CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

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???

That has already been explained to you. The CoD map is HUGE compared to WoP (btw, it cracks me up that you actually think WoP looks good compared to CoD). There are a lot more trees to keep track of, and they obviously were not prepared for the problems that could cause. Do you really think they're not going to eventually fix it?

[David603]

The reason there are no hitboxes in CoD trees is the same as why there where no hitboxes in Il2 trees.

Trees are a graphical option. For the sake of online play and mission building they can't physically exist for some players and not for others.

End of story.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

That has already been explained to you. The CoD map is HUGE compared to WoP (btw, it cracks me up that you actually think WoP looks good compared to CoD). There are a lot more trees to keep track of, and they obviously were not prepared for the problems that could cause. Do you really think they're not going to eventually fix it?

You are such a ******* tool. Bugger off, its called optimization - the map size argument is invalid, they dont need to render what you cant see.

Also there are not lots of more trees to keep track off, because only an idiot programmer/design instruction would try to keep track of every tree in relation to a plane that is flying a km or more above land.

As usual you chime in with your uneducated bs that holds no water. Stop trolling fanboy.

- also note that irrespective of what looks better, WOP only performes 100% better. Not saying its a better game though. Also you need to stop harrasing and insulting people with your 1-2 line troll posts. For someone who complains about whinning, you whine the MOST out of any person on this board.

[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.

[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.

[grunge]

Originally Posted by mazex

Did one of these comparisons when the first landscape shots of CoD arrived to I thought a revisit with the current version would be interesting as I've read some people that are discontent with CoD that said they where going back to FSX, X-Plane, WoP etc....

So let's compare apples and pears?

FSX on max:



CoD on high (on my old rig with no stuttering and rather OK fluid fps - better than FSX!):



Ohh - and then we have the bunch that say that WoP has so much better graphics than CoD (which they claim does not look much better than IL2). Lets test that?

CoD (aka "the real Deal"?):


WoP:


And add IL2 (pimped):

CoD looks great, however, at what costs... And where the heck is the propellor?! I dont get it...

[DogTailRed2]

Some pics from FSX over England with A2A Spitfire as comparison.







and a pic I took on ops in COD

I think CoD looks better but not by much I got to be honest.
Like i said i quite liked the desaturated look of Wop it had a WW2 feel to it.
Shame it couldnt be reproduced as a mod when the SDK comes out.