|
|
|
|
#1
12-14-2012, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I pre ordered the map about 6 months ago when it was first put on sale. Will be very interesting to compare the two maps. 
|
|
#2
12-16-2012, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
But there are clouds in ROF, and co-ops, and no crashes etc etc etc.
Let's wait until the DN engine properly models the white cliffs for a BOS sequel. Really, what is the point of comparing CLOD and ROF? One looks better than the other at certain things. One works, one doesn't. Both have good and bad points and require optimisation to look at their best. CLOD at 12 noon looks rubbish. ROF without tweaks looks cartoon-ish. Set CLOD to 17:00 and wow - set ROF to 17:00 plus clouds etc and wow. Woopee. Hood
|
|
#3
12-16-2012, 10:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hood, I think the main concern I have with ROF is there is not enough time for objects development. My second concern is that the CEM will not be there...I'm sure ROF will pull it off and be successful at first, but I think it will wear off for the users rather quickly, if Clod can be revived they will leave it.
__________________
 GigaByteBoard...64bit...FX 4300 3.8, G. Skill sniper 1866 32GB, EVGA GTX 660 ti 3gb, Raptor 64mb cache, Planar 120Hz 2ms, CH controls, Tir5
|
|
#4
12-16-2012, 11:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Slip, I share every possible concern you may have, and more besides.
I also know that CLODs potential was never realised when ROFs was. I've got ROF. and like it a lot but WW1 isn't as much of a pull for me as WW2. As it is for me ROF is now a work of art but one that doesn't tug the heart strings. My point is that we don't know what we'll be getting so there is no point comparing A to B when we're getting C. If I had to bet on it I reckon we'll get something that is more like CLOD than ROF but not quite CLOD. CLOD-lite with everything functioning. It maybe better than CLOD. If what we get is high fidelity FM/DMs and graphics that look great then we all win. If we get more then we're lucky indeed. I can see CEM being good enough (thankfully I fly blue when I can so I have the automommandervthingy to do everything for me). I'm rambling now so I'll just repeat that it is pointless A fans bashing B fans and vice versa. Hood Last edited by Hood; 12-16-2012 at 11:54 PM.
|
|
#5
12-17-2012, 01:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
12-14-2012, 08:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think you missed the point Vranac was making AM. We don't want to control ground objects, we just want them there doing basic things. If they are not there then you do not have the realism required.
|
|
#8
12-14-2012, 09:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
12-14-2012, 09:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
[QUOTE][We don't want to control ground objects, we just want them there doing basic things. If they are not there then you do not have the realism required./QUOTE]
+1 an engine with different categories of objects is much more flexible in terms of resources management. If some objects need only to be static targets we do not mind that they "have a brain". Usually a mission has combinations of different AI objects (stationary, moving, shotting ......). This way you can setup complex game areas with lot of objects, lot of targets, lot of activities to do for the player.
|
|
#10
12-13-2012, 12:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 | AFBs of CloD 2[/URL] |www.pumaszallas.hu i7 7700K 4.8GHz, 32GB Ram 3GHz, MSI GTX 1070 8GB, 27' 1920x1080, W10/64, TrackIR 4Pro, G940 Cliffs of Dover Bugtracker site: share and vote issues here
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
