....another palette sample
Attachment 6020

look at the trees..

The thing which people are forgetting is the difference between the CloD and WoP terrains.
CloD has realistic 3-D trees (which look amazing up close, and not too bad from a distance (not focusing on colour here) whereas WoP uses trees which have a 2-D image which revolves as you move around them (very similar if not identical to Il-2's trees).
Indeed, WoP doesn't model 3-D/2-D grass, or indeed realisticall created buildings.

But this is one of the reasons why WoP is so easy to play over and FPS friendly. Indeed, RoF uses similar tree models to Il-2, and they work very well for flying.

So maybe, CloD was just being too ambitious, or the right intentions were there, it just wasn't pulled off correctly. I think the latter.

I don't agree with the argument that CLOD's terrain has to look that way because of the greater area and its heavier use of resources.

It is the way the various resources (trees, buildings, etc) are placed on the map that is the issue here - they don't need to use more - they could use exactly the same amount but in a better more natural way.

My personal biggest hate is the constant use of the double line of trees seen in this pic. Used repeatedly along roads and rivers. Very lazy, and I have never seen anything looking like that in reality.

I'm pleased to see the general reaction to this thread. More people feel this way than I thought. Hopefully the devs will take note.

once we break the first wave of what i call positive trolling (blindly defending the developers by trolling legitimate criticism which is trolling nevertheless) the positive discussion of these matters can then come to surface

looking at IL-2 1946 or BoB II you can see how far they went in graphics improvement, and it is obvious the discussion of these issues with CoD need to start taking shape. WoP 2 has been anounced and is coming soon... i would't like to see it plainly putting CoD to shame graphics-wise

btw it was Mr Oleg that kept depicting former IL-2 and the then upcoming CoD through recurrent comparisons with other sims, naming them or not; and since this is Mr Oleg's forum and none other, i find absolutely legitimate that comparisons can be hold in order to frame CoD performance, as this is an attitude in all consistent with the founder previous remarks. all other comparison haters can start their own forum and ban me right away. with all respect towards Mr Oleg and the community.

But, but,but . . . the water is so nice! http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/d015.gif

Actually, the waves move much too quickly on the water, but that's best saved for another topic :).

The Trees arn't that realistic, you can fly through them!! which i think is a terrible shame. The terrain detail really does let this Sim down, its shoddy and badly coded and I still cannot believe its an entirely new engine. And then we have that awful shimmer still that we had all those years ago in the original IL2.

WOP 2 could easily be the answer to all our prayers, Oleg and Luthier have certainly left the door wide open for someone to steal thier crowns.

WOP and COD graphics both suck in terms of being REALISTIC. But I firmly believe that WOP is the one that sucks less.

For one, WOP landscape is a lot more eye-pleasing than that of COD.

WOP landscape looks like a an artwork, while COD looks like a video game.
Neither come close to what we actually see in real life, but I would prefer the artwork to the looks of a video game.

During development i made a statement that the terrain looked like a badly painted water colour by a child. Sadly, I still stand by that.

I'm glad threads like this come up time after time. I hope it can draw some attention to the devs. Hopefully one day they will have an over-haul to the texture, color, ground object placement and etc. after they have fixed the sundry of gameplay problems that still exist right now.