CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

By the way, that simply is not true. People have posted the CoD maps. They are an amazing match to the real photographs from 1945. No one has even attempted similar comparisons for WoP.

Actually, you are wrong. Cast your mind back about two years ago, when the BoP forum first surfaced. The Dev's posted b&w phots of dover docks from the 40's period, and showed pitcures of the terrain which perfectly matched every single field! People could see their houses! The attention to detail was extremely impressive...so impressive, that Oleg asked for this work, but they refused to give it to him, which was rather horrible.

Seriously mate, you're arguments are wearing thin. Accept that whilst CoD is overall a lot more impressive technically than WoP, there are elements of WoP which are extremely good. You're arguments are not constructive enough to offer any real credibility IMHO.

And every element we have examined is not better in CoD! Look at the layout of fields and hedges and trees in WoP. It's realistic. I know that CoD's trees look nicer, there is 3-D looking grass (which could be improved to RoF standards IMHO) the buildings are beautiful; but there are elements which make one think: "ah! This is England" and CoD just lacks that 'Englishness' to make the effect poignant.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Seriously mate, you're arguments are wearing thin. Accept that whilst CoD is overall a lot more impressive technically than WoP, there are elements of WoP which are extremely good. You're arguments are not constructive enough to offer any real credibility IMHO.

Look, there have been screenshots and maps posted on this very thread which show that CoD does an amazing job of simulating the countryside. It's not just my "thin arguments", it's actual side by side screenshots. No one has even attempted that for WoP. As long as no one attempts it, it's people who are arguing for WoP whose arguments are wearing thin.

If you think actual screenshots and maps are not "credible", I would like to hear your standards for credibility.

[philip.ed]

I think I made it clear that pictures have been posted showing field for field matchings in WoP (although thinking about this, I can't understand why some tiles repeat in areas...)

but yes, pictures showing this have not been posted in this topic.
But that still doesn't get past what I'm saying about the layout of the fields and the hedges and trees.
Clearly from all shots posted, this is better in WoP as it is more like England.

I think that, overall, CoD is better, but you have to understand, that areas of WoP have their merits.

[RocketDog]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Look, there have been screenshots and maps posted on this very thread which show that CoD does an amazing job of simulating the countryside.

Well, I posted photographs I have taken while flying over the South of England that show CloD actually does a pretty mediocre job of representing the real life terrain. Amazing it is not.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

but they're Russian!

You could have save everyone a lot of time and just posted this. It explains everything.

[JumpingHubert]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

If it isn't a sim like CoD, why do WoP fanboys keep comparing it to CoD?

there are not much second world war flightsims. I think thats the reason. I like parts of Clod (i hope more parts in the future) but also parts of Wop. To say clod is looking actually in all points better than wop is really nonsense. Clod has potential of course.