Eheh, you make alot of really good points, if I was gonna quote you it would be the whole post
You're not wrong especially when it comes to first person shooters eating computers alive these days!
However the level of difficulty for creation of the game types is still the same.
Physics is physics no matter how you roll the dice, its the implemented design that brings you flaws and limitations, not the type of game. I've used physics libraries that are powerful and fast and can be used for any game type. Aerodynamics is something else on its own, but with programming its not any different than say the basic ai: "if this occurs, do this".
Speaking of AI. FPS games do have really sad AI. Any AI is difficult. But the truth is in il2 the AI is the same as in FPS games. When I had the chance to peak at the AI code for IL2, I was amazed at how simplistic it was. I also saw code that seemed to give AI an unlimited and unreleastic "afterburner" (I believe that is exactly what they called it in the code, too)
Simplistic is not wrong, especially when it comes to programming, its always the best solution if its simple.
But the AI you talk about and that actually exists are far from each other, flight sim or first person shooter.
The truth: The AI basically have pre-programmed flight manuevers and "characteristics" that are "executed" whenever a given situation exists, it is not "greater" than any fps AI, it's the same thing actually.
This is why the AI can go all wonky or do nothing at all independant of skill level, because they get caught in a situation not pre-programmed.
I was also surprised (but not completely..) to see in the code that the AI always were given the player's exact speed, location and altitude and maybe some other stuff as well, for all levels of ai skill (rookie, average, veteran, ace).
And if you watch the AI land, you can clearly see they are not actually "flying" like you and I would be flying.
FPS AI does the same thing. They get pre-programmed things to do in certain situations, but of course, and more common these days, they don't receive enough programming and therefore lack the neccessary reactions for many situations they run into.
FPS games these days are sad, focusing only on fancy shader/graphic technology, slamming the gpu with wasted effort just to put out a mediocre (or less) game that looks "pretty".
AI has not evolved much in games, no matter what type it is.
Don't get me wrong, AI is not easy, but again, the AI you talk about and the AI that actually exists are not the same.
I should wrap this up, so again, my point is the same. What it really comes down to is the game company and how well they pay their programmers.
I'm an atheist but Thank god 1c maddox is on il2 and sow
Also for an example of a non-pc killer fps game, check out Darkest Of Days was a history channel game, it uses a good physics engine, and for the most part has lots n lots of enemy on screen (and friendlies sometimes too) Of course the game isn't that great, but fighting off 100 or so enemies with a musket and a six shooter is ALWAYS fun. I run that baby on a CELERON (worst of them all!) 2.4ghz oc'd 2.9, 1.5 gig mem, geforce 850 or something like that, i forgot its model name, anyway, the same system i run il2 on and il2 still has comparable trouble with more than 8 planes. (not to mention ground units) and I've tweaked il2 as far as I can. Anyway.. time to switch class!