backward compatibly with existing 3rd party content is and has always been a priority for us, and we attempt to test as many add-ons as possible in order to provide the greatest level of compatibility.

This suggests that FSX will not be as 'revolutionary' a leap as CFS2 -> CFS3. To me, the implication is that much of the technology of CFS3 is dead and will not resurface in CFS4.

J_o_J

[Jakemaster]

There is no CFS4.  It was cancelled during Alpha testing

[SaVas]

Honestly Im glad to hear they will attempt the backwards compatibility.

I dont expect ALL my addons I like and the many I have paid for to work with FSX, but Im hoping some of my favorites will

[Jehovah_of_Jive]

[quote]There is no CFS4.

[Felix/FFDS]

Which rather implies that the CFS3 technology platform was a dead end. What's the betting on FSX-with-guns?

The 'next installment in the CFS franchise' may well turn out to be based on FSX with added weaponry. Would this be possible?

J_o_J

You bring a neat point on pure specualtion.  Until CFS3, both FS and CFS were improvements based on the other, which is why you see that the CFS programs were part of the FSxxx naming.

CFS2,I feel, was FS2000 with guns, and FS2002 was CFS2 without guns.... etc.  CFS3 probably pointed the way towards an FS9/X, but it turned out not to be the commercial success that CFS2/FS2002/FS2004 was.

Also, I believe that Microsoft's active consideration of 3rd party content for the FS may have been a factor in judging that the "CFS3" route was not commercially attractive enough.  CFS3, as we;ve seen, broke away completely from previous CFS/FS technology.

There are definite features in CFS3 that I would like to see incorporated in FS-X (or future versions).  These have to be balanced, though, with the tools reasonably available for the 3rd party content providers to use.

(*Ex.  If the only tool to provide for multiple virtual cockpits/crew positions is 3DSmax, I doubt many amateur developers will spring US3,000+ just to have a flight engineer's position in a 727-200 model!)

[Jehovah_of_Jive]

CFS3 probably pointed the way towards an FS9/X, but it turned out not to be the commercial success that CFS2/FS2002/FS2004 was.

Compatability is key. CFS3 files are no longer the familiar .bmp, .cfg.,  .mdl, .dp etc; you can fly Krzysztof Malinowski's superb PB4Y-2 Privateer in FS2002, FS2004 or CFS2 - but not CFS3. [The main reason I don't like CFS3 is those horrid museum shot wide-angle externals]. If MS's developers keep file compatibility into FSX, it will be a raging success. I will buy THE BIGGEST, THE FASTEST, THE BEST PC to run it!

J_o_J

[Drake]

As long as my Dreamfleet A36 and FS2x F-117 work I'll be happy. Really the only two piece of payware I fly anymore. I'de glady buy new versions though.

[Jehovah_of_Jive]

Been discussing this issue offline with a fellow simmer; assuming FSX comes out spring 2007, a CFS4 based on it can not come out any earlier than Christ's Mass 2007.

Until then, it's CFS2 (my choice) or CFS3 (some others may prefer) or Il2 Forgotten Battles and its spin offs...

New computer purchase on hold for a loooong time!

J_o_J

[Woodlouse2002]

Except there are no known plans for CFS4 and if there were then it would use the same engine as CFS3 as it is far better for the role.

[Jehovah_of_Jive]

if there were...[plans for CFS4] then it would use the same engine as CFS3 as it is far better for the role.

Why? As discussed above, the CFS3 engine seems to have turned out to be a dead end...

What's wrong with FS2004 or FSX with guns?

J_o_J

[Woodlouse2002]

People were quick to judge CFS3. When it came out it was really next generation and now computers have caught up with it. The CFS3 engine allows for far more detail on the modelling in all aspects, allows for greater realism in gunnery and other ordinance and is far more efficient at low altitude stuff than the FS engine.

The plug was pulled on CFS4 about three years ago and I've never heard a reason why I saw some screenshots of it once and it looked damn fine even though it hadn't even reached the alpha beta stage.

Whats more the CFS3 engine was brand new. The FS engine hasn't changed from the basics since FS5. Therefore if either engine is starting to become a dead end then it would be the FS one as over ten years of development has to yield something like the max that a piece of software is capable of.

[SilverFox441]

The engine of FSX is based on the engine that came about with FS2K, not the far earlier FS5. There are some elements of commonality, but those are design criteria not engine elements.

As for low altitude capability...well CFS3 was optomized for it whereas FS has always been optimized for higher altitudes. A CFS based on the newer FS engine could just as easily be optimized for a lower altitude, in fact looking at FSX screenshots it's even possible that the FSX engine has been made adaptive...which would make it far superior to CFS3.

Ordinance and gunnery handling functions in CFS3 were better than CFS2, but they were evolutionary. The same program modules and subroutines could just as easliy be adapted.

FSX has been designed to use the latest modelling capabilities, far beyond what CFS3 offered. Look at all the shading capabilities and bump mapping.

MS never explained why CFS4 was cancelled. We know that CFS3 was not the commercial success that was expected and this undoubtedly played a role. Community support was soft, a never really gathered momentum in the same way that CFS 1 or 2 did. I've always had a feeling that there was one other major consideration though.

Vista.

CFS 4 would have been on-schedule for a pre-Vista release (before Vista itself was pushed back). This would have limited CFS 4 to DX 9 capabilities. The addition of capabilites such as bump mapping in CFS 4 would have shone a light on the lack of same in FS, MS's flightsim flagship. The lack of such additonal capabilites would have meant that CFS4 was only a minor upgrade to CFS3, and basing sales forecasts on commercially failed product will get you nowhere in a big hurry.

I expect that CFS4 will exist at some point after FSX. I also expect that the FS "divergence" will end, with CFS 4 really being FS 10.5.

[BAW0343]

Well the backwards compatibilty on FSx seems normal. some FS2002 works with fs9 some 2000 works with 2002 and so on and so forth. Almost every fs was compatible with the previos verson.

As far the the CFS series (big cfs1 fan awhile ago) they were cmpatible with the non gun fs. I have CFS 3 but dont fly cause i got soda on my cds and was mad about no compatibilty problem. The engine was amazing tho, you could blow up almost any building and the textues and the model of the plane and game i loved. They made a huge leap forward with the new engine but made a dead end mistake by not makeing it compatable with the other CFS's.

If M$ is smart they will take hints from users and mistakes previously made and they will make a new, better enginge for FSx but also make it compatible with many more sims. sutch as makeing it compatable for latter CFS2 planes FS2002, fs9 and if at all possible CFS3. And for all you trigger happy people out there (like me) perhaps make an expantion that will combine Civil and Military ops at a later time. There is some bad to this, some people will go around blowing up 747's but thats why they make the military planes un effective on certian buildings and civil planes and only have the effects on other military aircraft. (if you understand what i am saying)

[BFMF]

perhaps make an expantion that will combine Civil and Military ops at a later time

The problem is that the flight simulator is just that, a simulator. A combat flight simulator is more of a game

[Hagar]

The problem is that the flight simulator is just that, a simulator. A combat flight simulator is more of a game

I think you hit the nail on the head there Andrew. FS is officially described as a game by Microsoft. There's always been a certain element of snobbery in the FS community & CFS is often looked upon as a mere game when it was actually the combat version of FS. CFS1 was basically FS98 with guns but it had far better graphics & default aircraft with a functional DVC. This was in 1998 but the DVC wasn't included in FS until FS2002. If the M$ developers had treated the FS/CFS series as an ongoing project instead of separately we might have seen more benefit in both. In my view they made a serious mistake with FS2000 & it was only with FS2002 they made any significant improvements based on CFS (AI Traffic etc was first featured in CFS1). CFS2 was far superior to FS2000 (IMHO) & was used to develop advanced design features for aircraft models before FS2002 was released. I still think they could have included the CFS2 ships with landable moving carriers in FS2002. If these are incorprated in FSX it will be seen as a big breakthrough when they could have had them 5 years ago.