Just imagine CloD with WoP map

[DK-nme]

Originally Posted by Ali Fish

stop the squabling and understand that the tree colour alone in COD ruins the overall feel of cod. this proves it folks. darker trees in cod makes a hell of a difference.

Nope, color doesn't explain everything in this matter. I constantly hear praising of how gorgeous CloD looks, especielly up close. Well hey, this is no FPS, so why bother?
This is a flight sim and I wanna see things from above - way above - and this is were CloD seems to fail.
I've posted some screenies - a polite request from my dear friend David - and on those screenies (not made by myself) it is clear, how this games GFX engine is outdated or not up to the 2011 standards.

My ten commandments (screenies), who depicts some of the GFX problems this game is battling, and which hopefully will be fixed in near future (though I do not trust to hope):
1. 3D objects and buildings are way to sharp in contrast to the softening surroundings (rendering or LOD problem's?).
2. The blurry landscape in the horizon, looks like a cotton blanket.
3. The grey smudges representing cities at high altitude are ugly as hell and are in fact GFX leftovers from il-2 sturmovik (a game, that now is 10 years old).
4. The water is wronly scaled (compared to the surroundings) and it is terrible colored (no water in N-Europe is colored that way!)
5. The awful shore, that seems to hover above the water.
6. The smoke colomns, that are limited in hight (again leftovers from il-2 sturmovik).
7. The weidlooking trees, that look like small lullypops.
8. The clouds that looks like small cottonballs (totally unrealistic - we need real atmospheric cumulus clouds!)
9. The overall colorpalette is somewhat flat and unrealistic.
10. The compleely missing immersion effect of being high above the ground/water.

Alot of the above features are actually well modelled in WoP. I'm no fan of that game, to arcade, but the terrain GFX are some of the best I've seen. Furthermore, though I sincerely hope, that CloD will prevail in the long end, I don't want to delude myself by stating, that CloD at the present state is the best and most photorealistic game out there (or having the potential to become), cause at the moment, it simply isn't (far from it).

Hopefully you've been seeing this post aswell, David...

[DK-nme]

Just to support my earlier post...

[DK-nme]

...and again

Edit: Wow, I'm totally impressed by the game GFX's (Not!). I'm actually terrible dissapointed, yet hopes that things will change...

[DK-nme]

...and just to stir things up (an older GFX engine and what it is capable of - WoP):

[DK-nme]

...and yet again (ducking for cover):

[jt_medina]

Originally Posted by DK-nme

...and just to stir things up (an older GFX engine and what it is capable of - WoP):

Despite what people say WOP looks awesome. The Berlin map pure awesomeness

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by DK-nme

My ten commandments (screenies), who depicts some of the GFX problems this game is battling, and which hopefully will be fixed in near future (though I do not trust to hope):
1. 3D objects and buildings are way to sharp in contrast to the softening surroundings (rendering or LOD problem's?).
2. The blurry landscape in the horizon, looks like a cotton blanket.
3. The grey smudges representing cities at high altitude are ugly as hell and are in fact GFX leftovers from il-2 sturmovik (a game, that now is 10 years old).
4. The water is wronly scaled (compared to the surroundings) and it is terrible colored (no water in N-Europe is colored that way!)
5. The awful shore, that seems to hover above the water.
6. The smoke colomns, that are limited in hight (again leftovers from il-2 sturmovik).
7. The weidlooking trees, that look like small lullypops.
8. The clouds that looks like small cottonballs (totally unrealistic - we need real atmospheric cumulus clouds!)
9. The overall colorpalette is somewhat flat and unrealistic.
10. The compleely missing immersion effect of being high above the ground/water.

Points 4 and 8 have been confirmed as in development various times. Meaning, there is transparent water and dynamic weather in the works and it will come with the patches.

As for the rest i can't be sure, but the sim is what it is for now. I'm more concerned about actual gameplay issues because the graphics are functional enough as they are now and you guys keep hogging all the attention with graphics related requests

Does anyone actually fly these planes or are we all just looking at them for the most part?

its a tough life being graphics in il2. here's an objective look at what our scenery is going through.
http://youtu.be/XUa_viVGNNs

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

...

As for the rest i can't be sure, but the sim is what it is for now. I'm more concerned about actual gameplay issues because the graphics are functional enough as they are now and you guys keep hogging all the attention with graphics related requests

Does anyone actually fly these planes or are we all just looking at them for the most part?

I think 'functional' is a good word for the current state of play in a lot of the terrain graphics features.

People obviously have different preferences and opinions about the most important features of the game.

What would worry me is if the devs were to settle for merely 'functional' looking terrain and devote all their attention onto other technical aspects. There should obviously be a balance achieved between the quality of the different elements (graphics, fm, dm, gameplay, AI, etc, etc) with most effort being addressed to wherever the sim is currently weakest.

So I'm actually pleased that threads like this draw the devs attention to the terrain aspects as something that many of us would like to see improved.

Having said that, maybe it's now time to move on. I think they'll have got the message by now.

But it would be nice to hear from luthier what their take is on this issue - we know some terrain improvements are on the way, but what will be the extent of future improvements?

[jt_medina]

Funny thing is in my opinion trees set to low or very low look better than in higher settings. Which seems illogic.