CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[Hatch]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

No, they're not separate things. If you have a tiny map you can display things up close that you can't in a game with a huge map. A huge map ties up a lot of memory tracking things you can't see, while the game with the tiny map can use that memory to display more details up close.

The green puke can be used to hide things that don't look so good. In IL-2 (and from what I have heard, CoD) buildings tend to "pop up" in the distance. WoP uses green puke to hide that.

Still separate issues.
The reason why is perhaps mitigating but not in an absolute sense.
If it looks crap it looks crap.
Covering it in a green haze wouldn't hide that.

Other scenarioin WoPs like battle of the bulge look stunning and are more lifelike in hue.|
Only as if you fly low do you see the tricks employed.

Still... up high it looks extremely good.

As in photography.
Sharpness is a technical issue quite separate from the artistic worth.
A beautiful picture does not have to be sharp.
And a sharp picture does not have to be beautiful.

[pupaxx]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

If you were looking for images where WoP looks better than CoD, you made a very poor choice. That CoD image almost looks like a photo.

I thought exactly the opposite! LOL

The judgement is extremely subjective. I thought the matter can be confined in photorealistic or pleasant/enjoyable/agreeable. But we can discuss till tomorrow what is Photorealistic for me/you/allofus...
Luckly we'll got only what maddox Games will give us.., no choise! Stop
However I'm gratefull for this game and conforted in his future upgradebility!
Ciao

[Hatch]

Originally Posted by pupaxx

I thought exactly the opposite! LOL

The judgement is extremely subjective. I thought the matter can be confined in photorealistic or pleasant/enjoyable/agreeable. But we can discuss till tomorrow what is Photorealistic for me/you/allofus...
Luckly we'll got only what maddox Games will give us.., no choise! Stop
However I'm gratefull for this game and conforted in his future upgradebility!
Ciao

LOl you beat me to it.
Perception is so subjective by definition.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by pupaxx

I thought exactly the opposite! LOL

The judgement is extremely subjective. I thought the matter can be confined in photorealistic or pleasant/enjoyable/agreeable. But we can discuss till tomorrow what is Photorealistic for me/you/allofus...
Luckly we'll got only what maddox Games will give us.., no choise! Stop
However I'm gratefull for this game and conforted in his future upgradebility!
Ciao

I can, and have, posted photographs that closely match what CoD looks like. You can't do the same for WoP unless you find a really crappy photographer or take the photo in REALLY crappy weather.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

If you were looking for images where WoP looks better than CoD, you made a very poor choice. That CoD image almost looks like a photo.

You do know that the Tiger moth one is the one from CloD, right?

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Letum

You do know that the Tiger moth one is the one from CloD, right?

Really?? I thought the photo with the puke green hue was CoD?

[Hatch]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

You have no idea how funny these comments are.

This is reality:



No green haze



No green haze.



No green haze



No green have.



No green haze.



No green haze.



No green haze.



No green haze.



No green haze.

I took every one of these photographs. Only one was adjusted because the weather was so hazy that we could barely see, but I'm on a roll so I decided to include it anyways. The rest are all spot on.

The real world is NOT covered in a green haze. Period. Graphically WoP is a DISASTER.

Let's see all the green soup photographs you've taken.

Most of these look more like WoP tha they do CloD.
Nice shots btw.

If you really think CloD looks more like your pics you're seeing them waaayyy different than most of us.

Not better or worse , just different.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

And I linked to a pilot who flies over Kent and thinks that the CoD colors look fine. I've seen the photographs. They are not nearly as compelling as you seem to think they are, and I have a lot of experience with aviation photography.

Selective reading indeed.
Rocket-Dog mentions the layout of the fields and the general geography of the landscape. Colour is subjective, but the layout of the SE of England is very definitive. Everything looks 'neat'; fields are bounded by hedgerows, and there aren't a load of trees which looked like they'be been randomly scattered over the landscape. Similarly, there aren't line of trees marking boundaries as there is currently in CloD. Overall, these features add up to present an image which looks fairly good graphically, but it doesn't look like Blighty.
I'd hasten to point out that RD is right in mentioning the trees colour: in CloD, trees turn a lighter green as they transist into the distance. In all pictures of England, you will see that trees look very dark, and nicely contrast the field colours.


In my opinion, these FACTS are irrefutable. It's not one person saying this: it's a lot of people.

[BlackbusheFlyer]

I have spent years flying around the UK as a pilot, the colours in CoD are pretty accurate, if I was to pick fault then I suppose some trees should be a bit darker but otherwise the scenery is excellent.

Perhaps those critical should consider if their monitors are correctly calibrated?

[philip.ed]

Do correctly calibrated monitors add 3-D hedgerows to the sim, and remove those 'excess' trees?
I largely agree on the other points, though.