CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?
 

Did one of these comparisons when the first landscape shots of CoD arrived to I thought a revisit with the current version would be interesting as I've read some people that are discontent with CoD that said they where going back to FSX, X-Plane, WoP etc....

So let's compare apples and pears?

FSX on max:

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/4...ofdoverfsx.jpg

CoD on high (on my old rig with no stuttering and rather OK fluid fps - better than FSX!):

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3...ofdovercod.jpg

Ohh - and then we have the bunch that say that WoP has so much better graphics than CoD (which they claim does not look much better than IL2). Lets test that?

CoD (aka "the real Deal"?):
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/903...herealdeal.jpg

WoP:
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6...pcomparev3.jpg

And add IL2 (pimped):
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/3...2comparev2.jpg

sorry il2 is better for me


486 DX2 66mhz
4MB ram
S3 Virge

Nice!

Makes you realize how good this game actually is (can be ;) ).

Mmm, is the Virge an upgrade compared to my Trio?

WoP has those horrible filters, but the shape and definition of the fields and patches of woodland looks MUCH better than CloD.

I think this is a fairer representation of FSX; the South East England scenery pack:
The onlt one to get the colours about right.

http://i1-games.softpedia-static.com...-England_1.jpg

yeah it has a brand new 3D engine, i'am not sure we can be friends

Nope - I went from my Trio64 to the Matrox Millenium (v1). The worlds least used 3D hardware. But the 2D was good!

Down low over the cliffs please for comparison! I can go to Google Maps to look at satellite images ;)

Wow that looks horrible.

S!

Take the screens from same place as close as possible with same position of plane etc.. for example over Dover to get good comparison. Otherwise nice set of pics.

I bet it looks even worse down low...

It looks horrible?
It's a photo...it's a photo of South East England.

it doesn't have nice effects like distance desaturation/blue, but given that it is essentially a photo, does that mean that you think SE England looks horrible?


ed: just to be clear, I'm not trying to claim FSX scenery is better than anything...It's not my cup of tea, but I do think "Horrible" is a strange word for a photo of the landscape.

im a big fan of WOP but from those pics IL2 looks the most natural

http://sbcglobalpwp.att.net/c/t/ctec...4-59-4-636.jpg


FSX and UTX...go lower? lol

http://img641.imageshack.us/f/27042011222915.jpg/
This is a picture from reality, I was in the fw, so you can see that il2 is very close to the real thing. If you don't like the fw, tell me, I'll rent another plane and take the picture again.

How do you guys upload pics BTW?

What's bother me with il-2 1946 or COD is the cartoonish textures and colours, they reminds me Mario kart on the N64. I'm not speaking about luminosity, an bright sunny day is really "bright" but something is strange with the tone of the colours.

My version of reality:

http://sbcglobalpwp.att.net/c/t/ctec...CLE_actual.jpg


http://sbcglobalpwp.att.net/c/t/ctec...4-59-4-637.jpg

Reality sucks, simulations are more realistics.

The first FSX screencap (with the aftermarket terrain) looks like someone who wasn't very skilled with photoshop took a picture of the ocean, and then just straight-up posted a photo of Kent over top of it.

The second one with the Fighter looks like someone took google earth screencaps and crudely drew a road over top of it, then used it as a texture for the old turn-based Combat Mission game and added stock houses and trees.

What FSX does do very well (with aftermarket packs) are cities and mountains. not so much the country and shores.

I don't own the other games so I'll have to go on what I see in the screenshots posted.

I think it's fair to say CoD is the clear winner, judging from what I see. The game, with the right lighting, can look absolutely breathtaking.

What kind of reasoning is that?
Hey look at this [blurry overcontrasted photo of a puppy] which has been made into a texture and put into a game, anyone who think it looks horrible must think puppies look horrible...

I'm gonna go make a game now, with only flat photographs as textures, as long as the motif doesn't look horrible there's no way the textures and the game can look horrible..

[/sarcasm]

Yes it looks horrible because it's a photo..
Compared to 3D environments and compared to real life, it looks horrible..

+1

It´s about the ugly transition between the photo-textured ground (never like it when they do that, it will always look crap close up) and the ocean which looks pretty crap all by itself as well.

I´m sure there is plenty going for FSX (like being able to fly around the entire world, real time weather, etc etc etc) but graphic wise it can´t hold a candle to Cliffs of Dover..Only game I have seen so far that comes close is Rise of Flight (it beat CoD graphic wise for me until the latest beta patch which gave me proper functioning AA). For me right now Cliffs of Dover is by far the most beautiful flightsim I personally know or have ever played. I´m sure it will only get better, especially when my three blue line bug on the horizon gets fixed and DX11 will be properly implemented.

Heard rumours about a new water shader with transparancy, fully functional surf and stuff, that will be sweet when they put it in!

To me COD looks better the only thing i like best in WOP is the ocean (from altitude) the ocean in COD at low alt is gorgeous, but up high its out of scale I think

Totally agree, I think those who think that IL-2 is better are in a kind of denial. Like people who own a sound system for a long time and can't adjust to anything else, because their perception has adjusted to their system...And WoP looks totally depressive...FSX looks klunky...
My two cents...

I dont know what you guys have... I in fact think that CloD looks MUCH better than all of them together.
I think graphicswise there is nothing that can hold a candle for CloD. Not even ROF or WoP.

Winger

Well FSX is a fly high so this look good sim, COD is more an avoid the squirls and fly low kind of sims... FSX down low is not good looking at all. But COD up high is good, consireding that is depicting 1940's scenary... 2010...

But hey, I owned both ;)

It doesn't matter how detailed and pop-up free the buildings are if they are just stacked on a big old satellite image. From way up high it's ok but down low, ugh! just horrible. It just kills the illusion IMO. The contrast between ultra detailed ground objects and a pasted on satellite imagery is just too great. Clod FTW!

Well if they could somehow combine WOP's ground textures with Clods lighting, and aircraft modeling You'd have something truly great!

Thank you for the comparisons. They are very interesting.
I must note that I have not yet had a chance to try ClOD for myself yet.
Living in the US, I am still waiting.

To be fair, you cannot show a screencap of FSX at 3,000 feet altitude and say that it looks better than ClOD at 200 feet.
FSX looks great when you are flying at altitude and not hugging the ground but I was always disappointed when I flew down low.
It seems that ClOD does low altitude fairly well.

If you can, please get some more screencaps of the 3 sims you have compared at different altitudes, from ground level to 10,000 feet or more.

I'll dig out my copy of SWOTL for some more comparisons ;)

Dude Why are you waiting? justflight.com. Its five bucks cheaper and it activates through steam so its like you bought it there. Hell its even Downloads through steam. If you pre ordered through steam just cancel it. That is EXACTLY what I did. IT is fully legit bro!!

Ditto!

CoD wins hands down. whoever put the texture and modelling pack for FSX together needs to visit southern england.

Pretty much the only places where FSX looks good "down low" are the cities and the areas around different airports (assuming you sprung for the 3rd party add-ons).

WOP, looks good, but I wouldn't say realistic given the filters, and the view distance, and the lighting and claustrophobic map sizes.

FSX, WOP, and IL-2 have pretty much peaked. ROF and CloD are the only two that are going to improve given they are newer (newish) game engines. The two of them are (compared to MS) tiny, tiny developers, with limited funds and staff, so improvements and upgrades are going to be "bite sized" instead of huge Service packs that radically alter or improve the game. Also it's yet to be seen if there will be an active 3rd party industry centred around these two titles.

MS's "Flight" is looking to be "FSX version 1.5" so I don't see it getting much better, and probably sticking to the Satellite Photos method that has done MS well so far.

You've got to remember that FSX and Flight are Procedure sims, while CloD is a combat sim. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.

IMHO


FSX= dx9+32 bit system.

CoD=dx10+64bit system and maybe dx11.


nuff sayed.

flyer01

FSX Does the whole planet. The amount of data to make it look photorealistic like WE all want would be incredible. COD only has to get a small slice right.
That IL2 1946 pic Looked really good! Its holding up very well me thinks:) If 1946 had the damge model and the engine management and the great cockpits of COD I would still be flying 1946.(Actually I am still flying it) :D

How to create MS Flight terrain engine:

1. Obtain one large ball (no puns plz!)

2. Print out the whole google earth satellite imagery

3. Obtain a stick of glue (regular paper glue will do)

4. Smear the ball (see nr.1) with said stick of glue

5. Wrap the printed satellite imagery (see nr.2) around the ball

6. Sprinkle some highly detailed buildings/trees/mountains all over the ball

7. Add some 2D clouds (cotton balls will do)

E voilá! You know have MS Flight Sim terrain engine that covers the whole of earth, rinse and repeat for every time you release a "new" game.

This is not a fair post. I agree with you on FSX but you are varying the altitudes. WOP at low altitude looks alot better than COD and performes alot better. At high altitude COD looks better though.

ALSO in WOP you can have like 50+ aircraft in the air fighting over a city and it is absolutely stutter/lag free, buildings are all there (there is no filler, so in the distance everything is present and they dont teleport into place).

Misleading comparison (whether intentional or not).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHkDdTJvK8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75eyrPIRTpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acVLG-Cbpug

It all runs smooth as silk, and can be played maxed out easy on even low mid range pcs.

You're wrong in this aspect, WOP just does a very good job of hiding it but if you look you can see it all fading in.

CoD has gotten better at it but it's still too easy to see the blocks pop in and then fade to full opacity.

Yes you are correct, but WOP does it at alot farther distance. I 100% gurantee you the LOS for WOP is atleast double of the LOS in COD. I have WOP on 1920x1200 and I can full zoom into the distance which is a good few minutes fly away and I can see buildings/city. Also never ever seen building/detail pop.

Go given that the buildings actually appear at a further distance, and you never notice them appearing, and it runs super smooth without problem even with many aircraft in the air while it is still a older game (originally for console - and it uses lots of the IL2 engine and models) the fact that it imo gives comparable graphics and in some places far better graphics while having no performance problem makes me say the WOP team was far more competent in their programming.

Also remember while WOP has IL2's FM/DM the trees actually have hitboxes... so if they can do it on a console/low end $500 or so computer why the hell cant the COD devs???

Wow WOP looks just the way I remember it, like crap. FSX always has looked bad at any altitude. COD looks great and is my current choice for just flying around from airfield to airfield. I don't really understand what other people see in the graphics of WOP, the cockpits look bad, the planes or just ok and the scenery is all green and really blah.

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.

And in exchange we'll ignore the fact that your shots are clearly chosen to show WOP in it's very best light and do not show any reasonable representation on how it looks while playing ;)

CoD IS many times better than that. That is a green hazy mess. It looks like crap.

WoP at it's very best is worse than CoD at it's worst.

Quite a few people, myself included, disagree. Some things in CoD look simply outstanding, others look merely "ok-ish". I have recently re-installed WoP and while it does indeed get boring quickly I thought the environment grafics were indeed at least on par with CoD. I admit I have less of a problem with the "cinematic" filters in WoP than with the strange colour palette in CoD.

But then the fact that CoD isn't the grafical leap forward I had hoped for after all this time isn't even remotely the sim's biggest problem at the moment.

But then CoD will improve, I don't doubt it. And until then I'm back to flying DCS:A-10C.

Those shots were taken when the game was released, on my first day with it ,during play and are unaltered; if you would like I have far more dramatic shots that I deliberately avoided posting.

Your hazy green mess is actually far more natural and realistic; not only does this planet's atmosphere contain particles that disperse and diffuse light. At altitude water in the atmosphere often causes a haze, which you would know if you had ever flown anything but a desk, but no mater, it's an option that can be turned off if you don't like it.

I know. And I find that amazing, because it is so obviously wrong. WoP is a green hazy mess. If you think it looks better than CoD it is because you are really desperately looking for problems in CoD.

I bought WoP. I know what it looks like. It looks like crap.

Like I said. This is not even a close call.

You play from external view points do you and always looking at areas that haven't been washed out by the ridiculous amount of bloom/hdr that wop uses then?

I'm not arguing here, WoP does look incredible in the immediate vicinity but after that it looks downright awful and the overuse of bloom/hdr knocking visibility down to virtually nothing at times is downright criminal, drama has nothing to do with it.



I've never seen any atmosphere remotely like wop's in all my years of living in southern england, I have seen plenty of like cod's representation though.

"If you think it looks better than CoD it is because you are really desperately looking for problems in CoD."


Actually, dont have to look hard at all. Thats freakin hilarious :-P

From what I've seen and played. Nothing compares to CoD down low. The problem is, of course, is having the hardware to show off all those details down low :)

I fly frequently irl I hold an PPL/ir with NQ, and often see atmospheric haze, it is quite different from the air than on the ground, particularly near cities when you add industrial output and traffic smog into the mix, seasons too have an effect, around harvest for example the atmosphere can take on a distinct yellow hue. However, I never claimed wop was totally realistic, I said it was more realistic than no haze at all.

As for the shots, yes, on cranking up the game and being amazed at how it looked, I used playback to get screen shots just like most other gamers do to take screen shots from different perspectives. Every shot I posted was taken directly in mission or directly after; or have you never used an external view in a flight sim, when you have been impressed with what you have seen, as for the shots themselves, I have not had the game installed for nearly a year as the fm was too arcade for me.

I actually think WoP looks fantastic in those pictures, and will probably surprise myself and buy it soon :|

CoD = Winner :)

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1...0409222844.jpg

Wait, are you saying there's no haze in cod? I have haze.

Of course, but my point is that wop doesn't look anywhere near as good from the players viewpoint, ie; in the pit. It looks good, just not as good as external shots do, obviously that is just my opinion :)

Download the demo :)

Finding problems in COD is as easy as turning it on, it is plagued with problems.

Graphically it is also full of 2d sprites (8 bit graphics technique) everywhere the devs think they can get away with them to get frame rates up, you might want to take off those rose coloured specs and apply the same analytical eye you used for wop.

However, do not misunderstand I want COD to succeed, but claiming it is head and shoulders above everything else is frankly childish and complete fantasy.

You have no idea how funny these comments are.

This is reality:

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

No green haze

http://aero-pix.com/riah1/slides/sah1-e.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp/rb/rb-d.jpg

No green haze

http://aero-pix.com/qp01/mm/mm-d.jpg

No green have.

http://aero-pix.com/fit02/ie/air/iea-c.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp06/tbird/images/img_004.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp07/sh18air/images/img_005.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/qp07/sh18air/images/img_024.jpg

No green haze.

http://aero-pix.com/westfield10/klat...es/img_007.jpg

No green haze.

I took every one of these photographs. Only one was adjusted because the weather was so hazy that we could barely see, but I'm on a roll so I decided to include it anyways. The rest are all spot on.

The real world is NOT covered in a green haze. Period. Graphically WoP is a DISASTER.

Let's see all the green soup photographs you've taken.

Check out ROF:

http://riseofflight.com/forum/downlo...7875&mode=view

Taken from:

http://riseofflight.com/forum/viewto...541&start=2130

WoP is quite peculiar they chose this old postal card style, with a permanent hazy fog of war and a sepia effect, it feels like you're in a movie, pretty successful but very different

dx10+64bit support was added to FSX with service pack 2.

owned

No really, don't bother. It looks really good and, who knows, might even in a reincarnation be something to think about as the devs are considering taking it to another level, but as it stands it's as deep as a puddle. The Paris Hilton of flight sims.

Now if RoF could come up with a Mk. Vb and a 109F they would have my attention.

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

Yeah, I think they were definitely going for more stylized visuals. Personally I bought the game to show support, but to me it was an arcade game. I didn't really lke it much, but I suppose it wasn't really aiming to be a proper simulator.

It's OK, but not fantastic. It needs stronger colours, darker field boundaries (hedges) and trees that look darker than the fields. To me, CloD terrain looks like a pastel drawing by someone who has never flown over the South of England. Which is probably what it is.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...102_2901-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...6/DSC01756.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...6/DSC01763.jpg

Here we go again.

Ho Hum. :(

Yeah, they do look good, and can be rendered in far greater numbers than CoD without the same performance hit. However, you’ll notice that when you fly past them close to the ground they rotate, so they seem to be flat 2D images (sprites?) that do this to appear to have volume. A small irritant, but still annoying once you notice it.

CoD’s trees appear a lot more realistic, but apparently cannot be rendered in the same number without a huge drop in frame rates. As someone else pointed out, ‘SpeedTree’ seems to be a misnomer. Maybe with next year’s hardware?

CoD really needs:
3-D hegderows, instead of hundreds of random trees spunked across the South East. We pride ourselves on presentation, you know!
Denser forest areas, rather like in RoF.
From altitude, the trees should be darker, too (RoF seems to model this quite well)
Overall, a more natural look, which WoP seems to capture.

+1

Well, Speedtree is originally an addon for 3DS Max and made for high resolution visualization renders (Although I personally prefer to use Vue for landscapes).

Only later did they start plugging it for use in games. I think the main problem with them is the amount of animation and details on individual branches and leafs. RoF doesn´t seem to have any animation on their trees which makes quite some difference.

Trees in RoF do turn with the camera, quite sure they are not flat 2d sprites though, you would definetely notice that. The stuff about whether or not RoF or CoD landscape looks better is highly subjective, most people compare CoD at standard bright summer day time with RoF and even then I think CoD landscape up close looks much more detailed, although I do love RoF for the smoothness and overall atmosphere. Try setting time in CoD to 19.00 or 5.30, looks a lot better I think :P

Well Tony, if those trees are rotating it would explain a lot as to why RoF has more 'efficient' trees than CoD. As you say, they are probably a 2D image.

About trees in CoD and framerates...I don't think it's so bad actually. I play with medium forest, and while there is a drop in frames compared to bare terrain, my machine still copes at over 30 frames per second at treetop level flying over a dense patch of forest.

Now, buildings for me are another thing altogether. At rooftop height over London or Caen, building detail set to very low and medium density, I can maybe manage 15 fps on a good day. Single digits in industrial areas.

I guess the dev-team could make it easier on themselves by adding RoF-trees for dense forests (where rotating trees wounldn't be noticeable), or have some sort of forest tiles, like in IL2. The hedge rows could possibly be solved as low-poly objects? Imagine a long box, rectabgular or even pyramidal in cross section, with a hedge-row picture on each side with some clecer alpha channel use.

CoD looks great, however, at what costs... And where the heck is the propellor?! I dont get it...

Yes, me too. What does appear very different in CoD is the small number of trees rendered on top of a forest terrain image, which you see none of in RoF. The rotating thing is not a huge glitch, it’s probably not really noticeable unless you are looking for it, and it really is a lot more realistic not being able to fly through them (Oh, oh, I think that’s an argument on a separate thread …)

Maybe when we all replace our gfx cards with 2GB models we will be able to turn everything up and enjoy CoD as the developers intended, but it’s still pretty awesome on medium settings.

Just out of curiosity, what is your role on the programming staff? Because, unless you are a programmer on this project, you have no Fing idea what the real issue is.

BTW, even if they don't have to render the crash, they do have to check if the crash happens. That means keeping track of every aircraft and every tree. Now, there are fast ways to deal with the problem, but they may not have realized it was a problem until late in the process.

WoP is a steaming pile of $hit. Even if the graphics were not covered with Jolly Green Giant puke I would not put that game back on my PC. It looks like crap and it plays like crap. If you want to compare a game to CoD and not look like a complete imbecile, go with RoF.

Coming from someone whose go to line is "you are a moron", this is pretty funny.

Not very accurate
 

One salient point that everyone arguing about the relative accuracy of the graphical representation in these sims has missed, is that neither RoF nor Cod is very accurate. As my kids have often reminded me, they didn’t even have colour back then! :-P

Whether or not the game looks like the US vs England is not the point. The point is that CoD looks like real life while WoP looks like green puke.

The question is not what CoD looks like compared to other sims, but what it looks like compared to real life, how can it be improved and whether the devs are willing to make those steps or not.

I kinda like the Hollywood look of Wop as well (for what it's worth), but one really can't compare. Of course that's not realistic, and it's just an arcade game with tiny maps.

It's closer than any other WW2 flight sim on the market. You'll probably have to come up with something pretty compelling to get changes, and I haven't seen anything that would convince me if I were on the CoD staff.

This!

I could care less how WoP or FSX looks compared to CoD, I look at real life to compare if it looks realistic and at the moment it doesn't.

I'm sure CLOD does look realistic but realistic somewhere that isn't Kent

Please note that "David Hayward" doesn't actually own a copy of this game

several times I expressed my opinion...I run the risk to be tagged as 'whiner'. But with such thread I can't resist to confirm my opinion on the looking of WoP. For me it's still awesome in his general harmonization.
Remove from your mind the green filter and reflect for an instant on these sequences...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHkD...eature=related

Very effective 4me, much better than CloD.
;)

Does ownership of the game change how the screenshots look?