"Release Ordinance' - Problem??

[-Bob-]

well, its me. whatddaya xpect, eh...
 ;D

moderator delete the surplus posts if necessary
thanks, sorry for the inconvenience

[Professor Brensec]

Hey dude i have almost 2 dozen Italian Planes!
from the Fiats to the Reggianes.
2000, 2005, G50, G55, BR20, MC202, 205, Italian 109s with trop filter, Spitmark5tropfilter, hurricaneIIc (Cannon) with tropfilter,P40b Beaufighters, Blenheims, Marylands, and all thoose that i DO NOT know of.
Tanks to drive cars to drive, what else do you need?
A wonderful remake of Scenery http://www.cfcforums.com/showthread.php?t=7949

well, if thats nothing for you, then, my Friend, i am truly sorry. your loss.
They do their best, and use all the tolls they got, maybe even more than anyone of us normal people knows.

I read my post 3 times and I can't see where I've cast any aspersions or been unappreciative of the work done by builders!  ???

I simply expressed a personal opinion about the direction I would have liked MS to have gone with their 4th Combat Sim. Certainly no need for you, or anyone else, to get their brain in a knot.

If you want to start a 'flamer', mate, you've come to the wrong forum. (Or maybe you just read as well as you write??)

[-Bob-]

(Or maybe you just read as well as you write??)

OOOH OOOH the inult! the insult!!



hahah no crap... maybe you are even rite, my typing skillz are a lil bit low, youknow.

[-Bob-]

lemme say it like this: there is no need for a specific theartre for Cfs4. give the offliners the basic package, (like Cfs3 was out of the box) and mainly work on the tools, sdks and features.

The planes can be built by the community, so can new terrain be. vehiecles and weapons. Carriers and ships...
etc etc etc

[Mathias]

Professor Brensec, I think Bob is trying to tell you that it's academic to talk about CFS4 since there'll be none.
He's way too fast with the typewriter but other than that a rather pragmatic guy so it makes sense to me.
Don't think he wants to bash anyone.  :o

[Professor Brensec]

This is exactly what I was getting at. It's all very academic (if there was a CFS4, they'd have some trouble getting people to buy it until it was well and truly proven after the CFS3 fiasco).

I just don't seem to be able to figure out where the 'builders' come into it, at all. And I certainly can't see where I made any derogatory remark about them or their contributions to simming.

Again, I was simply saying where I would have liked things to have progressed in the CFS series. Throwing a bunch of CFS2 (or CFS3) compatible planes and scenery into an existing sim, does not a NEW sim make, no matter how dedicated and ingenious the 'builders' are. I was talking about a new sim. I never mentioned, thought of or alluded to the 'builders' of add-ons and their work in CFS2 or 3.

I happen to be very appreciative of the work these people do. Work, which I don't have the time or the ability to do myself. Some of the people who make those contributions are my very good friends and I don't need ANYONE saying things like:

well, if thats nothing for you, then, my Friend, i am truly sorry. your loss.
They do their best, and use all the tolls they got, maybe even more than anyone of us normal people knows.

So, I will remain offended by the above sentence, for which there was absolutely no necessity, whatsoever (until it's withdrawn - the least I expect from a 'man')

[Mathias]

Throwing a bunch of CFS2 (or CFS3) compatible planes and scenery into an existing sim, does not a NEW sim make, no matter how dedicated and ingenious the 'builders' are.

Well, I shure hope you'll be positively surprised by the MAW addon.
BTW, it's not just about throwing a bunch of planes in.
CFS3 has some potential that has not been used to date

[Professor Brensec]

Well, I shure hope you'll be positively surprised by the MAW addon.
BTW, it's not just about throwing a bunch of planes in.
CFS3 has some potential that has not been used to date

I understand that it's more involved. But as I said, it's not what I'm talking about. And I also understand that there are some wonderful things available in 'add-ons' and some even better coming up (I have many of them myself).

I'm simply trying to say that IF MS hadn't made such a mess of CFS 3, it would have been nice to see what 'better' and more elaborate things they could have presented in a 4th CFS. And if that happened, my opinion is, that the natural progression would have been an Africa/Med campaign (or even an Eastern Front version) rather than go back to the Pacific, like they went BACK to the Western European Theatre with CFS3.

I'm not taking ANYTHING away from builders or addons by saying that. It just would have been nice to have a new sim 'set in a differnet theatre'.

(And just quickly about the potential of CFS3). I agree CFS3 has much potential. But a $100 sim made by MS and touted as the 'best' SHOULD have more than 'potential'. The bloody thing should have worked from day one.

[Mathias]

LOL, yeah, agree, a new open architectur combat flight simulator would be great, also agree on the CFS3 part, to a certain extend, although I'm quite sick to talk it over and over again, LOL.

[Professor Brensec]

LOL, yeah, agree, a new open architectur combat flight simulator would be great, also agree on the CFS3 part, to a certain extend, although I'm quite sick to talk it over and over again, LOL.

I quite agree. It's all been said before.  ;D