I hope FS2K4 is NOT CFS3 in civies!

[Guest]

I have purchased CFS3 and, contrary to many other CFS fans, I have not had a terrible time getting it to run, in fact it runs rather well on my system. BUT - it is NOT a simulator. CFS2 was much more a simulator than "3", but FS2K2 is so far ahead of CFS3 in the quality of flight, views, and cockpits that I am becoming concerned that FS2K4 may end up being a step backwards. FS2K2 has so many wonderful add-ons, of such high quality, that the thought of losing them by going to a CFS3 engine would keep me from buying it. Nothing from CFS2 can be imported into or converted to CFS3, which means a lot of great CFS2 add-ons are going to be lost in the transition. Personally, I don't see how FS2k2 could be improved upon in any meaningful areas that aren't being addressed by our wonderful community of designers.I really think we should start letting MS hear our concerns before it's too late - or, maybe it is already. Terrain and associated textures can be improved upon, and are everyday, and air files have reached a point of almost perfection. What could MS possibly improve that the community hasn't already done?If all we have today would be lost to FS2k4, I'll stick with what I have.Thoughts?Dave

[Guest Thomas K]

I would disagree with your statement: "flight dynamics in FS2002 have reached a point of perfection." The opposite is true. The vast majority of FS2002 aircraft flight dynamics are terrible. There are a few notable and dedicated FDE designers out there who create "good" flight dynamics but whose talents are severely restricted by MSFS' mediocre simulation of flight.The things that needs to be improved are the following.1. Weather.2. Flight dynamics.3. Panel architecture- Systems simulation. The default panels are a joke. Designers like Dreamfleet and PIC have done a lot of good work, working within the confines of the MSFS infrastructure. But in many ways, their work is still a far cry from the panel simulation capabilities of simulators like FLY!. There's no denial that FS2002 is a good simulator, but a few crucial aspects of it should be improved for it to function as a realistic simulation.So, I think Microsoft needs to revampt three important things: weather, flight dynamics and panels in a future version of MSFS. Realistically, I don't expect it to be done for FS2004. But it -has- to be done somewhere down the line. This is after all, a FLIGHT simulator.Regards,TK

[Guest Richard_H]

Nothing from CFS2 can be >imported into or converted to CFS3, which means a lot of >great CFS2 add-ons are going to be lost in the transition. This is my biggest concern. Some of us spend quite a bit of money on add ons. Is it all going to be thrown away when FS2004 comes along?

[Guest]

"Is it all going to be thrown away"Yes, what you bought is entertainment, or have you bought a confortable leather chair that should last for the next 30 years? I like the changes. I look at FS and FS addons like a subscription to the magizines I enjoy. A ticket to a "Bear" game.MS has sent us all the "signs" that a major change is going to be made and I say charge on MS, step away from the legacy support you have been providing. Draw the line at FS2002. Make the next version as good as you can. I will spend my money for new and better addons. BobThe FAQs for the TB20Gt are located here http://mtco.com/~rsam/FAQs.htmWe R rsam@mtco.comHelp us make it better!http://mtco.com/~rsam/fartslogo.jpg11/23/02

[LAdamson 240]

>I would disagree with your statement: "flight dynamics in >FS2002 have reached a point of perfection." The opposite is >true. The vast majority of FS2002 aircraft flight dynamics >are terrible. There are a few notable and dedicated FDE >designers out there who create "good" flight dynamics but >whose talents are severely restricted by MSFS' mediocre >simulation of flight. >Don't you think you're going a bit far with the terms "terrible" and "mediocre"? Surely, after flight simming for many years, one would have experienced terrible and mediocre---------------- and I don't believe even the MS defaults fit into that catagory; with possible exception to the Lear, if it still uses the old FS2K airfile.Let's look at the original FLY. The panels were sensational, but the default flight dynamics could have easily be termed "terrible". I didn't enjoy "flying" the sim at all! Microsoft's FS2K flight dynamics were "wonderful" in comparison. It took the new flight models by Rob Young, to put the fun in using FLY! And now he has taken the RealAir SF260 to levels you don't even see in IL-2 Sturmovik....................which is one of the better off the shelf flight simulators.It's also a fact that MSFS can out perform X-Plane in dampening qualities, feel of weight/inertia, left drift, and "hitting" the correct numbers. So what other (less than $100) home PC simulators are out there with flight dynamics than can exceed MSFS "with" addons?Yes, MSFS's flight dynamics CAN certainly be improved; just as most of the 3rd party add-on designers claim! But when judged as terrible and mediocre.............................. I have to say, "compared to what"??????L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

> Draw the line at FS2002. >Make the next version as good as you can. I will spend my >money for new and better addons. >But going along with the original post------------- NOT in the direction of CFS3.................. I hope!!! IMO, CFS3 is a backwards step. It's not that fun to fly, the VC's look terrible, the interface is all changed, and the FS2002 "type" spot view is gone.L.Adamson

[Toys_R_Us 0]

The technological change to the hardware during the product life cycle of FS 2002 is staggering, even if you just consider available processor speed cycles alone. And look beyond that!My main hope is that MS, as a company, realizes the profit potential of the FS program as a flight simulator in total (as opposed to it being a game alone). And I think that's the direction that they are headed, by providing a CFS offering.The overwhelming third partie world that has evolved since FS 2002 was released, should tell them of the mega-dollar profit potential of this program for recreational, commercial, and military use and training.And they are about one MAJOR release away from domination over even here-to-fore sophisticated commercial FS systems.I hope the FS team is getting the development dollars to make that domination happen.Bob (Lecanto, Fl)AMD, Athlon XP, 1800+MSI, K7T266 XP ProPC 2100 DDR, 1024 MBXP, Home Edition Elsa GLadiac 920, GF3/64Mb andPNY, Verto nVidia TNT 2-M64/32WD, 100 MB, 7200, Ultra 100Sound Blaster, Audigy MP3+CH Prod, VPP Yoke - Sound CardCH Prod, Pedals - Sound Card

[Guest]

Thomas: Where did you get this quote? I never said that!"flight dynamics in FS2002 have reached a point of perfection." Any way, If you do not have CFS3 take a look at screen shots, There is not one thing in CFS3 that I find equal to, let alone better, than FS2K2. There are NO 2D cockpits, No instrument interaction, Scenery sucks even on "5" compared to what we now have through add-ons on FS2k2. Yes, the "potential" may be there for a CFS3 engine in Fs2k4 but if the basic release package is of the quality of CFS3, I'm not interested.Dave