Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 3: Battle for Europe Reviews

• One step forward, two steps back.

  
  By A29ROVDR59S0UJ on 2002-11-20
  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 !

  
  By A2OW2OKQ0NAL8L on 2002-12-11
  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.
  
  

• No, it is not as bad as it seems

  
  By on 2003-03-14
  Yes, you can enjoy this game, but first you must understand a few facts about computers:

  First, don't complain about having to download current video drivers for this game. Do you want the latest technology, then you have to download it...often. Just because you bought the best video card you could afford a year ago, doesn't mean that it is going to run today's technology.

  Second, all big games run from the CD, so understand that you have to have the CD in the drive to play the game (common sense) and that there will be lag time when it accesses the CD. The world is very large and it is difficult for your PC to spawn a 360 degree enviroment on the fly.

  Third, turn off your background programs. The listed requirements are for a barebones PC, not one that is running a ton of spyware and third-party utilites that are hogging all your resources.

  Now, lets get to the review...

  The GOOD:
  - The best detail in a 360 degree enviroment of any flight-sim to date.
  - Clouds and weather effects are well done.
  - The planes and targets look great.
  - Nice selection of planes.

  The BAD:
  - Load time is very, very long.
  - The game has more bugs than most finished products.
  - The cockpit views are difficult to see from, and the effects of speed and force on ammunition seems exaggerated (even at point blank range you have to lead the ammo so far in front of a target that it is outside of your field of view)
  - Armament just doesn't feel true to life.
  - The bomber controls are horrible, and while you can take the roll of bombidier or a gunner I recommend you don't, as there is no auto pilot (you can switch seats only to find that the throttle has dropped to zero and your bomber just rolled into an unrecoverable dive, or the gunner's machine guns are now locked "on" and decimating your fellow flight members)

  The UGLY:
  - This game is too taxing on hardware resources.
  - You can't belly land!!!
  - Any nick from enemy flak is like getting a direct hit from a rocket - ouch!!!
  - The game feels too much like you are playing an arcade game.
  - The "campaign" acspect is an inconvience and interferes with regular game play. Needs to be better implemented.
  - Framerates can be so bad that the plane will jerk across the sky (making a smooth landing almost impossible)

  So in summation, the game is not great, but it will deliver hours of fun here and there if you are patient. Microsoft can, and should have, done better than this and I don't look forward to purchasing any future Combat Flight Simulator releases.
  
  

• CFS 3 Best sim ever?

  
  By AG5M3W4RL876E on 2002-10-11
  I'm a big sim fan I have all the combat flight sims so far and a few of the flight sims (combatfs 1,2 fs2000,2002) from what i have seen and read about this game its every cobat fligt simulators dream. 34 flyable aircraft bombers fighters torpedeo bombers and jet fighters! it has 3D sencery and alot of special features. Tail Gunner 2 if you have combatfs 1 you'll know what im talking about. Tail gunner 2 was a programe for cfs1 which let you use the rear,waist,tailand frontal guns on a bomber but it stopped you from using rockets. so what steveiy did (the guy who made tg2) was ask microsft to include tailgunner in the latest version of combat fs and there is a virtual gunner cockpit for it. Take it from me it looks stunning.Forget of the panel as we know it today because evrything is a virtual cockpit. No more 2D panels. You heard me mention fighter jets thats right they've been so knid to include fighter jets they are: Me262 A, Gloster Meteor, P-80 and the De Halivand Vampire they also included a little thing called role playing which i think is fun. You create a pilot give him a name a background and how he got into the aviation industry. He can be killed. Thats about all i can tell you for im running out of sapce and i could go on forever.But if you enjoyed 1and2 you will love 3. buy it!!!!
  
  

• Just how bad can a Combat Flight Simulator be?

  
  By A38VJH7GFC12J1 on 2003-08-20
  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.
  
  

• Believe the bad news!
  By A34NPP4C5QI8CG on 2002-12-28
  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?
  By A13251HBWRMQ8W on 2004-03-15
  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.
  
  
• Great game
  By A3F17Q0OSRJIN3 on 2004-01-10
  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!
  
  
• State of the Art in Combat Flight Sims
  By on 2002-10-31
  I know I'm dating myself, but my first flight simulator really was the old wireframe flight simulator you could play on an 8086 processor back in 1987. It even had a rinky dink little combat mode where you could go head to head with another biplane in a WWI dogfight. Simple stuff, but a blast.

  Since then I progressed to Red Baron on the 286 (one of the best flight sims ever made), Aces Over Europe, Falcon, Red Baron II (one of the buggiest games ever), Stealth Fighter, and so on. But the modern jet fighter sims with their fly-by-wire feel and shoot-from-ten-miles-away combat left me cold. So I've returned to my roots in the great wars of the 20th century by purchasing CFS3. And I haven't found much to dissapoint me yet.

  First, the graphics are simply gorgeous. The planes are incredibly well modeled and half the time I find myself forgetting to shoot and simply starring at the screen. The ground is well done, too, especially from altitude, and still looks remarkably good close up (certainly much better then most, although I have yet to try IL2 which I hear is pretty damn good as well).

  18 flyable plane models, with a total of 34 variants, makes for alot of flexibility and replayability, and alot to learn. So far I've flown several from each of the major represented powers (the US, Germany and Britain) and found each plane acted in accordance to my expectations. The Spitfire is remarkably agile and graceful, easy to fly and hard to stall. The BF109 is fast and maneuverable, almost TOO damn fast at times it seems. The mustang is a bit more difficult to handle then either of those two, but still a potent weapon and damnably fast. The Crusader is one heck of a tough, fast tank in the air, and with it's multiple stations you can switch between (5 machine gun locations, a pilot's station AND a bombadier site) you can have an awful lot of fun in it do anything BUT piloting (but the pilot also gets access to four fuselage mounted MG's for straffing attacks which is astoundingly fun).

  Ground attacks are well modeled and have a general authentic feel to them. While trucks and jeeps and trains aren't as graphically beautiful as the airplanes you fly, all are recognizable and distinguishable from a distance. Shoot up the first truck in a convoy to block the rest, then cruise back and forth to take the rest out. The explosions could look a little nicer, but are still quite satisfying.

  Damage models are fantastic. I overshot an enemy BF109 and rammed into his tail causing a catestrophic failure of my poor Spitfire's airframe. Switching to an external view, I saw the wreckage of my plane plummeting nose first towards the ground, both wings ripped off and tangled metal struts jutting from the frame where flames spewed back along the fuselage. I've torn off landing gear, bent props by flying too low, damaged flaps, and of course gotten shot up. The variety of damage is amazing, and the flight model accurate reflects what happens to your rig.

  I've only just begun the career mode, but the thought of having an effect on the ground war is wetting my desire to play. I'll perhaps write more about that in the future.

  Negatives so far have been: lack of radio chatter in the game making the war seem a bit emptier then it should. Game crashes when attempting to change video resolutions. Slow load times. No other major bugs yet.

  Overall this is an incredible game. Now excuse me, it's almost time to load up, I have a critical attack on an enemy airbase at dawn that I have to get ready for....
  
  

• A Poem
  By A29KIYRIAKCTWV on 2002-12-01
  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.
  
  
• A botched job
  By A2Z9IS8DKVE1GB on 2003-01-05
  As one who possesses and enjoys CFS, CFS2 & FS2002, I had high expectations for this game. They have not been met. The many faults of this game have been listed elsewhere and I agree with them all. Particularly annoying are the erratic and stuttering framerate that seems impossible to fix entirely, the myriad bugs in mission record keeping, the inconsistent cockpit graphics, poor flight models, and the very strange AI (my wingman shot me down while we were waiting to take off on one quick mission!).

  Post-patch update.

  Well, the patch has just come out as of this week (1st week of February), and it has helped a lot. The game is running much more smoothly, many of the more annoying graphical inconsistencies have been fixed, and it is certainly more stable. My 8-year-old son is having a blast with it as a 'line-em-up, knock 'em down' shooter. But for me it will remain a game and not a simulator - IL-2 is still tops in the realism & flight model department. But better than it was and certainly more fun.
  
  

• Don't Buy cfs3 or you will wish you didn't.
  By A38POHLLSYPI3Q on 2002-10-27
  I have cfs1 & cfs2 already and my hopes were high that Microsoft would deliver in cfs3, the improvement they boasted of. But other than the nice clouds cfs3 is not nearly as nice as either cfs2 or even cfs1. The cities in cfs1 have better graphics. In multiplayer there is no lobby anymore, you can't land to repair your plane. The planes fly-ability have taken a step or two backwards. You can not open a second window like you could in cfs2 to watch your back. I am sad that Microsoft thinks so little of its loyal cfs gamers. The instrument panel is weak and the instruments look less real than in cf1 which did a pretty good job on their airspeed indicators, altimeters, compasses and so on.

  I hope they fix it fast.
  
  

• Should be called Combat Freight Train Simulator 3
  By AGQSV3I7D4WG5 on 2006-03-09
  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.
  
  
• Just put the check book down...
  By A255RR5D8X3RSK on 2002-12-21
  Think, Think before you purchase this. There are so many other good products coming out in the near future, you don't need to taint your hard drive with this. You all think you got it bad because of the 'stutters' boo-hoo. This game messed up Windows so bad I couldnt access it for 3 hours, and I had to reformat my C: Disk. Beware, if you do buy this game, when it says "Restart to finish installation" it really means "Bill Gates wants to give you a special gift for considering Linux" Anyways... I finally installed it, it's choppy, and it's the only thing I have on my hard disk right now...I think Microsoft owes me big, actually no, we've all been cheated, let's start a letter writing campaign to our congressman about this game..because that's how much it bites!
  
  
• Host of compatibility issues
  By ATSI43FPFX6BB on 2004-02-26
  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.
  
  

• A good game or a well-made hybrid?
  By on 2002-09-28
  After reading all of the reviews of Microsoft's new sim: Combat flight simulator 3, I realized that this sim has everything I wished for.

  Right now I own IL-2 Sturmovik and Apache Havoc. CFS3 is a hybrid (as I like to call it) of both of these other sims.

  CFS3 has the ability to let you see the war go on and be affected by your actions(as seen on Apache Havoc). It also uses the DVC as a standard view cockpit(as seen in IL-2 Sturmovik).

  I give a lot of props to those who gave there time into making this outstanding simulator.
  
  

• major disappointment
  By on 2002-11-10
  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.
  
  

• Terrible
  By AKS6BI230FNEQ on 2002-12-05
  I have been buying Flight Sim since v. 1.0 on my IBM XT. All have been significant improvements except for this one. It is, in a word, terrible. Graphics are rough, gunsite sits directly on glare shield, so you cannot see the target under G loading. It's movement is notchy. I can't get Best Buy to take it back.
  
  
• Save your bucks
  By AXQIV7R9H31QU on 2003-06-22
  Having been a big fan of CFS2, I was excited about buying this new simulator. I like to think that I have a pretty good system, graphics package, etc. But this thing is so buggy it causes my computer to crash everytime I try to play it. What a major disappointment. I know people who have had success with it.........but several more that have had the same problem as I have. Save your money!
  
  
• What Happened?!?!
  By on 2002-11-18
  I've bought both previous versions of CFS and greatly enjoyed them both. This however has little in common with CFS 1 or 2. The cockpits are terrible. They look more like something out of Fighter Ace. In fact the whole game (not really a "sim" anymore) is more like the arcade-ish Fighter Ace than any previous CFS. The key commands are different than either previous CFS and it is a laborious process reassigning them. The ground textures, flight models, AI, sound, maps and campaign structures are either no better or noticeably worse than CFS2. There is also no compatiblity with CFS1 or 2 aircraft. Oh yes, almost unbeliveably my Microsoft Force Feedback joystick doesn't work at all well with this game! I think I'm going to go buy IL2 now and take CFS3 off my hard drive!

  Note: my system is a 2.8 P4 /128 meg ATI Radeon 9700 /512 meg RAM. After installing the OLDER ATI driver (yes you read that right) the game does run alright with a fairly decent frame rate but I think that anything too much slower would have some difficulty.
  
  

• Combat Flight Simulator 3
  By A34D0MZMFB4L7M on 2002-12-10
  I have been a flight simulator fan since the old DOS versions. Since then, Microsoft had steadily improved their simulators to an astonishing level. That is, until Combat Flight Sim 3. This simulator is terrible. It is full of bugs and unless you have "tomorrow's" cutting edge computer, you probably won't be able to enjoy the advertised graphics. I have a 2 year old Dell system Pentium III with 512 MB Ram and 15 GB of hard drive operating on Windows 98 SE and a video card that was fine with Flight Simulator 2002. The game wouldn't even work on my computer until I found a driver that even Dell didn't have. Even after that I had to turn off all the special graphics to get the game to operate at a useable speed. Even then it would, at times, become very choppy for no apparent reason. Save your money and time until they fix the bugs.
  
  
• This is an earlier game version
  By A1A87TUBBDPMF0 on 2003-06-02
  If you are a World War II buff and love flight simulators, Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator - WWII Europe Series is for you.

  Using the same attention to detail as in its Flight Simulator series - indeed, you can import "worlds" from the civilian game to this war one - Combat Flight Simulator allows you to fly in two Campaigns, The Battle of Britain and The Battle for Europe, as a pilot in the RAF, Luftwaffe, or USAAF (U.S. Army Air Forces).

  Combat Flight Simulator - Europe lets you fly many of the famous fighters in service in those three air forces. If you fly as a British pilot, you can expect to be at the controls of a Hawker Hurricane Mk. (Mark) I, a Supermarine Spitfire Mk. I, or a later variant, the Mk. IX. As a German pilot, you'll fly either the Messerchmitt Bf 109E or the Focke-Wulf Fw. 190A fighters. Finally, as a Yank in the USAAF, you'll man either the sturdy P-47D Thunderbolt or the sleek P-51 Mustang. All of these planes have their strengths and weaknesses, so try to read the manual (or the Help files) and do a bit of research before you hook up the joystick and take flight. Particularly challenging are the ammunition load limits to each plane; each plane has its own ammo load capacity, and players more familiar with fighter jet simulations (such as Microprose's famous F-15 Strike Eagle series) may find themselves shooting away all their ammo at one plane (if they choose realistic presets) and then being unable to shoot at anyone else because they have no bullets. I would advise rookie pilots to use Unlimited Ammo settings until they have had enough practice to shoot down enemy bombers and fighters without wasting precious rounds.

  The simulation not only has the two Campaigns I mentioned earlier, but it has Free Flight, Quick Combat, Single Mission, and Training modes. Quick Combat, particularly, is good for players who like both flight simulations and arcade games. This option lets you choose what and how many enemy planes you can face off against, where the fight takes place, what weather conditions are like, time of day, and tactical situation. The enemy comes at you in waves, like in an arcade game, and as soon as you dispatch one wave, another appears. The challenge here is to shoot down as many planes as you can before you either run out of gas or are shot down. (Unlimited Ammo should be your choice in this sort of game no mater how good you are, unless you can shoot down one plane with one bullet. Here, skills learned in a jet fighter simulation will not help you!)

  For players weaned on jet fighter games, it would be advisable to use the non-1940s HUD (Heads Up Display) view option. I (since I am new to this game myself) still use it in the Campaign mode since the "Cockpit" view option, while more realistic, is still a bit overwhelming to me. Purists and/or experienced pilots can set realism to 100% to their heart's content, but casual players or rookies should start out easy then gradually increase the realism settings.

  The graphics are excellent, even for a 1998-era game. Being a Microsoft game it runs on most Windows platforms except 3.1, and I am sure no one reading this review still has that operating system. I particularly like the "worlds" depicted: you actually get a sense of flying over 1940s Europe. The sound is also good, and you can even hear your fellow pilots' radio calls. (Like the more advanced flight simulations, the Single Mission and Campaign games are very realistic in that you fly with a squadron, something I never experienced in F-15 Strike Eagles I-III. I did once own Microprose's F-14 Fleet Defender, a game that had AI wingmen, but I could never get it to run on any of my machines!)

  Microsoft also offers a Pacific series counterpart, which I am hoping to get soon. Check to see if they have expansion kits. Many simulations ranging from flight to Star Wars starfighter games have them, and I believe Combat Flight Simulator is no exception.

  Oh, yes. Good luck, happy landings, and good hunting!
  
  

• The Best Flying Game Ever!!!
  By AB82TJ90A0O6Z on 2004-03-08
  Combat Flight Simulator 3: Battle for Europe is a great game. Its only fun when you have the joystick. You can pick from German, British and American planes. Its more realistic than Combat Flight Simulator 2. You can even fly bombers and be a gunner. The missions are alot harder than the ones in Combat Flight Simulator 2. Most of the time you get shot down by flack. Now you can crashland. It was anoying when you crash landed and just stayed there forever in Combat Flight Simulator 2. You can get medals. Its easy to get them. Its hard to live through bombing misions because the flack and the blast from the bombs make you crash. If you liked Combat Flight Simulator 2 you will probably like Combat Flight Simulator 3. Its impossible to shoot down planes with the amount of amo they give you but you can go to settings and put unlimited amo on. The fuel is very annoying. You allways get hit in the fuel tank. You allways lose all you fuel. Theres 3 bombers and alot of fighter planes. You can get topedos now. Theres almost no ships so there useless. Theres even multiplayer and campain mode. Theres also alot of locations to fly in. Combat Flight Simulator 3 is the best.
  
  
• Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 3: Battle for Europe
  By A1RIZ330QGQTU5 on 2005-11-17
  I expected much more from Microsoft on this flight Sim and they let me down. Oh well. I got started years ago with the Red Baron and really enjoyed it. I even bought the "New" Red Baron II later, but it was far too "buggy" and so I quite playing it.
  
  This effort at a flight Sim is a failed effort by the Microsoft programmers. BTW, I've had a private pilot's licence since 1971 and have flown tail draggers and am presently rated up to a dual engine 310. Still, I'd like to find a realistic WWII flight Sim that works. The FAA doesn't allow you to really blow people out of the sky.
  
  
• This is a piece of manure from Microsoft
  By A3T1LD0C65QCWK on 2006-06-24
  Short version: It. Does. Not. Run.
  
  Take your money and set fire to it, you'll save time trying to troubleshoot this piece of crud -- it just wasn't written very robustly. Or, if you'd rather, buy it and spend three hours downloading various patches and trying to tweak various settings on your machine trying to get it to function.
  
  The emperor wears no clothes. This is badly written software and it should not be purchased by anyone for any reason. Microsoft produces trash as far as I'm concerned and I'm angry with myself for not remembering that, I wanted to play this game, I wanted it to FUNCTION on a basic level AND IT DOES NOT DO SO. THIS SOFTWARE DOES NOT FUNCTION. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME!
  
  
• the best game ever
  By A10QSMQN2RLWKF on 2002-09-18
  this is the best game i have ever tested in my entier life. i really like it cause its got REALLY good graphics and sfx.
  
  
• Great Expectations; Poor Delivery
  By A32UISESP3CK93 on 2002-10-28
  If I had only played CSF1, I would have given this a higher review. But I have been playing IL-2 and now know that IL-2 is the superior combat flight simulator, bar none! CFS3 does have interresting ground vehicles to attack. Aircraft flight dynamics appear unrealistic, too simple. Scenery is FLAT, tree & object detail is very nice but where is all the raised mesh detail I would have expected? MicroSoft did ok, not good and definately not great. I'll give CFS3 2 stars and go back to playing UbiSoft's IL-2. "C ya in the clouds" Mtn.
  
  
• Combat Flight Simulator 3
  By A2FI55FMT5HWMU on 2002-11-03
  After all of the hype that was going on about CFS 3 before it came out I was realy surprised and disapionted how it actually did turn out. One, it is a real frame sucker way worse than IL-2 Sturmovik. Two, the planes do look nice but some of the sounds are way off, some sound like lawnmowers like the Messerschmitt 109 and the Focke Wulf 190 :(. Three, it seems to have a dark look to it..almost kind of muddy. Four, the flight models are a joke, on the hardest settings you can still yank your stick way back and you dont have to worry about stalling...not to cool :(. This sim would be alright for people who want to learn how to fly and fight in a WWII aircraft in a few short hrs. But because of the bad flight models (way too eazy to fly) lame sound bad frame rates and dark look I cant give it a thumbs up. If you are a hardcore "WWll Sim Fighter Pilot" IL-2 Sturmovik is still the best thing out there for you, especialy for online play at "Hyperlobby". Salute :)
  
  
• Need a super computer to solve performance issue!
  By on 2002-12-10
  Unfortunately, on my brand new top of the line gaming machine with a gig of ram that runs most games flawlessly including the old MS Flight Simulator, it has no power to get this one going. I am very disappointed, everything is moving in frames and the load time makes my hard drive work like a dog for what seems to be an eternity. I cannot believe Microsoft would release a game that works like this with the flimsy system requirements they list on the box. I feel cheated because I have to eat the cost of a lousy product as a result of the stores policy of not taking back an open box. It proves to me once again that they are out for a buck more than providing quality products. Don't get burned like myself and the rest of the reviewers on this page.
  
  
• Some Good Features but Not Really a Simulator
  By A2NIWIF08QERRX on 2004-02-10
  I think CFS3 has some truly innovative ideas but I think that it was lacking in other areas. I've had no software or hardware related problems with this game and personally I do not believe that those problems are a basis for a poor review. Those problems can be corrected with a little time and effort and people have to expect that with software capabilities outstripping hardware for the last 15 years, the trend is likely to continue. Flight sims tend to be the games that push the development of hardware due to the fast paced action and constantly improving eye-candy involved in the games.

  I liked the fact that CFS3 rates your pilot and the capabilities of your pilot (eyesight, g-tolerance etc) are improved with performance. This gives the sim an RPG type feel to it and you feel as though you are accomplishing something with your pilot. This feature also gives you an edge against others. With most sims, your rank and 100 air to air kills means little and your are never rewarded for you prowess in terms of a tangeable asset. This changes in CFS3 with the upgradeable abilities. As a pilot, I know that the more experience you have flying formation and aerobatics, the better your judgement becomes and the higher your ability to withstand g's. As this is the first sim I've seen with this feature, I think it's appropriate to highlight and encourage this as a step forward in flight sim creation.

  The ability to fly Gotha 229s against P-80s is also a great addition unseen since Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe (Lucasarts). Also I enjoyed flying the Vampire jet as it is often forgotten in history and there was an ex-Rhodesian Airforce Vampire being given a life-enhancement at West Sale Airport in Victoria, Australia where I used to clean aeroplanes and learn to fly after school during my teen years. I've always thought they are a beautiful jet.

  As far as a flight sim goes I think IL2:FB is better than CFS3 as the aircraft perform more realistically and I love flying nap of the earth down Russian river valleys and ramming my bombs down the throats of unassuming Nazis. I also love the fact that in IL2:FB if you choose to it is possible to trim your control surfaces and manipulate propellor pitch and other engine controls in order to optimise your aircraft's performance. The only thing I found myself doing in CFS3 was open my cockpit canopy to let me bail-out quicker (One shot from an enemy and everything was broken, hydraulics, elevators, the lot).

  With CFS3 the terrain just isn't as visually splendid as IL2:FB. I also got the sneaking suspicion that the campaign wasn't quite as affectable as suggested. During one mission I destroyed the assigned supply depot and then proceded to cut a swathe out of the German front line 20 miles across. After returning to base and looking at the map, the corridor I'd created hadn't been taken advantage of and it seemed as though only the assigned target had been rewarded to the campaign. Maybe if I'd continued on this track I'd have made a difference but as a sim it just can't hold my attention long enough and I move back to IL2.

  Overall I think CFS3 is worth having and I will always turn to it on hung-over Sunday mornings but don't buy it expecting an amazing sim. I just hope that CFS3's good features are copied by UBI-Soft in order to create an excellent Korean War 1950's era jet sim.
  
  

• PC Gamer (1-year)
• ButtKicker BK-GR Gamer

• Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 2: Pacific Theater
• Logitech Extreme 3D Pro Joystick (963290-0403)
• Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004: A Century of Flight
• Microsoft Flight Simulator X Deluxe DVD
• Combat Flight Simulator: WWII Europe Series (Jewel Case)