Luffe, the "pancake" forests you disparage were an absolutely brilliant programming solution to a problem that, up till Il-2, hadn't been solved by any flight sim: how to show a forest cover of large extension. Oleg solved this with four layers of semi-transparent textures that gave an exceptionally good illusion of a forest of 3D trees from just a few hundred meters up.

I think you probably weren't around playing flight sims in 2001 when Il-2 came out, but the graphics blew everything else out of the water back then. And the particular solution for forests is still a very clever one.

You have to know something about programming and system resources to understand why flight sims look the way they do. A handful of teenage kids in this forum haven't got a clue, but most have an idea...

ahhh love the arrogance. your exam scores are just that, exam scores. well done. *golfclap*

no one cares.

godwin's law. been a while since we saw it being invoked.

as for oh lol. i mean there's so much wrong with this i can't actually be bothered to start on it. you got yourself into a hole with the hitler comment, stop digging. it just makes you look foolish.

you make a series of comments where you say the game looks poor and you hope this is an early beta as it looks awful, near constantly in fact. you only ever add in the proviso of "in my opinion" or "appears to me" after about 4-5 pages of getting ripped into for a comment that categorically states something is awful or wrong... for someone who prides themselves on their grammar school education and being intelligent, you sure do make your points in such a way as to render 90% of your posts pointless. i'd be asking for my money back, because simply assuming yourself to be in the right, rather than voicing an opinion, is quite a critical error when passing judgement, and an approach i'd expect to be hammered out of you at grammar school. however we then come back to arrogance, and no amount of expensive education can hammer that out. in fact it can all too often entrench it.

oh, and way to go to the gutter with "remind yourself what a woman really is".

I know you can't see the bullets flying etc.
But I was reffering to the gun smoke comming out of the wings of the planes when firing, when I showed the ki46 firing with the smoke behind them philipeed said: "can a .303 be compared to a point .50?" I think he thought that if a smaller caliber bullet is fired there is a lot less smoke comming from the wings.
But in the last vid you can see the P51's firing and there is also a lot of smoke comming from their wings (P51 fire .303 rounds don't they?).

overmodelled, clearly!

6x.50 against 8x.303... probably going to be comparable amount of smoke, i'd guess.
1. correcting people on spelling and grammar isn't bigotry phil. really isn't.

2. lol

nah, that's not a ki-46, it's a p-51 at 10.45 i'd say, and they have three .50 cals per wing.

This discussion is getting out of control :( wake me up when there's something new about topic.

Whoa, lighten up. I realize they were made that way to save resources, and they look great from altitude. At ground level they are nearly invisible though, as I'm sure many mudmovers can tell you.
I just hope that a different solution has been found for SOW.

I really don't understand your attitude.
It must really be torture for you to read through the posts on this forum.

why do you people have to argue about how and what other people say?
Can't you just discuss about SoW?

i doubt it was the mis-spelling that was felt to render it pointless phil, but if you want to stick to that line of argument to try and validate earlier, possibly unwise, comparisons then knock yourself out.

and the best way of supporting yourself?

jockstraps ftw.

as that's the case then i retract my "lol". however it isn't based on bigotry, i just find any arguments based on mis-spelling quite absurd and ludicrous.

mine has a juke box and lights. it pwns.