|
Wynthorp,
Amazing shots. COD may not be 100 percent, but it is beautiful to behold. |
1 Attachment(s)
Sry about the markings.
|
|
LoL had to look twice to get it;)
A CondorSunder-burger:grin: |
1 Attachment(s)
Hunting the big Fish..
|
|
I was playing the single mission where you fly the stuka and came across this when I flew through clouds. A hitler smilie face??
http://vvvbattalion.com/uploads/2011-04-02_00006.jpg |
Quote:
I tried playing with graphing settings yesterday. Added trees (just didn't put them that many) and I can still fly above land. Sure, there's a small fps drop, but it's flyable. (at least with only 1 plane. WIll try this with some more airplane in the air). Without trees everything is really really smooth everywhere. I really couldn't think this would happen in a system like mine. I will add some more other screens later. Cheers! Rick |
@Jaws2002:
Did you make your own Romanian Emil or did you find some undocumented feature? Nice skin anyway! |
|
5 Attachment(s)
Fantastic good looking shots everyone :)
I finaly got my conf.ini to fit my low end PC i7 with GTX285 doing 40-70 fps ;) ~S~ |
1 Attachment(s)
Need some spare Parts :-P
|
Quote:
|
Very very very (very x 10) beautiful screens people ! :)
|
|
Any screenshot of night lights? I can't get them to light to enemy planes...
|
|
|
1 Attachment(s)
Local girls love my Spitfire :)
|
5 Attachment(s)
From Sukhoi.ru
|
Wow Rodolphe you're a "Screenmaster" ! :) so beautiful.
|
Here's my contribution. Even with it's flaws, CoD is ok and runs better with my old Quad 6600 and Geforce 460 than expected. Hopefully will be better in the future.
My crashlanding went quite well :cool: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/...6d909979_b.jpg |
|
Some of these screenshots really do look cinematic to my eyes, like frames pulled out of a movie. Good stuff.
|
Nice ones GallandWolf:) especially that Hurricane, looks really good.
|
Great shots gents.:grin:
I've been working on this Romanian skin yesterday, still need a bit of work, but I'll be bussy for a while, so you can try it as it is now. Here is the link: http://www.mediafire.com/?ybgmayw32kliquq and the mandatory screens. :D http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...404_155020.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...404_152800.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...404_151804.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...404_145942.jpg |
4 Attachment(s)
Flying around today and landing...
|
some more
Hi
Funny detail in stuka misty glass: http://test.ailantd.com/shots/carita.jpg And, I love this kind of glass reflection and shadowing, it adds a lot of immersion and feeling: http://test.ailantd.com/shots/reflejos.jpg Love this sim and all the fine details devs put in it. Can't wait that they put in it bad whether and raining effects if it is done like all this. |
Aside from some of the screenshots on MAX where the plane is parked on the grass by some pretty trees, which do look great...
The game looks to me (cockpits aside) worse than Wings of Prey. That is to say, unless you're literally parked on the ground, I'd say that WoP looks better and runs probably 15 times as smoothly. If only 1C could get the resources in that whoever made WoP had. They clearly know much better what they're doing when it comes to making a rendering engine. |
Gawd, when will these senseless and totally pointless comparisons with a frigging arcade shooter stop? WOP has a viewing distance which would cause all flights in CloD to be terminated because of bad weather. And don't get me started on their filter nonsense ... :roll:
|
Quote:
1. Oleg and crew made the WOP engine (it's the IL-2 Engine), the WOP team made a few alterations, that about it. 2. WOP looks like crap when you get low. It's looks like crap when you're on the ground, and it looks like a stylized cartoon when you are in the air. 3. Maps are postage-stamp sized. 4. Wings of Prey is a console game with a lot of shortcuts and tricks to make you think it's realistic looking. The realism (FM/Damage) is really simplified, and . .. . I don't know why I am bothering to type this. If you're daft enough to type what you did then you're not going to listen to reason. Cliffs of Dover for the most part runs like crap. It's essentially still in a beta stage, and it's designed for tomorrow's hardware. Sucks for trying to play it now on a budget, but there is pretty much no feature (besides system specs that allow you to play the game) that WOP even begins to approach COD. |
|
Quote:
1.) I am pretty sure that WoP uses its own rendering engine. Only flight modeling was borrowed from Il-2. 2.) It looks pretty damn good for the resources it needs. The whole package is coherent, the art direction is clear - I can't say that about CloD currently. WoP is not going for realism, but movie-ism. It's not IL-2 style, but it's lot of people's style. It certainly doesn't look like crap. Do you say that Band of Brothers or The Pacific look like crap because directors decided to run a bleach-by-pass on the frames? 3.) Map size doesn't affect performance, rendering distance matters more. 4.) If it looks good, and tricks you to think that it's good, then it's good. For what it's worth, given the resources it needs, it runs as a pretty damn good polished package. |
Ignorance is bliss indeed. :)
Nope, speculum jockey is right in every point. |
Quote:
So, and this is what we say, there is not comparison from what WoP does and what CoD does even in its current state. CoD engine could do what WoP does with no problem, and I'm sure even with better fps, turning down terrain size, number of objects in scene, fx, lighting, flight dinamics, damage, IA, and so... but then it would not be CoD needing some patches (as many games does, sadly, when released, old FB with them ), would be another arcade sim wich CoD is not and never pretended. WoP engine simply can't do what CoD does. No way. If you can't see that difference, and don't realize what bigger in code and complexity that difference is, then you should be playing WoP. |
Just curious and without speaking of the filter (I hate the filter too) can someone show me a landscape shot of Wop which looks bad ?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But what the original author was talking about how it looks - art direction. A great engine can't do jack without equally great art direction. A good testament of how tight WoP's art is that their game doesn't have quarter the amount details of CloD, but people are still comparing it to CloD. Imagine what CloD could benefit if it had the same polish. Hopefully some day we will get there. Btw, I don't play WoP even though I have a copy of it sitting on my HD. It's not my cup of tea, but it bothers me when people rags on it because it's not 'realistic' enough, or that 'graphics' are 'tricks' - all computer graphics are 'tricks'. |
Quote:
"If only 1C could get the resources in that whoever made WoP had. They clearly know much better what they're doing when it comes to making a rendering engine." That statement is not much related to art direction really but technicaly. And even in art direction I really like much more CoD approach than WoP, but I understand is a mather of taste and completely subjective, so no point in discuss about it. |
Less talky talky more screenshoty shoty!:-P
|
Some of my screens
Quote:
Quote:
Uploaded with ImageShack.us http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/3...4032045318.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/406...4032046332.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7...4032047576.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/QUOTE] |
Thanks
|
Biggest Fire I've Seen In Game Yet!
4 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
And Again!
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Blast! The other one of the fire wouldn't upload. Try again. |
2 Attachment(s)
Here you go.
|
|
These "couple more" shots show very well the very very big photo-realistic potential of the Clodo render engine.
If only this has not been f... up with such a strange and messy game issuing ! First measure if I had some authority there : let's open the ground textures to the modders not "in two weeks" or "two months" but NOW !!! |
Gallandwolf, just in case you didn't know, you can get rid of those little black vertical lines on the right in your screenshots.
I think you just rightmouse click on them with ctrl or something and a popup menu will come up so you can close them. They are some default in game menus/info boxes. |
|
1 Attachment(s)
Tangmere AF
|
Some seriously good SS's people have posted. Really nice.
Was flying about trying to take down this BF109, when my screen went rather dark. So I paused and had a look: (didn't hear anything, I'm sure the sound is borked at times). http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4820/spitfooked.png On closer inspection, I had quite a bit of damage. So I took some extra shots. Make of it as you will. http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4613/spitfooked2.png EDIT: sorry for the size. Thought I had resized it. |
A few pictures from the frontline...
http://i52.tinypic.com/uyqki.jpg FMB screenie showing the ability to customise aircrews skills to an amazing degree http://i56.tinypic.com/30xc2lf.jpg Formation skydiving proved to be a popular pre-war past-time with many Luftwaffe personnel http://i52.tinypic.com/2s6pshe.jpg I love the realistic twisting of crash-landed props in this sim http://i51.tinypic.com/2rwn4ft.jpg A reconnaissance Dornier limps home with a dropped undercarriage leg http://i55.tinypic.com/xn9ouq.jpg A Hurricane goes down aflame over Ramsgate http://i54.tinypic.com/dyrnyh.jpg A high altitude 'bounce' above the CloD!! http://i53.tinypic.com/1jq8uv.jpg A Bf109's belly raked with British 0.303 strikes http://i54.tinypic.com/257gnk5.jpg Couldn't get much closer - just as well that Bf109 pilot has taken his time in bailing out! http://i56.tinypic.com/34pl1q8.jpg The evocative shape of a Spitfire in pre-war identification markings http://i52.tinypic.com/2a9e7ud.jpg Following a pancake... http://i52.tinypic.com/msm7at.jpg All the RAF toys get put back in their box... http://i56.tinypic.com/2isbo6w.jpg In time for tea and biscuits. BobTuck. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm talking about rendering engines here, performance, graphics. FM/DM/CEM/etc doesn't come into it, CloD is obviously unparalleled as a simulation. But graphically, I stand by what I said about WoP. Those developers are obviously much more experienced at putting together a rendering engine. Art direction aside (you say it looks like a stylised cartoon, but that's just filters)... from a technical point of view it's superior in the graphics department. It doesn't look as good parked by a forest as CloD on MAX and the cockpits are less detailed, but in every other respect. The WoP code - only some parts from IL2 Sturmovik (FM I believe), it's not the same engine. So basically, your post doesn't make sense and I stand by what I said about the rendering engines. 1C Maddox needs to hire some experience. |
Rofl IMHO I hated the wop graphic style horrible green filter looked like I was flying through algae, lighting/bloom was good but majorly over the top and the shadows are rubbish in comparison to clod. I think the main reason some ppl like one over the other is the art style, clod strives for a realistic view and wop a try to build on the atmosphere.
At the end of the day I see it like this wop small highly detailed land at a distance for dogfighting, clod realism and catering for large maps for missions. Wop may look good but it is in no way realistic anyone that has look out of an aircraft should see this. |
Quote:
The rendering performance is far inferior to WoP, this should be a given. Why deny it? The art style is irrelevant. That's textures and filters. The complexity of the sim is also not relevant to graphical quality and performance. The size of the map is also irrelevant, you shouldn't be rendering something you can't see on the screen. I'm sure that a CloD developer, if he was able to speak freely, would hold up his hands and say "we don't have the experience or resources to make a rendering engine as efficient as the WoP one". It amazes me that some of you can't see that the developers have some serious lack of resource, despite them openly admitting it. They're having problems with tree generation, SLI, buildings, clouds, the list goes on. I wish I hadn't bothered making a remark about the graphics now. There are too many rabid fanboys. I love IL2 Sturmovik and I want this sequel to be as good as it can be, but I don't see why I should stick my head in the sand. The dev team should not be immune to criticism in some silly attempt to "save" them. They will be judged on the merit of their work (and patches!), not on this forum. |
Jesus Christ what a troll... As i stated its my IMHO and we know its buggy ATM wait until Fridays patch and then compare them.
So wop graphics are realistic!!!!!!!!!! what drugs have you been taking. |
Quote:
It is not the same, not even similar, render a small terrain, wich is static in memory, or large wich need to be swapping as necessary from memory. Not even close. To make WoP is easy, really easy, compared with CoD. If you want you can compare with FSX, wich is the only that is doing something similar with worse quality fron near. And yes, terrain that is not viewed is not rendered, but CoD has a very very far horizon compared with WoP. Technically CoD is far superior than WoP in every aspect. And, as I posted before, if Luthier could (or want, wich is not the case, fortunately ) remove that large scenery, reduce tree number, view distance, reduce shadows, FM, DM, IA... then you will have, with the same engine, an arcadish game like WoP, but more beautifull and for sure with more smooth gameplay. I would like to see anyway the WoP engine performing like CoD with similiar terrain ad FX and.. oh wait... WoP engine can´t do that! |
I'm not a troll. You just don't like what I have to say.
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
First, you take a small map, something like 50x50 miles. Then you hand paint the entire map texture. Next you scale up all the ground objects to something like 1.5 times normal so they look in-scale to each other but you can cover twice the area with the same number of objects, without the scaling becoming too apparent from the air. Then you turn down draw distance to about 2-3 miles and add a nice atmospheric fog to hide the short distance in which objects are visible. Next you add some nice little graphical touches, like self shadowing and canopies that get streaked with rain when you run into clouds. Finally, you finish off with a movie style color palette, with contrast and saturation turned up and brightness turned down, and carefully match the colors of the trees with the ground around them to make forests look more "dense". Overall effect looks very slick and coherent, not necessarily realistic, but still looks good. CoD on the other hand is trying to look realistic, so it needs much bigger draw distances, properly scaled ground objects (and hence a lot more of them), has more complex ground geometry, needs to look good from altitude, not just under 10,000ft, etc, etc. Considering that the engine is currently not nearly as optimized as WoP's, and the much greater requirements, and sure, CoD will not look as polished and will have trouble running half as well as WoP. |
|
I do not understand the praise for WoP's graphics. You're flying around a green fog. The game looks awful.
|
|
|
I've flown for real at 500 ft and I've flown at 50,000 ft and Clodo looks so real its almost difficult to tell its not a photo. From the water reflections to the haze, to the cockpit reflections. I'm totally floored at how convincing it is.
|
My turn. This game is JUST amazing. My PC (I7 860, HD6950 2ghz VRAM + 8ghz DDR3) is well exploited and the game looks very nice in High Quality :)
http://uppix.net/a/3/0/7dc0e69cfee7f...04ccafcdtt.jpg http://uppix.net/0/9/6/bbc67c4dc8dc6...3a3da9b8tt.jpg http://uppix.net/e/3/c/2543f2bfb265e...7ab093dbtt.jpghttp://uppix.net/8/8/1/f6491015af84d...4ad0d82btt.jpg |
This game is beautiful :)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Rendering engines don't exist on their own. There's also a game that needs to be run somewhere in there too. I think if CoD was running the same simulation/collision detection/damage modelling/etc etc etc that WoP does, the rendering engine could have certainly been made to do more and do it more smoothly. And then it would only be artistic choices that make the differences. I think if the WoP people had a priority on making their game do the same content as CoD, they would have had to compromise their rendering as well. That's just the way it works. So while it's perfectly alright to think that WoP looks better in whatever way, I think it's wrong to think that you could just shove their rendering techniques/engine into CoD and 'fix' it. It would probably encounter the very same problems CoD is having right now. The WoP people made their choice: Graphics over gameplay. CoD went the other way. That said, I still think CoD looks beautiful. Especially compared with other games of its type and by that I mean true simulations. FSX or BoB2:WoV or Rise of Flight or DCS sims or what have you. These are the titles that will show you what is possible graphically when making a SIM. Comparing the graphics of WoP to CoD is like comparing the graphics of Crysis 2 to Arma 2. If you want Arma2, you can't have graphics like Crysis 2. It just ain't happening. Not yet. Arma 2 still looks great, but it's restricted in how great it can look by all the other stuff it's doing that a game like Crysis 2 doesn't do. HAWX looks pretty good too, but if HAWX had huge maps, a complex damage model and flight model, large view distances, and complex AI, it would be ahead of its time just like CoD is. As for remarks about sim stuff being CPU and graphics stuff being GPU, that's all well and good IF they operated independantly. I don't think they do. These are moving objects in a simulation. Before a renderer can do that kind of work, it needs the information that's being processed by the simulation. Take for example the simple rendering of a bullet hole on a wing. Before the renderer can display the appropriate image on your screen, the sim has to decide if the bullet hit your wing, where did it hit exactly, what damage was done by the bullet and needs to be displayed etc. CoD uses some pretty complex decisions for all that stuff. The renderer may be blisteringly fast, but it can only work with the information that the Cpu gives it. WoP I think is pretty simple in these kinds of matters, so it gets the data to the gpu faster and the gpu can render the scene faster as a result. That's what I believe anyway. Since CoD looks better than any WWII Battle of Britain sim I know of, I'm not complaining at all. It can only get better from here. |
Quote:
|
This game is not only beautiful, it is truly stunning! :!:
Look at some trees and grass for a while... notice that there isn't only a constant breeze - every now and again a strong wind comes up! I actually shivvered! :grin: Well, here is a little experiment I made: Two screenshots, merged into one for a 3D effect (Cross-Eye-skills required! :-P) I want to play it like that RIGHT NOW!!! :grin: http://www7.pic-upload.de/06.04.11/iw1bfelqgwql.jpg |
|
http://www.imageshack.no/16d
I found that setting a 150 yd convergence on the spit landed me some crazy results in a turnfight with 109. This is from a 2 second burst showing 334 hits (according to stats) which killed the pilot and I'm pretty sure it knocked out a lot of systems. Engine escaped unharmed though :P Saved that one for the ocean ;) Gotta say, I admire the damage details :D |
Quote:
ps, are you hosting any skins on a site? |
the 150y convergence was used by some pilots against bombers (check spitfire ace series on youtube)
|
|
I was kinda expecting the terrain to look as good as this, which is also a sim..
http://www.wingsofhonour.com/news/20...80x800x32b.jpg |
Quote:
|
Hey, but they have collision model :-P
Very nice RoF screenshot. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Look at luthier roadmap it's all there.
|
|
Prolonged flight in a cloud is not a good idea..
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/3647/frosty.png .. that isn't cloud you are seeing but a fully iced-up canopy! Resizing in paint kills the quality it seems. :s |
Doing a final pass alongside the target after emptying my last cowling MG rounds into the 5th Hurricane I shot down. Guess it's his lucky day :)
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8402/bf109victory.th.png Uploaded with ImageShack.us |
1 Attachment(s)
Close call but I made it: :grin:
|
Nice pics Kristorf,I especially like the yellow spinner on the Spit,is this possible to do in game or is this a special skin?
|
I'm telling you, there are little details that get noticed the more you play. A simple cross-country flight, taking off at 4am.
Flying around low-area's, I noticed early morning mist, a true trait to the English country-side on an early summer's morning! http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/8303/morningmist.png |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.