After watching this video i am even more in love with the sim!

Do people still read reviews these days? I don't. I figured with forums , youtube , this is the best review you can get.

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by machoo

Do people still read reviews these days? I don't. I figured with forums , youtube , this is the best review you can get.

Not really.

Forums and Youtube, as you can see with CoD and other titles mostly present the downsides. There are not many people on forums saying: "Yay, this is a good game, buy it."

If you have professional testers, they are much more like looking into details and also aspects of games normal players don't even see. Of course, that depends on the reviewers

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

I'm always most impressed by the way the camera moves in response to g-forces (you know, turbulence, rolling, diving, pulling stick back, etc). It adds a huge amount of immersion for me. I first saw this amazing feature in the leaked spitfire video way back. When landing, (roughly) I expected the head to bounce more than it did in this video however.

The ground rendering, uses bump mapping skillfully to make fields, roads and ditches appear to be 3D. It looks amazing when you reach above 100 meters of altitude.

The popup of stuff is harsh and eye-catching (not so much in this video, but others I saw over crowded areas). The best effect to lessen this is probably to load the new 'pop-up' terrain features before displaying them, then fade them in over 1-3 seconds. That way, the eye will not be so attracted to sudden changes in the landscape. The fading in method I have seen in sims and games since at least "Apache vs Havoc". Fallout: New Vegas, that uses the "Gamebryo" engine that I play now skillfully uses the fade system to good effect.

The sound - what is that sound in the beginning when the plane is still without the engine on? It sounds a lot like as if it is rolling over a grass field. Is it appropriate?

Head bob is good.
Textures are mediocre - if they had those current textures and the game ran flawlessly/without lag then I would say it looks like a current gen title. Nothing spectacular or outstanding about it. It looks how it should look for a game coming out in the 2008-2010 time range. It doesnt look bad either, but given the fact that it lags horribly atm cancels out the quality (this is not even counting the popping).

[matsher]

I dont think its a bug...

If I were to bet money, I would say that the Rocket Jockey in the Hurri
has set the FM to the most basic arcade setting there is and turned
off Stalls and Spins & any other feature of realistic aerodynamics.

Pretty cool to watch, I did a double take when the vid started.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by matsher

I dont think its a bug...

If I were to bet money, I would say that the Rocket Jockey in the Hurri
has set the FM to the most basic arcade setting there is and turned
off Stalls and Spins & any other feature of realistic aerodynamics.

Pretty cool to watch, I did a double take when the vid started.

Even with arcade settings a plane should not fly without wings. That is just daft!

[Borsch]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Head bob is good.
Textures are mediocre - if they had those current textures and the game ran flawlessly/without lag then I would say it looks like a current gen title. Nothing spectacular or outstanding about it. It looks how it should look for a game coming out in the 2008-2010 time range. It doesnt look bad either, but given the fact that it lags horribly atm cancels out the quality (this is not even counting the popping).

You missed the point- the vid is not about textures (there set to med/low) but about the FLIGHT. The flying is on different level to Il2:1946 and looks wonderfully alive.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I'm sure their will be enough great points in the sim to avoid devastating reviews. The reviewer should no the history of the developer to support his products. I'm not overly worried about that. Any software this complex will have a multitude of bugs especially as it appears the sim was forced out the door early.

a) It is not the job of a reviewer to support a product. Period. His job is to give an objective review of what he is being presented.
b) Who do you think will buy into the "forced out the door" story, true as it may be, after a developing time as long as COD's?

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

Not really.

Forums and Youtube, as you can see with CoD and other titles mostly present the downsides. There are not many people on forums saying: "Yay, this is a good game, buy it."

If you have professional testers, they are much more like looking into details and also aspects of games normal players don't even see. Of course, that depends on the reviewers

Even the most professional reviewer, seeing all the details, will be stumbed by a flight sim that allows planes to fly with no wings. Disregarding on which difficulty settings.

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Borsch

You missed the point- the vid is not about textures (there set to med/low) but about the FLIGHT. The flying is on different level to Il2:1946 and looks wonderfully alive.

Yes, I think it is all the various parameters (that are constantly monitored) that are slowing it down, not the textures. If you had a simpler game then there would be room for better graphics.

[15JG52_Brauer]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

Lots of bug solving to be done, but it is a game for 2013.

Can't say that's a bad thing - Remember getting the original IL2 and not being able to run it respectably on the kit I had then - forced me to get into upgrading my PC and lead to a massively great time playing IL2. Get a life, be patient - good things come to those who wait

[Tiger27]

Originally Posted by Biggs

what about this one?....

Same issue in ROF they say it is not easy to fix, something to do with how the damage graphics aren't as detailed as the dm, or something like that.