Poll - COD Terrain: Your Opinion

[Jatta Raso]

Originally Posted by Ataros

Looks like trees along the roads had much less density back then than today because the trees were much younger (on the left hand).



http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...ritain/100102/

the difference between the way real fields are divided and Cod's is striking. the concept of 'straight line' helps noticing it...

[furbs]

Thats france jatta

and everytime i see shots like that from FS- phat, my eyes bleed and i want to cry its so far from what England looks like.

[Jatta Raso]

roftl your right...

[Jatta Raso]

anyway the patchwork of CoD's fields is somewhat exaggerated, but i went ahead of myself over this one

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by FS~Phat

I just did some a-b screen shot comparisons and there is no difference in aircraft draw distance between medium and high land detail but there does appear to be less detail on land for trees and other things in the very far distance. You have to flick between 2 screen shots to see it because the difference is so minimal, but performance is way better!

I just redid the screen shots with everything max and land detail low so it was easier to see what is going on as it was really hard to see the difference between medium and high land details.

Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max


Max


Low land detail everything else max

I see a big differance.

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by FS~Phat

I just did some a-b screen shot comparisons and there is no difference in aircraft draw distance between medium and high land detail but there does appear to be less detail on land for trees and other things in the very far distance. You have to flick between 2 screen shots to see it because the difference is so minimal, but performance is way better!

I just redid the screen shots with everything max and land detail low so it was easier to see what is going on as it was really hard to see the difference between medium and high land details.

Go ahead anc dlimb to higher altitutude. the fiffernece up there is where it gets noticed.

[Blackdog_kt]

Nice comparison shots FS~Phat. It just reinforces my belief that i don't really miss much by dropping a few settings to medium in exchange for a smooth 25-60 FPS (capped at 60 due to Vsync) under any kind of scenario on my two year old PC.

I'm not saying it's the same and sure, people with an eye for detail will spot differences but to be perfectly honest with you all, i just don't see it. Maybe if i start looking really carefully i'll see it, but then it defeats the purpose as i won't be scrutinizing the landscape that hard when i'm actually flying.

The only settings i'd want to be able to run higher are forests and building detail and that's just for the eye-candy factor, i run them on low and houses/buildings are a bit sparse on detail but then again, i don't really notice unless i'm skimming rooftops or crash landing next to a farm.

[Dano]

It's the distant horizon where the differences are, if you're not seeing it then you're in a win win situation in regards to turning it down and gaining fps

[ATAG_Dutch]

The main difference seems to be with the definition of the rivers in the distance, rather than the land.

Just ran a few tests and FPS is definately improved by a good deal, without any visual sacrifice that you'd notice.

Well spotted Phat.

[SNAFU]

Nice work. At low alts there is in my eyes not a huge difference.
Now those screenshots at 7000m would be interesting for comparison.