And 1C had NOT hired you as their game PR guy?

Avro Lancaster
 

Looks like WOP has the AVRO LANCASTER in there. Interesting !

Oh come on, graphics does not have to be really THAT ugly... :-D

Hey, you gave me that opening. ;)

Simple: You don't. Map size isn't the issue here, it's the setup of the mission(s). With "so few" people engaged you limit the area of operations - problem solved. The issue of too small maps is that they limit the flexibility and the scope of the missions that can be built on them.

See above. The mission setup is a big part of the equation but generally speaking large maps can be used only partially by limiting the area of operations, too small maps cannot be made larger. Simple.

It's not the size of the map or the number of airplanes that matters. You couldn't have enough airplanes in the air to build an effective shield around a country without some sort of guidance system. So why not do it like in real life?

Ground observers and/or radar stations provide intelligence on the location number (and possibly type) of airplanes approaching, fighter control then directs the appropriate number of fighters to intercept. '92 Sqdn, steer heading 140, climb angels 23', with new instructions being issued as needed.

Fighter control could be provided by the program where applicable, by computer voice output and/or text message. It would be available for example for the defenders launching from Britain, but not on attackers of the RAF on a deep raid into France (no radar coverage, no ground observers). In essence the defenders would have an advantage of intel.

To avoid empty maps large or small, some sort of guidance system is needed.

But I've never said I like mindless fight and furball...

Of course, the right rules can solve that issue... maybe a "restricted area" warning like the one on the RO series. There needs to be a function inside the mission code. Otherwise you know that "smart" people will always find a way to go around that rule (flying on the border for example).

And what if the map size does shape engine performance?

It's a quantity vs quality matter: if I have to fly in that airspace (because of rules) why the developer has to model correctly places that I'll never fly above in those missions.

Look I don't know how the CloD's map affect the performance of the game, but when people say about WoPlanes or the old WoPrey that the terrain is good BECAUSE the map is small... then I 100% prefer that small map.

And please, can we stop to aim at the poor performing PCs as "old rigs": if all the newest games run quite well EXCEPT CloD probably it's not the PC, it's this application and the way it's been developed.

If WoPlanes, a MMO as like to say, will simulate at the same time many fights and encounters over a bigger strategical map giving us only a fraction of it (as the channel map was composed by 10 different maps, one for sector of operation), I'm all for it...

I know, right? Sometimes I can`t believe those movies feature the game we`re currently playing.

Map size shouldn't affect performance much if the game is properly engineered.

Beyond what the player can't see the game shouldn't be wasting calculations on them (IE, skip rendering, simple flight modeling/dm/ai).

The amount of object details rendered will have more of an impact. In the case of CloD, it seems to have the biggest problem loading assets that cause stutters and slow fps with particles effects.

It seems you missed your priorities bud. Wings of Prey is the game you`re looking for. Clod is obviously not what you want.

And it would be fine if you didn`t impose your views on those who look for something more into the experience of flying a real warbird. With each and every consequense it historically represents.

The only thing that gets me while watching the flicks are the colors. They look too fuzzy and cartoonish. I don`t know, maybe less color and more contrast/lightning?