Well there is a fine line between being skeptical and critical vs cynical and whining. I think we need more of the first, which I do think Tree provides, as well as others (although not all the time, but its the internet and depending on your POV it comes accross differently to people because its just letters and lacks context to a degree).

But I think now that many features and core mechanics we believed would be in the game have been dumped, the lack of communication, the poor quality of the previews all combine to create an atmosphere of well founded skepticism at the current time.

I much prefer a developer who keeps us up to date on atleast some aspects as opposed to one that doesn't say anything at all. If your going to follow a development you have to be prepared for setbacks and features that don't make the initial release. Even the developer has no idea if a feature will make the release until they have to make the decision to go gold or not. Just because a feature doesn't make the initial release doesn't mean it has been dumped. Unfortunately the developer is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with being skeptical or being constructively critical, its just the some are constantly sticking the knife in every chance they get, even when it wasn't warranted in the first place.

Maybe I can answer with the same sense of smug self-assuredness? On second thoughts, maybe not. Let me offer an English folk-saying instead. You are making mountains out of molehills. Worse still, I can't help thinking you are doing it because it suits some sort of personal agenda of your own that has little to do with the success or failure of this new game.

Well, my worst fear over the last five years since the 2006 release just vanished into thin air with very little information has been that this game would never be released. As the time passed I got more and more scared that we would just one day read that Oleg and Maddox Game had quit the project as they where out of funds and "had run into technical problems doing the game they wanted to do".

Just the fact that it WILL be released is more than good enough for me, and the latest screenshots and information looks like what I had hoped for in my "best scenario". That we don't get Dx11 and some patches of grass may look a bit too green/yellow/violet/x mean diddly to me... Even if CoD would just be the same old unbeatable IL2 game with these high poly models, cockpits and high res skins it would be just fine and well worth $50 (which is in no way what we will get as seen in the movies/screens). Damn, I sound like a fan boy - and yes I'm proud of that!

How about min resolution? I have problems with RoF, because my laptop can display max 1280x800..

No, you just come off as an ass who is being insulting for the sake of it.
My agenda? Well maybe you can be forgiven because your a dumb-ass...

We have had very little info and communication from the dev team other than occasional bad quality photos. Some of them have been great showing the details of the plane, new models etc. But its lacked any solid info, context or details. Pictures are nice, but they are just pictures.

If the dev team said the game would be dx11 and then explained that due to issues it would not be on release, but it was being worked on etc; that would be fine and I would have no problem with it. But if they say something is in, then never change their stance until near release time and dont offer any substantial community -> dev dialogue then thats not great management. The world wont end, but it is irritating. I have been in alot of betas, followed many games from early stages to release, some good, many bad. One of the bad signs is when the community doesnt know whats happening because the devs dont communicate effectivly. That includes not only communication but lack of communication (ie: not saying the engine will be 2013 quality/will blow our minds away/is so incredible all they are doing is downgrading it etc.) That builds false expectations. They need to be realistic and honest, that includes saying: "Hey we are trying or looking at implementing feature x in the game, we dont know if it will make the release date but its on the table."
Or: "The reason there is no AA in the screenshots is xyz"

Seriously... Also will there be a beta? Seperately because they have different purposes will there be a demo of any kind?

I think you should have done more reading and many of your questions about the sim would have be answered. You can't go back now and filter your way thru all the threads but the information was there if you follow the project. The small developer team doesn't have the manpower to make sure the occasional visitor stays informed. Although it isn't hard to do a search on all Oleg's and Luther's posts.

Regarding the beta, which was obviously inhouse, unless there are people here doing it now without saying so.

There will be no demo. They had a demo in IL-2 only because there was a period of time from when the game was finished and the publishers release to build it. That won't be the case with COD.

Thinks like Clouds and Weather systems are still be worked on, but they are unsure wether it will be in the intial release.

I think what we really need is the Microsoft marketing model where the developers are not allowed to talk about anything, ever, at all and what the public are allowed to see are pretty CGI video clips full of spin and marketing hype designed by a marketing team that have no connection with the real game at all :D

I didn't see a ATi 6850 card listed as supported. Crud this looks like a nice, solid, mid price range card that I had in mind getting to upgrade from my 4850.

Oleg understated the IL-2 friday updates back in the day too. I was there, at the bluebyte forums. Only some meh meh screenshots every week and then when the game was released it was all like "oh! sh*t! did you see that?" and "WOW! he never said anything about this feature".

Oleg is a genius in understating and I think the end product will make your head explode.:)