Friday update and discussions 2011-03-04

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by LukeFF

I just wanna go one week without someone making yet another inane comparison with WoP.

OK... let's forget the mentioned game example... (far from my favorite)

So without it - Do You think that presented graphics achievements are impressive in March2011 ?

Or maybe clouds and land visuals are not important in video presentation of new generation flight sim, even combat one ?

Not heating up feelings... just interested in your simple answer.

[Foo'bar]

I think too many people here around try to compare a flight sim with a first person shooter. Of course there are shooters wich look more impressive. But compared with other flight sims Il2CoD looks really very real imho.

Perhaps in 10 years flight sims will look as phantastic as shooters.

[ElAurens]

+1

I don't think FPS players or people trying to compare a FPS game or an arcade flying game like WoP quite understand that it's far easier to have great visuals when you have a map the size of a postage stamp.

I have mentioned this before, ArmA II Operation Arrowhead's visuals are often held up as state of the art for "simulations", yet no one bothers to mention that the largest map in that title, "Takistan" is a mere 164 square kilometers. That makes it roughly 12km on a side, if my admittedly poor math skills are right. So it's slightly larger than one grid square on the original IL2 Kuban map. And even at it's small size, cranking up the visibility distance to a mere three kilometers will grind many current computers to single digit frame rates.

Think a bit folks.

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

+1


Think a bit folks.

Whew! Busted a gut on that one, Mate. Aren't you asking a bit much?

[ElAurens]

I suppose I am BadAim, but I have to try.

[Space Communist]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

+1

I don't think FPS players or people trying to compare a FPS game or an arcade flying game like WoP quite understand that it's far easier to have great visuals when you have a map the size of a postage stamp.

I have mentioned this before, ArmA II Operation Arrowhead's visuals are often held up as state of the art for "simulations", yet no one bothers to mention that the largest map in that title, "Takistan" is a mere 164 square kilometers. That makes it roughly 12km on a side, if my admittedly poor math skills are right. So it's slightly larger than one grid square on the original IL2 Kuban map. And even at it's small size, cranking up the visibility distance to a mere three kilometers will grind many current computers to single digit frame rates.

Think a bit folks.

Also, When you are actually up in the air the detail in ArmA 2 is not, in my view, any better than what we have seen in CoD. At least at the medium-high graphics settings I can run the game at. The atmospheric effects (of ArmA) in particular are plainly inferior.

Don't get me wrong I love ArmA. It looks great on the ground, and it's the closest thing we have to a full war sim as far as I know.

If the development path of IL-2 was any indicator than CoD will look like ArmA 2 does on the ground but at any altitude after a few years of Moore's law at work.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

+1

I don't think FPS players or people trying to compare a FPS game or an arcade flying game like WoP quite understand that it's far easier to have great visuals when you have a map the size of a postage stamp.

I have mentioned this before, ArmA II Operation Arrowhead's visuals are often held up as state of the art for "simulations", yet no one bothers to mention that the largest map in that title, "Takistan" is a mere 164 square kilometers. That makes it roughly 12km on a side, if my admittedly poor math skills are right. So it's slightly larger than one grid square on the original IL2 Kuban map. And even at it's small size, cranking up the visibility distance to a mere three kilometers will grind many current computers to single digit frame rates.

Think a bit folks.

Thats a stupid comparison, arma 2 maps are far far more detailed then anything in COD or il2 or any flightsim. When you can get out of the plane, walk around buildings, hide in the grass/bush, see individual pebbles on the ground your comparison looks absurd.

COD does not have anywhere near the up close visual fidelity arma 2 has, while arma 2 does not have the scope that cod has. But arma 2 is also a flightsim, and ground combat sim all in one. Also the engine came out 2 years ago I believe...

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

COD does not have anywhere near the up close visual fidelity arma 2 has, while arma 2 does not have the scope that cod has.

Isn't this just a para-phrasing of ElAurens' post? I don't see where you actually disagree with him. His post is just pointing out how this difference in scope makes their up-close visual fidelity incomparable.

Originally Posted by Heliocon

But arma 2 is also a flightsim, and ground combat sim all in one. Also the engine came out 2 years ago I believe...

I'd say calling Arma 2 a flight sim is pretty generous.

[SQB]

I sort of understand the gripes with the bailed out pilot... but honestly? At 500kph a small body tumbling out of a plane is hard to spot in detail, sure we could get euphoria physics if you feel like forking out 2 grand for the game but I think this is good enough.

[addman]

I would like to see what the ground in ArmA II looks like from 20k up in the air. Somebody who have the game, plz take a screenshot from that altitude and let's compare it with the high altitude screens we've seen of CoD.