CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[JumpingHubert]

langnasen, it was only a fanboy test. You are the winner.

@video
stunning! Wings of Prey isn´t a simulation like Clod, but its a very good game.

[W0ef]

I like Mystic Pumas movies as well and think the landscape in WoP looks pretty damn fine personally. I didn't like the backlighting on the clouds but that is nitpicking.

Still think WoP is way too arcadey though

[jibo]

engine sounded like a electric shaver, and guns remind me hard times i've been through after having eaten several burritos

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by JumpingHubert

l
stunning! Wings of Prey isn´t a simulation like Clod, but its a very good game.

If it isn't a sim like CoD, why do WoP fanboys keep comparing it to CoD?

[philip.ed]

David, they are comparing elements. We were told CoD would have photo-realistic terrain to beat anything ever done before.
The terrain in the video above (WoP) looks beautiful, and a lot more natural that CoD. I can't see any argument against this, because the transition of textures to villages is smooth, the location of trees and other vegation is historically accurate and extremely natural.

I'm not bashing CoD, but pointing out that there are areas of improvement. Areas of the terrain in CoD are outstanding, but does it look like England? Not really. It's like calling a chicken burger a beef burger. It's still a burger, but just not quite beef, is it?

Now I know that WoP has postage sized maps, but the elements of the terrain could all be incorporated into CoD. The textures in CoD probably need a fair amount of improvement, and so does the location of vegetation. Indeed, just cutting down the number of trees to a realistic amount would improve fps!

Do you see what I'm saying? At the end of the day, the team are doing a brilliant job, but they're Russian! They know nothing of England compared to people who have lived here all their lives. That may sound harsh, and I don't mean to sound rude, but it is true.
Obviously, this is all constructive criticism for the team to take on board.

Everything in CoD would look better if it could have the sprinkling of tiny crystals removed from it. I don't know if it's the lack of FSAA or anisotropic filtering or what, but the grainy harshness, even at 2560 x 1600, looks bloody aweful.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

David, they are comparing elements.

Which is completely irrelevant when you admit that they are 2 different types of games.

Besides, every element we have examined has looked better in CoD.

[GuillermoZS]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Which is completely irrelevant when you admit that they are 2 different types of games.

Besides, every element we have examined has looked better in CoD.

What is irrelevant is the type of game when you are comparing graphics

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by GuillermoZS

What is irrelevant is the type of game when you are comparing graphics

Type of game is everything. A computer has limited resources. If you simulate more detailed engine management you have fewer resources to keep track of trees and buildings.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

The terrain in the video above (WoP) looks beautiful, and a lot more natural that CoD. I can't see any argument against this, because the transition of textures to villages is smooth, the location of trees and other vegation is historically accurate and extremely natural.

By the way, that simply is not true. People have posted the CoD maps. They are an amazing match to the real photographs from 1945. No one has even attempted similar comparisons for WoP.