my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Helos   » CH does not look that great "visually", GS is much more....

   
Author Topic: CH does not look that great "visually", GS is much more....
ply
Member
Member # 1209

posted 04-06-2000 12:36 PM     Profile for ply   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
though I know the flight model is not that great. I for one enjoy better graphics, actually both if possible, but I don't have time for really detailed sims anyway.
Posts: 19 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Blaze
Member
Member # 198

posted 04-06-2000 12:40 PM     Profile for Blaze   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks for the information.
Posts: 1556 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
MoZeR
Member
Member # 2917

posted 04-06-2000 12:47 PM     Profile for MoZeR   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Though I haven't played either yet, I can't understand how you say Gunship! has better graphics. The objects in C/H have a much higher degree of detail, so much that with proper lighting and textures, if rendered within the program they were modeled in, I'd be willing to bet they'd easily fool one into thinking they were real picures. Gunship!'s models don't seem liek they'd be able to. I did liek the explosion pics from afar in Gunship! The seem very detail, althoguh they looked a bit pixelated up close. And true Gunship has trees, but they are all billboarded, so it doesn't add all that much. I guess i'll have t osee for myself whe nI get both new games.
Posts: 61 | From: San Diego, CA USA | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Outlaw
Member
Member # 1733

posted 04-06-2000 12:58 PM     Profile for Outlaw   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"Thanks for the information."

LOL!

-Outlaw


Posts: 212 | From: Coeur d'Alene, ID | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Scout
Member
Member # 657

posted 04-06-2000 01:03 PM     Profile for Scout   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
As Blaze wittedly pointed out, this discussion is absolutely pointless. It's exactly the same as comparing Flanker2 terrain to Falcon4 terrain. I've seen some people on the net say that the later is much better. Yeah, right. But then again, its very subjective - there are people out there that enjoy watching Jerry Springfeld, so what ?

Cheers,
Scout


Posts: 715 | From: Israel | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
The Reverend
Member
Member # 3788

posted 04-06-2000 02:13 PM     Profile for The Reverend   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
You mean Jerry Springer???

[This message has been edited by The Reverend (edited 04-06-2000).]


Posts: 124 | From: Missouri | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Scout
Member
Member # 657

posted 04-06-2000 03:04 PM     Profile for Scout   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yeah. You get the idea...

Cheers,
Scout


Posts: 715 | From: Israel | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Vector
Member
Member # 463

posted 04-06-2000 03:14 PM     Profile for Vector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
From the screenshots and what I've seen in Falcon 4, the later does look a hell of a lot better. Flankers terrian is very very blurry in a lot of the undetailed areas (and that is a very large part of the map). The one thing that is good about Flankers graphics are a/c modeling and the large amount of ground objects.

------------------
-\/ector, Flight Sim Sympathizer


Posts: 903 | From: Comox, BC, Canada | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Shataan
Member
Member # 1976

posted 04-06-2000 03:16 PM     Profile for Shataan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Pointless is right. It is not about which are better.. it is about what attracts you personally more than the other.
Posts: 567 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Secks
unregistered

posted 04-06-2000 03:24 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
IMO, the topic starter is either a troll or just hasn't put much time into CH. He ought to fly around a port in Taiwan and tell me if he still thinks these gfx aren't that great. Bah, why do I waste my time defending CH? It speaks for itself!
IP: Logged
TetsuBo
Member
Member # 330

posted 04-06-2000 03:24 PM     Profile for TetsuBo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Having played both products (sorry, can't group them both in the sim category) I have come to the conclusion that GS! doesn't even compare to C-H.
The trees in GS doesn't look good, the forest blocks in C-H serve their purpose better.
Explosions in GS are much like the trees, ugly and not 3D.
Ground texture and detail is much nicer in C-H.
Object detail beats GS, hands down.

------------------
I am TetsuBo, eater of cookies and souls


Posts: 127 | From: Stockholm, Sweden | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved