I insist on having the insane draw distance -- to suggest otherwise is just crazy.

Looks like trees along the roads had much less density back then than today because the trees were much younger (on the left hand).

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/in...2_00819030.jpg

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...ritain/100102/

For me this pic looks just like CoD slightly postprocessed!

Except the haze in the distance in WW2 stopped the pilots seeing the building pop-up ;)

I'm mid way between 'generally happy' and ' generally unhappy'. The terrain doesn't blow me away- but it doesn't make me 'unhappy'. However I put 'generally unhappy' because I feel there's quite a way to go before things look realistic there- which I take was Oleg's initial goal. For those following Ali's thread in the mod section on this subject, I've given my opinion on the weaknesses and strengths of the terrain system there.

PS- I just looked at ROF again after a long break (since about release time). I was expecting the landscape to look much better than CloD after all of the comparison talk here in the forum. But I would hesitate to say it's 'better'.

When we will have realistic weather with its atmospheric effects, like i.e. haze, it will be a big step towards a less lamentable impression of the terrain, especially the colors.

It should be further researched if the 'draw distance' option affects also the aircraft. It did in IL2. If so, if you were to turn it on medium, you would be at a significant disadvantage.
Plenty people have need to reduce their video setting for obvious reasons, so for others setting textures to high can cause much more stutter than to have medium textures and high draw distance. I have worked up a nice compromise wich consists of "BUILDINGS AMOUNT = high", "DRAW DISTANCE = high" and medium textures. Even though the buildings take a considerable amount of video memory, the smaller textures smooth out the experience. What I notice is the buildings don`t pop up no more, the ground quality is still acceptable (sorry- I have to have those trees, the terrain looks just so bald without them). In a set of LW escort missions to Dover and London dogfighting over the coast and over terrain proved fairly smooth (27-32 fps) and spotting objects like airfields poses no problems. Remember that those escort missions didn`t have the amount of 4 planes, but over 20 everytime.
Still, one needs to get used to an ocasional 0,2sec stutter every now and then.

Just like old IL-2 1946 and ArmA2. We will always have occasional microstutters.

Well, that ofcourse varied to a number of situations. As viewing the cities in zoom mode in IL2 lowered fps to lower twenties even few years after the release, the online stutters stayed the same. Whenever one of the players in online session spawned or hit the ground, others would experience a short hicup. Fact.

I just did some a-b screen shot comparisons and there is no difference in aircraft draw distance between medium and high land detail but there does appear to be less detail on land for trees and other things in the very far distance. You have to flick between 2 screen shots to see it because the difference is so minimal, but performance is way better!

I just redid the screen shots with everything max and land detail low so it was easier to see what is going on as it was really hard to see the difference between medium and high land details.

Max
https://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1...gh1.jpg?psid=1

Low land detail everything else max
https://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1...joqP0/low1.jpg

Max
https://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1..._dc0/high2.jpg

Low land detail everything else max
https://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1...2bXiA/low2.jpg

Max
https://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1...8qVE/high3.jpg

Low land detail everything else max
https://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1...bGI-8/low3.jpg