I did a test a few days ago with the rig in my sig.


Black Death with everything set to max with roads, lighting and grass turned on. FXAA in NVidia controle panel ON.

Min 5 Max 80 avg 37


Black Death with everything set to medium with roads, lighting and grass turned on. FXAA in NVidia control panel ON.

min 14 Max 82 Avg 51



I know from same tests that the differance in lowest fps is due to the new "medium effects", nothing else.

So turning down all the settings from maximum to medium, quite a big step if you ask me, gives one 14 (?) more average fps. Dont ask me if that's because of effective streamlining or reduction in highest quality. All i know is that highest quality visuals is sometimes no way near what i would call maximum settings (see previous pics posted.)

Haven't tested with roads, grass, lighting yet.

Factory fresh dosnt exist
 

Fractory fresh in reality never existed as all planes were flown to bases.
Any real pilot will tell you after one flight only,the leading edges of most planes of aircraft get sandblasted buy air,moisture and other particles.
Wear and tear will be small at 1st but factory fress dosnt last long in reality.
Not to mention dead flies and suchlike.
Engienes run with rich mixtures at low altitudes giving rise to black soot exhaust marks,grey soot if at high atitude as mixture weakens also.
No one worrid about exhaust emissions in 1940.
However pics look awsome detail,except for no pilot in the office.:-)

Yes, I am aware of this and you are right. With all due respect though, this game is not so much about realism, if that were the case then how come you can fly around in a plane several missions without the wear and tear showing on the aircraft body? the aircraft wear is very superficial, no more no less. Nevertheless it would be nice to have the option of having a gorgeous looking plane but most of all I would like to know why they removed it. Hey luthier! you stilla speaka da English?!

So what? Even if the colors back in the days weren't as high tech as these days - it takes MUCH more than just one flight to get a sandblasted look like we currently have. More like half a year.

This is a crashed p40 after 70 years. It has seen a lot of dust during service, unlike brit and euro stuff. Also keep in mind that it was damaged even before crashing.
http://z6mag.com/wp-content/uploads/...r-ii-plane.jpg
http://z6mag.com/featured/world-war-...pt-169135.html

The weathering slider should be fully controllable. And the metal weathering needs to set in way behind the normal weathering like exhaust residue, bleaching and whatever.
There are nice skin options - and imagine "creative" skins for formation flying, air racing etc. - why would there be any weathering on them?

It's not like 99% of all planes and pilots survived hundreds of missions over africa just to get sandblasted and then take part in the BoB anyways :-P

[QUOTE=Madfish;453847]So what? Even if the colors back in the days weren't as high tech as these days - it takes MUCH more than just one flight to get a sandblasted look like we currently have. More like half a year.

This is a crashed p40 after 70 years. It has seen a lot of dust during service, unlike brit and euro stuff. Also keep in mind that it was damaged even before crashing.
http://z6mag.com/wp-content/uploads/...r-ii-plane.jpg
http://z6mag.com/featured/world-war-...pt-169135.html

The weathering slider should be fully controllable. And the metal weathering needs to set in way behind the normal weathering like exhaust residue, bleaching and whatever.
There are nice skin options - and imagine "creative" skins for formation flying, air racing etc. - why would there be any weathering on them?

It's not like 99% of all planes and pilots survived hundreds of missions over africa just to get sandblasted and then take part in the BoB anyways :-P[/QUOTe[/I]

I agree wholeheartedly with your points.
Yes we should have a choice between clean a dirty textures.
And yes i agree the clean pictures show off details better than worn ones.
Especialy the accurate stencils.
Just making a point that you should see the leading edges of wings on even non combat aircraft after one filight.
Dead flies,dirt and other crap,I used to tire quickly after polishing wings of my glider during summer flying.
Oh good picture BTW,thats real wear and tear lol.

Anyways if i had a spitfire id keep it spotless too.

It doesn't matter if a factory fresh plane gets wear after just one flight in real life, CloD doesn't model real-time wear so it goes out the window immediately. But as I stated, I'm not really here to argue with anyone, I just want the developers take on this.

P.S Also, with regards to some people saying they removed the "factory fresh" planes because the skin textures reduced performance, here's an example of the upcoming Crysis 3 game running on cryengine3. The screenshot is taken from the actual game and it is rendered in real-time. This is a game that will run on most peoples PC's around here, just look at that toad! Please don't tell me CloD is too cutting edge because quite frankly, it's just embarrassing to hear someone say it, it looks like a cartoon compared to some games out there.

http://www.shoptonews.net/wp-content...t-23.44.45.png

Here's also a video showing off some of the new features of the cryengine3 (take from the game Crysis 3 in real-time):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0ffBZI5PpM

I agree, unfortunately. I believe the game has been effectively 'butchered' in order to get it to run on current PCs. What we have now is a pale shadow of what the fully realised game will look like (in 1-2 years?).

Reinstated animations (bailout and whole host of others), full weather system, AA and AF, plus a lot of features that once reinstated will have the game look much more realistic.

Despite the recent improvements COD in its current state is little more than a bare-bones skeleton.

In a game like this, my mind is racing doing calculations almost constantly during play. Only a few times do I really have the time to look closely at the paint job, but I still find it very acceptable for sure...I guess to each his own:)

Sorry but... are you kidding? :-P I thought we all had math at school?

The total number of CloD devs is probably 1/10th of the Crytek management secretaries alone. Crytek is a multi-million AAA game company with offices all around the freaking globe?! They have about 6 studios and almost 40 offices world wide and got way more than 600 employees! (Not counting sub-contractors)

All I can say is you completely lost contact with reality if you really believe a small studio like MG can ever pull something similar off. :rolleyes:

LOL! Get a grip, I never, at any point, said that they'd have make a game that had to be on the same technical level as Crysis 3, after all, we all had math in school and also learned to read and interpret text there. The point of my post, which you missed sorry if I was unclear English is not my first language, was that any claims by the developers or someone else for that matter that the removal of the non-sandblasted aircraft was due to increase performance is ridiculous. I took the Crysis 3 as an example of a very graphically advanced game which will most likely run very good on peoples PC's around here (you know, the guys with i7's and 680's etc.) whilst a graphically inferior game, CloD in this case, isn't performing very well on same hardware.

Now, as I've stated before, I don't wanna argue with anyone but did so this time because of a misunderstanding.