CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

Originally Posted by JumpingHubert

on my win7 64bit digital vibrance is default on 0. I get good results setting gamma extra low for clod.

Zero? B&W is an unusual default.

oops sorry didnt see your post above, I have ATI so i'll have a play with settings a bit

[JumpingHubert]

Originally Posted by Langnasen

Zero? B&W is an unusual default.

sorry my mistake. yes, default is 50%.

@bigpickle
to set gamma ingame low go to control panel - color management - advanced - calibrate display - next - next - next gamma slider drop down to 5-10% - next .... save.

[gwpc]

Just setting aside for now the discussion about colour accuracy, placement of objects etc. Personally I find that one of the most disappointing aspects of the CoD landscape is that it suffers from the same lack of homogeneity that has always dogged the MS flightsim series. This, for me, has always been an immersion killer.
How can I 'believe' in the environment if I see trees and houses popping up before my eyes, often in the most unconvincing locations. I eventually grew to hate the word 'autogen'!

Games are put together a bit like theatre set. A number of different elements are chosen to represent certain objects and hence to try and trick us into believing that what we are seeing is real. In this respect CoD fails as miserably as does FSX. This is something that cannot be captured in screenshots.

The only flightsim (I'm sure someone will take issue with that title) that I've played which succeeds spectacularly at creating a homogeneous environment in which all elements seem interrelated, and in which you are not constantly brought back to reality by pop-ups, graphical anomalities and lags is Wing of Prey. In my opinion Gaiijin have done an amazing job at creating a beautifully harmonised game with spectacular graphics which at the same time, even on the highest setting, runs absolutely smoothly.

What's more, WoP, unlike CoD, wasn't broken when it was released, despite which the devs have produced several significant patches which are bringing out its full potential. Soon there will be a mission editor, which will negate the most common accusation against the game: lack of interesting offline content.

It gets a bit tedious hearing the same repetitive insults being thrown at WoP. If you never tried it then at least give it a go, and if you tried it but were disappointed when it was released because it wasn't as sim-like as IL-2 1446 perhaps it would be worth revisiting it now post patches. Why not supporting a serious dev team who really want to extend the experience they are offering, and who already have a solid engine upon which to build an even better game?

Can't resist a couple of shots:





Cheers, GWPC

Originally Posted by gwpc

Just setting aside for now the discussion about colour accuracy, placement of objects etc. Personally I find that one of the most disappointing aspects of the CoD landscape is that it suffers from the same lack of homogeneity that has always dogged the MS flightsim series. This, for me, has always been an immersion killer.
How can I 'believe' in the environment if I see trees and houses popping up before my eyes, often in the most unconvincing locations. I eventually grew to hate the word 'autogen'!

Games are put together a bit like theatre set. A number of different elements are chosen to represent certain objects and hence to try and trick us into believing that what we are seeing is real. In this respect CoD fails as miserably as does FSX. This is something that cannot be captured in screenshots.

The only flightsim (I'm sure someone will take issue with that title) that I've played which succeeds spectacularly at creating a homogeneous environment in which all elements seem interrelated, and in which you are not constantly brought back to reality by pop-ups, graphical anomalities and lags is Wing of Prey. In my opinion Gaiijin have done an amazing job at creating a beautifully harmonised game with spectacular graphics which at the same time, even on the highest setting, runs absolutely smoothly.

What's more, WoP, unlike CoD, wasn't broken when it was released, despite which the devs have produced several significant patches which are bringing out its full potential. Soon there will be a mission editor, which will negate the most common accusation against the game: lack of interesting offline content.

It gets a bit tedious hearing the same repetitive insults being thrown at WoP. If you never tried it then at least give it a go, and if you tried it but were disappointed when it was released because it wasn't as sim-like as IL-2 1446 perhaps it would be worth revisiting it now post patches. Why not supporting a serious dev team who really want to extend the experience they are offering, and who already have a solid engine upon which to build an even better game?

Can't resist a couple of shots:





Cheers, GWPC

Because its DM and FM suck arcade balls.

[gwpc]

Because its DM and FM suck arcade balls

Sorry, I only speak English and Italian, could you translate please?

A presto GWPC

[RocketDog]

I don't have WoP, but it would be interesting to know where CloD has a better FM because I thought it just used the old IL-2 FMs.

[winny]

The problem with WoP (I like it a lot, it's fun) is it dosn't need to do the things that CoD does.

Wop has inaccurate groundscale ( 5 or 4:1 ), inaccurate maps, inaccurate cockpits, inaccurate markings, inaccurate FM, no real engine management, inaccurate amunition... etc etc

CoD, to be taken seriously, has to tackle all of these things and get them as close to real life as they can, not just the looks. WoP can trick you into thinking you are over dover, CoD has to put you over dover..

WoP will take you there and is convincing in it's own way.. It is just not particularly realistic. I ended up interested in CoD because WoP only goes so far.

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by gwpc

Sorry, I only speak English and Italian, could you translate please?

Trust me, you don't want that translated.

[Friendly_flyer]

You guys who are more in the know:

Whan one goes about making a map like the CoD one, is it made by as sort of scripted auto appearance of objects relative to the tiles, or are objects placed by by hand in a FMB-like fashion? If it is the latter, a lot can be done letting the fan base give it a go.