CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[Blue Scorpion]

I will ignore the fact that the screen shots were deliberately chosen to put both fsx and wop at a disadvantage right from the get go.

FSX was released in 2006 a year before il2 1946, and originally written for directx 8.0 and updated later, and wop which is a console port and arcade game over a year ago only supports dx 9.0, unlike COD that supports directx 10. If you want to compare the three graphically, run them all in directx 9.0 and see how they match up, as directx 10 offers huge advantages in rendering and image quality.

Graphically COD should be head and shoulders above the other two using directx 10, the fact it isn't is telling to anyone who knows what they are looking at and understands the techniques available to the different versions of directx.
Some of my own shots from WOP

[RocketDog]

WoP looks stunning. Here's FS9 over the South of England. The resolution is a bit blurry, but the colours are much more realistic than CloD's flourescent landscape. I wonder if the protracted development of CloD meant that it was overtaken whilst still in development. Arguably, WoP, RoF and even some FS9/FSX terrain sets look much more realistic.

[Letum]

Wow, there are LOTS of reasons not to like WoP, but that scenery is *at least* as good, and in my opinion better (despite the shaders and poor water) than CloD.


CloD should be many times better than this. It certainly uses more resources.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Letum

CloD should be many times better than this. It certainly uses more resources.

CoD IS many times better than that. That is a green hazy mess. It looks like crap.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Blue Scorpion

Graphically COD should be head and shoulders above the other two using directx 10, the fact it isn't

CoD IS head and shoulders above the other two. I have no idea why you think it isn't. This isn't even a close call.

[ParaB]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

CoD IS head and shoulders above the other two. I have no idea why you think it isn't. This isn't even a close call.

Quite a few people, myself included, disagree. Some things in CoD look simply outstanding, others look merely "ok-ish". I have recently re-installed WoP and while it does indeed get boring quickly I thought the environment grafics were indeed at least on par with CoD. I admit I have less of a problem with the "cinematic" filters in WoP than with the strange colour palette in CoD.

But then the fact that CoD isn't the grafical leap forward I had hoped for after all this time isn't even remotely the sim's biggest problem at the moment.

But then CoD will improve, I don't doubt it. And until then I'm back to flying DCS:A-10C.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by ParaB

Quite a few people, myself included, disagree.

I know. And I find that amazing, because it is so obviously wrong. WoP is a green hazy mess. If you think it looks better than CoD it is because you are really desperately looking for problems in CoD.

I bought WoP. I know what it looks like. It looks like crap.

Like I said. This is not even a close call.

[ctec1]

"If you think it looks better than CoD it is because you are really desperately looking for problems in CoD."


Actually, dont have to look hard at all. Thats freakin hilarious

[ATAG_Bliss]

From what I've seen and played. Nothing compares to CoD down low. The problem is, of course, is having the hardware to show off all those details down low

[danjama]

I actually think WoP looks fantastic in those pictures, and will probably surprise myself and buy it soon