Yes, there is a lot of good. And more than a year to get AA and AF is very poor indeed....after all this is not so much more complex than DCS that it warrants the plethora of problems it was released with. Glad that Luthier is laughing because I wouldn't be if I released a game that didn't have AA and AF....I'd be embarassed.

Also note that Il-2 1946 still doesn't have anti-aliasing.

Part of the reason is that people want to have the game run smoothly at high resolution and maximum settings. IMHO, this wasn't possible in the old days. We've been spoiled by console ports (based on 2005 consoles) and ten year old flight sim engines - we expect to be able to max out everything without any tradeoffs (eg. having to lower resolution or lower in game settings). We just aren't used to engines which push the computer hardware.

I also find it a bit foolish that some people criticise CoD for maxing out the video card memory and then criticise it for not maxing out the CPU cycles. It doesn't make sense. Either it is a good thing to fully utilise the machine, or it is a good thing to not need to. Saying that it is sloppy programming to not use the CPU and then saying that fully using the GPU memory is a 'memory leak' has to be one of the more absurd positions (not that anyone has done so in this thread).



DCS represents a gradual iteration (with its design going back to Flanker), with the last total recoding being for LOMAC (which was similarly poorly received like CoD). In this sense, each release represents a much simpler project with less development risk than CoD (even if the total result has a similar complexity).

Also note that Il-2 1946 still doesn't have anti-aliasing.

Icarus why do you have the need to provoke