Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-09-2011, 07:46 PM
Rattlehead Rattlehead is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG52Krupi View Post
Dude seriously wtf!!!!

Clod models a hell of a lot of things, you clearly have no understanding of the detail in a simulator if you are trying to compare it to the arcady battlefield style of flying a jet with basically no physics in a map that would be flooded by a spiders piss puddle. The jets in battlefield 2 had speeds closer to that of a ww1 fighter than a jet so that you could fly them on the tiny maps lol
I will certainly never claim to have a good understanding of graphical rendering, and most things someone like John Carmack talks about goes right over my head () but I've got a fairly good handle of what made fps games 'tick' so to speak, by having experience in designing some custom Crysis levels.

Draw distance can murder framerates. Whenever I had framerate issues when doing custom levels, I reduced the draw distance by slapping a big, fat mountain in the way.
It's no surprise that most fps games channel the player down narrow funnelways...ususally disguised as mountains paths or canyons or corridors. Even 'open ended' Crysis was full of these tricks.

3D vegetation also murders framerates. Even something relatively simple and innocent as grass can kill frames if packed too densly.

And guess what? Most simulators have ample of both!
Why could Crysis 1 not run on consoles, but Crysis 2 runs fine on consoles?
Taking out the large draw distances and the ample vegetation makes a huge difference.

Last edited by Rattlehead; 06-09-2011 at 07:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-10-2011, 03:19 AM
StreetGang StreetGang is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 19
Default

Wow, some highstrung people here defending CoD.

Obviously they are two different games, and it would be nice if CoD looked as good as BF3 which I'm sure is the only thing the OP meant by the comparison. There really isn't any need to go into detail about the differences as they're blindingly obvious, but to rag on a game because it "isn't a sim" is ridiculous. It's a battlefield game, jack of all trades, master of none!

On BF3 itself, it does look fantastic, and I spent many hours playing BF1942, the Desert Combat mod, both in and out of clans during multiplayer and the same with BF2, and more recently BFBC2. They're great games, some of the best fun I've ever had on the PC. I remember spending hours trying to perfect flying the littlebird in the DC mod for 1942. When you get that horrendous flight model under control and can actually fly close to the ground between rows of buildings you feel really satisfied with your efforts.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-10-2011, 10:52 AM
Hatch Hatch is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetGang View Post
Wow, some highstrung people here defending CoD.
Frustration perhaps.

All CloD needs is a good art director.
Someone who understands how to trick our minds into seeing reality where there is none.


Those people are rare as hen's teeth and probably working for the big bucks.

CloD is trying it the hyperrealistic way now and that's not working.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.