Ok, Sharky:
"1. How did it play on an "average computer" say with a voodoo II or TNT 2 chip, with say a 300 Mhz processor?"
Dunno. But i don't think the machine you use as an example can be considered "average" anymore, at least as far as computer gaming is concerned. In any case, WBIII supposedly will only show graphic detail comensurate with your machine's ability to maintain a certain FPS. I assume this will be "user-configurable". How this will actually work i have no idea. I saw WBIII running at extremely high resolutions and it was absolutely stunning on PIII 550/Geforce machines.
"2. I saw that the 3D cockpits were only place holders, but did they have any functionality? ie could views be customized, what view changing options were there, like panning, padlock, etc."
AFAIK, 3D Cockpits are relatively easy to implement compared to 2D. 3D Cockpits are pannable. "Padlock" has not been discussed, but i doubt such a lame feature will be introduced. As far as "customizable" views go, i dunno either. IMO, "customizable" views such as in AH are pretty lame and i hope WBIII doesn't have them.
"3. Other than the best job of modeling dirt I've ever seen it seemed that the demo stayed away from the traditional FPS killers like big fluffy clouds, smoke collums, big stands of trees etc. Was there anything in the terrain that normally would spell disaster for FPS that the demo handled well?"
I saw weather effects, other than that, see #1 above.
"4. What kind of new features did the aircraft exibit? ie The drop tanks we've been begging WB for, configurable ammo load outs. What does WBIII do in this area that WBII doesn't other than moveable control surfaces?"
AFAIK, WBIII will be WBII with a new engine. So drop tanks(i don't miss them, tho they would be nice for Scenarios and such)and configurable ammo loadouts will most likely come later.
"5. I understand that the flight models used were the exact same as what WBII is currently using. As you're a big Hog fan, and they had the Corsair available in the demo, did it exibit the same flaws in the flight model as the current WB?"
The are "holes" in the Flight Model of any sim. Some prefer WB's FM and others prefer AH's. I like WB's FM and "feeling -of-flight". To say which is more "realistic"("realistic" and Online games used together is kinda funny) is highly subjective and really a matter of "taste". I find F4U's in WB's to be extremely effective when flown in their "historical" theaters. They are overwhelmingly superior to Japanese aircraft. Of course, in Main Arena Furball gameplay, that's another story. Furball/a-historical fantasy matchups entertain some, and eventually bore, most players.
"6. Of what I saw of the demo, it seemed to have done nothing other than update graphics. Now concedering the current WB graphics engine, thats a big step, but I guess I was hopeing for more. Did I miss something?"
You missed seeing it up-close??? WBIII will be WBII with a brand-new engine. This supposedly will make it easier to quickly add features such as Improved FM's, Strat, CM Tools, etc., etc. Who knows. The new WBIII engine will be enough for 90% of the online multi-player customer-base, assuming that iEN goes to a new pricing model as is expected. And, AFAIK, the iLZ thingy will be dropped.
The remaining 10% will be disappointed if they expect "ground-breaking" Strat, etc. upon WBIII's release. These players will more than likely go to AH or WWIIOL if they haven't already.
Cabby
------------------
=44th FS "VAMPIRES"=
"The Jungle Air Force"
Welcome To The Jungle!!!"
[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 06-27-2000).]
