Poll - COD Terrain: Your Opinion

[carguy_]

Originally Posted by FS~Phat

I would rather have a little less draw distance for land objects and higher quality textures than the insane draw distance you get with Landscape on High.

Can other people try Landscape on Medium and report their findings, both visual and performance wise?

It should be further researched if the 'draw distance' option affects also the aircraft. It did in IL2. If so, if you were to turn it on medium, you would be at a significant disadvantage.
Plenty people have need to reduce their video setting for obvious reasons, so for others setting textures to high can cause much more stutter than to have medium textures and high draw distance. I have worked up a nice compromise wich consists of "BUILDINGS AMOUNT = high", "DRAW DISTANCE = high" and medium textures. Even though the buildings take a considerable amount of video memory, the smaller textures smooth out the experience. What I notice is the buildings don`t pop up no more, the ground quality is still acceptable (sorry- I have to have those trees, the terrain looks just so bald without them). In a set of LW escort missions to Dover and London dogfighting over the coast and over terrain proved fairly smooth (27-32 fps) and spotting objects like airfields poses no problems. Remember that those escort missions didn`t have the amount of 4 planes, but over 20 everytime.
Still, one needs to get used to an ocasional 0,2sec stutter every now and then.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by carguy_

Still, one needs to get used to an ocasional 0,2sec stutter every now and then.

Just like old IL-2 1946 and ArmA2. We will always have occasional microstutters.

[carguy_]

Well, that ofcourse varied to a number of situations. As viewing the cities in zoom mode in IL2 lowered fps to lower twenties even few years after the release, the online stutters stayed the same. Whenever one of the players in online session spawned or hit the ground, others would experience a short hicup. Fact.

[FS~Phat]

Originally Posted by carguy_

It should be further researched if the 'draw distance' option affects also the aircraft. It did in IL2. If so, if you were to turn it on medium, you would be at a significant disadvantage.
Plenty people have need to reduce their video setting for obvious reasons, so for others setting textures to high can cause much more stutter than to have medium textures and high draw distance. I have worked up a nice compromise wich consists of "BUILDINGS AMOUNT = high", "DRAW DISTANCE = high" and medium textures. Even though the buildings take a considerable amount of video memory, the smaller textures smooth out the experience. What I notice is the buildings don`t pop up no more, the ground quality is still acceptable (sorry- I have to have those trees, the terrain looks just so bald without them). In a set of LW escort missions to Dover and London dogfighting over the coast and over terrain proved fairly smooth (27-32 fps) and spotting objects like airfields poses no problems. Remember that those escort missions didn`t have the amount of 4 planes, but over 20 everytime.
Still, one needs to get used to an ocasional 0,2sec stutter every now and then.

I just did some a-b screen shot comparisons and there is no difference in aircraft draw distance between medium and high land detail but there does appear to be less detail on land for trees and other things in the very far distance. You have to flick between 2 screen shots to see it because the difference is so minimal, but performance is way better!

I just redid the screen shots with everything max and land detail low so it was easier to see what is going on as it was really hard to see the difference between medium and high land details.

Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by FS~Phat

I just did some a-b screen shot comparisons and there is no difference in aircraft draw distance between medium and high land detail but there does appear to be less detail on land for trees and other things in the very far distance. You have to flick between 2 screen shots to see it because the difference is so minimal, but performance is way better!

I just redid the screen shots with everything max and land detail low so it was easier to see what is going on as it was really hard to see the difference between medium and high land details.

Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max

I see a big differance.

[Blackdog_kt]

Nice comparison shots FS~Phat. It just reinforces my belief that i don't really miss much by dropping a few settings to medium in exchange for a smooth 25-60 FPS (capped at 60 due to Vsync) under any kind of scenario on my two year old PC.

I'm not saying it's the same and sure, people with an eye for detail will spot differences but to be perfectly honest with you all, i just don't see it. Maybe if i start looking really carefully i'll see it, but then it defeats the purpose as i won't be scrutinizing the landscape that hard when i'm actually flying.

The only settings i'd want to be able to run higher are forests and building detail and that's just for the eye-candy factor, i run them on low and houses/buildings are a bit sparse on detail but then again, i don't really notice unless i'm skimming rooftops or crash landing next to a farm.

[Dano]

It's the distant horizon where the differences are, if you're not seeing it then you're in a win win situation in regards to turning it down and gaining fps

[ATAG_Dutch]

The main difference seems to be with the definition of the rivers in the distance, rather than the land.

Just ran a few tests and FPS is definately improved by a good deal, without any visual sacrifice that you'd notice.

Well spotted Phat.

[SNAFU]

Nice work. At low alts there is in my eyes not a huge difference.
Now those screenshots at 7000m would be interesting for comparison.

[pupo162]

low.jpg vs high.jpg