CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Winger

I dont know what you guys have... I in fact think that CloD looks MUCH better than all of them together.
I think graphicswise there is nothing that can hold a candle for CloD. Not even ROF or WoP.

Winger

Ditto!

[leggit]

CoD wins hands down. whoever put the texture and modelling pack for FSX together needs to visit southern england.

Pretty much the only places where FSX looks good "down low" are the cities and the areas around different airports (assuming you sprung for the 3rd party add-ons).

WOP, looks good, but I wouldn't say realistic given the filters, and the view distance, and the lighting and claustrophobic map sizes.

FSX, WOP, and IL-2 have pretty much peaked. ROF and CloD are the only two that are going to improve given they are newer (newish) game engines. The two of them are (compared to MS) tiny, tiny developers, with limited funds and staff, so improvements and upgrades are going to be "bite sized" instead of huge Service packs that radically alter or improve the game. Also it's yet to be seen if there will be an active 3rd party industry centred around these two titles.

MS's "Flight" is looking to be "FSX version 1.5" so I don't see it getting much better, and probably sticking to the Satellite Photos method that has done MS well so far.

You've got to remember that FSX and Flight are Procedure sims, while CloD is a combat sim. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.

[AARPRazorbacks]

IMHO


FSX= dx9+32 bit system.

CoD=dx10+64bit system and maybe dx11.


nuff sayed.

flyer01

[Skiiwa]

FSX Does the whole planet. The amount of data to make it look photorealistic like WE all want would be incredible. COD only has to get a small slice right.
That IL2 1946 pic Looked really good! Its holding up very well me thinks If 1946 had the damge model and the engine management and the great cockpits of COD I would still be flying 1946.(Actually I am still flying it)

[addman]

How to create MS Flight terrain engine:

1. Obtain one large ball (no puns plz!)

2. Print out the whole google earth satellite imagery

3. Obtain a stick of glue (regular paper glue will do)

4. Smear the ball (see nr.1) with said stick of glue

5. Wrap the printed satellite imagery (see nr.2) around the ball

6. Sprinkle some highly detailed buildings/trees/mountains all over the ball

7. Add some 2D clouds (cotton balls will do)

E voilá! You know have MS Flight Sim terrain engine that covers the whole of earth, rinse and repeat for every time you release a "new" game.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by mazex

Did one of these comparisons when the first landscape shots of CoD arrived to I thought a revisit with the current version would be interesting as I've read some people that are discontent with CoD that said they where going back to FSX, X-Plane, WoP etc....

So let's compare apples and pears?

FSX on max:



CoD on high (on my old rig with no stuttering and rather OK fluid fps - better than FSX!):



Ohh - and then we have the bunch that say that WoP has so much better graphics than CoD (which they claim does not look much better than IL2). Lets test that?

CoD (aka "the real Deal"?):


WoP:


And add IL2 (pimped):

This is not a fair post. I agree with you on FSX but you are varying the altitudes. WOP at low altitude looks alot better than COD and performes alot better. At high altitude COD looks better though.

ALSO in WOP you can have like 50+ aircraft in the air fighting over a city and it is absolutely stutter/lag free, buildings are all there (there is no filler, so in the distance everything is present and they dont teleport into place).

Misleading comparison (whether intentional or not).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHkDdTJvK8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75eyrPIRTpY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acVLG-Cbpug

It all runs smooth as silk, and can be played maxed out easy on even low mid range pcs.

[Dano]

ALSO in WOP you can have like 50+ aircraft in the air fighting over a city and it is absolutely stutter/lag free, buildings are all there (there is no filler, so in the distance everything is present and they dont teleport into place).

You're wrong in this aspect, WOP just does a very good job of hiding it but if you look you can see it all fading in.

CoD has gotten better at it but it's still too easy to see the blocks pop in and then fade to full opacity.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Dano

You're wrong in this aspect, WOP just does a very good job of hiding it but if you look you can see it all fading in.

CoD has gotten better at it but it's still too easy to see the blocks pop in and then fade to full opacity.

Yes you are correct, but WOP does it at alot farther distance. I 100% gurantee you the LOS for WOP is atleast double of the LOS in COD. I have WOP on 1920x1200 and I can full zoom into the distance which is a good few minutes fly away and I can see buildings/city. Also never ever seen building/detail pop.

Go given that the buildings actually appear at a further distance, and you never notice them appearing, and it runs super smooth without problem even with many aircraft in the air while it is still a older game (originally for console - and it uses lots of the IL2 engine and models) the fact that it imo gives comparable graphics and in some places far better graphics while having no performance problem makes me say the WOP team was far more competent in their programming.

Also remember while WOP has IL2's FM/DM the trees actually have hitboxes... so if they can do it on a console/low end $500 or so computer why the hell cant the COD devs???

[warbirds]

Wow WOP looks just the way I remember it, like crap. FSX always has looked bad at any altitude. COD looks great and is my current choice for just flying around from airfield to airfield. I don't really understand what other people see in the graphics of WOP, the cockpits look bad, the planes or just ok and the scenery is all green and really blah.