CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[unreasonable]

[QUOTE=Cobra8472;276538]Regarding Haze;

If you notice in every single photo you've posted, there is a fine light blue haze. This is air particles scattering light.

WoP has a better implementation of this than CoD. I'd actually venture and say that CoD viewdistance is too far as it is right now. Usually there is more haze.

[QUOTE]

On the subject of haze: like so many other issues of how the game looks compared to RL, it must be remembered that RL is not what it used to be!

In 1940 England photochemical smog from car exhausts similar to what we see in most urban areas nowdays was non-existent, there being so few cars and petrol rationed. There was airborne pollution, but as this was primarily particulate it created a lower, more localised, visible grey haze more like driving behind a badly maintained diesel engined bus. I recall reading somewhere that the summer skies of WW2 were remarked on for their clarity in SE England, since even coal was heavily rationed for domestic use.

On a similar vein, I remember a TV documentary about cloud formation noting that in the days after the bombing of the twin towers, while CA over the US was shut down, the skies were much clearer and bluer than usual. (Some very compelling photo evidence). This was because most of the very high altitude thin cloud is precipitated by aeroplane vapour trails.

So when us boomers remember the clear blue skies of our youth this is not nostalgia or cataracts!

PS I am not making WoP/CoD comparisons here, since I do not own WoP and feel unqualified to pontificate on it, just sticking to the CoD vs RL issue on which CoD, IMHO, does a reasonable approximation of haze (as opposed to the colours of trees, grass and London buildings where the palette needs a tweak)

[Heliocon]

[QUOTE=unreasonable;276703][QUOTE=Cobra8472;276538]Regarding Haze;

If you notice in every single photo you've posted, there is a fine light blue haze. This is air particles scattering light.

WoP has a better implementation of this than CoD. I'd actually venture and say that CoD viewdistance is too far as it is right now. Usually there is more haze.

On the subject of haze: like so many other issues of how the game looks compared to RL, it must be remembered that RL is not what it used to be!

In 1940 England photochemical smog from car exhausts similar to what we see in most urban areas nowdays was non-existent, there being so few cars and petrol rationed. There was airborne pollution, but as this was primarily particulate it created a lower, more localised, visible grey haze more like driving behind a badly maintained diesel engined bus. I recall reading somewhere that the summer skies of WW2 were remarked on for their clarity in SE England, since even coal was heavily rationed for domestic use.

On a similar vein, I remember a TV documentary about cloud formation noting that in the days after the bombing of the twin towers, while CA over the US was shut down, the skies were much clearer and bluer than usual. (Some very compelling photo evidence). This was because most of the very high altitude thin cloud is precipitated by aeroplane vapour trails.

So when us boomers remember the clear blue skies of our youth this is not nostalgia or cataracts!

PS I am not making WoP/CoD comparisons here, since I do not own WoP and feel unqualified to pontificate on it, just sticking to the CoD vs RL issue on which CoD, IMHO, does a reasonable approximation of haze (as opposed to the colours of trees, grass and London buildings where the palette needs a tweak)

As bigpickle has said below, there would likely be a seasonal haze. I grew up in the countryside in NZ, we had a wood burning fire (this wasnt even that long ago either) and so did everyone else. In winter there was often a heavy haze do to people burning firewood for heat, and you can see it from a plane window. England would of been much worse though because of higher density pop and the cities all would of had fireplaces, where as in the 90s there was better insulation and electrical heating.

[Lololopoulos]

I side with heliocon on this matter.
and i would very much like to hear some official explainations from the devs on whether the ground scenery will be improved any time soon.

[Ailantd]

[QUOTE=Heliocon;276900][QUOTE=unreasonable;276703]

Originally Posted by Cobra8472

Regarding Haze;

If you notice in every single photo you've posted, there is a fine light blue haze. This is air particles scattering light.

WoP has a better implementation of this than CoD. I'd actually venture and say that CoD viewdistance is too far as it is right now. Usually there is more haze.



As bigpickle has said below, there would likely be a seasonal haze. I grew up in the countryside in NZ, we had a wood burning fire (this wasnt even that long ago either) and so did everyone else. In winter there was often a heavy haze do to people burning firewood for heat, and you can see it from a plane window. England would of been much worse though because of higher density pop and the cities all would of had fireplaces, where as in the 90s there was better insulation and electrical heating.

CoD now is rendering a sunny summer day. And as sunny summer day it is more than ok and realistic ( atmosphere and terrain colors ). All you WoP followers should wait until CoD implements storm weather and then compare that with WoP. That would be more fair if you want lots of fog and haze.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

The sort of programming I do is absolutely nothing like programming a game, that's why I never even considered offering solutions to Luthier. It's also why I'm only using generalities.

You said that you have minimal programming knowledge. Where do you get the nerve to criticize something when you have virtually no experience of your own?

Originally Posted by David Hayward

If no calculations have to be made until an impact occurs, how does the computer determine that an impact has occurred? Magic?

You are a complete moron. Try reading the posts. Oh, I forgot you dont have the intellectual capacity to type more than 2-3 sentences in a row.

I should not even answer your idiotic question, the issue is and has never been the collision itself - its the calculations for working out the collision that is the problem, because currently they are not selectivly generating hit boxes based on distance as every other sane programmer would have the engine do (based on what we have been told).
Also I didnt just beta test, I know a number of devs from games pretty well and have talked to them about similar issues.

No point in arguing with you, seriously the biggest fanboy on the forum, when ever someone criticises the game in any way you are always there to spout ignorrant crap. If I am so unqualified (and indeed I am not to programme the engine) then why did they mention implementing my suggestions specifically about 3-4 months after I posted/started advocating for them? Why did luthier do a complete 180 on dx11 uses?

Better than your track record.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

I should not even answer your idiotic question, the issue is and has never been the collision itself - its the calculations for working out the collision that is the problem

You haven't attempted to answer my question, you keep pounding your fist and call me a moron.

So, I will ask again, quoting you directly:

Originally Posted by Heliocon
As for the calculations - reread the post, they dont need to calculate anything until the aircraft gets to a certain altitude, then the hitboxes would be generated, no calculations need to be made unless an impact occurs.

How does the computer determine if there is an impact with the hit box without doing any calculations? You can't say that the calculations needed to determine if there has been a collision "don't count" without explain why they "don't count". Oh, and calling me a moron is not nearly as compelling an argument as you seem to think it is.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

You haven't attempted to answer my question, you keep pounding your fist and call me a moron.

So, I will ask again, quoting you directly:



How does the computer determine if there is an impact with the hit box without doing any calculations? You can't say that the calculations needed to determine if there has been a collision "don't count" without explain why they "don't count". Oh, and calling me a moron is not nearly as compelling an argument as you seem to think it is.

Already answered, sorry I dont have time to teach you english, go back a few pages. Simply not worth responding to you anymore if you lack the ability to read.

[David Hayward]

Can someone else point me to where he answered that question? I can't find it.