Friday update and discussions 2011-03-04

[Space Communist]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

+1

I don't think FPS players or people trying to compare a FPS game or an arcade flying game like WoP quite understand that it's far easier to have great visuals when you have a map the size of a postage stamp.

I have mentioned this before, ArmA II Operation Arrowhead's visuals are often held up as state of the art for "simulations", yet no one bothers to mention that the largest map in that title, "Takistan" is a mere 164 square kilometers. That makes it roughly 12km on a side, if my admittedly poor math skills are right. So it's slightly larger than one grid square on the original IL2 Kuban map. And even at it's small size, cranking up the visibility distance to a mere three kilometers will grind many current computers to single digit frame rates.

Think a bit folks.

Also, When you are actually up in the air the detail in ArmA 2 is not, in my view, any better than what we have seen in CoD. At least at the medium-high graphics settings I can run the game at. The atmospheric effects (of ArmA) in particular are plainly inferior.

Don't get me wrong I love ArmA. It looks great on the ground, and it's the closest thing we have to a full war sim as far as I know.

If the development path of IL-2 was any indicator than CoD will look like ArmA 2 does on the ground but at any altitude after a few years of Moore's law at work.