harv Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 ...Are they photoshopped to look that good? I mean should the graphics in the game reflect the quality of the graphics from the encyclopedia? Just a silly question I know but I want to enjoy the game to its full! Cheers
McVittees Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 Yes, they look that good! :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] "Great minds think alike; idiots seldom differ.":pilotfly: i5 3750K@4.3Ghz, MSI Z77A GD55, 8GB DDR3, Palit GTX 670, 24" Benq@1920*1080, X52 Pro, Win 7 64bit.
harv Posted December 16, 2008 Author Posted December 16, 2008 can you clarrify - are the in game graphics such as the planes etc looking as hi-res and polished as they do in the encyclopedia??? Mine dont'!:cry:
Namenlos Ein Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 can you clarrify - are the in game graphics such as the planes etc looking as hi-res and polished as they do in the encyclopedia??? Mine dont'!:cry: The encyclopedia pictures exactly the same as in the game. Take a look. (Sorry, in this case Ka-50 is not so polished).
harv Posted December 16, 2008 Author Posted December 16, 2008 Ok if you say so - Don't get me wrong I have a v good spec pc but the graphics dont look quite as polished or as clear as the ones in the encyclopedia. Anyway - it could be to do with vista - as I remember lock on looked considerably better on XP than it did when I put it on Vista. Something do do with the shadows maybe?/? Could other Vista users maybe tell me if they notice a difference? Cheers
Gunrun Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 Vista won't have any effect on how your games look. Try enabling Anti Aliasing in your graphics card control panel, this should improve graphics significantly
RapidFir3 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 Indeed. If you haven't forced 16xQ AA and 16x AF game don't look nearly as amazing as it can. Callsign Lycanthrope79
harv Posted December 16, 2008 Author Posted December 16, 2008 yeah that occurred to me as i was out - thanks !!
BTTW-DratsaB Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) I hate to say it, but I was a bit disappointed by the Encyclopaedia. I would have much preferred the good old flight sim style, where you see the models in all their 3D glory :) and can pan around them etc hmm just thinking now, is this because there is no 3d graphics engine in the "front end"? would make sense I guess. Edited December 16, 2008 by BTTW-DratsaB Specs: GA-Z87X-UD3H, i7-4770k, 16GB, RTX2060, SB AE-5, 750watt Corsair PSU, X52, Track IR4, Win10x64. Sim Settings: Textures: ? | Scenes: ? |Water: ? | Visibility Range: ? | Heat Blur: ? | Shadows: ? | Res: 1680x1050 | Aspect: 16:10 | Monitors: 1 Screen | MSAA: ? | Tree Visibility: ? | Vsync: On | Mirrors: ? | Civ Traffic: High | Res Of Cockpit Disp: 512 | Clutter: ? | Fullscreen: On
harv Posted December 16, 2008 Author Posted December 16, 2008 thanks! sorted - looks great now - just like the encyclopedia! + Flaming cliffs looks awesome now too. Now just to get the game to use both my cpu's and i'll begin to get going!
Recommended Posts