Rendering capacities of a 2011 game !

[ChrisDNT]

Just totally impressive :

http://www.cowcotland.com/news/26578/gameplay-tank-e3-battlefield-3.html

Cinematics, textures, color palette, lighting, effects, everything is so amazing !
Just hoping an aviation sim will take this way one day !

[Tree_UK]

Thats fantastic, if work had started on CLOD last year instead of in 2004 we may have been seeing something similar.

[ChrisDNT]

I would love a WWIII tank sim, with the same quality, just imagine Kursk battle or fighting in a B1 bis against many Pzkw II and III with the BF3 game engine.

Is the game moddable or built to be moddable in the future ?

[baronWastelan]

I can honestly say there's nothing about that video that impressed me.

[ChrisDNT]

Ah, ah, I already hear the fanbois coming in hords, saying "if it doesn't look crap, it can't be a simulation"

[samich]

If that video didn't impress you then you either are impossible to impress or have no real interest in current generation graphics, which is fair enough but battlefield 3 really is critically one of the best looking, if not the best looking game to date.
The lighting effects through the volumetric smoke alone is just astounding, i can't imagine how the engine is able to run that so well.

The frostbyte 2 engine is incredible as well, those shells from the enemy tanks crator the ground as they land..
The animation system is ripped from fifa 12 and takes kinetic energy and weight across each muscle into account as well to give the characters the realistic look when moving, you can't really see it in that tank video but other videos have shown it and its looking really nice on the AI at least, remains to be seen on a player.

easily the best game at e3 this year

[JG53Frankyboy]

give a combat flight sim developer team the budget of the BF3 team................

[Ataros]

ArmAII 1.5 years ago was already much better according to my personal criteria.

Human animations are great though.

[Tiger27]

Thats fantastic, if work had started on CLOD last year instead of in 2004 we may have been seeing something similar.

Well I hope not, although that looks great, the desert scenery isnt going to work for the Battle of Britain ;)

Really havn't these comparisons been done too death, anyone that has played any of these games must surely realise how small an area is being mapped and how although everything looks great there is no real bullet modelling etc, Id like to see one of these FPS teams try and make a flight sim, but I think they would throw in the towel when it all becomes to difficult.
You play a sim like Il2, CoD or ROF for years whereas these style games you are bored with in no time, even with the lovely graphics, great online play etc

Oh I will be getting it though, I love FPS games but as I say, this will be about the 4th I will have played in the last 2 years, no real depth to them and the devs aren't interested in releasing too much DLC as they usually have the next version ready to release.

[ZaltysZ]

It didn't impress me too. It looks like postprocessed movie and not like what human (or at least my) eye sees in reality. Simulator should not look like a movie. :)

[ATAG_Dutch]

makes 'Theatre of War' and 'Panzer Elite Action' look like snakes and ladders.

Same old story though, what's needed for a FPS, which is more or less what this looks like, is very different to what's needed for a flight sim.

I'm still impressed by the original Crysis, but you can't fly a 'plane, eh?

[335th_GRAthos]

Wow, if it can really do what it showed, it will befinitively be a purchase for me!

[raaaid]

yeah like a very good loking blonde with no conversation at all :rolleyes:

[Rattlehead]

give a combat flight sim developer team the budget of the BF3 team................

Nail on head. A fact which seems to sail over some heads here...

Their art department alone is probably bigger than the entire Maddox Games staff, or the staff of Eagle Dynamics, 777 etc.

[Trooper117]

Definately impressed me.. but then, for that type of game!
This sort of nonsense comparison must just be a wind up. This subject has been done to death many times over the years, and still we get it..
Will I buy it? You bet, because I love those type of games too.
But to say that CoD could look like that if they had made it at a similar time is total pap!
Lets get real gents.

[LoBiSoMeM]

I can honestly say there's nothing about that video that impressed me.

Try this:

8pNOxynC1Dc

By the way, combat flight sims are "first person shooters", but inside a plane. In BF3 you can ride vehicles...

[Rattlehead]

Are these vids from the PC version? Edit: They are from the PC version.
If it looked that good on consoles I'd be astounded.

[Feathered_IV]

Some decent voice acting though.

By contrast, Clod's AI speech programming is beyond pathetic. Over engineered and under achieving. Even the simplest phrase is read like each word is drawn out of a hat. Expressions and emphasis chase one another from one word to the next. Going from grave concern, pleasant surprise, dark foreboding, matter of fact, and mincing queer in a single sentence. A pitiful failure.

[Trooper117]

lol!

[Winger]

Really awesome. Me and my workmates already agreed to preorder as soon as possible.

Winger

[JG14_Jagr]

A good example of the Dev time handicap flight sims have to deal with. Falcon 4.0 was a benchmark in "Simulation" development.. but when it was being developed, the 3D world evolved from software to hardware acceleration, AFTER they had written a siftware 3D engine and spent years working on the game..

You need to aim high and hope by the time you get the horse to market it still has the legs to be relevant for 5+ years..

[GuillermoZS]

Just totally impressive :

http://www.cowcotland.com/news/26578/gameplay-tank-e3-battlefield-3.html

Cinematics, textures, color palette, lighting, effects, everything is so amazing !
Just hoping an aviation sim will take this way one day !

Outstanding. Thanks!

[He111]

Excellent tank sim, FPS engines are advancing in leaps and bounds ...

He111.

[White Owl]

I hate lens flares. My eyeball doesn't experience lens flares. Why do game developers insist on adding this ugly effect that doesn't match what my eyeball sees?

[ZaltysZ]

I hate lens flares. My eyeball doesn't experience lens flares. Why do game developers insist on adding this ugly effect that doesn't match what my eyeball sees?

Because TV is standard of reality :-)

[Sternjaeger]

I hate lens flares. My eyeball doesn't experience lens flares. Why do game developers insist on adding this ugly effect that doesn't match what my eyeball sees?

I'd see an oculist if I were you ;-)

BF3 is surely going to be a milestone. If some of you guys can't see its outstanding features it's because you just like to be a contrary Mary..

Stunning graphics, animations, acting voices and plot, but yes, it's a game, not a sim. I doubt someone would survive all that heap of sounds and explosions for another day of fighting ;)

There's one thing that always annoyed me about FPSs, the little gnome in your rucksack that automatically moves your ammunition to the half emptied magazines so that you can keep on picking up fully loaded ones..

[Skoshi Tiger]

The thing that initially impressed me (with my flight sim hat on) was the big pall of smoke rising in the distance.

I said wow that would be fantastic rising above a city as your flying your plane towards it (or away). The I realised it was static and didn't change.

As the tanks raced toward it I wanted it to get bigger and tower up higher. It didn't.

It didn't even have any internal movement as a real cloud of smoke would have. But I gess thats because they're only modeling a map 10's of kilometres wide rather than 100's of kilometres. All that detail restricts how big the maps are.

Not long ago people were complaing about the inclusion of grass in COD. It would be fantastic to have targets with as much detail as that compound, but would it be worth having it if your bombing from 20,000 feet or racing past at tree top level at 300Kph?


Cheers!

[Baron]

The thing that initially impressed me (with my flight sim hat on) was the big pall of smoke rising in the distance.

I said wow that would be fantastic rising above a city as your flying your plane towards it (or away). The I realised it was static and didn't change.

As the tanks raced toward it I wanted it to get bigger and tower up higher. It didn't.

It didn't even have any internal movement as a real cloud of smoke would have. But I gess thats because they're only modeling a map 10's of kilometres wide rather than 100's of kilometres. All that detail restricts how big the maps are.

Not long ago people were complaing about the inclusion of grass in COD. It would be fantastic to have targets with as much detail as that compound, but would it be worth having it if your bombing from 20,000 feet or racing past at tree top level at 300Kph?


Cheers!


One of those things people comparing apples and oranges conveniently overlook and wonder why cant we have this.

"They" probably think CoD, BF etc never have to make compromises.

Those giant smokestacks is a perfect example.

As far as i can tell BF forums isnt flooded with people thinking they always know how to do BF better.

[speculum jockey]

The thing that initially impressed me (with my flight sim hat on) was the big pall of smoke rising in the distance.

I said wow that would be fantastic rising above a city as your flying your plane towards it (or away). The I realised it was static and didn't change.

That's an excellent example of "picking your battles". FPS's can do this much easier than Flight Sims since you are usually stuck on the ground in a certain area. Flight sims don't have that luxury of being able to hide things in the distance. One thing that I was sort of disappointed with CloD was their lack of "corner cutting" graphics where appropriate instead of cutting features.

Those high density forests we see could have been replaced by "Oleg Trees Version 2.0" and nobody would have noticed and I'm sure it would have helped free up some resources for other stuff.

[KG26_Alpha]

Once again its the "effects" crowd ohhhing and aaaahhhing and wanting Il2 to look the same.

Carefully look at these shots to see the badly rendered parts and the fake back drops.
No water renders no cloud renders active weather etc etc, I really dont see whats to ask of 1c Team here by saying 2011 renders blah blah blah,
look at the solidiers arm it looks worse than a CoD pilots one.

The one thing they have done well is the smoke :)

[CharveL]

Looks like it would be a fun thrill for a one-time run through of the game, for the artwork and lighting effects alone. Chances are the gameplay will be fun, hopefully for the whole game unless the "FPS corridor effect" shows through halfway in.

I don't mind console-like games if the storyline and interface is good enough but they almost always tend to leave an empty feeling, as if you really only had 2 or 3 options of what to do in a particular scenario while the rest is just smoke and mirrors but that can be pretty enjoyable in itself if done right.

Replay value tends to be practically nil but I don't usually watch movies more than once anyway, and essentially this is what you will be doing in BF3 I suspect.

[Timberwolf]

I play Battlefield play4free its mid of bf2 and bf3 and the grafix are boring so like alot of "trailers" the grafixs look great ..gameplay is toned down

You guys have to remember : When a game is made you have to think Download size and how big is your map..in your map how is every detail.. Did you notice in BF3 your only moving forward and small turns like a maze ..in a sim you have freedom of a big map and 360* movement ..I use to play Medal of honor games ..which were fun but again maze like maps your not going to see tanks in retreat and rearming or doing a pinser movement

With Sim games you have vast open space with time to scout around find your prey and kill it or be killed However theres not many Variables like flying in a formation with other players (bomber/fighters) looking for other player formations of fighters/bombers or side tracked to a tanks

...Shorten the map by 1/4 and add more in it

[JG27CaptStubing]

give a combat flight sim developer team the budget of the BF3 team................

Bingo.... Actually there is more to this... Remember most of the budget in a Combat Flight Sim is spent on Modeling the various systems and aircraft FMs weapons DMs etc... They aren't spent on Storyline and art assets. In fact shooter budgets mostly are spent on Art and level design. A sim is typically open and to model everything there is in real life is one hell of a feat. Not to mention it only appeals to a very small number of us.

[nearmiss]

Nail on head. A fact which seems to sail over some heads here...

Their art department alone is probably bigger than the entire Maddox Games staff, or the staff of Eagle Dynamics, 777 etc.

Rome wasn't built in a day. As I recall, the first version was done by one person the developer. Like Oleg, he released it and over time and with increased income built a development team.

[Lololopoulos]

Dear Lutheir and the dev team:
Can we please have the dust, smoke column, lighting wind effect, explosion, flame and etc etc (I can go on with this list) in Cliffs of Dover?
C'mon, you know CoD looks below par right now. Don't disappoint us, come up with something better.:)

[Lololopoulos]

And can we also have the sound and the look of propeller as in this video?
http://youtu.be/3W-QQimJq7U

[335th_GRAthos]

Can we please have the dust, smoke column, lighting wind effect, explosion, flame and etc etc (I can go on with this list) in Cliffs of Dover?

Lighting wind effect ????

explosion & flames ????

These are the best explosions I have seen in the whole IL2 history, what are you looking at???
And more, find a train and shoot at the engine... you will see... ;)

~S~

[Lololopoulos]

Lighting wind effect ????

explosion & flames ????

These are the best explosions I have seen in the whole IL2 history, what are you looking at???
And more, find a train and shoot at the engine... you will see... ;)

~S~
But i still say the explosion looks better in this video.
The explosion in CoD looks kinda monotonous, they all look the same over time. I hope it will all get better over time.

[Baron]

A reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LMftuei6Fw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjZ8kwQr1so&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o74Z4TwavFs&feature=related

[Doc_uk]

Holy crap, i just wet my pants:grin:
Love it, and cant wait

[Rattlehead]

^ Looks good to me.

[Heliocon]

Hate to say it - I told you so (I posted a thread about bf3 last year but it got deleted by mods when fanboys picked a fight). Remember BF3 will have air to air combat in it. Also not the tank video but the pre arranged demonstration has console footage mixed in with pc footage (they challenged reviewers to find the console scenes vs the pc ones).

Bet BF3 runs only 10x smoother than Clod, its also DX11 :)

[philip.ed]

A reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LMftuei6Fw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjZ8kwQr1so&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o74Z4TwavFs&feature=related

Oh sure, the latter two were shot at 1/8 game speed or so, and then sped up.
It's possible to enjoy CloD, but atmospherically, it's naive to suggest that it isn't lacking in quality and ambience.

[Trooper117]

There are some super vids out there, love that 'pulse', just great!
having said that I can't play the damn game because of the last patch!

[Baron]

Oh sure, the latter two were shot at 1/8 game speed or so, and then sped up.
It's possible to enjoy CloD, but atmospherically, it's naive to suggest that it isn't lacking in quality and ambience.



Only pointing out that CloD can also look good in a promovid. Just like BF3.

Understand what im getting at? ;)

[philip.ed]

Fair point then. Whilst the video shown looks like live-play, I take your point.
TBH, comparisons are pointless; as has been said, BF3 has an extortionate amount of money spent on it, it uses a reliable engine (not one newly created for it specifically a la CloD) and clearly can have such nice graphics given map sizes and the like.

EDIT_I apologise for my previous comment. The internet makes me even for a cock.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

BFBC2 looked great so BF3 will deliver.

[JumpingHubert]

Because TV is standard of reality :-)
exactly! true words in a stupid reality

[ElAurens]

And can we also have the sound and the look of propeller as in this video?
http://youtu.be/3W-QQimJq7U

Propellers do not look like that in real life. How many times must we go over this? It is a function of the shutter speed of the camera.

But I forgot, most of you lot don't want realism, you want your idea of realism, which unfortunately is pretty far from the real thing.

[skouras]

BFBC2 looked great so BF3 will deliver.

second to that:-P
By the way Battlefield 3 October 25th release date

[Space Communist]

It's not that a simulation cannot look like this theoretically, but nobody making simulations has the budget, and even if they did, nobody has the hardware to run graphics like that at the same time as a complex simulation.

We can dream of the future though. Just wait for the mind/machine interface :p

[LoBiSoMeM]

nobody has the hardware to run graphics like that at the same time as a complex simulation.

Why not?

[Specht]

Why not?

Complex physics are very hardware intensive, so are complex graphics, one has to find a balance between both in order to not rape consumer's computers.

Being a fan of Battlefield 1942, I can't wait for this game, I love simulations and realism, but I can live with games like this, it's a shame, however, that the game will not be moddable, I just hope they release a DLC or a pack with WWII theater.

Then again, modding could easily make it closer to a simulation, like Project Reality did to Battlefield 2.

[Space Communist]

Why not?

Well I suppose an argument could be made that as long as your gpu is up to the task then everything else can fall to your cpu. It could be that I am simply too used to thinking in terms of what has been true of gaming in the past.

But even so I think it would be a monumental task. Like in that video for instance, the game area appears to be quite large but I am willing to bet almost anything that a huge amount of what you see is not actually part of the game's world. Those mountains are almost certainly the edge of it, and I doubt they are navigable.

Take that smoke in the distant background in this video. Definitely amazing looking. However there is no way in hell that is some kind of volumetric fog. That is an animation that was rendered pretty much by hand and will play out the same way every single time. You can never actually get close to it or go into it, so it never really has to be simulated. It only takes a few resources from the GPU.

Once you provide that you might actually be able to interact with it though, suddenly you can't just use a graphical shortcut. you must now compute both its physical properties, and how those properties will translate into a visual. Herein lies the real problem: translating an effect that is simulated and variable into a visual is an order of magnitude more complex than simply using a stock visual that comes with a stock effect.

Anyway I will concede that it may be possible to get a simulation to look like this and still run on a top of the line machine. However it is pretty much going to involve having a budget that allows for things like "ok you are the shrub guy. Your entire job is to ensure that shrubbery looks good at any distance, from 3 inches to 10 km, with seamless transition in between, and that this shrubbery also interacts with all possible environmental objects and effects. Oh and make sure it is perfectly optimized as well."

[Space Communist]

That's an excellent example of "picking your battles". FPS's can do this much easier than Flight Sims since you are usually stuck on the ground in a certain area. Flight sims don't have that luxury of being able to hide things in the distance. One thing that I was sort of disappointed with CloD was their lack of "corner cutting" graphics where appropriate instead of cutting features.

Those high density forests we see could have been replaced by "Oleg Trees Version 2.0" and nobody would have noticed and I'm sure it would have helped free up some resources for other stuff.

Heh I should have read the thread more closely, you pretty much summed it up much more concisely than I did.

I agree that CloD probably could have stood to take a few more tricks from the FPS's

[Lololopoulos]

Propellers do not look like that in real life. How many times must we go over this? It is a function of the shutter speed of the camera.

But I forgot, most of you lot don't want realism, you want your idea of realism, which unfortunately is pretty far from the real thing.
In real life, does it look more like what it is now in the game? I doubt it. I've seen propellers in real life. From the side, it's more like a thin, translucent eclipse, not like the visible turning propeller blades as we have in game right now.
I'm mostly criticizing the look of propellers from the side view and the awkward transition from other angles to the side view.

[ChrisDNT]

Why not?

I don't buy this argument anymore.

In the past ten years, our PC's and our graphic cards have seen their computing power greatly expanded.

If a flight sim is probably more computer-intensive than a FPS, a 2011 flight sim must nevertheless show more than a "last decade style" sim !

[Tiger27]

Try this:

8pNOxynC1Dc

By the way, combat flight sims are "first person shooters", but inside a plane. In BF3 you can ride vehicles...

No they are not, couldn't be further from the truth, you do understand that most FPS have very little balistics modelled, they dont model any air over the vehicles, honestly you should go and wash your mouth out, probably one of the silliest comments I have heard in a while.

[Tiger27]

Hate to say it - I told you so (I posted a thread about bf3 last year but it got deleted by mods when fanboys picked a fight). Remember BF3 will have air to air combat in it. Also not the tank video but the pre arranged demonstration has console footage mixed in with pc footage (they challenged reviewers to find the console scenes vs the pc ones).

Bet BF3 runs only 10x smoother than Clod, its also DX11 :)

I flew choppers in BF2BC, but it wasnt quite the same as flying one in Black Shark, I love these FPS games, but why are we comparing it with CoD, they are just different games simple as that.

[Sternjaeger]

In real life, does it look more like what it is now in the game? I doubt it. I've seen propellers in real life. From the side, it's more like a thin, translucent eclipse, not like the visible turning propeller blades as we have in game right now.
I'm mostly criticizing the look of propellers from the side view and the awkward transition from other angles to the side view.

Trust me man,the side view is spot on,if my experience with warbirds is still worth something.. A Cessna prop might look like it's gleaming cos it's mostly gloss paint white props,but big black semi-opaque props look just like that. I agree about the transaction though,but then again I suppose it depends on graphic settings? Best prop rendition so far is RoF.

[JG52Krupi]

Dear god, yes it does look good but seriously wtf how dim are to expect a flight sim to look like that.....

IMHO clod looks fantastic but you just can't compare it with a series that has a huge fan base and therefore a huge budget. I am bored of fps ATM there all the same just different settings and slightly better graphics (in most cases bf3 looks sweet) released year after year.

Clod is a game that has a lot of potential but to compare it to a 2012 fps is ludicrous the fact that you are even contemplating comparing it with an fps speaks volumes on the fantastic job 1C has done. If only they had polished the game before release :(.

[easytarget3]

It didn't impress me too. It looks like postprocessed movie and not like what human (or at least my) eye sees in reality. Simulator should not look like a movie. :)

agreed 100%
Only if the look is purpose of the art style of the game,like fairytale style or some news on tv and so on then it makes sence to stylize the picture.But developers thinks that people judge look of game by the holywood crap they see everyday on tv or cinema,so they thinks the player will be more happy.Anyway if the game will be great gameplay then it cool,but honesly i had problem with the non real hitting system on previous releases, just sprey the enemy with enough bullets and he dies, then they added head shots, well its more arcade console style game by all means,so they try to make it easy for the controller.
sorry for my english.;)

[speculum jockey]

I don't buy this argument anymore.

In the past ten years, our PC's and our graphic cards have seen their computing power greatly expanded.

If a flight sim is probably more computer-intensive than a FPS, a 2011 flight sim must nevertheless show more than a "last decade style" sim !

Lets say you have a 4 core system and Cliffs of Dover is able to perfectly allocate resources to each one.

Flight model for all aircraft involved
Damage model for all involved (aircraft, buildings, ground, vehicles)
Friendly/Enemy AI (pilots, gunners, ground gun emplacements, vehicles)
Graphics
Object locations/collision detection (aircraft, vehicles, buildings)
Tracking all projectiles (bombs, shells) their size, their paths, their effects.
Fuel and ammo amounts remaining

Take all that, plus the resources to run your OS in the background and you're asking for a hell of a lot from that poor little i5 processor.

Even the best top of the line FPS only has to do a fraction of those things, and typically they are limited to a more or less 2D plane, meanwhile almost everything in Cliffs of Dover is constantly changing location, speed, and altitude. For most FPS the damage model is pretty much "Damage=1/3 hits" while CloD has to think about controlled surfaces, engine temp. . . Another thing is the AI. For most FPS 90% of the AI enemies you will encounter have a few waypoints and 3 types of actions, "advancing attack, retreat, cover fire". Effects in FPS are also simplified in some cases. The static smoke column is a good example, and explosions in many cases are 2d and designed to always be facing the human players. Limited map sizes, lo-rez backgrounds, etc.

Well you get the idea. The amount of number crunching involved in CloD is miles more than most any other type of game.

[Heliocon]

I flew choppers in BF2BC, but it wasnt quite the same as flying one in Black Shark, I love these FPS games, but why are we comparing it with CoD, they are just different games simple as that.

BFBC2 is nothing like BF3 - infact its a different game series. BF2 planes/helicopters were decently realistic interms of movement, bfbc2 helicopter is just a flying tank. Its made for consoles. BF3 will have real aircombat (including air to air) again for the first time since BF2.

[Heliocon]

Fair point then. Whilst the video shown looks like live-play, I take your point.
TBH, comparisons are pointless; as has been said, BF3 has an extortionate amount of money spent on it, it uses a reliable engine (not one newly created for it specifically a la CloD) and clearly can have such nice graphics given map sizes and the like.

EDIT_I apologise for my previous comment. The internet makes me even for a cock.

Actually the engine (frostbite 2) is newly created just for BF3 and is multiplatform.

[pupo162]

BFBC2 is nothing like BF3 - infact its a different game series. BF2 planes/helicopters were decently realistic interms of movement, bfbc2 helicopter is just a flying tank. Its made for consoles. BF3 will have real aircombat (including air to air) again for the first time since BF2.

battlefield series aircombat wasnt wont be ever "realsitic" "simualted" or whatsoever..... its a heck of fun tough

[TheEditor]

I want Track IR support for BF3!!!! Arma 2 does it better good. I'm surprised there isn't more FPS games that have Track IR.

[Lololopoulos]

Trust me man,the side view is spot on,if my experience with warbirds is still worth something.. A Cessna prop might look like it's gleaming cos it's mostly gloss paint white props,but big black semi-opaque props look just like that. I agree about the transaction though,but then again I suppose it depends on graphic settings? Best prop rendition so far is RoF.

oh wow, you're right i've only looked at cessnas (152s and caravans) and pipers.
Thanks for the insight. :)
Maybe it's the lighting then. IL-2 series never seemed to have gotten the propellers just right.

[ElAurens]

I'm surprised there isn't more FPS games that have Track IR.

What do you expect from games that are primarily designed for console play?

[kimosabi]

Ah, ah, I already hear the fanbois coming in hords, saying "if it doesn't look crap, it can't be a simulation"

Haha, well put. Frostbite 2 engine is a gem. Can't wait for oct. 25th!

[Heliocon]

battlefield series aircombat wasnt wont be ever "realsitic" "simualted" or whatsoever..... its a heck of fun tough

BFBC2 you could'nt lie down - only crouch. BF3 has prone again. Its "more" realistic.

[JG52Krupi]

Why the hell do people still bother with fps there all the same. At least the battlefield series tries to take a step forward graphically, cod on the other hand is same old XXXXX different smell.

At present I refuse to buy what really is the same albeit slighty different game year after year.

Oh and bfbc2 was a sniper fest even without prone so I'm guessing unless they have added realistic ballistics or a sniper limit then it's only going to get worse lol

So my prediction of bf3 yes graphically stunning with hi res textures but when you get down to it you will realize its the same turd that you brought the year before and that was what you discovered last year as well.

Definition of insanity, doing the same thing again and again but expecting a different result. Yes far cry 3 looks cool.

[Trooper117]

Unfortunately you are correct.. I enjoy the usual fps shooters, but no matter what, I always get that same feeling of 'been there, done that' with each subsequent 'new version' I buy.
Yet, just as in IL2, of which I have bought literaly everything that came out that the team produced as I am a fan and wish to support the genre.. there are exactly the same type of people who just love their call of duty or battlefield or arma series, and will buy everything that is produced.. and kudos to them for doing so!

[JG52Krupi]

Unfortunately you are correct.. I enjoy the usual fps shooters, but no matter what, I always get that same feeling of 'been there, done that' with each subsequent 'new version' I buy.
Yet, just as in IL2, of which I have bought literaly everything that came out that the team produced as I am a fan and wish to support the genre.. there are exactly the same type of people who just love their call of duty or battlefield or arma series, and will buy everything that is produced.. and kudos to them for doing so!

I agree with everything but the kudos, there a bunch of fools that are stifling the industry so instead of making innovative games a few publisher seem to push fps after fps out and make a silly amount of money in the process :(.

[Trooper117]

Again unfortunately the developers are using a tried and tested method which sells games, and lets face it, they are there to make money, its their business.
However, don't knock the blokes that buy it because they get enjoyment out of it, it's their money and they can spend it for their gaming pleasure any way they choose.
Just because you or I don't agree with the direction the devs are taking their games, you can't berate people who choose to spend their hard earned cash on what they want.

[JG52Krupi]

If 1C released clod again next year but with new textures would you buy it :D

[Rattlehead]

Why the hell do people still bother with fps there all the same.

...True, which is probably why I like a game like Stalker or the original Crysis so much. The original Bioshock as well. They offered something different to the standard fps game.
I like fps games a lot though, but I agree that in general there isn't much difference from one to the next.

[JG52Krupi]

...True, which is probably why I like a game like Stalker or the original Crysis so much. The original Bioshock as well. They offered something different to the standard fps game.
I like fps games a lot though, but I agree that in general there isn't much difference from one to the next.

Agreed some games like stalker, metro 2033 and bishock blew me away.

[Trooper117]

If 1C released clod again next year but with new textures would you buy it :D

Nevermind new textures.. if they rewrote the whole game so that it actualy 'worked' properly, I'd bleedin buy it..

[JG52Krupi]

Nevermind new textures.. if they rewrote the whole game so that it actualy 'worked' properly, I'd bleedin buy it..

Lol my post was meant as a stab at cod which just uses the same engine but with new textures and are able to sell millions of copies :D. In the perforance poll thread I asked if you could post your specs, let's try and find out why your game is running so poorly.

[kedrednael]

No they are not, couldn't be further from the truth, you do understand that most FPS have very little balistics modelled, they dont model any air over the vehicles, honestly you should go and wash your mouth out, probably one of the silliest comments I have heard in a while.

You will be able to fly jets like the su-26, A10 warthogh and helicopters in BF3
And I don't think il2 modelles any air over the vehicles.

[JG52Krupi]

You will be able to fly jets like the su-26, A10 warthogh and helicopters in BF3
And I don't think il2 modelles any air over the vehicles.

Dude seriously wtf!!!!

Clod models a hell of a lot of things, you clearly have no understanding of the detail in a simulator if you are trying to compare it to the arcady battlefield style of flying a jet with basically no physics in a map that would be flooded by a spiders piss puddle. The jets in battlefield 2 had speeds closer to that of a ww1 fighter than a jet so that you could fly them on the tiny maps lol

[ElAurens]

Exactly.

The biggest map in Arma II Operation Arrowhead is about 11 miles on a side.

That's too small for WW2 air operations, unless you are just doing touch and goes, for training.

[choctaw111]

I really enjoyed the E3 trailer.
It seems very immersive.
The multiplayer is going to be awesome!
I have thoroughly enjoyed the Battlefield series as it is more realistic than Call of Duty.

[robtek]

Realistic???

There is a huge difference between realistic environment and those games.
Also between CoD and those games, not as huge but still big.

[Rattlehead]

Dude seriously wtf!!!!

Clod models a hell of a lot of things, you clearly have no understanding of the detail in a simulator if you are trying to compare it to the arcady battlefield style of flying a jet with basically no physics in a map that would be flooded by a spiders piss puddle. The jets in battlefield 2 had speeds closer to that of a ww1 fighter than a jet so that you could fly them on the tiny maps lol

I will certainly never claim to have a good understanding of graphical rendering, and most things someone like John Carmack talks about goes right over my head (:() but I've got a fairly good handle of what made fps games 'tick' so to speak, by having experience in designing some custom Crysis levels.

Draw distance can murder framerates. Whenever I had framerate issues when doing custom levels, I reduced the draw distance by slapping a big, fat mountain in the way.
It's no surprise that most fps games channel the player down narrow funnelways...ususally disguised as mountains paths or canyons or corridors. Even 'open ended' Crysis was full of these tricks.

3D vegetation also murders framerates. Even something relatively simple and innocent as grass can kill frames if packed too densly.

And guess what? Most simulators have ample of both! :)
Why could Crysis 1 not run on consoles, but Crysis 2 runs fine on consoles?
Taking out the large draw distances and the ample vegetation makes a huge difference.

[StreetGang]

Wow, some highstrung people here defending CoD.

Obviously they are two different games, and it would be nice if CoD looked as good as BF3 which I'm sure is the only thing the OP meant by the comparison. There really isn't any need to go into detail about the differences as they're blindingly obvious, but to rag on a game because it "isn't a sim" is ridiculous. It's a battlefield game, jack of all trades, master of none!

On BF3 itself, it does look fantastic, and I spent many hours playing BF1942, the Desert Combat mod, both in and out of clans during multiplayer and the same with BF2, and more recently BFBC2. They're great games, some of the best fun I've ever had on the PC. I remember spending hours trying to perfect flying the littlebird in the DC mod for 1942. When you get that horrendous flight model under control and can actually fly close to the ground between rows of buildings you feel really satisfied with your efforts.

[Hatch]

Wow, some highstrung people here defending CoD.


Frustration perhaps.

All CloD needs is a good art director.
Someone who understands how to trick our minds into seeing reality where there is none.


Those people are rare as hen's teeth and probably working for the big bucks.

CloD is trying it the hyperrealistic way now and that's not working.

[pupo162]

I really enjoyed the E3 trailer.
It seems very immersive.
The multiplayer is going to be awesome!
I have thoroughly enjoyed the Battlefield series as it is more realistic than Call of Duty.

have you tried Project reality mod?

IF it wasnt for PR BF" would jsut suck for me..... my dream is a PR for BF3, wich is unlikable becosue they are working on PR for arma II :(

[Ataros]

This island in ArmA3 is only about 22x22 kilometers (475sq.km island on a 900sq.km map)but this already makes it impossible to have as many scripted cinematic effects as in BF or Call of Duty with their tiny maps. And this is rendering capabilities of 2012 game (wip).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz9mIgaBmU8&feature=player_detailpage#t=37s

What is the size of the channel map in CloD?

[carguy_]

You will be able to fly jets like the su-26, A10 warthogh and helicopters in BF3
And I don't think il2 modelles any air over the vehicles.

You don`t think. Right...

[carguy_]

Try this:
By the way, combat flight sims are "first person shooters", but inside a plane. In BF3 you can ride vehicles...

Idiot post of the year.

[DarthElvis]

Lets say you have a 4 core system and Cliffs of Dover is able to perfectly allocate resources to each one.

Flight model for all aircraft involved
Damage model for all involved (aircraft, buildings, ground, vehicles)
Friendly/Enemy AI (pilots, gunners, ground gun emplacements, vehicles)
Graphics
Object locations/collision detection (aircraft, vehicles, buildings)
Tracking all projectiles (bombs, shells) their size, their paths, their effects.
Fuel and ammo amounts remaining

Take all that, plus the resources to run your OS in the background and you're asking for a hell of a lot from that poor little i5 processor.



Your not asking it to do any more than what you asked a little dual core to do with FB in 2005. And FB only used a single core. Your argument is irrelevant.

[Chips86]

Well I hope not, although that looks great, the desert scenery isnt going to work for the Battle of Britain ;)

Really havn't these comparisons been done too death, anyone that has played any of these games must surely realise how small an area is being mapped and how although everything looks great there is no real bullet modelling etc, Id like to see one of these FPS teams try and make a flight sim, but I think they would throw in the towel when it all becomes to difficult.
You play a sim like Il2, CoD or ROF for years whereas these style games you are bored with in no time, even with the lovely graphics, great online play etc

Oh I will be getting it though, I love FPS games but as I say, this will be about the 4th I will have played in the last 2 years, no real depth to them and the devs aren't interested in releasing too much DLC as they usually have the next version ready to release.

BF3 has been confirmed as having a realistic bullet moddeling, complete with penetration etc =]

[choctaw111]

have you tried Project reality mod?

IF it wasnt for PR BF" would jsut suck for me..... my dream is a PR for BF3, wich is unlikable becosue they are working on PR for arma II :(


In point of fact I have tried Project Reality.
I haven't played BF in over a year but PR made it much more enjoyable.

[Rattlehead]

And this is rendering capabilities of 2012 game (wip).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz9mIgaBmU8&feature=player_detailpage#t=37s



Gulp. Looks great, but probably requires a monster PC for maximum detail.

[Robert]

Nail on head. A fact which seems to sail over some heads here...

Their art department alone is probably bigger than the entire Maddox Games staff, or the staff of Eagle Dynamics, 777 etc.


Someone on SIM HQ posted a link to SimBin. They make Sports Car GT, GT Legends, and are currently looking for employees. The video showed the offices and work environment of the facilities. Quite impressive.

I look at the old beige coloured 1999 PCs used by 1C (at least in the pictures we've seen) and the comparatively stark environment within the work area, and I can't help but wonder if a comparable facility and money was behind CoD what this game would have looked like at completion.

I think there's a lot of good in CoD (though I've still not played it) and believe it will end up being the sim we all want. but that's gonna take time.



http://www.youtube.com/user/SimBinStudios?blend=9&ob=5#p/u/1/yGCMa8Lrkhw

[Liz Lemon]

Your not asking it to do any more than what you asked a little dual core to do with FB in 2005. And FB only used a single core. Your argument is irrelevant.

Uh, yes you are.

Many of those things are much more complex in CLOD then FB, so it is asking the CPU to do a lot more. Take the engine modelling, for example.

[Heliocon]

Uh, yes you are.

Many of those things are much more complex in CLOD then FB, so it is asking the CPU to do a lot more. Take the engine modelling, for example.

If that extra modeling makes the "game" (which in the end it still is, even if its a sim game) unplayable, then its not worth it. End of story.

Maybe they should add it in incrementally and focus first on foundations like the graphics, AI and physics engine which the whole future product is based on.