its a tough life being graphics in il2. here's an objective look at what our scenery is going through.
http://youtu.be/XUa_viVGNNs

I think 'functional' is a good word for the current state of play in a lot of the terrain graphics features.

People obviously have different preferences and opinions about the most important features of the game.

What would worry me is if the devs were to settle for merely 'functional' looking terrain and devote all their attention onto other technical aspects. There should obviously be a balance achieved between the quality of the different elements (graphics, fm, dm, gameplay, AI, etc, etc) with most effort being addressed to wherever the sim is currently weakest.

So I'm actually pleased that threads like this draw the devs attention to the terrain aspects as something that many of us would like to see improved.

Having said that, maybe it's now time to move on. I think they'll have got the message by now.

But it would be nice to hear from luthier what their take is on this issue - we know some terrain improvements are on the way, but what will be the extent of future improvements?

I wish the landscape graphics were functional. If you haven't got a very good system they're anything but unless you turn them right down in which case landscape hardly describes the undulating, blurred wasteland populated by the occassional poorly skinned box representing a building of some sort and the odd lonely windmill spinning gently in the breeze. If we're going to have a functional placeholder of a landscape why not stick with a pimped Il-2 46? At least that ran like greased owl effluent on my rig.

I've a Q6600, GT9800 1GB, 4GB RAM, Vista32 so granted, tepid at best, and perhaps I deserve to be exiled to on-line maps and mid-Channel actionand have unreaslistic expectations of being able to fly round in a believable simulated environment.