Just imagine CloD with WoP map

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by DK-nme

My ten commandments (screenies), who depicts some of the GFX problems this game is battling, and which hopefully will be fixed in near future (though I do not trust to hope):
1. 3D objects and buildings are way to sharp in contrast to the softening surroundings (rendering or LOD problem's?).
2. The blurry landscape in the horizon, looks like a cotton blanket.
3. The grey smudges representing cities at high altitude are ugly as hell and are in fact GFX leftovers from il-2 sturmovik (a game, that now is 10 years old).
4. The water is wronly scaled (compared to the surroundings) and it is terrible colored (no water in N-Europe is colored that way!)
5. The awful shore, that seems to hover above the water.
6. The smoke colomns, that are limited in hight (again leftovers from il-2 sturmovik).
7. The weidlooking trees, that look like small lullypops.
8. The clouds that looks like small cottonballs (totally unrealistic - we need real atmospheric cumulus clouds!)
9. The overall colorpalette is somewhat flat and unrealistic.
10. The compleely missing immersion effect of being high above the ground/water.

Points 4 and 8 have been confirmed as in development various times. Meaning, there is transparent water and dynamic weather in the works and it will come with the patches.

As for the rest i can't be sure, but the sim is what it is for now. I'm more concerned about actual gameplay issues because the graphics are functional enough as they are now and you guys keep hogging all the attention with graphics related requests

Does anyone actually fly these planes or are we all just looking at them for the most part?

its a tough life being graphics in il2. here's an objective look at what our scenery is going through.
http://youtu.be/XUa_viVGNNs

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

...

As for the rest i can't be sure, but the sim is what it is for now. I'm more concerned about actual gameplay issues because the graphics are functional enough as they are now and you guys keep hogging all the attention with graphics related requests

Does anyone actually fly these planes or are we all just looking at them for the most part?

I think 'functional' is a good word for the current state of play in a lot of the terrain graphics features.

People obviously have different preferences and opinions about the most important features of the game.

What would worry me is if the devs were to settle for merely 'functional' looking terrain and devote all their attention onto other technical aspects. There should obviously be a balance achieved between the quality of the different elements (graphics, fm, dm, gameplay, AI, etc, etc) with most effort being addressed to wherever the sim is currently weakest.

So I'm actually pleased that threads like this draw the devs attention to the terrain aspects as something that many of us would like to see improved.

Having said that, maybe it's now time to move on. I think they'll have got the message by now.

But it would be nice to hear from luthier what their take is on this issue - we know some terrain improvements are on the way, but what will be the extent of future improvements?

[Ploughman]

I wish the landscape graphics were functional. If you haven't got a very good system they're anything but unless you turn them right down in which case landscape hardly describes the undulating, blurred wasteland populated by the occassional poorly skinned box representing a building of some sort and the odd lonely windmill spinning gently in the breeze. If we're going to have a functional placeholder of a landscape why not stick with a pimped Il-2 46? At least that ran like greased owl effluent on my rig.

I've a Q6600, GT9800 1GB, 4GB RAM, Vista32 so granted, tepid at best, and perhaps I deserve to be exiled to on-line maps and mid-Channel actionand have unreaslistic expectations of being able to fly round in a believable simulated environment.