@f1rataFrom a technical point of view - 2042 has dynamic time of day, where a sunny desert or a sunny field with 2 cubes can shift into a darkish place, with the area near the skyscrapers lit up by their billboards, and with the cubes' lamps lighting things up. This most likely happens with that dynamic GI they made a paper and talk about, that was used for PVZ.
I'm not sure if BFV has it as I've seen some flickers akin to 2042, however if it does, it's not utilized to that extent. Sad!
2042's smoke, fire, explosions look much better. BFV had raytraced reflections, however not much use of them; 2042 has the less impressive RTAO, but it makes more of a difference IMO.
The "no photogrammetry" thing is not true. E.g., Flashpoint: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Al6vRe "Portal maps" (according to the description): https://www.artstation.com/artwork/w0yRow
In Levelcap's Redacted interview video, whoever was being interviewed said they scanned the bodybags.
I kinda doubt the presence or lack of it is the cause for the game looking worse. No one is singing praises for the post-Covid maps (if we assume those have more photogrammetry). It's already damning enough that people still keep saying there's no photogrammetry when there is. Moreso it's likely the general art direction, or maybe some other factor. Even just the color space can make a massive difference.
There's probably some other ways in which 2042 has technically better graphics as well...
2042 is fine, and in places looks great, but it is missing the polish and atmosphere that previous DICE developers knew how to do so well; BF1 has some incredible maps and are dripping in atmosphere. Shame we won't see any of them in a WW1 portal mode
@MADMAC50KI'm not sure if I can quite put my finger on it.
I play a lot on the lowest settings, as the game is too unoptimized and uses too much CPU. It already stutters and struggles a bit on low but is playable, and on ultra it gets much more annoying. Playing on lower settings definitely makes the game look worse, though often times not by a lot.
I decided to run around, turn off the HUD, take screenshots (all on Ultra), look at some videos, and I think one of two things that I can concretely say, is that BFV maps are more colorful. There are some colorless BFV maps like Aerodrome, but there is no 2042 map as colorful as Pacific Storm for example. Orbital and Kaleidoscope are not as colorful.
I decided to take some screenshots...
2042 has higher resolution textures than BFV.
These screenshots look fine. In a lot of cases, from far away 2042 looks very very good, like in the first picture, but up close it looks bad. I decided to investigate, and...
I think the other concrete thing I can point to after staring a lot that puts me off, is the liminal spaces. At launch, 2042 had a lot of liminal spaces. This was helped with the map reworks, but not completely fixed (or in rare cases, new ones introduced, see below). We know this is the object limit from the maps being too big; last gen. I think this is still limiting them a decent amount. There IS clutter... There ARE decals, in some places there's crazy amounts of them too.
I also have to wonder if it's a deliberate choice to omit objects in frequently travelled infantry areas. For example:
Peak liminal space!
And then going outside...
The distribution of clutter is very sporadic.
Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle.
The best description of BF2042 graphics I can give. Yes, the game has higher-resolution textures. But BF5 has a larger number of small-scale assets that make its maps feel "alive". BF2042 bet on a large scale and empty maps.
Orbital - Huge rocket assembly and the rocket itself. Big, yes. Looks good in a trailer, but plays and feels like trash. That's how every map feels in 2042. Just an empty space filled with a couple of large-scale assets and a sprinkle of smaller ones for good measure.
BF5 on the other hand has smaller maps that are filled with small details. There is very little wasted space. Even maps like Hamada feel alot more packed than lets say Manifest.
