CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

The screenshots I see confirm that CoD does an amazing job of replicating British farmland. It's far better than any WW2 air sim I have ever seen. I could probably convince someone that the CoD screenshot is a photo. I have no idea what you are looking at.

Well all these other guys who live in England seem to know what I'm on about David.
I'll say it again incase you missed it ~ The photos above show what CoD needs, closer tree spacing for sure and small low bushes round the field boundaries, amongst other small things that add to the greater picture.
Like the fields are very scattered, British farm land fields are usually in groups, several of wheat, then several grazing land in a group for example, if you look at the screenshot above it looks too patchwork like, and compare it too the real photo you can see exactly what I mean.
I can also add that there is no darkening in colour over distance, being a trained observer I know that is one of the first things you learn that over distance colours are darker.
I think the only reason your WoP screen dont look like summer is because of the filter you dont like.
I dont think you could convince anyone that that is a real photo both WoP and CoD are a long way off real life but i think WoP is closer to simulating the realistic horticultural model of English countryside.
The closest i have seen to real life in a screen shot was a RoF screen.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by BigPickle

Well all these other guys who live in England seem to know what I'm on about David.

No, they don't. They're forgetting that they're looking at a screenshot from a GAME. They're acting like they're comparing 2 photographs.

Try the same comparison between CoD and WoP. CoD blows WoP away.

[QUOTE=David Hayward;279326]No, they don't. They're forgetting that they're looking at a screenshot from a GAME. They're acting like they're comparing 2 photographs.QUOTE]

Mate your arrogance is staggering at times, now your gonna tell me that you know people and how they think, all because it dont suite your view?

The issue is that lots of people are claiming that WoP looks better than CoD, and that is absurd.

Absurd to you and you cant stand people having views other than your own clearly. Besides NO ONE HAS SAID WOP IS BETTER JUST THE LANSCAPE MODEL LOOKS AND FEELS MORE LIKE ENGLAND.

Oh and some people are agreeing with my opinion and I am agreeing with theirs because we think the landscape model is WoP looks better than CoD, No green filter, no high contrast just the landscape model.
I've never thought of it in a way too whos on whos side so I'm afraid your on your own their I just used your example to demonstrate my point.

No, they don't. They're forgetting that they're looking at a screenshot from a GAME. They're acting like they're comparing 2 photographs.

Mate your arrogance is staggering at times, now your gonna tell me that you know people and how they think, all because it dont suite your view?

The issue is that lots of people are claiming that WoP looks better than CoD, and that is absurd.

Absurd to you and you cant stand people having views other than your own clearly.
Besides NO ONE HAS SAID WOP IS BETTER JUST THE LANSCAPE MODEL LOOKS AND FEELS MORE LIKE ENGLAND.

Some people are agreeing with my opinion and I am agreeing with theirs because we think the landscape model is WoP looks better than CoD, No green filter, no high contrast just the landscape model.
I've never thought of it in a way too whos on whos side so I'm afraid your on your own their I just used your example to demonstrate my point.

@ Buchon - Valid point but I even at roof top level collections of trees branches blend together, like in a tree line or woods for example, if you stand in a tree line or small coppice you will see limited visiblity upwards, now imagine just 100ft up in the air it looks even harder to see through them.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by BigPickle

i think WoP is closer to simulating the realistic horticultural model of English countryside.
The closest i have seen to real life in a screen shot was a RoF screen.

It's too bad that you kind find any screenshots supporting that view.

As much as I like RoF, it's not closer to real live than CoD. The colors are too washed out. It's better than WoP, but not CoD.

[GnigruH]

Could you post some screenshots of the WW2 flight sim that you think CoD's graphics are "not as good as it could be"? Thanks!

Okay, for the last time before putting you on my 'ignore list' I shall give you a clear example of what I've been talking about.

I said CloDo graphic is not good as it could be, right? Now..
Let's say anti-aliasing..
2x looks good
8x looks better
in Clodo 8x doesn't work like it should
therefore...
THE GRAPHICS DOESN'T LOOK AS GOOD AS IT COULD!

Yeah, that's it... and I hope you won't ask me for a proof that 8x doesn't work, and you won't be stating that it in fact works. Don't care anyway, cos' now you are ignored.

[RocketDog]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

It's too bad that you kind find any screenshots supporting that view.

As much as I like RoF, it's not closer to real live than CoD. The colors are too washed out. It's better than WoP, but not CoD.

You do realise that you can set saturation in RoF to any value you like just by editting the startup.cfg file?

[andrea78]

Considering graphics, IMHO, COD does not seem a 2011 game...

nah i think it does, it just needs tuning because at the moment most systems can only run on normal video settings and there is a spectaular leap in quality between normal and high or very high.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by sigur_ros

Field boundaries poorly defined. Trees too sparse. Not enough trees. Trees not dark enough, highlights too bright. No hedgerows. Yellow fields too yellow. Green fields too lime color. Not enough haze. No distant color desaturation.

From the blueness of the sky the photo was taken with a polarising lens. Colours in the photo do not match what the eye would see unless you were weaing polarising sun glasses.