Visual comparison between COD and other upcoming releases

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by zipper

As a real world taildragging pilot I see CloD as being only somewhat closer to realistic flying than other games but it too falls short enough to prevent me from forgetting that its just a computer game. It will be interesting to see how World of Planes does in the market.

I'd be very interested to know your view on what you think is missing from CloD in terms of the feeling of realistic flying. Missing tubulence perhaps?

Thanks

[furbs]

Prop wash?

[recoilfx]

collision model.

Landing gear/traction model.

[furbs]

Ground handling?

[Ploughman]

Well I don't understand how they can have all those FPS killing hedges in their sim and still expect it to run on your average gamer's machine. That's craziness.

[6S.Manu]

One day you guys will tell me what you really like about the CEM in this half-sim... Take out the OVERHEAT label from IL2 and the management it's almost the same. Of course there is the oil radiator too... but the funny thing is that both the radiators do not work correcly IIRC so...

About WoPlanes: I really really really like the terrain and the haze effect... tracers and smoke are very good, the flames are similar to the IL2's one, and are not so different from CloD (I still remember when Oleg posted the first images of the flaming bomber)
Regarding map size: it's really a problem??? I'm against very big maps if the target of the sim to fight: wider maps means lesser probability to find the enemy, above all with the horrible target visibility of CloD. Bigger is not better...

I like the external models too, of course the cockpits of Clod are better but I don't care about that if I want to have a combat sim. What I'm saying is that I would prefer worser models/graphics but better playability/simulation.

Then talking about DM and FM... maybe CloD's DMs are more detailed but there is not guarantee that they are correct, above all then FMs are totally broken since the release.

I would easily take a great combat simulator with 2003 graphics over a broken simulator with beautiful graphics...

[csThor]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

egarding map size: it's really a problem??? I'm against very big maps if the target of the sim to fight: wider maps means lesser probability to find the enemy, above all with the horrible target visibility of CloD. Bigger is not better...

That's only true if mindless and pointless gangbanging with fighters is all you care about. Once realistic missions are part of the equation postage stamp maps become a true problem.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by csThor

That's only true if mindless and pointless gangbanging with fighters is all you care about. Once realistic missions are part of the equation postage stamp maps become a true problem.

Look you are aiming at the wrong guy, I'm not a furball guy at all... in the past I did 2.5 hours recon mission in IL2 during an online campaing in the PTO to search a carrier, 2 hours CAP over objectives only to witness that the enemy sneaked around us with an improbable path at an improbable altitude.

Now please tell me how do you think to defend the entire 1:1 seabord of England with 20 planes... above all without a radar system (Maraz did a great mod for the IL2 SEOW campaigns).

Bigger maps allow you to bomb London with Brest-Plymouth-Bristol London as ordered wayponts because all the fighters are over the Dover.. is that realistic? Have you fun in that?

Look, some months ago we were to fly on Falcon BMS for a combat mission and a new guy was talking about he had 200 hours on the F-16; at last we realized that he didn't know a $hit since he was used to fly relocation missions and have real pleasure in doing that... not a surprise knowing he's a FS guy.

It's the same problem of the ARMA series... you can enter in enemy territory anywhere expect in front of the objective, and then you take the defenders for behind, because the maps are big.

If you want a combat simulator you need to put the guys in the same limited airspace... otherwise yours will be a solo indisturbed mission.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Look you are aiming at the wrong guy, I'm not a furball guy at all... in the past I did 2.5 hours recon mission in IL2 during an online campaing in the PTO to search a carrier, 2 hours CAP over objectives only to witness that the enemy sneaked around us with an improbable path at an improbable altitude.

Hey, you gave me that opening.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Now please tell me how do you think to defend the entire 1:1 seabord of England with 20 planes... above all without a radar system (Maraz did a great mod for the IL2 SEOW campaigns).

Simple: You don't. Map size isn't the issue here, it's the setup of the mission(s). With "so few" people engaged you limit the area of operations - problem solved. The issue of too small maps is that they limit the flexibility and the scope of the missions that can be built on them.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Bigger maps allow you to bomb London with Brest-Plymouth-Bristol London as ordered wayponts because all the fighters are over the Dover.. is that realistic? Have you fun in that?

See above. The mission setup is a big part of the equation but generally speaking large maps can be used only partially by limiting the area of operations, too small maps cannot be made larger. Simple.

[Osprey]

Strange logic Manu. I'd go for the nerdy looking girl who just needs to unravel her hair, add a little makeup and take off the glasses over the rough old slapper any day mate.