26.04.2009, 12:25
I don't think we are asking for perfection or very very high quality graphics like DCS Blackshark (which is gorgeaous I must admit)...Each play in a different category.
For me graphisc in IL-2 1946 are way enough and beautiful...Maybe for you its not enough but we have different expectations, and this is normal...One thing for sure: perfection is not of this world...I don't like mediocrity either, and if I had to rank myself on a scale like Graphic settings in IL-2 1946 I would say I look for HIGH (not PERFECT settings which would take ages to get a "near" perfect game)...
>And I would rather have a less beautiful but complete sim in 2 or 3 yearsthan a state of the art sim that would take 8 years to develop...Life is short, remember :-)
Now when I say "less beautiful", I don't mean "mediocre quality", I mean less beautiful than in DCS Blackshark but better than todays' graphics...I'm not stupid. Its all relative of course...(who sais that already ? :-) There's no question of doing less beautiful than todays technology of course.
So what's the opportunity cost for this? :-)
For me graphisc in IL-2 1946 are way enough and beautiful...Maybe for you its not enough but we have different expectations, and this is normal...One thing for sure: perfection is not of this world...I don't like mediocrity either, and if I had to rank myself on a scale like Graphic settings in IL-2 1946 I would say I look for HIGH (not PERFECT settings which would take ages to get a "near" perfect game)...
>And I would rather have a less beautiful but complete sim in 2 or 3 yearsthan a state of the art sim that would take 8 years to develop...Life is short, remember :-)
Now when I say "less beautiful", I don't mean "mediocre quality", I mean less beautiful than in DCS Blackshark but better than todays' graphics...I'm not stupid. Its all relative of course...(who sais that already ? :-) There's no question of doing less beautiful than todays technology of course.
So what's the opportunity cost for this? :-)