Glob
19.10.2002, 04:04
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/previews/cfs3/
Graphically the game is an improvement over its CFS2 cousin. Unlike CFS2, CFS3 is not completely based upon the prior year’s Flight Simulation engine however the title shares quite a bit in common with its civilian cousin, most noticeably the terrain and aircraft textures.
To be honest, this is good and bad. If you like the terrain in FS2002 then you will probably enjoy the terrain in CFS3. If you hated the terrain, then you probably will hate it here as well. They both look very similar, for good and bad. What the sim does well in my opinion is create the feeling of being outdoors. FS 2002 did this well IMHO, it made you feel like you were actually outdoors in the aircraft as opposed to being in a room with a monitor. CFS3 does the same thing, something that is missing from other sims at times.
In some respects the terrain is excellent, in others pretty good, in some others I think poor. Trees and buildings are well rendered and there are a ton of them over cities. Trees are individually rendered, not a bitmapped block of trees so down low you can’t find a better representation of virtual lumber. Buildings in general look correct, all the great monuments of Western Europe are there. There tends to be a lot of repedity with some of the building types but this is to be expected I suppose.
Some people won’t care much for the terrain textures though. I don’t think they look bad, nor do I think they look outstanding. Since the people that created the terrain for FS2002 are creating the terrain for CFS3 the similarities are more than coincidental. Some people like the textures, some don’t so you can base your opinions of CFS3’s terrain based upon your opinion of FS2002. I for one don’t mind the textures at all except for one aspect. I find the water textures ugly. Ok I said it, I find them ugly. Freaking Ugly, Fugly. I feel better now.
:D :D :D
Graphically the game is an improvement over its CFS2 cousin. Unlike CFS2, CFS3 is not completely based upon the prior year’s Flight Simulation engine however the title shares quite a bit in common with its civilian cousin, most noticeably the terrain and aircraft textures.
To be honest, this is good and bad. If you like the terrain in FS2002 then you will probably enjoy the terrain in CFS3. If you hated the terrain, then you probably will hate it here as well. They both look very similar, for good and bad. What the sim does well in my opinion is create the feeling of being outdoors. FS 2002 did this well IMHO, it made you feel like you were actually outdoors in the aircraft as opposed to being in a room with a monitor. CFS3 does the same thing, something that is missing from other sims at times.
In some respects the terrain is excellent, in others pretty good, in some others I think poor. Trees and buildings are well rendered and there are a ton of them over cities. Trees are individually rendered, not a bitmapped block of trees so down low you can’t find a better representation of virtual lumber. Buildings in general look correct, all the great monuments of Western Europe are there. There tends to be a lot of repedity with some of the building types but this is to be expected I suppose.
Some people won’t care much for the terrain textures though. I don’t think they look bad, nor do I think they look outstanding. Since the people that created the terrain for FS2002 are creating the terrain for CFS3 the similarities are more than coincidental. Some people like the textures, some don’t so you can base your opinions of CFS3’s terrain based upon your opinion of FS2002. I for one don’t mind the textures at all except for one aspect. I find the water textures ugly. Ok I said it, I find them ugly. Freaking Ugly, Fugly. I feel better now.
:D :D :D