[CB..]

IMO what tends to happen with PC game graphics is that in order to emphasise an effect it is made more pronounced and noticable...(glamourous if you like?)
not a bad thing given the limitations of older games and graphics engines..but these days with very powerfull graphic engines the more realistic even mundane depiction of some effects is a better option...toned down subtle effects work best when taken into the whole picture.....saving the dramatic effects for well dramatic events! contrast is the better part of graphics..if everything is at maximum volume then it all just blurs into one (it's easy to start believeing that what you see in a game is actualy how it should be...it's the same with movies etc etc..and possibly one of the dangers of recreating historical events in the media)
must admit i was hugely impressed with Rub's effects.it would have been easy to have overblown the whole thing...making the thing look like fire hoses squirting water out the vents etc...instead it looks like what it is supposed to be ,nothing more nothing less
and that degree of subtely is not easy to reproduce


just wish that the devs had given us a hugely complex and dynamic skyscape and weather set up....as sunsets and the ever changing cloud scape are just about the single most awesome dramatic eye candy/mind candy we are ever likely to experience first hand in real life....you can be as dramatic as possible there in game graphics and still pale in comparison to the real thing...it's a real shame they left the game with 2 cloud textures (well 2 and a half) when flightsims have surpassed this back in the 90's)
take a look out the window every ten minutes or so...the sky scape is constantly changing and evolving....everytime i surface i want to be confronted by an entirely dynamic and beautifull sky scape..then i would never leave my PC at all LOL.(which would be mildly ironic to say the least)...art for art's sake keep it coming!