Just imagine CloD with WoP map
 

CloD is the most fantastic combat flight sim but it seems that the landscape rendering is causing the major fps/stuttering problems. Wings of Prey is not actually comparable but inferior to Clod in most aspects especially gameplay, aircraft modelling, mission building and lack of any editable land objects but I must admit that the landscape looks much more realistic and has smooth rendering during game play. I wonder why the Maddox team did not use similar algorithms for their mapping coding, but I think there should have been good reasons for this decision.

http://vimeo.com/14661191

Then we would hear how the maps need to be larger.

here is goes again. we've already had several 50+ pages discussion on WOP vs. COD landscape. but I have to say I agree with you.

I agree with one of Blackdogs posts from a day or so ago. CloD has excellent components on the map, but they just need to blend together seemlessly.
I think that less trees would be better, in place of 3-D hedgerows around the field boundaries.
More blue-atmospheric haze as well would improve things.
One of the reasons why WoP works so well is because the landscape looks neat and natural; and because of the way the filter and the auto-pop is modelled, the texture transition is very smooth.

Just my two pence (I won't even touch on colour here)

Plz no more, What if Cod was Wop,

Hmm yes I can picture it in my mind now, just like flying inside a shoe-box!

Promoting your WOP video here? tut

:-P

Yes - we're at risk of repeating OLD news here, but i have to say, as someone who really had been looking forward to COD for a long time I am really disappointed with the map. That WOP vid really just rams home for me what a poor job the devs have done in creating a believable depiction of the English countryside.

Looking at the WOP video the scenery looks thoroughly convincing and real. When looking at the COD map I'm constantly fighting a sense of disbelief - it just doesn't give me a feeling of reality. It's primarily down to the poor placement of trees. The net result is that things don't quite gel and coalesce to the stage where I just accept it as real. There is always that 'something not quite right' feeling that I have to fight against (usually unsuccessfully). I'm convinced that if the tree placement was redone in a similar way to WOP the map would really come together + maybe a little atmospheric haze as Philip_Ed suggests. It would probably be a fairly major undertaking and is not likely to be done any time soon though. (Maybe eventually by modders?)

I really never thought I'd say this, but the map is close to being a deal breaker for me with the entire game.

Sorry - I know others will disagree with my opinion, but unfortunately that's my take.

Same here - the map is a failure as it stands.

a failure ? thats mighty harsh for a 1:1 scale representation of south east england. the un-educated critique around here is astounding. no wonder the developers shy away from any form of up front discussion. this is a simulation. not a game.

i think it does the job very well. but it isnt anywhere near a failure.. your opinion is more full of failure and the height of ridicule. (rediculous)

western world priveledged philosophy. does anyone round here know what that is ?

video for comparison purposes,that should be clear?

Why 'uneducated'?

If the purpose of the game map is to produce a believable feeling of 'being there' then for me it doesn't work, so maybe that makes it a 'failure' in my eyes too.

It's possible that the issues mentioned are another result of the rush job/unfinished nature of the release - I could easily believe that the tree placement issues are due to some overworked graphics person being under too tight a deadline.

(A good analogy may be the AI. They needed to produce some form of AI to ship the game, but what we got obviously isn't the final version. Maybe a similar situation occurred with the map?? Unlike the AI though, which they have stated is being reworked, there has been no word on the map beyond the addition of transparent water and waves, which though welcome, is less important than getting the basic terrain right. It would just be a real shame if the map wasn't eventually made as good as it could be)

I would be interested to know the devs opinion and whether any reworking is planned alongside the myriad of other updates, fixes and improvements.

Being the first sim they do as far as I know, it's a success to me. WOP 2 is coming and I hope they improve the FM and DM and also gets an easy to use mission editor.

i like wop's maps but can's stand the overdone bloom

S!

What I noted from the video of WoP is that there were NONE of following things we have in CoD..

1) Flickering shadows. Really bothering visual issue with CoD. Shadows solid only when close within the "LOD ring".

2) No LOD changes whatsoever, no popping up buildings etc. Extremely smooth transition of LOD, if any. In CoD the "ring of LOD" around your plane.

3) Smooth performance. Simply no slowdowns, stutter or stops. I had it that way too in the demo over Berlin with a ton going on around me, totally smooth experience.

Otherwise I do not comment WoP or CoD. Both represent something related to WW2 so leaving it there.

A tongue in cheek remark from me there.

Back on topic, even though it's missing some of the cinematic flair and tree placement (lol) of WoP, I think the presentation of CoD in game is fantastic. I doubt WoP could scale to the size of CoD's map and still look as pretty.

Personally I don't actually like the cinematic type filters and post processing they use in WoP, it makes the scene look quite dull and muted at times. Not hating on WoP, I have it and enjoyed it for what it is.

Yes, there are aspects that aren't as good as COD, but regarding the basic terrain representation of the English countryside they really nailed it.

I'd agree with that. Can't believe we've entertained another thread on this subject ;)

People who jump on anyone with critique seem to want this game to be perfect and have to create a dreamworld where it allready is, anyone who threatens that with some reality is uneducated etc....

I have to say, WoP is inferior in any gameplay aspect, but by the looks of it I swear it still looks like a next-generation game while the CoD landscape and stuttering just barely puts it ahead of 1946

This, many times over.

Why does everyone come to this forum to praise WoP? Don't they have their own? lol

"Just imagine CloD with WoP map."

I'm sorry I can't; the concept is just too stupid on too many levels for me to consider.

WOP looks great at a glance but when I got down low and had a closer look at the trees and houses. The shadows were just drawn on the ground as part of the ground texture. There's a huge saving in fps. WOP doesn't compute tree/building shadows in real time and so you can't change the time of day.

Get down low in COD and you can see more and more detailed ground objects. High rez textures and even grass. All with real time shadows that can changed with the time of day and have beautiful dawn and dusk.

Make your point. Why is it stupid?.

WOP is nice in a Hollywood sort of way, but really WOP is so smooth with little or no pop ups etc because the horizon is a lot closer than in CoD and the map itself is tiny, even the no pop-up is replaced by a lot of shadowy buildings that gradually clear, it is a better way of doing it than CoD but really, do you want tiny maps, modelled with modern building placement or something a bit more realistic in size, modelling England as it was in 1940, just my thoughts, I guess we all are looking for different things.

Really, beyond comparing steak to Spam I think both sides are right. It's much, much more resource intensive doing the scale that CloD has to process not to mention individual plane AI, but there is a lot of room for efficiency improvement.

We really are still in beta right now so they're tacking on stuff as they can manage then optimizing. We'll see, but the flickering shadows really gotta go...

The comparison has direct relevance and is a valid discussion:)

then don't participate!

I agree with you; up close the detail of the vegetation in CoD is awesome but it disappears at 30 meter distance:( When flying (99% of time) and at low altitudes then the trees have a kind of cartoon appearance and is a reality passion killer. I just hope and trust that these will be fixed some day.:)

WoP landscape looks much more realistic and has smooth rendering during game play exactly BECAUSE of inferior aircraft modelling, mission building and lack of any editable land objects.


Ask yourselfe why RoF for ex, have major stutter issues as soon as the try to load more than 30-40 objects at the same time.

Ask yourselfe why RoF for ex, have, what, 2,5 km visibillity distance (other aircrafts).

Etc, etc.


Im not using CoD as an example because everyone automaticly assumes everything is broken in it.

Surely this is a non-thread in a CLoD forum?

fair explanation thanks

C'mon mate, don't surrender! Just another 50 pages of comments..:grin::grin:
I almost forgot....someone should invite David Hayward to this thread...I'can not remeber his opinion on green-puke filter...!
BUHAHAHAHHHAAAAA ...Sorry, I'can't resist!
Cheers

Exactly, considering the scope of CoD and the fact it can already have a lot more objects on screen than ROF, they actually do well with the landscape, a lot of people seem to be seeing all oF CoD's negatives and then compare them with all the positives of other sims, it's a flight sim, with todays hardware it is never going to have the ground detail of Crysis 2.

Well, my astounding, harsh and uneducated critique is based on the fact that I actually live in the area covered by CloD's map and frequently fly over it in a glider.

Generally, I find that CloD does a poor job of reflecting reality. The colours of the fields are wrong, the distinctive and near-universal dark hedges are missing, the trees are too light and so look like tropical specimens rather than the trees that actually grow in England, the horizon is too sharp and the colours don't mute into a blue haze in the distance like they do in real life [1]. Other sims get these things right, CloD doesn't. Of course, it's better at dawn and dusk, and best of all at midnight. Unfortunately, a BoB sim that doesn't work well in daylight is a bit limited.

What's exasperating about these (IMO serious) failures is that they were all quite avoidable. A lot of what's wrong is just the colour palatte. So claims that CloD looks less realistic than WoP because it's actually much more advanced rather miss the point. For instance, ClodD's higher resolution terrain textures could actually have used realistic colours and still kept their high resolution.

Speaking only for myself, I find the peculiar landscape CloD uses to represent England to be a real immersion killer. I didn't mind when IL-2 represented the Kuban or somewhere as a vast green plain, because I don't know the place in real life. But England is very familiar and it just doesn't look like CloD's representation. WoP (if the filters were removed) and FSX do a rather better job, in my opinion. Even RoF's France looks more like England, at least from high up.

To this particular English pilot, CloD looks like a cartoon version of the real England put together by someone who has never been here and didn't do much research before starting. And perhaps that is exactly what it is.

Now, obviously, some people are perfectly happy with CloD's England. And good luck to them and I hope they enjoy their game.

1. Some problems may be because I use an ATi 6970 and CloD doesn't seem to have been designed with modern ATi cards in mind. On my old GTX285 the horizon did look better.

Well, u can chock that up to AMD`s willingness to work with different teams during development = non existant if its not "wothy of thire effort", unlike NVidia who DID work with Oleg and team. ;)

Well said Rocket dog, your testimony is pretty much undisputable; I am a keen supporter of Clod and did a lot to promote this sim even before its release and strongly believe that the challenges must be faced and solved.

It is however very interesting to see so many forum members who act in denial with some of the issues of Clod and actually BS themselves to such an extent that they believe there is no problem:) Some of them even become ill mannered with their replies....:(

+1 to Rocket-Dog.
But RD; if you had said that before, I am sure Ali would have agreed with you on many levels :-P

I own CloD, but never flew it. Made a few benchmarks with the tracks provided and that was it. Currently don't even have steam crap installed.

I flew the WoP demo and it was far inferior (FM, DM) regarding all the little details comparing to IL-2 1946. I'm not into console games... And WoP had an arcade fell that I hated.

But when it comes to graphic representation, I completely agree with flyrob, although I must state that the WoP green filter is a pain in the ass, completely overdone IMHO.

Cheers

Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with you is BS'ing themselves?

I don't think that's true. I think that the majority are happy with the way the game looks in most respects, but then there's the hard core 'it has to be a perfect representation of real life' crowd who will continue to complain in the strongest terms and make 'Oh if only CoD looked like WoP' threads.

There's my mildly I'll mannered reply for you :p

No not at all! Please read again carefully what I have said and then you would see that your comment is out of context:)


"It is however very interesting to see so many forum members who act in denial with some of the issues of Clod and actually BS themselves to such an extent that they believe there is no problem Some of them even become ill mannered with their replies...."

'some of the issues' ...including the current discussion obviously, no? Anyway I accept that you don't think anyone with a differing opinion is deluded, I just felt it was a bit of a harsh statement to make :-P

Okay I apologise if it came over too harsh to you, I am just as great a fan as you are on this sim and I will stick with it because there is no substitute. I just had to make the point. With my initial question I got some good answers and I thanked them...

View distance is not that different, take a look at those shots. Both games are maxed out.
Sorry if shots are sized down I don't know how to show them in full screen.

Trees, houses fade very smoothly on the horizon in WOP and the distance you can see are in both cases very similar, maybe FOV is wider in IL2 COD but overall I prefer the WOP landscape despite in some cases color can look a bit unrealistic and over saturated.

For those who say that WOP can show better landscapes because planes have less quality I have to say that IL2 COD pays more attention to detail but overall the graphical WOP experience is amazing.

Yes everything else in WOP (FM,DM,mission editor, multiplayer) is still unfinished but they are pointing in the right direction. This is their first sim and they got it almost right. Give them more time to release WOP 2 and if they are smart enough they can deliver something that may compete with IL2 COD.

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a...t_medina/4.jpg
http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a...t_medina/8.jpg

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a...t_medina/9.jpg
http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a...t_medina/5.jpg

Taking only the jpegs in consideration, it seems that there's 10 year gap between both.

I am always freak out every time I look to the CloD landscape at daylight. It just seem so wrong and ugly.

Who knows...but,

This thread is basically about "eye candy"...eye candy is fixable (at some point_lol). If I where them, I'd be focusing my efforts on the frame-rate, as well as the other "behind the scenes" (less glamorous) game-play issues involved in making this an exceptional flight-combat sim. After all, what good is a "polished-nurd"?

The "look" of the game is an "immersion" issue...important (yes), but is ultimately fixable...I'm glad that this sim is around, and I'm glad that the team is working hard at making this a first class gaming platform. Ultimately, the hardcore flight-combat simmer is going to benefit from their hard work and we should support them...this game engine could form the foundation of our virtual battlefield for decades to come...

The difference between the way Dover is represented in the top two shots is pretty remarkable.

OMG! WOP map now!!! Is so much superior comparing to CloD! It´s almost real. 1C could grab this WOP terrain as 777 grabed IL2 1946 engine.

I am fond of this vision as well. :cool:

wop is not perfect, but in certain aspects it just puts CoD groud depiction in an inferior league... i of all people don't like to say this and hope CoD gets tunned in the future... the type of trees was a wrong choice IMO, too much processing power and they don't look so good in distance. there are other issues.. look how the rivers blend with the land in WoP because they actually draw the shores instead of an abrupt transition between land and water... etc anyway whoever takes a look at these SC and doesn't do justice to WoP ground colour grading, tree clusters, general lightning well, are in dire need of an eye check

WOP is too damn green.

Green cloud bottoms, green haze at the horizon, green green green.

What planet is that and why have that alien race decided to inaccurately model Earth of 1940?

Intergalactic amusement park?

what people need to realize is that birds of prey/wings of prey is vastly innaccurate about the elevation layout of dover.

the country side is pretty flat and boring from the air.

the reason birds of prey made it so hilly was because its signifigantly better looking than just a flat area.

I think instead of re-doing the map altogether

luthier and freinds should find less performance effecting foliage and fill in the map some more.

I think CloD has the ability to model the landscape better than WoP, but it will need a lot of work.
TBH, I can;t understand why the map in CloD doesn't look tailored. 6 years or so of work, you'd expect to see the sea go in towards the coast with shallows textures; you'd expect the fields to be almost individually modelled and coloured realistically; you'd expect a transition process as smooth and realistic as WoP.
I'm not bashing CloD, but unless these elements are ready to be implemented, the map needs a lot of work to even look 'photo-realistic' as Oleg said it would.

+1.
i think the potential is there, but it will need a lot of work.
i can understand why people ask for a map which resembles the map of wop.
the colours and the position of trees just look strange and not real in cod.
btw, i wished i could say the opposite.

what the modders have managed to do with some lighting changes

http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/...T/abecfc1b.jpg

You definitely have a point regarding the green filter.

Still not as good as WoP... But it is much better.

Southern England in CloD looks like a plain choppy vegetables salad drawing.

I still don't understand this debate when it comes to performance.

WoP isn't dealing with anywhere near as large an area as CLoD. Someone in the thread mentioned 'flying in a shoebox' and that is exactly what it feels like.

The terrain may look great (although personally I agree with the people who say that the filter is a little too much on WoP), but it's quite possible that the performance and appearance are connected with the area being dealt with.

My friend and I who fly in '46 all the time tried playing WoP as a bridge gap game between '46 and CLoD and we both felt it very claustrophobic.

For us, that was the game breaker. It wouldn't even have mattered if we only flew scramble missions contained easily in WoP's maps and never even bothered hitting the edges of the map. We KNEW those edges were there and that broke the sim aspect for us right there.

With '46s maps and CLoD's there is still a finite area you are playing in, but it's sooooo much larger than you need that it doesn't feel finite at all.

I'll trade a bit of performance right now and a some visual accuracy/splendor for that.

Wolverine; I agree regarding performance.
TBH, what it comes down to mostly is the layout of the terrain, and the way the transition process and LoD models are simulated.

I mean, as an example, even if you drive around Southern England and encounter a hill, you will notice how any trees which you see below you have no visible trunks. From what I've seen, CloD doesn't really model this, and of the trees it models they don't look dense and attached to the terrain so much as they do in reality. Colour is another issue; as trees go into the distance, they look much darker than up close.

These are only really small factors which affect the visual appearance to quite a significant degree. The question is how hard it is to implement 3-hedgerows, darker/denser trees et al.
With a willing modding team....(one can only imagine)

Darkening the tree´s green won´t affect performance and I believe it would improve visually. Seems that these Speed Trees dont´t go well with the map.

In WOP I can do some fix in the drivers CP but in CloD doesn´t change much. Look


http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/3035/52978543.jpg


http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/6006/94980289.jpg

Lasts ones, please don't hate me.
I really hope IL2 COD really becomes a great sim but it really needs a lot of work at least in the graphical terrain aspect.
I hope this thread will help people and developers to see what IL2 COD is lacking of.
[IMG]http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a..._medina/25.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a..._medina/19.jpg[/IMG]
The real thing.
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/galler...1/da49245a.jpg

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a..._medina/23.jpg
http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a..._medina/10.jpg

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/galler...2/da49183a.jpg


http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a..._medina/22.jpg
http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a..._medina/14.jpg
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/galler...le-db50956.jpg

Thanks for this effort Jt-medina: I think it gives some good substance to this thread:) Everyone can now decide for himself if some of the pictures looks a bit cartoonish. :)

OK I will. As CarveL already said, it's comparing steak to spam. CloD is a state of the art flight simulator, and WOP is a Console arcade game port. The problems that CloD is suffering don't bear on that fact. The entire line of reasoning is irrelevant. And in my opinion Wop looks like crap. That is why I feel that the idea is too stupid to entertain.

Thank you for making me entertain it. :)

Edit: As for your last post JT. There is no hating here (at least on my part). It's a question of scope. CloD has a much larger scope than WOP, it makes the two incompatible. The differences in detail are because of that difference in scope, and nary the twain shall meet.

Tihi, I don't like all that green color - seems fake...
;)

You are so right and like your picture examples clearly show, CloD has some serious gfx problems, that hopefully will be solved within reasonable time. The immersion has to be there (Am I the only one to find landscape graphics of CloD equal or just slightly better than the original il-2 gfx's?).
By the way, I flew over Berlin last week (in RL, that is) and did the same in WoP this morning. I have to say, I was baffled and astonished by how real and authentic that map seemed. The light settings and colors are almost perfect and from certain angles, it almost seem photorealistic - like being there again (and for real).
Also, the smoke colomns in WoP are far better and more realistic than those in CloD (hopefully something Luthier and team will change over time)...

*gasp* the vegetation in WoP looks strikingly realistic from medium-far range...

all in all i just hope the 1C team picks up some ideas to improve CoD on what can be done about the issues raised in this thread, it has become better already, i really noticed the better lightning in roads with the last fix, as their lack of definition was something i wasn't particularly pleased with... so with the potential CoD has shown, upgrading or tuning some graphics options is a must-be effort. i know there's a lot of features not seen waiting to be activated, like seashore waves, transparent water, flocks of seagulls, clouds and weather system, effective night light and so on... i see a long road ahead, i'm hoping the team takes this as constructive criticism and don't drop the ball on us (as not everyone come here to flood the threads with smileys)

Hilarious. :rolleyes:

I partially agree on this one... But it certainly doesn't explains it all!

There there is room for optimism because some of the fixes could be implemented quite quickly.

A huge improvement would come from simply replacing the lime-green trees with darker ones. Better still if a decent atmospheric haze could be introduced that made them look even darker in the distance. A further improvement would be to make the tree foliage come down a bit closer to the ground and hide the silver-grey tree trunks. In the photos of the real world (and in WoP, for that matter) tree trunks are hardly visible from the air and look very dark if they can be seen. Field colours should be fixable too, but it may need a texture artist to go over the terrain almost field by field.

I'm still rather surprised that they could have got such basic features of a real-world landscape so wrong. We've ended up with very nice 3D models (as good as RoF's) flying over a landscape that is arguably worse than many found in IL-2 1946.

Another aspect in the quest for realism with Clod is that vegetation is a dynamic entity and display movement with windy conditions. I can just imagine the enormous computing power needed for this; every tree leaf and every blade of grass; maybe not necessary at this stage?:)

1000% agree.
I saw some pictures from 6 months ago and they looked way better than it looks right now.
I'll give you a few examples. Shots I kept on my harddrive.
[IMG]http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a...a/grab0102.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a...a/grab0110.jpg[/IMG]
http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a...a/grab0101.jpg

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a.../grab0003t.jpg[/IMG]

People can say they look cartonish but I loved them.

Hi guys,
in recent past I followed up for 50 pages an analogue discussion and I promised to myself to not get involved in wop_vs_Clod_landscape cause at the end its just matter of personal taste, judgement, it is difficult to bring someone else on your thinking or just share a minimum of objectivity...and so on....but I admit CloD landscape is the more intriguing key of this sim. And I pretend to be get 'involved' by a 2011 Sim...The overall looking 4me must be heavily tuned
I like so much WoP, especially the way WoP represent the landscape and how natural elements are merged together...(let go green filter issue and bla bla...)..
Having said that...
Me too I don't like too much the overall lime-green looking of CloD...it is not convincing but...I looked in my archive and I would like to share some picts taken in july 2008 at Duxford...lime-green is not so fanciful I say..look
Attachment 6016
Attachment 6017

The pict are for sure overexposed but hues are there! I well remember how much the grass green was reflected on the under surfaces of Airplanes; specially the spit with sky belly; even when they come at landing, at 5-6 meters of altitude, this green was so violent to enlight the under surfaces.
Look at the spit flyby..it was at 15 mt height..and look at the medium sea grey how much is influenced by the grass!



Cheers

....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.

Oh, I really hope, that this little pearl (CloD, that is) in time, will prevail!
And what if guys like canonUK or Redko79 could have a try on the terrain feature? Those guys are pure map artists/wizards. They've made several maps for il-2 46, that actually look alot better than CloD terrain/maps does at the moment.
For reference, check out CanonUK's retextures and the Channelmap (his work is awesome). And check Redko79's MTO map here (amazing work. Repainted, retextured and build up sand-grain by sand-grain):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cnnP...723E1&index=89

agreed,they look very good

Try playing ArmA2 on a Call of Duty map.

It would not have any of ArmA2 problems but would you play it? Sure some people would... if they purchased the wrong game in the first place :grin:

Hmm, good point on the trees. I wsa talking aesthetically, but that is definately something else which needs to be taken into consideration.
It seems that CloD is more a test of what is capable (or rather, not capable) with current hardware, with the incentive of it being absolutely bloody amazing in the future (I mean, what other flight-sim models individual leaves on the trees! It's just bonkers! But, arguably, quite cool)

well modeling individual leaves is insane,while you can fly through whole forests.
i think they focused on wrong things in designing the map.while i agree that its pretty cool to have grass blowing in the wind,and every single leave animated, i think the overall look of the landscape is a bit disappointing,considering that it was six years developed.what i think could improve the appearance a lot, is to get the colours right, and the position of the trees.i mean in clod we dont have real forests.instead we have a crowd of individual trees positioned near each other.but you can see between the trees on the ground.
and there are those trees next to roads and rivers which just look strange.and the colours of the trees,well it was mentioned now several times...get them darker.
also the colour of the fields.i have to confess,i have only been to england once,and that was 10years ago.so im not an expert when its about british landscape.but the look of england in cod just doesnt convince me.i have seen fields almost pink coloured.there are many colours(in my opinion too many) that just seem wrong to me.and it would eat no recources from our rigs to show different colours.

well and looking at those wop screenshots,make me feel even more dissapointed about the landscape in clod.i know there is plenty wrong when its about realistic look in wop either, but the position of the trees and the overall look, just looks more natural to me.

I think the biggest difference between ClOD and WOP terrain is that WOP looks like it is relying more on photographic textures, while ClOD's textures appear to be more hand painted. The WOP textures also have good resolution and use to good effect a secondary colour/noise map to break up the pixelation at low altitude. WOP's England map is probably the weakest map in the game (due to the 'green' filter)- some of the others are really beautiful and give a good sense of realism for a modern game. When I compare these to ClOD, I am unfortunately disappointed with ClOD's terrain visuals. Tree clumping and placement is more natural looking in WOP. Terrain elements hang together better- cities or built up areas appear as part of the landscape rather than being plonked on top.

I would agree with other posters that the ClOD artists may have spent too much time working on individual assets and less time trying to make everything work together as an efficient and believable whole. It's this discontinuity between elements as well as the hand painted, artificial look of the ground textures that brings down ClOD's terrain visuals, imo. Disappointing, but not unfixable. I hope the terrain gets a look at by the devs at some point because it's doing a disservice to the awesome cockpit graphics, which I believe are probably the best in flight simming right now.

Even low shots look good I think.

...just an innocent comment btw ;)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/picture...&pictureid=718

This looks brilliant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOYvd...eature=related

i totally agree.the cockpits are just awesome in clod!also the planes look very impressive in my opinion.the damage model is unprecedented detailed.and also the flight model is something i do not want to miss anymore with its CEM.and exactly these features prevent me of going back to il2 1946.
some minutes ago i tried it again.and well,i have to say...in some aspects, its looking better than clod.i flew over slovakia map and the trees have a better colour and also the buildings seem not less detailed than in clod.there are even clothes lines with clothes on it between buildings.

WOP is nice but still yesterdays sim.

I think the point here is that CloD was intended to be an all aspect sim where you can jump into AAA and tanks as well as aircraft. This if my memory recalls was Oleg's vision to have a sim where we fight on all levels.

With this in mind I can understand the level of ground details for CloD. I am however very sceptical the ground based side of this game will ever see the light of day? It has obviously drained resources and caused more issues than we know about.

Personally I prefer WoP's terrain (same as DCS's A10C) over CloD's as it 'feels' more realistic with the level of detail. But both have their good and bad points and the ideal solution is somewhere inbetween.

I don't think that was in question it was more about the terrain model.

One of the things I have always found lacking in the IL2 maps (I don't have CoD yet, waiting for new computer) is a natural placement of buildings. The auto-populated IL2 towns have the houses all lined up neatly. In real life, buildings follow inclines and roads, not the adjacent building. Houses are built together, forming continous structures. Here's a real life shot of 1940's small industry from West Bromwitch, and an attempt at replicating the look in FMB, using as few different objects as possible (large number of texture maps swamps the CPU):

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37...g?t=1306159386

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37...g?t=1306159470

This kind of thing takes an insane amount of time. This is where I think the community can really be of help to the developers.

That looks excellent!

Hi

In my opinion, this has to do with the fact that CoD is realistic & complex management oriented while WoP is Graphic design oriented. Much work has been done in one or the other way but not both ... yet.

But at the end of the day this is the one that is being heavily developed and is the sim of choice going forward 2011 and beyond.

well but it should look at least superiour to il2 146.but in many instances it doesnt.look at the trees colours and positions.look at the colours of fields....
i will stick with clod because of its flight and damage model, but the overall look of the landscape is a pain in the ass.and i really hate to say that!

If some of us were able to travel back in time and actually strap on one of them spitfires I am sure some would mention that these spitfires do not fly / look the same as in IL-2. lol Can't please everyone.

well all i would say:"damn it looks like reality"

WoP looks like complete crap. It cracks me up that there are people who are still trying to sell green puke as looking better than CoD.