Semi-transparent closeup grass

[Eclipse4349 0]

The only grass to become semi-transparent is the grass within 1/2 a foot of your face, as in real life). Not only is that realistic, but it is ONLY that grass (that is huge, in SCREEN size) that is unnaturally blocking your view.

Having the grass that is close enough to poke you in the eyeballs become transparent, whether or not anyone feels it is realistic, won't accomplish anything. The rest of the grass will still be blocking your vision.

The best improvement would be to give players the ability to make subtle changes in the orientation of the head and upper torso to make it possible to move in a way that allows you to see around the obstruction, grass or otherwise, without being as clunky or noticeable as shifting your whole body. Similar to holding Alt to move only your head to look around.

[Daniel 0]

Having the grass that is close enough to poke you in the eyeballs become transparent, whether or not anyone feels it is realistic, won't accomplish anything. The rest of the grass will still be blocking your vision.

In real life you make this minuscule adjustment without thinking. We shouldn't have to move our avatar's heads to avoid grass, the grass should be transparent. Nearby transparent grass will not allow you to see through grass that's on level with you in a field. There will still be tactical considerations. But setting up a sniper rifle or machine gun on an incline will no longer be hindered by that 1mm blade of grass waving back and forth, blocking your view with its pixels.

[Eclipse4349 0]

In real life you make this minuscule adjustment without thinking. We shouldn't have to move our avatar's heads to avoid grass, the grass should be transparent. Nearby transparent grass will not allow you to see through grass that's on level with you in a field. There will still be tactical considerations. But setting up a sniper rifle or machine gun on an incline will no longer be hindered by that 1mm blade of grass waving back and forth, blocking your view with its pixels.

Can't you just crawl forward to flatten the vegetation out, as you would do in real life, then move backwards to your prefered spot? This being the only case in which making close-up grass transparent would have any benefit, flattening out said grass works fine for me. BIS did well to add the flattening feature.

Anyway, just my 2 cents, I don't it is relevant or needed at all.

[Daniel 0]

Agreed, it's a nice feature. Problem is I think the grass pops up again once you move away, so it doesn't really work for overwatch positions.

[Eclipse4349 0]

Agreed, it's a nice feature. Problem is I think the grass pops up again once you move away, so it doesn't really work for overwatch positions.

I think it may, but it takes a while. I do it allthe time when grass is in my way. Would be nice to have a "pull the annoying tuft of grass out of the ground" feature, wouldn't it? THAT is what I actually do in real life! But being able to flatten it works just fine, credit to BIS on that.

[Laqueesha 474]

depth of field?

Crysis, a computer game from 2007, did this very, very well. In ArmA II, things that are several kilometers away look like they are only a few meters away. And vice-versa, things that are a few meters away look like they are several kilometers away.

[dmarkwick 261]

Crysis, a computer game from 2007, did this very, very well. In ArmA II, things that are several kilometers away look like they are only a few meters away. And vice-versa, things that are a few meters away look like they are several kilometers away.

The problem with simulating depth of field in a game is this: the game cannot know what I'm looking at on the screen, so it applies the DoF logic to some arbitrary point, usually the middle of the display. IRL your eyes automatically adjust to whatever you look at, so DoF isn't something you generally notice. The exception to this is when something is too close to focus on regardless, like an ironsight. I'm not a great fan of DoF in games because it simulates you using a camera, not an eye. Good for videos, not for gaming :)

[Laqueesha 474]

The problem with simulating depth of field in a game is this: the game cannot know what I'm looking at on the screen, so it applies the DoF logic to some arbitrary point, usually the middle of the display. IRL your eyes automatically adjust to whatever you look at, so DoF isn't something you generally notice. The exception to this is when something is too close to focus on regardless, like an ironsight. I'm not a great fan of DoF in games because it simulates you using a camera, not an eye. Good for videos, not for gaming

I don't agree with you, but you still make some good points there, nonetheless. ;)

[Baff1 0]

See through grass sounds like a solution to an annoying issue.

[Cyteless 10]

Crysis, a computer game from 2007, did this very, very well. In ArmA II, things that are several kilometers away look like they are only a few meters away. And vice-versa, things that are a few meters away look like they are several kilometers away.

Here's an example of Crysis' depth of field, which looks very effective:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/6172/crysis13nd5.jpg

[Gnome_AS 10]

Simulating reality is not about denying features because it isn't "real", it's about replacing stuff with appropriate analogs.

So very true.

+1 for needing to do something about the grass.

I fear implementation of this would not be quite as easy as one might think. Personally I'd like to see dev time invested in the character control aspect instead. A more proper solution at the end of the day imo.

_

[walker 0]

In real life I can move my head about to see around grass, use a different eye, reach forward and move grass. Simulating reality is not about denying features because it isn't "real", it's about replacing stuff with appropriate analogs. Until I can use TrackIR while prone to move my head around even just slightly, I guess a semi transparent close up grass would be appropriate :)

Hi all

I think some good points have been made in this thread particularly that one by DMarkwick as others have noted.

The Key Factor here is that DMarkwick has identified that in simulation you replace the reality with an analogue that works in your simulation system.

I think the focus issue of depth of field is a is a red herring in this discussion.

The key factor here is that we have TWO EYES! But we look at a single monitor image in the simulation.

The reason close up objects are blurry when looking at a distant object is not primarily focus; it is that one eye sees the distant object while in the other the object is obscured, the brain then combines the two to give us the 50% transparent version! Try placing your finger at arms length in front of a distant object and closing one eye the finger goes from blury 50% see through to completely obsuring the distant object and requiring a shift of your head to see.

If we are using 3D system rather than a computer monitor this problem would not occur! This "Double Image Partial Obscuration" (DIPO) is then a function needed to cope with the simulated environment being presented through the single monitor system of standard computers

This then is down to what the OP thread title says. A LOD for very close up on Grass Clutter that simulates the reality of how a human vision system sees! And it is a wonderfully simple solution!

On a simple analysis with my own vision this DIPO effect of looking past a thin object in the fore ground to a distant object affects us out to about 1 metre beyond this only wider objects such as tree or bush branches obscure vision.

The human method of dealing with these wider objects is to move our point of view by moving our heads or whole body as others have said in this thread. As another post noted a Track IR lean and perhaps an [Alt] key + [shift] key function to allow a mouse lean is best solution for micro head adjustment based vision shifting.

1) The "DIPO" function should be default as most people so far have monitors not 3D glasses but have an ability to turn it off in the Options Menu, for both those such as the VBS customers who use 3D glasses in the Load-master simulators and for future proofing. 3D is increasingly common and in the next five years it will start becoming the norm; early adopters are already there and 3D games for consoles are already becoming available. ArmA2 and VBS are already 3D compatible; putting in a system to cope with the limitations of single monitor vision that damages the existing 3D system, that could not be turned off, would not be sensible. As the engine matures, and 3D systems become more commercial, make 3D friendly existing system the Default.

2 a) Quick and dirty method. Create a close up say 1 Metre LOD system that affects only thin clutter objects. So all grass clutter objects get a 50% transparent close up LOD.

2 b) More complete and better solution. Do an analysis of the math of when the DIPO effect occurs and create a mathematically accurate analogue, there may be calculation load issues for this and it may be something better solved by graphic card creators.

3) Perhaps only have the effect when static.

Kind Regards walker

Edited January 12, 2011 by walker

[ladlon 10]

Hi, Walker... Yep, that's pretty much what I'm trying to say. It's not so much DOF, but stereo vision (and how the two images, create semi-transparency, due to the relative position of the foreground object in the persons view).

Easy solutions (on the CPU) would be semi-transparency, as we both seem to agree. The main thing people are complaining about regarding grass is that it totally blocks the view (as opposed to obscurring it).

A small yet big issue... certainly not worth killing the CPU or distracting from bigger issues, if the solution is complicated... which is why I suggest the blur as a simple effect that neither defies reality, nor hits the CPU much, nor takes up the devs time... and still addresses the issue at hand that is being complained about.

Just one of those 'wish they'd fix that' things.... but, it appears a number of people feel the same way about it, so a bit more 'important' that I would have initially thought. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, either way.

But, as with all things, I think it should be optional. Games/sims should cater to the wants of the player, and no two players will always be the same!

6 Degree TrackIR would be sweet....