I also think Stava was presenting two different ideas in one paragraph.
When I first read it, it seemed to me that he was saying he liked the MS WII FS Flight Model better than WB, primarily due to its control response. He also said its "flavor/scaling" was better, which I took as the WWII ambiance...the feeling of "being there in WWII" and it's plane sizing (scaling) were an improvement over WB.
After I re-read it, I still think that's what he was driving at.
I can't comment on his FM observations because I never loaded the MS game...I have it, just never found time to play it.
As far as "scaling", I don't know about WWII FS, but neither AW or WB give the player the realistic visual cues you would see from an airplane cockpit. They may be precisely "mathematically correct", but they _in no way_ accurately represent the visual detail that you will see in the air. So, here I side with Stava.
Look at it this way:
Think of a "slider" bar in the Game Options section of the program.
At the left end of the slider bar is "most 'mathematically correct' scaling".
At the right end of the slider bar is "most accurate visual representation of WWII ACM as seen from the cockpit".
Right now, in almost all the games, the slider is welded in the "mathematically correct" position.
This position is great if you're seeking the true purity of the mathematical experience. If you love graphing calculators, you'll love this presentation.
If, on the other hand, you want to see what the Heroes of the 1940's saw when they looked out of their plexiglas perch, then you want the slider to move to the right. If you're in search of the feel and flavor of flying and fighting in a piston powered airplane, the "mathematical" model just won't do it. In order to get to "historical realism" we're simply going to have to skew the math.
Best Regards,
John
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-24-1999).]
