I have seriously doubt beacuse 1C wasn't able to made correctly performance and flight models for only a few BOB planes. They all have serious issues. So i really dont expect too much reality from Battle of Moscow planes.

:cool:

sig fame at last!
do you not like the Mighty Wall of Text?

NO:!:

Have to agree, what's with the pulling apart and analysing of a persons post... its beyond ridiculous and can completely change the whole meaning of a posters paragraph.

Question 2, 6 and 11 should not be lower priority
it's not just cosmetic to be killed by aircraft when we sank or aircraft landed with the cockpit in fire...

and lights is cosmetic? :shock:
how do a night flight without wing lights???

rotfl!

my wall is bigger than your wall! ;)

For what it's worth I agree on the DM choices being made.

There is realism, and then there is 'sensationalism!' The latter is what game developers create to sell more games to kids (wow factor). FPS games for example, how many shots does it take to kill someone 'realistically'.

Planes don't fly apart because they exceed VNE on a single occasion, not unless it has a fault anyway. This kind of damage is more accumulative than instantaneous. Any high amount of G that would instantly break a plane up would likely kill the pilot first anyway.

Realism doesn't traditionally sell games/sims, lets hope they have a big enough market to stick to this hard line. In the end it's always about the money for a commercial enterprise to survive.

I feel this is a very common misconception around here, the misconception that "with time, technology of high spec PC's will allow this and that and so on and so fourth". The problem in this day and age is that smaller game developers are having a harder and harder time to cope, making advanced PC/video games whilst lacking the mighty funding from publishers such as EA or Activision as an example. Yes, there are enormous possibilities for game developers right now but it also requires more manpower and funding behind them.

I think this might be one of the reasons why CloD was rushed the way it was. You just have to look in the control settings menu in CloD to realize the ambition that Oleg and his team had but alas, when the mighty dollar speaks, everybody has to obey. I bet it's actually easier to create something solid in a limited environment where choices are fewer then having too many options/ideas and leaving most of them half-baked. CloD is lacking focus, it's sprouting out in every direction, it doesn't have a foot-hold or a solid foundation to grow from yet but hopefully that will be rectified in the not so distant future.

You can't keep developing for the next generation and the next generation in mind only. You have to think about what you want to achieve, what you want to create first then you look which technology can help you achieve these goals, not the other way around. That's what happened to Duke Nukem Forever, they kept replacing game engines for like 12 years! and when it finally was released it barely looked like a DirectX 9 game and the game itself (the important stuff) was total and utter crap, I played the demo...unfortunately.

To the point, new technology is a good thing but it doesn't guarantee a good game.

for the sequel
for the sequel
for the sequel
...

:evil:

i hope the feature in the sequel will be backward compatible with cliff of dover ( less buying the sequel), i bought the collector 70€, and the feature will for the sequel?!?

for the open radiator :
if you start flight with plane whose begin flying, you should hurry up to open your radiators ;) i think this question is for this case, having a normal radiator opening with airstart aircraft ( like the gear up, the engin started... ;) )

When I read Chivas post..

I got the impression he was making a reference to the new CoD graphics engine..

That the new CoD graphics enigne is bringing the current crop (read average) PC and video card to its knees (read poor FPS)

But with time the advancement of the PC hardware will make this a none issue.

As was the case with IL-2

When it originally came out some 10 years ago, its graphics enigne was bringing the current crop (read average) of PCs and video cards at that time to thier knees also

But some 10 years later what with all the PC hardware advancement even a cheap PC with a cheap video card can run IL-2 smoothly.

The point being, 3 to 4 years from now you will not see anyone complaining about poor FPS in CoD and it's sequels.

Not some blanket statement that PC hardware advancements solves all developer problems