CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Rattlehead

...
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.

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.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Heliocon

- also note that irrespective of what looks better, WOP only performes 100% better. Not saying its a better game though.

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.

Originally Posted by Heliocon

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.

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

[TonyD]

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!

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by RocketDog

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

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.

[reflected]

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.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by reflected

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.

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.

[ICDP]

Originally Posted by reflected

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.

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.

[Kano_Magnus]

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

[pupaxx]

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.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Kano_Magnus

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

Does ownership of the game change how the screenshots look?