CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Dano

You're wrong in this aspect, WOP just does a very good job of hiding it but if you look you can see it all fading in.

CoD has gotten better at it but it's still too easy to see the blocks pop in and then fade to full opacity.

Yes you are correct, but WOP does it at alot farther distance. I 100% gurantee you the LOS for WOP is atleast double of the LOS in COD. I have WOP on 1920x1200 and I can full zoom into the distance which is a good few minutes fly away and I can see buildings/city. Also never ever seen building/detail pop.

Go given that the buildings actually appear at a further distance, and you never notice them appearing, and it runs super smooth without problem even with many aircraft in the air while it is still a older game (originally for console - and it uses lots of the IL2 engine and models) the fact that it imo gives comparable graphics and in some places far better graphics while having no performance problem makes me say the WOP team was far more competent in their programming.

Also remember while WOP has IL2's FM/DM the trees actually have hitboxes... so if they can do it on a console/low end $500 or so computer why the hell cant the COD devs???

[warbirds]

Wow WOP looks just the way I remember it, like crap. FSX always has looked bad at any altitude. COD looks great and is my current choice for just flying around from airfield to airfield. I don't really understand what other people see in the graphics of WOP, the cockpits look bad, the planes or just ok and the scenery is all green and really blah.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Here we go again.

Ho Hum.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Also remember while WOP has IL2's FM/DM the trees actually have hitboxes... so if they can do it on a console/low end $500 or so computer why the hell cant the COD devs???

That has already been explained to you. The CoD map is HUGE compared to WoP (btw, it cracks me up that you actually think WoP looks good compared to CoD). There are a lot more trees to keep track of, and they obviously were not prepared for the problems that could cause. Do you really think they're not going to eventually fix it?

[David603]

The reason there are no hitboxes in CoD trees is the same as why there where no hitboxes in Il2 trees.

Trees are a graphical option. For the sake of online play and mission building they can't physically exist for some players and not for others.

End of story.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by David603

The reason there are no hitboxes in CoD trees is the same as why there where no hitboxes in Il2 trees.

Trees are a graphical option. For the sake of online play and mission building they can't physically exist for some players and not for others.

End of story.

Not what Luthier had to say on the matter.

[David603]

It isn't?

Well, it is what Oleg had to say when asked why Il2s trees didn't have hitboxes.

And given that you can still turn off trees, it should still stand.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by David603

It isn't?

Well, it is what Oleg had to say when asked why Il2s trees didn't have hitboxes.

And given that you can still turn off trees, it should still stand.

Oh I quite agree, it does stand for that reason, just pointing out that it wasn't the reason given.

Originally Posted by Luthier

10. Q: I can fly through trees without receiving any damage.

A: Since Cliffs of Dover has more shrubbery in it than perhaps any other flight sim developed so far - hundreds of thousands of trees around the player - enabling collision for the trees grinds the game to a complete halt, especially as they need to be tracked around every plane on the map and not just the player's. Making collisions less precise leads to equally poor results, when planes may fly through a tree but crash into seemingly empty space.
We know this is extremely important. The solution is there, but it still eludes us.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...59&postcount=1

[David Hayward]

Most likely they intended to have tree collisions offline. Online would be a problem if different players have different trees displayed.

[Blue Scorpion]

I will ignore the fact that the screen shots were deliberately chosen to put both fsx and wop at a disadvantage right from the get go.

FSX was released in 2006 a year before il2 1946, and originally written for directx 8.0 and updated later, and wop which is a console port and arcade game over a year ago only supports dx 9.0, unlike COD that supports directx 10. If you want to compare the three graphically, run them all in directx 9.0 and see how they match up, as directx 10 offers huge advantages in rendering and image quality.

Graphically COD should be head and shoulders above the other two using directx 10, the fact it isn't is telling to anyone who knows what they are looking at and understands the techniques available to the different versions of directx.
Some of my own shots from WOP