BoS vs CloD graphic wise.

[Cybermat47]

Cliffs of Dover definitely has the advantage in graphics. But BoS will require a less expensive graphics card, and will run better...

[Bearcat]

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.

 

 

Yeah that can be annoying from what I have experienced elsewhere..

 

The lighting in CoD is unique..  I like the lighting in RoF as well.. but CoD has a unique look to it that is very realistic IMO. I think BoS will probably be similar to RoF but a step up from what I have seen.. Then again I am not sure what I am seeing anymore.. I have to wear my glasses more and more.

[DD_fruitbat]

Clod looks stunning  imo, but as others have stated lacks proper aa

 

Clod with RoF's aa and Lods would be pretty much perfection imo.

 

That all said, really enjoying playing Clod at the moment with TF 4.0

[Primus_71]

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.

 

AA and LOD issues in CloD, among others, were a show stopper for me. So in that sense, the graphical beauty of CloD was dysfunctional IMO, for lack of a better description, except one can produce great screen shots with it. 

 

I've uninstalled it ages ago and not missing it one bit.

 

By the way, did Team Fusion do anything to address LOD and AA problems? Does anyone know? 

[Matt]

LoD has been fixed. Not sure about AA problems, because i never had any.

[DD_bongodriver]

Not sure about AA problems, because i never had any.

 

 

That 'was' the problem

[Primus_71]

LoD has been fixed.

wow, great to hear. I guess I'll have to give it another try. thanks for the heads up.

[wtornado]

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.

Ice fire if you don't have Cliffs of Dover you REALLY don't know what you are missing this game matches ARMA 3 graphics and ARMA 3 is so far the game to beat.

[Matt]

That 'was' the problem

You mean that AA didn't work at all? I think that was fixed two years ago iirc.

 

Anyway, if he meant that with AA problems, then yes, that has been fixed aswell.

[DD_bongodriver]

Yes, I think it was sort of fixed, but never beyond 2XAA I believe, anyway I never found it a problem.

[Finkeren]

I reinstalled ClOD a couple of weeks ago to try out Team Fusions patches, and while I must say, that much has improved, I still find little to get excited about. The almost total lack of single player content, the mediocre sound and horrible interface just puts me off.

 

Plus (and going back on topic):

 

The graphics just aren't doing it for me. While the level of detail is impressive and certain elements look really, really good (cockpits, urban terrain and some particle effects specially) the overall impression is just very uneven. 

 

I prefer the less detailed but crisper visuals with better LoD that RoF offers, and which BoS is certain to improve a great deal upon. 

[smink1701]

I bought CLoD but always found myself so frustrated with about every aspect of the game - FM, AI, bugs, no sound, etc. - except the graphics  - that I can only stay with it for about 5 minutes.  However, it has always been gorgeous to look at and is the best screen shot / vid generator going.  I have to ask ... what's up with Team Fusion 4.0 update?  I thought 1C / Ubi were not going to release the SDK.

[DD_bongodriver]

TF are doing it without an SDK, they have fixed all the historic 'issues' that generated the most complaints, they are even creating new content without the SDK.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Only gripe I have on CloD graphics: trees and shadows. They cause lot of stutter and low performance. It would be great to have switchable tree shadows and have cockpit shadows still. Lighting in CloD is superb, but I like the plane effect in BoS a lot more. Looks very good and not like plastered all over the plane. But I bet TF will be tuning that effect too Both sims have their pros and cons graphically, but in general both offer the best

[Picchio]

It's been stated that the number of polygons per aircraft is decisively higher than CloD's.

Which is exactly what I wanted, knowing how good the lighting already is in 777's engine.

 

Other than that, excuse me but I find this all to be a very idiot discussion. A complete simulator is hardly made by its aesthetics alone.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Picchio

[FuriousMeow]

Being unable to collide with trees, so they may as well not be there, and the lack of proper ground handling, and the AI using some other flight model that allows star fox like barrel roles are no go's for me.

[Primus_71]

You mean that AA didn't work at all? I think that was fixed two years ago iirc.

 

Anyway, if he meant that with AA problems, then yes, that has been fixed aswell.

 

Hi Matt,

 

Per your information that LoD issue has been eliminated, I went over to ATAG website to download the most recent mod, and reading through the patch readme files for both 3.00 and 4.00, I could not find any mention of any work TF performed on LoDs, nor anti aliasing. Their work appears to be mainly focused on FM adjustments and some cosmetic graphical corrections. 

 

Are you sure that TF fixed LoD issues, and if so, could you kindly provide a link to that information?

 

For clarity, what I mean by the LoD issue is air contacts virtually disappearing within a certain distance  and then reappearing again when you get very close. 

 

Thanks.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Primus_71

[DD_bongodriver]

Other than that, excuse me but I find this all to be a very idiot discussion

 

 

Not a very helpful or constructive contribution, of course you are entitled to your opinion.

 

A complete simulator is hardly made by its aesthetics alone.

 

It's been stated that the number of polygons per aircraft is decisively higher than CloD's.

Which is exactly what I wanted, knowing how good the lighting already is in 777's engine.

 

 

A complete simulator is hardly made by it's aesthetics alone......so I heard.

[Picchio]

Not a very helpful or constructive contribution, of course you are entitled to your opinion.

 

 

A complete simulator is hardly made by it's aesthetics alone......so I heard.

 

If we were to confront the two just on that term, that is.

 

Which seems to be the purpose of the thread, and such a purpose to me is useless. I mean no offense at all. Hope I clarified.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Picchio

[smink1701]

TF are doing it without an SDK, they have fixed all the historic 'issues' that generated the most complaints, they are even creating new content without the SDK.

I didnt think any significant improvements could be made to the software without the SDK

[DD_bongodriver]

I didnt think any significant improvements could be made to the software without the SDK

 

 

SDK's are for content creation, what is usually required to fix game engine problems is the source code, nevertheless TF are fixing stuff all the time and creating content, TF patch 5.00 is already in progress.

Which seems to be the purpose of the thread, which to me is useless. I mean no offense at all. Hope I clarified

 

 

No offence, all clear, but the fact remains it's all opinions, I'm not saying you are wrong, but you are wrong to say anyone else is.

[smink1701]

Thanks DD

[smink1701]

Just curious ... is TF 4.0 mainly about graphic improvements or does it also address AI, FM, etc?  Also, I'm 100 percent SP so is TF primarily for MP?

[DD_bongodriver]

They try to work on many aspects each time, TF 4.0 was a major FPS improvement with many optimisations done, they seem to have control over most of the graphical aspects and will continue tweaking it, they have made FM improvements and the aircraft can now actually fly and fight at altitude, the fixes are not for MP, they simply fix everything, what they need is more people giving feedback and suggestions or they won't know where the game needs it's most improvements.

[smink1701]

DD ...Thanks for your reply

[DD_bongodriver]

No problem.

[Sokol1]

Are you sure that TF fixed LoD issues, and if so, could you kindly provide a link to that information?

 

The major issue, aircraft turn almost invisible at close range are solved, and

 

"* Maps re-textured, LOD, lighting and colors reworked"

 

The big improvement (IMO) are the clouds - despite the limited visibility range, the background are CAVU - are beautiful.

 

But still a dozen of bugs.  

Sample artifacts for ATI users.

 

For one that already uninstall the game the best advice is forget, dont wast time again, the game still the same (same ugly interface, dumb AI, "lawn mowers" sound... )

CloD only worth for one that (blindfold) see beyond the bugs, and understood that what see is NOT a "il-2" . 

 

And on Topic, graphics is not all, WT have nice ones.    

 

Sokol1

[DD_bongodriver]

WT is not a flight simulator at all, just an arcade shoot-em up.

 

Clod is a fantastic simulator which needs some attention, some people just need to let go of the past, we are on the cusp of the best times ever known in the flight simming history, 3 WWII titles to see us through the next 10 years, just need to make room in our lives for all 3 instead of slinging crap at each other.

[Primus_71]

The major issue, aircraft turn almost invisible at close range are solved, and

 

"* Maps re-textured, LOD, lighting and colors reworked"

 

The big improvement (IMO) are the clouds - despite the limited visibility range, the background are CAVU - are beautiful.

 

But still a dozen of bugs.

Sample artifacts for ATI users.

 

For one that already uninstall the game the best advice is forget, dont wast time again, the game still the same (same ugly interface, dumb AI, "lawn mowers" sound... )

CloD only worth for one that (blindfold) see beyond the bugs, and understood that what see is NOT a "il-2" .

 

And on Topic, graphics is not all, WT have nice ones.

 

Sokol1

thanks for the information. cheers

[wtornado]

The major issue, aircraft turn almost invisible at close range are solved, and

 

"* Maps re-textured, LOD, lighting and colors reworked"

 

The big improvement (IMO) are the clouds - despite the limited visibility range, the background are CAVU - are beautiful.

 

But still a dozen of bugs.

Sample artifacts for ATI users.

 

For one that already uninstall the game the best advice is forget, dont wast time again, the game still the same (same ugly interface, dumb AI, "lawn mowers" sound... )

CloD only worth for one that (blindfold) see beyond the bugs, and understood that what see is NOT a "il-2" . 

 

And on Topic, graphics is not all, WT have nice ones.    

 

Sokol1

The ''sounds'' in Clod surpass by far Tigers flyby mods now anyways.

 

 

Engine idling and flybys are amazing with my Sennheiser PC 350 headphones.

 

Like the boys said in this the 109 sound is really close and the Hurri engine sounds divine.

 

 

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4326&highlight=Tiger33

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

With TF's 4.0 patch, CLOD is a vast improvement, almost every aspect of the sim has been looked at, its well worth getting and playing. Is it perfect, no, but no sim is or ever will be.

[EAF_Paf]

I like CloD with the new patch very much, but I can't get AA work with my AMD card. It seems impossible to overwrite the lousy ingame AA. With SMAA my game crashes after 5 minutes.

But thats really the only thing ragarding eye-candy thats annoying.

[dburne]

I am running TF4, with 2x AA set in the sim, 16xCSAA and 8X Transparency Supersampling in the drivers. Anisotropic set at 16x.

So far, I have found this gives me the best image qualiy. Certainly not perfect, but better than stock standard.

[EAF19_Swoop]

dburnette - many thanks I've been using yours and others from that useful jaggies thread over at atag's forum.

 

Paf. check out our forum and I've posted up some links their mate.

 

Team fusion have done a cracking job at fixing the major bugs (LoD, FM, colors etc, 2Gigs worth of goodies in this last patch alone)  and polishing up an 1C's gem that Oleg would be proud of now. The Damage model and different FMs are wonderful, the differences in flying the nibble Spitfire and the gun stable platform Hurricane is a joy, especially with FF. Chuffed 1C and 777 are bring us BoS, roll on the 12th.

[dburne]

dburnette - many thanks I've been using yours and others from that useful jaggies thread over at atag's forum.

 

 

 

You are most welcome, I only was able to give it a try after reading up on it over on the ATAG forum.

 

Another tip that might be beneficial, at least in the stuttering department, that was posted over there today - limiting the FPS to 30.

I run with vsync on in the graphic drivers, as I have Track IR so they were already limited to 60fps for me, I locked it at 30FPS ( in the Precision X software for my EVGA card), and it seems to have really helped on reducing the little microstutters I would occasionally get.

[royraiden]

I reinstalled ClOD a couple of weeks ago to try out Team Fusions patches, and while I must say, that much has improved, I still find little to get excited about. The almost total lack of single player content, the mediocre sound and horrible interface just puts me off.

 

Plus (and going back on topic):

 

The graphics just aren't doing it for me. While the level of detail is impressive and certain elements look really, really good (cockpits, urban terrain and some particle effects specially) the overall impression is just very uneven. 

 

I prefer the less detailed but crisper visuals with better LoD that RoF offers, and which BoS is certain to improve a great deal upon. 

Mediocre sound?Really?

[Zmaj76]

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.

Seriously? CLOD is DX11 and BOS is Dx9. Although both ROF and BOS look stunning (spec if we take into count that BOS is dx9 "only") CLOD looks slightly better (with TF patches that is). Sky, landscape, evertyhing. Not to mention cockpits. They are by far much better looking. AA works in CLOD but not within the game. Im using sweet FX injectors which can apply AA to CLOD without big perf impact. AA works in CLOD.

Now with that said, graphically both sims are much better looking than old good il2 46 and anyways for a hardcore simmers FMs and other things should be of more importance than visuals. Its isnt a dealbraker to me anyways. BOS has good enough graphics. Though I would like it to have a bit nicer cockpits (maybe in final version?).

 

So Req, basically you took a road as most ppl here. You, for some reason picked a side (hence your new squad tag and your exclusive visit to 777 HQs).

 

Why we need to argue about two great sims? Really? Which is better. If you think one is not good enough because you dont have AA out of the stock, then dont play it. 

 

@Finkeren - I think sounds are great as guy from ROF team did them....

Edited November 26, 2013 by Tvrdi

[Picchio]

 

 

Seriously? CLOD is DX11 and BOS is Dx9

 

Though I would like it to have a bit nicer cockpits (maybe in final version?)

 

Since the DX version comparison is often brought up, I frankly never quite understood which DX 11 features CloD has.

Could someone explain which those would be?

 

As for the cockpits, in which way would you like them to be nicer? I think that at least as for poly-count and textures' quality, cockpits in CloD don't really win that much over those in BoS at all; in the former they had something to their look that made them kind of synthetic, or at least in my opinion, not giving the best impression of their material. In the latter, they might look a bit "flat" in comparison, but do I find them more convincing... kind of hard to explain, I guess it almost always gets down to personal views.

As for an improvement here, I'd really like BoS to improve its in-cockpit shadows, stuff at which CloD (at least at release) really excelled - and it was such a shame that it had been messed up badly after a few of those official patches (I had been using TF's mod only for the first version and those shadows were just ugh, but I don't know about the present state).

 

I really wish that we could just have the best elements condensed together (and I mean globally, not only those pertaining graphics technology), but that's quite a dream for now, uh.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2013 by Picchio

[LuftManu]

IMHO and being a playing Clod from its release, I think that Bos (Rof already) its a more solid Looking Engine, dont know why, but I prefeer the look of everything and the movement of the planes in Rof/Bos, looks like "motionBlur" 

[FuriousMeow]

You'd be hard pressed to identify differences between most DX9 and DX11 titles Picchio.

 

Some improvement in rendering efficiency, but nothing that will graphically stand out.