That has already been explained to you. The CoD map is HUGE compared to WoP (btw, it cracks me up that you actually think WoP looks good compared to CoD). There are a lot more trees to keep track of, and they obviously were not prepared for the problems that could cause. Do you really think they're not going to eventually fix it?

The reason there are no hitboxes in CoD trees is the same as why there where no hitboxes in Il2 trees.

Trees are a graphical option. For the sake of online play and mission building they can't physically exist for some players and not for others.

End of story.

Not what Luthier had to say on the matter.

It isn't?

Well, it is what Oleg had to say when asked why Il2s trees didn't have hitboxes.

And given that you can still turn off trees, it should still stand.

Oh I quite agree, it does stand for that reason, just pointing out that it wasn't the reason given.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...59&postcount=1

Most likely they intended to have tree collisions offline. Online would be a problem if different players have different trees displayed.

I will ignore the fact that the screen shots were deliberately chosen to put both fsx and wop at a disadvantage right from the get go.

FSX was released in 2006 a year before il2 1946, and originally written for directx 8.0 and updated later, and wop which is a console port and arcade game over a year ago only supports dx 9.0, unlike COD that supports directx 10. If you want to compare the three graphically, run them all in directx 9.0 and see how they match up, as directx 10 offers huge advantages in rendering and image quality.

Graphically COD should be head and shoulders above the other two using directx 10, the fact it isn't is telling to anyone who knows what they are looking at and understands the techniques available to the different versions of directx.
Some of my own shots from WOP

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/3194/3c126094416.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2...1400535985.jpg

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/597...olegoosegd.jpg

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6...0104112823.jpg

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/5...0104112747.jpg

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/1...0113164435.jpg

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/1...1518200655.jpg

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5...0110162558.jpg

http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/2...0113164338.jpg

WoP looks stunning. Here's FS9 over the South of England. The resolution is a bit blurry, but the colours are much more realistic than CloD's flourescent landscape. I wonder if the protracted development of CloD meant that it was overtaken whilst still in development. Arguably, WoP, RoF and even some FS9/FSX terrain sets look much more realistic.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...g/86e3180f.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...3-04-09-20.jpg

CoD IS head and shoulders above the other two. I have no idea why you think it isn't. This isn't even a close call.

Wow, there are LOTS of reasons not to like WoP, but that scenery is *at least* as good, and in my opinion better (despite the shaders and poor water) than CloD.


CloD should be many times better than this. It certainly uses more resources.