Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 05-22-2011, 09:10 PM
pupaxx pupaxx is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Absurdistan - Rome
Posts: 344
Default

....another palette sample
DSC_0961.JPG

look at the trees..
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-22-2011, 09:21 PM
philip.ed's Avatar
philip.ed philip.ed is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,766
Default

The thing which people are forgetting is the difference between the CloD and WoP terrains.
CloD has realistic 3-D trees (which look amazing up close, and not too bad from a distance (not focusing on colour here) whereas WoP uses trees which have a 2-D image which revolves as you move around them (very similar if not identical to Il-2's trees).
Indeed, WoP doesn't model 3-D/2-D grass, or indeed realisticall created buildings.

But this is one of the reasons why WoP is so easy to play over and FPS friendly. Indeed, RoF uses similar tree models to Il-2, and they work very well for flying.

So maybe, CloD was just being too ambitious, or the right intentions were there, it just wasn't pulled off correctly. I think the latter.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-22-2011, 09:43 PM
kendo65 kendo65 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 908
Default

I don't agree with the argument that CLOD's terrain has to look that way because of the greater area and its heavier use of resources.

It is the way the various resources (trees, buildings, etc) are placed on the map that is the issue here - they don't need to use more - they could use exactly the same amount but in a better more natural way.

My personal biggest hate is the constant use of the double line of trees seen in this pic. Used repeatedly along roads and rivers. Very lazy, and I have never seen anything looking like that in reality.

I'm pleased to see the general reaction to this thread. More people feel this way than I thought. Hopefully the devs will take note.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 9.jpg (69.3 KB, 44 views)
__________________
i5-2500K @3.3GHz / 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 / Asus P8P67 / GTX-260 (216) / WD 500GB
Samsung 22" 1680x1050 / Win7 64 Home Premium
CH Combat Stick / CH Pro Throttle / Simped Rudder Pedals
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-22-2011, 10:21 PM
Jatta Raso Jatta Raso is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 411
Default

once we break the first wave of what i call positive trolling (blindly defending the developers by trolling legitimate criticism which is trolling nevertheless) the positive discussion of these matters can then come to surface

looking at IL-2 1946 or BoB II you can see how far they went in graphics improvement, and it is obvious the discussion of these issues with CoD need to start taking shape. WoP 2 has been anounced and is coming soon... i would't like to see it plainly putting CoD to shame graphics-wise

btw it was Mr Oleg that kept depicting former IL-2 and the then upcoming CoD through recurrent comparisons with other sims, naming them or not; and since this is Mr Oleg's forum and none other, i find absolutely legitimate that comparisons can be hold in order to frame CoD performance, as this is an attitude in all consistent with the founder previous remarks. all other comparison haters can start their own forum and ban me right away. with all respect towards Mr Oleg and the community.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-22-2011, 11:54 PM
Avala Avala is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 126
Default

But, but,but . . . the water is so nice!
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 05-23-2011, 12:01 AM
RocketDog RocketDog is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 134
Default

Actually, the waves move much too quickly on the water, but that's best saved for another topic .
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-23-2011, 01:45 AM
Tree_UK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.ed View Post
The thing which people are forgetting is the difference between the CloD and WoP terrains.
CloD has realistic 3-D trees (which look amazing up close, and not too bad from a distance (not focusing on colour here) whereas WoP uses trees which have a 2-D image which revolves as you move around them (very similar if not identical to Il-2's trees).
Indeed, WoP doesn't model 3-D/2-D grass, or indeed realisticall created buildings.

But this is one of the reasons why WoP is so easy to play over and FPS friendly. Indeed, RoF uses similar tree models to Il-2, and they work very well for flying.

So maybe, CloD was just being too ambitious, or the right intentions were there, it just wasn't pulled off correctly. I think the latter.
The Trees arn't that realistic, you can fly through them!! which i think is a terrible shame. The terrain detail really does let this Sim down, its shoddy and badly coded and I still cannot believe its an entirely new engine. And then we have that awful shimmer still that we had all those years ago in the original IL2.

WOP 2 could easily be the answer to all our prayers, Oleg and Luthier have certainly left the door wide open for someone to steal thier crowns.

Last edited by Tree_UK; 05-23-2011 at 02:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-23-2011, 01:59 AM
Lololopoulos Lololopoulos is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Beijing, China; Columbus, OH
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tree_UK View Post
The Trees arn't that realistic, you can fly through them!! which i think is a terrible shame. The terrain detail really does let this Sim down, its shoddy and badly coded and I still cannot believe its an entirely new engine.
WOP 2 could easily be the answer to all our prayers, Oleg and Luthier have certainly left the door wide open for someone to steal thier crowns.
WOP and COD graphics both suck in terms of being REALISTIC. But I firmly believe that WOP is the one that sucks less.

For one, WOP landscape is a lot more eye-pleasing than that of COD.

WOP landscape looks like a an artwork, while COD looks like a video game.
Neither come close to what we actually see in real life, but I would prefer the artwork to the looks of a video game.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-23-2011, 02:00 AM
Tree_UK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by col123 View Post
The Irony here is Oleg maddox once passed a comment stating that Storm of war would not look so cartoony as WOP!..yeh sure Oleg!...now its CLOD that looks cartoony!.......
During development i made a statement that the terrain looked like a badly painted water colour by a child. Sadly, I still stand by that.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-23-2011, 02:03 AM
Lololopoulos Lololopoulos is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Beijing, China; Columbus, OH
Posts: 240
Default

I'm glad threads like this come up time after time. I hope it can draw some attention to the devs. Hopefully one day they will have an over-haul to the texture, color, ground object placement and etc. after they have fixed the sundry of gameplay problems that still exist right now.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.