CoD screenshots (merged)

[Eizon]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

How do you fit so much retardation into a single post?

1. Oleg and crew made the WOP engine (it's the IL-2 Engine), the WOP team made a few alterations, that about it.

2. WOP looks like crap when you get low. It's looks like crap when you're on the ground, and it looks like a stylized cartoon when you are in the air.

3. Maps are postage-stamp sized.

4. Wings of Prey is a console game with a lot of shortcuts and tricks to make you think it's realistic looking. The realism (FM/Damage) is really simplified, and . .. .

I don't know why I am bothering to type this. If you're daft enough to type what you did then you're not going to listen to reason.

Cliffs of Dover for the most part runs like crap. It's essentially still in a beta stage, and it's designed for tomorrow's hardware. Sucks for trying to play it now on a budget, but there is pretty much no feature (besides system specs that allow you to play the game) that WOP even begins to approach COD.

Just wanted to clear this up.

I'm talking about rendering engines here, performance, graphics. FM/DM/CEM/etc doesn't come into it, CloD is obviously unparalleled as a simulation.

But graphically, I stand by what I said about WoP. Those developers are obviously much more experienced at putting together a rendering engine. Art direction aside (you say it looks like a stylised cartoon, but that's just filters)... from a technical point of view it's superior in the graphics department. It doesn't look as good parked by a forest as CloD on MAX and the cockpits are less detailed, but in every other respect.

The WoP code - only some parts from IL2 Sturmovik (FM I believe), it's not the same engine.

So basically, your post doesn't make sense and I stand by what I said about the rendering engines. 1C Maddox needs to hire some experience.

[JG52Krupi]

Rofl IMHO I hated the wop graphic style horrible green filter looked like I was flying through algae, lighting/bloom was good but majorly over the top and the shadows are rubbish in comparison to clod. I think the main reason some ppl like one over the other is the art style, clod strives for a realistic view and wop a try to build on the atmosphere.

At the end of the day I see it like this wop small highly detailed land at a distance for dogfighting, clod realism and catering for large maps for missions.

Wop may look good but it is in no way realistic anyone that has look out of an aircraft should see this.

[Eizon]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Rofl IMHO I hated the wop graphic style horrible green filter looked like I was flying through algae, lighting/bloom was good but majorly over the top and the shadows are rubbish in comparison to clod. I think the main reason some ppl like one over the other is the art style, clod strives for a realistic view and wop a try to build on the atmosphere.

At the end of the day I see it like this wop small highly detailed land at a distance for dogfighting, clod realism and catering for large maps for missions.

Wop may look good but it is in no way realistic anyone that has look out of an aircraft should see this.

What is it with you guys?! "Rofl"?

The rendering performance is far inferior to WoP, this should be a given. Why deny it? The art style is irrelevant. That's textures and filters. The complexity of the sim is also not relevant to graphical quality and performance. The size of the map is also irrelevant, you shouldn't be rendering something you can't see on the screen.

I'm sure that a CloD developer, if he was able to speak freely, would hold up his hands and say "we don't have the experience or resources to make a rendering engine as efficient as the WoP one". It amazes me that some of you can't see that the developers have some serious lack of resource, despite them openly admitting it. They're having problems with tree generation, SLI, buildings, clouds, the list goes on.

I wish I hadn't bothered making a remark about the graphics now. There are too many rabid fanboys. I love IL2 Sturmovik and I want this sequel to be as good as it can be, but I don't see why I should stick my head in the sand. The dev team should not be immune to criticism in some silly attempt to "save" them. They will be judged on the merit of their work (and patches!), not on this forum.

[JG52Krupi]

Jesus Christ what a troll... As i stated its my IMHO and we know its buggy ATM wait until Fridays patch and then compare them.

So wop graphics are realistic!!!!!!!!!! what drugs have you been taking.

[Eizon]

I'm not a troll. You just don't like what I have to say.

Sorry, but you really have no idea about what you are talking about.

Of course I don't. (Except I do, and I'm a developer).

So wop graphics are realistic!!!!!!!!!! what drugs have you been taking.

*facepalm*

Did you read anything I wrote? Forget it all, I can't be bothered communicating to a series of brick walls.

[JG52Krupi]

I'm a brick wall!!! I stated that these games are attempting two different outcomes clod realism and wop atmosphere.

If your a developer you really need to understand that clod is accessing much more data than wop, I just don't think you can realistically compare the two.

I am not a fan boy I have not stated that clod is superior just that they are different.

Based on what you have said I would never have guessed that you are a developer, not trying to insult you but your logic defies common sense.

[Ailantd]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

I'm a brick wall!!! I stated that these games are attempting two different outcomes clod realism and wop atmosphere.

If your a developer you really need to understand that clod is accessing much more data than wop, I just don't think you can realistically compare the two.

I am not a fan boy I have not stated that clod is superior just that they are different.

Based on what you have said I would never have guessed that you are a developer, not trying to insult you but your logic defies common sense.

+1

[Eizon]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

I'm a brick wall!!! I stated that these games are attempting two different outcomes clod realism and wop atmosphere.

If your a developer you really need to understand that clod is accessing much more data than wop, I just don't think you can realistically compare the two.

I am not a fan boy I have not stated that clod is superior just that they are different.

Based on what you have said I would never have guessed that you are a developer, not trying to insult you but your logic defies common sense.

Ok, I have just one more thing to say to try to get my point across, then I'm done.

All of the (incredible) simulation aspects of CloD - the FM, DM, CEM, clickable cockpits, this is all code that runs on the CPU. It's independent of the graphics rendering engine.

The graphics rendering runs on the GPU. The code is largely independent of those other things above. That is why I'm saying, you CAN compare the graphics and graphical performance, despite CloD being a much more complicated sim in other aspects not related to graphics.

You are excusing the poor performance of the sim compared to WoP because the game is more complex. The complexity of the sim is only an excuse for the poor graphics engine, in so much as more development time has been spent on other aspects. Which is why I said "lack of resource/experience in the graphics". Please tell me you follow this? Or will I just get another "troll/idiot" response?

[Ailantd]

Originally Posted by Eizon

What is it with you guys?! "Rofl"?

The rendering performance is far inferior to WoP, this should be a given. Why deny it? The art style is irrelevant. That's textures and filters. The complexity of the sim is also not relevant to graphical quality and performance. The size of the map is also irrelevant, you shouldn't be rendering something you can't see on the screen.

I'm sure that a CloD developer, if he was able to speak freely, would hold up his hands and say "we don't have the experience or resources to make a rendering engine as efficient as the WoP one". It amazes me that some of you can't see that the developers have some serious lack of resource, despite them openly admitting it. They're having problems with tree generation, SLI, buildings, clouds, the list goes on.

I wish I hadn't bothered making a remark about the graphics now. There are too many rabid fanboys. I love IL2 Sturmovik and I want this sequel to be as good as it can be, but I don't see why I should stick my head in the sand. The dev team should not be immune to criticism in some silly attempt to "save" them. They will be judged on the merit of their work (and patches!), not on this forum.

Sorry, but you really have no idea about what you are talking about.
It is not the same, not even similar, render a small terrain, wich is static in memory, or large wich need to be swapping as necessary from memory. Not even close. To make WoP is easy, really easy, compared with CoD. If you want you can compare with FSX, wich is the only that is doing something similar with worse quality fron near. And yes, terrain that is not viewed is not rendered, but CoD has a very very far horizon compared with WoP. Technically CoD is far superior than WoP in every aspect. And, as I posted before, if Luthier could (or want, wich is not the case, fortunately ) remove that large scenery, reduce tree number, view distance, reduce shadows, FM, DM, IA... then you will have, with the same engine, an arcadish game like WoP, but more beautifull and for sure with more smooth gameplay. I would like to see anyway the WoP engine performing like CoD with similiar terrain ad FX and.. oh wait... WoP engine can´t do that!