I'm not a troll. You just don't like what I have to say.

Of course I don't. (Except I do, and I'm a developer).

*facepalm*

Did you read anything I wrote? Forget it all, I can't be bothered communicating to a series of brick walls.

I'm a brick wall!!! I stated that these games are attempting two different outcomes clod realism and wop atmosphere.

If your a developer you really need to understand that clod is accessing much more data than wop, I just don't think you can realistically compare the two.

I am not a fan boy I have not stated that clod is superior just that they are different.

Based on what you have said I would never have guessed that you are a developer, not trying to insult you but your logic defies common sense.

+1

Ki-51 more like

Ok, I have just one more thing to say to try to get my point across, then I'm done.

All of the (incredible) simulation aspects of CloD - the FM, DM, CEM, clickable cockpits, this is all code that runs on the CPU. It's independent of the graphics rendering engine.

The graphics rendering runs on the GPU. The code is largely independent of those other things above. That is why I'm saying, you CAN compare the graphics and graphical performance, despite CloD being a much more complicated sim in other aspects not related to graphics.

You are excusing the poor performance of the sim compared to WoP because the game is more complex. The complexity of the sim is only an excuse for the poor graphics engine, in so much as more development time has been spent on other aspects. Which is why I said "lack of resource/experience in the graphics". Please tell me you follow this? Or will I just get another "troll/idiot" response?

I always thought in CoD a wing would brake off in a straight line fashion. Now look at this. This is how my plane broke up after a low altitude flat spin from which i luckily survived. I hope that sometime in the future we will be able to climb out of the plane and inspect the damage FP from nearby. Stunning damage model!

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u...403_160133.jpg
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u...403_160105.jpg

If you were to compare a model from wop to clod you will see which one wins... Yet again I will state it's the art direction not the graphics. I prefer the realistic clod and you find wop appealing, don't confuse graphics and artistic direction.

http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/w...pansion/11.jpg

http://www.wings-of-prey.de/fotos/ju-88-a-4.jpg

http://img832.imageshack.us/i/launch...4022019130.jpg

The graphics are obviously comparable, which is why we are disagreeing. And I do, overall, think WoP looks much more polished because of the effects (you know, shader effects, perspiration on windows, motion blurring).

But my original point wasn't really that I wish CloD had the same art direction, or even prettier graphics. I actually don't care so much about the graphics. It was that WoP does it without breaking any kind of sweat - max everything on full resolution. Look at that screenshot - detailed lighting and shader effects, clouds, plenty of trees, plenty of buildings.

We are talking about graphics rendering performance, and WoP is clearly much better coded in that department. So my original ponit - I wish the guys behind WoP were helping out with CloD graphics engine, because they sorely need it. That is all. I'm not asking for CloD to look like a movie, but it should run about as fast as WoP because the GPU shouldn't have a whole lot more to do.

I know I was said I was done, but I have a serious lack of discipline right now in not entering pointless debates.

Well in that case I revert back to what I said before wait for the patch this Friday and compare then.

Motion blur is speculative some like it some hate it and from what I recall I would say the shadows in clod blast wop out of the water, but I will have another look before confirming this :P

Fair enough.