We tell stories and this engine allows us to do that. If someone is looking to buy the best make-believe airplane, we can recommend a lot of choices. Our demographic has been from the beginning, people interested in history, military history and aviation history. In that venue, we will bump heads with any program written for normal-range computers.
I like your mindset. I think if more development houses would stick to this, we would have more "keeper" simulations and less need to rush out and buy the newest graphics card. There will always be the next greatest and latest graphics / physics engine. Those people are too busy making eye candy for the masses to care about the nuts and bolts that make make it a simulation.
The graphics have to be good enough to help suspend the natural disbelief that we all have when we fire up a game.
This is true, but at what point does your fun filter the disbelief.
I still enjoy Combat
. I am sure if I reloaded Falcon 3.0 onto the computer I keep for DOS games I would enjoy the campaign mode as much as I did back then.
I bought my second mother board because 16Mhz was not enough for the best Falcon 3.0 could give. I learned my lesson of eye candy and Mhz after trying F3 on a 100 pentium.
I hope they continue to develop there sims with minimal dependancy on eye candy.