User Reviews (1 - 11 of 171)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

One step forward, two steps back.

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 125 / 131
Date: November 20, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Things are often very relative in the gaming world. If CFS3 was actually Microsoft's first shot at a combat sim, it probably would merrit much higher reviews from the simming community and myself. After all, the game does boast an interesting campaign engine, a good variety of different planes to fly, including bombers and prototypical aircraft, some nice atmospheric effects, and the ability to man different positions on the bombers. Of course, many of these pro's have already been implemented in other WW2 combat sims of years past.

Unfortunately, this is not Microsoft's first shot and those of us who have loyally followed their series of flight sims, both combat and civilian, expect a certain progression with each new release. I, myself, was extremely pleased with said progression in both FS2002 and CFS2. Both games, I felt, learned from the mistakes of their predecessors, but at the same time, remained faithful to the series. And both greatly enhanced the look and feel of flight simming while not expecting too much from the machines they ran on. This is where CFS3 fails in my eyes.

So here are my major beefs.

Graphics: Where did they dream up this graphics engine? It looks and feels more like a first-person shooter than a flight sim. Is this really CFS3 or am I playing Counterstrike on a very wacky map? Sure it has nice clouds, but this game just does not have the visual cohesiveness of FS2002 nor CFS2. The virtual cockpits just don't look as good as in CFS2. The ground objects are also out of proportion to the aircraft. Do a little low-level strafing and things just don't look right.

Performance: My biggest gripe. If this new graphics engine was supposed to provide better performance by utilizing the video card more, they blew it. I have a P4 1.9ghz, 512mb rambus, with a TI4600 128mb Geforce4 and, with NO programs running in the background, the game stutters - especially when firing the guns. UNACCEPTABLE. The game just doesn't look good enough to justify such a drop in performance.

Damage models: These were supposed to be greatly improved. If so, I don't see it. Every plane I have shot down follows the same annoying pattern: pour tons of rounds into any part you like and eventually the whole plane blows up. No pieces of wings falling off, no tails detaching, no engines blowing, just one big boom. Would someone please go back to 1998 and look at the damage models in Activision's Fighter Sqadron? They did it right.

AI: I am getting so sick of computer pilots that have the uncanny ability - even as novices - to maintain control and maneuverability of their aircraft when you have damaged them, when one little hit on your alieron from their guns renders your aircraft unflyable.

Selection of aircraft: It was very thoughtful of Microsoft to include some oddball prototypical aircraft in their selection, but why oh why, at the expense of planes like the B17, Do17, He111, Ju87, and ME110? This is Europe, right? Oh, and thanks for the lack of compatibility with CFS2 aircraft.

Yes, all my griping makes the game sound a lot worse than it actually is, but with all the used copies of CFS3 I've seen on auction sites and the number of bad reviews it's gotten from other users like myself, I think it's obvious that Microsoft has made a boo-boo or two on this one. Let's pray they don't use this graphics engine on FS2004.

Poor quality, not very rewarding !

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 79 / 85
Date: December 11, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I agree with most other reviews. My machine is a new P4 2Ghz and a new GeForce4 Ti4200. This is the min hardware I would recommend using for this hog of a sim. Was also surprised that I had to update my video drivers just to get it to load. Gameplay: Make no mistake, there is alot of flight simming here. You can take off and land to/from your bases, and the flying, especially through the gorgeous clouds, is realistic. But this game lacks "rewards" for the campaign work that you will do, and I find that the quality control (many typos etc in the online manuals) is poor. Also, there is not enough detail about how campaigns work and the map detail isn't explained properly. I would not recommmend this. Even for a hardcore flight simmer like myself, when I enter a combat sim I want medals and advancement, etc. I am finding the campaign mode to be boring with little to no feedback on mission results. Its just not here. Microsoft has angered alot of folks with this release, and they seem to repeat these mistakes (remember when Flight Simulator 2000 was released? Everyone was so mad because the sim would not run unless you had state of the art hardware). Pass on this one UNLESS you have a P4, newer 3D video card and realistic expectations.

Believe the bad news!

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 22 / 22
Date: December 28, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I'm glad I read these reviews after I bought the game! My machine is an AMD XP 2200+ 1.8 ghz with a 266fsb, 768mb pc2100 ram, GeForce4 MX 4200 64mb video card (ie top of the line system in the top 10%). However, yes I am having the same problems as everybody else. The game randomly causes my machine to crash (winXP) anytime the sliders are above 2 for the graphics quality. Besides this VERY annoying fact is that the gameplay itself is very unsatisfying. The quick combat is entertaining to jump in and go at it with several germans, but the campaign is depressing. I get very little feedback on what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong, it just seems that no matter what I attack (factories, fighters, bombers) the war goes against me. Microsoft's promised online support simply isn't there yet. Oh and u fans of jet flight simulators? be forewarned. Your sweet P-51 mustang is going to act like an A-6 in a CAT III config. (ie like a pig). The fact is that I actually have to say that it is to realistic. The planes of this day were so underpowered that stalling is always a problem. U get one pass, from 20000 feet diving down against your opponent, assuming u haven't ripped off your wings by overspeed, your turn around will rob u of all your speed and u wind up in very quick and hard vertical dogfight. Good luck. Horrible system requirements (you need probably a P4 2.6 ghz with 1 gb of ram and a 128 video card), confusing gameplay, and an all around unrewarding experience.

What happened?

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 23 / 25
Date: March 15, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Utterly disappointing... And this from a chap who gave Microsoft's FS 2004, FS 2002 and Combat Flight Sim 2 - 5 stars respectively. The box notes claim that "Combat Flight Sim 3 was built using an entirely new graphics engine", if this is truly the case (and there's no reason for me to dismiss this statement as a bold faced lie) then my next burning question would be... "For the love of God, why?!" Although I love to fly (simulated that is) I have to admit I am first and foremost a graphics geek, so my eyes tend to bend that way immediately and on first inspection of CFS 3 I was struck by the lack of "pop" CFS 3 offers visually, sure the aircraft skins are top notch, but beyond that the textures are flat, the sky looks as if someone simply scattered a handful of cottons balls over a blue field, the menus look like something pulled off the shelves way back in the mid 90's (remember those days) matter of fact CFS 1 was a stellar achievement compared to the milk toast drabness of Microsoft's latest "combat" outing. And oh yes did I mention the panels, cockpits and pathetic gunner views of the fighters and bombers are so dated visually that I thought at first glance my graphics settings were on low? NOTE ON MY SPECS (for reference): Compaq Presario 8000T, Pentium 4 - 3.20E GHz processor, Windows XP Home Edition, 1 GB DDR / PC3200 Ram, 160GB 7200 rpm Seagate Barracuda hard drive, 16X max. DVD-ROM Drive, 256MB DDR ATI Radeon 9600 (Direct X 9), Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 (needless to say I had the offender in question maxed out!). The poor visuals inside these buckets of bolts only compound an even greater problem... playability or flyability (are those real words?). The heads-up targeting display is arranged at such an awkward angle that training your sights on the enemy is like navigating a high-wire on the tip of your tong, you can't see where you're going and trying to think ahead of your enemy's AI is near impossible because you can't see him and the oldest trick in the book of leading your target simply doesn't apply here because your forced to blindly spray a line of bullets somewhere into space in a direction you think or hope your quarry might be headed! I could go on and on but I simply don't have the mental strength or enough negative adjectives to describe the horror that is found inside such a pretty box. Hopes were high, then crushed by nothing short of an amateur offering by an industry giant. It makes me wonder, does the design team responsible for this flagrant act of shoddy craftsmanship still have jobs at Microsoft and if so are they wearing gray uniforms and carrying buckets and mops? Microsoft should be nothing short of embarrassed by CFS 3, it's a tremendous set back for the true innovator of flight sim technology. Look out Microsoft UbiSoft's on your six with IL2: Forgotten Battles (which looks better, runs better and feels better), they've got four gold stars stenciled neatly on their fuselage and they're looking to make that five.

Just how bad can a Combat Flight Simulator be?

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 24 / 28
Date: August 20, 2003
Author: Amazon User

To answer the above question, simply purchase and play Microsoft's newest, CFS3.

Just kidding. Don't buy this program under any circumstances. CFS3 is so bad, I really think MS ought to send a refund to everyone who's already bought it.

Since I'm sure you'd rather hear WHY it's so bad, instead of just a rant, here's the short list:

1) The aircraft models are done terribly; they look like $... snap-together models, built by a 4 yr old
2) The interior models (the virtual cockpits) look like a rough draft, nowhere near the quality of product MS put out even with Combat Flight Simulator 2 (which was excellent).
3) The world to fly in; also horribly done. Very poor sense of scale or depth, colors that seem to run together, and it looks like a flat picture of the world with occasional bits stuck on to give it authenticity... at which they failed miserably.
4) If you really want to play a quality combat flight simulator, go check out 1C:Maddox Games' IL2 Sturmovik Forgotten Battles

I hope this information helps steer you away from CFS3, but not away from MS products altogether.

Host of compatibility issues

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 13 / 13
Date: February 26, 2004
Author: Amazon User

This is a technically great game if you are not just into dog fighting like most combat flight simulators and would like some action on the surface (bombing and strafing). There are a variety of missions offered by this flight simulator which greatly adds to the realism of the European Theater of Operations in World War II. Microsoft's CFS3 offers single mission mode where you can tailor a mission to suit your preferences or you may choose a campaign style game.

If you are looking for modern day jetfighters this is not a game for you as there are no missile equipped fighters or bombers. Most planes have either piston engines or radial engines.

Platforms included in this game are some combat aircrafts built during 1941-1946 but also include some "what if" fighters. Three major nations are represented including Germany, United Kingdom and the United States.

On the downside this game has a whole host of compatibility issues involving video cards. While some video cards are forced to operate in "safe mode" which triggers minimum video settings (awful graphics and frame rate, terrain is essentially featureless) other systems with incompatible graphics cards will not launch the game.

The following graphics card equipped systems will not work with CFS3:
Oxygen cards, Premedia cards, Savage (2000, 3D, 3D S3), Nvidia Riva, Intel 752, 810, 815 and 740 series integrated graphics chipsets, Rendition and Voodoo (Voodoo 1, 2 and Rush).

The following cards will run in safe mode or have other display aberrations when running CFS3:
3DFX Voodoo series (3, 4 and 5 series cards), ATI (All-In-Wonder 128, Rage Fury Maxx, Radeon 9700 Pro, Radeon 7200, rage 128 Ultra), Matrox (G400, G4750 and G550), Nvidia Integrated Mainboard chipsets, Nvidia ( Vanta TNT, GeForce 4 TI4600, GeForce2 MX/MX 400 GeForce3 Ti200), S3 Savage 4 Chipsets and S3 Pro Savage DDR, PowerVR Kyro and Kyro 2 cards, Aopen 3d Navigator PA700, Asus V7700, 3dProphet 4000, Trident Cyber Aladin.

It is also worthwhile running CFS compatibility test at http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/combatfs3.aspx#support to make certain that your system is compatible with the game.

Great game

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 18 / 22
Date: January 10, 2004
Author: Amazon User

READ THIS FOR A REAL REVIEW!!
Any real gamer knows that it is pointless to buy a flight sim without first having a joystick. Also any gamer should know a game isn't worth getting if you don't have the RECOMENDED REQUIREMENTS. Isn't that why they recomend them?!?! When people are looking at reviews for a game they don't want to see if "your" crappy computer can run it or not, they want to know about the game itself. I have a GeForce 4 and a pentium 4 1.99 Ghz, the game runs fine.
Now for my review, if you like games where you can see bullet holes in your plane in the spot where enemy shells hit you, and the plane flies as it would in real life with these holes, get this game! You get hit in a fuel line and you lose fuel (and you can see it spraying out), or if you get hit baddly in the engine fire shoots out of you lifeless motor. If you want nearly lifelike graphics, I'm saying when your parents come down they will ask you what DVD you are watching on the computer, when they see you playing this game! If you like the sight of a sinking ship that looks like it came straight out of the movie Titanic, get this game! Or if your pilot gets hit with a shell, he is hurt of killed, you can also kill enemy pilots by shooting up their cockpits. You do get medals and you also get points for how well you do. These points can be used to buy planes as they are developed. Your sucess at certain points on the front line can actualy drive the enemy back! If your landing gear are damaged (you can actually manually pump them down, it doesn't always work though) you can do an emergency belly landing (watch for trees!) or ditch you craft in the water, just don't hit too hard or you will explode. There is too much to go on and I want to go play it right now. So if you want the best combat flight sim, get this game. Don't listen to stupid people. What is the last word of the title of this game? Simulator! How about you go and try to fly a real P-38 with its flight stick removed and see how much you like it!!! And if you can't even play the game smoothly (or at all) DON'T REVIEW IT and say it sucks... I swear some people are just brainless!!!! IT IS A FLIGHT SIM SO BUY A JOYSTICK!

A Poem

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 16 / 19
Date: December 01, 2002
Author: Amazon User

There's nothing much here to appreciate,
It's an over-hyped sim with a bad frame rate,
The flight model's childish, the gunsight's off -
Caveat Emptor Microsoft.

Should be called Combat Freight Train Simulator 3

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 13 / 14
Date: March 09, 2006
Author: Amazon User

I'm sorry, but the CFS3 flight modeling is really bad. I don't mean hard to learn, I mean just bad. Using what they call realistic settings makes flying an excercise in frustration. I still remember my fisrt campeign mission as a bomber pilot, take off in rain at night. No lights, nothing, you can't even see a taxi-way, let alone a runway. I made it off the ground somehow, eventually the sun came up. I got close to target, I'm supposed to launch a torpedo from a B26 into an enemy ship. As you can imagine, that is pretty close to impossible to pull off, especially with the way everything is modeled.

On a simple bomber intercept mission, I unloaded all of my ammunition into an enemy bomber at 500 yards or less and nothing happened. I mean nothing, no apparent damage. I'm sure I missed with 50% of the shots, but hit with more than enough to saw off a wing and kill all of the crew to boot!

Flying a fighter of any kind at any speed/altitude feels like flying a 747. If you enter a dive, your lack of manuverability means that you will probably pick up so much speed that you will create a new crater in the countryside. Roll response is not all that bad, but pitch is under modeled on almost all of the planes. There may have been some deliberateness to this because dogfights feel more like gun camera footage than a simulator like IL2. In other words they may have tried to give an authentic feel by dampening manuvers to the point that things happen in a slower motion that other simulators. I don't think this is a terrible idea, but they didn't get it quite right and with the gun damage being so under-modeled you will be frustrated with dog fights and intercept missions.

Air to ground is a little better, although the sluggish controls make pulling out of a strafing run a little too exciting. It also seems like strafing is a little too easy, a quick burst of bullets will obliterate an entire supply depot and end the mission. When I say quick burst, I mean just tap the trigger!

Overall, I think they could have done a much better job with this game. I like the idea of the big campaign, but it just doesn't quite come together and isn't worth the time. This game requires more patience than I'm willing to give it.

major disappointment

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 11 / 11
Date: November 10, 2002
Author: Amazon User

CFS3 strikes out on all the requirements of a combat flight sim.

The terrain graphics, touted as new and better, are muddy and look artificial. The aircraft graphics are no advance.

The game play is poor--no advance over cfs2 in any paramater.

The flight modeling is arcade-like--no real feel of flying, and all planes feel pretty much the same.

The 'virtual cockpit' is a step back with poorly detailed instrument panels.

The 'stutters'--widely complained about--are the final straw.
Even on a high end system, the graphics stop, jerk, start again for no apparent reason, far too often.

MS would have been far better to continue to evolve the CFS2 model than to go with this--it's certainly not better in any respect.

Overall, I'd give it a 0 if I could, based on it falling so far below what was the state of the art in flight sims even 2-3 years ago.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next 

Actions