Quote:
Originally Posted by recoilfx
I think you've included some mistakes in your post:
1.) I am pretty sure that WoP uses its own rendering engine. Only flight modeling was borrowed from Il-2.
2.) It looks pretty damn good for the resources it needs. The whole package is coherent, the art direction is clear - I can't say that about CloD currently. WoP is not going for realism, but movie-ism. It's not IL-2 style, but it's lot of people's style. It certainly doesn't look like crap. Do you say that Band of Brothers or The Pacific look like crap because directors decided to run a bleach-by-pass on the frames?
3.) Map size doesn't affect performance, rendering distance matters more.
4.) If it looks good, and tricks you to think that it's good, then it's good. For what it's worth, given the resources it needs, it runs as a pretty damn good polished package.
|
Nobody says that WoP is bad in it's niche. Wop effectively tricks you to think that it's good, then it's good in that, in being an arcade sim with small terrain and hollywood graphics that does not look good at low level and does not look realistic at hight level.
So, and this is what we say, there is not comparison from what WoP does and what CoD does even in its current state. CoD engine could do what WoP does with no problem, and I'm sure even with better fps, turning down terrain size, number of objects in scene, fx, lighting, flight dinamics, damage, IA, and so... but then it would not be CoD needing some patches (as many games does, sadly, when released, old FB with them ), would be another arcade sim wich CoD is not and never pretended. WoP engine simply can't do what CoD does. No way. If you can't see that difference, and don't realize what bigger in code and complexity that difference is, then you should be playing WoP.