CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[leggit]

CoD wins hands down. whoever put the texture and modelling pack for FSX together needs to visit southern england.

Pretty much the only places where FSX looks good "down low" are the cities and the areas around different airports (assuming you sprung for the 3rd party add-ons).

WOP, looks good, but I wouldn't say realistic given the filters, and the view distance, and the lighting and claustrophobic map sizes.

FSX, WOP, and IL-2 have pretty much peaked. ROF and CloD are the only two that are going to improve given they are newer (newish) game engines. The two of them are (compared to MS) tiny, tiny developers, with limited funds and staff, so improvements and upgrades are going to be "bite sized" instead of huge Service packs that radically alter or improve the game. Also it's yet to be seen if there will be an active 3rd party industry centred around these two titles.

MS's "Flight" is looking to be "FSX version 1.5" so I don't see it getting much better, and probably sticking to the Satellite Photos method that has done MS well so far.

You've got to remember that FSX and Flight are Procedure sims, while CloD is a combat sim. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Wow that looks horrible.

I bet it looks even worse down low...

[Letum]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Wow that looks horrible.

It looks horrible?
It's a photo...it's a photo of South East England.

it doesn't have nice effects like distance desaturation/blue, but given that it is essentially a photo, does that mean that you think SE England looks horrible?


ed: just to be clear, I'm not trying to claim FSX scenery is better than anything...It's not my cup of tea, but I do think "Horrible" is a strange word for a photo of the landscape.

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

im a big fan of WOP but from those pics IL2 looks the most natural

[ctec1]

FSX and UTX...go lower? lol

[jrg]

http://img641.imageshack.us/f/27042011222915.jpg/
This is a picture from reality, I was in the fw, so you can see that il2 is very close to the real thing. If you don't like the fw, tell me, I'll rent another plane and take the picture again.

How do you guys upload pics BTW?

What's bother me with il-2 1946 or COD is the cartoonish textures and colours, they reminds me Mario kart on the N64. I'm not speaking about luminosity, an bright sunny day is really "bright" but something is strange with the tone of the colours.

[seiseki]

Originally Posted by Letum

It looks horrible?
It's a photo...it's a photo of South East England.

it doesn't have nice effects like distance desaturation/blue, but given that it is essentially a photo, does that mean that you think SE England looks horrible?

What kind of reasoning is that?
Hey look at this [blurry overcontrasted photo of a puppy] which has been made into a texture and put into a game, anyone who think it looks horrible must think puppies look horrible...

I'm gonna go make a game now, with only flat photographs as textures, as long as the motif doesn't look horrible there's no way the textures and the game can look horrible..

[/sarcasm]

Yes it looks horrible because it's a photo..
Compared to 3D environments and compared to real life, it looks horrible..

[W0ef]

Originally Posted by seiseki

What kind of reasoning is that?
Hey look at this [blurry overcontrasted photo of a puppy] which has been made into a texture and put into a game, anyone who think it looks horrible must think puppies look horrible...

I'm gonna go make a game now, with only flat photographs as textures, as long as the motif doesn't look horrible there's no way the textures and the game can look horrible..

[/sarcasm]

Yes it looks horrible because it's a photo..
Compared to 3D environments and compared to real life, it looks horrible..

+1

It´s about the ugly transition between the photo-textured ground (never like it when they do that, it will always look crap close up) and the ocean which looks pretty crap all by itself as well.

I´m sure there is plenty going for FSX (like being able to fly around the entire world, real time weather, etc etc etc) but graphic wise it can´t hold a candle to Cliffs of Dover..Only game I have seen so far that comes close is Rise of Flight (it beat CoD graphic wise for me until the latest beta patch which gave me proper functioning AA). For me right now Cliffs of Dover is by far the most beautiful flightsim I personally know or have ever played. I´m sure it will only get better, especially when my three blue line bug on the horizon gets fixed and DX11 will be properly implemented.

Heard rumours about a new water shader with transparancy, fully functional surf and stuff, that will be sweet when they put it in!

[Zoom2136]

Originally Posted by Letum

WoP has those horrible filters, but the shape and definition of the fields and patches of woodland looks MUCH better than CloD.

I think this is a fairer representation of FSX; the South East England scenery pack:
The onlt one to get the colours about right.

Well FSX is a fly high so this look good sim, COD is more an avoid the squirls and fly low kind of sims... FSX down low is not good looking at all. But COD up high is good, consireding that is depicting 1940's scenary... 2010...

But hey, I owned both