Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New GOLD STANDARD for realistic video games.
- Thread starter PracticalMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
beat me to it gman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA378g_gD1I - 3 minute version
that makes the other games in this thread look dated. watch it in hd, this engine will change the face of gaming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x-kZma5n94 - 12 minute version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA378g_gD1I - 3 minute version
that makes the other games in this thread look dated. watch it in hd, this engine will change the face of gaming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x-kZma5n94 - 12 minute version
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
Fool's Gold?
I think Google Earth looks much more realistic.
Fool's Gold?
I think Google Earth looks much more realistic.
Brilliant. That has a flight sim built into it too, so, Google Earth= Wins. COD= loses. Right, OP?
Why didn't someone show me this earlier?
Hellatious!
Fall of 2011? (Probably just make it for Christmas give typical software track records).
Yeup, graphics on that are tops, game play looks promising but remains to be seen.
Thanks
Image
lol...
I'm sorry but I think Crysis has better graphics. I also think that CoD has rather awful gameplay. And I also think that video is prefabricated due to the comment above.
I don't like Crysis btw.
Big bunch of enemy aircraft approach.
Smaller bunch of defenders engage.
Lots of gunfire, sploding airplanes and parachutes.
Some real film.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=82163df4ce
PractialMac, I want to know how you would describe your aeroplane game (sorry couldnt be bothered looking at what the name of it is). And You have to choose from one of my options.
I, PracticalMac would describe the aeroplane game as:
(a) A pretty awesome game
(b) The most awesome game that has been made
(c) A game that is so awesome it will never be topped and is totally awesome
(d) The most awesome thing that I have ever seen in my awesome life. This game made me understand how unawesome everything else ever made is.
(e) All the previous awesome options, but also the word awesome doesnt even half describe how awesome this game is, so the word awesome itself is not that awesome and is making this game less awesome by using this awesome adjective to describe how awesome it is.
I, PracticalMac would describe the aeroplane game as:
(a) A pretty awesome game
(b) The most awesome game that has been made
(c) A game that is so awesome it will never be topped and is totally awesome
(d) The most awesome thing that I have ever seen in my awesome life. This game made me understand how unawesome everything else ever made is.
(e) All the previous awesome options, but also the word awesome doesnt even half describe how awesome this game is, so the word awesome itself is not that awesome and is making this game less awesome by using this awesome adjective to describe how awesome it is.
Last edited:
This has to be a joke thread, the graphics of that game have no lighting dynamics at all, and there's a complete lack of anisotropic filtering-- almost thought I was watching an xbox1 or subpar console game.
LOL! What a comparison!
Anyways, this is more along the lines of "new gold standard for realistic video games."
Compare landscape with recent titles like Crysis.
And here from gamespots review of IL-2 Strumovik: Cliffs of Dover
LOL! What a comparison!
Anyways, this is more along the lines of "new gold standard for realistic video games."
Ima let you finish but none of that has changed my opinion on either game. I don't like any of them, but I certainly think Crysis is more of a 'gold' standard out of the two.
Dude, the only thing Cliffs of Dover is the "Gold Standard" for, is being a horrendously buggy, broken, piece of crap of a game. I mean seriously....1C worked on this for the better part of a *decade* and this is what they came up with? Even with the patches, it's still garbage. Shame on 1C for putting out a game which is essentially still in alpha, and charging people $50 to beta test it for them.
Also, yes the graphics can be quite good, but not what I would call 'jaw dropping.' And what you failed to mention is that getting the game to run at that quality, and at anything approaching 60 fps, requires a machine running well over 4GHz with a 580GTX. I'll stick with DCS A-10C and Black Shark, thank you very much. Easily as realistic as IL-2, aircraft models which are drop dead gorgeous, and most importantly, they are actually playable, and infinitely more polished than the turd known as Cliffs of Dover.
Sorry for the rant, but the sim market is already quite small, and releasing blatantly unfinished games and charging a premium for it, does a disservice to the community and does absolutely nothing to attract new players.
Also, yes the graphics can be quite good, but not what I would call 'jaw dropping.' And what you failed to mention is that getting the game to run at that quality, and at anything approaching 60 fps, requires a machine running well over 4GHz with a 580GTX. I'll stick with DCS A-10C and Black Shark, thank you very much. Easily as realistic as IL-2, aircraft models which are drop dead gorgeous, and most importantly, they are actually playable, and infinitely more polished than the turd known as Cliffs of Dover.
Sorry for the rant, but the sim market is already quite small, and releasing blatantly unfinished games and charging a premium for it, does a disservice to the community and does absolutely nothing to attract new players.
Looks pretty good to me. I'm not sure the explosions/fires look as realistic as they could be - based on what WWII footage I've seen, there's too much flame,not enough smoke and they're too translucent. But overall it's impressive.
There's no real point comparing the graphics of a flight-sim with a linear FPS, because of the difference in world sizes, in the speed at which you pass by buildings/trees/hills, in the typical player distance from those objects etc.
There's no real point comparing the graphics of a flight-sim with a linear FPS, because of the difference in world sizes, in the speed at which you pass by buildings/trees/hills, in the typical player distance from those objects etc.
Keep in mind that like the original IL-2, CLOD will probably be around for 10+ years and get so many add ons and features that it is ridiculous. I think I ended up with 400 flyable planes in the original. (from developers and modders)
The game needs tweaking now, but should be a true masterpiece when they are done.
As far as the graphics go, they are amazing for a sim. Very taxing to the system.
The game needs tweaking now, but should be a true masterpiece when they are done.
As far as the graphics go, they are amazing for a sim. Very taxing to the system.
That image is NOT CoD!!
And the link you provided is a CUT SCENE, not actual game play. Fail
Let me help you:
Raw video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Irv9pCnCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2x27ahVz9o&feature=related
Raw showing different effects applied:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye_VY1aV3Zg&feature=related
Assembled cut scenes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YkToYH5LPs&feature=related
Last edited:
Agree that the game came out buggy by 1C, Ubi botched the marketing big time (surprised?), and it requires Steam to activate.
I agree it was a horrible release.
Should have had a large beta release for a more though shakedown before a "finished" release, but it was the publishers decision, and obviously the publisher did not do due diligence.
Other from scratch flying sims are not free of bugs either, however.
Still, I think CoD will weather the storm and in a few months will shine.
Any new game will always be very demanding on hardware, what makes you think otherwise? Reports are the patches fix a lot of performance issues.
The only thing that caught my eye in those graphics was the water crest effects. Though, I don't know if the game actually takes wind into account when displaying them. :\
You should probably add something like "SLOW INTERNET USERS DO NOT OPEN PAGE 2" or something in bold to the original post
Just by looking at the ground and the grass in your first screenshot already convinced me that this is NOT realistic, not even close.
idk if someone posted this but epic games did a real time rendering demo if their engine called the samaritan demo. THAT is the future of graphics, the new dx11 effects really make it look more realistic. if anything, that is the tech to surpass crysis graphically.