CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[Zoom2136]

Originally Posted by Letum

WoP has those horrible filters, but the shape and definition of the fields and patches of woodland looks MUCH better than CloD.

I think this is a fairer representation of FSX; the South East England scenery pack:
The onlt one to get the colours about right.

Well FSX is a fly high so this look good sim, COD is more an avoid the squirls and fly low kind of sims... FSX down low is not good looking at all. But COD up high is good, consireding that is depicting 1940's scenary... 2010...

But hey, I owned both

[addman]

It doesn't matter how detailed and pop-up free the buildings are if they are just stacked on a big old satellite image. From way up high it's ok but down low, ugh! just horrible. It just kills the illusion IMO. The contrast between ultra detailed ground objects and a pasted on satellite imagery is just too great. Clod FTW!

[jibo]

Originally Posted by mazex

Mmm, is the Virge an upgrade compared to my Trio?

yeah it has a brand new 3D engine, i'am not sure we can be friends

[mazex]

Originally Posted by jibo

yeah it has a brand new 3D engine, i'am not sure we can be friends

Nope - I went from my Trio64 to the Matrox Millenium (v1). The worlds least used 3D hardware. But the 2D was good!

[Eldur]

Originally Posted by jibo

sorry il2 is better for me


486 DX2 66mhz
4MB ram
S3 Virge

Don't you have sound card?
And you should upgrade your memory. I've got the same rig with 16MB

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by mazex

Did one of these comparisons when the first landscape shots of CoD arrived to I thought a revisit with the current version would be interesting as I've read some people that are discontent with CoD that said they where going back to FSX, X-Plane, WoP etc....

So let's compare apples and pears?

FSX on max:



CoD on high (on my old rig with no stuttering and rather OK fluid fps - better than FSX!):



Ohh - and then we have the bunch that say that WoP has so much better graphics than CoD (which they claim does not look much better than IL2). Lets test that?

CoD (aka "the real Deal"?):


WoP:


And add IL2 (pimped):

This is not a fair post. I agree with you on FSX but you are varying the altitudes. WOP at low altitude looks alot better than COD and performes alot better. At high altitude COD looks better though.

ALSO in WOP you can have like 50+ aircraft in the air fighting over a city and it is absolutely stutter/lag free, buildings are all there (there is no filler, so in the distance everything is present and they dont teleport into place).

Misleading comparison (whether intentional or not).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHkDdTJvK8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75eyrPIRTpY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acVLG-Cbpug

It all runs smooth as silk, and can be played maxed out easy on even low mid range pcs.

[Dano]

ALSO in WOP you can have like 50+ aircraft in the air fighting over a city and it is absolutely stutter/lag free, buildings are all there (there is no filler, so in the distance everything is present and they dont teleport into place).

You're wrong in this aspect, WOP just does a very good job of hiding it but if you look you can see it all fading in.

CoD has gotten better at it but it's still too easy to see the blocks pop in and then fade to full opacity.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Dano

You're wrong in this aspect, WOP just does a very good job of hiding it but if you look you can see it all fading in.

CoD has gotten better at it but it's still too easy to see the blocks pop in and then fade to full opacity.

Yes you are correct, but WOP does it at alot farther distance. I 100% gurantee you the LOS for WOP is atleast double of the LOS in COD. I have WOP on 1920x1200 and I can full zoom into the distance which is a good few minutes fly away and I can see buildings/city. Also never ever seen building/detail pop.

Go given that the buildings actually appear at a further distance, and you never notice them appearing, and it runs super smooth without problem even with many aircraft in the air while it is still a older game (originally for console - and it uses lots of the IL2 engine and models) the fact that it imo gives comparable graphics and in some places far better graphics while having no performance problem makes me say the WOP team was far more competent in their programming.

Also remember while WOP has IL2's FM/DM the trees actually have hitboxes... so if they can do it on a console/low end $500 or so computer why the hell cant the COD devs???

[warbirds]

Wow WOP looks just the way I remember it, like crap. FSX always has looked bad at any altitude. COD looks great and is my current choice for just flying around from airfield to airfield. I don't really understand what other people see in the graphics of WOP, the cockpits look bad, the planes or just ok and the scenery is all green and really blah.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Here we go again.

Ho Hum.