Not to start another flame war, but I fail to see how you can go on describing the WWIIOL graphics as 'awful' considering what they display in the game.
I shall repeat myself only once:
-There's a visual range of several kilometers on the ground, and even more in the air.
-There are ground objects (trees, houses, signposts and so on), it might not seem to be a lot, but given the visual range triangles add up quickly.
-Vehicle models are fairly detailed, although an agressiv LOD reduction alorithm saves triangles here.
-Up to 64 units visible onscreen. This is a bunch, I guarantee you.
If you know and understand this, and have some familiarity with what GFX cards can do you soon realize that there's a triangle budget that the designers have to follow, or the client will quickly choke.
Games like Quake 3 can afford high triange count because of level design that ensures that only so much is visible at any time, also, no quake levels are 2km's wide.
So all in all, the WWIIOL can be considered bland looking or outdated, I know that was my first reaction. But there's a reason for this, as listed above.
And honestly, is AH that much prettier? Granted the air aspect works better in AH, but one could argue the slightly 'cartoonish' look of AH, as well as the non-existing ground features (except a few buildings and random shrubbery).
We all know that AH and WWIIOL isn't played for the eye candy, but for immersion.
Bugs and framerate issues in WWIIOL is another story though, and it is nothing I try to cover up for. I HOPE for improvement here, as others have said there is chanses that it will get better with time.
Ok. That's my final thought on the subject.
Cheers,
