...When it comes to video games (and yes, FS is a video game), I try not to nitpick about silly things like whether or not a wet tarmac looks 100% photorealistic...
This is how you act and think.
I, on the other hand, try to discern what kind of game I'm playing, instead of generalizing. If I'm playing one of the infinite clones of the ancient quake or a game where the plane I pilot only has to shoot down as many enemies it can before it's shot down itself, then I reason like you myself.
But a simulator is a simulator. As much it's a game it too, it's a special kind of game. If you implement a function in a simulator, this function (be it graphical or whatever) has the duty to look and behave as real-like as the technology you use allows.
Is that thing real-like as the actual technology allows?
The only thing that IS as real-like as possible in FSX is the water of the seas, rivers and lakes. The rest? The rest suffers of the
"Oh my gosh we should have done this in fs9 but we're doing it only now so better make it flashy" syndrome.
As UNreal as it gets.
There's but one real cure for human stupidity. It's called DEATH.
At the moment mourning the assassination of sarcasm and irony for the good of the "higher".
Proud FSIX user. Active user of FS98, X-plane and novic