I personally like it, I havent experienced any glaringly bad bugs on it, so for me its just another MS flight sim. Ofcourse Fogotten Battles is absolutely the best, but there is something enjoyable about flying cheeseball flight physics once in a while. I also like CFS2 and it really amazes me how that game can run on a low spec computer. One thing all MS flight sims suffer from in grainy ground textures, which is really awful looking when flying at low level.

Frank- When you say add-on, are you refering to expansions to CFS3? Because they do have a Battle of Britain expansion which hasnt sold well at all.

Could be competitor for the FC-1 on the export market if they can make it cheaply. The Yak-130 is not equal to the FC-1 in performance or price.

Lets get the time line of these two fighters so we can see exactly why the Rafale lost out to the Hornet.

The Hornet originated from the YF-17.
project began in 1972
first flight in 1974
lost to YF-16 in 1975

But in 1971 there was a light fighter requirement called VFAX in which a navalized version of the YF-17 was chosen which would become the Hornet.
project began in 1975
first flight in 1978
entered service in 1982

Then France had their advanced AF/Navy fighter requirement which became the Rafale.
project began in 1983
first flight in 1986
entered service in 2001

Thats an 18 year developement period for the Rafale. Even if the Rafale had entered service in say 1990, it still would have been to late to compete with all the huge orders that the F-16 got in the 80s, although they probably would have have been in time to beat the F-16 in contracts that went to United Arab Emirates and Bahrain but thats about it. And then you simply also have to take into accout that the Rafale was designed to be a top of line cold war fighter. But defence departments the world over are more worried about being cost effective, so the Hornet and the F-16 are chosen because they have a proven service record.

The Tomcat is still an outstanding design. If it were to be redesigned as a fixed wing FBW jet, it would vastly out perform the stupor hornet, and be on par with the extreme AoA manuervability of the mig-29. Even as a swing wing it already is equal to any 4th gen fighter despite the extra structual weight it has as a swing wing.

Let me explain why I think that current turboprop trainers are unfit for jet training. People think the PC-9 or Tucano look like a WW2 fighter, are powered like a WW2 fighter, so performancewise they must be equal to WW2 fighters. But what has to be understood is that all WW2 fighers are not equal, you have early generation WW2 fighers and late generation fighers. The Me-109 started out at 3000 lbs and ended up at the end of the war double that weight at 6000 lbs, and its speed increased from 350 mph to 450 mph. Although increased engine power acounts for some of that, really its the doubling of the wing loading that transformed this fighter into something entirely different than what it was. Structurally the airframe could hardly handle this weight increase and it became dangerous to pull the Me-109 out of a dive. Then you have other heavyweights like the Mustang and Fw-190, these planes were built to handle the weight and performancewise, they could fly at the limits where only the sound barrier held them back. The PC-9 and Tucano are not equal at all to planes like the Mustang and Fw-190, they are more in the class of early Me-109s, Spitfires and P-40s. This is why they have low top speed of 350 mph and a redline of 400 mph. They are not designed hot aerodynamically nor is their structure strong enough to handle hot performance. It is possible to give a prop aircraft a very high wing loading like the Heinkel He-100, but then your on the bleeding edge of prop performance, so it just makes sense to go up to a jet.

Mixtec,

From all I’ve read, the new T-6 Texan II has a fuel control system thats also linked to the rudder so any throttle movements don’t incur a torque reaction like a normal prop…Also there is just a single throttle lever in the cockpit, No pitch, or fuel levers like a normal prop…This was to simulate jet performance, while enjoying turbo-prop efficiency and lowered costs…
TTP

Well thats the whole thing isnt it, lowering costs. Why? In order to sell advanced trainers, you have to get rid of primary jet trainers and move up prop training to a more advanced level. But does that really streamline the process? In sweden they dont have any prop training at all, the students start right out in the Saab 105 jet trainer and then move on into the gripen because they believe that teaching in prop trainers gives the students alot of bad habits that have to be unlearned. So they have it narrowed down to just one jet trainer instead of the turboprop and advanced trainer combination, thats more efficient in my book. So its really a matter of preference, and time will tell which produces the better pilot.