Rendering capacities of a 2011 game !

[JG52Krupi]

Dear god, yes it does look good but seriously wtf how dim are to expect a flight sim to look like that.....

IMHO clod looks fantastic but you just can't compare it with a series that has a huge fan base and therefore a huge budget. I am bored of fps ATM there all the same just different settings and slightly better graphics (in most cases bf3 looks sweet) released year after year.

Clod is a game that has a lot of potential but to compare it to a 2012 fps is ludicrous the fact that you are even contemplating comparing it with an fps speaks volumes on the fantastic job 1C has done. If only they had polished the game before release .

[easytarget3]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

It didn't impress me too. It looks like postprocessed movie and not like what human (or at least my) eye sees in reality. Simulator should not look like a movie.

agreed 100%
Only if the look is purpose of the art style of the game,like fairytale style or some news on tv and so on then it makes sence to stylize the picture.But developers thinks that people judge look of game by the holywood crap they see everyday on tv or cinema,so they thinks the player will be more happy.Anyway if the game will be great gameplay then it cool,but honesly i had problem with the non real hitting system on previous releases, just sprey the enemy with enough bullets and he dies, then they added head shots, well its more arcade console style game by all means,so they try to make it easy for the controller.
sorry for my english.

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

I don't buy this argument anymore.

In the past ten years, our PC's and our graphic cards have seen their computing power greatly expanded.

If a flight sim is probably more computer-intensive than a FPS, a 2011 flight sim must nevertheless show more than a "last decade style" sim !

Lets say you have a 4 core system and Cliffs of Dover is able to perfectly allocate resources to each one.

Flight model for all aircraft involved
Damage model for all involved (aircraft, buildings, ground, vehicles)
Friendly/Enemy AI (pilots, gunners, ground gun emplacements, vehicles)
Graphics
Object locations/collision detection (aircraft, vehicles, buildings)
Tracking all projectiles (bombs, shells) their size, their paths, their effects.
Fuel and ammo amounts remaining

Take all that, plus the resources to run your OS in the background and you're asking for a hell of a lot from that poor little i5 processor.

Even the best top of the line FPS only has to do a fraction of those things, and typically they are limited to a more or less 2D plane, meanwhile almost everything in Cliffs of Dover is constantly changing location, speed, and altitude. For most FPS the damage model is pretty much "Damage=1/3 hits" while CloD has to think about controlled surfaces, engine temp. . . Another thing is the AI. For most FPS 90% of the AI enemies you will encounter have a few waypoints and 3 types of actions, "advancing attack, retreat, cover fire". Effects in FPS are also simplified in some cases. The static smoke column is a good example, and explosions in many cases are 2d and designed to always be facing the human players. Limited map sizes, lo-rez backgrounds, etc.

Well you get the idea. The amount of number crunching involved in CloD is miles more than most any other type of game.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Tiger27

I flew choppers in BF2BC, but it wasnt quite the same as flying one in Black Shark, I love these FPS games, but why are we comparing it with CoD, they are just different games simple as that.

BFBC2 is nothing like BF3 - infact its a different game series. BF2 planes/helicopters were decently realistic interms of movement, bfbc2 helicopter is just a flying tank. Its made for consoles. BF3 will have real aircombat (including air to air) again for the first time since BF2.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Fair point then. Whilst the video shown looks like live-play, I take your point.
TBH, comparisons are pointless; as has been said, BF3 has an extortionate amount of money spent on it, it uses a reliable engine (not one newly created for it specifically a la CloD) and clearly can have such nice graphics given map sizes and the like.

EDIT_I apologise for my previous comment. The internet makes me even for a cock.

Actually the engine (frostbite 2) is newly created just for BF3 and is multiplatform.

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

BFBC2 is nothing like BF3 - infact its a different game series. BF2 planes/helicopters were decently realistic interms of movement, bfbc2 helicopter is just a flying tank. Its made for consoles. BF3 will have real aircombat (including air to air) again for the first time since BF2.

battlefield series aircombat wasnt wont be ever "realsitic" "simualted" or whatsoever..... its a heck of fun tough

[TheEditor]

I want Track IR support for BF3!!!! Arma 2 does it better good. I'm surprised there isn't more FPS games that have Track IR.

[Lololopoulos]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

Trust me man,the side view is spot on,if my experience with warbirds is still worth something.. A Cessna prop might look like it's gleaming cos it's mostly gloss paint white props,but big black semi-opaque props look just like that. I agree about the transaction though,but then again I suppose it depends on graphic settings? Best prop rendition so far is RoF.

oh wow, you're right i've only looked at cessnas (152s and caravans) and pipers.
Thanks for the insight.
Maybe it's the lighting then. IL-2 series never seemed to have gotten the propellers just right.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by TheEditor

I'm surprised there isn't more FPS games that have Track IR.

What do you expect from games that are primarily designed for console play?

[kimosabi]

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

Ah, ah, I already hear the fanbois coming in hords, saying "if it doesn't look crap, it can't be a simulation"

Haha, well put. Frostbite 2 engine is a gem. Can't wait for oct. 25th!