Graphics engine from original IL2 utilised in CloD. So what hope for BoM?

addman · #1 10-28-2012, 12:21 PM

I think the biggest problem with CloD is the heart of the game, namely the huge channel map. It's enormous and it will challenge the brute force of any beast rig out there. Just try some of the smaller online maps and the game runs better IIRC (since I don't play it anymore). I'm sure the Russian stepp maps will be both smaller and kinder to the performance on most setups, anything else will be instant fail and Luthier knows this, be sure. Still, the building pop-ups, looks very "old" IMO and really detracts from the experience. Sure, there are many buildings in some places but they're not relatively high-polygon models exactly. Also, fix that smoke/particle stuff for the next game, that stuff looks, performs and feels too "legacy" if you ask me. It really makes you wonder if they weren't using parts of the old engine when they made CloD. Here's to the future!

philip.ed · #2 10-28-2012, 02:58 PM

The smaller in game maps look terrible and don't give me any performance increases over flying over the main map. So I don't understand all this crap about how the map-size is killing CloD's ability to model clouds, draw distance etc effectively. The trees, textures, weather effects all need optimisation. This doesn't indicate that they need to be worsened.

addman · #3 10-28-2012, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip.ed

The smaller in game maps look terrible and don't give me any performance increases over flying over the main map. So I don't understand all this crap about how the map-size is killing CloD's ability to model clouds, draw distance etc effectively. The trees, textures, weather effects all need optimisation. This doesn't indicate that they need to be worsened.

Well, I might recall incorrectly since I haven't played the game recently. You say you don't notice any performance difference by flying on a smaller map? I'm looking forward to see what the sequel brings to the table in terms of performance improvements. One good thing about waiting for the sequel is that it will give me time to save up some dough for a new rig.

Cobra8472 · #4 10-28-2012, 11:05 PM

The CloD is definitely not a new engine, rather it is based on IL-2. For anyone with a pair of eyes or common sense, this is completely obvious.

There are many identifiable elements from the IL-2 series visible in CloD.

ElAurens · #5 10-28-2012, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra8472

The CloD is definitely not a new engine, rather it is based on IL-2. For anyone with a pair of eyes or common sense, this is completely obvious.

There are many identifiable elements from the IL-2 series visible in CloD.

Please cite some examples.

Real identifiable ones.

skarden · #6 10-28-2012, 11:59 PM

Yep, I'd like some examples as well, I played 1946 a LOT and I've played COD quiet a bit and I don't see ANYTHING from 1946 in the graphics engine, features yes but actual graphics components nope, I think your confusing the 2 things.
They were always going to use features from 1946 to build on, it's a great game so it'd make sense to use it feature wise as a base for COD.

Also it's been stated many times that it is in fact a completely new engine, maybe you missed that stuff or you weren't around then I don't know.

Chivas · #7 10-29-2012, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra8472

The CloD is definitely not a new engine, rather it is based on IL-2. For anyone with a pair of eyes or common sense, this is completely obvious.

There are many identifiable elements from the IL-2 series visible in CloD.

If it wasn't a new game engine maybe you could explain why its taken so long to release a Battle of Britain sim.

Ailantd · #8 10-29-2012, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra8472

The CloD is definitely not a new engine, rather it is based on IL-2. For anyone with a pair of eyes or common sense, this is completely obvious.

There are many identifiable elements from the IL-2 series visible in CloD.

"many identifiable elements" like planes, clouds, trees, cities, tanks... yes, you are right, there are many of them.

tintifaxl · #9 10-29-2012, 08:40 AM

One example is the console. Same commands, same functionality. The layout of the conf.ini looks very similiar, too.

So I think the sim has inherited some technical concepts of IL2:1946.

palker4 · #10 10-29-2012, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tintifaxl

One example is the console. Same commands, same functionality. The layout of the conf.ini looks very similiar, too.

So I think the sim has inherited some technical concepts of IL2:1946.

Thanks for stating the obvious genius. If they have something working and are used to having such commands and .ini layouts why would they create something new. To confuse themselves? To make their work harder? If you are such an expert why don't you try to suggest something better.