Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pringliano

PERSPECTIVE...

Recommended Posts

i heard it all, now a mediocre sim like CloD without unlock is better hahahaha

that's so much fun, all the important things in a sim are not prensent or badly

implemented in CloD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, It's hard to argue with all the facts you presented Potenz  

 

You've opened my eyes, I therefore recant my previous statements. 

 

Glorious Battle of stalingrad best flight sim in world comrades. (now with realistic trees)

Edited by hnbdgr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DCS has Flaming Cliffs showing from underneath, I think. It started as pure jet sim that was being developed towards more complex plane systems, helicopters, then finally WW2 birds... but it still remembers that when it was conceived you were not supposed to fly slow and low enough to see details of terrain, or to track and identify targets visually. It remains to be seen how much EDGE fixes the latter problem.

 

Not revolutionary, but it was a massive improvement in many areas over 1946. It's a tragedy that the development went the way it went, and on release it was a stuttering non playable mess. But with the TF patches it is one of the best options out there even if still bugged in many ways. 

 

 

 

Daikatana was a massive improvement over Quake, too. I suppose it's a tragedy that it's development went as it went because it surely would be a great game if it lived up to boastful unrealistic plans of its developers. John Romero should be making flight sims instead of FPS, he'd still have die hard fans living past hype and dreaming how great it would be if he only succeeded in making them his bitch like he promised (totally not his fault that he failed).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Romero#Ion_Storm

TF patch turns buggy, unplayable, unfinished sim lacking features into playable, unfinished sim lacking less features. It's great as a salvage operation, but can't help inherent problems of CloD (like simple flight physics with little improvement from 1946, no matter of polishing of plane performance will get around this). But yes it's definetely one of best of three options we have, especially in terms of enjoyability.

Edited by Trupobaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Unlocks, Graphic Presets, time compression - all kicked the game in the nuts by the devs
 

 

Time compression and the unlocks dont bother me. Sure it is a pain in the ass, but it doable. But look, all the bad things you mentioned is not related to FM/DM wise. It was just a really bad decision from the devs. I just think it's stupid thinking less of the game and decide not to play just because you cant get time compression past 2x or just because you have unlocks.

 

But I have to agree with you at Graphic Presets. Anyways, not that I'm trying to defend it, but it at least this gives everyone "almost the same" graphical experience, in CloD I have some weird issues with spotting planes in different resolution/graphical settings, and that CAN influence the gameplay. Anyways, can't please everyone I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Daikatana was a massive improvement over Quake, too. I suppose it's a tragedy that it's development went as it went because it surely would be a great game if it lived up to boastful unrealistic plans of its developers. John Romero should be making flight sims instead of FPS, he'd still have die hard fans living past hype and dreaming how great it would be if he only succeeded in making them his bitch like he promised (totally not his fault that he failed).

 

TF patch turns buggy, unplayable, unfinished sim lacking features into playable, unfinished sim lacking less features. It's great as a salvage operation, but can't help inherent problems of CloD (like simple flight physics with little improvement from 1946, no matter of polishing of plane performance will get around this). But yes it's definetely one of best of three options we have, especially in terms of enjoyability.

 

Without source code it makes it very difficult to fix some of the problems, that's true. But whilst you say it's "unfinished" it's also being updated and worked on. I didn't get the sim because it was made by Maddox, I got it when I saw there was a good online community and the game was fun - this was around TF 3.0. Glad we agree that it's enjoyable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Time compression and the unlocks dont bother me. Sure it is a pain in the ass, but it doable. But look, all the bad things you mentioned is not related to FM/DM wise. It was just a really bad decision from the devs. I just think it's stupid thinking less of the game and decide not to play just because you cant get time compression past 2x or just because you have unlocks.

 

But I have to agree with you at Graphic Presets. Anyways, not that I'm trying to defend it, but it at least this gives everyone "almost the same" graphical experience, in CloD I have some weird issues with spotting planes in different resolution/graphical settings, and that CAN influence the gameplay. Anyways, can't please everyone I guess.

 

 

Well there you go.  You just said those first 2 items are a pain in the ass. Yes it's doable but it's a pain. I come back to BoS every new patch to see if things have improved, I have some gripes with the FM/DM but the main turn off is the lack of a proper campaign. If you restrict time compression to 2x and make people unlock stuff at least provide an immersive campaign for people so they can forget about the negatives and enjoy the positives. Right now there is not much to enjoy.

 

There might be a merit to have visibility distance hardcorded etc. That would make sense. But to take away things like texture quality, terrain quality, special effects quality and SSAO was not a smart move. Just turning of SSAO proved to solve the blurry aircraft infront of clouds problem! And then the devs locked that.... That's what i don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without source code it makes it very difficult to fix some of the problems, that's true. But whilst you say it's "unfinished" it's also being updated and worked on. I didn't get the sim because it was made by Maddox, I got it when I saw there was a good online community and the game was fun - this was around TF 3.0. Glad we agree that it's enjoyable. 

 

But oh the problems that remain! It does work fine as a DF creator, and despite all its visual problems (Aaargh! That rendering of rivers! Eek, that bland landscaping! Oo - is that supposed to be London?...), it usually looks absolutely stunning. But lift that DF skirt and - behold - horrors lie within!

 

I usaully get all hot and bothered thinking of the "issues" in CloD - and yet I find myself having to mention a couple of the more egregious examples. So: Mission building is horrendous if you're trying to do anything other than standard IL2 missions - unless you're a sodding computer rocket scientist. And there must be - and I kid you not - 10 people or fewer in the entire world (at least to judge by participation in the usual FMB forums) who are trying to do something new in mission and campaign design in CloD. Coop support is non-existent what it is. GUI! Mucking about with a dozen different .ini files... As I wrote somewhere else (can't remember where!), CloD's shapely ankle hids a syphilitic old crone. And yet I still love her. [Whips away a wistful tear].

 

And it's obvious that all these fundamental issues simply cannot be corrected by TF, despite their amazing dedication.

 

I've just gotta say, I've been getting into the DCS mission editor over the past couple of weeks - and it makes so much so very easy that is so hard in CloD. I love the "clone" tool in DCS. Please BoS Devs! Give us a clone tool in the ME for BoS.

 

Etc. Etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everytime I fly CloD I feel like I'm shooting at flying tanks. Overall, guns there do no or close to no damage at all. Its "Who damages the other radiator first-Simulator".

 

Once I took a G50 out for a ride and made two spitfires waste all their ammo on me (and they were scoring many hits!) and they didnt shot me down, any noticeable damage were some torn  airlerons/elevators, but they still worked! In factm I shot one of them and the other had to run, LMAO.

 

One the things that I love most about BoS is that the guns really do damage, and I mean, REALLY. If they start to "unbuff"/"nerf" the damage of the guns I sure would be pissed.

Sounds like you have a convergence problem... Remember all planes aren't shooting 20mm. 8 30 cals work just fine if you hit them at convergence.

Unless you're scaling trees, then it's really more of a peasant.

Over 100 Players with multiple targets cannot be done in BOS ROF and or DCS at the moment. It can and is being done in TF version of Clod on a regular basis.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BOS v CLOD v IL2 v DCS v ROF v WT

 

All pretty much pointless pointing out what does what better. They all bring different things to our genre and should be celebrated for it. We just need a hell of a lot more realistic expectations is all. Or, say, perspective.

 

That's my Friday happy thought - now to find a puppy to kick.

 

von Tom

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, this is a flight-sim forum! What's it for if not for bickering and complaining and insulting! It's why we all flyyyyyyyyyy!...

 

Level-headedness and - as you say - perspective should not be tolerated!

Edited by No601_Swallow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just can't understand how people still think that CloD is such a revolutionary software,

when devs through it away to the trash bin and it shares so many flaws from 1946, seriously

that engine it's way too out dated, may Graphic wise looks good, but just that, nothing more

It's pretty clear given your statements you don't no much about the engine. Clod has nothing to do with Il2-1946 other that it has Oleg's name on it. They were ambitious and the fell into trouble with the publisher in terms of getting out to the public. The publisher made them release it early and it failed at the launch.

 

The engine is DX10 and they spent a lot of time developing things high fidelity models which is why you have so many systems that can be damaged unlike other simple DMs in other games. If you were to talk with some of the devs from Team Fusion you would be blown away by what this engine can and will provide in the future. The gotcha is the devs aren't working with the source code. This takes more time. The list is long but they were able to unlock and fix a lot of issues with the earlier release of the software. Their goal and I think they got there was to make it perform and be stable while fixing bugs with some extra features along the way.

 

BTW they just announced the Beaufighter today.

 

I was thinking about posing the readme to TF 4.0 but it's too large. http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6276

 

Lastly here is a video that covers many of the highlights... This is a year old. http://vimeo.com/60197559

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 100 Players with multiple targets cannot be done in BOS ROF and or DCS at the moment. It can and is being done in TF version of Clod on a regular basis.

 

You can fly through trees in CloD.  It's done on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

The engine is DX10...

 

This says nothing about what the engine can or can not do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engine is DX10 and they spent a lot of time developing things high fidelity models which is why you have so many systems that can be damaged unlike other simple DMs in other games. If you were to talk with some of the devs from Team Fusion you would be blown away by what this engine can and will provide in the future. The gotcha is the devs aren't working with the source code. This takes more time. The list is long but they were able to unlock and fix a lot of issues with the earlier release of the software. Their goal and I think they got there was to make it perform and be stable while fixing bugs with some extra features along the way.

 

The ambition in CloD borders on the insane! Even now it regularly astonishes me. I've been testing a coop mission most of the afternoon (and the fact that it's taken me most of the afternoon, what with the crashes and freezes, etc, is illustrative) and was watching an AI flight lining up on a bomb run. Really very impressive, even now. Let alone all the things under the hood - moving weather fronts, spline roads, the ability to lay new ground textures - but wait! Most of these things don't work! Wouldn't it be nice if ground vehicles could go over bridges, if trains followed train tracks?! But anyway. She's CloD and I love her.

 

But I wish I could share your optimism for the future. Dev updates from TF featuring such crucial aspects of simming as redone ship wakes seem to indicate the likely limits to what they'll be able to achieve in terms of repairing things. I do hope I'm wrong. I do hope I'll have to eat my hat.

Edited by No601_Swallow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, it's CloD discussion thread now, and I'm moving it to the corresponding section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, it's CloD discussion thread now, and I'm moving it to the corresponding section.

 

Since its now a thread about comparing the games, could you explain why the detail on the 109 3d model was dropped so much? Or was the Battle of Moscow 109 already much lower then the Cliffs of Dover model?

 

bosclodcompare397qan.jpg

bosclodcompare2i2p77.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are those CloD-Screenshots?

 

My post?

 

Top screen is 109f from BoS.

 

Bottom is 109e from Clod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post?

 

Top screen is 109f from BoS.

 

Bottom is 109e from Clod.

 

I am sorry, but I dont understand anything about 3D-modelling and cant see such a big difference? Is the poly-count that much lower?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm guessing correctly it's 50'517 for the Emil vs 35'745 for the Friedrich. Might also be that the F has a smoother and simpler surface, needing less polys. I agree that looking at those two images I can't see a notable difference.

Edited by SYN_Ricky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since its now a thread about comparing the games, could you explain why the detail on the 109 3d model was dropped so much? Or was the Battle of Moscow 109 already much lower then the Cliffs of Dover model

We have more optimized models than CLoD. Having less polys in some cases is a part of that optimization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since its now a thread about comparing the games, could you explain why the detail on the 109 3d model was dropped so much? Or was the Battle of Moscow 109 already much lower then the Cliffs of Dover model?

 

bosclodcompare397qan.jpg

bosclodcompare2i2p77.jpg

 

Honestly Liz, I hardly see a difference. Even if the models in BoS are less high-poly than ClOD I think most will agree with me, that BoS' plane models still look way better (I know you propably won't agree, but a lot of people are really put off by the way ClOD renders its planes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly Liz, I hardly see a difference. Even if the models in BoS are less high-poly than ClOD I think most will agree with me, that BoS' plane models still look way better (I know you propably won't agree, but a lot of people are really put off by the way ClOD renders its planes)

 

And some see it the other way round... matter of taste if you are asking me... and therefore no point in arguing about it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And some see it the other way round... matter of taste if you are asking me... and therefore no point in arguing about it...

 

Exactly...so why does Liz keep bringing it up all the time :P

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, number of polys is OK in bos. Both games render aircraft differently as said, Bos has that reflective shine that is a bit weird when viewed from certain angles, CloD also has a weird graphic anomally when the planes are viewed close up - very low opacity stripes. 

 

In a dogfight you're not likely to notice either of these things and as far as visibility up to 2km BoS does a better job. Aircraft don't break up and generally don't disappear against the background so badly. Except for some angles... and against the ever-so-ocean-blue sky.

 

Long distance vis I yet have to compare thoroughly.

Edited by hnbdgr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly...so why does Liz keep bringing it up all the time :P

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Taste in terms of graphics is purely subjective.

 

What is not subjective is things related to graphics like poly count of objects, polys being rendered per frame, texture resolution, ect. Same thing for something like the number of objects with collision detection.

 

I brought it up because I wanted to know why there was such a difference, and I got the answer I expected; to speed rendering times up.

 

Now if you want to argue about which one looks subjectively better, by all means do, I am more interested in objective differences between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taste in terms of graphics is purely subjective.

 

What is not subjective is things related to graphics like poly count of objects, polys being rendered per frame, texture resolution, ect. Same thing for something like the number of objects with collision detection.

 

I brought it up because I wanted to know why there was such a difference, and I got the answer I expected; to speed rendering times up.

 

Now if you want to argue about which one looks subjectively better, by all means do, I am more interested in objective differences between the two.

+1

 

If the model looks good and runs smooth, no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...