wtornado Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Just wondering.I installed the latest version of CLoD's Team Fusion's 4.0 patch and I am just wondering if BoS graphically will be as nice as Cliffs of Dover when the product is done. Or will the game be situated graphically speaking between IL-2 1946 in Perfect mod and Cliffs of Dover maxed out? It is hard to say by the videos.
EAF_Paf Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Hard to say at that stage of development. I like the planemodels look in BOS much more than in Clod. The landscape got a huge improvement in CLOD with the latest TF-patch. BOS' landscape is still WIP and Zak stated there will be improvements to the current state, though I already like the frosty look it generates
royraiden Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Dis gonna b good. It shouldnt, but I bet it will be
LLv44_Mprhead Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I guess this is something we just have to wait and see. Only thing that can be said with certainty is that planes in BoS do look fantastic in screenshots.
J4SCrisZeri Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) this is a BIG question. True, CloD is 2011 game, and technology (both hardware and software side) never stops. True, CloD has been a disaster, but the good part was damn good (and models and graphic engine were damn good in my opinion) Now that I can play CLod at ultra max settings on my new PC I realize it is a tough match. That old disaster, paatched to TF 4.0 is pure joy for my eyes. We'll see. Hopefully BoS will be even better... But man, THOSE insanely detailed cockpits from CLoD at top settings nnnnnngh! and that light&rendering around 4.45 AM too!!!!! Edited October 31, 2013 by J4Scriszeri
=AVG=Zombie Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I agree, Team Fusion did an incredible job with CLoD. Going to be hard to beat now.....
OBT-Psycho Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I like to think that CloD IS a good game, but has been poorly built. As you say, max settings give a gorgeous impression, but to achieve those at a playable rate of FS, you 've got to get top-of-the-shelf PC. So keeping that in mind, and taking into account that RoF engine was better build, we will have some beautiful stuff as well. The big advantage of the RoF engine would be that you can get pretty decent graphic on an average config. So I imagine that on a ÛberPC, this will look amazing
DD_Arthur Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I like to think that CloD IS a good game, but has been poorly built. As you say, max settings give a gorgeous impression, but to achieve those at a playable rate of FS, you 've got to get top-of-the-shelf PC. So keeping that in mind, and taking into account that RoF engine was better build, we will have some beautiful stuff as well. The big advantage of the RoF engine would be that you can get pretty decent graphic on an average config. So I imagine that on a ÛberPC, this will look amazing I'm not too sure if I'd agree with that. Infact in some ways I think you've got it the wrong way round. On max settings CLoD does look gorgeous but it looks gorgeous on intermediate settings too. It's graphics options are fairly simple. You do NOT need an uber pc to run CLoD on decent settings. It does not utilise multi-core CPU's in the way that the Digital Nature engine does. That makes a big difference. On an 'average' config. RoF does not deliver as much as CLoD. This is because the Digital Nature engine really does make good use of multicore CPU's and has a much, much greater range of graphic options including all that stuff in Nvidia control panel and Nvidia inspector. As CLoD does not do anti-aliasing all these options are lost. In short, the Digital Nature engine has a lot more headroom to deliver better graphics. Which one 'looks' better? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but in my opinion both RoF and CLoD benefit from the application of SweetFX. They both look outstanding to me......they just do it differently. Be under no illusion; when we get the complete game, BoS is going to blow our socks off!!
Jaws2002 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 The way it looks had nothing to do with clod'd failure or more precisely cancelation. It was all about management at different levels. Nothinb to do with looks. I'd go as far as to say that, except some textures on the British side of the chanell, the first CLOD version looked the best. Effects were rich and well made, the landscape full and beautiful. The lighting was unmatched in any flight sim and from what i've seen so far bos is not at the same level. I hope i'm wrong but I doubt it. That doesn't mean BOS doesn't look good. So far, from what i've seenm it does.
Livai Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I tested the patch 4.0 and I don't like it. There are many points what I not like for example the unrealistic phong lightning, the color on planes....................If that is all what they can do? I had no problems with the Release Version of CloD but after they introduce the LOD-Level where the building etc.. popups in to my screen and downscaled the game engine it was only a matter of time that the game goes unfinished down like the titanic. For me is CloD dead. Only if they made CloD Open Source maybe then? But this would never happen and even Team Fusion cant modified the game engine because it breaks the copyright agreement! There is a way to modified the game engine using the d3d9/dxgi or dinput8.dll for example but still could be illegal.
DD_Arthur Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 There is a way to modified the game engine using the d3d9/dxgi or dinput8.dll for example but still could be illegal. ?
Requiem Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 The thing that holds CloD back graphically is the lack of good anti-aliasing. It looks quite nice right now, but good AA would make all the difference.
Dutch Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) The thing that holds CloD back graphically is the lack of good anti-aliasing. It looks quite nice right now, but good AA would make all the difference. But the original IL2 had no anti-aliasing at all. We all managed it from our graphics card software. This is also applicable to Cliffs of Dover. The in-game AA is largely irrelevant. Just do it from your card, not from the game, just like we all used to do. I've never understood why this has been an issue. There are plenty of recommended settings for your card, here there and everywhere, just like there were for old IL2. The fact that a decent AA isn't available from the GUI since the game's release suddenly became a major issue. It seemed suddenly to be a major failing. Weird, considering most of the people complaining were 'old hands', who were well used to altering card settings, conf.ini files, forest=3, water=4 etc etc, but then suddenly we got lazy. Peculiar. Edited October 31, 2013 by Dutch
HagarTheHorrible Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 The thing that holds CloD back graphically is the lack of good anti-aliasing. It looks quite nice right now, but good AA would make all the difference. Amen to that.
ShamrockOneFive Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) But the original IL2 had no anti-aliasing at all. We all managed it from our graphics card software. This is also applicable to Cliffs of Dover. The in-game AA is largely irrelevant. Just do it from your card, not from the game, just like we all used to do. I've never understood why this has been an issue. There are plenty of recommended settings for your card, here there and everywhere, just like there were for old IL2. The fact that a decent AA isn't available from the GUI since the game's release suddenly became a major issue. It seemed suddenly to be a major failing. Weird, considering most of the people complaining were 'old hands', who were well used to altering card settings, conf.ini files, forest=3, water=4 etc etc, but then suddenly we got lazy. Peculiar. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong... however, my understanding was that there were significant problems with the game engine that prevented anti-aliasing from working properly in the way that most cards process AA. I never had Cliffs of Dover so I can't comment from experience but I remember reading many frustrated forum posts. Either that or AA worked but it destroyed what few frames you were able to spit out at the time. Edited October 31, 2013 by IceFire
Dutch Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I never had Cliffs of Dover so I can't comment from experience Well, given that you can pick the game up for a few coppers now, why not give it a shot? Then you would have some experience, and your opinion would actually posess a degree of weight.
EAF19_Swoop Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Cod with the TF patch has changed this into the best WW2 sim I've flown and the more you fly it the more treats you find. I just love the DM model and now you can spot stuff again its a joy. Back on topic, I believe they will be very similar in looks but I prefer the look of a Spitfire to a Lagg a Mk V even more. BoS obviously has a paid team behind them and will get better and better, I just hope it grows into the Il2 series of old, but we'll be staying in Russia for some time and that's where CoD can fit in, especially if it can get some online campaign going, SEOW or even Bellum would be great. Edited October 31, 2013 by EAF19_Swoop
NZTyphoon Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 From what I've seen the graphics look fine, even with my 'orrible old graphics card soon the be torn out, jumped on and ceremoniously incinerated. I'm going to forget about comparing BOS with CLOD and just enjoy what's on offer.
76SQN-FatherTed Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 The looks of game are surely just a matter of taste? I prefer RoF to CloD looks-wise, but I couldn't argue that one is quantifiably better than the other. We can throw numbers and technical jargon around, but they won't change my subjective opinion. FMs, DMs, framerates - these can reasonably be compared, but I think that comparing the looks of games in a forum will degenerate...
Requiem Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 But the original IL2 had no anti-aliasing at all. We all managed it from our graphics card software. This is also applicable to Cliffs of Dover. The in-game AA is largely irrelevant. Just do it from your card, not from the game, just like we all used to do. I've never understood why this has been an issue. There are plenty of recommended settings for your card, here there and everywhere, just like there were for old IL2. The fact that a decent AA isn't available from the GUI since the game's release suddenly became a major issue. It seemed suddenly to be a major failing. Weird, considering most of the people complaining were 'old hands', who were well used to altering card settings, conf.ini files, forest=3, water=4 etc etc, but then suddenly we got lazy. Peculiar. I've tried many times forcing it through ATI control panel and it didn't make enough of a discernible difference for my eyes, but this is not a troubleshooting thread, so I'll just step out quietly
J4SCrisZeri Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Since we are partially in topic: any link /tutorial/hint about the BEST AA results in CLoD, managed via nVidia Control Panel? I dont mean the tech SMAA stuff, just th ebest FXAA results would make me happy Thank you all, very much. Why can't I reach this level of perfection?
FlatSpinMan Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Nice to see positive comments being made about both. As FatherTed wrote, it is all just subjective in the end.
Dutch Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Unnecessary Dutch, totally unnecessary. I don't see why. If 'Icefire' is the same bloke as BFs_Ice, I would seriously respect his input as a mission builder. But if this is a bloke who is trying to tell me that Cliffs of Dover is inferior, graphically, to a game which hasn't even been released in alpha state yet, with or without this peculiar new obsession with anti-aliasing, which never entered our thoughts in the old days, apart from 'shit, I need a new card', and who admits to not even having played Cliffs of Dover on his own computer, It gives me pause for thought mate. Pause for thought.
=69.GIAP=YSTREB Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 For terrain and trees I'll go all the way to Clod. but will see when BOS released if they have something to show. Always feel CloD train is better than ROF. with mod CloD train is even better
Bearcat Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 The way it looks had nothing to do with clod'd failure or more precisely cancelation. It was all about management at different levels. Nothinb to do with looks. I'd go as far as to say that, except some textures on the British side of the chanell, the first CLOD version looked the best. Effects were rich and well made, the landscape full and beautiful. The lighting was unmatched in any flight sim and from what i've seen so far bos is not at the same level. I hope i'm wrong but I doubt it. That doesn't mean BOS doesn't look good. So far, from what i've seenm it does. Did you send this from your phone? Yeah graphically CoD was always a thing of beauty.. In fact when it was released it was such a slide show that was all I cold really appreciate from it.. Seriously though.. it runs great now and the lighting is incredible. I think BoS will be BoS.. I have no worries. WoP and WT are also visually stunning so I have no doubt BoS will be. The screenshot comparisons will be interesting.
dburne Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Cliffs of Dover, with the Team Fusion 4.0 patch, is not only stunning graphically, but one hell of a great WWII combat flight simulator. I have had the sim installed for about a year and a half, and only just recently really got into it, say the last 6 weeks or so. I finally went full realism, learned CEM, and am enjoying it immensely on the weekends. The graphics are really great, the colors, the clouds are really great now as well. Performance is very good on my system. I think BOS will be a different sim altogether in every aspect, not saying it will not be as good graphically as Cliffs, and not saying it will be better, just it will be in it's own class just like Cliffs will be in it's own class. I can say, for the next several weekends, probably for the rest of this year, I will be enjoying Cliffs very much - heck who knows, it might finally drag me back into multiplayer after a several year absence. 2
Felix58 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 I thought that CLoD was the bee's knee's graphically speaking, and TF have made an already good looking game, graphically better. Perhaps even some aspects of the FM, I'm no expert!. For a volunteer effort it is a great bit of work. From what I have seen of BOS so far, I don't think I am going to be disappointed in the "look" of the game. Overall, I am expecting an improvement. What I am really looking forward to is seeing how the AI performs (a big CLoD fail), Mission Builder and most important of all, how the FM/DM behaves. I have had hundreds of hours of fun with CLoD despite it's obvious failings. If BOS matches the visuals of CLoD and other aspects of the game are at least satisfactory, then that in my book is a big step forward. Of course, I expect to be surprised on the upside. As a twin engine fan I am curious how the bf110 and Ju88 are going to fit in the game, and how much will it cost (if it does). Looking forward to getting my hands on the game!
=BKHZ=Furbs Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) Dutch, Nothing improves the FSAA in CLOD past a certain level, not on the card, not in game, ive been through this issue about a 1000 times, the best you get is X2 FSAA, plus a little gain with FXAA, nothing else. Ive tried everything believe me. It is the one thing graphicy that is missing from CLOD, if we got that working i would be 100% happy with the way CLOD looks, everything thing else looks great, i love the models, lighting and landscape, but the missing FSAA on the mid and long range LOD's is still the one thing that i just miss so much. Edited November 1, 2013 by =BKHZ=Furbs
71st_AH_Hooves Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 I like the Way Clod looks once I dial in several methods of AA. And I like the way RoF looks with Sweet FX kicked in. But I really just see the two as different styles. So its hard for me to compare straight up. I mean, I just really like them both. I really Love Clods Evening settings even though it makes Dog fighting Very difficult. And I love ROF's clouds. Again, they are just different.
Trident_109 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) I see no need to get into the CoD verses BoS argument in an attempt to determine which is better looking. I will say that I find both CoD and RoF to look stunning. For a DX9 game I think RoF is stupendous. I've owned it since it came out and each of the graphical improvements has pushed the look with every patch. Lighting and reflections inspire and awe. Watch a flaming plane as it coasts just feet above water and see the reflections. Wow! Clouds amaze. The river banks are done so well I prefer them to any FS I've flown. Cockpit effects and shadows add to the realism - not to mention the wooden and metal surfaces. I have no reason to believe BoS won't attain the same look and features - if not better. My only real caveat with RoF is the ballerina music box trees. When I first bought CoD I had a measly PC, and despite it's hoariness, CoD looked better than I imagined. The pedigree was on display. Now that I have a boomin' whiz bang PC the look of CoD amazes. The modeling of the buildings set it apart IMO. The sea looks realistic. Detail of the cockpits suspends my disbelief and makes me feel like I'm in the actual bird. I think lighting and reflection are done well - though I'd love to see accurate sun glints from a distance. On a whole I think CoD's look is more advanced than RoF's but I can't discount how truly beautiful RoF looks to me. Having a measly PC even while flying RoF in it's early days, I have to say it looked better and my PC handled graphics well enough. I couldn't have a lot of airplanes present, but it looked better that what CoD did upon my first flights. Take that as you will. I knew My PC limited how both would look. I only mention how one looked on a slow PC verses the other. Ultimately I think it comes down to, BoS will look different than CoD, but it will look amazing in it's own right and I doubt too many of us will be disappointed. WTornado, if you want a good idea of where BoS's graphics will stand, download Rise of Flight and test the graphic sliders for your self. It will give you a good idea of what your PC is able to accomplish and how it will look for you. I'd swear the DR1 is real in the third shot. Edited November 1, 2013 by Robert
rolikiraly Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 I think RoF looks better than CloD, (except the evening lights which i don't like) and i'm sure BoS will be at least on the same level as RoF. So if there are no serious improvements i'll probably still prefer it to CloD. Just an opinion of course (and i've never played CloD, just watched videos)
Matt Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 CloD has the biggest advantage in modelling ground objects and when flying at very low altitude, it doesn't look as flat as RoF. I prefer the lighting and reflections in RoF. Everything else is quite similar imho. Overall, i prefer the looks of RoF from very high altitude and CloD from low altitude. 1
JaMz Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) Straight answer to the Op... No BoS will not look better than CoD, If you play Full Real the biggest difference will be in the pit Edited November 1, 2013 by Jamz
Jaws2002 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) Did you send this from your phone? Are you asking this because of the horrible typos, typical to this small bloody keyboard and no time to fix them, or are you throwing a little sarcasm, due to the discussions in the last few days? If you looked at the IP I posted from, in your moderator tools, you could see I was far away from my gaming rig back in Canada. Back at graphics. Part of what makes clod so beautiful, is the fact that the map is following the curve of the Earth and the lighting engine is based on a very realistic open source lighting model. Edited November 1, 2013 by Jaws2002
SimFreak Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 What I hope BoS will get damage visuals from Clod. FM, system dynamics and engine performance similar to DCS-P51. Terrain down low from Clod and up high from RoF. Cockpit visuals from Clod. One can wish...
Jaws2002 Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) This is what clod light rendering engine is based on: http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Membres/Eric.Bruneton/ Btw. Don't you guys hate not being able to edit a post after 15 minutes? By the time I was back with this link for last post, the forum told me to pi$$ off. Edited November 1, 2013 by Jaws2002 1
Recommended Posts