Yeah I really can't recommend it. It does look nice, but everything else but that about the game is really primitive. The flight model is actually pretty close to IL-2 with everything on, but the damage model is a joke. It's like... 5 damageable sections on your plane or something. The maps are also the size of a postage stamp, and all the missions are all designed to be played on arcade with infinite ammo/lives.

Oh and multiplayer is essentially broken.

LOL.Welcome back to the USSR. I was flying CoD then FSX.

FSX is a nice sim.

CoD makes FSX look old school.

Maybe there better be some pictures of FSX in dx10 or where thy? LOL.

http://aero-pix.com/oceana/air/ds/ds-a.jpg

CoD vs Real World.

Anyone who thinks WoP is closer to real world than CoD needs to put down the crack pipe.

You are such a ******* tool. Bugger off, its called optimization - the map size argument is invalid, they dont need to render what you cant see.

Also there are not lots of more trees to keep track off, because only an idiot programmer/design instruction would try to keep track of every tree in relation to a plane that is flying a km or more above land.

As usual you chime in with your uneducated bs that holds no water. Stop trolling fanboy.

- also note that irrespective of what looks better, WOP only performes 100% better. Not saying its a better game though. Also you need to stop harrasing and insulting people with your 1-2 line troll posts. For someone who complains about whinning, you whine the MOST out of any person on this board.

Haha Bliss, that's my screenshot! :D

Funny thing is, I think that France looks better than England in CloD. The fields look more 3d somehow.

RoF looks very nice too. Not as detailed as CoD, but better in some other aspects, like the general "atmosphere" of the landscape and environment. Not to mention clouds.


http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4...1410105634.jpg

FSX is a dinosaur compared to these.

Some low alt-shots. See? It's not as detailed as CloD, still, it has a very nice atmosphere and a realistic feeling:

http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/x...l/Jasta40s.jpg

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4...1412205654.jpg

I think this post unintentionally makes the case against CoD. The problem is that CoD is meant to be representing the South of England in summer, but it actually looks much more like I would imagine parts of the US to look like from the air. When I'm gliding over Wiltshire (top left of CloD's map) what I see doesn't look much like CloD's terrain. The colours in real life are darker and more intense, the fields usually have dark hedges at their borders and the trees are darker than the fields. CloD looks too "pastel" coloured, has a rather lime-green cast absent from real life and just gets the trees and hedges wrong. RoF's landscape actually looks much more like the South of England than CloD does. WoP would look very close if it could lose the filters. It certainly gets the stands of dark-coloured trees and the field colours right. Maybe I should post up some of the pictures I've taken while flying over the actual landscape CloD purports to represent

Wrong.

I think RoF have done the trees better than CoD. They look more like "the good trees" in IL2, and are quite realistic.

Sooner or later the most of us will only fly online. The player will complain about tanks and AAA invisible in the woods and about players trying to escape while hiding low in the woods. So I guess the servers will switch off the trees in their settings like many DCS Server do, so we will not see any trees at all in CloD online. Thats just my own guess. Trees with hitboxes are possible, even for large areas, that proved RoF.

That realistic clouds are possible too, was also proved. For me these are two major setbacks, which I hope will be worked upon, any time soon.
;)
http://schwaan.info/Snafu/RoF/42.bmp