Quote:
Originally Posted by Adriatico
FSX, FC2 and even moded Il-2 1946 have better graphics.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post2984306
Clouds are 3D but look artificial. Moded ones look better.
Coast of Portugal (Giblartar mission) looks like Hungarian river bank  .
...
Sea surface is great looking but... it must be that way. Sea surface is the same for all the parts of world... contrary to landscapes in these flight sims.
Explosions - no further coments...
I would say just average graphics all togather... except sea surface (but not under surface)
(I had occassion to watch the game... not only screens.) |
If you don't mind me asking, what are your system specs, because I run all those games you mention at max graphics at 256ox1600 and none of them look as good as SH5. Well, it really depends on the value you put in each graphics category. Lomac/FC/FC2/DCS:BS all have funky looking dusk/night colors (that pinkish/orangish sky color kills me. lol
WoP, mentioned above, looks fantastic, however, zoom in close and the aircraft are not that high poly at all. The terrain/sky look georgous though.
FSX, even with the tons of payware add-ons I have, does not look as good, nor does it run as well, as SH5. FSX is fine for GA flight, but even then the terrain, cities, and pallete looks "off" to me. FSX does look good, don't get me wrong, but it also looks sort of cartoony...I am guessing from the color palette they use. FSX with REX/GEX/UTX/FS Genesis/etc looks really good, but something about it bothers me. I just can't put my finger on it.
I think Schmall said it best with, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I still know people who think RFactor looks "the best" of any driving simulator.
