CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[W0ef]

Originally Posted by seiseki

What kind of reasoning is that?
Hey look at this [blurry overcontrasted photo of a puppy] which has been made into a texture and put into a game, anyone who think it looks horrible must think puppies look horrible...

I'm gonna go make a game now, with only flat photographs as textures, as long as the motif doesn't look horrible there's no way the textures and the game can look horrible..

[/sarcasm]

Yes it looks horrible because it's a photo..
Compared to 3D environments and compared to real life, it looks horrible..

+1

It´s about the ugly transition between the photo-textured ground (never like it when they do that, it will always look crap close up) and the ocean which looks pretty crap all by itself as well.

I´m sure there is plenty going for FSX (like being able to fly around the entire world, real time weather, etc etc etc) but graphic wise it can´t hold a candle to Cliffs of Dover..Only game I have seen so far that comes close is Rise of Flight (it beat CoD graphic wise for me until the latest beta patch which gave me proper functioning AA). For me right now Cliffs of Dover is by far the most beautiful flightsim I personally know or have ever played. I´m sure it will only get better, especially when my three blue line bug on the horizon gets fixed and DX11 will be properly implemented.

Heard rumours about a new water shader with transparancy, fully functional surf and stuff, that will be sweet when they put it in!

[[URU]AkeR]

To me COD looks better the only thing i like best in WOP is the ocean (from altitude) the ocean in COD at low alt is gorgeous, but up high its out of scale I think

[louisv]

Totally agree, I think those who think that IL-2 is better are in a kind of denial. Like people who own a sound system for a long time and can't adjust to anything else, because their perception has adjusted to their system...And WoP looks totally depressive...FSX looks klunky...
My two cents...

[Winger]

I dont know what you guys have... I in fact think that CloD looks MUCH better than all of them together.
I think graphicswise there is nothing that can hold a candle for CloD. Not even ROF or WoP.

Winger

[Zoom2136]

Originally Posted by Letum

WoP has those horrible filters, but the shape and definition of the fields and patches of woodland looks MUCH better than CloD.

I think this is a fairer representation of FSX; the South East England scenery pack:
The onlt one to get the colours about right.

Well FSX is a fly high so this look good sim, COD is more an avoid the squirls and fly low kind of sims... FSX down low is not good looking at all. But COD up high is good, consireding that is depicting 1940's scenary... 2010...

But hey, I owned both

[addman]

It doesn't matter how detailed and pop-up free the buildings are if they are just stacked on a big old satellite image. From way up high it's ok but down low, ugh! just horrible. It just kills the illusion IMO. The contrast between ultra detailed ground objects and a pasted on satellite imagery is just too great. Clod FTW!

[Hooves]

Well if they could somehow combine WOP's ground textures with Clods lighting, and aircraft modeling You'd have something truly great!

[choctaw111]

Thank you for the comparisons. They are very interesting.
I must note that I have not yet had a chance to try ClOD for myself yet.
Living in the US, I am still waiting.

To be fair, you cannot show a screencap of FSX at 3,000 feet altitude and say that it looks better than ClOD at 200 feet.
FSX looks great when you are flying at altitude and not hugging the ground but I was always disappointed when I flew down low.
It seems that ClOD does low altitude fairly well.

If you can, please get some more screencaps of the 3 sims you have compared at different altitudes, from ground level to 10,000 feet or more.

[djwolters]

I'll dig out my copy of SWOTL for some more comparisons

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by choctaw111

Thank you for the comparisons. They are very interesting.
I must note that I have not yet had a chance to try ClOD for myself yet.
Living in the US, I am still waiting.

To be fair, you cannot show a screencap of FSX at 3,000 feet altitude and say that it looks better than ClOD at 200 feet.
FSX looks great when you are flying at altitude and not hugging the ground but I was always disappointed when I flew down low.
It seems that ClOD does low altitude fairly well.

If you can, please get some more screencaps of the 3 sims you have compared at different altitudes, from ground level to 10,000 feet or more.

Dude Why are you waiting? justflight.com. Its five bucks cheaper and it activates through steam so its like you bought it there. Hell its even Downloads through steam. If you pre ordered through steam just cancel it. That is EXACTLY what I did. IT is fully legit bro!!