Friday update and discussions 2011-03-04

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

COD does not have anywhere near the up close visual fidelity arma 2 has, while arma 2 does not have the scope that cod has.

Isn't this just a para-phrasing of ElAurens' post? I don't see where you actually disagree with him. His post is just pointing out how this difference in scope makes their up-close visual fidelity incomparable.

Originally Posted by Heliocon

But arma 2 is also a flightsim, and ground combat sim all in one. Also the engine came out 2 years ago I believe...

I'd say calling Arma 2 a flight sim is pretty generous.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

But arma 2 is also a flightsim

Best laugh Ive had yet today.

Your credibility just went into the minus column.

There is no part of ArmA II that can be called a flight sim. The "FM" is totally canned, there are no structural limits of any kind, no cockpit instrumentation, no real damage model, and AI that make IL2 AI look like Albert Einstein. Last night I watched one of my squad mates in our regular ArmA II OA session doing aerobatics in a C-130. (He is a real pilot).

Hilarious.

Immelmans, Cuban Eights, outside loops, hammer head stalls, tail slides, prolonged inverted flight etc... A real C-130 would have torn it's wings off.

The only thing worse than ArmA II's aircraft is it's protrayal of armor.

ArmA II is an infantry tactics simulator, nothing more, nothing less.

It's a great game, but it's no flight sim.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Thats a stupid comparison, arma 2 maps are far far more detailed then anything in COD or il2 or any flightsim. When you can get out of the plane, walk around buildings, hide in the grass/bush, see individual pebbles on the ground your comparison looks absurd.

COD does not have anywhere near the up close visual fidelity arma 2 has, while arma 2 does not have the scope that cod has. But arma 2 is also a flightsim, and ground combat sim all in one. Also the engine came out 2 years ago I believe...

Arma 2 doesn't need to calculate a fraction of what IL2 COD does. The damage models of one single plane engine on screen in COD is probably eating more processing power than everything happening at once in an Arma2 screen. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[Defender]

Originally Posted by Sasha

OK... let's forget the mentioned game example... (far from my favorite)

So without it - Do You think that presented graphics achievements are impressive in March2011 ?

Or maybe clouds and land visuals are not important in video presentation of new generation flight sim, even combat one ?

Not heating up feelings... just interested in your simple answer.

Look at the graphics of flight sims 10 years ago, then 20 years ago. Then look at the level of simulation that comes in the package. So with march 2011 you get upgraded graphics, high fidelity FM (that's not an easy achievement) 6DOF cockpit views, large landmasses modeled, ground and airplane AI. There is more, but I can't think specifics right now.

When comparing any game to 2011 standards, you can only really compare it to a) other HIGH FIDELITY flight sims on the market and b) the ENTIRE simulation picture. You can't just look at graphics and undermine everything else that's using more computing power that was available 10 years ago.

In the end though not everyone will be satisfied with graphical particulars.