Quote:
Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN
Not to derail the thread further, but I think the problems with the game are half coding and half being ahead of its time, if you look at the scale of the map and all the details...
|
I more or less agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by fox3
When it runs as well as Rise of flight then maybe. |
When the same amount of money and time has been poured into the project, it could very well do run that well.
Honest question, where you around for the launch of that one? I was and i didn't buy it because of the online requirement, but kept following it in case they dropped it. They didn't and i moved on with other things, but i have a very clear memory of how things went during the first year or so after its release because i was following the news.
So, do you know how long it took to get RoF to the standard you are familiar with now? 18 months.
That's for a sim with a constant revenue stream due to the business model chosen and much lower demands on behalf of the engine:
-planes not rendering further than 2km from you (no, not even dots, they were simply invisible outside that range to conserve resources)
-an empty frontline where artillery shells explode on non-existent targets after being fired from non-existent guns (in other words, scripted events to spice things up)
-an inability to handle more than 200 or so objects in a single mission...trying to run a mission on a ROF server similar to the CoD ones used on ATAG was simply no go, the whole thing crashed
-all aircraft mounted guns having the same ballistic characteristics, it made no difference if you were firing spandaus or Lewis guns, the bullets, muzzle velocities, effect on DM were all the same.
and so on.
I remember all the complaints about the long distance ground textures turning low detail, the bad multi-core optimization, anti-aliasing not working, crashed to desktop, slow progress of updates and patches, etc etc etc.
Does it sound familiar?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKUD
Why does it look like crafp now. Aliasing, pop up trees, dumbed down textures, streaky sky, rubic's cube textures. Every "improvement" since the first release has made the graphics worse. I was really happy two releases ago. As soon as I praised it in this forum, the screwed around with the graphics quality in two successive patches that not only made it look like hell it actually slowed my FR down.
There are video options settings for people who won't upgrade their crummy machines.
Why does the rest of the world have to suffer for their poor performance?
Quit yer Bi chin and go mow lawns or something for a new vid card.
|
Options, yes. Elitism, no. Respect other users and mind your language, at least until you decide to start paying for their upgrades. Then you have grounds to complain if they don't upgrade their PCs
Also, to everyone else, keep the thread on topic. This thread is to discuss what you like about CoD and give some examples (stories/after action reports, screenshots, etc). If you want to talk about the things you don't like, open a new thread. It's not like someone is preventing you from creating new topics. If you keep derailing this one, posts will be moved/deleted.