CoD screenshots (merged)

[csThor]

Gawd, when will these senseless and totally pointless comparisons with a frigging arcade shooter stop? WOP has a viewing distance which would cause all flights in CloD to be terminated because of bad weather. And don't get me started on their filter nonsense ...

Originally Posted by Eizon

Aside from some of the screenshots on MAX where the plane is parked on the grass by some pretty trees, which do look great...

The game looks to me (cockpits aside) worse than Wings of Prey. That is to say, unless you're literally parked on the ground, I'd say that WoP looks better and runs probably 15 times as smoothly.

If only 1C could get the resources in that whoever made WoP had. They clearly know much better what they're doing when it comes to making a rendering engine.

How do you fit so much retardation into a single post?

1. Oleg and crew made the WOP engine (it's the IL-2 Engine), the WOP team made a few alterations, that about it.

2. WOP looks like crap when you get low. It's looks like crap when you're on the ground, and it looks like a stylized cartoon when you are in the air.

3. Maps are postage-stamp sized.

4. Wings of Prey is a console game with a lot of shortcuts and tricks to make you think it's realistic looking. The realism (FM/Damage) is really simplified, and . .. .

I don't know why I am bothering to type this. If you're daft enough to type what you did then you're not going to listen to reason.

Cliffs of Dover for the most part runs like crap. It's essentially still in a beta stage, and it's designed for tomorrow's hardware. Sucks for trying to play it now on a budget, but there is pretty much no feature (besides system specs that allow you to play the game) that WOP even begins to approach COD.

[Helrza]

Since london bridge is off limits lol

[recoilfx]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

How do you fit so much retardation into a single post?

1. Oleg and crew made the WOP engine (it's the IL-2 Engine), the WOP team made a few alterations, that about it.

2. WOP looks like crap when you get low. It's looks like crap when you're on the ground, and it looks like a stylized cartoon when you are in the air.

3. Maps are postage-stamp sized.

4. Wings of Prey is a console game with a lot of shortcuts and tricks to make you think it's realistic looking. The realism (FM/Damage) is really simplified, and . .. .

I don't know why I am bothering to type this. If you're daft enough to type what you did then you're not going to listen to reason.

Cliffs of Dover for the most part runs like crap. It's essentially still in a beta stage, and it's designed for tomorrow's hardware. Sucks for trying to play it now on a budget, but there is pretty much no feature (besides system specs that allow you to play the game) that WOP even begins to approach COD.

I think you've included some mistakes in your post:

1.) I am pretty sure that WoP uses its own rendering engine. Only flight modeling was borrowed from Il-2.

2.) It looks pretty damn good for the resources it needs. The whole package is coherent, the art direction is clear - I can't say that about CloD currently. WoP is not going for realism, but movie-ism. It's not IL-2 style, but it's lot of people's style. It certainly doesn't look like crap. Do you say that Band of Brothers or The Pacific look like crap because directors decided to run a bleach-by-pass on the frames?

3.) Map size doesn't affect performance, rendering distance matters more.

4.) If it looks good, and tricks you to think that it's good, then it's good. For what it's worth, given the resources it needs, it runs as a pretty damn good polished package.

[T}{OR]

Ignorance is bliss indeed.

Nope, speculum jockey is right in every point.

[Ailantd]

Originally Posted by recoilfx

I think you've included some mistakes in your post:

1.) I am pretty sure that WoP uses its own rendering engine. Only flight modeling was borrowed from Il-2.

2.) It looks pretty damn good for the resources it needs. The whole package is coherent, the art direction is clear - I can't say that about CloD currently. WoP is not going for realism, but movie-ism. It's not IL-2 style, but it's lot of people's style. It certainly doesn't look like crap. Do you say that Band of Brothers or The Pacific look like crap because directors decided to run a bleach-by-pass on the frames?

3.) Map size doesn't affect performance, rendering distance matters more.

4.) If it looks good, and tricks you to think that it's good, then it's good. For what it's worth, given the resources it needs, it runs as a pretty damn good polished package.

Nobody says that WoP is bad in it's niche. Wop effectively tricks you to think that it's good, then it's good in that, in being an arcade sim with small terrain and hollywood graphics that does not look good at low level and does not look realistic at hight level.
So, and this is what we say, there is not comparison from what WoP does and what CoD does even in its current state. CoD engine could do what WoP does with no problem, and I'm sure even with better fps, turning down terrain size, number of objects in scene, fx, lighting, flight dinamics, damage, IA, and so... but then it would not be CoD needing some patches (as many games does, sadly, when released, old FB with them ), would be another arcade sim wich CoD is not and never pretended. WoP engine simply can't do what CoD does. No way. If you can't see that difference, and don't realize what bigger in code and complexity that difference is, then you should be playing WoP.

[ChrisDNT]

Just curious and without speaking of the filter (I hate the filter too) can someone show me a landscape shot of Wop which looks bad ?

[Ailantd]

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

Just curious and without speaking of the filter (I hate the filter too) can someone show me a landscape shot of Wop which looks bad ?

And if possible, the same landscape with different lighting.

[bongodriver]

Just curious and without speaking of the filter (I hate the filter too) can someone show me a landscape shot of Wop which looks bad ?

WOP doesn't look bad at all, just not as good as ClOD

[recoilfx]

Originally Posted by Ailantd

Nobody says that WoP is bad in it's niche. Wop effectively tricks you to think that it's good, then it's good in that, in being an arcade sim with small terrain and hollywood graphics that does not look good at low level and does not look realistic at hight level.
So, and this is what we say, there is not comparison from what WoP does and what CoD does even in its current state. CoD engine could do what WoP does with no problem, and I'm sure even with better fps, turning down terrain size, number of objects in scene, fx, lighting, flight dinamics, damage, IA, and so... but then it would not be CoD needing some patches (as many games does, sadly, when released, old FB with them ), would be another arcade sim wich CoD is not and never pretended. WoP engine simply can't do what CoD does. No way. If you can't see that difference, and don't realize what bigger in code and complexity that difference is, then you does not deserve CoD.

See, you are arguing over the technicality of the engine. No doubt, I agree whole heartily with you that CloD's engine is built to support more details in mind - and it's awesome.

But what the original author was talking about how it looks - art direction. A great engine can't do jack without equally great art direction.

A good testament of how tight WoP's art is that their game doesn't have quarter the amount details of CloD, but people are still comparing it to CloD.

Imagine what CloD could benefit if it had the same polish. Hopefully some day we will get there.

Btw, I don't play WoP even though I have a copy of it sitting on my HD. It's not my cup of tea, but it bothers me when people rags on it because it's not 'realistic' enough, or that 'graphics' are 'tricks' - all computer graphics are 'tricks'.