I know, I know, it's H@wX 2 but in a moment of weakness for some eye candy and something new to try with a new stick, I saw this on sale on Steam and I went for it.
Geoeye is the tech used for mapping and the *incredible* ground seen in games such as Ace Combat 6 and the Hawx games (aka Tom Clancy's HUD Hell).

The game is a fun arcade flight game, better than the first but LOOK at the scenery! It really is the opposite of a sim, in that a sim typically has an ultra detailed aircraft and cockpit but lego scenery, as the cockpit is really pretty useless here. Still, I'm blown away by the environment.

Those are beautiful. Thanks for posting them. Maybe someday the engine will be used for a non-arcade title.

Those truely are gorgeous. Though I'm surprised you say it's better than the first. I loved the first, and found the demo of the second dissapointing. However; if ya think it's better I may have to give it a second look!

Gorgeous pics indeed. Are these guys on the carrier animated?

+1

Gosh, still the Eurofighter Cockpit is entirely BS...

Just got and finished the first HAWX. Liked the graphics, but I'd rather play ANY Ace combat...
Kind of liked it. No, ok I liked it.

Just...
Just some mission almost made no sense at all.

And it also mis-trained me. After finishing HAwx I started again playing some F4:AF... Man I messed it up. :P

Gorgeous scenery.

I'm the opposite, I liked the first, but not the 2nd.

Agreed, I love some AC6 for arcade flying. AC6 even had better cockpits.
I've enjoyed it so far, partially due to the variety of other missions. The AC-130 (seems mandatory in some games now) was fun, the UAV missions were pretty fun. I haven't seen any mention of the ridiculous r/c plane view the first game had, but I had that on 360 so maybe the pc version is different? Or it could be hidden in there, I don't know. I hated that. So far no tunnel missions and even a few landings and take offs, although not difficult to do.
Characters on the carrier are indeed animated, it was pretty nicely done, both day and night.

Is that the PC version? That is some beautiful scenery, but then again maybe they can afford to do so because each "theatre" is limited to only a few hundred square miles?

Correct pc version, DX10. Also runs in DX11, which I assume would look even better but my card doesn't support it.
Areas aren't that large considering these are jet fighters, I think AC6 missions on console were actually larger. The game runs like a champ though, surely adding sim elements and a larger area are still realistically possible, if someone had the budget to do so. I assume it's not cheap although the game itself isn't complex.

Sure is pretty.

I tried the demo. The thing that killed it for me was that it completely lacked any sense of speed. I felt like I was flying around in a hang glider. It just felt so damn slow.

I don't think the HAWX engine would work particularly well in a realistic sim though. Not necessarily because the maps are small, but because of the visibility that seems to be about 20km at real scale whereas a genuine sim is typically around 4 times that (as LeemzHQ has found out this is concealed by adjusting the speed of the aircraft). So the issue would probably not just be the size of the entire map but mainly the much higher amount of terrain which would have to be rendered at any given time.

That said, I do think many sim developers nowadays have skewed priorities in terms of spending available graphics resources and it is indeed the terrain (more specifically the mesh) which gets the short end of the stick. Look at ED's (no doubt very beautiful) work, the terrain elevation model resolution even in DCS A-10 appears to have changed very little (if at all) from when LOMAC was released in 2003. Over the same timespan however, the aircraft and vehicle polycount has increased by about an order of magnitude! I seriously think aircraft and tank 3D models in ED's sims have long since hit the law of diminishing returns - the Hornet model in LOMAC was damn near as good as a flight sim 3D model ever needs to be and that was, what, 15000 polys? Let's be generous and allow 30000 to smooth rounded shapes and small details even more, but I genuinely fail to see the rationale for polycounts in the hundreds of thousands when there is still so much room for improvement in the terrain graphics.

I'd much rather see a much more detailed terrain mesh and/or ROF style 3D trees rather than the HUD camera housing and 3D boundary layer air vents on the engine intakes. After all, I'll be looking at the landscape far more often than at the external aircraft model (certainly it's pretty rare that I zoom in close enough to notice details such as those I mentioned).

The distance in general looks fine (but how does that work together with the sim factors when adding modern radar?) but you can tell there are limitations when you look at those first shots in the mountains. Photo real in the immediate area, but in the distance...you can see for yourself.
Still, I'd sure like to see a sim work to incorporate this.

Do the HAWX2 2 objectives have you taking off/landing or all airborne like the original?

I haven't finished the game, but most have had take off or landing at the end, some have both. There was a carrier landing in there. Landing is pretty forgiving, but still fun.