CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[reflected]

Haha Bliss, that's my screenshot!

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.




FSX is a dinosaur compared to these.

[reflected]

Some low alt-shots. See? It's not as detailed as CloD, still, it has a very nice atmosphere and a realistic feeling:

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by reflected

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.

I think RoF have done the trees better than CoD. They look more like "the good trees" in IL2, and are quite realistic.

[SNAFU]

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.

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

I think RoF have done the trees better than CoD. They look more like "the good trees" in IL2, and are quite realistic.

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?

[philip.ed]

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.

[pupaxx]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

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

[W0ef]

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

[Rattlehead]

Originally Posted by TonyD

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?

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.

[Friendly_flyer]

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.