CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[JumpingHubert]

Originally Posted by Langnasen

Digital Vibrance is a setting in the Nvidia-CP that controls saturation of colours. It defaults at 50% and it's pretty heavy. I find around 35% makes for far more natural looking colours and especially so for CoD.

on my win7 64bit digital vibrance is default on 0. I get good results setting gamma extra low for clod.

@Hayward
you own neither clod nor wop?!

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by JumpingHubert

you own neither clod nor wop?!

I own WoP, but I removed it from my PC.

CoD hasn't been released in the US yet, and I'm not going to mess around with Steam to get it before it is released.

Originally Posted by JumpingHubert

on my win7 64bit digital vibrance is default on 0. I get good results setting gamma extra low for clod!

could you give me instuctions on how to do this so i can try it out.

Originally Posted by JumpingHubert

on my win7 64bit digital vibrance is default on 0. I get good results setting gamma extra low for clod.

Zero? B&W is an unusual default.

oops sorry didnt see your post above, I have ATI so i'll have a play with settings a bit

[JumpingHubert]

Originally Posted by Langnasen

Zero? B&W is an unusual default.

sorry my mistake. yes, default is 50%.

@bigpickle
to set gamma ingame low go to control panel - color management - advanced - calibrate display - next - next - next gamma slider drop down to 5-10% - next .... save.

[gwpc]

Just setting aside for now the discussion about colour accuracy, placement of objects etc. Personally I find that one of the most disappointing aspects of the CoD landscape is that it suffers from the same lack of homogeneity that has always dogged the MS flightsim series. This, for me, has always been an immersion killer.
How can I 'believe' in the environment if I see trees and houses popping up before my eyes, often in the most unconvincing locations. I eventually grew to hate the word 'autogen'!

Games are put together a bit like theatre set. A number of different elements are chosen to represent certain objects and hence to try and trick us into believing that what we are seeing is real. In this respect CoD fails as miserably as does FSX. This is something that cannot be captured in screenshots.

The only flightsim (I'm sure someone will take issue with that title) that I've played which succeeds spectacularly at creating a homogeneous environment in which all elements seem interrelated, and in which you are not constantly brought back to reality by pop-ups, graphical anomalities and lags is Wing of Prey. In my opinion Gaiijin have done an amazing job at creating a beautifully harmonised game with spectacular graphics which at the same time, even on the highest setting, runs absolutely smoothly.

What's more, WoP, unlike CoD, wasn't broken when it was released, despite which the devs have produced several significant patches which are bringing out its full potential. Soon there will be a mission editor, which will negate the most common accusation against the game: lack of interesting offline content.

It gets a bit tedious hearing the same repetitive insults being thrown at WoP. If you never tried it then at least give it a go, and if you tried it but were disappointed when it was released because it wasn't as sim-like as IL-2 1446 perhaps it would be worth revisiting it now post patches. Why not supporting a serious dev team who really want to extend the experience they are offering, and who already have a solid engine upon which to build an even better game?

Can't resist a couple of shots:





Cheers, GWPC

Originally Posted by gwpc

Just setting aside for now the discussion about colour accuracy, placement of objects etc. Personally I find that one of the most disappointing aspects of the CoD landscape is that it suffers from the same lack of homogeneity that has always dogged the MS flightsim series. This, for me, has always been an immersion killer.
How can I 'believe' in the environment if I see trees and houses popping up before my eyes, often in the most unconvincing locations. I eventually grew to hate the word 'autogen'!

Games are put together a bit like theatre set. A number of different elements are chosen to represent certain objects and hence to try and trick us into believing that what we are seeing is real. In this respect CoD fails as miserably as does FSX. This is something that cannot be captured in screenshots.

The only flightsim (I'm sure someone will take issue with that title) that I've played which succeeds spectacularly at creating a homogeneous environment in which all elements seem interrelated, and in which you are not constantly brought back to reality by pop-ups, graphical anomalities and lags is Wing of Prey. In my opinion Gaiijin have done an amazing job at creating a beautifully harmonised game with spectacular graphics which at the same time, even on the highest setting, runs absolutely smoothly.

What's more, WoP, unlike CoD, wasn't broken when it was released, despite which the devs have produced several significant patches which are bringing out its full potential. Soon there will be a mission editor, which will negate the most common accusation against the game: lack of interesting offline content.

It gets a bit tedious hearing the same repetitive insults being thrown at WoP. If you never tried it then at least give it a go, and if you tried it but were disappointed when it was released because it wasn't as sim-like as IL-2 1446 perhaps it would be worth revisiting it now post patches. Why not supporting a serious dev team who really want to extend the experience they are offering, and who already have a solid engine upon which to build an even better game?

Can't resist a couple of shots:





Cheers, GWPC

Because its DM and FM suck arcade balls.

[gwpc]

Because its DM and FM suck arcade balls

Sorry, I only speak English and Italian, could you translate please?

A presto GWPC

[RocketDog]

I don't have WoP, but it would be interesting to know where CloD has a better FM because I thought it just used the old IL-2 FMs.