CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[mazex]

Did one of these comparisons when the first landscape shots of CoD arrived to I thought a revisit with the current version would be interesting as I've read some people that are discontent with CoD that said they where going back to FSX, X-Plane, WoP etc....

So let's compare apples and pears?

FSX on max:

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/4294/cliffsofdoverfsx.jpg

CoD on high (on my old rig with no stuttering and rather OK fluid fps - better than FSX!):

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3615/cliffsofdovercod.jpg

Ohh - and then we have the bunch that say that WoP has so much better graphics than CoD (which they claim does not look much better than IL2). Lets test that?

CoD (aka "the real Deal"?):
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9035/codtherealdeal.jpg

WoP:
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6459/wopcomparev3.jpg

And add IL2 (pimped):
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/3042/il2comparev2.jpg

[jibo]

sorry il2 is better for me


486 DX2 66mhz
4MB ram
S3 Virge

[W0ef]

Nice!

Makes you realize how good this game actually is (can be ;) ).

[mazex]

sorry il2 is better for me


486 DX2 66mhz
4Mo ram
S3 Virge

Mmm, is the Virge an upgrade compared to my Trio?

[Letum]

WoP has those horrible filters, but the shape and definition of the fields and patches of woodland looks MUCH better than CloD.

I think this is a fairer representation of FSX; the South East England scenery pack:
The onlt one to get the colours about right.

http://i1-games.softpedia-static.com/screenshots/VFR-Real-Scenery-Vol-3-Wales-SW-England_1.jpg

[jibo]

Mmm, is the Virge an upgrade compared to my Trio?

yeah it has a brand new 3D engine, i'am not sure we can be friends

[mazex]

yeah it has a brand new 3D engine, i'am not sure we can be friends

Nope - I went from my Trio64 to the Matrox Millenium (v1). The worlds least used 3D hardware. But the 2D was good!

[mazex]

WoP has those horrible filters, but the shape and definition of the fields and patches of woodland looks MUCH better than CloD.

I think this is a fairer representation of FSX; the South East England scenery pack:
The onlt one to get the colours about right.

http://i1-games.softpedia-static.com/screenshots/VFR-Real-Scenery-Vol-3-Wales-SW-England_1.jpg

Down low over the cliffs please for comparison! I can go to Google Maps to look at satellite images ;)

[JG52Krupi]

WoP has those horrible filters, but the shape and definition of the fields and patches of woodland looks MUCH better than CloD.

I think this is a fairer representation of FSX; the South East England scenery pack:
The onlt one to get the colours about right.

http://i1-games.softpedia-static.com/screenshots/VFR-Real-Scenery-Vol-3-Wales-SW-England_1.jpg

Wow that looks horrible.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Take the screens from same place as close as possible with same position of plane etc.. for example over Dover to get good comparison. Otherwise nice set of pics.

[Dano]

Wow that looks horrible.

I bet it looks even worse down low...

[Letum]

Wow that looks horrible.

It looks horrible?
It's a photo...it's a photo of South East England.

it doesn't have nice effects like distance desaturation/blue, but given that it is essentially a photo, does that mean that you think SE England looks horrible?


ed: just to be clear, I'm not trying to claim FSX scenery is better than anything...It's not my cup of tea, but I do think "Horrible" is a strange word for a photo of the landscape.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

im a big fan of WOP but from those pics IL2 looks the most natural

[ctec1]

http://sbcglobalpwp.att.net/c/t/ctec1/ATT_Files/2011-3-20_14-59-4-636.jpg


FSX and UTX...go lower? lol

[jrg]

http://img641.imageshack.us/f/27042011222915.jpg/
This is a picture from reality, I was in the fw, so you can see that il2 is very close to the real thing. If you don't like the fw, tell me, I'll rent another plane and take the picture again.

How do you guys upload pics BTW?

What's bother me with il-2 1946 or COD is the cartoonish textures and colours, they reminds me Mario kart on the N64. I'm not speaking about luminosity, an bright sunny day is really "bright" but something is strange with the tone of the colours.

[ctec1]

My version of reality:

http://sbcglobalpwp.att.net/c/t/ctec1/ATT_Files/CLE_actual.jpg


http://sbcglobalpwp.att.net/c/t/ctec1/ATT_Files/2011-3-20_14-59-4-637.jpg

[jrg]

Reality sucks, simulations are more realistics.

[speculum jockey]

The first FSX screencap (with the aftermarket terrain) looks like someone who wasn't very skilled with photoshop took a picture of the ocean, and then just straight-up posted a photo of Kent over top of it.

The second one with the Fighter looks like someone took google earth screencaps and crudely drew a road over top of it, then used it as a texture for the old turn-based Combat Mission game and added stock houses and trees.

What FSX does do very well (with aftermarket packs) are cities and mountains. not so much the country and shores.

[Rattlehead]

I don't own the other games so I'll have to go on what I see in the screenshots posted.

I think it's fair to say CoD is the clear winner, judging from what I see. The game, with the right lighting, can look absolutely breathtaking.

[seiseki]

It looks horrible?
It's a photo...it's a photo of South East England.

it doesn't have nice effects like distance desaturation/blue, but given that it is essentially a photo, does that mean that you think SE England looks horrible?


What kind of reasoning is that?
Hey look at this [blurry overcontrasted photo of a puppy] which has been made into a texture and put into a game, anyone who think it looks horrible must think puppies look horrible...

I'm gonna go make a game now, with only flat photographs as textures, as long as the motif doesn't look horrible there's no way the textures and the game can look horrible..

[/sarcasm]

Yes it looks horrible because it's a photo..
Compared to 3D environments and compared to real life, it looks horrible..

[W0ef]

What kind of reasoning is that?
Hey look at this [blurry overcontrasted photo of a puppy] which has been made into a texture and put into a game, anyone who think it looks horrible must think puppies look horrible...

I'm gonna go make a game now, with only flat photographs as textures, as long as the motif doesn't look horrible there's no way the textures and the game can look horrible..

[/sarcasm]

Yes it looks horrible because it's a photo..
Compared to 3D environments and compared to real life, it looks horrible..

+1

It´s about the ugly transition between the photo-textured ground (never like it when they do that, it will always look crap close up) and the ocean which looks pretty crap all by itself as well.

I´m sure there is plenty going for FSX (like being able to fly around the entire world, real time weather, etc etc etc) but graphic wise it can´t hold a candle to Cliffs of Dover..Only game I have seen so far that comes close is Rise of Flight (it beat CoD graphic wise for me until the latest beta patch which gave me proper functioning AA). For me right now Cliffs of Dover is by far the most beautiful flightsim I personally know or have ever played. I´m sure it will only get better, especially when my three blue line bug on the horizon gets fixed and DX11 will be properly implemented.

Heard rumours about a new water shader with transparancy, fully functional surf and stuff, that will be sweet when they put it in!

[[URU]AkeR]

To me COD looks better the only thing i like best in WOP is the ocean (from altitude) the ocean in COD at low alt is gorgeous, but up high its out of scale I think

[louisv]

Totally agree, I think those who think that IL-2 is better are in a kind of denial. Like people who own a sound system for a long time and can't adjust to anything else, because their perception has adjusted to their system...And WoP looks totally depressive...FSX looks klunky...
My two cents...

[Winger]

I dont know what you guys have... I in fact think that CloD looks MUCH better than all of them together.
I think graphicswise there is nothing that can hold a candle for CloD. Not even ROF or WoP.

Winger

[Zoom2136]

WoP has those horrible filters, but the shape and definition of the fields and patches of woodland looks MUCH better than CloD.

I think this is a fairer representation of FSX; the South East England scenery pack:
The onlt one to get the colours about right.

http://i1-games.softpedia-static.com/screenshots/VFR-Real-Scenery-Vol-3-Wales-SW-England_1.jpg

Well FSX is a fly high so this look good sim, COD is more an avoid the squirls and fly low kind of sims... FSX down low is not good looking at all. But COD up high is good, consireding that is depicting 1940's scenary... 2010...

But hey, I owned both ;)

[addman]

It doesn't matter how detailed and pop-up free the buildings are if they are just stacked on a big old satellite image. From way up high it's ok but down low, ugh! just horrible. It just kills the illusion IMO. The contrast between ultra detailed ground objects and a pasted on satellite imagery is just too great. Clod FTW!

[Hooves]

Well if they could somehow combine WOP's ground textures with Clods lighting, and aircraft modeling You'd have something truly great!

[choctaw111]

Thank you for the comparisons. They are very interesting.
I must note that I have not yet had a chance to try ClOD for myself yet.
Living in the US, I am still waiting.

To be fair, you cannot show a screencap of FSX at 3,000 feet altitude and say that it looks better than ClOD at 200 feet.
FSX looks great when you are flying at altitude and not hugging the ground but I was always disappointed when I flew down low.
It seems that ClOD does low altitude fairly well.

If you can, please get some more screencaps of the 3 sims you have compared at different altitudes, from ground level to 10,000 feet or more.

[djwolters]

I'll dig out my copy of SWOTL for some more comparisons ;)

[Hooves]

Thank you for the comparisons. They are very interesting.
I must note that I have not yet had a chance to try ClOD for myself yet.
Living in the US, I am still waiting.

To be fair, you cannot show a screencap of FSX at 3,000 feet altitude and say that it looks better than ClOD at 200 feet.
FSX looks great when you are flying at altitude and not hugging the ground but I was always disappointed when I flew down low.
It seems that ClOD does low altitude fairly well.

If you can, please get some more screencaps of the 3 sims you have compared at different altitudes, from ground level to 10,000 feet or more.


Dude Why are you waiting? justflight.com. Its five bucks cheaper and it activates through steam so its like you bought it there. Hell its even Downloads through steam. If you pre ordered through steam just cancel it. That is EXACTLY what I did. IT is fully legit bro!!

[TonyD]

I dont know what you guys have... I in fact think that CloD looks MUCH better than all of them together.
I think graphicswise there is nothing that can hold a candle for CloD. Not even ROF or WoP.

Winger

Ditto!

[leggit]

CoD wins hands down. whoever put the texture and modelling pack for FSX together needs to visit southern england.

[speculum jockey]

Pretty much the only places where FSX looks good "down low" are the cities and the areas around different airports (assuming you sprung for the 3rd party add-ons).

WOP, looks good, but I wouldn't say realistic given the filters, and the view distance, and the lighting and claustrophobic map sizes.

FSX, WOP, and IL-2 have pretty much peaked. ROF and CloD are the only two that are going to improve given they are newer (newish) game engines. The two of them are (compared to MS) tiny, tiny developers, with limited funds and staff, so improvements and upgrades are going to be "bite sized" instead of huge Service packs that radically alter or improve the game. Also it's yet to be seen if there will be an active 3rd party industry centred around these two titles.

MS's "Flight" is looking to be "FSX version 1.5" so I don't see it getting much better, and probably sticking to the Satellite Photos method that has done MS well so far.

You've got to remember that FSX and Flight are Procedure sims, while CloD is a combat sim. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.

[AARPRazorbacks]

IMHO


FSX= dx9+32 bit system.

CoD=dx10+64bit system and maybe dx11.


nuff sayed.

flyer01

[Skiiwa]

FSX Does the whole planet. The amount of data to make it look photorealistic like WE all want would be incredible. COD only has to get a small slice right.
That IL2 1946 pic Looked really good! Its holding up very well me thinks:) If 1946 had the damge model and the engine management and the great cockpits of COD I would still be flying 1946.(Actually I am still flying it) :D

[addman]

How to create MS Flight terrain engine:

1. Obtain one large ball (no puns plz!)

2. Print out the whole google earth satellite imagery

3. Obtain a stick of glue (regular paper glue will do)

4. Smear the ball (see nr.1) with said stick of glue

5. Wrap the printed satellite imagery (see nr.2) around the ball

6. Sprinkle some highly detailed buildings/trees/mountains all over the ball

7. Add some 2D clouds (cotton balls will do)

E voilá! You know have MS Flight Sim terrain engine that covers the whole of earth, rinse and repeat for every time you release a "new" game.

[Heliocon]

Did one of these comparisons when the first landscape shots of CoD arrived to I thought a revisit with the current version would be interesting as I've read some people that are discontent with CoD that said they where going back to FSX, X-Plane, WoP etc....

So let's compare apples and pears?

FSX on max:

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/4294/cliffsofdoverfsx.jpg

CoD on high (on my old rig with no stuttering and rather OK fluid fps - better than FSX!):

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3615/cliffsofdovercod.jpg

Ohh - and then we have the bunch that say that WoP has so much better graphics than CoD (which they claim does not look much better than IL2). Lets test that?

CoD (aka "the real Deal"?):
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9035/codtherealdeal.jpg

WoP:
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6459/wopcomparev3.jpg

And add IL2 (pimped):
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/3042/il2comparev2.jpg

This is not a fair post. I agree with you on FSX but you are varying the altitudes. WOP at low altitude looks alot better than COD and performes alot better. At high altitude COD looks better though.

ALSO in WOP you can have like 50+ aircraft in the air fighting over a city and it is absolutely stutter/lag free, buildings are all there (there is no filler, so in the distance everything is present and they dont teleport into place).

Misleading comparison (whether intentional or not).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHkDdTJvK8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75eyrPIRTpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acVLG-Cbpug

It all runs smooth as silk, and can be played maxed out easy on even low mid range pcs.

[Dano]

ALSO in WOP you can have like 50+ aircraft in the air fighting over a city and it is absolutely stutter/lag free, buildings are all there (there is no filler, so in the distance everything is present and they dont teleport into place).


You're wrong in this aspect, WOP just does a very good job of hiding it but if you look you can see it all fading in.

CoD has gotten better at it but it's still too easy to see the blocks pop in and then fade to full opacity.

[Heliocon]

You're wrong in this aspect, WOP just does a very good job of hiding it but if you look you can see it all fading in.

CoD has gotten better at it but it's still too easy to see the blocks pop in and then fade to full opacity.

Yes you are correct, but WOP does it at alot farther distance. I 100% gurantee you the LOS for WOP is atleast double of the LOS in COD. I have WOP on 1920x1200 and I can full zoom into the distance which is a good few minutes fly away and I can see buildings/city. Also never ever seen building/detail pop.

Go given that the buildings actually appear at a further distance, and you never notice them appearing, and it runs super smooth without problem even with many aircraft in the air while it is still a older game (originally for console - and it uses lots of the IL2 engine and models) the fact that it imo gives comparable graphics and in some places far better graphics while having no performance problem makes me say the WOP team was far more competent in their programming.

Also remember while WOP has IL2's FM/DM the trees actually have hitboxes... so if they can do it on a console/low end $500 or so computer why the hell cant the COD devs???

[warbirds]

Wow WOP looks just the way I remember it, like crap. FSX always has looked bad at any altitude. COD looks great and is my current choice for just flying around from airfield to airfield. I don't really understand what other people see in the graphics of WOP, the cockpits look bad, the planes or just ok and the scenery is all green and really blah.

[David Hayward]

Also remember while WOP has IL2's FM/DM the trees actually have hitboxes... so if they can do it on a console/low end $500 or so computer why the hell cant the COD devs???

That has already been explained to you. The CoD map is HUGE compared to WoP (btw, it cracks me up that you actually think WoP looks good compared to CoD). There are a lot more trees to keep track of, and they obviously were not prepared for the problems that could cause. Do you really think they're not going to eventually fix it?

[David603]

The reason there are no hitboxes in CoD trees is the same as why there where no hitboxes in Il2 trees.

Trees are a graphical option. For the sake of online play and mission building they can't physically exist for some players and not for others.

End of story.

[Dano]

The reason there are no hitboxes in CoD trees is the same as why there where no hitboxes in Il2 trees.

Trees are a graphical option. For the sake of online play and mission building they can't physically exist for some players and not for others.

End of story.

Not what Luthier had to say on the matter.

[David603]

It isn't?

Well, it is what Oleg had to say when asked why Il2s trees didn't have hitboxes.

And given that you can still turn off trees, it should still stand.

[Dano]

It isn't?

Well, it is what Oleg had to say when asked why Il2s trees didn't have hitboxes.

And given that you can still turn off trees, it should still stand.

Oh I quite agree, it does stand for that reason, just pointing out that it wasn't the reason given.

10. Q: I can fly through trees without receiving any damage.

A: Since Cliffs of Dover has more shrubbery in it than perhaps any other flight sim developed so far - hundreds of thousands of trees around the player - enabling collision for the trees grinds the game to a complete halt, especially as they need to be tracked around every plane on the map and not just the player's. Making collisions less precise leads to equally poor results, when planes may fly through a tree but crash into seemingly empty space.
We know this is extremely important. The solution is there, but it still eludes us.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=245959&postcount=1

[David Hayward]

Most likely they intended to have tree collisions offline. Online would be a problem if different players have different trees displayed.

[Blue Scorpion]

I will ignore the fact that the screen shots were deliberately chosen to put both fsx and wop at a disadvantage right from the get go.

FSX was released in 2006 a year before il2 1946, and originally written for directx 8.0 and updated later, and wop which is a console port and arcade game over a year ago only supports dx 9.0, unlike COD that supports directx 10. If you want to compare the three graphically, run them all in directx 9.0 and see how they match up, as directx 10 offers huge advantages in rendering and image quality.

Graphically COD should be head and shoulders above the other two using directx 10, the fact it isn't is telling to anyone who knows what they are looking at and understands the techniques available to the different versions of directx.
Some of my own shots from WOP

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/3194/3c126094416.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2776/aces2010011400535985.jpg

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5977/wopspitwingholegoosegd.jpg

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6483/shot20100104112823.jpg

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/5195/shot20100104112747.jpg

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/1340/shot20100113164435.jpg

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/110/aces2010011518200655.jpg

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5194/shot20100110162558.jpg

http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/2612/shot20100113164338.jpg

[RocketDog]

WoP looks stunning. Here's FS9 over the South of England. The resolution is a bit blurry, but the colours are much more realistic than CloD's flourescent landscape. I wonder if the protracted development of CloD meant that it was overtaken whilst still in development. Arguably, WoP, RoF and even some FS9/FSX terrain sets look much more realistic.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/86e3180f.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/fs92006-03-2323-04-09-20.jpg

[David Hayward]

Graphically COD should be head and shoulders above the other two using directx 10, the fact it isn't


CoD IS head and shoulders above the other two. I have no idea why you think it isn't. This isn't even a close call.

[Letum]

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5977/wopspitwingholegoosegd.jpg

Wow, there are LOTS of reasons not to like WoP, but that scenery is *at least* as good, and in my opinion better (despite the shaders and poor water) than CloD.


CloD should be many times better than this. It certainly uses more resources.

[Dano]

I will ignore the fact that the screen shots were deliberately chosen to put both fsx and wop at a disadvantage right from the get go.

And in exchange we'll ignore the fact that your shots are clearly chosen to show WOP in it's very best light and do not show any reasonable representation on how it looks while playing ;)

[David Hayward]

CloD should be many times better than this. It certainly uses more resources.

CoD IS many times better than that. That is a green hazy mess. It looks like crap.

[David Hayward]

And in exchange we'll ignore the fact that your shots are clearly chosen to show WOP in it's very best light and do not show any reasonable representation on how it looks while playing ;)

WoP at it's very best is worse than CoD at it's worst.

[ParaB]

CoD IS head and shoulders above the other two. I have no idea why you think it isn't. This isn't even a close call.

Quite a few people, myself included, disagree. Some things in CoD look simply outstanding, others look merely "ok-ish". I have recently re-installed WoP and while it does indeed get boring quickly I thought the environment grafics were indeed at least on par with CoD. I admit I have less of a problem with the "cinematic" filters in WoP than with the strange colour palette in CoD.

But then the fact that CoD isn't the grafical leap forward I had hoped for after all this time isn't even remotely the sim's biggest problem at the moment.

But then CoD will improve, I don't doubt it. And until then I'm back to flying DCS:A-10C.

[Blue Scorpion]

And in exchange we'll ignore the fact that your shots are clearly chosen to show WOP in it's very best light and do not show any reasonable representation on how it looks while playing ;)

Those shots were taken when the game was released, on my first day with it ,during play and are unaltered; if you would like I have far more dramatic shots that I deliberately avoided posting.

CoD IS many times better than that. That is a green hazy mess. It looks like crap.

Your hazy green mess is actually far more natural and realistic; not only does this planet's atmosphere contain particles that disperse and diffuse light. At altitude water in the atmosphere often causes a haze, which you would know if you had ever flown anything but a desk, but no mater, it's an option that can be turned off if you don't like it.

[David Hayward]

Quite a few people, myself included, disagree.

I know. And I find that amazing, because it is so obviously wrong. WoP is a green hazy mess. If you think it looks better than CoD it is because you are really desperately looking for problems in CoD.

I bought WoP. I know what it looks like. It looks like crap.

Like I said. This is not even a close call.

[Dano]

Those shots were taken when the game was released, on my first day with it ,during play and are unaltered; if you would like I have far more dramatic shots that I deliberately avoided posting.

You play from external view points do you and always looking at areas that haven't been washed out by the ridiculous amount of bloom/hdr that wop uses then?

I'm not arguing here, WoP does look incredible in the immediate vicinity but after that it looks downright awful and the overuse of bloom/hdr knocking visibility down to virtually nothing at times is downright criminal, drama has nothing to do with it.



Your hazy green mess is actually far more natural and realistic; not only does this planet's atmosphere contain particles that disperse and diffuse light. At altitude water in the atmosphere often causes a haze, which you would know if you had ever flown anything but a desk, but no mater, it's an option that can be turned off if you don't like it.

I've never seen any atmosphere remotely like wop's in all my years of living in southern england, I have seen plenty of like cod's representation though.

[ctec1]

"If you think it looks better than CoD it is because you are really desperately looking for problems in CoD."


Actually, dont have to look hard at all. Thats freakin hilarious :-P

[ATAG_Bliss]

From what I've seen and played. Nothing compares to CoD down low. The problem is, of course, is having the hardware to show off all those details down low :)

[Blue Scorpion]

You play from external view points do you and always looking at areas that haven't been washed out by the ridiculous amount of bloom/hdr that wop uses then?


I've never seen any atmosphere remotely like wop's in all my years of living in southern england, I have seen plenty of like cod's representation though.

I fly frequently irl I hold an PPL/ir with NQ, and often see atmospheric haze, it is quite different from the air than on the ground, particularly near cities when you add industrial output and traffic smog into the mix, seasons too have an effect, around harvest for example the atmosphere can take on a distinct yellow hue. However, I never claimed wop was totally realistic, I said it was more realistic than no haze at all.

As for the shots, yes, on cranking up the game and being amazed at how it looked, I used playback to get screen shots just like most other gamers do to take screen shots from different perspectives. Every shot I posted was taken directly in mission or directly after; or have you never used an external view in a flight sim, when you have been impressed with what you have seen, as for the shots themselves, I have not had the game installed for nearly a year as the fm was too arcade for me.

[danjama]

I actually think WoP looks fantastic in those pictures, and will probably surprise myself and buy it soon :|

[ATAG_Bliss]

CoD = Winner :)

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1305/shot20110409222844.jpg

[Dano]

I fly frequently irl I hold an PPL/ir with NQ, and often see atmospheric haze, it is quite different from the air than on the ground, particularly near cities when you add industrial output and traffic smog into the mix, seasons too have an effect, around harvest for example the atmosphere can take on a distinct yellow hue. However, I never claimed wop was totally realistic, I said it was more realistic than no haze at all.

Wait, are you saying there's no haze in cod? I have haze.

As for the shots, yes, on cranking up the game and being amazed at how it looked, I used playback to get screen shots just like most other gamers do to take screen shots from different perspectives. Every shot I posted was taken directly in mission or directly after; or have you never used an external view in a flight sim, when you have been impressed with what you have seen, as for the shots themselves, I have not had the game installed for nearly a year as the fm was too arcade for me.

Of course, but my point is that wop doesn't look anywhere near as good from the players viewpoint, ie; in the pit. It looks good, just not as good as external shots do, obviously that is just my opinion :)

I actually think WoP looks fantastic in those pictures, and will probably surprise myself and buy it soon :|

Download the demo :)

[Blue Scorpion]

because you are really desperately looking for problems in CoD.

.

Finding problems in COD is as easy as turning it on, it is plagued with problems.

Graphically it is also full of 2d sprites (8 bit graphics technique) everywhere the devs think they can get away with them to get frame rates up, you might want to take off those rose coloured specs and apply the same analytical eye you used for wop.

However, do not misunderstand I want COD to succeed, but claiming it is head and shoulders above everything else is frankly childish and complete fantasy.

[David Hayward]

Your hazy green mess is actually far more natural and realistic; not only does this planet's atmosphere contain particles that disperse and diffuse light. At altitude water in the atmosphere often causes a haze, which you would know if you had ever flown anything but a desk, but no mater, it's an option that can be turned off if you don't like it.

You have no idea how funny these comments are.

This is reality:

http://aero-pix.com/oceana/air/ds/ds-h.jpg

No green haze

http://aero-pix.com/riah1/slides/sah1-e.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp/rb/rb-d.jpg

No green haze

http://aero-pix.com/qp01/mm/mm-d.jpg

No green have.

http://aero-pix.com/fit02/ie/air/iea-c.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp06/tbird/images/img_004.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp07/sh18air/images/img_005.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp07/sh18air/images/img_024.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/westfield10/klatt/images/img_007.jpg

No green haze.

I took every one of these photographs. Only one was adjusted because the weather was so hazy that we could barely see, but I'm on a roll so I decided to include it anyways. The rest are all spot on.

The real world is NOT covered in a green haze. Period. Graphically WoP is a DISASTER.

Let's see all the green soup photographs you've taken.

[danjama]

Check out ROF:

http://riseofflight.com/forum/download/file.php?id=17875&mode=view

Taken from:

http://riseofflight.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=1541&start=2130

[jibo]

WoP is quite peculiar they chose this old postal card style, with a permanent hazy fog of war and a sepia effect, it feels like you're in a movie, pretty successful but very different

[toms781]

IMHO


FSX= dx9+32 bit system.

CoD=dx10+64bit system and maybe dx11.


nuff sayed.

flyer01

dx10+64bit support was added to FSX with service pack 2.

[danjama]

dx10+64bit support was added to FSX with service pack 2.

owned

[Ploughman]

I actually think WoP looks fantastic in those pictures, and will probably surprise myself and buy it soon :|

No really, don't bother. It looks really good and, who knows, might even in a reincarnation be something to think about as the devs are considering taking it to another level, but as it stands it's as deep as a puddle. The Paris Hilton of flight sims.

Now if RoF could come up with a Mk. Vb and a 109F they would have my attention.

[Space Communist]

I actually think WoP looks fantastic in those pictures, and will probably surprise myself and buy it soon :|

Yeah I really can't recommend it. It does look nice, but everything else but that about the game is really primitive. The flight model is actually pretty close to IL-2 with everything on, but the damage model is a joke. It's like... 5 damageable sections on your plane or something. The maps are also the size of a postage stamp, and all the missions are all designed to be played on arcade with infinite ammo/lives.

Oh and multiplayer is essentially broken.

[AARPRazorbacks]

owned

LOL.Welcome back to the USSR. I was flying CoD then FSX.

FSX is a nice sim.

CoD makes FSX look old school.

Maybe there better be some pictures of FSX in dx10 or where thy? LOL.

[David Hayward]

CoD = Winner :)

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1305/shot20110409222844.jpg

http://aero-pix.com/oceana/air/ds/ds-a.jpg

CoD vs Real World.

Anyone who thinks WoP is closer to real world than CoD needs to put down the crack pipe.

[Heliocon]

That has already been explained to you. The CoD map is HUGE compared to WoP (btw, it cracks me up that you actually think WoP looks good compared to CoD). There are a lot more trees to keep track of, and they obviously were not prepared for the problems that could cause. Do you really think they're not going to eventually fix it?

You are such a ******* tool. Bugger off, its called optimization - the map size argument is invalid, they dont need to render what you cant see.

Also there are not lots of more trees to keep track off, because only an idiot programmer/design instruction would try to keep track of every tree in relation to a plane that is flying a km or more above land.

As usual you chime in with your uneducated bs that holds no water. Stop trolling fanboy.

- also note that irrespective of what looks better, WOP only performes 100% better. Not saying its a better game though. Also you need to stop harrasing and insulting people with your 1-2 line troll posts. For someone who complains about whinning, you whine the MOST out of any person on this board.

[reflected]

Haha Bliss, that's my screenshot! :D

Funny thing is, I think that France looks better than England in CloD. The fields look more 3d somehow.

RoF looks very nice too. Not as detailed as CoD, but better in some other aspects, like the general "atmosphere" of the landscape and environment. Not to mention clouds.


http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4411/2011410105634.jpg

FSX is a dinosaur compared to these.

[reflected]

Some low alt-shots. See? It's not as detailed as CloD, still, it has a very nice atmosphere and a realistic feeling:

http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx153/Tom-cundall/Jasta40s.jpg

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4306/2011412205654.jpg

[RocketDog]

http://aero-pix.com/oceana/air/ds/ds-a.jpg

CoD vs Real World.

Anyone who thinks WoP is closer to real world than CoD needs to put down the crack pipe.

I think this post unintentionally makes the case against CoD. The problem is that CoD is meant to be representing the South of England in summer, but it actually looks much more like I would imagine parts of the US to look like from the air. When I'm gliding over Wiltshire (top left of CloD's map) what I see doesn't look much like CloD's terrain. The colours in real life are darker and more intense, the fields usually have dark hedges at their borders and the trees are darker than the fields. CloD looks too "pastel" coloured, has a rather lime-green cast absent from real life and just gets the trees and hedges wrong. RoF's landscape actually looks much more like the South of England than CloD does. WoP would look very close if it could lose the filters. It certainly gets the stands of dark-coloured trees and the field colours right. Maybe I should post up some of the pictures I've taken while flying over the actual landscape CloD purports to represent

[Therion_Prime]

CoD IS head and shoulders above the other two. I have no idea why you think it isn't. This isn't even a close call.

Wrong.

[Friendly_flyer]

RoF looks very nice too. Not as detailed as CoD, but better in some other aspects, like the general "atmosphere" of the landscape and environment.

I think RoF have done the trees better than CoD. They look more like "the good trees" in IL2, and are quite realistic.

[SNAFU]

Sooner or later the most of us will only fly online. The player will complain about tanks and AAA invisible in the woods and about players trying to escape while hiding low in the woods. So I guess the servers will switch off the trees in their settings like many DCS Server do, so we will not see any trees at all in CloD online. Thats just my own guess. Trees with hitboxes are possible, even for large areas, that proved RoF.

That realistic clouds are possible too, was also proved. For me these are two major setbacks, which I hope will be worked upon, any time soon.
;)
http://schwaan.info/Snafu/RoF/42.bmp

[Rattlehead]

WoP is quite peculiar they chose this old postal card style, with a permanent hazy fog of war and a sepia effect, it feels like you're in a movie, pretty successful but very different

Yeah, I think they were definitely going for more stylized visuals. Personally I bought the game to show support, but to me it was an arcade game. I didn't really lke it much, but I suppose it wasn't really aiming to be a proper simulator.

[RocketDog]

CoD = Winner :)

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1305/shot20110409222844.jpg

It's OK, but not fantastic. It needs stronger colours, darker field boundaries (hedges) and trees that look darker than the fields. To me, CloD terrain looks like a pastel drawing by someone who has never flown over the South of England. Which is probably what it is.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/Club_Libelle_716/102_2901-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/Club_Libelle_716/DSC01756.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/Club_Libelle_716/DSC01763.jpg

[ATAG_Dutch]

Here we go again.

Ho Hum. :(

[TonyD]

I think RoF have done the trees better than CoD. They look more like "the good trees" in IL2, and are quite realistic.

Yeah, they do look good, and can be rendered in far greater numbers than CoD without the same performance hit. However, you’ll notice that when you fly past them close to the ground they rotate, so they seem to be flat 2D images (sprites?) that do this to appear to have volume. A small irritant, but still annoying once you notice it.

CoD’s trees appear a lot more realistic, but apparently cannot be rendered in the same number without a huge drop in frame rates. As someone else pointed out, ‘SpeedTree’ seems to be a misnomer. Maybe with next year’s hardware?

[philip.ed]

CoD really needs:
3-D hegderows, instead of hundreds of random trees spunked across the South East. We pride ourselves on presentation, you know!
Denser forest areas, rather like in RoF.
From altitude, the trees should be darker, too (RoF seems to model this quite well)
Overall, a more natural look, which WoP seems to capture.

[pupaxx]

CoD really needs:
3-D hegderows, instead of hundreds of random trees spunked across the South East. We pride ourselves on presentation, you know!
Denser forest areas, rather like in RoF.
From altitude, the trees should be darker, too (RoF seems to model this quite well)
Overall, a more natural look, which WoP seems to capture.


+1

[W0ef]

Well, Speedtree is originally an addon for 3DS Max and made for high resolution visualization renders (Although I personally prefer to use Vue for landscapes).

Only later did they start plugging it for use in games. I think the main problem with them is the amount of animation and details on individual branches and leafs. RoF doesn´t seem to have any animation on their trees which makes quite some difference.

Trees in RoF do turn with the camera, quite sure they are not flat 2d sprites though, you would definetely notice that. The stuff about whether or not RoF or CoD landscape looks better is highly subjective, most people compare CoD at standard bright summer day time with RoF and even then I think CoD landscape up close looks much more detailed, although I do love RoF for the smoothness and overall atmosphere. Try setting time in CoD to 19.00 or 5.30, looks a lot better I think :P

[Rattlehead]

Yeah, they do look good, and can be rendered in far greater numbers than CoD without the same performance hit. However, you’ll notice that when you fly past them close to the ground they rotate, so they seem to be flat 2D images (sprites?) that do this to appear to have volume. A small irritant, but still annoying once you notice it.

CoD’s trees appear a lot more realistic, but apparently cannot be rendered in the same number without a huge drop in frame rates. As someone else pointed out, ‘SpeedTree’ seems to be a misnomer. Maybe with next year’s hardware?

Well Tony, if those trees are rotating it would explain a lot as to why RoF has more 'efficient' trees than CoD. As you say, they are probably a 2D image.

About trees in CoD and framerates...I don't think it's so bad actually. I play with medium forest, and while there is a drop in frames compared to bare terrain, my machine still copes at over 30 frames per second at treetop level flying over a dense patch of forest.

Now, buildings for me are another thing altogether. At rooftop height over London or Caen, building detail set to very low and medium density, I can maybe manage 15 fps on a good day. Single digits in industrial areas.

[Friendly_flyer]

I guess the dev-team could make it easier on themselves by adding RoF-trees for dense forests (where rotating trees wounldn't be noticeable), or have some sort of forest tiles, like in IL2. The hedge rows could possibly be solved as low-poly objects? Imagine a long box, rectabgular or even pyramidal in cross section, with a hedge-row picture on each side with some clecer alpha channel use.

[grunge]

Did one of these comparisons when the first landscape shots of CoD arrived to I thought a revisit with the current version would be interesting as I've read some people that are discontent with CoD that said they where going back to FSX, X-Plane, WoP etc....

So let's compare apples and pears?

FSX on max:

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/4294/cliffsofdoverfsx.jpg

CoD on high (on my old rig with no stuttering and rather OK fluid fps - better than FSX!):

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3615/cliffsofdovercod.jpg

Ohh - and then we have the bunch that say that WoP has so much better graphics than CoD (which they claim does not look much better than IL2). Lets test that?

CoD (aka "the real Deal"?):
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9035/codtherealdeal.jpg

WoP:
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6459/wopcomparev3.jpg

And add IL2 (pimped):
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/3042/il2comparev2.jpg


CoD looks great, however, at what costs... And where the heck is the propellor?! I dont get it...

[TonyD]

...
About trees in CoD and framerates...I don't think it's so bad actually. I play with medium forest, and while there is a drop in frames compared to bare terrain, my machine still copes at over 30 frames per second at treetop level flying over a dense patch of forest.

Now, buildings for me are another thing altogether. At rooftop height over London or Caen, building detail set to very low and medium density, I can maybe manage 15 fps on a good day. Single digits in industrial areas.

Yes, me too. What does appear very different in CoD is the small number of trees rendered on top of a forest terrain image, which you see none of in RoF. The rotating thing is not a huge glitch, it’s probably not really noticeable unless you are looking for it, and it really is a lot more realistic not being able to fly through them (Oh, oh, I think that’s an argument on a separate thread …)

Maybe when we all replace our gfx cards with 2GB models we will be able to turn everything up and enjoy CoD as the developers intended, but it’s still pretty awesome on medium settings.

[David Hayward]

You are such a ******* tool. Bugger off, its called optimization - the map size argument is invalid, they dont need to render what you cant see.


Just out of curiosity, what is your role on the programming staff? Because, unless you are a programmer on this project, you have no Fing idea what the real issue is.

BTW, even if they don't have to render the crash, they do have to check if the crash happens. That means keeping track of every aircraft and every tree. Now, there are fast ways to deal with the problem, but they may not have realized it was a problem until late in the process.


- also note that irrespective of what looks better, WOP only performes 100% better. Not saying its a better game though.


WoP is a steaming pile of $hit. Even if the graphics were not covered with Jolly Green Giant puke I would not put that game back on my PC. It looks like crap and it plays like crap. If you want to compare a game to CoD and not look like a complete imbecile, go with RoF.

Also you need to stop harrasing and insulting people with your 1-2 line troll posts. For someone who complains about whinning, you whine the MOST out of any person on this board.

Coming from someone whose go to line is "you are a moron", this is pretty funny.

[TonyD]

One salient point that everyone arguing about the relative accuracy of the graphical representation in these sims has missed, is that neither RoF nor Cod is very accurate. As my kids have often reminded me, they didn’t even have colour back then! :-P

[David Hayward]

I think this post unintentionally makes the case against CoD. The problem is that CoD is meant to be representing the South of England in summer, but it actually looks much more like I would imagine parts of the US to look like from the air. When I'm gliding over Wiltshire (top left of CloD's map) what I see doesn't look much like CloD's terrain. The colours in real life are darker and more intense, the fields usually have dark hedges at their borders and the trees are darker than the fields. CloD looks too "pastel" coloured, has a rather lime-green cast absent from real life and just gets the trees and hedges wrong. RoF's landscape actually looks much more like the South of England than CloD does. WoP would look very close if it could lose the filters. It certainly gets the stands of dark-coloured trees and the field colours right. Maybe I should post up some of the pictures I've taken while flying over the actual landscape CloD purports to represent

Whether or not the game looks like the US vs England is not the point. The point is that CoD looks like real life while WoP looks like green puke.

[reflected]

The question is not what CoD looks like compared to other sims, but what it looks like compared to real life, how can it be improved and whether the devs are willing to make those steps or not.

I kinda like the Hollywood look of Wop as well (for what it's worth), but one really can't compare. Of course that's not realistic, and it's just an arcade game with tiny maps.

[David Hayward]

The question is not what CoD looks like compared to other sims, but what it looks like compared to real life, how can it be improved and whether the devs are willing to make those steps or not.


It's closer than any other WW2 flight sim on the market. You'll probably have to come up with something pretty compelling to get changes, and I haven't seen anything that would convince me if I were on the CoD staff.

[ICDP]

The question is not what CoD looks like compared to other sims, but what it looks like compared to real life, how can it be improved and whether the devs are willing to make those steps or not.

This!

I could care less how WoP or FSX looks compared to CoD, I look at real life to compare if it looks realistic and at the moment it doesn't.

[Kano_Magnus]

I'm sure CLOD does look realistic but realistic somewhere that isn't Kent

Please note that "David Hayward" doesn't actually own a copy of this game

[pupaxx]

several times I expressed my opinion...I run the risk to be tagged as 'whiner'. But with such thread I can't resist to confirm my opinion on the looking of WoP. For me it's still awesome in his general harmonization.
Remove from your mind the green filter and reflect for an instant on these sequences...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHkDdTJvK8&feature=related

Very effective 4me, much better than CloD.
;)

[David Hayward]

Please note that "David Hayward" doesn't actually own a copy of this game

Does ownership of the game change how the screenshots look?

[ParaB]

The point is that CoD looks like real life...

Actually it doesn't, which is the very point of this discussion.

I've see south-western England from the air quite a few times, and the colours in CoD are nowhere near the real thing.

CoD looks very nice at early morning or late evening (especially the dawn fog effects, combined with the lighting are simply breathtaking) , but the palette in "normal" daylight is simply way off.

[David Hayward]

Very effective 4me, much better than CloD.
;)

If WoPuke works for you, that is great. But, if you expect CoD to be changed into a crappy playing pukefest, you are going to be disappointed.

[David Hayward]

Actually it doesn't, which is the very point of this discussion.

I've see south-western England from the air quite a few times, and the colours in CoD are nowhere near the real thing.

CoD looks very nice at early morning or late evening (especially the dawn fog effects, combined with the lighting are simply breathtaking) , but the palette in "normal" daylight is simply way off.

I've seen the photographs and I've seen the screenshots. It's not as far off as you seem to think it is.

[ICDP]

I've seen the photographs and I've seen the screenshots. It's not as far off as you seem to think it is.

LoL, so people who fly over southern UK all the time are saying CoD doesn't look right and you are telling them that real life is wrong and CoD is right?

True fanboy in the worst sense, doesn't even have the game yet tells those of us who do (and live in the UK), that what we see out the window is wrong and COD is right.

Hahahaha, thank for the laugh fanboy.

[reflected]

Actually it doesn't, which is the very point of this discussion.

I've see south-western England from the air quite a few times, and the colours in CoD are nowhere near the real thing.

CoD looks very nice at early morning or late evening (especially the dawn fog effects, combined with the lighting are simply breathtaking) , but the palette in "normal" daylight is simply way off.

I agree. It's the daylight look that's off a bit, too light and washed out.

[Hatch]

WoP is atm the best looking imo if you fly at medium to large heights.
Lower down the tricks used to get it to look good are obvious.
You also notice the lack of real detail.

What does continue to amaze me is that most detractors do not seem to have the ability to look past the green haze in the WoP BoB scenarios and just condemn it for that.

[David Hayward]

LoL, so people who fly over southern UK all the time are saying CoD doesn't look right and you are telling them that real life is wrong and CoD is right?


No, I'm also saying that there are people who fly over Kent regularly who say the colors look fine.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=264220#post264220

So, you need something more compelling than "I don't like the colors" or "WoPuke looks better than this" to make your case.

[David Hayward]

What does continue to amaze me is that most detractors do not seem to have the ability to look past the green haze in the WoP BoB scenarios and just condemn it for that.

I'm not condemning it just because it looks like green puke. It also plays like crap on a tiny map.

[Ali Fish]

anyone noticed in the game manual, the entry in the options for HDR. and in the last dev details post. And the word Landscape came up towards the end.

Possibly hinting that the landscape is not finished yet asides general bugs. I wouldnt say the scenery is poorly palleted. Id say the shaders are not finished. and the lack of HDR will also contribute to the feelings upon the landscape presently.

also another reason the scenery looks poor during the daytime is that the normal mapping that gives the close detail does not work under those direct light conditions. it requires an angular viewing style to work at its best. (low direct light situation) This may also be true for any alpha channel shader manipulation depending on how its implemented.

Cod has been put together just enough to warrant a release. its half baked, dont forget that. Look at the attempted detail texture on the concrete runways and sand and pretty much everything else.

it has quite literally been thrown together at the last minuite. this is why it didnt work upon release.

[pupaxx]

If WoPuke works for you, that is great. But, if you expect CoD to be changed into a crappy playing pukefest, you are going to be disappointed.

I'm limiting my criticism to the sole landscape general look, with no greenpuke-filter, and how landscape elements are put/mixed together, how they appear from cockpit views (specially in low level pass); how they maintain their dignity if viewed in far background. CloD is for sure a pure simulation, with strongpoints I'll never disclaim. I didn't buy WoP (just tested demo) because it's not representative as simulation 4me; but I admit that, after several years of playing Il2, when I look for some more immersive low level flight My thoughts go WoP.
Yes you are right, works for me; I'm seriously concerned cause it works just for me! ... Doctor...is so bad?:-P
Cheers

[Hatch]

I'm not condemning it just because it looks like green puke. It also plays like crap on a tiny map.

LOL you're right about that.
IL2 or CloD is way ahead re gameplay.

The one thing WoP does extremely well is how it reflects the messyness of the real world.
Il2 and now CloD are too clean looking.
CloD needs a bit more grime.

Cracked windows, potholes patched tarmac , as if it's a live world.
A sort of weathering.

[David Hayward]

how landscape elements are put/mixed together, how they appear from cockpit views (specially in low level pass); how they maintain their dignity if viewed in far background


WoP can do all that because it's an arcade game on a tiny map with green puke covering up all the stuff that doesn't look quite so good.

[pupaxx]

LOL you're right about that.
IL2 or CloD is way ahead re gameplay.

The one thing WoP does extremely well is how it reflects the messyness of the real world.
Il2 and now CloD are too clean looking.
CloD needs a bit more grime.

Cracked windows, potholes patched tarmac , as if it's a live world.
A sort of weathering.



+1

[David Hayward]

Il2 and now CloD are too clean looking.
CloD needs a bit more grime.

Cracked windows, potholes patched tarmac , as if it's a live world.
A sort of weathering.

Grime kills FPS.

[Hatch]

WoP can do all that because it's an arcade game on a tiny map with green puke covering up all the stuff that doesn't look quite so good.

Well those are actually separate issues.
It's kinda like saying Cindy Crawford is ugly beacuse she has a mole and doesn't play rugby.(Choice of Cindy does put my age into perspective LOL)

It's more like...
It looks good but it's covered in green puke and is arcadey.:grin:

[pupaxx]

I cleaned the greenpuke....
C'mon some serenity in judging this...
5763 5764

;)

[David Hayward]

Well those are actually separate issues.
It's kinda like saying Cindy Crawford is ugly beacuse she has a mole and doesn't play rugby.(Choice of Cindy does put my age into perspective LOL)

It's more like...
It looks good but it's covered in green puke and is arcadey.:grin:

No, they're not separate things. If you have a tiny map you can display things up close that you can't in a game with a huge map. A huge map ties up a lot of memory tracking things you can't see, while the game with the tiny map can use that memory to display more details up close.

The green puke can be used to hide things that don't look so good. In IL-2 (and from what I have heard, CoD) buildings tend to "pop up" in the distance. WoP uses green puke to hide that.

[RocketDog]

Whether or not the game looks like the US vs England is not the point. The point is that CoD looks like real life while WoP looks like green puke.

As I have attempted to explain, I regularly fly over the South of England and, IMHO, it doesn't look much like CloD. The field colours are different, the fields usually (but not always) have dark hedges at their boundaries and the trees are darker and often occur in RoF-style small patches of woodland. If you removed the filters from WoP it would be much more like what I see in real life than does CloD. I have even posted photographs of the SW of England to show what I mean. Now, you are welcome to continue to insist that I am wrong, but if you do, it's hard to imagine that anything at all would convince you otherwise.

[David Hayward]

As I have attempted to explain, I regularly fly over the South of England and, IMHO, it doesn't look much like CloD.

And I linked to a pilot who flies over Kent and thinks that the CoD colors look fine. I've seen the photographs. They are not nearly as compelling as you seem to think they are, and I have a lot of experience with aviation photography.

[David Hayward]

I cleaned the greenpuke....
C'mon some serenity in judging this...
5763 5764

;)

If you were looking for images where WoP looks better than CoD, you made a very poor choice. That CoD image almost looks like a photo.

[Hatch]

No, they're not separate things. If you have a tiny map you can display things up close that you can't in a game with a huge map. A huge map ties up a lot of memory tracking things you can't see, while the game with the tiny map can use that memory to display more details up close.

The green puke can be used to hide things that don't look so good. In IL-2 (and from what I have heard, CoD) buildings tend to "pop up" in the distance. WoP uses green puke to hide that.

Still separate issues.
The reason why is perhaps mitigating but not in an absolute sense.
If it looks crap it looks crap.
Covering it in a green haze wouldn't hide that.

Other scenarioin WoPs like battle of the bulge look stunning and are more lifelike in hue.|
Only as if you fly low do you see the tricks employed.

Still... up high it looks extremely good.

As in photography.
Sharpness is a technical issue quite separate from the artistic worth.
A beautiful picture does not have to be sharp.
And a sharp picture does not have to be beautiful.

[pupaxx]

If you were looking for images where WoP looks better than CoD, you made a very poor choice. That CoD image almost looks like a photo.

:grin::grin::grin: I thought exactly the opposite! LOL

The judgement is extremely subjective. I thought the matter can be confined in photorealistic or pleasant/enjoyable/agreeable. But we can discuss till tomorrow what is Photorealistic for me/you/allofus...
Luckly we'll got only what maddox Games will give us.., no choise! Stop
However I'm gratefull for this game and conforted in his future upgradebility!
Ciao

[Hatch]

:grin::grin::grin: I thought exactly the opposite! LOL

The judgement is extremely subjective. I thought the matter can be confined in photorealistic or pleasant/enjoyable/agreeable. But we can discuss till tomorrow what is Photorealistic for me/you/allofus...
Luckly we'll got only what maddox Games will give us.., no choise! Stop
However I'm gratefull for this game and conforted in his future upgradebility!
Ciao

LOl you beat me to it.
Perception is so subjective by definition.

[David Hayward]

:grin::grin::grin: I thought exactly the opposite! LOL

The judgement is extremely subjective. I thought the matter can be confined in photorealistic or pleasant/enjoyable/agreeable. But we can discuss till tomorrow what is Photorealistic for me/you/allofus...
Luckly we'll got only what maddox Games will give us.., no choise! Stop
However I'm gratefull for this game and conforted in his future upgradebility!
Ciao

I can, and have, posted photographs that closely match what CoD looks like. You can't do the same for WoP unless you find a really crappy photographer or take the photo in REALLY crappy weather.

[Letum]

If you were looking for images where WoP looks better than CoD, you made a very poor choice. That CoD image almost looks like a photo.

You do know that the Tiger moth one is the one from CloD, right?

[David Hayward]

You do know that the Tiger moth one is the one from CloD, right?

Really?? I thought the photo with the puke green hue was CoD?

[Hatch]

You have no idea how funny these comments are.

This is reality:

http://aero-pix.com/oceana/air/ds/ds-h.jpg

No green haze

http://aero-pix.com/riah1/slides/sah1-e.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp/rb/rb-d.jpg

No green haze

http://aero-pix.com/qp01/mm/mm-d.jpg

No green have.

http://aero-pix.com/fit02/ie/air/iea-c.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp06/tbird/images/img_004.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp07/sh18air/images/img_005.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp07/sh18air/images/img_024.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/westfield10/klatt/images/img_007.jpg

No green haze.

I took every one of these photographs. Only one was adjusted because the weather was so hazy that we could barely see, but I'm on a roll so I decided to include it anyways. The rest are all spot on.

The real world is NOT covered in a green haze. Period. Graphically WoP is a DISASTER.

Let's see all the green soup photographs you've taken.

Most of these look more like WoP tha they do CloD.
Nice shots btw.

If you really think CloD looks more like your pics you're seeing them waaayyy different than most of us.

Not better or worse , just different.

[philip.ed]

And I linked to a pilot who flies over Kent and thinks that the CoD colors look fine. I've seen the photographs. They are not nearly as compelling as you seem to think they are, and I have a lot of experience with aviation photography.



Selective reading indeed.
Rocket-Dog mentions the layout of the fields and the general geography of the landscape. Colour is subjective, but the layout of the SE of England is very definitive. Everything looks 'neat'; fields are bounded by hedgerows, and there aren't a load of trees which looked like they'be been randomly scattered over the landscape. Similarly, there aren't line of trees marking boundaries as there is currently in CloD. Overall, these features add up to present an image which looks fairly good graphically, but it doesn't look like Blighty.
I'd hasten to point out that RD is right in mentioning the trees colour: in CloD, trees turn a lighter green as they transist into the distance. In all pictures of England, you will see that trees look very dark, and nicely contrast the field colours.


In my opinion, these FACTS are irrefutable. It's not one person saying this: it's a lot of people.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

I have spent years flying around the UK as a pilot, the colours in CoD are pretty accurate, if I was to pick fault then I suppose some trees should be a bit darker but otherwise the scenery is excellent.

Perhaps those critical should consider if their monitors are correctly calibrated?

[philip.ed]

Do correctly calibrated monitors add 3-D hedgerows to the sim, and remove those 'excess' trees?
I largely agree on the other points, though.

[David Hayward]

Most of these look more like WoP tha they do CloD.
Nice shots btw.

If you really think CloD looks more like your pics you're seeing them waaayyy different than most of us.

Not better or worse , just different.

No, they don't look like WoP. There is no puke green hue in my photographs. NONE. Sorry, but if you think the real world is covered in a puke green hue, there is no point in even discussing this with you. Thank God you had no role in developing CoD.

[pupaxx]

I can, and have, posted photographs that closely match what CoD looks like. You can't do the same for WoP unless you find a really crappy photographer or take the photo in REALLY crappy weather.

The picts you posted are real for sure but I dislike those! I would not a game perfectly adherent to a tasteless photo! I'll prefere a clearly fictious atmosphere but convincing, immersive. It'a videogame! Well, I accept his nature (computer generated image sequencies). Here is the subjectivity.
During Flying legends in Duxford I usually shot 4000 pict in 2 days. 99% of them are inexpressive for light condition but real. I dont print them. Even real restored warbirds are 'toysh' (hope is the correct word) 4 my taste compared to my cultural background and how I dream up on them. When I was a child I made my fantasies on Clostermann 'Big show' (also Playboy :-P). These fantasies were more rewarding than touch a real glossy restored warbird.
This game may be not photorealistic, it's ok but it must make me dream!Even with green filters.
;)

[Kano_Magnus]

Does ownership of the game change how the screenshots look?

I think it's worth letting people know that when you come swanning on to these threads asserting this that or the other about CLOD that you neither own nor have actually played the game; I also think it's fair to assume you aren't au fait with SE England either if you think CLOD is a near perfect simulation of it. I mean to be fair other games have done stuff as dumb as modelling the Dartford Bridge and M25 (EAW) or mistaking the Blackwall Tunnel for a pair of road bridges (FSX) but this game is far from the realism claimed for it. As for

No, I'm also saying that there are people who fly over Kent regularly who say the colors look fine.

I presume it's the Labrador that flies the plane then? Your men seem to be in somewhat of a minority, to put it mildly. I mean we have real actual photos on this thread of English countryside, what more do you want? I don't care how much experience you claim to have with aviation photography, you clearly have none with the landscape of England. In summary:

YOU ARE WRONG

Hope that is nice and clear and haze-free for you!

[David Hayward]

I would not a game perfectly adherent to a tasteless photo! I'll prefere a clearly fictious atmosphere but convincing, immersive.

That is contradictory. If the look of the game is clearly fictitious, then the immersion is terrible. The game should look as close to real life as possible. I'm also pretty confident that the CoD devs are never going to change the game to look like you want it to look.

[David Hayward]

YOU ARE WRONG

Hope that is nice and clear and haze-free for you!

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

Hope that clear enough for you.

[ICDP]

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

Hope that clear enough for you.

All that does is make THEM wrong too.

[David Hayward]

All that does is make THEM wrong too.

No, it makes you wrong. It's their game. They decide what is right.

If you don't like that you are free to go play Wings of Puke.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Sigh, this is a bit of a pointless discussion. Let's be honest this is a computer game designed to spend some time with our imaginations. If you are really bothered by what you perceive as being unrealistic, go to your local airfield, talk to local pilots and ask for a flight alternatively learn to fly and go do the real thing. You can never capture reality in a flight sim it is pie in the sky.

When I was a small boy I used to chase my brothers around with my arms outstretched screaming yadda yadda yadda, in my mind I was flying a spitfire. What has happened? Have we been spoiled enough that we can no longer use our imaginations?

What we have in CoD is far better a scene then I could have imagined as a child and gives enough to let our imaginations do the rest.

[Lololopoulos]

after reading through this thread i can't help but expressing my opinion too.
Sure most of us want COD to be realistic, but there's also that side of us that want the game to look a little artistic for it to be more exciting. And for the realism fundamentalists, COD now doesn't look that realistic to begin with. It is still a long way from looking "similar" to real world.
I think overall, graphics wise, WOP definitely wins! I mean, look at those series of WOP screen shots posted earlier, especially the first one, (the one with the spitfire), it looked almost like an old picture, or a very well painted painting. I was amazed how the developers could created a landscape of such diversity and eye-pleasingness.

I am an advocate of realism too, but Im ok with the game's graphics being a little artistically designed to be more pleasing to the eye. Who wouldn't want a game that comes from real life, but better than real life?

Lastly, I moans the inadequacies of the game's look and performance. I just don't understand why it still isn't on par with other flight sims, like Rise of Flight and WOP. The only reason I wrote all these is because I care about this game too much. I have faith in it. I just hope the devs don't let us dedicated fans down.

[David Hayward]

What we have in CoD is far better a scene then I could have imagined as a child and gives enough to let our imaginations do the rest.

The original Red Baron was better than anything I ever expected to see as a child.

[Hatch]

No, they don't look like WoP. There is no puke green hue in my photographs. NONE. Sorry, but if you think the real world is covered in a puke green hue, there is no point in even discussing this with you. Thank God you had no role in developing CoD.

CloD probably wouldn't be such a mess if I'd been on the dev team.

And if you are unable look past the green hue to see what I mean, then there's no point in discussing this.

[David Hayward]

I think overall, graphics wise, WOP definitely wins! I mean, look at those series of WOP screen shots posted earlier, especially the first one, (the one with the spitfire), it looked almost like an old picture, or a very well painted painting. I was amazed how the developers could created a landscape of such diversity and eye-pleasingness.


If you want to fly in a world of green puke WoP is definitely better. If you hope CoD will transition to green puke I hope you end up disappointed.

[David Hayward]

CloD probably wouldn't be such a mess if I'd been on the dev team.

And if you are unable look past the green hue to see what I mean, then there's no point in discussing this.

If you think WoPukeworld looks real, then CoD would be a disaster with you on the dev team.

By the way, I wanted very much to get past the green puke. But then I discovered that the rest of the game is also terrible, so I removed it from my computer.

[Kano_Magnus]

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

Hope that clear enough for you.

I thought there was a patch on the the way to improve the landscape? I wouldn't be so quick to (attempt to) gloat if I were you. You might end up looking more of a prat than you already do, son. Alternatively, if the devs were (God forbid) to take your attitude, fine, but don't attempt to sell CLOD on the basis of 'unparalleled realism' or some shit. By the way:

YOU ARE STILL WRONG

What we have in CoD is far better a scene then I could have imagined as a child and gives enough to let our imaginations do the rest.

a) You must have had a pretty poor imagination; b) if my imagination is to be a significant component of the game can I have a rebate please; c) if you really believed this crap you'd be playing Spitfire '40 on a Spectrum emulator, I mean it's practically a blank canvas eh

[Buchon]

http://i51.tinypic.com/dg41fr.jpg

[David Hayward]

YOU ARE STILL WRONG


As long as the game isn't the green puke that you want, I win.

[David Hayward]

By the way, those of you who think that CoD looks terrible, you should do what I did with WoPuke. Take it off your computer. I didn't go whining to the WoPuke forums. I removed the game from my PC and moved on with my life. You should do the same.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

I thought there was a patch on the the way to improve the landscape? I wouldn't be so quick to (attempt to) gloat if I were you. You might end up looking more of a prat than you already do, son. Alternatively, if the devs were (God forbid) to take your attitude, fine, but don't attempt to sell CLOD on the basis of 'unparalleled realism' or some shit. By the way:

YOU ARE STILL WRONG



a) You must have had a pretty poor imagination; b) if my imagination is to be a significant component of the game can I have a rebate please; c) if you really believed this crap you'd be playing Spitfire '40 on a Spectrum emulator, I mean it's practically a blank canvas eh

Ok, please tell us how many hours you have in your log book flying over Southern England in order to base your clear conviction that the colours are wrong?

[Kano_Magnus]

As long as the game isn't the green puke that you want, I win.

I never said I wanted 'green puke', by which you mean WoP scenery. You seem to be mistaken, or as some might say...

WRONG

Ok, please tell us how many hours you have in your log book flying over Southern England in order to base your clear conviction that the colours are wrong?

I'm in my fourth decade of life living in said region, I think I know what it looks like. I don't need to be a pilot to know how green the grass is!

[BlackbusheFlyer]

I never said I wanted 'green puke', by which you mean WoP scenery. You seem to be mistaken, or as some might say...

WRONG



I'm in my fourth decade of life living in said region, I think I know what it looks like. I don't need to be a pilot to know how green the grass is!

I have been flying for longer than four decades and the colours in CoD look very in keeping with the very familiar scene fixed in my minds eye over the course of those decades. Southern England in early summer is bright and vibrant.

If you want reality, go learn to fly, there is no substitute for it.

[Kano_Magnus]

I have been flying for longer than four decades and the colours in CoD look very in keeping with the very familiar scene fixed in my minds eye over the course of those decades. Southern England in early summer is bright and vibrant.

If you want reality, go learn to fly, there is no substitute for it.

I believe this is what you flyboys call "nought feet"

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3615/cliffsofdovercod.jpg

I would suggest in your 40+ years of flying England never looked like this, perhaps your eyesight (and brainpower) are failing. There are pictures on the thread, grandad.

I have neither the time nor the disposable income for a pilot's license, nor for that matter a time machine to fly in WW2, hence why I play flight sims. It is not a particularly difficult concept to grasp really is it? I don't expect perfection but I do expect a reasonable simulacra of a landscape I am somewhat familiar with; given today's immense computing power I don't see why this isn't possible.

[David Hayward]

a landscape I am somewhat familiar with

Not as familiar with it as Blackbusheflyer, apparently

[BlackbusheFlyer]

I believe this is what you flyboys call "nought feet"

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3615/cliffsofdovercod.jpg

I would suggest in your 40+ years of flying England never looked like this, perhaps your eyesight (and brainpower) are failing. There are pictures on the thread, grandad.

I have neither the time nor the disposable income for a pilot's license, nor for that matter a time machine to fly in WW2, hence why I play flight sims. It is not a particularly difficult concept to grasp really is it? I don't expect perfection but I do expect a reasonable simulacra of a landscape I am somewhat familiar with; given today's immense computing power I don't see why this isn't possible.

Looks good to me, I still hold a class 1 medical so have reasonable faith in my AME's judgement that I am of sound mind and eyesight. I think we should at this point agree to disagree.

[philip.ed]

David, colours aside, is the layout of everything in CloD's terrain superior to WoP? And if so, why in your opinion? I like how you only answer the posts where you feel you will appear 'correct'.

[Friendly_flyer]

I'm in my fourth decade of life living in said region, I think I know what it looks like. I don't need to be a pilot to know how green the grass is!

Actually, looking at vegetation from abowe is not the same as looking at it from ground level. I've flown quite a bit, and being a landscape ecologist I usually take the oportunity to study landscapes from the plane window. I'm not saying that CoD is more or less realistic looking (lack of hedgerows has been mentioned), only that a ground perspective is not necessarily representative of how things look from above.

[David Hayward]

David, colours aside, is the layout of everything in CloD's terrain superior to WoP? And if so, why in your opinion? I like how you only answer the posts where you feel you will appear 'correct'.

I'm not as familiar with the layout as I am with colors and lighting. I would not be surprised if WoP has a more realistic layout because it has the advantage of a smaller map. Realism is much easier to do in small samples.

It would be silly for me to answer posts for which I thought I would appear to be wrong.

[Kano_Magnus]

Not as familiar with it as Blackbusheflyer, apparently

Hardly, if my perception changes that dramatically in the coming years I'm going to assume I have cataracts. Dude could be lying about his credentials to 'win' for all you know, this is the internet after all.

Oh btw "David Hayward" try not to "make hay" (do you see?) out of other people's arguments when you lost your own, not a good look.

Looks good to me, I still hold a class 1 medical so have reasonable faith in my AME's judgement that I am of sound mind and eyesight. I think we should at this point agree to disagree.

Well if Dr Riviera has signed you off how can I disagree. I would caution though if that looks OK then perhaps you should take care when approaching traffic lights?

Actually, looking at vegetation from abowe is not the same as looking at it from ground level. I've flown quite a bit, and being a landscape ecologist I usually take the oportunity to study landscapes from the plane window.

I have been in a plane one or two times, yeah? Looking through the window isn't like looking through a kaleidoscope. Landscape ecologist? You mean a gardener?

[BigPickle]

lol prolly gonna get spanked for this but i actually liked the desaturated feel to WoP, gave it a nice WW2 feel i thought.

Oh by the way anyone played with GAPA with CoD yet? just a hint :)

[David Hayward]

Oh btw "David Hayward" try not to "make hay" (do you see?) out of other people's arguments when you lost your own, not a good look.


The only place I lost anything is in your imagination. The game looks ok to me. I'm happy. You're not happy. I win!

I might even be happy if they change the game to look more like you think it should look. As long as it isn't puke green, I still win!

[BlackbusheFlyer]

Hardly, if my perception changes that dramatically in the coming years I'm going to assume I have cataracts. Dude could be lying about his credentials to 'win' for all you know, this is the internet after all.

Oh btw "David Hayward" try not to "make hay" (do you see?) out of other people's arguments when you lost your own, not a good look.



Well if Dr Riviera has signed you off how can I disagree. I would caution though if that looks OK then perhaps you should take care when approaching traffic lights?



I have been in a plane one or two times, yeah? Looking through the window isn't like looking through a kaleidoscope. Landscape ecologist? You mean a gardener?

Making asinine remarks about people who disagree with your opinion I suggest is also not a 'good look' and conducting an argument from a position of experience is surely advisable, less one be deemed foolish?

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

I play WOP.IL21946 and COD,i prefer the look of WOP(I didnt like the green when i 1st played it and found turning the brightness up made it look very good for me.I like the look of modded IL2'46 the colours are nice on the eyes,when I 1st saw COD it dissapointed me because it looked to bright green,I love the COD water,cockpits and damage stuff but as much as i want to like the terrain after 4 weeks it still doesnt look right to me.but I guess its all subjective.

[Kano_Magnus]

The only place I lost anything is in your imagination. The game looks ok to me. I'm happy. You're not happy. I win!

I might even be happy if they change the game to look more like you think it should look. As long as it isn't puke green, I still win!

You had a shitfit over something I didn't actually post. You are an idiot and I suspect someone in possession of an autistic spectrum disorder. You don't even own the game!

YOU ARE WRONG, AN IDIOT AND SOMEONE WHO OBSESSES OVER A GAME HE DOESN'T EVEN OWN. GET PROFESSIONAL HELP.

Making asinine remarks about people who disagree with your opinion I suggest is also not a 'good look' and conducting an argument from a position of experience is surely advisable, less one be deemed foolish?

Whoa there Methuselah, I *am* arguing from experience, certain people chose to duck the point. Life-long resident here guys!

[mazex]

The original Red Baron was better than anything I ever expected to see as a child.

He he - I remember ordering Red Baron from Strategy Plus in the UK (RIP - ordered many games from them over the phone, still remember my customer number 7885!) and receiving it by mail to Sweden two weeks later. Opening the Jiffy bag I trembled as I installed it on my 386dx-33 with that beefy 1MB SVGA card... It looked so good I had tears in my eyes ;) A horizon that was faded - oh my god! If we had seen the graphics of CoD then and realized people would whine about them we would have cried :)

[David Hayward]

YOU ARE WRONG, AN IDIOT AND SOMEONE WHO OBSESSES OVER A GAME HE DOESN'T EVEN OWN. GET PROFESSIONAL HELP.


I'm happy about the look of the game. You're whining about it. I think it's great that you see that as a win for you. Congrats on your win!

[David Hayward]

He he - I remember ordering Red Baron from Strategy Plus in the UK and receiving it by mail to Sweden two weeks later. Opening the Jiffy bag I trembled as I installed it on my 386dx-33 with that beefy 1MB SVGA card... It looked so good I had tears in my eyes ;) A horizon that was faded - oh my god! If we had seen the graphics of CoD then and realized people would whine about them we would have cried :)

There were several earlier flight sims than RB, but I still consider that game to be the beginning.

[mazex]

There were several earlier flight sims than RB, but I still consider that game to be the beginning.

Oh, I've played most of them too - be sure ;) Been flight simming since 1982... But I do agree - RB and Aces over Europe etc where really what made me realize that stuff like CoD would be possible in the future :)

[Heliocon]

Hayward is a troll, or a moron or both. This is the only shit he does since joining the forum, nearly always completely subjective and the replies are normally limited to 2 sentences and at best 3. He doesnt know shit, which has been proven more than once when he trolled posts about dx versions and optimization. He is very selective in his replies too so expect him to dissapear once someone makes a cogent and thought out argument against him.

The irony, you were bitching a day or two ago about others "whines" and you do EXACTLY the same thing here.

Also an argument from authority unless backed up with specific details is wandering into logical fallacy territory, aka David haywards fantasy land.

[David Hayward]

He is very selective in his replies too so expect him to dissapear once someone makes a cogent and thought out argument against him.


That's why I never have to worry when I respond to your posts.

[Buchon]

Red baron ... Aces over Europe ...

Nah !!

Crimson Skies is better and have better ground ;)

[mazex]

Wait, are you saying there's no haze in cod? I have haze.


Well, the haze in CoD is not there to cover the fact that the map ends "around the corner" at least ;) It's there to give the effect all pilots know about - that the earth below almost all days is seen through a "milky" filter of haze. Many times when you go above the "haze" it's like going up through from water into the air. Below is the haze layer and a sharp limit where above that the air is crystal clear. Especially in summer time...

Down low - France visible at the horizon
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/8170/haze.jpg

Or up high:
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/6518/hazehigh.jpg

[David Hayward]

Crimson Skies is better and have better ground ;)

I never played Crimson Skies, but a quick Google search indicates that it had better color and lighting than WoP.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

I never played Crimson Skies, but a quick Google search indicates that it had better color and lighting than WoP.

I played Crimson Skies for 5 years and no it wasnt better :)

[Friendly_flyer]

Landscape ecologist? You mean a gardener?

The other kind. Did my thesis on amphibian migration in agricultural landscapes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_ecology

[philip.ed]

Well, the haze in CoD is not there to cover the fact that the map ends "around the corner" at least ;) It's there to give the effect all pilots know about - that the earth below almost all days is seen through a "milky" filter of haze. Many times when you go above the "haze" it's like going up through from water into the air. Below is the haze layer and a sharp limit where above that the air is crystal clear. Especially in summer time...

Down low - France visible at the horizon
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/8170/haze.jpg

Or up high:
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/6518/hazehigh.jpg

Mazex, that last shot is gorgeous.
One thing I have noticed about CoD is that, at low altitude, everything is almost crystal clear during most parts of the day-time. I'd actually expect to see a lot more haze, which isn't as visible as fog, but gives everything a slight luminosity (it's hard to explain).
This sums it up better; it is a filter, as far as I can see, but nothing like what WoP uses (although, on a personal note, I don't find the filter in WoP to be too degrading. I think that other maps that the BoB map in WoP show that the lanscape can look beautiful, and not like something out of a Spielberg film)

http://www.windwardmark.net/products.php?page=windlight&sub=technology&subsub=0

It's subjective; everyone has their own idea of what makes a great sim, so there's no real right or wrong when colours are largely modelled realistically.

[sorak]

Yes you are correct, but WOP does it at alot farther distance. I 100% gurantee you the LOS for WOP is atleast double of the LOS in COD. I have WOP on 1920x1200 and I can full zoom into the distance which is a good few minutes fly away and I can see buildings/city. Also never ever seen building/detail pop.

Go given that the buildings actually appear at a further distance, and you never notice them appearing, and it runs super smooth without problem even with many aircraft in the air while it is still a older game (originally for console - and it uses lots of the IL2 engine and models) the fact that it imo gives comparable graphics and in some places far better graphics while having no performance problem makes me say the WOP team was far more competent in their programming.

Also remember while WOP has IL2's FM/DM the trees actually have hitboxes... so if they can do it on a console/low end $500 or so computer why the hell cant the COD devs???



Maybe because Wings of Prey doesnt have half the actual physics going on in the game.. Use your brain.

[mazex]

Mazex, that last shot is gorgeous.
One thing I have noticed about CoD is that, at low altitude, everything is almost crystal clear during most parts of the day-time. I'd actually expect to see a lot more haze, which isn't as visible as fog, but gives everything a slight luminosity (it's hard to explain).

I fully agree - that's the vague "milky" haze that is there almost every day you get into the air. You don't notice it on the ground as you don't see that far for all the houses and trees though ;)

I have noticed that many aerial photos I have taken myself look very boring due to the milky haze - and CoD does the best job of any sim I have seen in recreating it. Then sure a bit more gamma and a bit darker textures would be nice etc - but generally CoD rules the skies regarding a "being there for real" feeling, IMO at least! And that's what sims are about :)

[jibo]

about WoP i suspect the game has to run on 512MB platform (xbox/ps3) therefore
they use this dominant color trick yellow/green/grey filter in order to reduce the palette
so you won't have the vivid colors available in RoF and CoD, the dynamic lightning is also impacted especially on the ground, where everything looks a bit dead and depressive.
Behind the haze there is also some blur going on to smooth the whole thing but all in all it's consistent and works well to give this ww era touch.

[winny]

I still think i's a bit of a false argument comparing just graphics in WoP and CoD.

One is trying to recreate a full scale, real environment
The other is trying to kid you into believing it's a full scale environment.

One is a Console port
The other is designed for PC only.

One has (for a flight sim) quite shallow gameplay
The other is deep. (probably too deep for it's own good atm)

If you want to compare (why?) then at least credit the facts and whole picture as this WoP vs CoD thing is futile in the end.

I love BoP because I bought it for £25 for PS3, I played it and was quite happy with it. It's great on a big HD tv.

The fact remains that whilst it looks realistic it does not play realistic.
The devs gave you something nice and took away something o make i work... They were smiling at you and picking your pocket at the same time.

There is a Pacific BoP/WoP due out this year, it will be interesting to see where they take it.

Anyone who values graphics over gameplay gets what they deserve. There are loads of games that look amazing but are the same game, over and over and over again.

[Heliocon]

Maybe because Wings of Prey doesnt have half the actual physics going on in the game.. Use your brain.

I do use it, you apparently dont. The main issue here is graphics currently, and if you knew enough to not make that stupid comment, you would also know that game is bottlenecked by the graphics engine's poor optimization. If you thought about your comment before speaking, you would also realise that COD runs into seriouse performance problems when even flying over a city alone, and at that time no physics other than the FM are being calculated, which is the less intensive than the DM or other features.

So before you comment you might want to understand the different factors that can hinder or help performance.

[Heliocon]

That's why I never have to worry when I respond to your posts.

Uh hu
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=272607#post272607

your trolling is getting old - you sitting here more or less by yourself protesting about how much WOP sucks (oh you smart one, you can even make jokes about its name!) and when others disagree all you do is insult them, except you are coming from a mostly subjective POV and you really have nothing to back up what you are saying. Also in those photos if you look into the distance there is a haze btw.

Its actually kind of funny seeing all your sad 1 line retorts. Maybe I wouldnt have to call you on this if you had not harrased me earlier with smart ass comments?

[David Hayward]

Uh hu
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=272607#post272607

your trolling is getting old - you sitting here more or less by yourself protesting about how much WOP sucks (oh you smart one, you can even make jokes about its name!) and when others disagree all you do is insult them, except you are coming from a mostly subjective POV and you really have nothing to back up what you are saying. Also in those photos if you look into the distance there is a haze btw.

Its actually kind of funny seeing all your sad 1 line retorts. Maybe I wouldnt have to call you on this if you had not harrased me earlier with smart ass comments?

Heliocon, look at all the photographs I posted. The real world is not covered in green puke like the WoP world. That is not a subjective view, that is a fact.

There is haze in the distance in the photographs I posted. It is virtually identical to the haze in CoD.

[David Hayward]

Real world = no green puke

http://aero-pix.com/qp07/sh18air/images/img_013.jpg

[David Hayward]

No green puke

http://aero-pix.com/oceana/air/pw/pw-b.jpg

[David Hayward]

Even with overcast sky there is no green puke.

http://aero-pix.com/westfield10/klatt/images/img_009.jpg

[Zoom2136]

Your hazy green mess is actually far more natural and realistic; not only does this planet's atmosphere contain particles that disperse and diffuse light. At altitude water in the atmosphere often causes a haze, which you would know if you had ever flown anything but a desk, but no mater, it's an option that can be turned off if you don't like it.

Yeah but nothing like that, you are definitaly not a GA pilot!

[Heliocon]

That's why I never have to worry when I respond to your posts.

Heliocon, look at all the photographs I posted. The real world is not covered in green puke like the WoP world. That is not a subjective view, that is a fact.

There is haze in the distance in the photographs I posted. It is virtually identical to the haze in CoD.

I agree with you, COD's visuals are in many ways more realistic (although I think they should tweak the color scheme, but it may look perfectly fine when they implement weather). Of the pictures on this page, the last one I can see a haze in, and the first two posted here I see a distinct haze in the distance which while not as obvious as WOP, is definitly there.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=22249&page=7

So then the problem comes down to yet again optimization, the "green puke" (which I really dont think is as bad as you say, because its a background technique and very discrete) is a work around for display far off objects. Now in COD you can see further technically, but that doesnt actually mean when your playing in the game, even at full zoom you can make out details that far away. They could easily implement trees at a certain distance as sprites, same with buildings (lots of games do this) and have the speed tree operate only at a distance where you can tell if the tree is a sprite. Same with buildings.

As for collisions while they do have to track each plane, all they need to do is: P=plane, G=ground, A=altitude from nearest ground surface, V=velocity.
Using simple equations they should create a bubble around each aircraft. So trees only receive hitboxes when a plane is within a certain limited distance, adjusted for velocity/speed so a plan flying low speed at low altitude has a larger spherical bubble around it for tree generation BUT a plane diving at high speed would warp/extend the bubble in a direction in order for the game to make required calculations in time for a potential impact (helping to eliminate lag/stutter). I have minimal programming knowledge, as I have said I am more into graphics design, but there are techniques out there that have been used for years to remedy these exact issues. With todays tech it should not be an issue at all, especially the horrible performance over cities. (This is why I was jumping up and down for the later quater of 2010, because I knew there was going to me some major bottlenecks in the game if they wanted to implement everything they said without DX11).

But thank you for the polite reply, so I will pay the same respect back to you.

[David Hayward]

So then the problem comes down to yet again optimization, the "green puke" (which I really dont think is as bad as you say, because its a background technique and very discrete) is a work around for display far off objects. Now in COD you can see further technically, but that doesnt actually mean when your playing in the game, even at full zoom you can make out details that far away. They could easily implement trees at a certain distance as sprites, same with buildings (lots of games do this) and have the speed tree operate only at a distance where you can tell if the tree is a sprite. Same with buildings.

They are clearly not done with CoD. I'm sure they will continue to work on making it look better. But it's pretty clear that they have an excellent base to start with.


As for collisions while they do have to track each plane, all they need to do is: P=plane, G=ground, A=altitude from nearest ground surface, V=velocity.
Using simple equations they should create a bubble around each aircraft. So trees only receive hitboxes when a plane is within a certain limited distance

The problem is that they still have to calculate all these things for every tree on the map. When you say "within a certain limited distance", they currently still have to calculate what the distance is for every tree and every aircraft. That is a lot of calculations even if you're only checking for aircraft which are close enough to trees that you should be checking for collisions.

I would fix it by breaking up the map into boxes. I would constantly keep track of which box the aircraft is in and only check it's distance from trees in that box. However, I have no idea if that is even possible with their engine. It might not be. But eventually I am sure they will find a fix.



But thank you for the polite reply, so I will pay the same respect back to you.

If you can refrain from calling me a moron, I can try to treat you with respect. But you have to give the devs a break. What they are trying to do is not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. I have more than 20 years of programming experience with hospital software. When I make a mistake it could cause one of our users to kill a patient, and they don't get as upset when they have a problem with our software as many in here have got about this game. It's a game. No one is going to die. Lighten up a little.

[Heliocon]

They are clearly not done with CoD. I'm sure they will continue to work on making it look better. But it's pretty clear that they have an excellent base to start with.



The problem is that they still have to calculate all these things for every tree on the map. When you say "within a certain limited distance", they currently still have to calculate what the distance is for every tree and every aircraft. That is a lot of calculations even if you're only checking for aircraft which are close enough to trees that you should be checking for collisions.

I would fix it by breaking up the map into boxes. I would constantly keep track of which box the aircraft is in and only check it's distance from trees in that box. However, I have no idea if that is even possible with their engine. It might not be. But eventually I am sure they will find a fix.




If you can refrain from calling me a moron, I can try to treat you with respect. But you have to give the devs a break. What they are trying to do is not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. I have more than 20 years of programming experience with hospital software. When I make a mistake it could cause one of our users to kill a patient, and they don't get as upset when they have a problem with our software as many in here have got about this game. It's a game. No one is going to die. Lighten up a little.

Programming for a game vs hospital software are too entirely different beasts, even if you program for a UI etc - the crossover is very minimal.
As for the calculations - reread the post, they dont need to calculate anything until the aircraft gets to a certain altitude, then the hitboxes would be generated, no calculations need to be made unless an impact occurs. Each tree would have a hitbox which is generated around it when an aircraft gets close, since the game irrespective of trees has to track the aircraft anyway,you can impement a "if" and "then" scenario. This is likely what they they already tried (luthier mentioned that they tried hitboxes when I suggested it, but also said they have to do it for every tree in the game and every plane *facepalm*). Its not an excellent base if it doesnt work, its not that the game has problems, its that the problems it has should not be an issue/should not even be there for a modern game. Over that unfortunetly they developed it in a way that is limiting them from offloading work to additional cores/threads. For god sake a ipad 2 has 2 cores, why do people still use 1 core machines?...

[David Hayward]

Programming for a game vs hospital software are too entirely different beasts, even if you program for a UI etc - the crossover is very minimal.
As for the calculations - reread the post, they dont need to calculate anything until the aircraft gets to a certain altitude, then the hitboxes would be generated, no calculations need to be made unless an impact occurs. Each tree would have a hitbox which is generated around it when an aircraft gets close, since the game irrespective of trees has to track the aircraft anyway,you can impement a "if" and "then" scenario. This is likely what they they already tried (luthier mentioned that they tried hitboxes when I suggested it, but also said they have to do it for every tree in the game and every plane *facepalm*). Its not an excellent base if it doesnt work, its not that the game has problems, its that the problems it has should not be an issue/should not even be there for a modern game. Over that unfortunetly they developed it in a way that is limiting them from offloading work to additional cores/threads. For god sake a ipad 2 has 2 cores, why do people still use 1 core machines?...

Programming is programming, and you're not a programmer. You are in no position to "facepalm" over anything Luthier tells you.

[Heliocon]

Programming is programming, and you're not a programmer. You are in no position to "facepalm" over anything Luthier tells you.

Java, programming is not just programming, because when you say that it makes you look rather stupid. Any qualifications you claim here and cannot back up make you look idiotic. Programming simple operations for utilities is NOTHING like programming a game engine. Different language, different requirments. Also you are not a programmer either, unless you are willing to publish your personal details I would say argument from authority is best left unsaid.

You sound like a kid who knows how to play a song on a guitar and since he can do that, he can conduct an orchestra. Also please expand on what equipment you programme exactly? Does it use hitboxes?

[fish99]

The problem is that they still have to calculate all these things for every tree on the map. When you say "within a certain limited distance", they currently still have to calculate what the distance is for every tree and every aircraft.

If that IS true for CoD then it certainly shouldn't be, and it isn't how collisions are typically done. The visible trees should be arranged into spatial hierarchies or groups so 95% of them can be excluded from individual collisions tests with just a few bounding box or sphere tests. You do not have to calculate the distance from every tree to every aircraft.

I'm sure the devs know all this though, they just haven't had time to implement it yet.

[Heliocon]

If that IS true for CoD then it certainly shouldn't be, and it isn't how collisions are typically done. The visible trees should be arranged into spatial hierarchies or groups so 95% of them can be excluded from individual collisions tests with just a few bounding box or sphere tests. You do not have to calculate the distance from every tree to every aircraft.

I'm sure the devs know all this though, they just haven't had time to implement it yet.

exactly +1

But the devs said they do not know how to fix the problem because there are too many trees... they said they could offload it to another core but that would change min specs...

They need new programmers...

[unreasonable]

The other kind. Did my thesis on amphibian migration in agricultural landscapes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_ecology

You are a frog-botherer!

[BigPickle]

@ David Hayward (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/member.php?u=30441), do you own IL2 Cliffs of Dover?

[sigur_ros]

CloD is least England looking flight sim terrain I have EVER played (and I started with SWOTLW). Even sims that only render terrain as flat green color look more like England!

http://www.oldgames.sk/images/oldgames/simulator/Secret.Weapons/swotl-004.png

[ctec1]

Maybe they should fix collisions with the brick and mortar before they attempt the trees:)

And BTW, its not CoD, WOP or IL2 and not England but FSX with the right addons looks pretty realistic to me. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, to each his own:-P:

http://sbcglobalpwp.att.net/c/t/ctec1/ATT_Files/2011-4-30_0-37-36-883.jpg

[Buchon]

The ground of that screenshot just hurt my eyes, I saw better ground in screenshots from the 6 years old IL2-1946, to each his own.

[David Hayward]

If that IS true for CoD then it certainly shouldn't be, and it isn't how collisions are typically done. The visible trees should be arranged into spatial hierarchies or groups so 95% of them can be excluded from individual collisions tests with just a few bounding box or sphere tests. You do not have to calculate the distance from every tree to every aircraft.

I'm sure the devs know all this though, they just haven't had time to implement it yet.

I can only go by what Luthier posted here. He said they were checking every tree for every aircraft. I'm guessing that is what they did for IL-2, and they thought it would work ok for CoD, but I am just guessing.

Yes, they obviously have to group the trees so that only certain groups have to be check for every aircraft. The trick is how you do that.

[David Hayward]

Java, programming is not just programming, because when you say that it makes you look rather stupid. Any qualifications you claim here and cannot back up make you look idiotic. Programming simple operations for utilities is NOTHING like programming a game engine. Different language, different requirments. Also you are not a programmer either, unless you are willing to publish your personal details I would say argument from authority is best left unsaid.

You sound like a kid who knows how to play a song on a guitar and since he can do that, he can conduct an orchestra. Also please expand on what equipment you programme exactly? Does it use hitboxes?

The sort of programming I do is absolutely nothing like programming a game, that's why I never even considered offering solutions to Luthier. It's also why I'm only using generalities.

You said that you have minimal programming knowledge. Where do you get the nerve to criticize something when you have virtually no experience of your own?

[BigPickle]

mate do you own the game ?

[David Hayward]

As for the calculations - reread the post, they dont need to calculate anything until the aircraft gets to a certain altitude, then the hitboxes would be generated, no calculations need to be made unless an impact occurs.

If no calculations have to be made until an impact occurs, how does the computer determine that an impact has occurred? Magic?

[David Hayward]

mate do you own the game ?

No. What difference does that make?

[Psycho_Ch!cken]

I only have experience programming Unreal, but if it were me, rather than maintaining permanent collision on trees, I'd instead be setting each aircraft as the trigger. Aircraft are already doing a whole bunch of checks per tick, I'd set them to also check for the existence of trees/buildings/whatever within a set radius (based on point of origin) and then enable collision for any detected (disabling any that are active but no longer within said radius), which would keep the number of active "objects" to a minimum.

That said, I have no idea how actors are setup and controlled in this engine, so my methods may be insanely difficult or completely impossible as it stands. Whoever said that they need to get better programmers though is talking out their arse. The ones they have may well be exceptional, but if the engine they're working with was written by someone else and is a mess, then that'll put serious limitations on anyone.

[BigPickle]

All the difference, if you butcher peoples opinions and cast your own while you dont even own the game we are discussing how can you talk like you know?

If you live in the U.S and are waiting for the game to arrive then maybe you should do exactly that and speak from experience rather than just bloat these posts with ignorant crap like I WIN I WIN!

Show me and the others you have probably annoyed by behaving immaturely, that you do have some respect for others by not arguing back to this post, and take on board what I am saying out of respect for yourself too.

[michcich]

let`s be clear - ROF, albeit less detailed, models the sense of altitude and flight above terrian much better than COD. COD`s terrain is just too cartoonish...

The best way forward for COD is when 777 takes on WWII combat flight sim :)

[BigPickle]

I dunno mate tbh I like the terrain but i do like the washed out look WoP, had too.
I tried GAPA and desaturated the colours a little and thought it looked great maybe you should have a play with it too

http://www.mediafire.com/?lzhjwmmmmme

[David Hayward]

All the difference, if you butcher peoples opinions and cast your own while you dont even own the game we are discussing how can you talk like you know?

I only offer opinions on things that I have seen on this board. If you see me doing otherwise, feel free to point out examples.

[David Hayward]

Show me and the others you have probably annoyed by behaving immaturely, that you do have some respect for others by not arguing back to this post, and take on board what I am saying out of respect for yourself too.

By the way, I am not the slightest bit concerned that I may have annoyed people who come in here whining about this game. Not even a little.

[BigPickle]

I only offer opinions on things that I have seen on this board. If you see me doing otherwise, feel free to point out examples. Yeah you would love that right? You must be a teenager beause only a teenager likes to bait people for fun.

By the way, I am not the slightest bit concerned that I may have annoyed people who come in here whining about this game. Not even a little. As opposed you? Who doesnt even own the game and only comes here to start arguments with people who do own the game.

You have proved my point. There's nothing more to say.

[David Hayward]

Yeah you would love that right? You must be a teenager.


I have no idea what you are talking about.


You just proved my point so jog on and dont let the door bump your arse on the way out.

I have no idea what point you think I proved, but I have no intention of leaving.

[David Hayward]

As opposed you? Who doesnt even own the game and only comes here to start arguments with people who do own the game.


I'm not starting arguments. The people who come in here whining are the ones starting the arguments.

[BigPickle]

I have no idea what you are talking about.



I have no idea what point you think I proved, but I have no intention of leaving.

Oh i edited that as you can see because I really cant be arsed to give you anymore excuses to talk.

[David Hayward]

Oh i edited that as you can see because I really cant be arsed to give you anymore excuses to talk.

In other words, you're talking out your ars. I comment on things I have seen on the board. You don't need to own the game to do that. Just ask Heliocon.

[DogTailRed2]

Some pics from FSX over England with A2A Spitfire as comparison.

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g372/munnst/spit3.jpg

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g372/munnst/spit2.jpg

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g372/munnst/spit1.jpg

and a pic I took on ops in COD

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g372/munnst/cod1.jpg

[BigPickle]

I think CoD looks better but not by much I got to be honest.
Like i said i quite liked the desaturated look of Wop it had a WW2 feel to it.
Shame it couldnt be reproduced as a mod when the SDK comes out.

[Heliocon]

The sort of programming I do is absolutely nothing like programming a game, that's why I never even considered offering solutions to Luthier. It's also why I'm only using generalities.

You said that you have minimal programming knowledge. Where do you get the nerve to criticize something when you have virtually no experience of your own?

Ummm - because I have some experience with programming but I know how programmers solve these issues because I have been playing games/beta testing for a good 6+ years now. I also spent a year in class using Maya 7.5/Autodesk which is what is used for game models and CGI. For a good amount of time I also considered attending Digipen (a school for game design).
I also am a big hardware techie. Now none of that really matters because anyone could claim these things, thats why I am always careful to rely on and explain everything I say as per the game engine. You wont see me throwing around opinions on other topics based on what I have "heard" or on "generalities" because I do not have the knowledge to contribute meaningfully to those debates.

Thats why I normally bring out the truckload of quotes/posts I made in mid-late 2010, and the best one is when Luthier said DX11 tesselation would never be used for anything other than "plane wheels". I said that was absurd etc, and earlier this year in that german interview they said what they would use DX11 tesselation for (all the things I talked about) and direct compute for the physics (only person/first person here to ever suggest or comment on it) while using the new shader/lighting pipeline for the engine (especially clouds etc) and therefore confirmed all of my points.

Also as someone who has done alot of talking with devs a year or two back in closed beta about collision detection in MMORPGs (most games you can just run through people) I gained alot of knowledge about how it is done. Same thing for Closed beta on Mortal Online and Darkfall which are the two most recent games that use multiple hitboxes.

I dont comment on things I dont know about, as others have re-affirmed my point there is 0 reason for them to be having to generate hitboxes for all trees all the time. There are easy fixes other companies have used to solve these types of problems, maybe it wasnt translated into russian?

[David Hayward]

Ummm - because I have some experience with programming but I know how programmers solve these issues because I have been playing games/beta testing for a good 6+ years now.

Being a beta tester does not make you a programmer. Nor do you have anything to do with this project, so every comment you make about it is nothing but a guess.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Heliocon
As for the calculations - reread the post, they dont need to calculate anything until the aircraft gets to a certain altitude, then the hitboxes would be generated, no calculations need to be made unless an impact occurs.


If no calculations have to be made until an impact occurs, how does the computer determine that an impact has occurred? Magic?

[Friendly_flyer]

You are a frog-botherer!

...or a newt-fancier, depending on pond.

[Cobra8472]

If no calculations have to be made until an impact occurs, how does the computer determine that an impact has occurred? Magic?

Instanced collision physics with proper performance is nothing new.. Please don't try to say that having colliders for each tree in CoD is impossible, because it is not, has been done before, and there are implementations and examples of this dating back tons of years.

If you take away the fancy color grading in Wings of Prey, it is quite obvious their engine is more streamlined and better with regards to rendering, performance and quality. One must also note that they're probably not using the most high-res textures possible, due to console memory overhead and managment problems.

Regarding Haze;

If you notice in every single photo you've posted, there is a fine light blue haze. This is air particles scattering light.

WoP has a better implementation of this than CoD. I'd actually venture and say that CoD viewdistance is too far as it is right now. Usually there is more haze.

Once again, distance based exponential height fog is nothing new, nothing complicated, and nothing performance taxing.

The green tint of the haze you see in WoP, is simply the post-processing colour grading being done on the fly. If you took it off and tweaked some of the Haze shader RGB values,. you can turn it light blue and 100% realistic.

[David Hayward]

Instanced collision physics with proper performance is nothing new.. Please don't try to say that having colliders for each tree in CoD is impossible, because it is not, has been done before, and there are implementations and examples of this dating back tons of years.


I never said it was impossible. I have no idea how you got that from anything I have posted. All I asked is how the computer can detect a collision without doing any calculations (as Helicon described).


If you take away the fancy color grading in Wings of Prey, it is quite obvious their engine is more streamlined and better with regards to rendering, performance and quality. One must also note that they're probably not using the most high-res textures possible, due to console memory overhead and managment problems.


None of which changes the fact that WoP looks like green puke.



Regarding Haze;

If you notice in every single photo you've posted, there is a fine light blue haze. This is air particles scattering light.

WoP has a better implementation of this than CoD. I'd actually venture and say that CoD viewdistance is too far as it is right now. Usually there is more haze.


No, it doesn't. That isn't even a close call. The horizon in the photographs I posted looks very similar to CoD. It looks NOTHING like WoPuke.

[philip.ed]

David, can you show us this 'puke' on every-map in the game? Whilst filters are used, you're being quite extreme in your descriptions.

[David Hayward]

David, can you show us this 'puke' on every-map in the game? Whilst filters are used, you're being quite extreme in your descriptions.

Of course I'm being extreme. There's no actual puke in the screenshots. But they all have an overwhelming puke green hue. Just look through this thread.

Even if you get rid of the puke green hue the problem is not completely fixed. WoP simulates extremely hazy conditions. Southern England during the BoB was not that hazy. From everything I have read the weather during the battle was unusually nice.

[philip.ed]

That is true. But my point is that the green filter isn't used on every map in the game, and some maps are quite stunning.

Previously, I posted a link to windlight-an application which adds realistic lighting conditions to games.
Check it out, IMHO it looks realistic, and would work great with CoD if the two could be merged.

[David Hayward]

That is true. But my point is that the green filter isn't used on every map in the game, and some maps are quite stunning.


I checked out several maps. They were all very hazy.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Dave, I usually stay well clear of this topic as it comes up time after time after.....ad nauseum.

Whilst I described WoP as 'viewing the world through cheap sunglasses', I agree with you. It looks like green puke.

And I admire your tenacity on this forum. I'd've given up long ago.

I also agree with phillip (hello mate), that the lack of hedgerows in CoD is disappointing.

But I've just got back from the CoD 'Cross Country' mission from Netheravon to Montdidier, with the time for startup set at 5.00am, and the realism I experienced was far better than any flight sim (or console game) I've previously 'flown' over the last twenty-odd years.

I'd go as far as to say 'a different league'.

Yes I have RoF, yes I have FSX with UK Real Scenery and GEX, yes I have various versions of IL2.

Whether on take-off, at 10000 ft, or on the let-down into Montdidier, I could almost smell the air. (I just had to have the cockpit canopy open all the way).

I wouldn't go near WoP simply because every shot I've seen looks like it was washed along with the baby's nappie, and because I've read the reviews.

So good luck Dave, I've a feeling this comparison of apples and pears will continue for some time yet!

Cheers!:grin:

[Heliocon]

The sort of programming I do is absolutely nothing like programming a game, that's why I never even considered offering solutions to Luthier. It's also why I'm only using generalities.

You said that you have minimal programming knowledge. Where do you get the nerve to criticize something when you have virtually no experience of your own?

If no calculations have to be made until an impact occurs, how does the computer determine that an impact has occurred? Magic?

You are a complete moron. Try reading the posts. Oh, I forgot you dont have the intellectual capacity to type more than 2-3 sentences in a row.

I should not even answer your idiotic question, the issue is and has never been the collision itself - its the calculations for working out the collision that is the problem, because currently they are not selectivly generating hit boxes based on distance as every other sane programmer would have the engine do (based on what we have been told).
Also I didnt just beta test, I know a number of devs from games pretty well and have talked to them about similar issues.

No point in arguing with you, seriously the biggest fanboy on the forum, when ever someone criticises the game in any way you are always there to spout ignorrant crap. If I am so unqualified (and indeed I am not to programme the engine) then why did they mention implementing my suggestions specifically about 3-4 months after I posted/started advocating for them? Why did luthier do a complete 180 on dx11 uses?

Better than your track record.

[Heliocon]

Dave, I usually stay well clear of this topic as it comes up time after time after.....ad nauseum.

Whilst I described WoP as 'viewing the world through cheap sunglasses', I agree with you. It looks like green puke.

And I admire your tenacity on this forum. I'd've given up long ago.

I also agree with phillip (hello mate), that the lack of hedgerows in CoD is disappointing.

But I've just got back from the CoD 'Cross Country' mission from Netheravon to Montdidier, with the time for startup set at 5.00am, and the realism I experienced was far better than any flight sim (or console game) I've previously 'flown' over the last twenty-odd years.

I'd go as far as to say 'a different league'.

Yes I have RoF, yes I have FSX with UK Real Scenery and GEX, yes I have various versions of IL2.

Whether on take-off, at 10000 ft, or on the let-down into Montdidier, I could almost smell the air. (I just had to have the cockpit canopy open all the way).

I wouldn't go near WoP simply because every shot I've seen looks like it was washed along with the baby's nappie, and because I've read the reviews.

So good luck Dave, I've a feeling this comparison of apples and pears will continue for some time yet!

Cheers!:grin:

None of this is relevant, we are not comparing the games, we are comparing what they display and how much that display effects performance. With some polishing COD will look great, but currently in general it looks mediocre and performes horribly. Also cities are a disaster.

Selective pov ftw right? Echo chamber..........

[David Hayward]

I should not even answer your idiotic question, the issue is and has never been the collision itself - its the calculations for working out the collision that is the problem


You haven't attempted to answer my question, you keep pounding your fist and call me a moron.

So, I will ask again, quoting you directly:


Originally Posted by Heliocon
As for the calculations - reread the post, they dont need to calculate anything until the aircraft gets to a certain altitude, then the hitboxes would be generated, no calculations need to be made unless an impact occurs.

How does the computer determine if there is an impact with the hit box without doing any calculations? You can't say that the calculations needed to determine if there has been a collision "don't count" without explain why they "don't count". Oh, and calling me a moron is not nearly as compelling an argument as you seem to think it is.

[ATAG_Dutch]

None of this is relevant.

Erm, no offence but the original post was a comparison of screenshots for realism.

I posted my comments based on an assessment of realism, together with an agreement with Dave that WoP looks like 'Green Puke'.

I didn't post anything connected with the technicalities of programming or collision models because I know nothing about those topics.

I know what I like though.:)

[warbirds]

Ok what we have is a pro photographer with a good eye for detail and color saying WOP is baby dudu and I agree with him. Now if you are looking at WOP on a small monitor that most likely has not been color corrected than it might look good to you.

As a graphic artist I can say that COD looks better to me than WOP and yes I have used both sims. The haze and green tint is, of course, used by the developers to look like old photos of the period. It works for some and for others it does not. I personally like the textures in COD and find them more like the real textures I see when flying.

Not really a matter of which is better, just a matter of taste.

[BigPickle]

Point proven, again..
every comment you make about it is nothing but a guess.
So with that in mind your comments dont me anything now do they as you dont own this game "so every comment you make about it is just a guess" because you cant speak from experience.

I really think mumsnet is more your scene, you'll fit right in.
http://www.mumsnet.com/info/join

[David Hayward]

Point proven, again..

So with that in mind your comments dont me anything now do they as you dont own this game "so every comment you make about it is just a guess" because you cant speak from experience.


None of our comments on the collision problem mean anything. We're all just guessing. The light and color issue is a different matter. I have photographs and screenshots to support my comments.

I have no idea what point you think is being proven.

[BigPickle]

oh well shame, maybe you should ask all the others you deliberately wind up what they think, but i guess they have all made it obvious anyway.
anyhow i'm off to bed with my wife while you no doubt will go to bed alone, after spending a few more hours being padantic and smarmy over a game you dont even own. Why are you here again. Oh yeah to comment on other peoples comments. Mumsnet mate, spot on.

[philip.ed]

So.......

if we all agree that the WoP filter is, largely, ugly on most levels...

we're all in agreeance?

Because CoD is a lot more realistic, but as far as the SE of England is concerned, more hedgerows and less trees are needed.

oh, and the high-altitude town/city textures need looking into.

But all in good time :cool:

oh, and hello Dutch! I hope things are well ;)

[David Hayward]

oh well shame, maybe you should ask all the others you deliberately wind up what they think, but i guess they have all made it obvious anyway.
anyhow i'm off to bed with my wife while you no doubt will go to bed alone, after spending a few more hours being padantic and smarmy over a game you dont even own. Why are you here again. Oh yeah to comment on other peoples comments. Mumsnet mate, spot on.

Wow. LittlePickle, I think you just broke the irony meter on my PC.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Wow. LittlePickle, I think you just broke the irony meter on my PC.

Snort. Fnyuk, fnyuk.

Sorry, had a few beers.:)

And hello to to you too phillip, the clouds are a bit crap after all, aren't they?!:grin:

[Heliocon]

You haven't attempted to answer my question, you keep pounding your fist and call me a moron.

So, I will ask again, quoting you directly:



How does the computer determine if there is an impact with the hit box without doing any calculations? You can't say that the calculations needed to determine if there has been a collision "don't count" without explain why they "don't count". Oh, and calling me a moron is not nearly as compelling an argument as you seem to think it is.

Already answered, sorry I dont have time to teach you english, go back a few pages. Simply not worth responding to you anymore if you lack the ability to read.

[David Hayward]

Can someone else point me to where he answered that question? I can't find it.

[Skiiwa]

There are some great pics in this thread! Keep it going please:D I play all the games in this thread and like each one for what it is.....

[unreasonable]

[QUOTE=Cobra8472;276538]Regarding Haze;

If you notice in every single photo you've posted, there is a fine light blue haze. This is air particles scattering light.

WoP has a better implementation of this than CoD. I'd actually venture and say that CoD viewdistance is too far as it is right now. Usually there is more haze.

[QUOTE]

On the subject of haze: like so many other issues of how the game looks compared to RL, it must be remembered that RL is not what it used to be!

In 1940 England photochemical smog from car exhausts similar to what we see in most urban areas nowdays was non-existent, there being so few cars and petrol rationed. There was airborne pollution, but as this was primarily particulate it created a lower, more localised, visible grey haze more like driving behind a badly maintained diesel engined bus. I recall reading somewhere that the summer skies of WW2 were remarked on for their clarity in SE England, since even coal was heavily rationed for domestic use.

On a similar vein, I remember a TV documentary about cloud formation noting that in the days after the bombing of the twin towers, while CA over the US was shut down, the skies were much clearer and bluer than usual. (Some very compelling photo evidence). This was because most of the very high altitude thin cloud is precipitated by aeroplane vapour trails.

So when us boomers remember the clear blue skies of our youth this is not nostalgia or cataracts!

PS I am not making WoP/CoD comparisons here, since I do not own WoP and feel unqualified to pontificate on it, just sticking to the CoD vs RL issue on which CoD, IMHO, does a reasonable approximation of haze (as opposed to the colours of trees, grass and London buildings where the palette needs a tweak)

[BigPickle]

So.......

if we all agree that the WoP filter is, largely, ugly on most levels...

we're all in agreeance?

Because CoD is a lot more realistic, but as far as the SE of England is concerned, more hedgerows and less trees are needed.

oh, and the high-altitude town/city textures need looking into.

But all in good time :cool:

oh, and hello Dutch! I hope things are well ;)

I gotta be honest i liked the de-saturated part of the filter from WoP. Didnt like much else though. I think the green hue didnt make much of a difference tbh as it only seemed starkly visible on England map. The remaining maps looked great I thought.

Y'know i remember a long time back phillip you asked about this in development and I'm quite positive that you had a direct comment from Oleg saying they were working on hegrows, maybe it got scrapped for more trees.

unreasonable
In 1940 England photochemical smog from car exhausts similar to what we see in most urban areas nowdays was non-existent, there being so few cars and petrol rationed. There was airborne pollution, but as this was primarily particulate it created a lower, more localised, visible grey haze more like driving behind a badly maintained diesel engined bus. I recall reading somewhere that the summer skies of WW2 were remarked on for their clarity in SE England, since even coal was heavily rationed for domestic use. Very true but there were lots more coal burning situations in homes and factories, so I think down south near the docklands and in the midlands there probably would have been considerable polution from that aspect. It would have been smog and not high level polution though. I think when the Blitz started that would have added to the polution ten fold, but i guess this game would only cover the very start of the Blitz.
Haze ingame i think is just right, the atmosphere itself and the bending of light as it comes through causes the a haze without polution, so i think its ok.

[klem]

As far as the Terrain itself is concerned I prefer the colouration, and content of the FSX Horizon photo terrain, see attached. The Just Flight photo terrain is not bad but seemed a bit washed out to me in their demo.

Of course photo terrain gives you a much better idea of the population of trees and hedgrows. In CoD its too "Walt Disney", there seem to be too few hedgerows, trees too large and turning trees fully up is not much like the English countryside. England is just not populated with single trees every two hundred yards and especially not so concentrated in the suburbs apart from parks. Most roadside trees are growing among hedgerows. The OPs CoD views show the problem, where the trees are strung out along the roads they are far too regular, no hedgerows and the trees seem a bit overscale, as do the buildings (well perhaps its the way they are drawn, too highly coloured or something). It would perhaps be better to model some whole woods and some hedgerows with trees as single objects and place them along roads and across the terrain.

I don't have WoP but - quality aside - the OPs s/shot shows general layout/field and hedgegrow concentration more like it.

Compare "CoD (aka "the real Deal"?)" with WoP and you'll se the difference in tree scaling, placement and population.

[RocketDog]

In CoD its too "Walt Disney", there seem to be too few hedgerows, trees too large and turning trees fully up is not much like the English countryside. England is just not populated with single trees every two hundred yards and especially not so concentrated in the suburbs apart from parks. Most roadside trees are growing among hedgerows. The OPs CoD views show the problem, where the trees are strung out along the roads they are far too regular, no hedgerows and the trees seem a bit overscale, as do the buildings (well perhaps its the way they are drawn, too highly coloured or something). It would perhaps be better to model some whole woods and some hedgerows with trees as single objects and place them along roads and across the terrain.

Agreed. I suspect the devs have painted themselves into a corner with the way they use trees in CloD. The speedtrees look great close up, and so allows the game engine to be easily adapted to ground-based tank sims or whatever. Unfortunately, the technology doesn't seem to lend itself to making the sort of blocks of dense woodland that we have in the UK. Perhaps so many trees would hammer the frame rate. RoF's trees are nothing like as good close up (in fact, they are quite ugly), but from the air they can make very convincing dark-green forests and blocks of woodland of the sort we actually get in the UK and Northern France. At this stage in the process it's probably too late for them to make major changes to CloD, but it would have been nice if they had done a bit more research into the English countryside before producing the terrain.

[ctec1]

And another FSX variant, somewhere near Manston for comparison:

http://sbcglobalpwp.att.net/c/t/ctec1/ATT_Files/2011-5-1_8-11-18-874.jpg

[fruitbat]

And another FSX variant, somewhere near Manston for comparison:

http://sbcglobalpwp.att.net/c/t/ctec1/ATT_Files/2011-5-1_8-11-18-874.jpg

Wow, that looks absolutely nothing like where i live, lol.

nothing is right in that, from the houses, fields, field sizes, colours....

by the way, i live 2 miles from the end of manston runway.

[ctec1]

In response, Its not photorealistic scenery. Its simply FSX and UTX combined trying recreate the area with the installed textures. I'm not even aware of an addon for that area of the UK.

Not sure exactly where that shot was taken from , I took off from Manston and was flying around for a bit. I'd guess I would be within a 50 mile radius. FSX wasnt made to depict Manston in particular. I just chose the airport and that is what was rendered. I dont think thats a bad job considering
:)

http://sbcglobalpwp.att.net/c/t/ctec1/ATT_Files/manston_sat.jpg


SRY, I tried to adjustthe angle of the image to be more in line with my previous screenshot but it became slightly blurred

[Heliocon]

[QUOTE=Cobra8472;276538]Regarding Haze;

If you notice in every single photo you've posted, there is a fine light blue haze. This is air particles scattering light.

WoP has a better implementation of this than CoD. I'd actually venture and say that CoD viewdistance is too far as it is right now. Usually there is more haze.

[QUOTE]

On the subject of haze: like so many other issues of how the game looks compared to RL, it must be remembered that RL is not what it used to be!

In 1940 England photochemical smog from car exhausts similar to what we see in most urban areas nowdays was non-existent, there being so few cars and petrol rationed. There was airborne pollution, but as this was primarily particulate it created a lower, more localised, visible grey haze more like driving behind a badly maintained diesel engined bus. I recall reading somewhere that the summer skies of WW2 were remarked on for their clarity in SE England, since even coal was heavily rationed for domestic use.

On a similar vein, I remember a TV documentary about cloud formation noting that in the days after the bombing of the twin towers, while CA over the US was shut down, the skies were much clearer and bluer than usual. (Some very compelling photo evidence). This was because most of the very high altitude thin cloud is precipitated by aeroplane vapour trails.

So when us boomers remember the clear blue skies of our youth this is not nostalgia or cataracts!

PS I am not making WoP/CoD comparisons here, since I do not own WoP and feel unqualified to pontificate on it, just sticking to the CoD vs RL issue on which CoD, IMHO, does a reasonable approximation of haze (as opposed to the colours of trees, grass and London buildings where the palette needs a tweak)

As bigpickle has said below, there would likely be a seasonal haze. I grew up in the countryside in NZ, we had a wood burning fire (this wasnt even that long ago either) and so did everyone else. In winter there was often a heavy haze do to people burning firewood for heat, and you can see it from a plane window. England would of been much worse though because of higher density pop and the cities all would of had fireplaces, where as in the 90s there was better insulation and electrical heating.

[Lololopoulos]

I side with heliocon on this matter.
and i would very much like to hear some official explainations from the devs on whether the ground scenery will be improved any time soon.

[Ailantd]

[QUOTE=unreasonable;276703][QUOTE=Cobra8472;276538]Regarding Haze;

If you notice in every single photo you've posted, there is a fine light blue haze. This is air particles scattering light.

WoP has a better implementation of this than CoD. I'd actually venture and say that CoD viewdistance is too far as it is right now. Usually there is more haze.



As bigpickle has said below, there would likely be a seasonal haze. I grew up in the countryside in NZ, we had a wood burning fire (this wasnt even that long ago either) and so did everyone else. In winter there was often a heavy haze do to people burning firewood for heat, and you can see it from a plane window. England would of been much worse though because of higher density pop and the cities all would of had fireplaces, where as in the 90s there was better insulation and electrical heating.

CoD now is rendering a sunny summer day. And as sunny summer day it is more than ok and realistic ( atmosphere and terrain colors ). All you WoP followers should wait until CoD implements storm weather and then compare that with WoP. That would be more fair if you want lots of fog and haze.