CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[CUJO_1970]

Speaking of wheat:

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by CUJO_1970

Speaking of wheat:

I see 2d sprites in a 5 year old graphics engine (purely based on the pic), but we know its england, or nz, it has sheep...

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

I see 2d sprites in a 5 year old graphics engine (purely based on the pic), but we know its england, or nz, it has sheep...

Heliocon, you should post a WoPuke screenshot of the same sort of scene so we can compare them.

I would do it, but I removed Wings of Puke from my machine.

[Screwball]

After reading the past 28 pages (some good stuff tucked up amongst all the usual fluff, cheers guys) I can't help but wade in, sorry...

Firstly, and my apologies for singling any one poster out and at risk of breaking my own code of never typing anything that relates more to the poster than their post...but after all Mr Hayward has made up the largest percentage of posts, and they do tend to say the same thing, so: David Hayward, please please stop talking about 'puke green', 'Wings of Puke', 'puke filter' etc etc etc ad (sorry!) nauseum. It's really very tiring, and neither enjoyable nor constructive. The frequent repetition suggests this single filter is the only issue you have with the graphics in WoP, although granted there are other aspects to the game you dislike. Is this fair? If so might we now move on to some other topics? It is very apparent that nobody is arguing against you - it is a point of agreement that the green-tainted filter is neither particularly accurate nor particularly attractive. I'm sure you have more to say, and now would be a fine time to have a crack at saying it

Secondly...well, I was going to bash out my opinions on every topic covered in this thread, but decided life was too short

Thirdly, CoD is a simulator. It simulates reality. Reality is subjective, and we largely operate on 'feel' of a situation (visually, aurally, whatever) in normal life rather than abstract empiricism - and it's 'feel' that adds 'reality' to all computer games and sims. It seems a fair test of the level of success is to make a snap decision on a screenshot: s/shot of a game or photo of the real world? Not that they're par for the course, but I have seen unedited s/shots of WoP, Il-2 modded and virgin, RoF and others that all take me a moment or few to establish whether or not they are a genuine photo, photoshopped, or prerendered. I hope others have an idea of what I mean by this, and can call such images to mind?

Sadly, I haven't seen very many landscape shots of CoD that take more than a split second to label 'game'. The aircraft have the potential to look stunning, but the colours of CoD's world obviously are not right if they are causing this much..well, lets be nice and call it debate This is not to rubbish the game in the slightest, but to keep in focus an area for future development. Can others try the photo/game thing and see if they have such disappointing % of 'real-looking' (as in giving a genuine impression that they could be photographs on first sight) CoD landscape s'shots? I'd like to think it's not just me, but who knows

Screwy

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Screwball

Firstly, and my apologies for singling any one poster out and at risk of breaking my own code of never typing anything that relates more to the poster than their post...but after all Mr Hayward has made up the largest percentage of posts, and they do tend to say the same thing, so: David Hayward, please please stop talking about 'puke green', 'Wings of Puke', 'puke filter' etc etc etc ad (sorry!) nauseum. It's really very tiring, and neither enjoyable nor constructive.

Screwy, as soon as the constant whining about CoD from the WoPuke fanboys stops, I'll stop calling it Wings of Puke. Deal?

[easytarget3]

i have to add something to this talk, simply you cant compare very different sims just by graphic comparison, i know you want the best graphic and the devs should consider it when they program the FM,physics,damage model,collision model and so on, but still.WOP is arcade compare to COD,there is no feel fo detail except SFX,which is nice btw,damage model is very simple and mostly just graphic, FM also very simple and felt strage to fly,and so on.Same lack of proper wider campaign as in COD .I rather have a noch down graphic in COD,if they add hit boxes for trees and buildings,radar towers and so on,thats really important and clouds proper ones, and if the manage to keep the same graphic and framerate it will be the best sim, wish for better campaign with planes resuplies and chain events,to influence the other mission etc.

[Therion_Prime]

Originally Posted by easytarget3

i have to add something to this talk, simply you cant compare very different sims just by graphic comparison,

This thread is only about graphic comparison.

Edit: Actually it's only a scenery graphics comparison...

[pupaxx]

ok ...but this thread il labeled 'CoD vs some other sims that model Kent'... so we are simply comparing different games just from 'aesthetic' point of view, and how the scenery is differently represented by each of them.
Correctly, how many had previously pointed up, we can not comparing this products in terms of FM/DM, or other peculiarity specific of a Flight Simulation.
They are simply different in their being! they are created with different commercial pourpose/targets.
So, please don't fire up when someone express just an opinion!

Have a nice day

[sigur_ros]

Maddox Games and Gaijin Studio should unite. Gaijin make good graphical engine with advanced lighting and effects, they know how to optimize and what England looks like. Maddox can then do what it does best: cockpits, damage modeling and tiny pointless detail.

[ip3]

For me the look and feel of CloD is the best of all flight sims, except maybe DCS A-10 at higher elevations. Some individual sims do individual details better, like RoF's clouds but not the complete package.

I agree that WoP looks like it has a puke-filter turned on. It's also too contrasty and has an annoyingly overdone vignetting effect.