Just imagine CloD with WoP map

[RocketDog]

Originally Posted by DK-nme

You are so right and like your picture examples clearly show, CloD has some serious gfx problems, that hopefully will be solved within reasonable time. The immersion has to be there (Am I the only one to find landscape graphics of CloD equal or just slightly better than the original il-2 gfx's?).

There there is room for optimism because some of the fixes could be implemented quite quickly.

A huge improvement would come from simply replacing the lime-green trees with darker ones. Better still if a decent atmospheric haze could be introduced that made them look even darker in the distance. A further improvement would be to make the tree foliage come down a bit closer to the ground and hide the silver-grey tree trunks. In the photos of the real world (and in WoP, for that matter) tree trunks are hardly visible from the air and look very dark if they can be seen. Field colours should be fixable too, but it may need a texture artist to go over the terrain almost field by field.

I'm still rather surprised that they could have got such basic features of a real-world landscape so wrong. We've ended up with very nice 3D models (as good as RoF's) flying over a landscape that is arguably worse than many found in IL-2 1946.

[biltongbru]

Another aspect in the quest for realism with Clod is that vegetation is a dynamic entity and display movement with windy conditions. I can just imagine the enormous computing power needed for this; every tree leaf and every blade of grass; maybe not necessary at this stage?

[jt_medina]

Originally Posted by RocketDog

I'm still rather surprised that they could have got such basic features of a real-world landscape so wrong. We've ended up with very nice 3D models (as good as RoF's) flying over a landscape that is arguably worse than many found in IL-2 1946.

1000% agree.
I saw some pictures from 6 months ago and they looked way better than it looks right now.
I'll give you a few examples. Shots I kept on my harddrive.
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]


[/IMG]

People can say they look cartonish but I loved them.

[pupaxx]

Hi guys,
in recent past I followed up for 50 pages an analogue discussion and I promised to myself to not get involved in wop_vs_Clod_landscape cause at the end its just matter of personal taste, judgement, it is difficult to bring someone else on your thinking or just share a minimum of objectivity...and so on....but I admit CloD landscape is the more intriguing key of this sim. And I pretend to be get 'involved' by a 2011 Sim...The overall looking 4me must be heavily tuned
I like so much WoP, especially the way WoP represent the landscape and how natural elements are merged together...(let go green filter issue and bla bla...)..
Having said that...
Me too I don't like too much the overall lime-green looking of CloD...it is not convincing but...I looked in my archive and I would like to share some picts taken in july 2008 at Duxford...lime-green is not so fanciful I say..look
DSC_0306.JPG
DSC_0665.JPG

The pict are for sure overexposed but hues are there! I well remember how much the grass green was reflected on the under surfaces of Airplanes; specially the spit with sky belly; even when they come at landing, at 5-6 meters of altitude, this green was so violent to enlight the under surfaces.
Look at the spit flyby..it was at 15 mt height..and look at the medium sea grey how much is influenced by the grass!



Cheers

[pupaxx]

....another palette sample
DSC_0961.JPG

look at the trees..

[philip.ed]

The thing which people are forgetting is the difference between the CloD and WoP terrains.
CloD has realistic 3-D trees (which look amazing up close, and not too bad from a distance (not focusing on colour here) whereas WoP uses trees which have a 2-D image which revolves as you move around them (very similar if not identical to Il-2's trees).
Indeed, WoP doesn't model 3-D/2-D grass, or indeed realisticall created buildings.

But this is one of the reasons why WoP is so easy to play over and FPS friendly. Indeed, RoF uses similar tree models to Il-2, and they work very well for flying.

So maybe, CloD was just being too ambitious, or the right intentions were there, it just wasn't pulled off correctly. I think the latter.

[kendo65]

I don't agree with the argument that CLOD's terrain has to look that way because of the greater area and its heavier use of resources.

It is the way the various resources (trees, buildings, etc) are placed on the map that is the issue here - they don't need to use more - they could use exactly the same amount but in a better more natural way.

My personal biggest hate is the constant use of the double line of trees seen in this pic. Used repeatedly along roads and rivers. Very lazy, and I have never seen anything looking like that in reality.

I'm pleased to see the general reaction to this thread. More people feel this way than I thought. Hopefully the devs will take note.

[Jatta Raso]

once we break the first wave of what i call positive trolling (blindly defending the developers by trolling legitimate criticism which is trolling nevertheless) the positive discussion of these matters can then come to surface

looking at IL-2 1946 or BoB II you can see how far they went in graphics improvement, and it is obvious the discussion of these issues with CoD need to start taking shape. WoP 2 has been anounced and is coming soon... i would't like to see it plainly putting CoD to shame graphics-wise

btw it was Mr Oleg that kept depicting former IL-2 and the then upcoming CoD through recurrent comparisons with other sims, naming them or not; and since this is Mr Oleg's forum and none other, i find absolutely legitimate that comparisons can be hold in order to frame CoD performance, as this is an attitude in all consistent with the founder previous remarks. all other comparison haters can start their own forum and ban me right away. with all respect towards Mr Oleg and the community.

Originally Posted by philip.ed

The thing which people are forgetting is the difference between the CloD and WoP terrains.
CloD has realistic 3-D trees (which look amazing up close, and not too bad from a distance (not focusing on colour here) whereas WoP uses trees which have a 2-D image which revolves as you move around them (very similar if not identical to Il-2's trees).
Indeed, WoP doesn't model 3-D/2-D grass, or indeed realisticall created buildings.

But this is one of the reasons why WoP is so easy to play over and FPS friendly. Indeed, RoF uses similar tree models to Il-2, and they work very well for flying.

So maybe, CloD was just being too ambitious, or the right intentions were there, it just wasn't pulled off correctly. I think the latter.

The Trees arn't that realistic, you can fly through them!! which i think is a terrible shame. The terrain detail really does let this Sim down, its shoddy and badly coded and I still cannot believe its an entirely new engine. And then we have that awful shimmer still that we had all those years ago in the original IL2.

WOP 2 could easily be the answer to all our prayers, Oleg and Luthier have certainly left the door wide open for someone to steal thier crowns.

[Lololopoulos]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

The Trees arn't that realistic, you can fly through them!! which i think is a terrible shame. The terrain detail really does let this Sim down, its shoddy and badly coded and I still cannot believe its an entirely new engine.
WOP 2 could easily be the answer to all our prayers, Oleg and Luthier have certainly left the door wide open for someone to steal thier crowns.

WOP and COD graphics both suck in terms of being REALISTIC. But I firmly believe that WOP is the one that sucks less.

For one, WOP landscape is a lot more eye-pleasing than that of COD.

WOP landscape looks like a an artwork, while COD looks like a video game.
Neither come close to what we actually see in real life, but I would prefer the artwork to the looks of a video game.