|
Quote:
I bought CoD and would like the many very serious bugs fixed. If they are fixed then great, but I won't be thanking the devs. If they don't get fixed I will leave CoD and move on, I will also avoid purchasing anything from MG in future. There are far more serious things in life to worry about rather than a £50 game. |
Quote:
I replied to this post and have highlighted what I belive is the nonsense that people are spewing from their mouths about this sim; Quote:
Perhaps if you understood what I was saying in my first post in this thread then we would not be having this discussion as I am doing nothing you are accusing me of. |
Quote:
Of course you are right about the high pressure - I just caught the end of the era of great London smogs and these always occurred during winter anticyclones. |
Just wanted to add two piccies I happened to take while testing some stuff earlier :P
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2453/codtest4.jpg http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3171/codtest3.jpg Three blue lines on horizon is the annoying ATI bug btw. Peace out. |
NVidia CP, Digital Vibrance down to 34% (or whatever your taste), colours sorted.
|
Look at this. Not as rich in ground objects as CloD, but very nice nontheless. Great atmosphere.
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/748/201152191958.jpg |
@Reflected
I love RoF and am happy to play both that game and CoD, both for their own merits. CoD imo sure has come a long way since first release and so has RoF ;) Peace. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Why the questionmark? Reflected posted a RoF (Rise of Flight) screenshot and I gave my opinion about it. I think both RoF (Rise of Flight) and CoD (Cliffs of Dover) look good at portraying a believable landscape and are great sims in their own right and both have/will come a long way even more in the future. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
have you guys ever thought of this? right now, wouldn't it be great if we can run COD on WOP's graphics model, with COD's damage model and flight model of course. :)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
There are good and bad things about WoP graphically. The biggest plus for me is performance, I can run it with eyefinity. Bring that in to CoD and I'll be jumping around like a five year old on Christmas morning! Otherwise I'd take CoD over WoP any day, visually or otherwise. There's room for improvement though ;) |
Quote:
David, I'm glad to see that your eyes are so set on 'the prize' of CloD that no other FlightSim/Game dare be mentioned in the same breath. Why not from now on we call CloD "Harry Potter" AND WoP "Voldemort"? I may lose in the end, but at-least I'll get loads of films out of my Franchise while I wait for Harry Potter to get his act together! Look, WoP is great NOW, Clod will be great one-day....I just want to have fun now, rather than Beta Test a pre-release candidate that went Gold. It's MY choice! You enjoy fixing Harry, I'll go work with the Dark Lord attacking Muggles on the enemy side ;) Cheers, MP |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
too many s'ssss:)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
have you ever played WoP yourself or are you just hopping on the WoP bashing bandwagon? IL-2 and CloD are nondoubtedly the better sims, but visually WoP is MILES ahead. |
Quote:
|
i have to add something to this talk, simply you cant compare very different sims just by graphic comparison, i know you want the best graphic and the devs should consider it when they program the FM,physics,damage model,collision model and so on, but still.WOP is arcade compare to COD,there is no feel fo detail except SFX,which is nice btw,damage model is very simple and mostly just graphic, FM also very simple and felt strage to fly,and so on.Same lack of proper wider campaign as in COD :(.I rather have a noch down graphic in COD,if they add hit boxes for trees and buildings,radar towers and so on,thats really important and clouds proper ones, and if the manage to keep the same graphic and framerate it will be the best sim, wish for better campaign with planes resuplies and chain events,to influence the other mission etc.
|
Quote:
Yes I play them all and they are all good in different things. WoP has the best graphics of the bunch. |
Quote:
Edit: Actually it's only a scenery graphics comparison... |
ok ...but this thread il labeled 'CoD vs some other sims that model Kent'... so we are simply comparing different games just from 'aesthetic' point of view, and how the scenery is differently represented by each of them.
Correctly, how many had previously pointed up, we can not comparing this products in terms of FM/DM, or other peculiarity specific of a Flight Simulation. They are simply different in their being! they are created with different commercial pourpose/targets. So, please don't fire up when someone express just an opinion! ;) Have a nice day |
Quote:
I own and play lots of flightsims (my first "flightsim" was "Interceptor" on the Amiga) and as a flightsim fan I don't get the rivalry between the "factions". I loved IL2 and really hope that CloD is going to be replacing IL2 someday. As I said, IL2 and CloD are superior sims i like very much, but IN MY OPINION WoP has far better gfx (except the planes/cockpit). I play all three. I like all three. For some reason or another. |
Quote:
|
Another WIP for autumn.
A different way to considere the landscape tiles for a sim. I don't say it's better or worst, but actually i don't like at all the CoD landscape (colours and textures). RoF autumn with DX9. http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Ve...0__21_6_25.jpg |
Quote:
I think this forum is great and developpers should be gratefull to our constructive criticism; I would like my opinions would be taken into account just for whats they are, just opinion; not as the intention of imposing something on someone. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In my opinion CoD has far more realistic graphics and thus better. We can agree to disagree I'd hope... |
Would you guys say CLOD has the potential to look better than WOP? While I think WOP looks better today because of its shaders and colour palette etc I beleive the underlying tech is not as advanced as CLOD's is.
Tech was left out of CLOD as it was nearing completion and we can all see why, it's just not finished. Oleg or Luthier stated that the water is a DX9 placement holder and that the water left out was a transparent effect that you could see through(imagine sub hunting with this). Add to that the dynamic weather and clouds that was also missed out to be added later (which will possibly effect the sea) then we have at least two items that will make this sim look stunning when implemented. It's a shame it was released in the state it was, if they had more time these discussions would not even exist as all the features they had to drop before release would push this sim to another level. |
Quote:
All of that has nothing to do with WoP. I bought WoP. I played it. I took it off my PC and went back to playing IL2-1946. WoP is an arcade game with really crappy colors and lighting. It is not the direction that I want, or expect, CoD to go. |
Quote:
salute |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jEHBR1zxjs |
Quote:
By the way, that isn't the only problem with WoP, it's just the most obvious one. |
Hey Puma,
Nice video but I like the one you put on the WoP forums better, hope you don´t mind me linking to it here: http://blip.tv/file/5040605 Now I don´t have WoP because it´s a bit too arcadey to me but damn, Dover sure looks cool in that movie (check the pier in the beginning and the shot of the city at around 1.11 mins in) I think WoP, RoF and CoD can live perfectly fine next to eachother by the way, each with it´s own strengths and weaknesses. |
2 Attachment(s)
guys, please, after 34 pages of debate can we forget for an instant the green filter and simply evaluate how the elements of landscape are represented?
I mean, hedgerows, trees, field boundaries, groves, etc... how they look in close view/foreground or at distance; are they well bilanced/mixed? My feeling is CloD' terrain is dotted by those elements, it's like a surface with a swarm of drawing pins skewered on randomly, this is my critique. The colour palette... I think it's well represented enough only for closeup views (if u stand in front a parked plane with rural contest around), inflight situation my feeling is it's too yellowish and desaturated... only in these aspect i prefere others games. Are you satisfied how these elements are represented in CloD? (stop, last speech on this argument) Cheers Attachment 5797 Attachment 5798 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Btw. nice WoP videos Mysticpuma. They look almost photorealistic!
|
Quote:
|
i have two things to say:
-in clod the very detailed elements of landscape "doesn´t come together". I hope you understand what i mean. In wop they come together more organic. -in wop the color filter is a little bit overdone. For some experts here: its not only a green filter. On some maps there are blue filters too. In Clod there is (except low sun scenarios) nearly no filter. We need for example for clod a little bit blue filter to simulate atmosphere (yes, its blue). The farer you can look, the more blue. |
Quote:
We may not be counting the trees as someone said but if you live here and its part of your history you'd like it to represent what it is. It's an important part of the immersion. "I'm flying over Kent, lets have a look. Oh no, it's a scene from the seven dwarfs." Apologies to 1C but you'll get the idea. |
Klem, that's exactly how I feel about it. Neatly put.
|
Quote:
I think it is a matter of distribution of "things" (tees, houses, willages etc) is a bit too even. From what I remember flying over England, trees would be clumped together in discreet woodlots, houses and farms would be found fairly close together etc. A quick look at Google Earth comnfirms this. That, and hedgerows! |
Quote:
|
Quite, but the question is how the landscape would differ. From literature, I would expect the landscape to be more small scale: Smaller fields, smaller roads, smaller farms (and more of them). The woodlots would probably have been larger and/or more numerous, and the suburbs would be much, much smaller than present, owing to smaller total population.
The hedgerows (if I remember this correctly) would have been more common than today. |
Quote:
|
Maybe they use a better method of drawing trees? You know, like RoF does.
|
One thing that should not be forgotten when discussing the English country side is the fact that the Brits are a conservative bunch - especially the farmers ;)
Google Earth as many sure know have a "history slider" that shows aerial maps from old days. Over the UK there is a rather large coverage of aerial photos from 1945 - most of London is there etc - and a lot further north. As Isle of Wight is also there I went to a random place (this is true - I did NOT search) and captured a shot from 1945 and one from 2005 (the latest): 1945: http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/1205/wight1945.jpg 2005: http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/265/wight2005.jpg And CoD (I know it's not the perfect alt etc but...) http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4...ght1940cod.jpg So many places today are not far from what they looked like during the war ;) Try it yourselves - it's even more fun in Google Earth as you may pull the "year slider" back and forth and see the lack of difference even more easy... There is a lot of Germany from 1945 too (Berlin etc). Interesting stuff! For me CoD gets it quite right... Naturally it's not satellite mapped so the fields are "wrong" etc - but the repeat that is very obvious in WoP is not that obvious (even thogh I agree the mapping of tree lines etc in WoP is very nice). Look at the WoP image from my original post - it's not that hard aligning the trees and forests etc if you take a small piece of land and then just repeat it... Marked them below: http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9...arerepeats.jpg The thing is that in CoD the textures repeat (but much larger) - but they have tried adding forests where they should be - and roads. In WoP they just repeat it all (ground texture and the trees). It gets a heck of a lot easier getting them right then ;) But it get's a lot less realistic for many of us... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Field size is a matter of tile graphics, and should be simpler to implement. |
Quote:
Putting the two maps on top of each other in Photoshop, it is easy to see that this bit of land has not changed much. About one in five fields seem to be spilt relative to their modern counterparts (I would have expected a higher number). Small bits of 1945 wood are now under the plough, but not much. An industrial area has been put up east of the fjord/rivermouth, but Newport is otherwise much as in 1945. All in all not a very great change. |
@ jumpinghubert, klem, friendlyflyer, mazex
+1, exactly focused the question! |
i didn't know there were satellite in 1945 :)
ok i leave the room :D |
Does anyone have a CoD map of the same area?
|
Quote:
Just another sign of bad planning (but hopefully it will be fixed...) |
Quote:
EDIT: The reason for uninstalling it is that I'm switching rig right now and had to deactivate it in preparation. I like all sims in different ways and WoP deserves the space on my secondary 1TB disk. It's always interesting to follow what they do and sponsor the few companies that at least try these days! |
@mazex
thanks for the great comparison. Maybe there is a simple solution for clod´s lack of dense forest: a new class of objects.......a forest layer as a hole without gaps. At the edge single bushes & trees. And a blue filter to "simulate" the atmosphere. good graphics in simulations is important. It supports immersion. |
Quote:
What would the damage model have to be? Perimeter impact zones? Would that be easier to model than all those individual trees? Do we really care if the 'wood' sways/doesn't sway? They could have just a perimeter of swaying trees. The visual immersion of the environment as a whole, especially from the air, is more important than isolated exactly correct swaying trees IMHO. 1C could use those for specimen trees on airfields etc. I expect the trees we have would be useful in land battles with driveable tanks etc., but perhaps 'block' woods could be modelled to be driven through with aircraft damage modelling confined to the perimiter 'bubble'? When your heading down to it at 350KIAS there's not much point in fussing over which branch of which tree you hit. |
Quote:
CoD matches the actual maps beautifully. What "lack of dense forest" are you talking about? |
Quote:
|
Very helpful post mazex, thanks.
According to the University of Reading website: "Since 1945 the UK has lost: 95% of its wildflower rich meadows 30 -50% of its ancient lowland woods 50% of its heathland 50% of its lowland fens, valley and basin mires 40% of its hedgerows" Of the hedgerow loss, some part would be down to urban sprawl, some due to grubbing up or neglect of rural hedgerows. I have not yet found a way to quantify this, but have some ideas if I can find the numbers for land area usages. So if we had 100 miles of hedges in 1945, now we have 60. So if we took a square grid representing hedges now, and imposed another set of horizontal lines over it we would double the number of "fields" with a 50% increase in hedge length giving us 90 miles of hedge. We can assign the remainder to urban sprawl as a first estimate. So I was also a bit surprised that the 1945 and now photos seemed to show almost identical field boundries and numbers. This could just be regional variation, but... then I remembered that many hedges are not grubbed up, they are simply neglected. When you neglect a hedge it slowly morphs into a line of trees, the most vigorous survivors shading out the laggards, with bank or ditch (if present) eroding away. The line of trees may eventually be felled (or, if elm, destroyed by the evil Dutch). So it may be that some of the field boundries in the photos that were hedges in 1945 are now lines of trees or even just tractor paths. Now we need a photograph interpreter sub-forum. So it looks as though COD gets the number of fields about right but is ailing in the hedgerow/tree management department. (What a pity they did not use satellite mapping as a first estimate, then we could all be having fun finding our houses and farms....) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Unfortunately I have absolutely no programming skills, so I don't know if it is at all possible, not to mention feasible. |
Landing your parachute in trees is relatively unlikely to kill you compared with flying into trees in your aeroplane.
It would be relatively simple to just say Code:
If parachute thenLivestock would also make things interesting (even if it was static). I'm told that cows like to lick the dope from fabric covered aeroplanes, so the sim could add a few extra % damage points to aeroplanes which landed in fields with livestock... Of course, hitting a cow at 70 knots would do neither it nor the aeroplane much good either, and if you land in the same field as a bull then loss of doped fabric might well be the least of your worries! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Took a screenie as high up as I could while crashed on the ground.
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4382/landscapeik.jpg |
i see some repeats in the pic above. :grin:
well in my opinion, WOP gives people a better sensation of being in the air. while for some reason il2 series as well as cliffs of dover doesn't quite deliver that. anybody agree? |
Maybe because the water looks back, the colours look rather pastelly, and the transition of fields/trees/villages/and rivers look rather assembled, and not as natural as one might expect.
of course, it's just one picture :cool: |
Quote:
|
ok what we need is,
CoD simulation/aircraft lighting etc. WoP terrain graphics/gameplay/FPS FSX whole globe world = winning :) WoP can be breathtaking but the arcady feel of the aircraft let it down CoD is great over the channel but just doesnt play, its a lagmonster and lets face it, the terrain graphics suck and look all looney cartooney, just like most of IL2's ground textures since sturmovik I got fsx out the other day and with GEX, REX and UTX all on max it's unbeatable and the ultimate in flight simulation and all other would be's,inc CoD pale into insignificance at Microsofts uberness. sorry guys but its true. cfs1 plays better than CoD, has better campaign structure and playability once you get over the graphics.but at least we can fly round the world. i blame microsoft for all these "flat map" packages since cfs3, they totally lost it resorting to a flat map of a bit of england and france, it just hasnt got that "awesomeness" of cfs1,2 and FS series and which of you "eliteists" dont get cfs1 out every now and then huh? :) "Bomber busting over Bremen" with the german voice package in , taking on a set of 3 x 16 Javelin down B17 formations in a rambock :) afaiac, what we all need is the return of cfs1 type global sim, with mod sdk support with a completely new graphics package. its such a pity, il2 devs couldnt come up with this ww2 combat sim ultimate package, because one day its gonna happen, and until then all these Cod's and wop's are just a 30 bucks muse |
Quote:
WoP FPS FSX whole globe world = Thats better, thanks. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If you are done with bashing return to the topic please.
|
Quote:
|
Uhm... Just use ignore?
Anyways... We have to remember that clodo was, is and will always be a low-budget game, with all consequences of that fact. One of them being graphics not as good as it could be. Vanilla il2 could get away with being a low-budget game 10 years ago, but times have changed. Games became much more complicated and nowadays if there's not enough money invested at a dev stage, the game will probably suck, unless it carries some revolutionary ideas, this one does not... or has incrediblye playability, this one does not have that either. |
Quote:
I personally think the graphics look quite good though so I must be the odd one out, and yes, of course CoD also has repeats just like WoP does (look at the last screen I posted carefully and you should be able to see it). Does that matter? Naw, not for me. With further optimization hopefully more and more features will become unlocked to make it look and play better and better. (Can´t wait for the water with transparancy and a working surf myself which was hinted at). |
Quote:
|
Why anyone would care about Kent is beyond me.
Sussex is far superior. |
Totally agree....especially when you can fly here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikyjos89drU Cheers, MP |
Where is "here" - it certainly is not Sussex! :confused:
|
Quote:
|
langnasen, it was only a fanboy test. You are the winner.
@video stunning! Wings of Prey isn´t a simulation like Clod, but its a very good game. |
I like Mystic Pumas movies as well and think the landscape in WoP looks pretty damn fine personally. I didn't like the backlighting on the clouds but that is nitpicking.
Still think WoP is way too arcadey though :P |
Quote:
|
engine sounded like a electric shaver, and guns remind me hard times i've been through after having eaten several burritos
|
David, they are comparing elements. We were told CoD would have photo-realistic terrain to beat anything ever done before.
The terrain in the video above (WoP) looks beautiful, and a lot more natural that CoD. I can't see any argument against this, because the transition of textures to villages is smooth, the location of trees and other vegation is historically accurate and extremely natural. I'm not bashing CoD, but pointing out that there are areas of improvement. Areas of the terrain in CoD are outstanding, but does it look like England? Not really. It's like calling a chicken burger a beef burger. It's still a burger, but just not quite beef, is it? Now I know that WoP has postage sized maps, but the elements of the terrain could all be incorporated into CoD. The textures in CoD probably need a fair amount of improvement, and so does the location of vegetation. Indeed, just cutting down the number of trees to a realistic amount would improve fps! Do you see what I'm saying? At the end of the day, the team are doing a brilliant job, but they're Russian! They know nothing of England compared to people who have lived here all their lives. That may sound harsh, and I don't mean to sound rude, but it is true. Obviously, this is all constructive criticism for the team to take on board. |
Everything in CoD would look better if it could have the sprinkling of tiny crystals removed from it. I don't know if it's the lack of FSAA or anisotropic filtering or what, but the grainy harshness, even at 2560 x 1600, looks bloody aweful.
|
Quote:
Besides, every element we have examined has looked better in CoD. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.