CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[philip.ed]

Big-Pickle: aye, I remember there being some comment regarding hedgerows, but then again, a lot of things were said in those development threads.
The team must have a massive list of features which can be added or improved, and rumours are that many features are there, but haven't been completed by the team for inclusion in the sim....(or are there, but haven't been unlocked yet)

ideally, development would be thus:
-bugs are fixed so the game is nice and smooth
-features are improved
-the team announces new features, or present features which have been drastically changed e.g a new weather system, with realistic clouds (yes Dutch! the clouds are rather poor afterall :cool: )

-once the game has been improved to a level where it is rather awesome, tools can then be sent out to the community for an administered modding effort, or a community modding effort which won't affect online play (with the banning system in place, a modding community like SAS could propser nicely).

hopefully this would enable the game to work it's way to becoming a stand-out BoB simulator.

a man can dream :cool:

[David Hayward]

It seems unrealistic to simulate lots of smoke from fireplaces for a battle that was fought in the summer.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Wow, that looks absolutely nothing like where i live, i live 2 miles from the end of manston runway.

Here are four views of Manston, two from 1940 and two from now-ish.

1) VFR 'Real Scenery'
2) GEX (Ground Environment Europe)
3) IL2
4) Cliffs of Dover

All taken at 12.30pm in mid-summer, with clear skies. :)

[fruitbat]

Here are four views of Manston, two from 1940 and two from now-ish.

1) VFR 'Real Scenery'
2) GEX (Ground Environment Europe)
3) IL2
4) Cliffs of Dover

All taken at 12.30pm in mid-summer. :)

well the second one is rubbish beyond belief.

il2 as much as i like it isn't particularly good, kinda springish if you try hard, but works fine in il2.

the first one although ugly, is pretty good colour wise for this time of year (april/may), but rubbish for summer, ie BoB, plus wrong crops for BoB.

Clodo, if the trees were the right mix of colours (there far to light green), is actually passable, but the tress are all wrong really, and there loads of trees here in SE Kent.... I'm not really sure what the fields are supposed to represent either, but hey ho. Its a kinda generic 'fit'

with some work on the trees, it would be by far the best imo....

heres some pics i took last summer (aug) when i was working, gives you some idea of the trees.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/thefruitbat1/06082010015.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/thefruitbat1/09082010022.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/thefruitbat1/03082010010.jpg

tress will always appear darker because of the fact they cast shadow on themselves.

[winny]

It seems unrealistic to simulate lots of smoke from fireplaces for a battle that was fought in the summer.

London in 1940 was very smoggy.. Industry didn't just stop because it was summer, and fireplaces were still lit... (I just asked my great uncle who lived in London in 1940 and watched the battle overhead)

Haze is visable in these shots from summer 1940.

http://blog.hopeglory.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/london.jpg

http://files.myopera.com/edwardpiercy/blog/London-1940-2.jpeg

http://www.museumoflondonprints.com/lowres/29/main/4/129179.jpg

http://www.arts.ac.uk/alumni/images/ebulletin/april2004/berthardy.jpg

[David Hayward]

Haze over London would be realistic. Have over all of England, not so much.

[fruitbat]

Haze over London would be realistic. Have over all of England, not so much.

disagree, England is often hazy in summer today.

compared to other countries i've lived in its something i've always noticed, especially Australia.

you can see it in the photos i've posted above from last summer, and there about as clear a day as you get.

Clod does this really well.

[ATAG_Dutch]

well the second one is rubbish beyond belief.

il2 as much as i like it isn't particularly good, kinda springish if you try hard, but works fine in il2.

the first one although ugly, is pretty good colour wise for this time of year (april/may), but rubbish for summer, ie BoB, plus wrong crops for BoB.

Clodo, if the trees were the right mix of colours (there far to light green), is actually passable, but the tress are all wrong really, and there loads of trees here in SE Kent.... I'm not really sure what the fields are supposed to represent either, but hey ho. Its a kinda generic 'fit'

with some work on the trees, it would be by far the best imo....

heres some pics i took last summer (aug) when i was working, gives you some idea of the trees.

I agree, the GEX stuff is very poor, and cost far more than it's worth.

The VFR scenery looks terrible in Kent, but looks much better in Wales , although there're no dynamic shadows, and no buildings, grass or trees on the ground. That 'add-on' cost the same as the CoD Collector's Edtition.

The IL2 map still has those 'layered' forests and 3D trees, but of course was free.

As for colour, here's a shot I just took out of the window with my phone (note dead palm tree from the frosts of December).

The colour mix there matches quite well with CoD methinks.

[fruitbat]

Trees are the greenest now, than they'll be for the rest of the year as the leaves have just come out. They'll just get darker now, as the seasons roll on.

Its the fact that they cast shadow on themselves that makes them look darker anyway, some part is always in shadow......

Did i mention i'm a tree surgeon by the way, lol.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Did i mention i'm a tree surgeon by the way, lol.

Fancy doing a freebie on a palm tree?!:grin:

[David Hayward]

disagree, England is often hazy in summer today.

compared to other countries i've lived in its something i've always noticed, especially Australia.

you can see it in the photos i've posted above from last summer, and there about as clear a day as you get.

Clod does this really well.

We definitely have different standards for what is hazy, because I see virtually no haze in your photographs.

THIS is hazy:

http://aero-pix.com/qp06/tbird/images/img_014.jpg

[RomBinDaHouse]

Too bad for you that the game's devs agree with me.

Hope that clear enough for you.

NO, idiot, NO! :evil:

[DogTailRed2]

London in 1940 was very smoggy.. Industry didn't just stop because it was summer, and fireplaces were still lit... (I just asked my great uncle who lived in London in 1940 and watched the battle overhead)

Haze is visable in these shots from summer 1940.

http://blog.hopeglory.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/london.jpg

http://files.myopera.com/edwardpiercy/blog/London-1940-2.jpeg

http://www.museumoflondonprints.com/lowres/29/main/4/129179.jpg

http://www.arts.ac.uk/alumni/images/ebulletin/april2004/berthardy.jpg

The last picture is a pub overlooking Vauxhall. The Elephant and Castle statues on the pub still exist. I lived in the Elephant and Castle which is just down the road. I used to work approximately with the same view of that picture.

[Heliocon]

disagree, England is often hazy in summer today.

compared to other countries i've lived in its something i've always noticed, especially Australia.

you can see it in the photos i've posted above from last summer, and there about as clear a day as you get.

Clod does this really well.

Wow - same for me. NZ weather is probably the closest I have lived in vs england. Going from NZ to Melbourne was very strange as the light/heat there is much more intense.

Also as others have said it was probably a hell of alot worse then, they would of been burning alot of coal and that lets out black smoke/smog because at that time it was not filterd (correct me if I am wrong). That stuff doesnt just vanish, it gets blown/spread around. When I lived in singapore some days I wouldnt go outside because the city was so chocked with smoke from the forests being burnt in Malaysia and Indonesia (turned into cropland), you couldnt see more than a few hundred feet. Of course thats a different scale, but thats also hundreds of miles of sea and islands in between.

[whoarmongar]

Gordon Bennett, yew lot are gettin in a right `ol two an eight about this visability/haze fingy.
Its clear non of yew av ever sin a right royal pea souper coz if yew ad yew would know you cant see yer brassband in front ov yer boat an thats no lie !

Now I dont wanna get into a read an write about this but CoD does look a bit sexton blake an thats for sure.

My ol nan bless er soul told me about it an she said they was down in kent hop pickin an used to watch them jerries an our boys fightin it out above em. She said you could hardly see em but the sky was full of swirly clouds in circles an sometimes you would hear an engine clear as day.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Gordon Bennett, yew lot are gettin in a right `ol two an eight about this visability/haze fingy.
Its clear non of yew av ever sin a right royal pea souper coz if yew ad yew would know you cant see yer brassband in front ov yer boat an thats no lie !

Now I dont wanna get into a read an write about this but CoD does look a bit sexton blake an thats for sure.

My ol nan bless er soul told me about it an she said they was down in kent hop pickin an used to watch them jerries an our boys fightin it out above em. She said you could hardly see em but the sky was full of swirly clouds in circles an sometimes you would hear an engine clear as day.

Superb!:grin:

[Mysticpuma]

Basically, this thrad is a "My Dick's better than yours!"

Each Sim has it's merits and failings.

Currently I am very, very impressed with Wings of Prey and the Developer's continue to improve it.......while listening to their customer feedback.

The Gaijin Studio is small, has only been running 2-years in Flight Sims and yet has produced Software for PC, PS3 and 360. They have created Two flight simulations including Apache Air Assault and this is in a very short business life-span.

Consider that to the experience and time that IL2 has had to update 1946 and then create CloD and it's not a fair comparison.

I am truly impressed with WoP and the new patch which vastly improves the FM of current aircraft.

I do know that in the future CloD will of-course be as good as IL2 1946 was, but lets also be honest and say that WoP on full Graphics settings, at 1920x1200 runs on very humble systems. I love the particle effects, water and oil on the cockpit, draw distance....it blows me away.

That is MHO, but I can't change anyones choice, I can just make mine, and for now I have CloD installed, but am only flying WoP until maybe 3-4 months down the line when CloD becomes a Gold release rather than a Beta European and Russian test for the American market!

However, I like WoP, here's why;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jEHBR1zxjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WrpnY5wkVc

and this dogfight video I made....look at the Oil effect on the Cockpit;

http://blip.tv/file/5040605

Now Gaijin are working on a new product and whether you like it or not, just look how fast that terrain is generated in the software.....amazing:

http://skydivegame.com/en

Finally I look forward to Ground Attack Missions in Wings of Prey or the upcoming Wings of Prey 2, because if you look at these effects from Apache the ground effects will be incredible!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg90OIciUAc

Cheers, MP

[ATAG_Dutch]

However, I like WoP, here's why;
Cheers, MP

Hello MP!

I only watched the first clip, but er, hmm.......... Your post wouldn't have anything to do with there being no P-51's in the BoB would it?!:grin:

But I still see cheap sunglasses. I also notice that the P-51 had as much trouble staying on the runway as the Blenheim in CoD.

I enjoy making little films myself, even though I'm hopeless at it, and if you want the 'period look' I see your point, but for the feel of 'being there', CoD still has my vote, simply for the sky.

Earlier on I popped out for an Indian takeaway. 8.00pm, not a cloud in the sky, low angled sun hitting the trees in Woolton Woods, I looked at the sky and the trees and thought 'Yep, Oleg got it spot on'.

It's just the midday lighting that still bothers me a bit.;)

[winny]

The Gaijin Studio is small, has only been running 2-years in Flight Sims and yet has produced Software for PC, PS3 and 360. They have created Two flight simulations including Apache Air Assault and this is in a very short business life-span.

Consider that to the experience and time that IL2 has had to update 1946 and then create CloD and it's not a fair comparison.

I am truly impressed with WoP and the new patch which vastly improves the FM of current aircraft.

I do know that in the future CloD will of-course be as good as IL2 1946 was, but lets also be honest and say that WoP on full Graphics settings, at 1920x1200 runs on very humble systems. I love the particle effects, water and oil on the cockpit, draw distance....it blows me away.



Cheers, MP

+1

I think there's a tendancy on here to jump all over WoP almost out of self defence.

I like what Gaijin are doing, which is basically bluring the edges of sim/video game. They are getting people interested in Sims again, people who got out of PC gaming. (CFS3 killed it for me) I bought 1946 for the first time last year, because of BoP.

They make cinematic games, with simulation elements. I think they were surprised about how much critiscm they got for 'dumbing it down' and they are getting more serious about FM/DM (platform limitations excepted).

They seem passionate about flight, they also seem to be able to make money from it. I hope that they continue to grow and develop the BoP/WoP series and as a by product titles like CoD and RoF get the benefit of the people who catch the bug and want to take it further.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

Trees are the greenest now, than they'll be for the rest of the year as the leaves have just come out. They'll just get darker now, as the seasons roll on.

Its the fact that they cast shadow on themselves that makes them look darker anyway, some part is always in shadow......

Did i mention i'm a tree surgeon by the way, lol.

my friend is a tree surgeon,his name is Andy Hollyoak

[danjama]

Well i downloaded WoP. It looked good, and even ran maxed out on my 6 year old PC:

ath 64 3200+ @ 2.2ghz
2gb pc3200 ram
8800gts
win xp

Lowest frames was 20, highest around 50. It was fun to play, but the heinkel mission got boring. The planes always seem to go down in the same way, as in set animations. If we're talking ground gfx though, it looks superb, frankly.

[Heliocon]

Basically, this thrad is a "My Dick's better than yours!"

Each Sim has it's merits and failings.

Currently I am very, very impressed with Wings of Prey and the Developer's continue to improve it.......while listening to their customer feedback.

The Gaijin Studio is small, has only been running 2-years in Flight Sims and yet has produced Software for PC, PS3 and 360. They have created Two flight simulations including Apache Air Assault and this is in a very short business life-span.

Consider that to the experience and time that IL2 has had to update 1946 and then create CloD and it's not a fair comparison.

I am truly impressed with WoP and the new patch which vastly improves the FM of current aircraft.

I do know that in the future CloD will of-course be as good as IL2 1946 was, but lets also be honest and say that WoP on full Graphics settings, at 1920x1200 runs on very humble systems. I love the particle effects, water and oil on the cockpit, draw distance....it blows me away.

That is MHO, but I can't change anyones choice, I can just make mine, and for now I have CloD installed, but am only flying WoP until maybe 3-4 months down the line when CloD becomes a Gold release rather than a Beta European and Russian test for the American market!

However, I like WoP, here's why;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jEHBR1zxjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WrpnY5wkVc

and this dogfight video I made....look at the Oil effect on the Cockpit;

http://blip.tv/file/5040605

Now Gaijin are working on a new product and whether you like it or not, just look how fast that terrain is generated in the software.....amazing:

http://skydivegame.com/en

Finally I look forward to Ground Attack Missions in Wings of Prey or the upcoming Wings of Prey 2, because if you look at these effects from Apache the ground effects will be incredible!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg90OIciUAc

Cheers, MP

+1

[CUJO_1970]

Speaking of wheat:

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/578921526601327064/A457957DDC89319E8BDC730A6FB8C2B9698D1F52/

[Heliocon]

Speaking of wheat:

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/578921526601327064/A457957DDC89319E8BDC730A6FB8C2B9698D1F52/

I see 2d sprites in a 5 year old graphics engine (purely based on the pic), but we know its england, or nz, it has sheep...:rolleyes:

[jibo]

the visibility is f*cked up on consoles, in fact you play in a box, compare CoD with RoF, trolls

[David Hayward]

I see 2d sprites in a 5 year old graphics engine (purely based on the pic), but we know its england, or nz, it has sheep...:rolleyes:

Heliocon, you should post a WoPuke screenshot of the same sort of scene so we can compare them.

I would do it, but I removed Wings of Puke from my machine.

[unreasonable]

London in 1940 was very smoggy.. Industry didn't just stop because it was summer, and fireplaces were still lit... (I just asked my great uncle who lived in London in 1940 and watched the battle overhead)

Haze is visable in these shots from summer 1940.



Very nice photos, thanks..... but except for the first one, they could not have been taken before 7th September since there are extensive areas of bomb damage.

Anyway, they do not address the question of haze since they may well have been taken on cloudy days which are the norm in the UK, due to the prevailing damp westerly airstream off the Atlantic, as we all agree.

The issue is the haze level during periods of high pressure, which is what CoD with a weather setting of "fine" and no clouds should be emulating. IMHO it is about right, but the London area should have an overlay of grey haze, fairly thin from May-October and thick and horrible in November-April.

BTW Although coal was not rationed until 1941 it was in scarce supply in London during the BoB as the LW had been sinking the coal convoys, so the power stations had first priority IIRC (not of the war, of a source ;) ). As a child in London during the 50s I can assure readers that only the richest and most extravagant would have lit coal fires during the summer months indeed until until well into October. We wore extra sweaters on chilly days.

[Screwball]

After reading the past 28 pages (some good stuff tucked up amongst all the usual fluff, cheers guys) I can't help but wade in, sorry...

Firstly, and my apologies for singling any one poster out and at risk of breaking my own code of never typing anything that relates more to the poster than their post...but after all Mr Hayward has made up the largest percentage of posts, and they do tend to say the same thing, so: David Hayward, please please stop talking about 'puke green', 'Wings of Puke', 'puke filter' etc etc etc ad (sorry!) nauseum. It's really very tiring, and neither enjoyable nor constructive. The frequent repetition suggests this single filter is the only issue you have with the graphics in WoP, although granted there are other aspects to the game you dislike. Is this fair? If so might we now move on to some other topics? It is very apparent that nobody is arguing against you - it is a point of agreement that the green-tainted filter is neither particularly accurate nor particularly attractive. I'm sure you have more to say, and now would be a fine time to have a crack at saying it :)

Secondly...well, I was going to bash out my opinions on every topic covered in this thread, but decided life was too short :)

Thirdly, CoD is a simulator. It simulates reality. Reality is subjective, and we largely operate on 'feel' of a situation (visually, aurally, whatever) in normal life rather than abstract empiricism - and it's 'feel' that adds 'reality' to all computer games and sims. It seems a fair test of the level of success is to make a snap decision on a screenshot: s/shot of a game or photo of the real world? Not that they're par for the course, but I have seen unedited s/shots of WoP, Il-2 modded and virgin, RoF and others that all take me a moment or few to establish whether or not they are a genuine photo, photoshopped, or prerendered. I hope others have an idea of what I mean by this, and can call such images to mind?

Sadly, I haven't seen very many landscape shots of CoD that take more than a split second to label 'game'. The aircraft have the potential to look stunning, but the colours of CoD's world obviously are not right if they are causing this much..well, lets be nice and call it debate :) This is not to rubbish the game in the slightest, but to keep in focus an area for future development. Can others try the photo/game thing and see if they have such disappointing % of 'real-looking' (as in giving a genuine impression that they could be photographs on first sight) CoD landscape s'shots? I'd like to think it's not just me, but who knows :)

Screwy

[Screwball]

Very nice photos, thanks..... but except for the first one, they could not have been taken before 7th September since there are extensive areas of bomb damage.

Anyway, they do not address the question of haze since they may well have been taken on cloudy days which are the norm in the UK, due to the prevailing damp westerly airstream off the Atlantic, as we all agree.

The issue is the haze level during periods of high pressure, which is what CoD with a weather setting of "fine" and no clouds should be emulating. IMHO it is about right, but the London area should have an overlay of grey haze, fairly thin from May-October and thick and horrible in November-April.

BTW Although coal was not rationed until 1941 it was in scarce supply in London during the BoB as the LW had been sinking the coal convoys, so the power stations had first priority IIRC (not of the war, of a source ;) ). As a child in London during the 50s I can assure readers that only the richest and most extravagant would have lit coal fires during the summer months indeed until until well into October. We wore extra sweaters on chilly days.

Worth noting that high pressure isn't particularly good for more localised air quality/visibilty as with very little wind (associated with high pressure systems) there's nothing to clear the air. A prime example of this is the recent urban smog alerts that were out across the UK. Smoke, sea fog, pollen/dust etc etc - all tend to linger at low altitude during periods of high pressure.

Also worth noting that fires aren't just for heat. I grew up in rural Somerset, and it would be unusual for fires not to be kept in throughout the year. The haze of woodsmoke on still summer evenings being a memorable and evocative feature :) Of course there are added benefits of the warmth in winter, but hot water, laundry, cooking etc all need to be done regardless of the season! Whilst I realise this isn't particularly applicable to London, it is applicable to the rest of the map that isn't London ;) ...mind you, if the devs are worrying about getting the right levels of smoke from domestic chimneys then they'll already have done enough to get the game looking great!

Looks like I did get to opine after all :cool:

Screwy

[David Hayward]

Firstly, and my apologies for singling any one poster out and at risk of breaking my own code of never typing anything that relates more to the poster than their post...but after all Mr Hayward has made up the largest percentage of posts, and they do tend to say the same thing, so: David Hayward, please please stop talking about 'puke green', 'Wings of Puke', 'puke filter' etc etc etc ad (sorry!) nauseum. It's really very tiring, and neither enjoyable nor constructive.

Screwy, as soon as the constant whining about CoD from the WoPuke fanboys stops, I'll stop calling it Wings of Puke. Deal?

[sigur_ros]

Maddox Games and Gaijin Studio should unite. Gaijin make good graphical engine with advanced lighting and effects, they know how to optimize and what England looks like. Maddox can then do what it does best: cockpits, damage modeling and tiny pointless detail.

[ip3]

For me the look and feel of CloD is the best of all flight sims, except maybe DCS A-10 at higher elevations. Some individual sims do individual details better, like RoF's clouds but not the complete package.

I agree that WoP looks like it has a puke-filter turned on. It's also too contrasty and has an annoyingly overdone vignetting effect.

[Mysticpuma]

I agree that WoP looks like it has a puke-filter turned on. It's also too contrasty and has an annoyingly overdone vignetting effect.

If you click on the Advanced settings, you can actually switch the vignette off. Also, if you have a couple of minutes to spare, you can set a colur profile up for the game in your Graphics driver and tone the Green down, it's a users choice.

What I have found is that Gaijin do actively listen to their purchasers and, for a small studio, do try and add user suggestions to patches.

The FM was much complained about regarding the P-51, now, after patch 1.0.3.7 the aircraft handles way better and is far more accurate as are many of the others. Gaijin listen!

I'll restate "every sim has it's merits", I am currently finding that WoP Developers are actively doing their best to please the comsumers they have and include suggestions from their forums.

I find (for now) Cliffs of Dover suggestions aren't about improving the software to add more content, for instance the lack of ships, they are about fixing the current 'Gold' software so it can be released officially in America in a 'fit-for-purpose' condition.

Yes that is a dig at CloD, but if I enjoy a game (WoP), why should I have someone else tell me I am wrong and shouldn't dare even consider anything other than the child of IL2:1946. Currently, CloD is exactly that, 'a Child', however it will grow (with support) into and Adult and be, I am sure, an exceptional product, for now however, I have all the graphical effects I want in WoP, draw distance without building popping up out of no-where,improved Flight-Models, New Camera positions being added for replays, HDR lighting and most of all......FUN!!!!

It also runs on a 'normal' computer and not a Beast (which I do own!).

I can't change your mind, as I don't even consider playing RoF, it's not that I don't think it's good, I just don't want to fly in a WW1 aircraft. Again, that'll be my choice, not yours?

If you take part in a game/simulation and after sitting there you come away from it having enjoyed yourself, why is it such a big issue for anyone to say "how dare you think that it is better than this game!"

WoP is great fun and enjoyable. IL2:1946 is still on my HD as a stock 4.10.1 and alos modded with HSFX 5.01 and they will always stay there.

I have CloD installed, but due to framerate, bug issues, I have only tried it 2-3 times since installing it. I just don't find it
A) Value for money and B) FUN!

I do know though, that once you guys have spent your time fixing the bugs for 1C it will be a great game (running on all 4-Cores, using 12GB of my Ram and also in SLI), but for now.....I'm having fun with WoP and HSFX 5.01.

But guys, enjoy what you fly, just don't tell me your choice is better than mine.....it never will be, and that is in my eyes and yours!

Cheers, MP

[pupaxx]

If you click on the Advanced settings, you can actually switch the vignette off. Also, if you have a couple of minutes to spare, you can set a colur profile up for the game in your Graphics driver and tone the Green down, it's a users choice.

What I have found is that Gaijin do actively listen to their purchasers and, for a small studio, do try and add user suggestions to patches.

The FM was much complained about regarding the P-51, now, after patch 1.0.3.7 the aircraft handles way better and is far more accurate as are many of the others. Gaijin listen!

I'll restate "every sim has it's merits", I am currently finding that WoP Developers are actively doing their best to please the comsumers they have and include suggestions from their forums.

I find (for now) Cliffs of Dover suggestions aren't about improving the software to add more content, for instance the lack of ships, they are about fixing the current 'Gold' software so it can be released officially in America in a 'fit-for-purpose' condition.

Yes that is a dig at CloD, but if I enjoy a game (WoP), why should I have someone else tell me I am wrong and shouldn't dare even consider anything other than the child of IL2:1946. Currently, CloD is exactly that, 'a Child', however it will grow (with support) into and Adult and be, I am sure, an exceptional product, for now however, I have all the graphical effects I want in WoP, draw distance without building popping up out of no-where,improved Flight-Models, New Camera positions being added for replays, HDR lighting and most of all......FUN!!!!

It also runs on a 'normal' computer and not a Beast (which I do own!).

I can't change your mind, as I don't even consider playing RoF, it's not that I don't think it's good, I just don't want to fly in a WW1 aircraft. Again, that'll be my choice, not yours?

If you take part in a game/simulation and after sitting there you come away from it having enjoyed yourself, why is it such a big issue for anyone to say "how dare you think that it is better than this game!"

WoP is great fun and enjoyable. IL2:1946 is still on my HD as a stock 4.10.1 and alos modded with HSFX 5.01 and they will always stay there.

I have CloD installed, but due to framerate, bug issues, I have only tried it 2-3 times since installing it. I just don't find it
A) Value for money and B) FUN!

I do know though, that once you guys have spent your time fixing the bugs for 1C it will be a great game (running on all 4-Cores, using 12GB of my Ram and also in SLI), but for now.....I'm having fun with WoP and HSFX 5.01.

But guys, enjoy what you fly, just don't tell me your choice is better than mine.....it never will be, and that is in my eyes and yours!

Cheers, MP


+1

[Flanker35M]

S!

Nice videos MysticPuma :) WoP or CoD..matter of taste and sometimes fun to just throw brains in the bucket and blast away ;) Give me smoothness of WoP to CoD and all is good!

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

+2

[lensman1945]

Nice videos indeed!
And an excellent balanced view of this thread..couldn't agree more with your sentiments MP.
I am also enjoying WOP and at the same time watching COD develop into what will be, I'm sure, an astounding title.

[Eldur]

sorry il2 is better for me


486 DX2 66mhz
4MB ram
S3 Virge

Don't you have sound card? :D
And you should upgrade your memory. I've got the same rig with 16MB :cool:

[Meusli]

Maddox Games and Gaijin Studio should unite. Gaijin make good graphical engine with advanced lighting and effects, they know how to optimize and what England looks like. Maddox can then do what it does best: cockpits, damage modeling and tiny pointless detail.

They used the IL2 engine that was developed by Maddox games, so where do you stand now. These lovely posts you are all making against Maddox games looking shit are ridiculous, I hope you have the decency and maturity to say you were wrong when they sort this out.

[winny]

They used the IL2 engine that was developed by Maddox games, so where do you stand now. These lovely posts you are all making against Maddox games looking shit are ridiculous, I hope you have the decency and maturity to say you were wrong when they sort this out.

Purley for the sake of correctness... Gaijin made their own engine. They only used IL-2's FM / DM data (well, some of it!).

[ICDP]

They used the IL2 engine that was developed by Maddox games, so where do you stand now. These lovely posts you are all making against Maddox games looking shit are ridiculous, I hope you have the decency and maturity to say you were wrong when they sort this out.

Kind of silly statement isn't it? Some people are saying CoD does not look realistic and would like the devs to fix it. So if the devs fix it the complainers should apologise and say, "we were wrong and the devs were right, because the devs fixed it it the end". Erm, isn't that what these people want, so if the devs do fix it they are essentially agreeing with the complainers. So to quote you... "I hope you have the decency and maturity to say you were wrong when they sort this out".

[Ailantd]

Basically, this thrad is a "My Dick's better than yours!"

Each Sim has it's merits and failings.

Currently I am very, very impressed with Wings of Prey and the Developer's continue to improve it.......while listening to their customer feedback.

The Gaijin Studio is small, has only been running 2-years in Flight Sims and yet has produced Software for PC, PS3 and 360. They have created Two flight simulations including Apache Air Assault and this is in a very short business life-span.

Consider that to the experience and time that IL2 has had to update 1946 and then create CloD and it's not a fair comparison.

I am truly impressed with WoP and the new patch which vastly improves the FM of current aircraft.

I do know that in the future CloD will of-course be as good as IL2 1946 was, but lets also be honest and say that WoP on full Graphics settings, at 1920x1200 runs on very humble systems. I love the particle effects, water and oil on the cockpit, draw distance....it blows me away.

That is MHO, but I can't change anyones choice, I can just make mine, and for now I have CloD installed, but am only flying WoP until maybe 3-4 months down the line when CloD becomes a Gold release rather than a Beta European and Russian test for the American market!

However, I like WoP, here's why;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jEHBR1zxjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WrpnY5wkVc

and this dogfight video I made....look at the Oil effect on the Cockpit;

http://blip.tv/file/5040605

Now Gaijin are working on a new product and whether you like it or not, just look how fast that terrain is generated in the software.....amazing:

http://skydivegame.com/en

Finally I look forward to Ground Attack Missions in Wings of Prey or the upcoming Wings of Prey 2, because if you look at these effects from Apache the ground effects will be incredible!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg90OIciUAc

Cheers, MP


Now, somebody comparing CoD to WoP is the somebody that use batman music in a video about WWII air combat. That´s explains all. :grin::grin:

[Mysticpuma]

"Now, somebody comparing CoD to WoP is the somebody that use Batman music in a video about WWII air combat".

I'm not comparing, they are two different pieces of Software. My examples are describing why I like WoP and why I will one-day like CloD.

Music sets mood, that is all. I suppose I could have used Gladiator or Pirates of the Caribbean....but these would have been historically incorrect surely?

Now you compare WW2 Combat footage I created and complain it is set to Batman Music, well, it appears you are barking up the wrong tree.

The first issue of Batman was published in 1940, so using the Music from Batman could not be more appropriate, I'm sure you will agree?

Thnakyou, Game, Set and Match.....MP

[reflected]

"Now, somebody comparing CoD to WoP is the somebody that use Batman music in a video about WWII air combat".

I'm not comparing, they are two different pieces of Software. My examples are describing why I like WoP and why I will one-day like CloD.

Music sets mood, that is all. I suppose I could have used Gladiator or Pirates of the Caribbean....but these would have been historically incorrect surely?

Now you compare WW2 Combat footage I created and complain it is set to Batman Music, well, it appears you are barking up the wrong tree.

The first issue of Batman was published in 1940, so using the Music from Batman could not be more appropriate, I'm sure you will agree?

Thnakyou, Game, Set and Match.....MP

So he's trying to prove that you're wrong in an unrelated question by pointing out that he doesn't like your choice of music? err...game set match MP indeed! That was an own goal! :D

[Meusli]

Kind of silly statement isn't it? Some people are saying CoD does not look realistic and would like the devs to fix it. So if the devs fix it the complainers should apologise and say, "we were wrong and the devs were right, because the devs fixed it it the end". Erm, isn't that what these people want, so if the devs do fix it they are essentially agreeing with the complainers. So to quote you... "I hope you have the decency and maturity to say you were wrong when they sort this out".

Nope, you just can't read properly. I agree that this game needs fixing and quickly hence the statement that "when they sort it out".

We have heard that most of the features in this game are switched off and will be put back in as soon as performance is fixed etc. When you have idiots saying that the graphics (the be all and end all of everyone's enjoyment, yeah right) of CLOD are crap and they should employ Gajin to do them instead then any other statement that you utter
is just nonsense and should be ignored. When people talk/post crap that's how they should be treated.

@winny I was not aware to the extent of Maddox games but I thought they used the models of planes as well?

[BigPickle]

Puma did you like the high contrast type of filter in WoP? (You may have already said and i missed it, sorry if you did)
One of things i was thinking about when the SDK came out was to create (if possible) a filter set mod with different filter choices in an effort to enhance the WW2 feel.

[ICDP]

Nope, you just can't read properly. I agree that this game needs fixing and quickly hence the statement that "when they sort it out".

We have heard that most of the features in this game are switched off and will be put back in as soon as performance is fixed etc. When you have idiots saying that the graphics (the be all and end all of everyone's enjoyment, yeah right) of CLOD are crap and they should employ Gajin to do them instead then any other statement that you utter
is just nonsense and should be ignored. When people talk/post crap that's how they should be treated.

@winny I was not aware to the extent of Maddox games but I thought they used the models of planes as well?

We are in a thread dealing dealing specifically with CoD terrain graphics. My reaponse referred to the terrain and only the terrain, not the entire sim.

[Mogster2K]

WOP has really great object placement, that's what makes the terrain look so natural.

Someone at Gaijin looked at a photo of S England and placed the available objects just the same way. Even on a small map it must have taken quite a long time. Its the closest 3D representation of how the trees and buildings are placed in the English countryside that I've seen in any sim.

http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz262/mogaskell/shot20100110143211.jpg

[Meusli]

We are in a thread dealing dealing specifically with CoD terrain graphics. My reaponse referred to the terrain and only the terrain, not the entire sim.

What exactly do you not like about the terrain that is done in another sim? If it is the terrain colour then we all know about that, so to does Oleg. See here;

Here it is ingame colors. Simply other time of day...
However I agree that tunes of the colors should be done in future. It isn't simply there in the game just gamma or RGB. In realoity there is done very compex mix of real light laws. It is very hard to get them alos like the human eye will see it. From another point of view, how it is done with physics - it is right. Color changed depending time of day, altitude, thickness of air masses, etc

If it's not the terrain colour then you must be on about the graphic engine which in my eyes is the best terrain we have seen modelled in a sim to this day. Of course this is in full settings that not many people can use(including myself, damned 4870x2) but as the game is polished more and more people will be able to switch these things on. Look at the pictures in the first post and tell me the other sims model the ground better, I just will not agree

[Mogster2K]

I agree with Oleg. I think its very difficult for a sim to have natural looking terrain colurs through the whole range of changing light levels.

In all sims with saturation and gamma adjustment available I tend to find when morning and evening looks good mid day looks washed out. Mid day looks OK then morning looks too saturated.

Different terrain colours for high and low light levels are the way forward.

[ICDP]

What exactly do you not like about the terrain that is done in another sim? If it is the terrain colour then we all know about that, so to does Oleg. See here;



If it's not the terrain colour then you must be on about the graphic engine which in my eyes is the best terrain we have seen modelled in a sim to this day. Of course this is in full settings that not many people can use(including myself, damned 4870x2) but as the game is polished more and more people will be able to switch these things on. Look at the pictures in the first post and tell me the other sims model the ground better, I just will not agree

OK, you are reading things in my post that I didn't write. I did not attack the terrain when I pointed out the silliness of your post about apologising to the devs "when they sort this out". You were referring to the entire game, I pointed out this was a thread about terrain. Also why should anyone apologise and thank the devs for fixing what they delivered in a broken state (now I am referring to the entire game)?

I bought CoD and would like the many very serious bugs fixed. If they are fixed then great, but I won't be thanking the devs. If they don't get fixed I will leave CoD and move on, I will also avoid purchasing anything from MG in future. There are far more serious things in life to worry about rather than a £50 game.

[Meusli]

OK, you are reading things in my post that I didn't write. I did not attack the terrain when I pointed out the silliness of your post about apologising to the devs "when they sort this out". You were referring to the entire game, I pointed out this was a thread about terrain. Also why should anyone apologise and thank the devs for fixing what they delivered in a broken state (now I am referring to the entire game)?

I bought CoD and would like the many very serious bugs fixed. If they are fixed then great, but I won't be thanking the devs. If they don't get fixed I will leave CoD and move on, I will also avoid purchasing anything from MG in future. There are far more serious things in life to worry about rather than a £50 game.


I replied to this post and have highlighted what I belive is the nonsense that people are spewing from their mouths about this sim;

Maddox Games and Gaijin Studio should unite. Gaijin make good graphical engine with advanced lighting and effects, they know how to optimize and what England looks like. Maddox can then do what it does best: cockpits, damage modeling and tiny pointless detail.

I also never said anyone was to thank the devs for fixing the sim, please show me where if I did. What I did say though was people who are talking nonsense should say they are sorry when it comes to the sim being fixed and there statements don't hold up any more.
Perhaps if you understood what I was saying in my first post in this thread then we would not be having this discussion as I am doing nothing you are accusing me of.

[unreasonable]

Worth noting that high pressure isn't particularly good for more localised air quality/visibilty as with very little wind (associated with high pressure systems) there's nothing to clear the air. A prime example of this is the recent urban smog alerts that were out across the UK. Smoke, sea fog, pollen/dust etc etc - all tend to linger at low altitude during periods of high pressure.

Also worth noting that fires aren't just for heat. I grew up in rural Somerset, and it would be unusual for fires not to be kept in throughout the year. The haze of woodsmoke on still summer evenings being a memorable and evocative feature :) Of course there are added benefits of the warmth in winter, but hot water, laundry, cooking etc all need to be done regardless of the season! Whilst I realise this isn't particularly applicable to London, it is applicable to the rest of the map that isn't London ;) ...mind you, if the devs are worrying about getting the right levels of smoke from domestic chimneys then they'll already have done enough to get the game looking great!

Looks like I did get to opine after all :cool:

Screwy

As a townie I can say that I thought woodsmoke was a brand of cigarette....London cooking and water heaters mostly powered by gas from the gasworks so while an indirect product of coal burning not requiring domestic use. Laundry only washed once a week anyway, I suppose everyone just got used to the pong. I was not aware that Zumerset yokels washed at all, but that is the wonder of forums, one learns so much!;)

Of course you are right about the high pressure - I just caught the end of the era of great London smogs and these always occurred during winter anticyclones.

[W0ef]

Just wanted to add two piccies I happened to take while testing some stuff earlier :P

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2453/codtest4.jpg

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3171/codtest3.jpg

Three blue lines on horizon is the annoying ATI bug btw.

Peace out.

[Langnasen]

NVidia CP, Digital Vibrance down to 34% (or whatever your taste), colours sorted.

[reflected]

Look at this. Not as rich in ground objects as CloD, but very nice nontheless. Great atmosphere.



http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/748/201152191958.jpg

[W0ef]

@Reflected

I love RoF and am happy to play both that game and CoD, both for their own merits.

CoD imo sure has come a long way since first release and so has RoF ;)

Peace.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

@Reflected

I love RoF and am happy to play both that game and CoD, both for their own merits.

CoD imo sure has come a long way since first release and so has RoF ;)

Peace.

?

[W0ef]

?

??

Why the questionmark? Reflected posted a RoF (Rise of Flight) screenshot and I gave my opinion about it. I think both RoF (Rise of Flight) and CoD (Cliffs of Dover) look good at portraying a believable landscape and are great sims in their own right and both have/will come a long way even more in the future.

[Heliocon]

If you click on the Advanced settings, you can actually switch the vignette off. Also, if you have a couple of minutes to spare, you can set a colur profile up for the game in your Graphics driver and tone the Green down, it's a users choice.

What I have found is that Gaijin do actively listen to their purchasers and, for a small studio, do try and add user suggestions to patches.

The FM was much complained about regarding the P-51, now, after patch 1.0.3.7 the aircraft handles way better and is far more accurate as are many of the others. Gaijin listen!

I'll restate "every sim has it's merits", I am currently finding that WoP Developers are actively doing their best to please the comsumers they have and include suggestions from their forums.

I find (for now) Cliffs of Dover suggestions aren't about improving the software to add more content, for instance the lack of ships, they are about fixing the current 'Gold' software so it can be released officially in America in a 'fit-for-purpose' condition.

Yes that is a dig at CloD, but if I enjoy a game (WoP), why should I have someone else tell me I am wrong and shouldn't dare even consider anything other than the child of IL2:1946. Currently, CloD is exactly that, 'a Child', however it will grow (with support) into and Adult and be, I am sure, an exceptional product, for now however, I have all the graphical effects I want in WoP, draw distance without building popping up out of no-where,improved Flight-Models, New Camera positions being added for replays, HDR lighting and most of all......FUN!!!!

It also runs on a 'normal' computer and not a Beast (which I do own!).

I can't change your mind, as I don't even consider playing RoF, it's not that I don't think it's good, I just don't want to fly in a WW1 aircraft. Again, that'll be my choice, not yours?

If you take part in a game/simulation and after sitting there you come away from it having enjoyed yourself, why is it such a big issue for anyone to say "how dare you think that it is better than this game!"

WoP is great fun and enjoyable. IL2:1946 is still on my HD as a stock 4.10.1 and alos modded with HSFX 5.01 and they will always stay there.

I have CloD installed, but due to framerate, bug issues, I have only tried it 2-3 times since installing it. I just don't find it
A) Value for money and B) FUN!

I do know though, that once you guys have spent your time fixing the bugs for 1C it will be a great game (running on all 4-Cores, using 12GB of my Ram and also in SLI), but for now.....I'm having fun with WoP and HSFX 5.01.

But guys, enjoy what you fly, just don't tell me your choice is better than mine.....it never will be, and that is in my eyes and yours!

Cheers, MP

+3+ (oh btw my comment on the COD picture was a joke, althoug they are 2d textures :P)

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

??

Why the questionmark? Reflected posted a RoF (Rise of Flight) screenshot and I gave my opinion about it. I think both RoF (Rise of Flight) and CoD (Cliffs of Dover) look good at portraying a believable landscape and are great sims in their own right and both have/will come a long way even more in the future.

I agree about ROF,but cant see much progress in COD from the release date.

[Lololopoulos]

have you guys ever thought of this? right now, wouldn't it be great if we can run COD on WOP's graphics model, with COD's damage model and flight model of course. :)

[David Hayward]

have you guys ever thought of this? right now, wouldn't it be great if we can run COD on WOP's graphics model, with COD's damage model and flight model of course. :)

I don't want CoD to use anything from WoP.

[Derinahon]

have you guys ever thought of this? right now, wouldn't it be great if we can run COD on WOP's graphics model, with COD's damage model and flight model of course. :)

That statement could keep this thread running for years and I'm sure it's already been said :)

There are good and bad things about WoP graphically. The biggest plus for me is performance, I can run it with eyefinity. Bring that in to CoD and I'll be jumping around like a five year old on Christmas morning!

Otherwise I'd take CoD over WoP any day, visually or otherwise. There's room for improvement though ;)

[Mysticpuma]

I don't want CoD to use anything from WoP.

Not even it's loading speed? Blimey! I'm in the sky after about 20-seconds of clicking the Icon in WoP....still, if you prefer to hang around for CloD, then switch all your settings to make it flyable, then complain that it hasn't saved your joystick inputs, then etc,etc,etc.....

David, I'm glad to see that your eyes are so set on 'the prize' of CloD that no other FlightSim/Game dare be mentioned in the same breath.

Why not from now on we call CloD "Harry Potter" AND WoP "Voldemort"?

I may lose in the end, but at-least I'll get loads of films out of my Franchise while I wait for Harry Potter to get his act together!

Look, WoP is great NOW, Clod will be great one-day....I just want to have fun now, rather than Beta Test a pre-release candidate that went Gold.

It's MY choice! You enjoy fixing Harry, I'll go work with the Dark Lord attacking Muggles on the enemy side ;)

Cheers, MP

[ICDP]

Not even it's loading speed? Blimey! I'm in the sky after about 20-seconds of clicking the Icon in WoP....still, if you prefer to hang around for CloD, then switch all your settings to make it flyable, then complain that it hasn't saved your joystick inputs, then etc,etc,etc.....

David, I'm glad to see that your eyes are so set on 'the prize' of CloD that no other FlightSim/Game dare be mentioned in the same breath.

Why not from now on we call CloD "Harry Potter" AND WoP "Voldemort"?

I may lose in the end, but at-least I'll get loads of films out of my Franchise while I wait for Harry Potter to get his act together!

Look, WoP is great NOW, Clod will be great one-day....I just want to have fun now, rather than Beta Test a pre-release candidate that went Gold.

It's MY choice! You enjoy fixing Harry, I'll go work with the Dark Lord attacking Muggles on the enemy side ;)

Cheers, MP

Don't respond to that idiot, he doesn't even have Cliffs of Dover. His mission is to attack aynone who attacks CoD, even when they have the game and make a valid point.

[Therion_Prime]

have you guys ever thought of this? Right now, wouldn't it be great if we can run cod on wop's graphics model, with cod's damage model and flight model of course. :)

yessssssssss.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

too many s'ssss:)

[Dano]

have you guys ever thought of this? right now, wouldn't it be great if we can run COD on WOP's graphics model, with COD's damage model and flight model of course. :)

No thanks, I like to be able to see where I'm going.

[Therion_Prime]

No thanks, I like to be able to see where I'm going.

wtf?

have you ever played WoP yourself or are you just hopping on the WoP bashing bandwagon?

IL-2 and CloD are nondoubtedly the better sims, but visually WoP is MILES ahead.

[Dano]

wtf?

have you ever played WoP yourself or are you just hopping on the WoP bashing bandwagon?

IL-2 and CloD are nondoubtedly the better sims, but visually WoP is MILES ahead.

Yes I own it and no it's not visually MILES ahead, are you just jumping on the CoD bashing bandwagon or have you actually played it? :rolleyes:

[easytarget3]

i have to add something to this talk, simply you cant compare very different sims just by graphic comparison, i know you want the best graphic and the devs should consider it when they program the FM,physics,damage model,collision model and so on, but still.WOP is arcade compare to COD,there is no feel fo detail except SFX,which is nice btw,damage model is very simple and mostly just graphic, FM also very simple and felt strage to fly,and so on.Same lack of proper wider campaign as in COD :(.I rather have a noch down graphic in COD,if they add hit boxes for trees and buildings,radar towers and so on,thats really important and clouds proper ones, and if the manage to keep the same graphic and framerate it will be the best sim, wish for better campaign with planes resuplies and chain events,to influence the other mission etc.

[Therion_Prime]

Yes I own it and no it's not visually MILES ahead, are you just jumping on the CoD bashing bandwagon or have you actually played it? :rolleyes:

I wonder why they even cared to put an epilepsy filter in game in the first place even tough most players are obviosly blind anyway.....

Yes I play them all and they are all good in different things. WoP has the best graphics of the bunch.

[Therion_Prime]

i have to add something to this talk, simply you cant compare very different sims just by graphic comparison,

This thread is only about graphic comparison.

Edit: Actually it's only a scenery graphics comparison...

[pupaxx]

ok ...but this thread il labeled 'CoD vs some other sims that model Kent'... so we are simply comparing different games just from 'aesthetic' point of view, and how the scenery is differently represented by each of them.
Correctly, how many had previously pointed up, we can not comparing this products in terms of FM/DM, or other peculiarity specific of a Flight Simulation.
They are simply different in their being! they are created with different commercial pourpose/targets.
So, please don't fire up when someone express just an opinion!
;)
Have a nice day

[Therion_Prime]

Yes I own it and no it's not visually MILES ahead, are you just jumping on the CoD bashing bandwagon or have you actually played it? :rolleyes:

I'm not jumping on anyones bandwagon, I'm with mysticpuma on this one.

I own and play lots of flightsims (my first "flightsim" was "Interceptor" on the Amiga) and as a flightsim fan I don't get the rivalry between the "factions".
I loved IL2 and really hope that CloD is going to be replacing IL2 someday.

As I said, IL2 and CloD are superior sims i like very much, but IN MY OPINION WoP has far better gfx (except the planes/cockpit).

I play all three. I like all three. For some reason or another.

[Therion_Prime]

So, please don't fire up when someone express just an opinion!
;)


Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude, because I'm not ;-)

[150GCT_Veltro]

Another WIP for autumn.

A different way to considere the landscape tiles for a sim. I don't say it's better or worst, but actually i don't like at all the CoD landscape (colours and textures).

RoF autumn with DX9.
http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Veltro/full-11770-10222-2011_3_20__21_6_25.jpg

[pupaxx]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude, because I'm not ;-)

Nop mate, I'm with u at 100%, I was referring to others...:grin:
I think this forum is great and developpers should be gratefull to our constructive criticism; I would like my opinions would be taken into account just for whats they are, just opinion; not as the intention of imposing something on someone.

[Dano]

I wonder why they even cared to put an epilepsy filter in game in the first place even tough most players are obviosly blind anyway.....

No, it's called an opinion, no need to be offensive :rolleyes:

Yes I play them all and they are all good in different things. WoP has the best graphics of the bunch.

As above, it's pretty pointless arguing it as people will have different opinions.

I'm not jumping on anyones bandwagon, I'm with mysticpuma on this one.

I own and play lots of flightsims (my first "flightsim" was "Interceptor" on the Amiga) and as a flightsim fan I don't get the rivalry between the "factions".
I loved IL2 and really hope that CloD is going to be replacing IL2 someday.

As I said, IL2 and CloD are superior sims i like very much, but IN MY OPINION WoP has far better gfx (except the planes/cockpit).

I play all three. I like all three. For some reason or another.

Ah so you do understand it's an opinion, why then be offensive and call people who do not share your opinion blind?

In my opinion CoD has far more realistic graphics and thus better.

We can agree to disagree I'd hope...

[Meusli]

Would you guys say CLOD has the potential to look better than WOP? While I think WOP looks better today because of its shaders and colour palette etc I beleive the underlying tech is not as advanced as CLOD's is.
Tech was left out of CLOD as it was nearing completion and we can all see why, it's just not finished. Oleg or Luthier stated that the water is a DX9 placement holder and that the water left out was a transparent effect that you could see through(imagine sub hunting with this). Add to that the dynamic weather and clouds that was also missed out to be added later (which will possibly effect the sea) then we have at least two items that will make this sim look stunning when implemented.
It's a shame it was released in the state it was, if they had more time these discussions would not even exist as all the features they had to drop before release would push this sim to another level.

[David Hayward]

David, I'm glad to see that your eyes are so set on 'the prize' of CloD that no other FlightSim/Game dare be mentioned in the same breath.


That's not true at all. I'm playing a LOT of RoF. In fact, I enjoy RoF so much that I may have trouble finding time to play CoD when it is released in the US.

All of that has nothing to do with WoP. I bought WoP. I played it. I took it off my PC and went back to playing IL2-1946. WoP is an arcade game with really crappy colors and lighting. It is not the direction that I want, or expect, CoD to go.

[easytarget3]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude, because I'm not ;-)

I understand your point, but honesly its also qustion of personal taste, really i didnt like WOP scenery and all the film filters and even when i switched them off its still like old war movie,all gloomy and dramatic, which in many people can create connection to ww2 flight sim that could be even the reason why the dev decided to go this path partially, bu t for me i like the IL2 or COD more real thing because,for ME, it more immersive i feel it present, not like iam in B/W movie,some documentary of BOB.anyway thats my opinion.

salute

[David Hayward]

Would you guys say CLOD has the potential to look better than WOP? While I think WOP looks better today because of its shaders and colour palette etc I beleive the underlying tech is not as advanced as CLOD's is.


Seriously? You really like WoP's green puke color palette??

[Mysticpuma]

Seriously? You really like WoP's green puke color palette??

Looks okay to me, but again depends when you can be bothered to fly (time of Day) and also if you can take a few seconds to set a Colour Profile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jEHBR1zxjs

[David Hayward]

Looks okay to me


Trust me, it's not ok. The real world does not have a green puke hue to it. And if it's so easy to fix, why doesn't anyone fix it?

By the way, that isn't the only problem with WoP, it's just the most obvious one.

[W0ef]

Hey Puma,

Nice video but I like the one you put on the WoP forums better, hope you don´t mind me linking to it here:

http://blip.tv/file/5040605


Now I don´t have WoP because it´s a bit too arcadey to me but damn, Dover sure looks cool in that movie (check the pier in the beginning and the shot of the city at around 1.11 mins in) I think WoP, RoF and CoD can live perfectly fine next to eachother by the way, each with it´s own strengths and weaknesses.

[pupaxx]

guys, please, after 34 pages of debate can we forget for an instant the green filter and simply evaluate how the elements of landscape are represented?
I mean, hedgerows, trees, field boundaries, groves, etc... how they look in close view/foreground or at distance; are they well bilanced/mixed?
My feeling is CloD' terrain is dotted by those elements, it's like a surface with a swarm of drawing pins skewered on randomly, this is my critique. The colour palette... I think it's well represented enough only for closeup views (if u stand in front a parked plane with rural contest around), inflight situation my feeling is it's too yellowish and desaturated... only in these aspect i prefere others games.
Are you satisfied how these elements are represented in CloD?
(stop, last speech on this argument)
Cheers
5797
5798

[David Hayward]

guys, please, after 34 pages of debate can we forget for an instant the green filter and simply evaluate how the elements of landscape are represented?
I mean, hedgerows, trees, field boundaries, groves, etc... how they look in close view/foreground or at distance; are they well bilanced/mixed?
My feeling is CloD' terrain is dotted by those elements, it's like a surface with a swarm of drawing pins skewered on randomly, this is my critique. The colour palette... I think it's well represented enough only for closeup views (if u stand in front a parked plane with rural contest around), inflight situation my feeling is it's too yellowish and desaturated... only in these aspect i prefere others games.
Are you satisfied how these elements are represented in CloD?
(stop, last speech on this argument)
Cheers

Whether or not that layout of the landscape perfectly matches the location being simulated is not that important to me. I don't have time to count the trees when I'm looking for low flying enemy aircraft. Color and lighting is much more important.

[speculum jockey]

Are you satisfied how these elements are 5797
5798

What are we supposed to be looking at here? I'm not familiar enough with the English countryside to know what's missing, or is in the wrong place, or should not be there.

[Therion_Prime]

Btw. nice WoP videos Mysticpuma. They look almost photorealistic!

[pupaxx]

What are we supposed to be looking at here? I'm not familiar enough with the English countryside to know what's missing, or is in the wrong place, or should not be there.

i was talking about how landscape elements are represented in WoP and CloD; how hedgerows, trees, bushes, field boundaries are simulated. the pics show in parallel these elements and how they are resolved...4me more naturally in WoP. the conformation of these objects seem more naturally looking in WoP. I submitted the picts at your judgement stop.

[JumpingHubert]

i have two things to say:

-in clod the very detailed elements of landscape "doesn´t come together". I hope you understand what i mean. In wop they come together more organic.

-in wop the color filter is a little bit overdone. For some experts here: its not only a green filter. On some maps there are blue filters too. In Clod there is (except low sun scenarios) nearly no filter. We need for example for clod a little bit blue filter to simulate atmosphere (yes, its blue). The farer you can look, the more blue.

[klem]

What are we supposed to be looking at here? I'm not familiar enough with the English countryside to know what's missing, or is in the wrong place, or should not be there.

Its mainly about the way the English counytryside is represented. Throughout the Thread there are FSX photo scenery shots and, it seems, some WoP shots that show hedgerows as continuous natural growths of bush interspersed with trees (not individually trees strung out as if planted to improve a desert road) and woods formed of interlocking trees (not a patch of ground with a few widely spaced trees scattered across it). The CoD feeling of the terrain is quite cartoon like in that respect.

We may not be counting the trees as someone said but if you live here and its part of your history you'd like it to represent what it is. It's an important part of the immersion.

"I'm flying over Kent, lets have a look. Oh no, it's a scene from the seven dwarfs." Apologies to 1C but you'll get the idea.

[RocketDog]

Klem, that's exactly how I feel about it. Neatly put.

[Friendly_flyer]

-in clod the very detailed elements of landscape "doesn´t come together". I hope you understand what i mean. In wop they come together more organic.

That is very well put!

I think it is a matter of distribution of "things" (tees, houses, willages etc) is a bit too even. From what I remember flying over England, trees would be clumped together in discreet woodlots, houses and farms would be found fairly close together etc. A quick look at Google Earth comnfirms this.

That, and hedgerows!

[bongodriver]

That is very well put!

I think it is a matter of distribution of "things" (tees, houses, willages etc) is a bit too even. From what I remember flying over England, trees would be clumped together in discreet woodlots, houses and farms would be found fairly close together etc. A quick look at Google Earth comnfirms this.

That, and hedgerows!

but it would have been very different in 1939/40, isn't that the point, all the photorealistic scenery ideas floating around have that 1 fatal flaw, and modern britain is much more aggriculturalised and urbanised than 1940's britain, there used to be 'real' woodlands instead or neatly planted rows of non-indigenous pine, all those of us that have flown over britain have never flown through a space/time warp and seen it in the 40's, I think the COD terrain is fine as it is and come the release of an SDK some clever mods can make Kent look however they like.

[Friendly_flyer]

Quite, but the question is how the landscape would differ. From literature, I would expect the landscape to be more small scale: Smaller fields, smaller roads, smaller farms (and more of them). The woodlots would probably have been larger and/or more numerous, and the suburbs would be much, much smaller than present, owing to smaller total population.

The hedgerows (if I remember this correctly) would have been more common than today.

[David Hayward]

Quite, but the question is how the landscape would differ. From literature, I would expect the landscape to be more small scale: Smaller fields, smaller roads, smaller farms (and more of them). The woodlots would probably have been larger and/or more numerous, and the suburbs would be much, much smaller than present, owing to smaller total population.

The hedgerows (if I remember this correctly) would have been more common than today.

Can you think of any good reasons why an arcade game with a tiny map would be able to include more trees and smaller fields than sim with a very large map?

[RocketDog]

Maybe they use a better method of drawing trees? You know, like RoF does.

[mazex]

One thing that should not be forgotten when discussing the English country side is the fact that the Brits are a conservative bunch - especially the farmers ;)

Google Earth as many sure know have a "history slider" that shows aerial maps from old days. Over the UK there is a rather large coverage of aerial photos from 1945 - most of London is there etc - and a lot further north. As Isle of Wight is also there I went to a random place (this is true - I did NOT search) and captured a shot from 1945 and one from 2005 (the latest):

1945:
http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/1205/wight1945.jpg
2005:
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/265/wight2005.jpg
And CoD (I know it's not the perfect alt etc but...)
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4796/wight1940cod.jpg

So many places today are not far from what they looked like during the war ;) Try it yourselves - it's even more fun in Google Earth as you may pull the "year slider" back and forth and see the lack of difference even more easy... There is a lot of Germany from 1945 too (Berlin etc). Interesting stuff!

For me CoD gets it quite right... Naturally it's not satellite mapped so the fields are "wrong" etc - but the repeat that is very obvious in WoP is not that obvious (even thogh I agree the mapping of tree lines etc in WoP is very nice).

Look at the WoP image from my original post - it's not that hard aligning the trees and forests etc if you take a small piece of land and then just repeat it... Marked them below:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9959/wopcomparerepeats.jpg

The thing is that in CoD the textures repeat (but much larger) - but they have tried adding forests where they should be - and roads. In WoP they just repeat it all (ground texture and the trees). It gets a heck of a lot easier getting them right then ;) But it get's a lot less realistic for many of us...

[David Hayward]

Maybe they use a better method of drawing trees? You know, like RoF does.

RoF is a great game, but there is nothing special about the RoF trees.

[Friendly_flyer]

Can you think of any good reasons why an arcade game with a tiny map would be able to include more trees and smaller fields than sim with a very large map?

Oh yes, I've got no problem with the trees being a big task to render, not to mention keeping track of. If proper woods are to be implemented in CoD, I think the dev team will have to come up with some way of making them without using large number of speedtrees.

Field size is a matter of tile graphics, and should be simpler to implement.

[Friendly_flyer]

Google Earth as many sure know have a "history slider" that shows aerial maps from old days. Over the UK there is a rather large coverage of aerial photos from 1945 - most of London is there etc - and a lot further north. As Isle of Wight is also there I went to a random place (this is true - I did NOT search) and captured a shot from 1945 and one from 2005 (the latest):

Thank you!

Putting the two maps on top of each other in Photoshop, it is easy to see that this bit of land has not changed much. About one in five fields seem to be spilt relative to their modern counterparts (I would have expected a higher number). Small bits of 1945 wood are now under the plough, but not much. An industrial area has been put up east of the fjord/rivermouth, but Newport is otherwise much as in 1945. All in all not a very great change.

[pupaxx]

@ jumpinghubert, klem, friendlyflyer, mazex

+1, exactly focused the question!

[esmiol]

i didn't know there were satellite in 1945 :)
ok i leave the room :D

[David Hayward]

Does anyone have a CoD map of the same area?

[Heliocon]

Oh yes, I've got no problem with the trees being a big task to render, not to mention keeping track of. If proper woods are to be implemented in CoD, I think the dev team will have to come up with some way of making them without using large number of speedtrees.

Field size is a matter of tile graphics, and should be simpler to implement.

Speed tree was never meant for a game like this, I dont know how they tweaked it though.

Just another sign of bad planning (but hopefully it will be fixed...)

[mazex]

Does anyone have a CoD map of the same area?

Updated my post above after a quick fly by in CoD - have uninstalled WoP so I can't do it in that one for comparison....

EDIT: The reason for uninstalling it is that I'm switching rig right now and had to deactivate it in preparation. I like all sims in different ways and WoP deserves the space on my secondary 1TB disk. It's always interesting to follow what they do and sponsor the few companies that at least try these days!

[JumpingHubert]

@mazex
thanks for the great comparison. Maybe there is a simple solution for clod´s lack of dense forest: a new class of objects.......a forest layer as a hole without gaps. At the edge single bushes & trees. And a blue filter to "simulate" the atmosphere.

good graphics in simulations is important. It supports immersion.

[klem]

Oh yes, I've got no problem with the trees being a big task to render, not to mention keeping track of. If proper woods are to be implemented in CoD, I think the dev team will have to come up with some way of making them without using large number of speedtrees.

Field size is a matter of tile graphics, and should be simpler to implement.

I agree, I'd rather see a selection of 'blocked in' or one-piece woods and hedgerow models placed around and/or together instead of tightly grouping humungus numbers of individual trees to represent a wood.

What would the damage model have to be? Perimeter impact zones? Would that be easier to model than all those individual trees? Do we really care if the 'wood' sways/doesn't sway? They could have just a perimeter of swaying trees. The visual immersion of the environment as a whole, especially from the air, is more important than isolated exactly correct swaying trees IMHO. 1C could use those for specimen trees on airfields etc.

I expect the trees we have would be useful in land battles with driveable tanks etc., but perhaps 'block' woods could be modelled to be driven through with aircraft damage modelling confined to the perimiter 'bubble'? When your heading down to it at 350KIAS there's not much point in fussing over which branch of which tree you hit.

[David Hayward]

@mazex
thanks for the great comparison. Maybe there is a simple solution for clod´s lack of dense forest: a new class of objects.......a forest layer as a hole without gaps. At the edge single bushes & trees. And a blue filter to "simulate" the atmosphere.

good graphics in simulations is important. It supports immersion.


CoD matches the actual maps beautifully. What "lack of dense forest" are you talking about?

[Malk]

Wrong.

You sir dazzle me with your solid arguments! :rolleyes:

[unreasonable]

Very helpful post mazex, thanks.

According to the University of Reading website:

"Since 1945 the UK has lost:

95% of its wildflower rich meadows

30 -50% of its ancient lowland woods

50% of its heathland

50% of its lowland fens, valley and basin mires

40% of its hedgerows"

Of the hedgerow loss, some part would be down to urban sprawl, some due to grubbing up or neglect of rural hedgerows. I have not yet found a way to quantify this, but have some ideas if I can find the numbers for land area usages.

So if we had 100 miles of hedges in 1945, now we have 60. So if we took a square grid representing hedges now, and imposed another set of horizontal lines over it we would double the number of "fields" with a 50% increase in hedge length giving us 90 miles of hedge. We can assign the remainder to urban sprawl as a first estimate.

So I was also a bit surprised that the 1945 and now photos seemed to show almost identical field boundries and numbers. This could just be regional variation, but...

then I remembered that many hedges are not grubbed up, they are simply neglected. When you neglect a hedge it slowly morphs into a line of trees, the most vigorous survivors shading out the laggards, with bank or ditch (if present) eroding away. The line of trees may eventually be felled (or, if elm, destroyed by the evil Dutch).

So it may be that some of the field boundries in the photos that were hedges in 1945 are now lines of trees or even just tractor paths. Now we need a photograph interpreter sub-forum.

So it looks as though COD gets the number of fields about right but is ailing in the hedgerow/tree management department.

(What a pity they did not use satellite mapping as a first estimate, then we could all be having fun finding our houses and farms....)

[pupaxx]

I agree, I'd rather see a selection of 'blocked in' or one-piece woods and hedgerow models placed around and/or together instead of tightly grouping humungus numbers of individual trees to represent a wood.

What would the damage model have to be? Perimeter impact zones? Would that be easier to model than all those individual trees? Do we really care if the 'wood' sways/doesn't sway? They could have just a perimeter of swaying trees. The visual immersion of the environment as a whole, especially from the air, is more important than isolated exactly correct swaying trees IMHO. 1C could use those for specimen trees on airfields etc.

I expect the trees we have would be useful in land battles with driveable tanks etc., but perhaps 'block' woods could be modelled to be driven through with aircraft damage modelling confined to the perimiter 'bubble'? When your heading down to it at 350KIAS there's not much point in fussing over which branch of which tree you hit.

+1 cristal clear analisys

[klem]

CoD matches the actual maps beautifully. What "lack of dense forest" are you talking about?

I think I understand what you are saying, the third picture in mazex's last (picture) post makes the larger forest areas look fine at altitude but if you look carefully at other areas and especially when you get down low you see those "scattered trees woods" and dotted tree lines along roads with no hedgerows as in some of the CoD screenshots that were posted earlier. Some roads do have occasional trees but the current setup is oversimplistic and cartoon-like.

[Friendly_flyer]

I expect the trees we have would be useful in land battles with driveable tanks etc., but perhaps 'block' woods could be modelled to be driven through with aircraft damage modelling confined to the perimiter 'bubble'? When your heading down to it at 350KIAS there's not much point in fussing over which branch of which tree you hit.

I personally believe this would be the best solution. The only problem would be if you landed in a wood by parachute. Then again, when in a parachute, you are effectively out of the most computer intensive game, and the CPU could be used to populate the wood patch (or nearest 100 meters around you) with speed trees.

Unfortunately I have absolutely no programming skills, so I don't know if it is at all possible, not to mention feasible.

[Viper2000]

Landing your parachute in trees is relatively unlikely to kill you compared with flying into trees in your aeroplane.

It would be relatively simple to just say
If parachute then
trees = not deadly
else
trees = deadly
end if

Personally I think that the immersion factor would be greatly improved if we had hedges, power lines, phone lines, plough furrows and crops to contend with when attempting forced landings. At the moment, field selection is pretty much just anything approximately flat and not water = good...

Livestock would also make things interesting (even if it was static). I'm told that cows like to lick the dope from fabric covered aeroplanes, so the sim could add a few extra % damage points to aeroplanes which landed in fields with livestock... Of course, hitting a cow at 70 knots would do neither it nor the aeroplane much good either, and if you land in the same field as a bull then loss of doped fabric might well be the least of your worries!

[David Hayward]

Personally I think that the immersion factor would be greatly improved if we had hedges, power lines, phone lines, plough furrows and crops to contend with when attempting forced landings. At the moment, field selection is pretty much just anything approximately flat and not water = good...


You know what would also be cool? If 1C hired actual people to walk around the virtual map and give the finger to passing German aircraft.

[Heliocon]

One thing that should not be forgotten when discussing the English country side is the fact that the Brits are a conservative bunch - especially the farmers ;)

Google Earth as many sure know have a "history slider" that shows aerial maps from old days. Over the UK there is a rather large coverage of aerial photos from 1945 - most of London is there etc - and a lot further north. As Isle of Wight is also there I went to a random place (this is true - I did NOT search) and captured a shot from 1945 and one from 2005 (the latest):

1945:
http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/1205/wight1945.jpg
2005:
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/265/wight2005.jpg
And CoD (I know it's not the perfect alt etc but...)
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4796/wight1940cod.jpg

So many places today are not far from what they looked like during the war ;) Try it yourselves - it's even more fun in Google Earth as you may pull the "year slider" back and forth and see the lack of difference even more easy... There is a lot of Germany from 1945 too (Berlin etc). Interesting stuff!

For me CoD gets it quite right... Naturally it's not satellite mapped so the fields are "wrong" etc - but the repeat that is very obvious in WoP is not that obvious (even thogh I agree the mapping of tree lines etc in WoP is very nice).

Look at the WoP image from my original post - it's not that hard aligning the trees and forests etc if you take a small piece of land and then just repeat it... Marked them below:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9959/wopcomparerepeats.jpg

The thing is that in CoD the textures repeat (but much larger) - but they have tried adding forests where they should be - and roads. In WoP they just repeat it all (ground texture and the trees). It gets a heck of a lot easier getting them right then ;) But it get's a lot less realistic for many of us...

Good post MazeX. This is one of those things that 99.9% of people dont notice unless it has been pointed out to them or they are specifically looking for it.

[Viper2000]

You know what would also be cool? If 1C hired actual people to walk around the virtual map and give the finger to passing German aircraft.

Not really; this is England, not America... ;)

[David Hayward]

Not really; this is England, not America... ;)

OK, they could hire lots of people to riot over football matches. Lots of immersion there...

[W0ef]

Took a screenie as high up as I could while crashed on the ground.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4382/landscapeik.jpg

[Lololopoulos]

i see some repeats in the pic above. :grin:
well in my opinion, WOP gives people a better sensation of being in the air. while for some reason il2 series as well as cliffs of dover doesn't quite deliver that.

anybody agree?

[philip.ed]

Maybe because the water looks back, the colours look rather pastelly, and the transition of fields/trees/villages/and rivers look rather assembled, and not as natural as one might expect.
of course, it's just one picture :cool:

[David Hayward]

Maybe because the water looks back, the colours look rather pastelly, and the transition of fields/trees/villages/and rivers look rather assembled, and not as natural as one might expect.
of course, it's just one picture :cool:

The transition of the fields, trees, and villages looks just like the photographs from 1945. It would only look "natural" if there was no one living there.

[jojimbo]

ok what we need is,

CoD simulation/aircraft lighting etc.
WoP terrain graphics/gameplay/FPS
FSX whole globe world =

winning :)

WoP can be breathtaking but the arcady feel of the aircraft let it down
CoD is great over the channel but just doesnt play, its a lagmonster and lets
face it, the terrain graphics suck and look all looney cartooney, just like
most of IL2's ground textures since sturmovik

I got fsx out the other day and with GEX, REX and UTX all on max
it's unbeatable and the ultimate in flight simulation and all other would be's,inc CoD
pale into insignificance at Microsofts uberness. sorry guys but its true.

cfs1 plays better than CoD, has better campaign structure and playability once you
get over the graphics.but at least we can fly round the world.

i blame microsoft for all these "flat map" packages since cfs3, they totally lost it resorting to
a flat map of a bit of england and france, it just hasnt got that "awesomeness" of cfs1,2 and FS series
and which of you "eliteists" dont get cfs1 out every now and then huh? :) "Bomber busting over Bremen"
with the german voice package in , taking on a set of 3 x 16 Javelin down B17 formations in a rambock :)

afaiac, what we all need is the return of cfs1 type global sim, with mod sdk support with a completely new graphics package.
its such a pity, il2 devs couldnt come up with this ww2 combat sim ultimate package, because one day
its gonna happen, and until then all these Cod's and wop's are just a 30 bucks muse

[JG52Krupi]

ok what we need is,

CoD simulation/aircraft lighting etc.
WoP terrain graphics/gameplay/FPS
FSX whole globe world =

winning :)

CoD simulation/aircraft lighting etc.
WoP FPS
FSX whole globe world =

Thats better, thanks.

[Heliocon]

The transition of the fields, trees, and villages looks just like the photographs from 1945. It would only look "natural" if there was no one living there.

Your comments are starting to get really sad...

[unreasonable]

OK, they could hire lots of people to riot over football matches. Lots of immersion there...

What he means is that it should be two fingers...

[Lololopoulos]

Your comments are starting to get really sad...

I stopped reading his posts long ago. I'm quite impressed that he's been defending himself for that long, but his statements has became feeble and not very convincing anymore.

[robtek]

If you are done with bashing return to the topic please.

[David Hayward]

Your comments are starting to get really sad...

Coming from the guy who calls everyone a moron, that's pretty funny.

[GnigruH]

Uhm... Just use ignore?
Anyways...
We have to remember that clodo was, is and will always be a low-budget game, with all consequences of that fact.
One of them being graphics not as good as it could be.

Vanilla il2 could get away with being a low-budget game 10 years ago, but times have changed. Games became much more complicated and nowadays if there's not enough money invested at a dev stage, the game will probably suck, unless it carries some revolutionary ideas, this one does not... or has incrediblye playability, this one does not have that either.

[W0ef]

Uhm... Just use ignore?
Anyways...
We have to remember that clodo was, is and will always be a low-budget game, with all consequences of that fact.
One of them being graphics not as good as it could be.

Vanilla il2 could get away with being a low-budget game 10 years ago, but times have changed. Games became much more complicated and nowadays if there's not enough money invested at a dev stage, the game will probably suck, unless it carries some revolutionary ideas, this one does not.

Erm, I would definetely not classify CoD as a low-budget game. Especially since they spent six years on development :P

I personally think the graphics look quite good though so I must be the odd one out, and yes, of course CoD also has repeats just like WoP does (look at the last screen I posted carefully and you should be able to see it).

Does that matter? Naw, not for me.

With further optimization hopefully more and more features will become unlocked to make it look and play better and better. (Can´t wait for the water with transparancy and a working surf myself which was hinted at).

[David Hayward]

One of them being graphics not as good as it could be.


Could you post some screenshots of the WW2 flight sim that you think CoD's graphics are "not as good as it could be"? Thanks!

[No145_Hatter]

Why anyone would care about Kent is beyond me.

Sussex is far superior.

[Mysticpuma]

Totally agree....especially when you can fly here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikyjos89drU

Cheers, MP

[unreasonable]

Where is "here" - it certainly is not Sussex! :confused:

[Langnasen]

Totally agree....especially when you can fly here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikyjos89drU

Cheers, MP

Looked and sounded crap.

[JumpingHubert]

langnasen, it was only a fanboy test. You are the winner.

@video
stunning! Wings of Prey isn´t a simulation like Clod, but its a very good game.

[W0ef]

I like Mystic Pumas movies as well and think the landscape in WoP looks pretty damn fine personally. I didn't like the backlighting on the clouds but that is nitpicking.

Still think WoP is way too arcadey though :P

[David Hayward]

l
stunning! Wings of Prey isn´t a simulation like Clod, but its a very good game.

If it isn't a sim like CoD, why do WoP fanboys keep comparing it to CoD?

[jibo]

engine sounded like a electric shaver, and guns remind me hard times i've been through after having eaten several burritos

[philip.ed]

David, they are comparing elements. We were told CoD would have photo-realistic terrain to beat anything ever done before.
The terrain in the video above (WoP) looks beautiful, and a lot more natural that CoD. I can't see any argument against this, because the transition of textures to villages is smooth, the location of trees and other vegation is historically accurate and extremely natural.

I'm not bashing CoD, but pointing out that there are areas of improvement. Areas of the terrain in CoD are outstanding, but does it look like England? Not really. It's like calling a chicken burger a beef burger. It's still a burger, but just not quite beef, is it?

Now I know that WoP has postage sized maps, but the elements of the terrain could all be incorporated into CoD. The textures in CoD probably need a fair amount of improvement, and so does the location of vegetation. Indeed, just cutting down the number of trees to a realistic amount would improve fps!

Do you see what I'm saying? At the end of the day, the team are doing a brilliant job, but they're Russian! They know nothing of England compared to people who have lived here all their lives. That may sound harsh, and I don't mean to sound rude, but it is true.
Obviously, this is all constructive criticism for the team to take on board.

[Langnasen]

Everything in CoD would look better if it could have the sprinkling of tiny crystals removed from it. I don't know if it's the lack of FSAA or anisotropic filtering or what, but the grainy harshness, even at 2560 x 1600, looks bloody aweful.

[David Hayward]

David, they are comparing elements.

Which is completely irrelevant when you admit that they are 2 different types of games.

Besides, every element we have examined has looked better in CoD.

[JumpingHubert]

If it isn't a sim like CoD, why do WoP fanboys keep comparing it to CoD?there are not much second world war flightsims. I think thats the reason. I like parts of Clod (i hope more parts in the future) but also parts of Wop. To say clod is looking actually in all points better than wop is really nonsense. Clod has potential of course.

[David Hayward]

The terrain in the video above (WoP) looks beautiful, and a lot more natural that CoD. I can't see any argument against this, because the transition of textures to villages is smooth, the location of trees and other vegation is historically accurate and extremely natural.


By the way, that simply is not true. People have posted the CoD maps. They are an amazing match to the real photographs from 1945. No one has even attempted similar comparisons for WoP.

[David Hayward]

but they're Russian!

You could have save everyone a lot of time and just posted this. It explains everything.

[philip.ed]

By the way, that simply is not true. People have posted the CoD maps. They are an amazing match to the real photographs from 1945. No one has even attempted similar comparisons for WoP.

Actually, you are wrong. Cast your mind back about two years ago, when the BoP forum first surfaced. The Dev's posted b&w phots of dover docks from the 40's period, and showed pitcures of the terrain which perfectly matched every single field! People could see their houses! The attention to detail was extremely impressive...so impressive, that Oleg asked for this work, but they refused to give it to him, which was rather horrible.

Seriously mate, you're arguments are wearing thin. Accept that whilst CoD is overall a lot more impressive technically than WoP, there are elements of WoP which are extremely good. You're arguments are not constructive enough to offer any real credibility IMHO.

And every element we have examined is not better in CoD! Look at the layout of fields and hedges and trees in WoP. It's realistic. I know that CoD's trees look nicer, there is 3-D looking grass (which could be improved to RoF standards IMHO) the buildings are beautiful; but there are elements which make one think: "ah! This is England" and CoD just lacks that 'Englishness' to make the effect poignant.

[David Hayward]

Seriously mate, you're arguments are wearing thin. Accept that whilst CoD is overall a lot more impressive technically than WoP, there are elements of WoP which are extremely good. You're arguments are not constructive enough to offer any real credibility IMHO.


Look, there have been screenshots and maps posted on this very thread which show that CoD does an amazing job of simulating the countryside. It's not just my "thin arguments", it's actual side by side screenshots. No one has even attempted that for WoP. As long as no one attempts it, it's people who are arguing for WoP whose arguments are wearing thin.

If you think actual screenshots and maps are not "credible", I would like to hear your standards for credibility.

[philip.ed]

I think I made it clear that pictures have been posted showing field for field matchings in WoP (although thinking about this, I can't understand why some tiles repeat in areas...)

but yes, pictures showing this have not been posted in this topic.
But that still doesn't get past what I'm saying about the layout of the fields and the hedges and trees.
Clearly from all shots posted, this is better in WoP as it is more like England.

I think that, overall, CoD is better, but you have to understand, that areas of WoP have their merits.

[David Hayward]

I think I made it clear that pictures have been posted showing field for field matchings in WoP (although thinking about this, I can't understand why some tiles repeat in areas...)


They repeat because the devs are cheating. CoD does it too, but it isn't as easy to spot. And I haven't seen any WoP screenshots showing matching fields.


but yes, pictures showing this have not been posted in this topic.
But that still doesn't get past what I'm saying about the layout of the fields and the hedges and trees.
Clearly from all shots posted, this is better in WoP as it is more like England.


NO! It is not clear at all. You just said that "pictures showing this have not been posted in this topic". You can't follow that up by saying something is clear when PICTURES SHOWING THIS HAVE NOT BEEN POSTED.


I think that, overall, CoD is better, but you have to understand, that areas of WoP have their merits.

What sort of merit? CoD appears to be superior in every comparable metric except bugs (and the bugs will be fixed).

[RocketDog]

Look, there have been screenshots and maps posted on this very thread which show that CoD does an amazing job of simulating the countryside.

Well, I posted photographs I have taken while flying over the South of England that show CloD actually does a pretty mediocre job of representing the real life terrain. Amazing it is not.

[W0ef]

Totally OT but the map is the UK and the music is totally in theme! :P

X-Plane 9.x scenery, link from SimHQ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liDPL8Zu99A&feature=player_embedded#at=164

[David Hayward]

Well, I posted photographs I have taken while flying over the South of England that show CloD actually does a pretty mediocre job of representing the real life terrain. Amazing it is not.

I found your photographs and it appears that you think the CoD colors are washed out. Oddly, most of the complainers in here seem to prefer the washed out look.

In any case, I didn't seen anything about the terrain in your photographs that looked all that different from CoD. What's the difference?

[GuillermoZS]

Which is completely irrelevant when you admit that they are 2 different types of games.

Besides, every element we have examined has looked better in CoD.

What is irrelevant is the type of game when you are comparing graphics

[philip.ed]

NO! It is not clear at all. You just said that "pictures showing this have not been posted in this topic". You can't follow that up by saying something is clear when PICTURES SHOWING THIS HAVE NOT BEEN POSTED.



Pictures showing comparisons with areas of england in WoP have not been posted in this thread.
Pictures showing the representation of vegetation compared to photos of modern-day Britain have (largely, the layout is quite similar to that of the 1940's. see here:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AJStbONVqQg/RpQmXa-AEVI/AAAAAAAAAK8/ZS87HI2YkmM/s400/463px-Spitfire_banks.jpg

a modern picture: similar to the above, in many respects, and again, more similar in LAYOUT to WoP than CoD

http://www.bugbog.com/images/galleries/england_pictures/cotswolds_airview.jpg

please, read everything I write, don't be selective.

[David Hayward]

What is irrelevant is the type of game when you are comparing graphics

Type of game is everything. A computer has limited resources. If you simulate more detailed engine management you have fewer resources to keep track of trees and buildings.

[David Hayward]

Pictures showing comparisons with areas of england in WoP have not been posted in this thread.
Pictures showing the representation of vegetation compared to photos of modern-day Britain have (largely, the layout is quite similar to that of the 1940's. see here:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AJStbONVqQg/RpQmXa-AEVI/AAAAAAAAAK8/ZS87HI2YkmM/s400/463px-Spitfire_banks.jpg

a modern picture: similar to the above, in many respects, and again, more similar in LAYOUT to WoP than CoD

http://www.bugbog.com/images/galleries/england_pictures/cotswolds_airview.jpg

please, read everything I write, don't be selective.

I read everything, and I haven't been selective at all.

The bottom image LAYOUT looks just like CoD. In fact, the LAYOUT in BOTH images looks like CoD. Where is the WoP image so we can compare them?

[BigPickle]

You wont see many pics of field to field comparisons in here because this is the CoD forum, why dont you pop over to the WoP forum and have a look?
Dude I still cant belive you are still here 42 pages later banging on about how shit WoP is, your argument now hinges on something you said you havent seen, so go look.

I agree Phil that WoP terrain is extremely detailed and does have the English feel way more over CoD. To be honest i think at the moment it looks more like Russia or Ukrane in the summer, with UK factories and some houses and Windmills from Holland :)
I also think that if CoD works for some then when its improved they will be very happy but at the moment the skies are a bit lonely because not everyone who has bought the game can run it because of the coding issues they are trying to solve.
Hopefully when they get it sorted they will look at improving the terrain model somewhat but i think our hedges are a loong way off.

[Buchon]

http://www.bugbog.com/images/galleries/england_pictures/cotswolds_airview.jpg


Is this summer ?, because the Battle over Britain was in summer.

Dont looks like that photo was taken in summer, the grass is not yellowed by the hot of the summer, it looks like in spring.

Just like in WOP, the England map in WOP looks like spring or autumn.

Pretty green and grass to eye-candy players instead do an historical accurate environment.

[BigPickle]

Dead grass goes yellow, maybe in the height of summer after no rain some fields might fade a bit but not all. Grass gets its green colour from the sun through photosynthasis, if the grass moved away from green to much it wouldnt be able to process the sunlight and would die. Then turn yellow.

[philip.ed]

Buchon: looks like spring to me pal.
I wasn't focusing on colours when posting that; just the composition of the landscape. To me, this is England how I have seen it from the air (colours are objective) but yes, I'd imagine this to be spring-time :cool:

[David Hayward]

Dude I still cant belive you are still here 42 pages later banging on about how shit WoP is, your argument now hinges on something you said you havent seen, so go look.


I'm not talking about how shit WoP is. I removed it from my computer. I don't care how shit it is. I'm talking about how great CoD looks. The WoP fanboys don't seem to agree with me. Maybe they should head over to the WoP boards, eh?

[David Hayward]

The photographer used a circular polarizer to take that photo, so the colors are not what you would actually see with your eyes.

[BigPickle]

I think you might feel a little different if you bought CoD, one of the first things your realise when you pause the game and you can still move the camera and all the lighting and shadows still move etc is how easy it is to set up high quality screen shots, I mean you can even turn up the graphics while paused, take your screen and turn it down again.
So honestly its not that hard to focus on the bits that do look good granted, but when you play it I have to agree with philip that the terrain just doesnt feel like a country but more like a mixture of different countries, feels odd, cant really explain it.

[BigPickle]

The photographer used a circular polarizer to take that photo, so the colors are not what you would actually see with your eyes.

True they would be paler, but then the colours in photos are never what you really see i guess

[phoenix1963]

...I think that, overall, CoD is better, but you have to understand, that areas of WoP have their merits.

I largely agree with philip.ed's opinion, we've made similar comments long before CloD was released.
What's noticeable about the WoP pictures is the obvious object budget and hence limited detail in the distance and the use of haze. But actually, CloD could do with MORE haze, because that's what it's like in SE England almost all the time. philip.ed's posted view of the countryside looks unusually clear.
Where I think Oleg might have a point is the lack of colour saturation in the middle of the day. If you remember he challenged some critic to send him a RAW format photo, presumably on the grounds that jpeg etc may have hyped contrast. Certainly, when the sun is low, CloD looks a lot more how I experience Kent, but there's a fair bit of human perception involved as the eye darts around the scene, with the brain adjusting contrast continually. I've photographed landscapes specifically to compare with, supposedly realistic, paintings - you wouldn't believe the difference!
As philip.ed and others say, the lack of hedgerows is a real immersion killer. I suspect that's because they'd have to be tailored for the bumpy ground, but I don't know a great deal about modern graphics.

This is a good discussion, nobody here is trying to damage CloD, I think we all want it to succeed. But I also want to give pointers about how it could be better.

56RAF_phoenix

[David Hayward]

I think you might feel a little different if you bought CoD, one of the first things your realise when you pause the game and you can still move the camera and all the lighting and shadows still move etc is how easy it is to set up high quality screen shots, I mean you can even turn up the graphics while paused, take your screen and turn it down again.
So honestly its not that hard to focus on the bits that do look good granted, but when you play it I have to agree with philip that the terrain just doesnt feel like a country but more like a mixture of different countries, feels odd, cant really explain it.

Sorry, but you need a little more than "it doesn't feel right" to describe CoD if you're going to be pimping for WoP, because WoP feels like complete and total S H I T E.

And I really am not trying to convince you that WoP sucks. Feel free to enjoy it. I love playing RoF. But don't start talking about how WoP is better than CoD when the best you can come up with to back that up is "it just feels better". I own WoP. I know how it "feels", and I have no problem explaining it.

[W0ef]

http://www.bugbog.com/images/galleries/england_pictures/cotswolds_airview.jpg

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1467/codtest6.jpg

[BigPickle]

True RoF is very good, but i think the dev team was bigger and the game was generally coded better at the beginning.
~The photos above show what CoD needs, closer tree spacing for sure and small low bushes round the field boundaries, amongst other small things that add to the greater picture.
Like the fields are very scattered, British farm land fields are usually in groups, several of wheat, then several grazing land in a group for example, if you look at the screenshot above it looks too patchwork like, and compare it too the real photo you can see exactly what I mean.
Hope that clears that up David, Cheers for the aid W0ef :)

[Buchon]

http://www.bugbog.com/images/galleries/england_pictures/cotswolds_airview.jpg

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1467/codtest6.jpg

This is a great comparison between spring and summer (BoB time line), you can see how in IL2COD the grass is more yellowed by the hot of the summer, but some cultivated zone.

But WOP :

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9959/wopcomparerepeats.jpg

It is just wrong and not only for the repetition but for the environment that looks spring or autumn.

That is not summer !

[David Hayward]

Like the fields are very scattered, British farm land fields are usually in groups, several of wheat, then several grazing land in a group for example, if you look at the screenshot above it looks too patchwork like, and compare it too the real photo you can see exactly what I mean.
Hope that clears that up David, Cheers for the aid W0ef :)

The screenshots I see confirm that CoD does an amazing job of replicating British farmland. It's far better than any WW2 air sim I have ever seen. I could probably convince someone that the CoD screenshot is a photo. I have no idea what you are looking at.

[Dano]

It is just wrong and not only for the repetition but for the environment that looks spring or autumn.

That is not summer !

It also doesn't get anywhere close to looking like a sunny day, in fact I don't recall ever seeing a sunny day that didn't look overcast and grey (green?) in WoP but then it's been a while since I spent any time with it.

[unreasonable]

[QUOTE=Buchon;279043]Is this summer ?, because the Battle over Britain was in summer.

Dont looks like that photo was taken in summer, the grass is not yellowed by the hot of the summer, it looks like in spring.

Just like in WOP, the England map in WOP looks like spring or autumn.

Pretty green and grass to eye-candy players instead do an historical accurate environment.[/QUOTE

This is certainly summer, probably July.

If it were anytime in spring (March, April, May) then the wheat fields would be green not yellow or gold. UK wheat harvest is August - that crop looks pretty ripe to me (camera filters etc taken into account).

Also the trees would have much sparser leaf cover of a much paler shade.

The colour of grass pastureland is affected by the rainfall and direct sunlight, not temperature - in a very dry summer it might start to go yellow in July, but in a wet, cloudy summer you might see very little discolouration. (Anyway, calling UK summers "hot" is a slight exaggeration - at least it was before GW boosted the temperatures).

One of the problems we have with getting the colours "right" is that the BoB ran from 10th July to 7th September which covers the harvest period - the countryside in a damp July would look very different to the same in the middle of an unusually clear September.

[Skoshi Tiger]

The screenshots I see confirm that CoD does an amazing job of replicating British farmland. It's far better than any WW2 air sim I have ever seen. I could probably convince someone that the CoD screenshot is a photo. I have no idea what you are looking at.

+1

[sigur_ros]

http://www.bugbog.com/images/galleries/england_pictures/cotswolds_airview.jpg

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1467/codtest6.jpg

Field boundaries poorly defined. Trees too sparse. Not enough trees. Trees not dark enough, highlights too bright. No hedgerows. Yellow fields too yellow. Green fields too lime color. Not enough haze. No distant color desaturation.

[Lololopoulos]

Field boundaries poorly defined. Trees too sparse. Not enough trees. Trees not dark enough, highlights too bright. No hedgerows. Yellow fields too yellow. Green fields too lime color. Not enough haze. No distant color desaturation.

very well put.
+1

[jibo]

haze is not mandatory, it depends of the weather/visibility
Trees have to be partially removed (because trees are real trees in cod)
regarding the brightness the team is aware of the problem
wop is ok if you like colorized movies

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

was talking to a commercial pilot yesterday who flys regularly over Kent,he said he normally only sees haze from the sky around this time of the year,he said he used to hate training pilots this time of the year foir this reasonotherwise he said he saw very little of it other times

[unreasonable]

very well put.
+1

Agree, except for the haze part - as others have pointed out, this entirely depends on the weather in RL, and in COD should depend on the cloud setting in the mission builder. Additionally I would add too few golden-yellow wheat fields.

[RocketDog]

Field boundaries poorly defined. Trees too sparse. Not enough trees. Trees not dark enough, highlights too bright. No hedgerows. Yellow fields too yellow. Green fields too lime color. Not enough haze. No distant color desaturation.

Yep - that's about it. I'll post up some more photos taken while flying over Wiltshire in August, but they will only just reinforce this point.

I should also add that CloD's problems are worse with lighting around noon and less noticeable around dawn/dusk.

[BigPickle]

The screenshots I see confirm that CoD does an amazing job of replicating British farmland. It's far better than any WW2 air sim I have ever seen. I could probably convince someone that the CoD screenshot is a photo. I have no idea what you are looking at.
Well all these other guys who live in England seem to know what I'm on about David.
I'll say it again incase you missed it ~ The photos above show what CoD needs, closer tree spacing for sure and small low bushes round the field boundaries, amongst other small things that add to the greater picture.
Like the fields are very scattered, British farm land fields are usually in groups, several of wheat, then several grazing land in a group for example, if you look at the screenshot above it looks too patchwork like, and compare it too the real photo you can see exactly what I mean.
I can also add that there is no darkening in colour over distance, being a trained observer I know that is one of the first things you learn that over distance colours are darker.
I think the only reason your WoP screen dont look like summer is because of the filter you dont like.
I dont think you could convince anyone that that is a real photo both WoP and CoD are a long way off real life but i think WoP is closer to simulating the realistic horticultural model of English countryside.
The closest i have seen to real life in a screen shot was a RoF screen.

[andrea78]

Considering graphics, IMHO, COD does not seem a 2011 game... :(

[BigPickle]

nah i think it does, it just needs tuning because at the moment most systems can only run on normal video settings and there is a spectaular leap in quality between normal and high or very high.

[David Hayward]

Well all these other guys who live in England seem to know what I'm on about David.


No, they don't. They're forgetting that they're looking at a screenshot from a GAME. They're acting like they're comparing 2 photographs.

Try the same comparison between CoD and WoP. CoD blows WoP away.

[David Hayward]

i think WoP is closer to simulating the realistic horticultural model of English countryside.
The closest i have seen to real life in a screen shot was a RoF screen.

It's too bad that you kind find any screenshots supporting that view.

As much as I like RoF, it's not closer to real live than CoD. The colors are too washed out. It's better than WoP, but not CoD.

[GnigruH]

Could you post some screenshots of the WW2 flight sim that you think CoD's graphics are "not as good as it could be"? Thanks!
Okay, for the last time before putting you on my 'ignore list' I shall give you a clear example of what I've been talking about.

I said CloDo graphic is not good as it could be, right? Now..
Let's say anti-aliasing..
2x looks good
8x looks better
in Clodo 8x doesn't work like it should
therefore...
THE GRAPHICS DOESN'T LOOK AS GOOD AS IT COULD!

Yeah, that's it... and I hope you won't ask me for a proof that 8x doesn't work, and you won't be stating that it in fact works. Don't care anyway, cos' now you are ignored.

[David Hayward]

Okay, for the last time before putting you on my ignore list I shall give you a clear example of what I've been talking about.

I said CloDo graphic is not good as it could be, right? Now..
Let's say anti-aliasing..
2x looks good
8x looks better
in Clodo 8x doesn't work like it should
therefore...
THE GRAPHICS DOESN'T LOOK AS GOOD AS IT COULD!

Yeah, that's it... and I hope you won't ask me for a proof that 8x doesn't work, and you won't be stating that it in fact works. Won't see that anyway, cos' now you are ignored.

Do you actually think I care if you ignore me? That's pretty funny.

In any case, no one is arguing that CoD could not look better. Of course it could look better. The issue is that lots of people are claiming that WoP looks better than CoD, and that is absurd.

[slick118]

Do you actually think I care if you ignore me? That's pretty funny.

In any case, no one is arguing that CoD could not look better. Of course it could look better. The issue is that lots of people are claiming that WoP looks better than CoD, and that is absurd.

It does.

[David Hayward]

It does.

Not here on planet Earth.

[RocketDog]

It's too bad that you kind find any screenshots supporting that view.

As much as I like RoF, it's not closer to real live than CoD. The colors are too washed out. It's better than WoP, but not CoD.

You do realise that you can set saturation in RoF to any value you like just by editting the startup.cfg file?

[David Hayward]

You do realise that you can set saturation in RoF to any value you like just by editting the startup.cfg file?

I should not have to. I judge the game based on how the devs set it up.

Don't get me wrong. RoF is a fantastic game. The graphics are amazing. But, if you judge the graphics by the same standards that some people are judging CoD graphics, RoF does no better.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Field boundaries poorly defined. Trees too sparse. Not enough trees. Trees not dark enough, highlights too bright. No hedgerows. Yellow fields too yellow. Green fields too lime color. Not enough haze. No distant color desaturation.

From the blueness of the sky the photo was taken with a polarising lens. Colours in the photo do not match what the eye would see unless you were weaing polarising sun glasses.

[GloDark7]

The issue is that lots of people are claiming that WoP looks better than CoD, and that is absurd.

WoP clearly does look better than CoD. Cockpits no, but all other graphical elements yes.

[David Hayward]

WoP clearly does look better than CoD. Cockpits no, but all other graphical elements yes.

Not here in the real world. CoD is clearly closer to real world color, lighting, and terrain. The screenshots posted on this thread are pretty definitive. If there are screenshots showing that WoP is better, they haven't been posted here.

[sigur_ros]

Not here in the real world. CoD is clearly closer to real world color, lighting, and terrain. The screenshots posted on this thread are pretty definitive. If there are screenshots showing that WoP is better, they haven't been posted here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yunSRfnsVck

[philip.ed]

David, for the last time, people in England (I'll put this in caps just so you take note) ARE EXPLAINING TO YOU THE FACT THAT COD HAS A DISTINCT LACK OF:
-CLOSE TREE SPACINGS
-HEDGEROWS
-DARKERS TREES WHICH IS WHAT WOULD BE SEEN FROM ALTITUDE (OR, INDEED, ANY DISTANCES)

Colour is another matter, but these are all features of the English landscape which make it look like England, rather than another country.
And, in this sense, WoP largely does a better job! The evidence is clear in these topics. There are no randomly placed trees in RoF, or long lines of sparcely spaced trees which is rarely seen in the English landscape.

The Colours in CoD are largely good, as are the lovely landscape objects. But these features are poorly modelled in CoD's current state and need improving.

I don't understand what you can't understand about this?
You are not English, I take it? So have you ever flown over England, or experienced its landscape on a regular basis? Because clearly you are just blindly stating your faith in CoD, without really expressing how, although CoD has many great areas, it is far from perfect in showing the English landscape.

[Houndstone Hawk]

FSX through the eyes of the thread starter.... (1st image) followed by 3 of mine from a kent fly-around last night.

It's my opinion that FSX is always going to be far superior out of the 3 (FSX, WOP & COD) because of its sheer volume of 3rd party payware (although the only addons I am currently using are Horizon's Generation X VFR scenery & the A2A Spit).
Having said that, COD does what it does very, very well. It's a deeply immersive combat sim & very ambitious with its environment. WOP can look good at times but the maps are miniscule; COD is loading up a huge theatre each time we play.
Sorry if this has already been said; I haven't fully read the entire thread.

[Sauf]

COD
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/images-2.jpg

WOP
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/WOP.jpg

[pupaxx]

Sorry if this has already been said; I haven't fully read the entire thread.

Don't you?? But you shoud know what u missed!!! I suggest it to u, a very edifying lecture... but don't fall asleep after page 40!;)
Cheers

[pupaxx]

cod
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/images-2.jpg

wop
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/wop.jpg

lol!!

[David Hayward]

David, for the last time, people in England (I'll put this in caps just so you take note) ARE EXPLAINING TO YOU THE FACT THAT COD HAS A DISTINCT LACK OF:
-CLOSE TREE SPACINGS
-HEDGEROWS
-DARKERS TREES WHICH IS WHAT WOULD BE SEEN FROM ALTITUDE (OR, INDEED, ANY DISTANCES)


Philip, I hate to break it to you, but you do not speak for all the people in England. I have seen plenty of people from England who think that CoD does a pretty good job of simulating England's landscape.

And your clams that WoPuke does a better job are utterly ridiculous because YOU HAVE NO F-ING SCREENSHOTS WHICH SUPPORT YOUR VIEWS. IF WINGS OF PUKE DID A BETTER JOB YOU WOULD POST SCREENSHOTS WHICH SUPPORT THAT CLAIM. YOU HAVEN'T, SO PLEASE STOP PRETENDING THAT IT IS AN ACCEPTED FACT. IT ISN'T.

[philip.ed]

How's this for you:
nice and neat layout, just like in the photos posted before hand.
It's far from an absolutely perfect representation, but it's a damn site better than CoD. And that is the opinion of both an English person, and someone who has compared these shots to photos. Show me a picture of CoD with a border layout of fields and trees similar to England....you won't find one.

I'm only advocating layouts here, just to say, not colours. And similar pictures of WoP have been posted in this thread...

Oh, and would those English people who mention, please stand up?

I mean, if this won't cinvince you, I'm wasting my time. because I'm not slamming CoD, just saying that it is far from perfect.

[David Hayward]

How's this for you:

Other than the fact that it looks like complete shit, what about it?

[Houndstone Hawk]

Philip, I hate to break it to you, but you do not speak for all the people in England. I have seen plenty of people from England who think that CoD does a pretty good job of simulating England's landscape.

And your clams that WoPuke does a better job are utterly ridiculous because YOU HAVE NO F-ING SCREENSHOTS WHICH SUPPORT YOUR VIEWS. IF WINGS OF PUKE DID A BETTER JOB YOU WOULD POST SCREENSHOTS WHICH SUPPORT THAT CLAIM. YOU HAVEN'T, SO PLEASE STOP PRETENDING THAT IT IS AN ACCEPTED FACT. IT ISN'T.

Wings of Puke? Bloody hell mate how old are you?

[David Hayward]

Wings of Puke? Bloody hell mate how old are you?

47

[philip.ed]

OK, new picture added (from the demo)
And please, be analytical in your answers. You wouldn't get an E grade in a history essay by saying 'it's shit.'

[kristorf]

You wouldn't get an E grade in a history essay by saying 'it's shit.'

Owwwwwwww

[Avala]

COD
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/images-2.jpg

WOP
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/WOP.jpg

But, it's more like:

COD
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg75/AvalaNo1/images-2.jpg


WOP
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/WOP.jpg

[philip.ed]

I think this is what I meant. Colours are rather pathetic at showing summer-time Britain. But all of that aside, the layout is a lot closer to England that CoD...

[Sauf]

But, it's more like:

COD
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg75/AvalaNo1/images-2.jpg


WOP
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/WOP.jpg

Touché

[Houndstone Hawk]

47

Wings of Prey ... Better than COD visually but only that. COD far supercedes it in all other areas as an overall experience (WOP has little to no immersion qualities atall) & yes, speaking as a Brit, COD doesn't do a particularly great job at portraying the realism of the South Eastern English environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ73Fh9FL_I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_dtw6I_M20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdv485Vnah4

[David Hayward]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=5823&d=1304697864

http://www.bugbog.com/images/galleries/england_pictures/cotswolds_airview.jpg

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1467/codtest6.jpg


It isn't even a close call. The WoP screenshot looks like garbage. The CoD shot looks like the photo. WoP may have more trees, but that doesn't make it look more like the landscape in the photo.

Seriously, it is not possible to look at those 3 shots and not say that WoP looks more real unless you are on the graphic arts staff for WoP, and even they would probably admit that CoD looks better.

[Sauf]

God help us if David Hayward and Wolf Rider ever get into a debate!

[Houndstone Hawk]

@ David Hayward

But your pics highlight beautifully the very point that is painstakingly trying to be put across to you. The fact that the trees are so isolated & apart gives it an extremely un-uk feel, more akin to the mediterranean etc.

[BigPickle]

No, they don't. They're forgetting that they're looking at a screenshot from a GAME. They're acting like they're comparing 2 photographs.QUOTE]

Mate your arrogance is staggering at times, now your gonna tell me that you know people and how they think, all because it dont suite your view?

[QUOTE]The issue is that lots of people are claiming that WoP looks better than CoD, and that is absurd.Absurd to you and you cant stand people having views other than your own clearly. Besides NO ONE HAS SAID WOP IS BETTER JUST THE LANSCAPE MODEL LOOKS AND FEELS MORE LIKE ENGLAND.

Oh and some people are agreeing with my opinion and I am agreeing with theirs because we think the landscape model is WoP looks better than CoD, No green filter, no high contrast just the landscape model.
I've never thought of it in a way too whos on whos side so I'm afraid your on your own their I just used your example to demonstrate my point.

[Buchon]

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1467/codtest6.jpg

Im the only one that are aware that in this screenshot the trees are not set at Very High, that is why there spacing between them :rolleyes:

[BigPickle]

No, they don't. They're forgetting that they're looking at a screenshot from a GAME. They're acting like they're comparing 2 photographs.Mate your arrogance is staggering at times, now your gonna tell me that you know people and how they think, all because it dont suite your view?

The issue is that lots of people are claiming that WoP looks better than CoD, and that is absurd.Absurd to you and you cant stand people having views other than your own clearly.
Besides NO ONE HAS SAID WOP IS BETTER JUST THE LANSCAPE MODEL LOOKS AND FEELS MORE LIKE ENGLAND.

Some people are agreeing with my opinion and I am agreeing with theirs because we think the landscape model is WoP looks better than CoD, No green filter, no high contrast just the landscape model.
I've never thought of it in a way too whos on whos side so I'm afraid your on your own their I just used your example to demonstrate my point.

@ Buchon - Valid point but I even at roof top level collections of trees branches blend together, like in a tree line or woods for example, if you stand in a tree line or small coppice you will see limited visiblity upwards, now imagine just 100ft up in the air it looks even harder to see through them.

[David Hayward]

@ David Hayward

But your pics highlight beautifully the very point that is painstakingly trying to be put across to you. The fact that the trees are so isolated & apart gives it an extremely un-uk feel, more akin to the mediterranean etc.


It does nothing of the sort. The CoD screenshot is virtually identical to the photo. The CoD "isolated trees" are blind WoP fanboyism. The same "isolated trees" exist in the WoP shot.

[BigPickle]

yes but its the branches dave, look you cant ignore it lol cos its true. Go outside your house and look at how the trees braches knit with trees close together creating a dense look, no how do you think its gonna look at height?

[Houndstone Hawk]

It does nothing of the sort. The CoD screenshot is virtually identical to the photo. The CoD "isolated trees" are blind WoP fanboyism. The same "isolated trees" exist in the WoP shot.

WOP FANBOYISM?????????? :rolleyes: Read some my previous posts & you'll soon get a picture of my feelings toward the highly arcade, flat-as-a pancake WOP but the fact remains ... it looks better as a BoB sim environmentally. This is largely down to the fact that COD has to cope with such a huge theatre whereas the console-like arcade feel of WOP means it only has to draw miniscule theatres each time.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

I live in and have travelled all over England and also own and play WOP,COD and ROF and it was the colour and lack of realistic English countryside hedgerows and Trees that spoilt the COD experience for me,otherwise its got the makings of a good game.

[Langnasen]

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1467/codtest6.jpg

That looks a damn sight more like England than WoP does. The problem with CoD's overall look has everything to do with lack of FSAA and AF and nothing to do with design and layout. Digital Vibrance has sorted the colour for me too.

[Houndstone Hawk]

I live in and have travelled all over England and also own and play WOP,COD and ROF and it was the colour and lack of realistic English countryside hedgerows and Trees that spoilt the COD experience for me,otherwise its got the makings of a good game.

+1

[BigPickle]

COD
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/images-2.jpg

WOP
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c93/spritzen/WOP.jpg

LOL :-P Dude i so nearly posted a picture of a black & white graveyard photo with the title 'Real Life'

That would have been wrong right.:???:

@Langnasen (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/member.php?u=26414) digital vibrance??

[David Hayward]

yes but its the branches dave, look you cant ignore it lol cos its true. Go outside your house and look at how the trees braches knit with trees close together creating a dense look, no how do you think its gonna look at height?

Are you now complaining that CoD trees don't have enough branches?

Look, I have had enough. The post with the WoP screenshot, CoD screenshot, and actual photo pretty much says it all. If you expect the CoD devs to make that game look more like WoP in any way, you are not going to be happy. WoP looks like crap. If you like it, that's great, but anyone looking at that post realizes immediately that CoD is closer to the real photo. If you are counting tree branches, then you are just desperate, and there is no point to responding to you. If you have any other points you'd like to make, just look at page 47 of this thread. It is my response to anything further you have to say on this subject.

[W0ef]

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1467/codtest6.jpg

Im the only one that are aware that in this screenshot the trees are not set at Very High, that is why there spacing between them :rolleyes:


Erm, as far as I'm aware I'm running all settings maxed out, that includes the trees :)

[Buchon]

What makes the difference here is the hedgerows.

But there hedgerows in the FMB :rolleyes:

So I guess that hedgerows was canned from the map in the release cause the performance problems.

You guys should not forget that when IL2COD was launched it faced performance issues related the trees, and basically managing the objects in the map.

[BigPickle]

Are you now complaining that CoD trees don't have enough branches?

Look, I have had enough. The post with the WoP screenshot, CoD screenshot, and actual photo pretty much says it all. If you expect the CoD devs to make that game look more like WoP in any way, you are not going to be happy. WoP looks like crap. If you like it, that's great, but anyone looking at that post realizes immediately that CoD is closer to the real photo. If you are counting tree branches, then you are just desperate, and there is no point to responding to you. If you have any other points you'd like to make, just look at page 47 of this thread. It is my response to anything further you have to say on this subject.

No dave im not complaining about about trees not having enough branches, your complaining about me thinking thats what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the trees are two sparcely placed so increase the branches or place them closer together to make it look more dense.

Oh and nearly forgot :
Do you actually think I care if you ignore me? That's pretty funnyAs quoted by you.

Nice, you ignorant little sh*t.As quoted by Alan Partridge

[philip.ed]

OK David, that's fine. I mean, you really are in a minority here. It's clear in the CoD pictures that there is a lack of hedgerows, there are too many randomly placed trees than is necessary, and also the trees should be neatly arranged in patches of wood-land and forest.

WoP models the neat look of the countryside very well. COlours and such are another matter entirely.

Cod models the fields and colours nicely (maybe the textures could be slightly better in quality).

That's all from me. I mean, personally, I wouldn't ask an American to explain my country, so really your posts don't hold a lot of water to me. I'm not being rude, just honest.

[David Hayward]

Page 47.

[Sauf]

I think with all our expectations being raised over time that we do forget it is primarly a COMBAT sim, which it does exceptionally well, if we can get smooth game/flight play I can live with whatever the ground looks like tbh.

[Buchon]

Erm, as far as I'm aware I'm running all settings maxed out, that includes the trees :)

Oh so you are flying a low dense trees zone, I guess you should fly a forest zone the next time :rolleyes:

Then some naysayers will be angry and jump to another guess ;)

[Houndstone Hawk]

Are you now complaining that CoD trees don't have enough branches?

Look, I have had enough. The post with the WoP screenshot, CoD screenshot, and actual photo pretty much says it all. If you expect the CoD devs to make that game look more like WoP in any way, you are not going to be happy. WoP looks like crap. If you like it, that's great, but anyone looking at that post realizes immediately that CoD is closer to the real photo. If you are counting tree branches, then you are just desperate, and there is no point to responding to you. If you have any other points you'd like to make, just look at page 47 of this thread. It is my response to anything further you have to say on this subject.

"Crap", "Puke", "Shit".
Maybe a good thing you're going to refrain from the debate.
I think the other poster (the one, like everyone else, not using spoilt-kid playground descriptions) has a very fair point though in that the FSAA & general unoptimization of COD is more to blame than the game design. Things are only going to get better.

[BigPickle]

"Crap", "Puke", "Shit".
Maybe a good thing you're going to refrain from the debate.
I think the other poster (the one, like everyone else, not using spoilt-kid playground descriptions) has a very fair point though in that the FSAA & general unoptimization of COD is more to blame than the game design. Things are only going to get better.

Hear hear, I said something along those lines 20 odd pages back...but then i got drunk and let his arrogance annoy me into retaliating.
High road well taken Hawk buddy.

[David Hayward]

BigPickle, I'm not ignoring you. I care deeply about every post you make. Deeply. It's just that my response to every one of your posts on this subject will not be changing. If you have anything further to say on this subject you will see my response on page 47 of this thread. I would never ignore you.

[Dano]

OK David, that's fine. I mean, you really are in a minority here. It's clear in the CoD pictures that there is a lack of hedgerows, there are too many randomly placed trees than is necessary, and also the trees should be neatly arranged in patches of wood-land and forest.

WoP models the neat look of the countryside very well. COlours and such are another matter entirely.

Cod models the fields and colours nicely (maybe the textures could be slightly better in quality).



Spot on in my opinion, and out of the two I prefer the look of CoD by a long way.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

I think with all our expectations being raised over time that we do forget it is primarly a COMBAT sim, which it does exceptionally well, if we can get smooth game/flight play I can live with whatever the ground looks like tbh.

Like WOP?:)

[BigPickle]

@ Dave - Wow thanks mate I'm so glad you care so deeply, I can finally rest at night in my bed knowing that you value my opinions so much you just have to tell me publicly.

C'mon i've probably got about 30 years more experience at sarcasam than you.

Why cant you understand no-one is trying to force you to change your opinion?
They, myself included just want the chance to talk about our own opinions without listening to childish insults because you dissagree.
I mean think about it, how would the Wings Of Prey devs feel hearing you trash their hard work? and yet you started this thread denouncing people who you think are doing the same to CoD, its just opinions mate, and everyone has em, being cross or vindictive because some peoples are different is a waste of effort.

[Baron]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=5823&d=1304697864

http://www.bugbog.com/images/galleries/england_pictures/cotswolds_airview.jpg

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1467/codtest6.jpg


It isn't even a close call. The WoP screenshot looks like garbage. The CoD shot looks like the photo. WoP may have more trees, but that doesn't make it look more like the landscape in the photo.

Seriously, it is not possible to look at those 3 shots and not say that WoP looks more real unless you are on the graphic arts staff for WoP, and even they would probably admit that CoD looks better.



End of discussion.


And black/darkbrown lines along fields doesnt make hedge rows in my book. Sry.

[Sauf]

Hi Snake, and no offense intended, but I have flown with online squads using only full real, on and off for the last 5 years of il2, I did buy WOP after a break from flying (working away from home for 16 months on and off) as I thought a change would be good, Played it for half a day and never looked at it since, something I would give my 9 year old boy to play with to teach him the basics of flight dynamics. Also downloaded ROF demo and gave that a shot but couldnt get into it, though that may have been more to the limited game play with the demo than the game itself. Way things are going might have to try it again.

PS, will gladly meet up with you online one day mate to have a fly around as your wingman, you can show me the sights of Kent. S`

[Heliocon]

Not reading all this crap haywards posts because it doesnt seem to end - but keep in mind even if WOP looks worse than cod (I think its situational atm) the fact is that wop performes super smooth maxed out on really mediocre systems. COD does not.

Also the pic of wop is taken with low graphics settings (I notice a lack of decent AA).

[David Hayward]

I mean think about it, how would the Wings Of Prey devs feel hearing you trash their hard work? and yet you started this thread denouncing people who you think are doing the same to CoD, its just opinions mate, and everyone has em

If I thought they cared about my opinion I'd go to their message board and complain over there. I'm quite sure they don't care.

I'm equally convinced that the CoD devs don't care if you think that WoP looks better, or even if it includes hedges like WoP. I'm sure they would model the English farmland exactly if the average PC had the resources available. Since that is not the case, it still appears that they did a far better job than does WoP. It's more than just the tree spacing and hedges. See page 47.

being cross or vindictive because some peoples are different is a waste of effort.

You need to tell that to the people who continue to whine about CoD. I'm not cross or vindictive at all. I'm looking forward to when it is released in the US.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

Hi Snake, and no offense intended, but I have flown with online squads using only full real, on and off for the last 5 years of il2, I did buy WOP after a break from flying (working away from home for 16 months on and off) as I thought a change would be good, Played it for half a day and never looked at it since, something I would give my 9 year old boy to play with to teach him the basics of flight dynamics. Also downloaded ROF demo and gave that a shot but couldnt get into it, though that may have been more to the limited game play with the demo than the game itself. Way things are going might have to try it again.

PS, will gladly meet up with you online one day mate to have a fly around as your wingman, you can show me the sights of Kent. S`

~S~ Sauf
No offence taken i wasnt trying to say WOP is a better simulator in the FM etc just that it looks more like Kent to me than does COD and I really want COD to be a good immersive game but the land colour and layout spoils the immersion whereas when im flying over kent in WOP with Trackir it looks more like the kent Countryside. thanks for the offer of winging but I think the roles should be the other way round.

[GloDark7]

Not here in the real world. CoD is clearly closer to real world color, lighting, and terrain. The screenshots posted on this thread are pretty definitive. If there are screenshots showing that WoP is better, they haven't been posted here.

That's a matter of opinion. I am of the opinion that WoP is graphically superior and with a properly calibrated screen it looks incredible. Blue Scorpion posted some very good shots right here in this thread we're posting in. Superb shots.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=275422&postcount=47

Replays play back to this level of quality with high consistent fps (60fps).

I am obviously a fan. I am very impressed by it and it's level of support. FM is very good with the latest update and many aircraft are very close to historical performance test data.

It has it's short comings which the devs are aware of, but they are listening. It's a bloody good effort. A fantastic first effort. The sequel has so much potential.

I am not in a WoP loving, CoD hating camp. I have both games and want to see CoD become a success and get fixed. Presently CoD is a mess and performance is dreadful across the board. Landscapes are saturated and unnatural. It's cockpits are a thing of beauty by contrast. WoP's colours could be better than they are, but they are better than Cod.

It's only another game in a small PC genre. You like it or you don't. All this 'Wings of Puke, crap, shite'. I refuse to believe these are the utterances of an adult. What's WITH that? Your hatred of it is palpable.

Speaking of the real world, you are aware these are just games...?

Glo (with first hand experience of the English countryside)

[Friendly_flyer]

It does nothing of the sort. The CoD screenshot is virtually identical to the photo. The CoD "isolated trees" are blind WoP fanboyism. The same "isolated trees" exist in the WoP shot.

No, it is not blind fanboyism.

I do not own WoP, I never had the time to buy it, and like you I find the green haze entirely overdone. The washed out colours too could possibly pass of as a bleak Central European winter, but never as a Britsih summer.

However, just when it comes to the trees and their placement, they do feel more natural, and is a much closer match for teh photoes. Now remember, back in the 1940ies, there were even more hedgerows than now.

What is lacking from CoD 8and which WoP has solved quite smartly by their dark lines, is bushes. There are a lot of isolated trees in CoD. As was noted, it gives the terrain a more Mediterranian look. The typical British landscape has a lot more bushes than trees really. If you want to see a decent rendering of the mid-ceentury British countryside, I'd suggest "Thomas the Tank Engine" (the original series).

With the size of the CoD map, implementing bushed the way they have with trees would likely not be practical. I'm not a programmer, but I think some large bush-objevts to fill out the forests and some long ones for the hedges would do.

[GuillermoZS]

http://www.bugbog.com/images/galleries/england_pictures/cotswolds_airview.jpg
.

This photograph has obviously been color corrected and oversaturated to look nice... it does not look as you would see that landscape in that same moment and in that position with your own eyes. Same problem with CloD colors, oversaturated IMO.