Metascore
69 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 16 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 16
  2. Negative: 1 out of 16
  1. There is a hangar full of new additions including new 3D cloud textures that make hide-and-seek dog-fighting a real possibility.
  2. Fans of these simulations will fully enjoy this game, but the rest of the gamers will probably do best if they stick to games with a couple of dozens commands less.
  3. I have played a lot of flight simulation games; this one definitively gives you more control over the fate of the world than any I have played before.
  4. Flying was sometimes too hard, and the various little annoyances mentioned previously keep me from rating it higher, but I still think it is a great addition to a Flight Sim fan.
  5. 73
    "IL-2 Sturmovik" is better in many technical areas but is somewhat less approachable than CFS3.
  6. It simply wasn't polished enough before it was booted out the door. [Jan 2003, p.96]
  7. Didn't the developers play "IL-2 Sturmovik"? They should, so they can see how it's supposed to be done.
  8. If you're a longtime flight sim fan who has played that title to death already and you're eager for another visit to the western front, Combat Flight Simulator 3 is a reasonable choice.
  9. There are just enough things wrong with this title that it feels like it needed another few months in development before being sprung on the public.
  10. An experience which never rises above being a cool simulation, albeit a fantastically detailed and well thought out one.
  11. By far the best-looking and most entertaining simulation in the series so far. But the improvements are marred by A.I. oddities and performance problems. [Feb 2003, p.82]
  12. 65
    Disappointing, and CFS3 actually falls below standards set by previous series titles.
  13. From the interface, through performance to the actual gameplay, it fails someone, somewhere, at every level. The missions are too simple, the campaign usually ends up looking strategically dubious, and there aren’t enough rewards for the prestige the player earns.
  14. 60
    Despite the beauty of CFS3 and its engaging campaign mode, the performance issues we experienced kept us from losing ourselves in the experience.
  15. A system hog...There are better choices for flying on the Western front in the Second World War, most notably "Rowan's Battle of Britain," which remains an enjoyable sim two years after its release date.
  16. The lack of support for AI in dogfights, a bad padlock, and a half-assed view system make this a second-rate multiplayer flight sim. [Jan 2003, p.66]
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 19 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 14
  2. Negative: 4 out of 14
  1. RyanC.
    10
    Good game better than IL-2 because it's user friendly.
  2. BrettD.
    10
    Incredible missions that intrigue. As with any new technology, two years is actually a long time. CFS2 was great, CFS3 is better! Same old game but more of it, and the graffics have improved. Will there be a CFS4? I hope so! Full Review »
  3. JohnS.
    6
    Fun, but nowhere near the level of realism that is found in IL-2 Sturmikov. As for the guy that thinks an airplane stalls when it loses momentum...well, you are utterly and completely wrong. Momentum and speed have absolutely nothing at all to do with a wing stalling; angle of attack is the ONLY critical factor in stalling a wing. If you are in a dive at 140 knots and yank back hard enough to exceed the critical angle of attack the wing will stall. Likewise, an airplane that is traveling at 20 knots may not fly, but it is NOT stalled, the wing is simply not providing enough lift. Higher angles of attack are needed to provide enough lift at lower speeds but that also creates more drag which requires more power. After you exceed the critical 'angle' of attack....not 'speed'....the wing will stall. Full Review »