why il2cod can't perform as good as this: (?)

[highness]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbs0myDheaM

in tha sim, only switzerland is modeled as terrain and the flight physics seem to be very decent too, while in il2cod less than the size of switzerland area of terrain is modeled...

why il2cod can't perform as good as that?

i don't know what to think ... :confused:

... doh!

ps: and btw, where is the *_è-'%*#** SU-26 .???????????? :evil::-x

[pupo162]

well. to be fair, dispite looking better at high alt / medium, COD scenarios are mroe detailed and do not used satelite photos (yeah, there were no satelites in 1940's :( )

bu then.... having a functional good looking COD would be nice. so i stand by your side, dispicte the example you have picked is not the best one.

cheers

[zapatista]

the terrain looks very good indeed from medium and high altitude, but what does it look like from ground level ? that is usually the big compromise

looks like they have no fpsec issues, and colors look pretty good compared to il2/cod

what is the flight physics modeling like ?

[speculum jockey]

This again?

Looks:

1. Satellite terrain textures pasted over landscape. Looks good at high altitude, but crap down low.

2. What's the poly count and size of the aircraft? Did they model nearly as many trees, buildings, vehicles, etc?

Performance:

1. How is the flight model? Is is anywhere nearly as complex as IL-2?

2. What about A.I.? Are there other aircraft? Are there more than 50 in the air at one time, all doing aggressive maneuvers to try and shoot each other down?

3. Damage model? Is there any? Is the sim keeping track of all the damage being inflicted and how it affects flight? Is it doing this for the A.I. as well?

4. Clouds? Are they 3D/Volumetric or are they just 2D sprites that look good, but always look the same from one side? What does it look like to fly through one?

5. What is the complex engine management like? Does it have any? How complex, how much system resources are required?

p.s. your thread title should read: "Why can't IL-2 COD perform as well as this?"

[ATAG_Snapper]

This again?

Looks:

1. Satellite terrain textures pasted over landscape. Looks good at high altitude, but crap down low.

2. What's the poly count and size of the aircraft? Did they model nearly as many trees, buildings, vehicles, etc?

Performance:

1. How is the flight model? Is is anywhere nearly as complex as IL-2?

2. What about A.I.? Are there other aircraft? Are there more than 50 in the air at one time, all doing aggressive maneuvers to try and shoot each other down?

3. Damage model? Is there any? Is the sim keeping track of all the damage being inflicted and how it affects flight? Is it doing this for the A.I. as well?

4. Clouds? Are they 3D/Volumetric or are they just 2D sprites that look good, but always look the same from one side? What does it look like to fly through one?

5. What is the complex engine management like? Does it have any? How complex, how much system resources are required?

p.s. your thread title should read: "Why can't IL-2 COD perform as well as this?"

+1 (except for the p.s.)

[tarks]

'why il2cod can't perform as good as this'

Because it was rushed out the door unfinished and unoptimized.

[speculum jockey]

Dunno about the flight model, but the CEM seems to be even more complex/realistic than CoD. I think that sim just has a different focus, as an aircraft simulator, where CoD is a combat simulator.

Now is the CEM just "push button A to advance to Button B" or does it actually do something? Oleg mentioned that all buttons used, actually do something, not just give the impression that it's complex.

[TUCKIE_JG52]

I have both simulators, so I can compare.

This again?

Looks:

1. Satellite terrain textures pasted over landscape. Looks good at high altitude, but crap down low.

Also, sun does not move, time is fixed. Otherwise, terrain shadows would look rare.


2. What's the poly count and size of the aircraft? Did they model nearly as many trees, buildings, vehicles, etc?

There are lots of trees in some places, and there I have same fps for Aerofly FS than in CoD. Anyway, there are only buildings in small to medium cities. In big cities like Geneve, theres absolutely no buildings. The same for large airports.


Performance:

1. How is the flight model? Is is anywhere nearly as complex as IL-2?

Flight model of Aerofly FS is far more complex than Il2, it has the long time requested propwash modelled. It's the ideal simulator for aerobatics and advanced maneuvers at this moment.


2. What about A.I.? Are there other aircraft? Are there more than 50 in the air at one time, all doing aggressive maneuvers to try and shoot each other down?

Here Il2 wins, there's no AI in Aerofly.


3. Damage model? Is there any? Is the sim keeping track of all the damage being inflicted and how it affects flight? Is it doing this for the A.I. as well?

Aerofly FS comse from an RC simulator, and keeps a damage model enough complex to be better than FSX and to cover simple civilina flight needs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYMjaDtG1Ao


4. Clouds? Are they 3D/Volumetric or are they just 2D sprites that look good, but always look the same from one side? What does it look like to fly through one?

Volumetric, progressively hazing it all when entering one. Very realistic.



5. What is the complex engine management like? Does it have any? How complex, how much system resources are required?

No complex engine management beyond propeller pitch. Anyway, governor works.


Aerofly is a new simulator, hope it will grow since its very good, but developers need to keep working hard, visuals and flight model are awesome, but no procedures, no MP, no AI, and no recording capabilities... since it comes from Aerofly 5.7 RC simulator, and it already has MP, we'll hope to see it soon.

[Megahurt]

After flying fs2 to fsx and everything flight sim for 25 years, i will never again fly around in circles doing nothing, shooting nothing, and destroying nothing.
How do you spell b o r i n g....

[TUCKIE_JG52]

Some like to play, others like to fly. Few like both. Have you tried to fly aerobatics seriously? ;)