CFS4

[Hagar]

Psst.....! I've seen a report from a reliable source on CFS4 which is already under development. If I remember it right it will continue the Pacific theatre from where CFS2 left off using an updated CFS3 engine. The format is already decided & nothing we say will have any effect. This is typical of the way M$ work. One step forward - 2 steps back.

I never liked CFS3 & will be sticking with CFS2 for the forseeable future.

[Wing Nut]

Let's hope it's a WAY updated CFS3 engine.  I've been doing Flight Sims since FS 98 and I don't think I've ever seen a more disliked version of FS and that includes FS2000.  I'm sure we all remember what a mess THAT was when it first appeared.  

[4_Series_Scania]

FS2K4 with guns. Get rid of that dumb CFS3 engine and restore compatability with other M$ sims. It MUST run on a wider selection of machines also and not just super high end systems. It needs to be historicaly accurate also.
Be great to move into the Korean conflict but M$ need to include all the major players, Canada, Australia and the UK as well as the US and China/North Korea.

Hawker sums it up just about right for me peeps!

[Major_Tom]

CFS 4 like most are saying should be at least backward compat to CFS & FS2002. Use the example of another great title like Jane's Fighter Anthology - alot of planes & good loadouts using state of the art weapons, but not supported beyond Win 98 & no downloads (why, why, why!). Falcon 4.0 is expensive, techy, and poorly supported in the download dept. A possible reason for Microsoft avoiding a modern combat sim. are the new Russian planes with vectored thrust (Mig-29, Su-30, Su-32, Su-35) . The Western Bloc might have the tech and reliability edge but these new versions of older Russian fighters are able to out maneuver anything currently flying including the very expensive F-22. I think in a pure dogfight the difference might be almost embarrassing  ;D. One day an F-22 (6 missile) will have to fight a Su-35 (14 missile - some rear firing) and I think the programmers at Microsoft understand this. How far will stealth & superior avonics take you? Russia is now actively selling theses potent fighters around the world with China and India getting large orders of Su-30's (with vectored thrust). Just thought you would like to know.

[Wing Nut]

You know, I'm sitting here thinking about this and backwards compatability, as nice as it is, may no longer be an option.  The FS engine IS quite a bit long in the tooth.  How long have we been using it now?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think with the exception of autogen scenery in 2004, every FS has been built upon FS 95 and are really only upgrades.  There are people here who know more about this than I do.  A new engine may not be such a bad way of doing it after all.  I think I'll change my mind from CFS3 sucks to give it a better chance.

[Major_Tom]

Excuse me Pippen are you wouldn't hail from Shire would yee! A fair tale I have just read about a lad from thee! My quest relates to the quote that is interposed with your American Flag. The quote was from David Gilmore & Roger Waters and they are  ;) British.
Boo! Watch you 6

The circuit dead, there's something wrong

Major Tom  ;D

[Wing Nut]

So was J.R.R. Tolkien.  I guess it's just my Irish heritage taking over.

[Hagar]

FS has traditionally been an ongoing development since the original Flight Simulator was first released in the 80s. FS2004 has been hailed as the most realistic yet & accepts 3rd party files created for FS2002. The conventional 3rd party utilities work with it or can be modified to do so. I see no reason to use the CFS3 engine with its lack of backward compatability & other problems. They tried it & it failed so it's time to move on. "FS2004 with guns" would be far better. IMHO

Now, if only they had included the CFS2 Ships in FS2004. Wouldn't that be something? I'm sure that would be easy enough to do but these people always seem to miss the obvious. Instead of one basic sim undergoing constant development they insist on going off on a tangent with the inevitable results. That's how I feel about it anyway.

[HawkerTempest5]

I totally agree with Hagar on this one. Just about everyone here who has 2K4 thinks it's superb. No one minds that it's an evolution of the FS engine and not a totally new engine. M$ should bite the bullet, admit they got it wrong and give us what we want. After all, we pay their wages.

[Ambassador]

Psst.....! I've seen a report from a reliable source on CFS4 which is already under development. If I remember it right it will continue the Pacific theatre from where CFS2 left off using an updated CFS3 engine. The format is already decided & nothing we say will have any effect. This is typical of the way M$ work. One step forward - 2 steps back.

I never liked CFS3 & will be sticking with CFS2 for the forseeable future.

Hager, what was this "Reliable Source"?

[Major_Tom]

I don't mean to badger the point but a CFS 4 should be backward compable to CFS 2 or at least CFS 3 and should make the technological leap into modern warfare. Options for switchable ECM, and other control variable can be used to suit the expertise of the user. What makes CFS2 so great is the access to great downloads from the web. The computer demands of CFS3 are slowing interest in the game. I couldn't play it if I wanted to in my current system. Games are a technological carrot for people to go and upgrade there systems. Microsoft knows this. The new video chipset technology available will make current cards worthless in the very near future.  If CFS4 takes long enough only those who upgrade their entire systems may apply  :-/.
If modern aircraft are incorporated (which they likely will not) it would be interesting how they handle the western aircraft stealth & avonic superiority to the Russian fighters. Vector thrusting with the hat control it was possible in the Jane's series of games. http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-35.htm I really would like to fly this airplane  8). It also interesting to note the French & Russians are working together in the development of their next generation of fighter aircraft. French electronics in a good Russian platform would be an interesting opponent.

[Major_Tom]

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-37-2.htm This is what I would like to try  8).

[chomp_rock]

Korea& Veitnam would both be good! How about both? It would be cool to be an F-86, F-100, F-80, F-84 and    F-4.  And in the 'Nam you could be a Huey (Medevac transport of gunship), Cobra, Wild Weasel or FO.

[WillR05]

I'd like to see a "Modern World" CFS that would cover 1945 - 2003/4 for both Air Force and Naval campaigns. I'm big on Aircraft Carriers myself and would love to be able to fly from HMS Eagle on mission after mission in a Buccaneer S2 or a Sea Vixen FAW1/2. I probably won't get that specifically but it'd be nice if guided waepons were available as well as a liberal selection of angled deck CV's.

[catsup]

I think CFS4 should have the Persian Gulf War instead of this WWII nonsense, even though I do you CFS2 I would like that better