Heh, just read and (unwisely) posted to the thread that noted that nearly as many people were logged on to AGW as were in WB3.
AGW was (and is) a way of life for many. It was a great community, and the remnants are still left. Although I gotta confess the folks that insist they have a better product kind of wear on me. Using simple air-compression blast effects to model bomb damage? Uhh.... there's a reason why they did those studies with nukes and not before guys. Most WW2 bombs ain't designed to knock down buildings by being dropped in an open field 200 meters away.
anyway, we could actually do a point-by-point comparison of the simulations, but many people on both sides seem convinced that "opinions" can invalidate arguments based on reason. So why bother? Let them enjoy their game, and wish them the best. When the fools among them go strutting around insisting their minimal engine-management, overdampened-control, supersimplified-alt-performance game is more realistic, don't challenge 'em. You can only win arguments based on evidence, not faith. (and heck, mutatis mutandis, the same holds for WB fans arguing against AH fanatics)
Oh yeah, and a better graphics engine is nice, but it doesn't count for much. I'm currently obsessed with operation flashpoint, which has a gorgeous engine (especially if you kick the view distance to 3km), but it sure as hell ain't a realistic vehicle sim. (and as for ballistics, I confirmed today that MG rounds travel at 1000 mps without ever slowing down -- tehy disappear after two seconds. The M1A1s main gun? 1500 mps or 5400 km/h. What is that? Mach 4? for a 120mm HE projectile?! For 20 seconds without slowing down?! )
