ORIGINAL: darock
And truth is just as you mention......... The presence of the photofields adds realism and anything that enhances the realism is worth the cost.
Personally I dislike the photofields.
I find that their static nature detracts from the realism.
If my plane crashes into a tent I would like to see the structure deform, the plane to break apart, etc.
If the plane brushes a tree I would like to see the leaves move, etc. ... bird hits, dust thrown up when lawn darting....
I prefer the 3D fields instead.
Given the graphic complexity and physical accuracy of the latest incarnations of programs such as Doom, Half Life, etc. there is no doubt that the machines are up to the task.