User Reviews (21 - 31 of 58)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

A good game

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 3 / 3
Date: July 28, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Combat flight simulator is a fun game to play. You can play as the British, Germans, or Americans. I at first though that this game was super-awesome until I played European Air War. There are two cons to this game. First, you can not talk to your wing man which makes no sense. There are many times when you need help getting the enemy off your tail and you can not "ask" for help. Secondly, there are only a few airplanes that you can fly. Even with these two drawbacks, it still is a very enjoyable game.

Great Software

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 4 / 6
Date: February 21, 2000
Author: Amazon User

This game is a wonderful Flight Sim. You get 8 planes, from WWII. What makes this game great is it's online community; on the internet gaming zone. There are thousand of fast paced, high action dogfights to WWII bomber runs. Finally,you can get every plane from snoopy's dog house to a F-22 raptor fighter from sights.

Weak, buy MS CFS2: Pacific Theatre.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: February 21, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Microsoft made massive improvements when they made the sequel to this game. I have them both and don't really recommend this game.
However, I'm a Pacific Theatre buff and prefer the carrier-based aircraft, like the F4U Corsair. If you like the P-51 Mustang or the Spitfire and want to fight German planes... buy this game.

competent, light fun, but not spectacular

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: July 31, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This is the original CFS. Though CFS3 is out by now, those owning older computers, even those that can run CFS2, should consider CFS1 as an alternative. CFS1 is set in Europe - allowing you to fly fighter missions using the tried and true Microsoft Flight Simulator engine (formerly the BAO flight sim engine). Surprisingly, this is a pretty effective sim for one that many could easily boil down to "Flight simulator with guns". Unfortunately, despite the challenges of adapting skills amassed flying combat flight sims with less realistic flight modeling, CFS1 never really becomes more than "Flight simulator with guns".

In CFS1, you can fly on-line, single missions, or campaigns. Using the MSFS engine, it is as adaptable as any edition of "Microsoft Flight Simulator" in terms of add-on aircraft, scenery or missions. (Be aware, that while there's no shortage of modern military aircraft available for sale or for download, the inherenent design of this game is towards pre-modern aircraft. Neither the sophisticated systems nor guided weapons are available). There are actually 2 campaigns - the Battle of Britain (summer of 1940) in which you intercept (or escort) waves of the Luftwaffe's medium level bombers or dive bombers against industrial and defense targets in England or Channel shipping and the daylight bombing campaign against Europe starting around 1943. CFS1 is entirely a fighter-driven game - barring user customization, you can't fly big bombers. On the flip side, fighters can be armed with rockets or bombs. While you can fly for the Luftwaffe in either campaign, your choice on the allied side is limited. I can understand being stuck with the RAF for the Battle of Britain (the attack on Pearl, and America's entry into the war was still over a year away), but didn't the RAF fly at all in 1943-45? The campaigns are short and scripted: you fly the same mission until you get it right. To be honest, the mission goals aren't demanding (I'm more likely to get snagged by crashing into a wingman or getting too close to an enemy), and the repetitive aspect of pre-scripted missions would be little improved by a dynamic campaign, since most missions would be the same anyway (how much of a Mustang pilot's time wasn't spent escorting waves of B-17's?). One tip for escorting the bombers - you may have caught Edmund O'Brien as a P-47 driver in "Fighter Squadron" (1948) who chafes under rules that require his pilots to stick with the bombers and not chase enemy planes to the deck. Just remember, the time you've spent after you break formation to chase an Me-109 away, will easily be exceeded by how long it will take you to rejoin, especially if you went for the deck and must now claw back up to your formation's flight level. This is especially critical since other Me-109s will exploit your absence to cut into your formations. Stick with the bombers!

I can't say how realistic flight modeling was - I'd expected worse remembering how pitiful I was on the WWI mission included on the original BAO Flight Sim (c. 1982). Visually, the planes are lovely, though this is an old game, and it won't bowl you over. Damage modeling is suspect - CFS1 is stuck in an era of sims in which your plane will have a fixed response to damage; this is despite a more effective damage model in "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" (1990) in which a given hit from an enemy will lead to progressive deterioration in your plane's condition. Ground targets and ships are completely implausible - one hit from your rockets and destroyers, u-boats and merchantmen (which remain parked like sitting ducks) disappear in fireballs ala "Battlestar Galactica", which hints that this project was rushed to shelves. (The other hint is the appearance of Me-262 jets - they only appear in one mission, and as ground targets. How did that happen?)

So, what's really wrong? A weak mission generator and the same aircraft we've seen in over ten years in flight sims. MS probably guessed that it wasn't worth their time to do more than add guns and damage models to the FS engine - people would just download the missions, flight panels, scenery or aircraft files they wanted anyway. Sure the game has the big planes of that theater of the war - but then did CFS1 have to wartime Europe? With its flight engine, CFS1 would have been the perfect vehicle for a Korean war sim - an idea that MS inexplicably ignored for this and the next 2 additions. WWII Europe simply has been simmed to death. Terrain is incredibly flat and, especially down low, doesn't even look like terrain. It's almost at the point where, unless you go on the `net for add-on files, there really isn't anything to simulate here. In short, MS was hot to create a military flight sim that would adapt to any user's preference, they forgot to give it features that people would prefer to keep. I couldn't get decent performance on my P200mmx/Voodoo2 PC. Obviously, hardware wasn't an issue when I moved up to a P4 (no Windows XP compatibility issues here).

On a final note, CFS1's disappointments are not completely covered by CFS2. I own both games since I wanted a Pacific war sim. Though CFS2 is obviously an improvement, CFS1 holds up pretty well - CFS1 owners can download or buy add-on files to capture the Pacific experience. In short, if you've got CFS1, don't feel like you've got to spend $$ for CFS2 or to upgrade your machine.

Best Flight Simulator I've Played!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: October 06, 2000
Author: Amazon User

I first tried another flight simulator named Luftwaffe Commander, which I liked alot & later tried Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator, which I liked even more.

The graphics are really good learning the basic moves was easy, I especially like the way you can add-on planes, missions & other things to the basic game.

Another nice thing is the controll level of the UI, in the middle of the game you can get help, adjust window size like it was any other part of Windows & the manual is really worded well.

This game is really good!

Decent, but lacking

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: October 24, 2000
Author: Amazon User

CFS continues MS line of great looking flight sims, but falls short on the combat side. Missions are repeatitive and there aren't many of them. While changeable options allow you to customize how realistic your plane is, it is often hard to find a middle ground that truly creates the feel of being an actual pilot. Rather than CFS, I'd recommend getting Janes WWII Fighers, it continues the wonderful Janes tradition of finding an excellent balance between realism and fun.

Fun game, but easy to complete

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: December 26, 2000
Author: Amazon User

This game has great graphics, good controls, and fun missions. It does have a lot of missions, but every mission is simple to beat. I completed the game in a couple of hours. Still, it's a pretty good game overall.

Hits and Misses

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: January 29, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Naturally others will have a different experience of this game depending upon their proficiency at aircraft sims and the game controllers used by their system. This is merely my experience with this particular game. The concept is great, particularly for WWII buffs like myself. Graphically the game is superb, no complaints there. I do however have major trouble with the handling capabilities of all the aircraft used, save for the Spitfire Mark IX. This is the only aircraft which seems to be able to keep its nose level long enough for me to get is decent shots at another aircraft. Most of the other planes fly like stuffed pigs and no matter how often I hit the "Bank/Yaw Center" key the moment I make a slight correction the nose buffets wildly. Maybe I am not doing something right but reading the manual and using the tutorial does not give any clues at to what I can do to alleviate this game spoiling effect. So basically I am limited to flying the Spit which doesn't bother me too much as I prefer the RAF. Unfortunately as most seem to feel the Combat Campaigns and Missions are lacklustre, particularly for the RAF. Some are just plain goofy. Too many missions involve attacking ground targets, which are difficult and dangerous to hit (slamming into the turf or surf is a constant hazzard). I just get the feeling that the game has been overprogrammed to include spoilers that reduce the handling capabilities of the aircraft and if I have this trouble playing at the easiest/slowest level then obviously the designers dont know the meaning of the word ROOKIE. Everyone has to start somewhere I just don't think this game offers the novice the support necessary to acquire the gaming skills needed to operate it. I have tried the downloads for new missions and aircraft but these are just sitting on my hard drive like Junkers on the tarmac. There is no use in offering them if they dont load themselves. If these files need to be modified to make them run then there is no use in offering them to any but the advanced computer buff. I (and no doubt most computer users) wouldn't know how to configure these files even if Microsoft was kind enough to walk me through it. But here's the beef, why didn't they include these features before releasing the game? Microsoft has left it up to the gaming community to modify their software for them. I give them poor marks in the customer service department. So for me the game is more the Spitfire Flight Simulator which doesn't make me unhappy but clips my wings a little.

OLD PRO PILOTS WILL LOVE IT.

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 3 / 6
Date: May 20, 2000
Author: Amazon User

SCENERY ABOVE 1,000' AGL IS ABSOLUTELY SUPERB FOR PC SOFTWARE. HANDLING THE F-51D IS AMAZINGLY REALISTIC REALIZING IT'S JUST A VIDEO GAME. TAKING OFF AND LANDING WAS SUFFICIENTLY EMOTIONAL AND CAPTIVATING. THIS WAS MY VERY FIRST EXPERIENCE EVER ON ANY FLIGHT SIMULATOR. I HAVE OVER 10,000 HOURS LOGGED IN MILITARY AND GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT. UPON MY FIRST LANDING I FOUND I WAS PRESPIRING UNDER MY ARMS AND WHEN I RESTED MY HAND FROM THE JOY STICK IT WAS TRIMBLING. YEP, I'D SAY IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY REALISTIC. lOOKING OUT THE LEFT WINDOW ACROSS THE TIP OF THE WING AND IN A SHALLOW LEFT TURN THE GROUND AND SHORELINE DETAILS ARE AMAZINGLY LIKE THE REAL EXPERIENCE. I JUST LOVED IT BECAUSE I HAVE MEMORIES OF WHEN I REALLY DID IT ALL. IF ANYONE CAN DIRECT ME TO A SOFTWARE WITH BETTER SCENERY AND OTHER EFFECTS I'D APPRECIATE IT....

It's worth the discount price.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: January 20, 2001
Author: Amazon User

It's fun to play in the beginning, but it's not the type you want to play very often. Too much of an arcade type, even if you have an up to date system.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next 

Actions