CoD screenshots (merged)

[recoilfx]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

How do you fit so much retardation into a single post?

1. Oleg and crew made the WOP engine (it's the IL-2 Engine), the WOP team made a few alterations, that about it.

2. WOP looks like crap when you get low. It's looks like crap when you're on the ground, and it looks like a stylized cartoon when you are in the air.

3. Maps are postage-stamp sized.

4. Wings of Prey is a console game with a lot of shortcuts and tricks to make you think it's realistic looking. The realism (FM/Damage) is really simplified, and . .. .

I don't know why I am bothering to type this. If you're daft enough to type what you did then you're not going to listen to reason.

Cliffs of Dover for the most part runs like crap. It's essentially still in a beta stage, and it's designed for tomorrow's hardware. Sucks for trying to play it now on a budget, but there is pretty much no feature (besides system specs that allow you to play the game) that WOP even begins to approach COD.

I think you've included some mistakes in your post:

1.) I am pretty sure that WoP uses its own rendering engine. Only flight modeling was borrowed from Il-2.

2.) It looks pretty damn good for the resources it needs. The whole package is coherent, the art direction is clear - I can't say that about CloD currently. WoP is not going for realism, but movie-ism. It's not IL-2 style, but it's lot of people's style. It certainly doesn't look like crap. Do you say that Band of Brothers or The Pacific look like crap because directors decided to run a bleach-by-pass on the frames?

3.) Map size doesn't affect performance, rendering distance matters more.

4.) If it looks good, and tricks you to think that it's good, then it's good. For what it's worth, given the resources it needs, it runs as a pretty damn good polished package.

[Eizon]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

How do you fit so much retardation into a single post?

1. Oleg and crew made the WOP engine (it's the IL-2 Engine), the WOP team made a few alterations, that about it.

2. WOP looks like crap when you get low. It's looks like crap when you're on the ground, and it looks like a stylized cartoon when you are in the air.

3. Maps are postage-stamp sized.

4. Wings of Prey is a console game with a lot of shortcuts and tricks to make you think it's realistic looking. The realism (FM/Damage) is really simplified, and . .. .

I don't know why I am bothering to type this. If you're daft enough to type what you did then you're not going to listen to reason.

Cliffs of Dover for the most part runs like crap. It's essentially still in a beta stage, and it's designed for tomorrow's hardware. Sucks for trying to play it now on a budget, but there is pretty much no feature (besides system specs that allow you to play the game) that WOP even begins to approach COD.

Just wanted to clear this up.

I'm talking about rendering engines here, performance, graphics. FM/DM/CEM/etc doesn't come into it, CloD is obviously unparalleled as a simulation.

But graphically, I stand by what I said about WoP. Those developers are obviously much more experienced at putting together a rendering engine. Art direction aside (you say it looks like a stylised cartoon, but that's just filters)... from a technical point of view it's superior in the graphics department. It doesn't look as good parked by a forest as CloD on MAX and the cockpits are less detailed, but in every other respect.

The WoP code - only some parts from IL2 Sturmovik (FM I believe), it's not the same engine.

So basically, your post doesn't make sense and I stand by what I said about the rendering engines. 1C Maddox needs to hire some experience.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by Eizon

Aside from some of the screenshots on MAX where the plane is parked on the grass by some pretty trees, which do look great...

The game looks to me (cockpits aside) worse than Wings of Prey. That is to say, unless you're literally parked on the ground, I'd say that WoP looks better and runs probably 15 times as smoothly.

If only 1C could get the resources in that whoever made WoP had. They clearly know much better what they're doing when it comes to making a rendering engine.

Here's my take on it:

Rendering engines don't exist on their own. There's also a game that needs to be run somewhere in there too.

I think if CoD was running the same simulation/collision detection/damage modelling/etc etc etc that WoP does, the rendering engine could have certainly been made to do more and do it more smoothly. And then it would only be artistic choices that make the differences.

I think if the WoP people had a priority on making their game do the same content as CoD, they would have had to compromise their rendering as well. That's just the way it works.

So while it's perfectly alright to think that WoP looks better in whatever way, I think it's wrong to think that you could just shove their rendering techniques/engine into CoD and 'fix' it. It would probably encounter the very same problems CoD is having right now.

The WoP people made their choice: Graphics over gameplay. CoD went the other way.

That said, I still think CoD looks beautiful. Especially compared with other games of its type and by that I mean true simulations. FSX or BoB2:WoV or Rise of Flight or DCS sims or what have you. These are the titles that will show you what is possible graphically when making a SIM. Comparing the graphics of WoP to CoD is like comparing the graphics of Crysis 2 to Arma 2. If you want Arma2, you can't have graphics like Crysis 2. It just ain't happening. Not yet. Arma 2 still looks great, but it's restricted in how great it can look by all the other stuff it's doing that a game like Crysis 2 doesn't do.

HAWX looks pretty good too, but if HAWX had huge maps, a complex damage model and flight model, large view distances, and complex AI, it would be ahead of its time just like CoD is.

As for remarks about sim stuff being CPU and graphics stuff being GPU, that's all well and good IF they operated independantly. I don't think they do. These are moving objects in a simulation. Before a renderer can do that kind of work, it needs the information that's being processed by the simulation. Take for example the simple rendering of a bullet hole on a wing.

Before the renderer can display the appropriate image on your screen, the sim has to decide if the bullet hit your wing, where did it hit exactly, what damage was done by the bullet and needs to be displayed etc. CoD uses some pretty complex decisions for all that stuff. The renderer may be blisteringly fast, but it can only work with the information that the Cpu gives it. WoP I think is pretty simple in these kinds of matters, so it gets the data to the gpu faster and the gpu can render the scene faster as a result.

That's what I believe anyway. Since CoD looks better than any WWII Battle of Britain sim I know of, I'm not complaining at all. It can only get better from here.

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by Daniël

Do I see a "foo fighter" there, near the landing gear of the Stuka?

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter

Ki-51 more like

[Koyan]

I always thought in CoD a wing would brake off in a straight line fashion. Now look at this. This is how my plane broke up after a low altitude flat spin from which i luckily survived. I hope that sometime in the future we will be able to climb out of the plane and inspect the damage FP from nearby. Stunning damage model!

[JG52Krupi]

If you were to compare a model from wop to clod you will see which one wins... Yet again I will state it's the art direction not the graphics. I prefer the realistic clod and you find wop appealing, don't confuse graphics and artistic direction.





http://img832.imageshack.us/i/launch...4022019130.jpg

[Eizon]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

If you were to compare a model from wop to clod you will see which one wins... Yet again I will state it's the art direction not the graphics. I prefer the realistic clod and you find wop appealing, don't confuse graphics and artistic direction.



http://img832.imageshack.us/i/launch...4022019130.jpg

The graphics are obviously comparable, which is why we are disagreeing. And I do, overall, think WoP looks much more polished because of the effects (you know, shader effects, perspiration on windows, motion blurring).

But my original point wasn't really that I wish CloD had the same art direction, or even prettier graphics. I actually don't care so much about the graphics. It was that WoP does it without breaking any kind of sweat - max everything on full resolution. Look at that screenshot - detailed lighting and shader effects, clouds, plenty of trees, plenty of buildings.

We are talking about graphics rendering performance, and WoP is clearly much better coded in that department. So my original ponit - I wish the guys behind WoP were helping out with CloD graphics engine, because they sorely need it. That is all. I'm not asking for CloD to look like a movie, but it should run about as fast as WoP because the GPU shouldn't have a whole lot more to do.

I know I was said I was done, but I have a serious lack of discipline right now in not entering pointless debates.

[JG52Krupi]

Well in that case I revert back to what I said before wait for the patch this Friday and compare then.

Motion blur is speculative some like it some hate it and from what I recall I would say the shadows in clod blast wop out of the water, but I will have another look before confirming this

[Eizon]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Well in that case I revert back to what I said before wait for the patch this Friday and compare then.

Fair enough.

[MadTommy]