So Much more Than A Flight Sim?

[bw_wolverine]

I have to agree with the OP. I've never seen this level of graphic beauty on the deck in a flight sim, and like him I've played quite a few.

I'm commenting based on all the vids and screens I've seen. I don't get the game until the 19th (GRR).

One thing that has impressed me a lot is the mapping of the buildings to the ground textures correctly. Even in FSX you see buildings just slapped on down on top of the textures that cross roads or tracks and are basically not matched up, and that completely ruins the effect.

Looking at London and other towns in the CoD shots, it seems very clear that the roads are actual roads that go between buildings. The buildings very clearly follow the logic of the ground texture.

Also, the lighting and shadows of the ground/trees/buildings really makes it look beautiful. Artistry and subtle effects CAN make up for other deficiencies in places and I think 1C has done admirably.

A very very basic ground battle system could be made to be a lot of fun for people. Even if it was mostly arcade like until machines could handle more sim aspects for it, you could still give it strategy. For it to be fun, there has to be enough for the player to do. It would get boring fast to drive around and shoot if that's all you could do. The terrain/battlefield will never be dynamic enough to make that good enough. Maybe moving battlegroups around with a rudimentary waypoint assigning system would work. If you had command over 10 different battlegroups (infantry, mechanized, etc.) and manoevered them kind of like the Total War games, that could be fun - especially if you are coordinating with the air power.