If we could only have new trees....

[Jatta Raso]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Welcome to the il2 community... "I don't care if my plane is flying backwards where the smeg are my hedges"....

Welcome to the il2 community... "I don't care if the graphics look like CFS 1 where the heck is my 0,05% FM correction"....

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Jatta Raso

Welcome to the il2 community... "I don't care if the graphics look like CFS 1 where the heck is my 0,05% FM correction"....

I don't know about you but I don't buy games for the graphics. I'd rather the game look like CFS1 as opposed to play like CFS1.

[kendo65]

I don't buy games purely for graphics either. But for me it is one of the elements that are important to get right - on a par with many others (including FM, dM, accurate modelling of aircraft, good gameplay, ability to run with adequate fps, etc).

Failing on any one of them can bring a game down. And of course each individual will rate the different facets higher or lower according to his personal taste. For me currently COD fails on terrain/landscape.

(something to make clear - COD's rendition of terrain is heavier resource-wise and more advanced technically than either ROF's DX9 implementation or the old il-2. But I prefer ROF and many old il-2 maps to the current COD. COD's map failing is in its artistic direction/implementation and a resulting lack of coherence in the end result.

Strong evidence suggests that the failings are due to a combination of botched then remade earlier versions, technical difficulties (SpeedTree), and insufficeint resources/time to get things right - in other words the same as with many of the other problem areas in the game.

And from the recent screenshots for the Russian sequel they seem to have learnt lessons and are getting better results by passing off the map-making to a third party.)

[Jatta Raso]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I don't know about you but I don't buy games for the graphics. I'd rather the game look like CFS1 as opposed to play like CFS1.

i was being sarcastic as was the post i quote, there are no planes flying backwards either... no need to raise a fake question, no one has to choose between looking like CFS 1 and playing like CFS 1

for me FM is important AND graphics are important; it's impossible to have a 100% real simulation, there has to be concessions to realism here and there for the good of the global picture, there just isn't enough CPU power available to have a near perfect combat simulation, that is not going to happen; so what's left? for me, immersion; a simulation, among other things, IS a visual reconstitution, so graphics are important, they don't have to trample the FM development, but they also don't have to take the eternal backseat

besides, i've stated before in this thread that my priority is performace of the graphics engine, seconded by the FM issues, and only then the visual enhancements, so there's really no controversy i guess

or perhaps you don't like my avatar?