This I agree with, no-pit planes are AI only in my installs. I'm a pit nazi lol but I still like to have good no-pit models very much, variety is a great thing...
HornetA pit is very old now, and still apart from the not so curved canopy frame it's in the same league as TW cockpits in detail, but when it came out TW pits couldn't compare with it IMO.
Gripen pit on the other hand is perfectly accurate, ofcourse it's flat as the real thing basically consists of 3 large MFD's it can't leave the impression of a Tu-95 cockpit with a thousand switches and gauges, it would be utterly wrong...
As for other planes from the list, the F-35's are brutally detailed, EF-2000, TornadoF3 and AV-8B series are also incredibly detailed, MF's MiG-29 looks like it's from another super-HD game that is yet to be realeased!
TW's F-16A is a mutant of F-16A and F-16C, not so accurate at all either...
Truth be told I wouldn't notice that but MiGBuster showed it perfectly and the error is not so small at all...
This is true but I've rarely seen polycount abuse, most of the time higher polycount means much better looking model, there are exceptions ofcourse, but on many TW models(expecially AI) you can see immidately where the savings are...ofcourse they have to keep it light becuase they need to take care for a wide spectrum of users, but some models are a bit too early 2000's era if you know what I mean...
Well buddy we all like nice looking models, it's not like I'm attacking you for your comments or anything like that, I just find this discussion interesting :)