CFS 2 Announced at MS
elhajj
the pics from the other thread (and the knowledge that Tucker Hatfield is
leading the project) have me very hopeful.
http://www.microsoft.com/games/gamestock2000/combatflightsimulatorii.htm
Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator: WWII Pacific Theater carries the
excitement, realism and challenge of the best selling Combat Flight
Simulator from the skies over Europe to the Pacific Theater of Operations
(PTO) with new carrier operations, aircraft, missions, scenery, campaigns
and much more. As World War II rages across the South Pacific, fly for
either the Japanese or United States Navy in more than 100 distinctly
different missions. Hone your skills and become an Ace as you engage in one
thrilling air battle after another.
New Pacific Theater Aircraft
Strap yourself into the cockpit of a Lockheed P-38F Lightning or A6M2 Zero
and take to the skies. Combat Flight Simulator: WWII Pacific Theater
features 18 highly detailed aircraft, seven of which are player flyable. New
flyable aircraft include the A6M2 Zero, A6M5 Zero, N1K2-J George, Lockheed
P-38F Lightning, Vought F4U-1A Corsair, Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat and Grumman
F6F-3 Hellcat.
Realistic Aircraft Flight Models
Aircraft featured in Combat Flight Simulator are based on proven and
detailed Flight Simulator models. Each aircraft has its own flight model and
performance style and detailed cockpit. Challenge your skills in the skies
and on an aircraft carrier pitching deck as you land with a bone-dry fuel
tank.
Enhanced Visuals
Combat Flight Simulator features enhanced 3D objects and aircraft models,
cockpits, explosions, splashes, waves and wakes, and many other effects.
Look out the cockpit in flight and you'll see new terrain, rendered in
detail using an improved Flight Simulator 2000 terrain engine. Using Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
as a base, the Combat Flight Simulator development team has created a DEM
editor, which allows them to add small details and improvements to coastline
features. The results are impressive, as the South Pacific Islands come
alive with realism. Enhanced weather effects, such as clouds, haze and rain
add to the challenge.
Fight Harder & Smarter
Take advantage of your wingmen's improved artificial intelligence (AI) and
dog-fighting abilities and issue them orders and get feedback on their
status. If your wingmen can't help, sit back and enjoy the new bail out
sequences.
Increased Depth of Play
Combat Flight Simulator 2 features two extensive campaigns that, together,
make for more than 120 challenging missions that deliver an immersive
experience and add to the variety of gameplay. After the battle, you'll be
able to return to your carrier or island base easier with new moving maps
and other navigation aids essential for tracking across the expanses of the
ocean.
Graphical Mission Editor
Creating and modifying missions is now easier than ever with a
full-featured, graphical mission editor and campaign builder - the same tool
used by the game's designers to create the battles featured in Combat Flight
Simulator 2. Add-on developers and enthusiasts can take advantage of this
tool expand the range of missions to fly in PTO or in the European Theater.
Full Multiplayer Support
Free Internet play (connect-time charges may apply) for up to eight players
on the MSN Gaming Zone, over a LAN, or modem to modem.
--
elhajj posts from elhajj @ nwlink dot com
Goofup
one of the few who really loves CFS). Which one to get?
Hell with it, I'll get both of 'em!!!!
Goofup
elhajj <s...@my.sig> wrote in message news:38bd...@news.nwlink.com...
JD
forth on "Re: CFS 2 Announced at MS
> Found the official announcement of CFS2 on the MS site. This text along
>with> the pics from the other thread (and the knowledge that Tucker Hatfield is
> leading the project) have me very hopeful.
Well, I for one was disappointed to find no mention of a dynamic
campaign. In fact the wording they used would lead one to conclude
they are defintely going the canned mission route. Very
disappointing.
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
Diver Dan
;)
danny
PositiveG
detail using an improved Flight Simulator 2000 terrain engine."
Is this a good thing?
Do I need a PIV-1Gig to run it?? :-)
IMO
Well I guess. But, to do a PTO sim properly you also need ships as
targets, aircraft carriers for take off and landings and torpedo
bombers (SPD's). Don't see any of that possible in a EAW mod.
Ricski
PositiveG <remove-p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:J1zv4.28884$Jz3.1...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
It will never run on crap like that and if that's all you've got in your
machine, I think it's definitely time for you to upgrade. :-)
Richard
Jim Waggener
<remove-p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>" Look out the cockpit in flight and you'll see new terrain, rendered in
>detail using an improved Flight Simulator 2000 terrain engine."
>
>Is this a good thing?
>
>Do I need a PIV-1Gig to run it?? :-)
>
>
>
Heck, I thought FS2000 should have used CFS scenery!! lol
Jon Saloga
wrote:
I'm even more disappointed that dive and torpedo bombers will not be
flyable. That was my favorite part of PAW.
Jon S
Jagg
<jsa...@myndspring.com> wrote:
>I'm even more disappointed that dive and torpedo bombers will not be
>flyable. That was my favorite part of PAW.
>
>Jon S
>
Mine too. No torpedo bombers means it is just a "maybe buy" now.
--
Jagg
Daniel K. Shaw
>On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:46:58 -0600, "elhajj" <s...@my.sig> held
>forth on "Re: CFS 2 Announced at MS
>
>> Found the official announcement of CFS2 on the MS site. This text along
>>with> the pics from the other thread (and the knowledge that Tucker Hatfield
> is
>> leading the project) have me very hopeful.
>
>Well, I for one was disappointed to find no mention of a dynamic
>campaign. In fact the wording they used would lead one to conclude
>they are defintely going the canned mission route. Very
>disappointing.
>
>
> jdk...@optonline.net
I've read an interview with one of the designers. The missions will have some
randomly varied elements, and some persistence in the world state from mission
to mission -- in other words, if you blow something up in one mission, it may
not be repaired by the next mission. I'm not sure (I don't have it yet), but
that sounds like the JFA-18 approach.
Dan Shaw
JD
>I'm even more disappointed that dive and torpedo bombers will not be
>flyable. That was my favorite part of PAW.
I wonder though if CFS2 will have the same open plane architecture
as the other FS products? If so, that omission should be easily
remedied.
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
Oystein Tvedten
>
> Well, I for one was disappointed to find no mention of a dynamic
> campaign. In fact the wording they used would lead one to conclude
> they are defintely going the canned mission route. Very
> disappointing.
>
So-called dynamic campaigns are wastly overrated. People seem to bring
up the ones in EAW and Falcon4 as prime examples. EAW to me was quite
boring. Just the same kind of missions over and over again. It might
of course have something to do with the setting and such, but the game
went onto the shelf after a week or so of play. As for Falcon 4, it is
a very good try, but marred by bugs out the wazoo, and a very
illogical AI who tasks the missions. Taking out deep sites while there
are a dozen Early Warning Radars along the frontline? errr?
To me the most *enjoyable* campaigns has been the Longbow 1+2 ones,
and the Janes F-15+F/A-18 ones. I haven't had the time to try out Mig
Alley too much, so I can't say anything about how the campaign in it
is working.
Oystein
--
Roy Batty: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships
on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the
dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
like tears in rain. Time to die.
Aaron Turner
: Realistic Aircraft Flight Models
: Aircraft featured in Combat Flight Simulator are based on proven and
: detailed Flight Simulator models. Each aircraft has its own flight model and
: performance style and detailed cockpit. Challenge your skills in the skies
: and on an aircraft carrier pitching deck as you land with a bone-dry fuel
: tank.
I can't say I've flown a real aircraft, but the flight models in CFS seem
very similar no matter what plane you are flying. In Warbirds I have a
sense that I am maneuvring something big when flying the B24, and
something nimble in the Spit. I don't get this so much in CFS.
Aaron Turner
Bean
your assessments of the two products that claim to have them.
EAW gave me a feeling of scripted missions and the only thing dynamic I felt
was some invisible score tally in the back ground showing how many
"platforms" had been taken out. I saw no huge groups of ground troops
fighting to take ground.
F4 was very, very close but I think the boys at MICROPROSE bit off more than
they could chew. I think if they could of scaled back the over-all unit count
and gave us a little more control over the ground troops it would of been
even a bigger success (and it was IMO).
The problem for me is that I know how to fly, to shoot, to bomb and no matter
how fun scripted missions are they just don't give me the same feeling of
accomplishment that fighting on a bigger playing field gives. I guess what it
comes down to is that the only place I'm going to find what I'm looking for
is with a online squad fighting for "that one more base to the North".
Hopefully some time in the future I'll be able to find time to do it: )
Bean
~TekWorm~
As is normal with M,S or any software developer, Nothing about CFS2 has been
set in stone. The CFS development Leader has eluded to an interest in
Community Feedback, while admitting a lack of knowlege of game criteria that
the CFS Community has been crying out for.
The Combat Flight Center is Hosting a "CFS Aces Convention" in June of 2000.
The immediate response to an invitation to MS developers was that MS was
interested in having a rep of the team there, for some Feed & Response
sessions. (hmmmm...)
As close to a commitment as I've ever seen from MS! :o)
We shall see.
Meanwhile, it is a fact that MS (to whatever small extent) monitors Chat at
the Zone. If you fly there (I do not.. I fly IP sessions exclusively) Every
little quip there, about your desires, adds to the possibility of being heard
by a team member.
The "Squeeky Consumer" gets the "Modules".
~TekWorm~
http://www.dreamscape.com/tekworm/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
JD
<oyst...@ifi.uio.no> held forth on "Re: CFS 2 Announced at MS"
>So-called dynamic campaigns are wastly overrated.
In your opinion.
>People seem to bring
>up the ones in EAW and Falcon4 as prime examples. EAW to me was quite
>boring. Just the same kind of missions over and over again. It might
>of course have something to do with the setting and such...
Or it might have something to do with the fact that combat flying
is basically the same few mission types flown over and over and
over... the variable elements being things like the target, the
available friendly assets, the enemy response, etc..
I*M*HO, it's this "scripted" business, with every mission telling
an intricate little story-unto-itself, replete with plot twists
and "Gotcha!" type surprises at every turn, that is the stuff of
pulp fiction. Cute, but it gets old after the first time
through... if not long before.
>As for Falcon 4, it is
>a very good try, but marred by bugs out the wazoo, and a very
>illogical AI who tasks the missions. Taking out deep sites while there
>are a dozen Early Warning Radars along the frontline? errr?
Sounds like you forgot to play the other half of the game... the
half which involves planning and executing an air campaign.
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
JD
held forth on "Re: CFS 2 Announced at MS"
>EAW gave me a feeling of scripted missions and the only thing dynamic I felt
>was some invisible score tally in the back ground showing how many
>"platforms" had been taken out. I saw no huge groups of ground troops
>fighting to take ground.
Just to avoid confusion about what *I'm* referring to, at least,
when talking about dynamic campaigns...
I simply mean dynamic career or mission generation based on a set
of circumstances which may or may not be influenced to some degree
by the player's previous actions.
The reason I mention this is because it sounds like you <and many
others> automatically equate the term "dynamic campaign" to a
dynamic, and perhaps even real time ground war. When used in the
context of 1st person combat flight simulator type games, I think
this is a bit over the top.
>
>F4 was very, very close but I think the boys at MICROPROSE bit off more than
>they could chew. I think if they could of scaled back the over-all unit count
>and gave us a little more control over the ground troops it would of been
>even a bigger success (and it was IMO).
>
>The problem for me is that I know how to fly, to shoot, to bomb and no matter
>how fun scripted missions are they just don't give me the same feeling of
>accomplishment that fighting on a bigger playing field gives. I guess what it
>comes down to is that the only place I'm going to find what I'm looking for
>is with a online squad fighting for "that one more base to the North".
>Hopefully some time in the future I'll be able to find time to do it: )
>
>Bean
>
>Oystein Tvedten wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So-called dynamic campaigns are wastly overrated. People seem to bring
>> up the ones in EAW and Falcon4 as prime examples. EAW to me was quite
>> boring. Just the same kind of missions over and over again. It might
>> of course have something to do with the setting and such, but the game
>> went onto the shelf after a week or so of play. As for Falcon 4, it is
>> a very good try, but marred by bugs out the wazoo, and a very
>> illogical AI who tasks the missions. Taking out deep sites while there
>> are a dozen Early Warning Radars along the frontline? errr?
>>
>> To me the most *enjoyable* campaigns has been the Longbow 1+2 ones,
>> and the Janes F-15+F/A-18 ones. I haven't had the time to try out Mig
>> Alley too much, so I can't say anything about how the campaign in it
>> is working.
>>
>> Oystein
>> --
>> Roy Batty: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships
>> on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the
>> dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
>> like tears in rain. Time to die.
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
JD
forth on "Re: CFS 2 Announced at MS"
> As is normal with M,S or any software developer, Nothing about CFS2 has been
>set in stone. The CFS development Leader has eluded to an interest in
>Community Feedback, while admitting a lack of knowlege of game criteria that
>the CFS Community has been crying out for.
<snip>
> Meanwhile, it is a fact that MS (to whatever small extent) monitors Chat at
>the Zone. If you fly there (I do not.. I fly IP sessions exclusively) Every
>little quip there, about your desires, adds to the possibility of being heard
>by a team member.
I applaud their efforts to solicit player feedback, but here's the
problem that I see with the way they're going about it....
By soliciting the "CFS community" and players on "The Zone", all
they're hearing are comments from folks who liked the original
presentation enough to buy it in the first place. Well, what about
the folks who did NOT buy it because it didn't fit their bill for
some reason?
Personally, you won't find me at "the Zone" and I'm not part of
the "CFS community" precisely because the game did not offer a
dynamic campaign. I guess that means my little quips will go
unheard...? Looks like the proverbial vicious circle to me.
Regards, JD
jdk...@optonline.net
Joe L.
was the "world" that was in that box. Anything in that world could be
changed and populated to suit. Even if the out of the box aircraft REALLY
sucked, so what if you can build your own?
The trouble with MSCFS was that there were many things that were left out
of that world. and so simply did not exist (Torpedos, Radar, Radio, etc.).
It was a World War II sim in a World War I world. If that world is brought
up to date it has the potential of being the best yet.
And it is PACIFIC!!!!! If the WWII flight sims released in the last few
years are any indication, many of the software companies are compleatly
unaware of the Pacific Theater
No reason to pop the champaign corks yet but there is good reason to
hope.
Aaron Turner <ag...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:89ofgr$t8c$2...@pump1.york.ac.uk...
D. Miller
news:2i70cs4kk4g1k9cbh...@4ax.com...
> On 03 Mar 2000 09:16:00 +0100, Oystein Tvedten wrote:
> Sounds like you forgot to play the other half of the game... the
> half which involves planning and executing an air campaign.
>
Pretty much true, JD, but to play a little devil's advocate--not all of us
want to be MacArthur.
The ability to just jump in and fly the frag (more like a real pilot, ala
the Jane's F-15/18), would be nice too. In F4, that's suicide.
Mission planning is one thing, but not everybody aspires to be Gen. Chuck
Horner every time they sit down at the computer, especially if you want to
just start out as a lowly 2nd. Louie and see how far you can get. Not many
of them are calling major campaign strategy shots. :-)
My .02.
D. "Dada" Miller