CFS 3 just plain sucks.

[Arklight1 140]

Crappy system requirements. Poor weapons effects. Hellish FPS (even with most graphics options turned down). Poor graphics overall. Poor Flight Models.........Nice clouds. Wish I could actually look at them....but I only have an XP2100 with 769mb of PC2700 DDR, obviously not enough for this game.Nice campaign though, I wish it made up for the rest of the game. I'm sorry to say IMO this game is just a BAD purchase. I SERIOUSLY hope that CFS3 isn't indicative of FS2004 or I'm sticking with FS2002. After countless hours of messing with this game and getting it to run in an optimal fashion all I can say is that optimal sure isn't pretty :( This is really upsetting, I had high hopes for CFS3 and if MS decides to actually create a patch I hope it is a large patch because this game needs a LOT if fixes.So I guess I am writing this not to start a flame war but in hopes of warning prospective buyers of this weak example of a sim/game.Take some advice and either wait for a really good patch, or don't buy it at all!!!!!!!!!I'm sad to say I bought this game early this morning and it is going back to the store this evening. What a tremendous waste of money, I shoulda listened to the Microsoft Rep. at EB Games. Oh well, live and learn.Shane

[Guest]

what graphics card do you run? an XP2100+ with that much ram is a pretty nice system IMO. I'm with you, if this is any indicator of FS2004 performace, I won't be buying it.

[Arklight1 140]

Here is my specs. (I keep forgetting them, sorry!)XP2100768mb PC2700 DDR (Crucial RAM)PNY GF3 TI500 64mb DDR (I tried 21.83, 22.80, 23.11, 23.12, 29.42, and 30.82 drivers with this game)SOYO Dragon Ultra moboSound Blaster Audigy Gamer (old driver and newer series of drivers tested)30gb Maxtor UDMA 7200rpmCable Connection (AT&T)Netgear FA311 Network Card1 7200rpm Global Win Processor fan4 case fans1 cyclone fan1 clip desk fan (directly mounted)450W Power SupplySaitek Cyborg USB Gold Joystick(sorry if my description is to in-depth, sometimes it helps to know almost the whol layout):)Shane

[Guest]

If MS wants your minimum specs to be more than that, then something is wrong. That should run any game fairly well. Better than my current system, lol.HP Pavilion XL753633mhz Celeron256mb SDRAM11mb Intel 810E graphics acceleration (yuk!)17 inch HP M70 monitor30gb Hard drive4x4x32 CD-RWIntegrated sound and modem. :(

[Arklight1 140]

Yeah, something is seriously screwed up with CFS3.I can honestly say it is probably the worst game I have bought in the past 2 years.Shane

[Deaf Pilot 1]

It ran just fine for me... a few stutters here and there but i only have a 1700XP and 300 something ram and I got it to run decently. I still took it back though cuz it did suck, lol.

[Guest]

Most likely something is seriously screwed up with your computer instead.Don't always blame the other guy (even when the other guy is Microsoft (I know we're supposed to hate them, being good politically correct people who want to end the reign of capitalism and all)).

[Arklight1 140]

>Most likely something is seriously screwed up with your >computer instead. >Don't always blame the other guy (even when the other guy is >Microsoft (I know we're supposed to hate them, being good >politically correct people who want to end the reign of >capitalism and all)). LOLSorry bud, no go there. I am a computer engineer and a PC technician. Also in my free time I build custom PCs for gamers and businesses so as far as it being "Most likely something is seriously screwed up with your computer instead", is HIGHLY unlikely. And I certainly don't hate MS, they gave me money to get certified through them so the "we are all supposed to hate MS" realay doesn't apply to me.Also taking into account all the problems about 99.9 % of the people have with CFS3 I seriously doubt this game sucking is indiginous (sp?) to my computer, lol.CFS3 is just not a good piece of software IMO.Shane

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Shane,I'm glad you qualified your post. I was wondering how CFS3 would fare in the hands of someone skilled in PC setup/support/repair. Although I'm not a big fan of the Combat sim genre, I've been following with some interest the issues reported.What I don't understand, is that from the screenshots I find very little different in CFS3's look other than the clouds, when compared with FS2002. I am surprised it has the impact it does on some systems, and I am very surprised people who've run FS2002 fluidly are having to tweak and/or scale back CFS3 options to get it to perform. OTH, one predictor of CFS3's performance "under battle" might be FS2002's AI. I do find that many with fast systems report lower performance when AI is maxed. In my case, I find turning off reflections equals a 40-50 pct improvement in performance under AI. If reflections exist (and can be disabled) in CFS3, perhaps this is one avenue to try.Like you, as an IT Professional I have a lot of respect for Microsoft. I think when we sometimes have remarks or issues with a product, people assume we mean that everyone from Microsoft from janitor to the CFO is responsible. When in reality, the design teams behind FS2002 or CFS3 probably make up one tenth of one percent of the overall staff. I think it's a given that you understand that, and I didn't read in any negativity towards MS in your post--just a product, which is understandable given other posts I've read. I can't comment on CFS3's quality--it wouldn't be fair because I don't have it. What I can say, and I've found it true since FS2000, is there's always information left unsaid when people refute issues and say "It runs great on my system." Whether it be the scaling back of a slider, or the type of scenario used, it's a challenge to accept that sometimes at face value. Some people are not as distracted by a stutter, a blurred texture, or a lower fps, as are others.I'm reading your post as informative, and I consider the positive posts informative too.Regards,-John

[JETninja 0]

CFS3 takes a ton of setup....sucks but true. I run it on a XP1700 (clocked to XP2000) with a GF2 Ti and 768Mb of DDR. I love it! You have to play with the CFSConfigurator.exe and play with all the otional setting. I found turning off Dual Pass Rendering corrected most stutters. Also in there are by default two water/coastline options that when enabled improve the look alot. I run Airplanes at 5, everything else at 4 or 3. Still playing with it myself. Run a 1152x864x32. I run the latest official detonators from NVidia and I run XP Pro. Lot's of tips at places line Netwings and SimHQ CFS3 boards. It takes work but can be very good. Hopefully a patch will come out soon. There is talk of it. (am a beta tester)Cheers!

[Guest]

These reports really aren't sounding encouraging. Personally I've decided to go against CFS3 and just go to Best Buy and pick up Janes World War II Fighters. A friend of mine owns it and with visual tweaking, the graphics stand up to some shots i've seen of CFS3 on lower end computers (like mine) and with much better FPS. On top of all of this, the gameplay is reportedly much better, I've seen pictures of damaged planes that actually exhibited damage that was different from time to time (I've heard stories of shooting a pilot in the head in his cockpit and seeing blood splattered on the inside). For 10$ it sounds like a better deal than CFS3 anyday.Scott

[Splash_One 0]

IL-2 Sturmovik *cough* *cough* ;)

[greggerm 312]

Well this thread just SOLIDIFIED my thought to *wait* before upgrading my machine in any shape until we're much closer to FS2004 (or competitors). If CFS3 takes a lot of kit, then one can only translate that into FS204 needing lots. And if it DOESN'T, schweet! But if it does, I'll be ready to prepare myself. :) -GregXP2100+, 512MB, Visiontek Geforce3, 30GB ATA/100...19" Viewsonic VX900 LCD (the crown jewel!)