Quote:
Originally Posted by JG52Krupi
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.
|
What is it with you guys?! "Rofl"?
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.