[skyomish]

I agree about IL-2....still to this day the best campaigns I ever flew in a sim came in Red Baron 3D....each time you flew a mission you never got the same outcome or mission to follow.

+1 Red Baron was the very best. None of the rest even come close.

[RAF209_Benge]

Now Red Baron 2 had one over RB 3D....how I loved to hear the cheers of the soldiers when you did a low flyover of the trenches

[RipCord]

it is, though for nit-picking purposes it would be nice if the ground had some kind of bump mapping or perhaps procedural grass (not that I'm fussy and demanding of course, but the aeroplane models are good enough to warrant good enviroment)

If you had wanted to be a REAL nitpicker you would have pointed out the wrong-way propeller ... ... still, all looks great.


... I'm 53 years old, grown up around airplanes (I'm a pilot and mechanic), and I (and my son) have Asperger's. One just can't be too anal about the details around me. For instance, static airplanes (museums) that have variable pitch props with blades at differing angles* (because someone didn't bother to align blades before installing the dome) drive me up the freakin' wall! - lol. (Oh, yeah, I can laugh about it ..... now.)


*example: #1 prop Me110 at Hendon (yes, even Hendon), two blades uniformly below normal fine pitch stop (one tooth?), third blade even lower (two teeth?).

[Afrika_Kola]

Looks fantastic! The damage is brilliant. I hope the skelecamel does not not fly well. :twisted:
Looking forward to this, thank you.

[caldrail]

it is, though for nit-picking purposes it would be nice if the ground had some kind of bump mapping or perhaps procedural grass (not that I'm fussy and demanding of course, but the aeroplane models are good enough to warrant good enviroment)

If you had wanted to be a REAL nitpicker you would have pointed out the wrong-way propeller ... ... still, all looks great.


... I'm 53 years old, grown up around airplanes (I'm a pilot and mechanic), and I (and my son) have Asperger's. One just can't be too anal about the details around me. For instance, static airplanes (museums) that have variable pitch props with blades at differing angles* (because someone didn't bother to align blades before installing the dome) drive me up the freakin' wall! - lol. (Oh, yeah, I can laugh about it ..... now.)


*example: #1 prop Me110 at Hendon (yes, even Hendon), two blades uniformly below normal fine pitch stop (one tooth?), third blade even lower (two teeth?).

Unfortunately the average museum doesn't maintain aeroplane exhibits in flying condition and don't employ people skilled in that craft, though obviously there are exeptions.

When it comes to computer games there is less need for obsessive reality (which I suspect you disagree with ) unless it directly impinges on gameplay. Thus I get frustrated by the inherently limited radio chatter in IL2 (Your wingmen never announce enemies in sight or ask you to attack - they simply peel away without a word) or the utterly bizzarre AI behaviour in dogfights (which involve flying faster and higer than you until they get far enough way to wizz past - there's no aggression or desire to simply manoever to get behind you - a primary tactic in air warfare utterly ignored)

For me it helps if there are details included but it's the atmosphere I want more than anything else, the sensation of flying combat aeroplanes rather than learning which screen button does what. That's why Aces of the Pacific was such a good sim in it's day. Sure the graphics were primitive by todays standards and a lot was left out, but you felt involved, you felt things were always liable to turn nasty if you didn't watch it, and dogfights were seriously good fun.

[RipCord]

Unfortunately the average museum doesn't maintain aeroplane exhibits in flying condition and don't employ people skilled in that craft, though obviously there are exeptions.

When it comes to computer games there is less need for obsessive reality (which I suspect you disagree with ) unless it directly impinges on gameplay. Thus I get frustrated by the inherently limited radio chatter in IL2 (Your wingmen never announce enemies in sight or ask you to attack - they simply peel away without a word) or the utterly bizzarre AI behaviour in dogfights (which involve flying faster and higer than you until they get far enough way to wizz past - there's no aggression or desire to simply manoever to get behind you - a primary tactic in air warfare utterly ignored)

For me it helps if there are details included but it's the atmosphere I want more than anything else, the sensation of flying combat aeroplanes rather than learning which screen button does what. That's why Aces of the Pacific was such a good sim in it's day. Sure the graphics were primitive by todays standards and a lot was left out, but you felt involved, you felt things were always liable to turn nasty if you didn't watch it, and dogfights were seriously good fun.

You know, I agree completely concerning games. That doesn't mean wrong (I actually care less about missing) details go unnoticed, but I try to get into games for the immersion of it.

As for museums, on the one hand how can they be trusted to restore/conserve old aircraft if they can't get propeller blades set right? Huh? On the other hand, aircraft get disassembled/reassembled during moving and relocation for display purposes and the junior personnel sometimes just aren't up to the task ... but if so, they should be better supervised. This prop blade thing has even happened at the Smithsonian, but I have friends there who listen patiently to me and try to explain that when the plane is moved from the temp display they will fix it. At Henden, though, it's been many years in a permanent display ... sigh.

Back to the games!!! WOOHOO.