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.

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'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.

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

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.

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

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...220#post264220

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

+1

Grime kills FPS.

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:

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

;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

: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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.
;)

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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.

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

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3...ofdovercod.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.

Not as familiar with it as Blackbusheflyer, apparently

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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?

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 :)

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!

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?

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.

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.

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

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 :)

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!

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 :)

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.

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

Red baron ... Aces over Europe ...

Nah !!

Crimson Skies is better and have better ground ;)

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

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 :)

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

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

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...ology&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.

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

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

Uh hu
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...607#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.

Real world = no green puke

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

No green puke

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

Even with overcast sky there is no green puke.

http://aero-pix.com/westfield10/klat...es/img_009.jpg

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

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/showthr...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.

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?...

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?

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...

You are a frog-botherer!

@ David Hayward, do you own IL2 Cliffs of Dover?

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/oldgam.../swotl-004.png

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/ctec...-37-36-883.jpg

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.

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.

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?

mate do you own the game ?