![]() |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ditto!
__________________
I'd rather be flying ... Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 | AMD FX-8350 | MSI HD7970 TFOC-BE | 8GB Corsair DDR-III 1866 | Win8.1 Pro 64-bit
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
CoD wins hands down. whoever put the texture and modelling pack for FSX together needs to visit southern england.
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Pretty much the only places where FSX looks good "down low" are the cities and the areas around different airports (assuming you sprung for the 3rd party add-ons).
WOP, looks good, but I wouldn't say realistic given the filters, and the view distance, and the lighting and claustrophobic map sizes. FSX, WOP, and IL-2 have pretty much peaked. ROF and CloD are the only two that are going to improve given they are newer (newish) game engines. The two of them are (compared to MS) tiny, tiny developers, with limited funds and staff, so improvements and upgrades are going to be "bite sized" instead of huge Service packs that radically alter or improve the game. Also it's yet to be seen if there will be an active 3rd party industry centred around these two titles. MS's "Flight" is looking to be "FSX version 1.5" so I don't see it getting much better, and probably sticking to the Satellite Photos method that has done MS well so far. You've got to remember that FSX and Flight are Procedure sims, while CloD is a combat sim. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
IMHO
FSX= dx9+32 bit system. CoD=dx10+64bit system and maybe dx11. nuff sayed. flyer01 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
FSX Does the whole planet. The amount of data to make it look photorealistic like WE all want would be incredible. COD only has to get a small slice right.
That IL2 1946 pic Looked really good! Its holding up very well me thinks ![]() ![]() |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
How to create MS Flight terrain engine:
1. Obtain one large ball (no puns plz!) 2. Print out the whole google earth satellite imagery 3. Obtain a stick of glue (regular paper glue will do) 4. Smear the ball (see nr.1) with said stick of glue 5. Wrap the printed satellite imagery (see nr.2) around the ball 6. Sprinkle some highly detailed buildings/trees/mountains all over the ball 7. Add some 2D clouds (cotton balls will do) E voilá! You know have MS Flight Sim terrain engine that covers the whole of earth, rinse and repeat for every time you release a "new" game.
__________________
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
ALSO in WOP you can have like 50+ aircraft in the air fighting over a city and it is absolutely stutter/lag free, buildings are all there (there is no filler, so in the distance everything is present and they dont teleport into place). Misleading comparison (whether intentional or not). It all runs smooth as silk, and can be played maxed out easy on even low mid range pcs. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
CoD has gotten better at it but it's still too easy to see the blocks pop in and then fade to full opacity. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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??? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wow WOP looks just the way I remember it, like crap. FSX always has looked bad at any altitude. COD looks great and is my current choice for just flying around from airfield to airfield. I don't really understand what other people see in the graphics of WOP, the cockpits look bad, the planes or just ok and the scenery is all green and really blah.
|
![]() |
|
|