Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - The Ultimate Sim (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=22655)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jt_medina (Post 280460)

People are comparing wop with il2cod because cod looks horribly worse compared to wop. Obviously We don't need a rocket scientist to know that COD is way more realistic but the truth is that COD is still unplayable for many and graphically speaking there is no apparent reason why IL2 COD should be so hardware demanding.

I play IL2COD almost maxed out (1920x1080)except buildings(med) and it doesn't graphically look so stunning to me, in fact I see it like the graphics were already obsolete. At least on the landscape thing.

yeah ... Call of Duty looks better than ArmA 2 ... :-P

I just had a smooth and awesome fly with my Spitfire I, have a look :

http://i55.tinypic.com/1ovrc5.jpg

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buchon (Post 280498)

yeah ... Call of Duty looks better than ArmA 2 ... :-P

I just had a smooth and awesome fly with my Spitfire I, have a look :

http://i55.tinypic.com/1ovrc5.jpg

:rolleyes:

I can do that too. Set the right time of the day, add clouds and the right angle to make it look better, then I reduce the size of the image to make it look sharper.
I mostly play it midday time settings and doesn't look that nice, besides AA doesn't work at least with my GPU and jaggies are everywhere even at 1080 res.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jt_medina (Post 280502)

Wow cool story bro ;)

I dont did that, just enjoy with a Spitfire fly at sunset 18:00 PM :grin:

The screenshot is size down because Im playing at 1920x1200, so is to big to post it here, thats all :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dano (Post 280438)

Blinkered, all drawn in by a bit of bling and unable to see the reality lol.

That's exactly it. Some people are like fish.

After all these years and countless threads of hostile WoP vs CloD vs RoF vs XyZ some people still have the energy of headbutting each other over the different titles. And better yet doing this to the extent where proper argumentation is lost and all that is left is a load of insults for different titles and individuals. Bravo!

Things are pretty simple in my eyes:
1) CloD has a bunch of issues that remain to be fixed / added but has superb features in it too
2) WoP has a very smooth framerate and looks pretty to some people's eyes, but is pretty far behind in terms of realism, visibility and mapsizes etc

Can't we leave it at that?

Each to their own I'd say: If WoP does it for you then go crazy with it, no need to come to banana forum to bash CloD because of it. MG has a load of work in terms of gameplay, fixes and framerates on lowend rigs. But I know for a fact that a lot of people with sufficient rigs get an ok FPS with graphics to match and enjoy the title despite the shortcomings.

I almost forgot, this is the internet, you're supposed to insult people and their views safely behind the forcefield of anonymity. Let me contribute to that: Morons! (Me included:grin:)

ok thats that ...lets lock this 1 :grin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysticpuma (Post 280414)

don't need to look at a painting! Cliffs of dover frame-rate on max settings is static enough to be a painting.....i could just use it as a screen-saver.... Go on, you know my hook is baited ;)

rofl!!!