BoS vs CloD graphic wise.

[ATAG_Slipstream]

weirdo!

So it seems!    Still, if it hadn't been trees it would have been something else I bet.

[DD_bongodriver]

Pretty sure 2km is higher than that medieval scale you are employing

 

Yeah, and what kind of trees will we find at 2km? therefore pointless.

[ImPeRaToR]

With the right kind of explosive you can probably get there

 

[LukeFF]

"Furthermore, tree top fighting is in ROF, not in WW2 simulations!"

 

That would have come as a welcome surprise for those stuck in the Falaise gap, it`s alright Hans those Typhoons won`t come in low and shoot at us this is WW2 you know.

 

Operation Bodenplatte also comes to mind.

[Sokol1]

 

Yes, speedtree was a bad decision, or at least having it implemented like that was

 

Curiously Battleground Europe use Speetree too,  with solid trunks, and in spite the old game engine tress are visually good, you see fruits in scrubs,

 

As Clo+D daily user (at least made me forget the Babel in which IL-2'46 became    ) until now is surprisingly see how Murphy Law    work in this sim, all can goes wrong, goes.

Even some simple radio messages dont work... But still find enjoyable.

 

BTW - This graphic "fight" is senseless, both are just "acceptable", nice graphics is from BF 4.

 

Sokol1

[Bearcat]

Excellent, makes sense to have collidable trees then.I will still carry on avoiding them.

 

I have yet to find a non collidable tree in BoS.. and I tried.. They may be there.. but every one I hit was a solid tree.

[Fifi]

I have yet to find a non collidable tree in BoS.. and I tried.. They may be there.. but every one I hit was a solid tree.

 

Yes all BOS trees are of course collidable as in ROF! ...but you should be flying way above! 

[FlatSpinMan]

The name of the game is IL2 Sturmovik. Many missions will involve flights at very low altitude. Tree collision is useful. Not having it would be a real loss to the risks run by those kind of flights.

Perhaps it wasn't as relevant in CoD. DCS I don't know, though I'd have thought that it'd be more realistic to have trees if you're trying to simulate air to ground attack, especially with a helicopter (which one is in DCS?)

 

Anyway, in terms of exterior graphics, both CoD and BoS look great to me. IMO, BoS' ability to run well and look good on a wide range of PC's from the get go (actually, before their get go, as it's still in Alpha) makes it better, but I can see that some might go for Team Fusion's improvements to CoD on a high-end system.

 

For cockpits, I'm not sure. I'm still trying to find a good compromise on my system, so I've seen quite a range of looks in BoS cockpits due to my settings.

The LaGG pit seems higher res than the 109 one currently, but then again, I'm much more familiar with the 109, and its just more'busy' than the LaGG's. The LaGG has that simple console with the instruments sunk into it, so it doesn't look that fancy.

[DD_Arthur]

For cockpits, I'm not sure. I'm still trying to find a good compromise on my system, so I've seen quite a range of looks in BoS cockpits due to my settings.

The LaGG pit seems higher res than the 109 one currently, but then again, I'm much more familiar with the 109, and its just more'busy' than the LaGG's. The LaGG has that simple console with the instruments sunk into it, so it doesn't look that fancy.

 

I completely agree with this.  I think the Lagg cockpit is rather fab and up to the standard I was expecting.  The '109 'pit is the only disappointment so far.  I think it needs more attention.  I really hope its still a work in progress.

[Bearcat]

The name of the game is IL2 Sturmovik. Many missions will involve flights at very low altitude. Tree collision is useful. Not having it would be a real loss to the risks run by those kind of flights.

Perhaps it wasn't as relevant in CoD. DCS I don't know, though I'd have thought that it'd be more realistic to have trees if you're trying to simulate air to ground attack, especially with a helicopter (which one is in DCS?)

 

Anyway, in terms of exterior graphics, both CoD and BoS look great to me. IMO, BoS' ability to run well and look good on a wide range of PC's from the get go (actually, before their get go, as it's still in Alpha) makes it better, but I can see that some might go for Team Fusion's improvements to CoD on a high-end system.

 

For cockpits, I'm not sure. I'm still trying to find a good compromise on my system, so I've seen quite a range of looks in BoS cockpits due to my settings.

The LaGG pit seems higher res than the 109 one currently, but then again, I'm much more familiar with the 109, and its just more'busy' than the LaGG's. The LaGG has that simple console with the instruments sunk into it, so it doesn't look that fancy.

 

+1

 

I completely agree with this.  I think the Lagg cockpit is rather fab and up to the standard I was expecting.  The '109 'pit is the only disappointment so far.  I think it needs more attention.  I really hope its still a work in progress.

 

I wonder what the lighting will be like at different times of day..

[DD_Arthur]

+1

 

 

I wonder what the lighting will be like at different times of day..

 

That's a good question.  In effect we have no weather and very limited options to change the time of day so we're bathed in this glaring, unforgiving white light.  It's a harsh judge at the moment.

[sturmkraehe]

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

 

Interesting, I always thought that the plane models of Clod looked and still look notably better than in BoS (not that they look bad in BoS) and the cockpit of CloD will win hands down compared to BoS in the current state. But I am ready to place my final judgement on this when BoS will be in release state. 

 

I still weep the fate of CloD which could have been such a great sim. My hope now is that BoS will catch up graphically. We'll see. Anyway I bought it and it will be probably the only ww2 sim with a certain community size. 

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

The name of the game is IL2 Sturmovik. Many missions will involve flights at very low altitude. Tree collision is useful. Not having it would be a real loss to the risks run by those kind of flights.

Perhaps it wasn't as relevant in CoD.

 

They would still be relevant (and hedgerows too) when trying to put down a shot up crate in the fields (which is something I do a lot in IL2...).

[heinkill]

"BoS' ability to run well and look good on a wide range of PC's from the get go (actually, before their get go, as it's still in Alpha)"

 

+1 to that.

 

While I find 'this sim' vs 'that sim' arguments often go nowhere, I am really encouraged to see how BoS flies out of the gates. I know we are currently flying around on small maps with hardly any objects but on my up to date PC I was stuck doing 2 vs 2 engagements over water until the second or third patch of CoD because if I flew over land (or enabled clouds) it became a slideshow.

 

Kudos.

 

H

 

PS as to cockpits...well, we're a LONG way from realistic in any of these sims but they all look pretty good.

Edited December 26, 2013 by heinkill

[DD_fruitbat]

I think until i see the 'final' or patched later version down the line, how online works with lots of objects, ground, even before we consider air, is very important to me.

 

One thing Clod does do (at least now) is a crapload of objects in the map.

 

RoF doesn't. Not enough imo.

 

BoS, i don't know yet, but who does yet?

[Zmaj76]

I hope cockpits in BOS are not final versions...109 comes first to my mind...and...ROFs cokpits (though a bit simpler) looks fantastic and a step forward compared to BOS and I expected to be vice versa....ROF cokpits have better textures, have more "life" and you have that 3d feeling....dunno...

Edited December 27, 2013 by Tvrdi

[rolikiraly]

To start with, i haven't played with any of these two, just watched a good amount of videos. 

To be honest, i don't really see the problem with BoS cockpits, i actually find the scratches quite convincing (but again, i'm just judging by videos)

 

Terrain: yes, CloD has more objects but otherwise it doesn't have any advantages to my eyes. I think BoS is doing rather well with all those bumps and ditches (and you have to consider it's based on RoF engine, so you can't expect a totally new approach)

 

On thing i really seem to like in CloD videos is the sea. Do you like it too or it's just me?

[heinkill]

On thing i really seem to like in CloD videos is the sea. Do you like it too or it's just me?

 

Yes, it is well done. Waves on the shore, lighting of the sea at diff times of day, but one effect I particularly like is the wake of ships, especially when they start evading when under attack (which is nice in itself). Very cool.

 

[Fifi]

On thing i really seem to like in CloD videos is the sea. Do you like it too or it's just me?

 

Not only you.

CloD sea rendering is the best i've ever seen in the flight sims i owned.

Color and lighting is fantastic, even more when cloudy!

But not only sea...rivers size rendering too. As well as country rendering aso...England landscape is just gorgeous!

 

As for cockpits, you have to buy CloD (very cheap now) and see by yourself!

Edited December 27, 2013 by Fifi

[sturmkraehe]

*sigh* Clod could have been a reference for the coming 10 years in the flight sim era. The base was so tremendously good and it has had such potential but unfortunately rushed out in a pre-alpha state ... such a waste 

 

The fact that BoS will be based on an existing engine means that compared to a new engine few innovations are to be expected and while I still expect improvements in graphics and gameplay the limits can be foretold too. I understand the approach addopted by the studio, flight sims being a niche product with a big initial investment in work hours to cast the engine but with comparably low return in cash flow during the sell phase so that it pays to press the citron as much as possible. So no complaining from my side (just regretting). The good side effect is that the engine will run smoother as it is already proven.

Edited December 27, 2013 by sturmkraehe

[rolikiraly]

Not only you.

CloD sea rendering is the best i've ever seen in the flight sims i owned.

Color and lighting is fantastic, even more when cloudy!

But not only sea...rivers size rendering too. As well as country rendering aso...England landscape is just gorgeous!

 

As for cockpits, you have to buy CloD (very cheap now) and see by yourself!

 

Yes, one can get CloD for 5 Euros on Steam these days. A really low price i must say (even if you have to do some mod-installing and such after that).

Only reason why i'm not getting it is that my PC is around the absolute minimum for CloD 

[JG27_Chivas]

Hopefully we won't see the final versions of the terrain graphics for either sim for many years.  Both are quite good now, and will evolve with added developer/mod improvements, that will only be curtailed by computer and game engine capabilitites.   Even the hundreds of thousands of trees on the BOB map will eventually have collision models.

[JG4_Sputnik]

*sigh* Clod could have been a reference for the coming 10 years in the flight sim era. The base was so tremendously good and it has had such potential but unfortunately rushed out in a pre-alpha state ... such a waste

 

The fact that BoS will be based on an existing engine means that compared to a new engine few innovations are to be expected and while I still expect improvements in graphics and gameplay the limits can be foretold too. I understand the approach addopted by the studio, flight sims being a niche product with a big initial investment in work hours to cast the engine but with comparably low return in cash flow during the sell phase so that it pays to press the citron as much as possible. So no complaining from my side (just regretting). The good side effect is that the engine will run smoother as it is already proven.

+1

777 is playing it (very) save, which is not bad I guess. My question is though if they are playing it TOO safe however.

 

I mean they went with 32 bit support rather than the state of the art 64 bit. Now its 2014 and I wonder if theres something BoS is better than any other sims from 2011. imo it doesnt push boundaries in any departement (as i can tell based on the alpha).

 

- CloD hit new ground in FM, DM and graphic wise, unfortunately suffered of bad project management.

- DCS was and still is top notch in FM and complexity, average graphic wise, maybe gets better with the new engine, (but has imo already the nicest looking cockpits),

- Il2 1946 with mods has the biggest fleet, FMs however arent up to date just anymore. Graphics look 'ok' for a 10 year old simbut no comparison to nowadays sims

- BoS has - well, what does BoS have? It does everything just ok but doesnt push the genre forward at all I think. Could be that just that makes it financially successable in the long run, but its just not too exciting for a genre-geek as i am. To me it just also looks a bit too plastic, that bothers me the most is however very subjectiv. And without 64bit support the maps arent going to change to more vivid anytime soon.

 

I guess it needs some visionary designers like Oleg or Ilya to push the genre forward, and hopefully they will succeed financially with theyre vision (again). Crowdfunding could do the trick.

 

Im sure BoS is going to be a good sim ill play for a long time, but it looks it wont be that sexy sim that impresses me with new features ive been hoping it will be. Rather I feel its 2010 all over again and il2 gets a major graphics and FM improovement.

Which is better than nothing. Hopefully oculus rift will push my excitement again in late 2014.

Edited January 2, 2014 by JG4_Sputnik

[Quax]

- DCS was and still is top notch in FM and complexity

 

This opinion astonishes me. You are right about the "complexity", as far as system modelling is concerned . But the DCS:P51 is based on Petrovich´s first FM. RoF was his next step. And the newest is BoS. And in this order I feel the progress.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Quax

[sturmkraehe]

Sputnik pretty much summarizes my view. BoS will be no step forward with respect to CloD apart from the fact that it will run smoother from the start (which is no miracle as it is based on the RoF engine extended to ww2 planes). For me it is basically RoF (which is also a bit aged now) just with ww2 planes. 

My worries also are not so much on the fact that it is not really up to the current state of the art (which would include the 64bit). I am more worried about the fact that I judge the engine to have little evolution potential. This means we'll be stuck with it for a long long time and it won't get much more modern ...

 

But again, if one considers the business frame for such a game who can blame them. We're probably lucky that there'll be a flight combat sim at all. *sigh*

[Quax]

"Furthermore, tree top fighting is in ROF, not in WW2 simulations!"

 

 

Experte Anton Hafner  (204 victories) did die, when his wing touched a tree during a dogfight against a Spit. If he only knew, that tree top fighting did only take place in WW1.  Another one flew under a bridge with his 109 to scare a Spit away

[Fifi]

 But the DCS:P51 is based on Petrovich´s first FM. RoF was his next step. And the newest is BoS. And in this order I feel the progress.

 

I thought progress should be in a raising sens? 

[303_Kwiatek]

This opinion astonishes me. You are right about the "complexity", as far as system modelling is concerned . But the DCS:P51 is based on Petrovich´s first FM. RoF was his next step. And the newest is BoS. And in this order I feel the progress.

 

What i read Petrovich was involved in much earlier project -  Su 27 Flanker not DCS.  DCS P-51 was made by Yo-Yo from ED team not by Petrovich.

 

 

 

BTW i prefer P-51 DCS over all casue it has good ground handling and flight physics in the air. CLOD is good only in the air and BOS only in the ground

[LukeFF]

BoS will be no step forward with respect to CloD apart from the fact that it will run smoother from the start.

 

Geez, you make that sound like it's a minor detail. 

I guess it needs some visionary designers like Oleg or Ilya to push the genre forward, and hopefully they will succeed financially with theyre vision (again). Crowdfunding could do the trick.

 

You mean the same guys who couldn't get BOS functioning right on release day, even though they had 7 years to do so? 

[DD_Arthur]

What i read Petrovich was involved in much earlier project -  Su 27 Flanker not DCS.  DCS P-51 was made by Yo-Yo from ED team not by Petrovich.

 

 

 

No, Quax is right.  DCS flight models use updated versions of Petrovich's  AFM which he originally designed whilst working for ED.  

[Fifi]

You mean the same guys who couldn't get BOS functioning right on release day, even though they had 7 years to do so? 

 

BOS, really? 

 

 

 DCS flight models use updated versions of Petrovich's  AFM which he originally designed whilst working for ED.  

 

So this updated version is a success for me, whoever unknown or known guy made it...

Edited January 3, 2014 by Fifi

[JG4_Sputnik]

If just BoS 'd push the limits a bit more rather than "just" asemble all the parts that were there already three years ago.

 

Of course I can not blame them for doing it, but I just can't get very excited neither.

The thing is, I believe they could have done the same thing without being THAT conservative, just adding some magic with a tiny little bit more risk and boldness.

 

And as sturmkrahe mentioned before - the pitty is not that right now the sim is what it is - the pitty is that we will be sticking with an engine that was outdated already a few years ago (thats why they 'sold' us bump mapping in all details but didnt mention 64 anymore whatsoever).

 

Then we wouldnt talk about how simple bushes and telegraph poles needed to much pc power etc.

When I see what some engines are capable of doing already today, praising bump map as a feature becomes more than a joke (first games with bump maps appeared 16 years ago...).

[sturmkraehe]

Geez, you make that sound like it's a minor detail. 

 

Every flight sim had their hickups during the initial phases after release - even old IL2. And remember the long "stutter" threads of RoF. If one considers that both old IL2 and RoF had quite some issues with smoothness one can see how much injustice was done to Clod with respect to this aspect. 

 

Me mentioning the smoothness of the BoS engine is not something to brag about. You compare an engine that is out since many years with one that had everything of a prototype with a bunch of innovations. It's a little bit like comparing a Volkswagen Polo and a new concept car of Audi ... 

[FuriousMeow]

I can't read these threads anymore.

 

CloD pushed it FM wise? The same FM wise that didn't have a properly modelled high alt model where the Battle of Britain actually occured? The same innovative CloD that was still using a single core and only after a patch many many months later simply moved sound to a second core and left everything on the first core? The same CloD that still doesn't have a proper ground handling model?

 

You guys sure paint a rosey picture for that product. I know someone is going to come along and say "but only half the code is 'turned on'" right now - but they don't even know what half that code is, and why it isn't being called right now. It might be intentionally not called because it just don't work, or it's so old but was just never removed. I'd praise CloD if it was innovative, it's not. The graphics engine isn't that impressive, the lighting is nice but that's where it ends.

 

And one last thing, CloD is where it's at because some guys came along and hacked it that way. Mods are hacking, you are modifiying the code without access to the source so you have to tear it apart and hack it. Now, that's a team of guys that want it to succeed. That also means everyone else has the ability to do it and there are no controls in place, so online you don't know what you are flying against. There's no way to prevent people from playing with highly hacked games that are highly modified. It's essentially DayZ in WWII, you are going to be up against who knows what and there are a lot of folks out there that don't like to play fair. So have fun with that, because online is all CloD has.

Edited January 3, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[SYN_Jedders]

I predict a wall of text coming our way soon

[DD_Arthur]

I predict a wall of text coming our way soon

 

Lol.  Storm front coming in!

[VO101Tom]

And one last thing, CloD is where it's at because some guys came along and hacked it that way. Mods are hacking, you are modifiying the code without access to the source so you have to tear it apart and hack it. Now, that's a team of guys that want it to succeed. That also means everyone else has the ability to do it and there are no controls in place, so online you don't know what you are flying against. There's no way to prevent people from playing with highly hacked games that are highly modified. It's essentially DayZ in WWII, you are going to be up against who knows what and there are a lot of folks out there that don't like to play fair. So have fun with that, because online is all CloD has.

 

Hi. The TF installed the first cheat protection into CloD, the neccessary files is not shared (not even within the team). Only one member can edit, only one member can compile the patches, and the cheat protection working only with TF patches. The basic version of the game is freely modifiable as before.

 

Edited January 3, 2014 by VO101Tom

[FuriousMeow]

 

 

Hi. The TF installed the first cheat protection into CloD, the neccessary files is not shared (not even within the team). Only one member can edit, only one member can compile the patches, and the cheat protection working only with TF patches. The basic version of the game is freely modifiable as before.

 

 

Yes, well. Seen that before with several other modded/hacked games. Unfortunately the statements never remain true.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Unfortunately EVERY competitive multiplayer game suffers due to hackers.

This holds true for brand new AAA titles with no mod support just as it does for abandonware with community modding.

 

The exception is the TF patch.  Our programmers are professional, and even more, with the TF patch, it's the 1st time the game has ever had anti-cheat.  So far (in a years time) noone has been able to do anything with the system in place now.   We implore people to try.  Just don't cry when the mod no longer works with your steam account. 

[ATAG_Bliss]

Sure.  Just ask anyone that flies online now compared to prior to the TF patches.  That's all the proof we need.  If  there was BS going on (like before), we'd most definitely know it within the community.  

 

And who's to say he isn't working for EA, Sony, or Valve?