WoP + CoD = Wopcod

[JG52Krupi]

Revi your an ass

Open your eyes the graphics in wop are not great.

The ground looks good but that's because they only have a small area to load and can fill it with detail. Cod on the other hand has incrediable detail from all heights and is ******* HUGE in comparison.

Looking ahead Wop 2 will look fantastic BUT it will not be for everyone's taste.

Take stalker and metro2033 for a kind of example. Metro is a fantastic game and has tones of atmosphere and is an awesome game BUT IMHO it only holds up against stalker in terms if graphics everything else stalker clearly kicks ass because it's not confined by rails I.e. Corridor shooter. I am sure the same will be said for wop2 sure it's gonna look nice and will be fun to play but at the end if the day it's a dogfight game while clod is the whole shabang the real deal.

[jojimbo]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Open your eyes the graphics in wop are not great.

The ground looks good but that's because they only have a small area to load and can fill it with detail. Cod on the other hand has incrediable detail from all heights and is ******* HUGE in comparison.

wop terrain graphics are some of the best ever created:FACT

the area CoD loads is "smaller" than CFS3 and runs like a bitch:FACT
(was dissapointed there were no channel islands)

WoP loads and runs smoothe, there definately an engine problem with CoD.

CoD terrain and graphics look terrible:FACT

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by jojimbo

wop terrain graphics are some of the best ever created:FACT

the area CoD loads is "smaller" than CFS3 and runs like a bitch:FACT
(was dissapointed there were no channel islands)

WoP loads and runs smoothe, there definately an engine problem with CoD.

CoD terrain and graphics look terrible:FACT

U clearly need your eyes testing FACT, the terrain looks good fir me its optimised for all heights.

There is nothing wrong with the terrain in clod other than the colors and last time I flew at a low height in wop I was duisturbed by how bad it is.

Wop runs fine because it doesn't push your hardware clod does and that has nothing to do with the bad optimisation it's simply a FACT that it would push our hardware like the original il2 did and RoF etc

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

it wasnt optimised to run on multi cores for a start,since the patch that has improved it, but thats 1 example .

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by M1sF1rE

I wanted to love this sim, but I'm not a hardcore purist like many in this forum.

And that's exactly why you prefer WoP. There's nothing wrong with it, it's a matter of personal taste.

For example, what you say about the tracers i find it to be generalizing a bit. They are excellent as to what criteria? They are movie like, if you want it to be like that then they are obviously going to be excellent for that purprose.
If another set of criteria was applied we could say they are certainly not looking like the real thing...i've fired 20mm AA cannons in real life, guns that are very similar to those found on WWII aircraft, and CoD's tracers are the most faithful rendition on a computer screen up to this point.

What i'm trying to say is, people can and should have their own opinions. We just can't expect everyone to agree when we describe things with definitive and superlative terms like "excellent" or "the worst ever" (or say something subjective and then stamp the word "fact" in big fat capitalization at the end of the sentence, like someone else did a few posts down ).

It's importnat to say what each feature is good/bad for, because there's not a single way that's best for everything and there are a lot of different sets of criteria that can't be satisfied by a single implementation

In short, WoP is a very good dogfight game, it focuses on dogfights so the maps are small and aircraft management is minimal. CoD is part of a different gaming genre that tries to recreate more of the experience on flying an aircraft, so it carries along more demands.

I think that comparing the two just because they feature aircraft is like comparing lions to panthers, sure they're in the same family of animals but they're definitely not the same kind.

Personally, i prefer seeing things looking closer to how they are in reality even if that means they will be less impressive. If i want a hollywood experience i will spend time on another game, but in a simulation i prefer things to be real-life believable even if that makes them more boring.

I think a big part of the gnashing of teeth with CoD is just that, a lot of people picked up IL2 through WoP and have similar expectations, so they totally gloss over the huge part of gameplay that lies within the more difficult realism settings in the sim. I fly with all the engine management and temperature effects on, so i get much more impressed with CoD than i get frustrated. If people fly in relaxed difficulty settings and miss out on 50% of the gameplay the sim has to offer, then it's obvious they will get bored fast and start noticing the negative aspects more.

As for flaming, it's not people who say "i prefer impressive over realistic" that get flamed, they just have a difference of opinion, so i don't think anyone will flame you. Usually it's the people who try to convince everyone that impressive always equals realistic that attract the flak. Cheers