Pre-Purchase DCS P-51 Now!

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

It is hard to compare because Normandy and Kuban+Georgia have very different landscapes. The former is flat mostly and features lots of patches of various fields, while the last one is mountainous and incredibly cluttered with trees and bushes. In anyway, CoD engine seems more advanced, and has more features for better landscape lightning and details, so Kuban for Cod would probably look better.

P.S: Water is always rendered like it is at sea level in DCS, so if you are flying in mountains and look at lake there, you may feel like someone is doing "F" with your mind.

DCS scenery is designed to keep the resources down, please take into consideration the square area size of the scenery represented in both cases. il2 scenery bogs your system down to level that makes flying (whats the opposite of fluid). DCS terrain lets you go on and on never questioning the frame resources from one area to the next. yes CLOD is more advanced and substancially more appealing. but has not proved its worth as of yet imo.

[ATAG_Doc]

Cliffs of Dover should have taken a page from DCS I guess. Skimp on the details to save on resources.

[tintifaxl]

Actually I prefer the look and feel of the DCS engine. Not the details - here CloD wins hands down, but although CloD looks very beautiful, it has a cartoonish touch to it. And I don't like CloD's occasionally missing houses at the edge of a village and the strange LOD (square) when high up.

I think DCS's next gen ground engine will be a major step forward, based on the screenshots of the Nevada terrain.

Originally Posted by tintifaxl

Actually I prefer the look and feel of the DCS engine. Not the details - here CloD wins hands down, but although CloD looks very beautiful, it has a cartoonish touch to it. And I don't like CloD's occasionally missing houses at the edge of a village and the strange LOD (square) when high up.

I think DCS's next gen ground engine will be a major step forward, based on the screenshots of the Nevada terrain.

i think like IL2 the next engine will obviously tax our systems even more and probally like il2 be heavily dependant on latest graphics technology. cant wait. just waiting to order a 670....

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by 1.JaVA_Sharp

did someone check 1.34 on that vid and what was visible?

To be honest on second look, it looks fake, there is no shadow under that 109, and really it kinda looks out of place lighting wise, but I could be wrong...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by tintifaxl

Actually I prefer the look and feel of the DCS engine. Not the details -

At high altitude I think both look great and have their pros and cons.. The DCS engine starts to show it's age the lower you go.

Originally Posted by tintifaxl

here CloD wins hands down,

Which is necessary what with the direction of CoD being more than just a flight simulator

Originally Posted by tintifaxl

but although CloD looks very beautiful, it has a cartoonish touch to it. And I don't like CloD's occasionally missing houses at the edge of a village and the strange LOD (square) when high up.

I can't put my finger on it.. but I agree.. Something about it looks cartoonish.. I think it has to do with the scaling.. For example, in IL-2, when flying around, did you ever ask yourself.. Why can I see more airfilelds than farms? CoD kind of has that fake look to it too..

Originally Posted by tintifaxl

I think DCS's next gen ground engine will be a major step forward, based on the screenshots of the Nevada terrain.

Only time will tell.. They said the same thing about CoD a few years ago!

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Only time will tell.. They said the same thing about CoD a few years ago!

Thats the thing right, I mean it scares me to see some of those screenshots... will we all need new computers?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

Thats the thing right, I mean it scares me to see some of those screenshots... will we all need new computers?

Count on it!

Which is understandable.. When a game company puts in a effort to make a new game engine.. They are not targeting the current crop of video cards.. They are looking a few years down the road at hardware that does not even exist yet.. Thus once it is released it is 'expected' that only the current top of the line cards will even stand a chance of running at full settings at a decent but low fps.. But, a couple of years down the road, your average PC will be able to handled the graphics, and a few more years a low end PC will be able to handle the graphics

This is exactally what we 'had' with IL-2 and exactally what we 'have' with CoD

So, I fully expect that we will need new vid cards as a min upon release of a new game engine if not a whole new PC

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Count on it!

Which is understandable.. When a game company puts in a effort to make a new game engine.. They are not targeting the current crop of video cards.. They are looking a few years down the road at hardware that does not even exist yet.. Thus once it is released it is 'expected' that only the current top of the line cards will even stand a chance of running at full settings at a decent but low fps.. But, a couple of years down the road, your average PC will be able to handled the graphics, and a few more years a low end PC will be able to handle the graphics

This is exactally what we 'had' with IL-2 and exactally what we 'have' with CoD

So, I fully expect that we will need new vid cards as a min upon release of a new game engine if not a whole new PC

I get that, you get that.... the wife... not so much lol.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

I get that, you get that.... the wife... not so much lol.

LOL.. Chicks Maaan.. Chicks!