CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Buchon

Crimson Skies is better and have better ground

I never played Crimson Skies, but a quick Google search indicates that it had better color and lighting than WoP.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

I never played Crimson Skies, but a quick Google search indicates that it had better color and lighting than WoP.

I played Crimson Skies for 5 years and no it wasnt better

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Kano_Magnus

Landscape ecologist? You mean a gardener?

The other kind. Did my thesis on amphibian migration in agricultural landscapes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_ecology

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by mazex

Well, the haze in CoD is not there to cover the fact that the map ends "around the corner" at least It's there to give the effect all pilots know about - that the earth below almost all days is seen through a "milky" filter of haze. Many times when you go above the "haze" it's like going up through from water into the air. Below is the haze layer and a sharp limit where above that the air is crystal clear. Especially in summer time...

Down low - France visible at the horizon


Or up high:

Mazex, that last shot is gorgeous.
One thing I have noticed about CoD is that, at low altitude, everything is almost crystal clear during most parts of the day-time. I'd actually expect to see a lot more haze, which isn't as visible as fog, but gives everything a slight luminosity (it's hard to explain).
This sums it up better; it is a filter, as far as I can see, but nothing like what WoP uses (although, on a personal note, I don't find the filter in WoP to be too degrading. I think that other maps that the BoB map in WoP show that the lanscape can look beautiful, and not like something out of a Spielberg film)

http://www.windwardmark.net/products...ology&subsub=0

It's subjective; everyone has their own idea of what makes a great sim, so there's no real right or wrong when colours are largely modelled realistically.

[sorak]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

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???

Maybe because Wings of Prey doesnt have half the actual physics going on in the game.. Use your brain.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Mazex, that last shot is gorgeous.
One thing I have noticed about CoD is that, at low altitude, everything is almost crystal clear during most parts of the day-time. I'd actually expect to see a lot more haze, which isn't as visible as fog, but gives everything a slight luminosity (it's hard to explain).

I fully agree - that's the vague "milky" haze that is there almost every day you get into the air. You don't notice it on the ground as you don't see that far for all the houses and trees though

I have noticed that many aerial photos I have taken myself look very boring due to the milky haze - and CoD does the best job of any sim I have seen in recreating it. Then sure a bit more gamma and a bit darker textures would be nice etc - but generally CoD rules the skies regarding a "being there for real" feeling, IMO at least! And that's what sims are about

[jibo]

about WoP i suspect the game has to run on 512MB platform (xbox/ps3) therefore
they use this dominant color trick yellow/green/grey filter in order to reduce the palette
so you won't have the vivid colors available in RoF and CoD, the dynamic lightning is also impacted especially on the ground, where everything looks a bit dead and depressive.
Behind the haze there is also some blur going on to smooth the whole thing but all in all it's consistent and works well to give this ww era touch.

[winny]

I still think i's a bit of a false argument comparing just graphics in WoP and CoD.

One is trying to recreate a full scale, real environment
The other is trying to kid you into believing it's a full scale environment.

One is a Console port
The other is designed for PC only.

One has (for a flight sim) quite shallow gameplay
The other is deep. (probably too deep for it's own good atm)

If you want to compare (why?) then at least credit the facts and whole picture as this WoP vs CoD thing is futile in the end.

I love BoP because I bought it for £25 for PS3, I played it and was quite happy with it. It's great on a big HD tv.

The fact remains that whilst it looks realistic it does not play realistic.
The devs gave you something nice and took away something o make i work... They were smiling at you and picking your pocket at the same time.

There is a Pacific BoP/WoP due out this year, it will be interesting to see where they take it.

Anyone who values graphics over gameplay gets what they deserve. There are loads of games that look amazing but are the same game, over and over and over again.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by sorak

Maybe because Wings of Prey doesnt have half the actual physics going on in the game.. Use your brain.

I do use it, you apparently dont. The main issue here is graphics currently, and if you knew enough to not make that stupid comment, you would also know that game is bottlenecked by the graphics engine's poor optimization. If you thought about your comment before speaking, you would also realise that COD runs into seriouse performance problems when even flying over a city alone, and at that time no physics other than the FM are being calculated, which is the less intensive than the DM or other features.

So before you comment you might want to understand the different factors that can hinder or help performance.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

That's why I never have to worry when I respond to your posts.

Uh hu
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...607#post272607

your trolling is getting old - you sitting here more or less by yourself protesting about how much WOP sucks (oh you smart one, you can even make jokes about its name!) and when others disagree all you do is insult them, except you are coming from a mostly subjective POV and you really have nothing to back up what you are saying. Also in those photos if you look into the distance there is a haze btw.

Its actually kind of funny seeing all your sad 1 line retorts. Maybe I wouldnt have to call you on this if you had not harrased me earlier with smart ass comments?