that would work for FPS, but it is utterly too detailed for the flight sim. And to those whining about the trees - have you noticed at all tilled textures and tree lines? Cartoonish? this is by far the best terrain I've ever seen and I've seen many, also professional simulators.

The 3 sreens are fantastic. I love that screen take it from the pilot of the he111 regardless i dont like the he111 plane in the reality

And I love too the hurri pic suburban area. The trees are fantastic, and the more important, is good effect the terrain far away close to the horizon. I read in some places that the Germans have, in some bombers, a pair of binoculars. Will be?

I like the environment of the pilot in the Bristol Blenheim. Is a Mk IVF, right?
(you miss the girl pic in the instrument panel;))

those regulations are in force now. i doubt they weer in 1940.

also you're thinking of industrialised farming field sizes.

You've just outed yourself as being clueless beyond belief.

This sim has been in development for the last 6yrs - of course this is still visible.
If you try to stay up to date during development your product will never be finished.
(Military equipment is such an example, once it's delivered the electronics are already outdated by 3 years - at least)

Plus, if you haven't realized already, this sim is focused on immersion, FM and the like.

If you ever had the chance to examine a professional military simulator you would know they DO NOT focus on fancy graphics - but physics.

Switzerland just finished a $300million tank sim - the graphics are SB PE like - at best.
But then again, they weren't looking for a Playstation game.



http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/cluepon.jpg

You got historical records to back that up?

How should the Captain command a gunner 30 yards away?
I would think it was up to the gunner to decide when to open fire on enemy planes.

Maybe s.o. knows how this worked in RL?

lmao!!!!!!

@Swiss

Usually, I don't answer to fanboys, as what they say is always totally useless for a dev team.

But just to say that I play IL-2 since day one, that I have sent along the years enough documentation to the dev team for being written in the game credits and that, of course, I still think IL-2 is the best WWII aviation simulation up to now.

So no need for me to be cheaply patronized by some unknown a**licker like you to be taught about what this sim is.

I've been thinking about the criticisms of some of the forested areas in pic one, and I think I have actually hit on a possible explanation of why they don't quite "look right". Forested areas tend to have bushes weeds and smaller trees filling in their edges, except on the north side where they tend to be more "scruffy", I think this may be a case of something that we see but don't really notice.

Thinking about this and driving around Connecticut (they don't call this place New England for nuthin') really brought this to my attention. I'm not sure this could be helped without punishing the framerates to much though.

fanboy?
me?
lol

So I guess I'll have to address you with "Sir" from now on.


Obviously: You don't. You wouldn't complain if you did.

I still fail to see the relationship of sending in historical documents and basic knowledge of programming.
Oh, and don't forget to move rock back over the hole when crawl back in.

Thanks for another great update!

Also on the third floor but looking trees which goes up to the 8th.

And I think that comments like "Ohh, that tree wasn't there in 1940, it was planted in october of 1942!" are not constructive at all (if not even idiotic).

I believe that we are privileged to see real development screenshots and not "CG trailers" and screenshots with a lots of make up, like most of other developers are showing.

Also this is incomparable with lock on or wings of prey, lock on looks like 2D photograph, and wop are strong just in efects, and thats all. Effects are something that comes on the very end. Anyone can made effects screenshot with photoshop and 5 minutes spare time.