Module graphics settings for Arma 3 Vote please

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Low FPS is because of fraps.

Not for me. Low FPS is pretty much guaranteed. ;)

Also head bob is over kill... I know for a fact in real life my head doesn't bob up and down that much, and that my brain makes corrections to the image I see, so that even if it is, my vision is normal, and it is barely noticeable. So headbob is an immersion killer.

It adds to my immersion, but yeah I'm glad we can set how much.

AA is useless in my opinion, I don't give a **** if I see the jaggies.

Some do. Also it enables sampling on a sub pixel level, so it does have the potential of providing just the same kind of advantage you get from a low reolution display over a high resolution display. Again, highly subjective, and personally I don't use it either.

V-sync... LOL I get the feeling you don't even know what that is, so please go look it up, cause it doesn't make anything look better.

You think they invented V-sync just for adding a separate button? Depends greatly on the draw rates you're able to achieve. It doesn't make a static image better, but when you start seeing a pesky drawline crawl up your display, you might change your mind.

Shadows are in the same vote for AA. Shadows do not give any type of disadvantage or advantage in a game like arma FYI. And yes it is a low end GPU. And as I stated before the low FPS is caused by fraps.

If you're hiding in the right outfit in the right place in the shadows of the forests of Chernarus, believe me, I'll pick you out far easier with shadows disabled compared to when they're on. It does rely on very near combat situations though.

Oh and what challenge? I would like to see you play arma @ 25FPS or 23FPS (with PP). Are you really going to say I have no challenge? Domi drops my frames down to around 15 FPS....

Better than what I'm getting with PP at normal, unless I choose low textures. I feel it's getting somewhat more difficult to pick up things while on the move. I don't want it to become impossible, just a hint. For me, immersion all the way.

[5LEvEN 11]

Not for me. Low FPS is pretty much guaranteed. ;)

It adds to my immersion, but yeah I'm glad we can set how much.

Some do. Also it enables sampling on a sub pixel level, so it does have the potential of providing just the same kind of advantage you get from a low reolution display over a high resolution display. Again, highly subjective, and personally I don't use it either.

You think they invented V-sync just for adding a separate button? Depends greatly on the draw rates you're able to achieve. It doesn't make a static image better, but when you start seeing a pesky drawline crawl up your display, you might change your mind.

If you're hiding in the right outfit in the right place in the shadows of the forests of Chernarus, believe me, I'll pick you out far easier with shadows disabled compared to when they're on. It does rely on very near combat situations though.

Better than what I'm getting with PP at normal, unless I choose low textures. I feel it's getting somewhat more difficult to pick up things while on the move. I don't want it to become impossible, just a hint. For me, immersion all the way.

AA in some games does add an advantage. For example in DCS A-10C if I turn on AA the buildings don't flicker on the edges, and makes it easier to distinguish them. But in arma I have noticed no advantage.

In some rare cases shadows do make a difference when spotting enemies. Out of all the games I have played (multi-player, single-player, and just screwing around in the editor) probably only 5% of the encounters with personal, shadows made a difference. In fact there are a few games that I have noticed actually need to have shadows disabled or enabled (other then performance reasons). When I enable shadows is to give me a slight warning. Because I can see the enemies shadow, but in arma its almost never needed. Maybe I am just different, but I have yet to find one game where shadows make a huge difference in spotting capabilities (other then seeing the enemies shadows).

Yes I know what v-sync is. And I have never needed it enabled. I have yet to find one game that the screen "tears" on my system.

I am a little interested in your system specs, because most people get better frames then me (most meaning around 99.9% of arma players)... If you actually get worse FPS then me, you are the first I have met.... :)

Edited August 16, 2011 by 5LEvEN
vague

[gossamersolid 155]

Low FPS is because of fraps

Well derp... if you record you will get low frames. Idling with fraps on won't decrease framerate though.

[rscarrab 10]

Lol, i think your the one that needs to look up v-sync. There's such a thing as screen tearing, as Carl points out in so many words. :rolleyes:

Count yourself fortunate that you dont notice screen-tearing; which funnily enough makes you the one who isn't well versed in the usefulness of v-sync. Guess why i've got D3DOverrider running atm (cryptic clue: for games that dont support v-sync -ie Metro 2033 when it first came out).

Your right, we all have arma; but im not the one that feels the need to create subjective video's on youtube (ie with headbob removed).

The low FPS that you are experiencing is woeful, its blatantly obvious that fraps is only adding to that. I play arma no problem @ 25FPS+ with PP on, if you want to book a flight from the US over to Dublin and watch me play your more than welcome to. FYI the vimeo video was made using Fraps.

You say you turned on head-bob to max, "small difference"... just like motion-blur is "almost noticable". Combine the two and you get "quite noticable". TBH i believe your downplaying the significance of the both combined.

Of course in RL Joe civilian's head doesnt bob as much as that; its an effect created by the developers, for soldiers. As i pointed out before; soldiers in the field have to carry around a lot of heavy equipment and when they are attacked they have to move quicker. Its hard to keep your head level like that when under duress, with such heavy weight pushing down on your back; going for a run can be challenging.

The whole point of this feature is to simulate that. Your gpu is weak and cannot withstand the punishment that v-sync, AA, PP, shadows etc. dish out. So you've convinced yourself that you dont need these features and that they are in-effect, useless.

Hence im not surprised in the slightest that you have no idea what challenge im referring to.

So to summarise;

Its either; an ALMOST noticable difference (PP), a SMALL difference (headbob) or a RARE case (shadows).

Get a better system and play the game in all its glory, otherwise --let me re-iterate;

"...accept the fact that you like to play with a lot of features turned down or off completely and that due to this you arent experiencing the added challenge that i describe."

Edited August 16, 2011 by rscarrab
added: cryptic clue

[Wen 10]

The view distance could use some enhancements. If I remembered correctly, the official campaign in ArmA 1 was composed based on a view distance of 1200m. More than that, you will have all sorts of issues like premature triggers and that. This is ridiculous at best, how a healthy man can only be allowed to see over a distance 1200 metres on a nice and sunny day :(

[Windexglow 10]

Speaking of low fps, is firerate still influenced by it?

[5LEvEN 11]

Lol, i think your the one that needs to look up v-sync. There's such a thing as screen tearing, as Carl points out in so many words. :rolleyes:

Count yourself fortunate that you dont notice screen-tearing; which funnily enough makes you the one who isn't well versed in the usefulness of v-sync.

Your right, we all have arma; but im not the one that feels the need to create subjective video's on youtube (ie with headbob removed).

The low FPS that you are experiencing is woeful, its blatantly obvious that fraps is only adding to that. I play arma no problem @ 25FPS+ with PP on, if you want to book a flight from the US over to Dublin and watch me play your more than welcome to. FYI the vimeo video was made using Fraps.

You say you turned on head-bob to max, "small difference"... just like motion-blur is "almost noticable". Combine the two and you get "quite noticable". TBH i believe your downplaying the significance of the both combined.

Of course in RL Joe civilian's head doesnt bob as much as that; its an effect created by the developers, for soldiers. As i pointed out before; soldiers in the field have to carry around a lot of heavy equipment and when they are attacked they have to move quicker. Its hard to keep your head level like that when under duress, with such heavy weight pushing down on your back; going for a run can be challenging.

The whole point of this feature is to simulate that. Your gpu is weak and cannot withstand the punishment that v-sync, AA, PP, shadows etc. dish out. So you've convinced yourself that you dont need these features and that they are in-effect, useless.

Hence im not surprised in the slightest that you have no idea what challenge im referring to.

So to summarise;

Its either; an ALMOST noticable difference (PP), a SMALL difference (headbob) or a RARE case (shadows).

Get a better system and play the game in all its glory, otherwise --let me re-iterate;

"...accept the fact that you like to play with a lot of features turned down or off completely and that due to this you arent experiencing the added challenge that i describe."

Ugh, I don't get how it's that hard for you.... I said I DON"T have screen tearing so I don't need it. Which is funny you're telling me to go look it up, because I already answered that I DON"T need it, because I DON"T have screen tearing. Yes I understand I have a low end GPU, and I do WANT a better one for obvious reasons. shadows, AA, and PP are in my opinion EYE CANDY. And by small difference with very high PP and max head bob, I mean like literally a 10% difference. Which makes it still BARELY NOTICEABLE when moving without moving weapon or head. I run 6 days a week at an average of 8 miles a day. I don't run on the tread mill, I run on trails and roads. I know for a fact that I am able to focus on objects close and in the distance while running, and that my head doesn't bob like that. I also know people in the military who do not confirm what you're saying about head bob. TO be honest I get the feeling you are trying to troll....:j:

---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

Speaking of low fps, is firerate still influenced by it?

Yes. You fire a hell of a lot slower when you got low FPS. That you can trust me on... :)

[rscarrab 10]

10%, 5%... Your numbers baffle me.

I never said you have screen tearing, but you seem to think that v-sync is a hard for someone like myself to grasp, thats laughable.

Just because your agitated does not automatically mean im trying to troll. :rolleyes:

If you want to play Arma2 with barely any of the visual features available then i put forward the valid suggestion to give the mission maker the option to force a few of these features, so those of us that prefer the added immersion can play together knowing that everyone is in the same boat so to speak.

I came in here and suggested this, you replied to my comment and disagreed. I have every right to defend my point of view. You have every right to disagree. If that is your definition of trolling then you need to look that up too. :)

If you dont feel like taking part in this discussion anymore than your more than welcome to "agree to disagree".

[5LEvEN 11]

10%, 5%... Your numbers baffle me.

I never said you have screen tearing, but you seem to think that v-sync is a hard for someone like myself to grasp, thats laughable.

Just because your agitated does not automatically mean im trying to troll. :rolleyes:

If you want to play Arma2 with barely any of the visual features available then i put forward the valid suggestion to give the mission maker the option to force a few of these features, so those of us that prefer the added immersion can play together knowing that everyone is in the same boat so to speak.

I came in here and suggested this, you replied to my comment and disagreed. I have every right to defend my point of view. You have every right to disagree. If that is your definition of trolling then you need to look that up too. :)

If you dont feel like taking part in this discussion anymore than your more than welcome to "agree to disagree".

While I am sorry that there is no real way to determine exact numbers, thus it requires YOU to interpret the numbers. If you honestly think the difference is greater then 25% I would say you're blind or you are trolling. Actually you are the one being agitated. Hear to save you time I looked up the definition for you

ag·i·tate

verb /ˈajiËŒtÄt/ 

agitated, past participle; agitated, past tense; agitates, 3rd person singular present; agitating, present participle

Make (someone) troubled or nervous

- the thought of questioning Toby agitated him extremely

Campaign to arouse public concern about an issue in the hope of prompting action

- they agitated for a reversal of the decision

Stir or disturb (something, esp. a liquid) briskly

- agitate the water to disperse the oil

I believe you are talking about the 2nd meaning. Which you are the one suggesting to be able to force settings, while I am saying LEAVE it alone.

I get the feeling you are trying to troll, because before the upload of a video it was a discussion about settings. Now its you trying to say this and that because of my settings (which is what I HAVE TO RUN, so I can actually play the game, believe me if I had money, I would buy a new computer, and that computer would max out arma). And that I am delusional ROFL... Also that I am not having the same "challenge" as you. It's as if you saw defeat so you're trying to change the subject to something you can win at.... A disagreement is not trolling.

-Just what I am thinking, do not want to argue about this-

BTW I don't think you play at my FPS. Because I have 25 FPS without a lot of combat and without fraps, and at my settings. I have 28FPS as a MAX. You recorded with fraps just as smoothly as I run the game without fraps. You probably get to my FPS (without combat and without recording) when in heavy combat or recording, which during recording I have 9 FPS, and during heavy combat I can get down to less then that easy...

-Just what I am thinking, do not want to argue about this-

[rscarrab 10]

Lol, thanks for the english lesson.

Im not referring to any second meaning, you just spoke with a LOT OF CAPITALS. (capitals can be interpreted as shouting, shouting can be interpreted as being agitated) :p

I get the feeling you are trying to troll, because before the upload of a video it was a discussion about settings.

There's not much more to say about settings, after the upload of the video i was able to get a glimpse at what type of performance you were getting and with roughly what FPS. Your understanding of the settings were diluted imo; mainly due to the fact that you had head-bob off.

Now its you trying to say this and that because of my settings (which is what I HAVE TO RUN, so I can actually play the game, believe me if I had money, I would buy a new computer, and that computer would max out arma). And that I am delusional ROFL...

Im not suggesting that your delusional per-say, more-so that you are incapable of running all of said settings with a desirable framerate. Myself and Carl pointed out before that low FPS can make motion-blur a lot more pronounced; giving an undesirable effect in comparison to how its intended to be interpreted. Im of the impression that your opinion is heavily biased in that regard.

Also that I am not having the same "challenge" as you. It's as if you saw defeat so you're trying to change the subject to something you can win at.... A disagreement is not trolling.

I originally pointed out that i want to segregate these features so as to even the playing field, to suggest that i suddenly saw defeat is obnoxiously wrong considering the fact that i proposed this idea from the start. :)

Edited August 16, 2011 by rscarrab
spelling

[5LEvEN 11]

Lol, thanks for the english lesson.

Im not referring to any second meaning, you just spoke with a LOT OF CAPITALS. (capitals can be interpreted as shouting, shouting can be interpreted as being agitated) :p

There's not much more to say about settings, after the upload of the video i was able to get a glimpse at what type of performance you were getting and with roughly what FPS. Your understanding of the settings were diluted imo; mainly due to the fact that you had head-bob off.

Im not suggesting that your delusional per-say, more-so that you are incapable of running all of said settings with a desirable framerate. Myself and Carl pointed out before that low FPS can make motion-blur a lot more pronounced; giving an undesirable effect in comparison to how its intended to be interpreted. Im of the impression that your opinion is heavily biased in that regard.

I originally pointed out that i want to segregate these features so as to even the playing field, to suggest that i suddenly saw defeat is obnoxiously wrong considering the fact that i proposed this idea from the start. :)

I use CAPITALS just as you would use italics. I honestly don't get why people have to think capitals are for shouting. Youtube for example has no italic capabilities (to my knowledge) so I use capitals instead. And it's also a lot easier to just FLIP ON THE CAPSLOCK AND TYPE STUFF, then it is to use the button, and type in between the symbols, or type the symbols. Hope that makes sense :) Also most on YouTube understand this, so I usually don't get the "why are you shouting at me" expression, and when I do I explain this.

I have tried a lot of combinations for settings. Mainly for performance reasons. I have also tried them for immersion. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to max out the game, but I just don't have the hardware nor do I have the money for the hardware. When I have low FPS I am all for performance, when I have spare FPS I start cranking up settings. And on some games (oblivion for example) I get graphical mods, and force AA, AF, and some other settings via the Nvidia control panel... Or a better example BF2, as some of the settings do effect your gameplay (like grass), but I still crank up the settings all the way because I can.

How exactly does head bob effect my opinion of settings. That is really funny that you think that.... So let me get this straight... Because I prefer performance, and realism. My opinion of settings is delusional, and biased, whilst yours is not? rofl...

I was talking about seeing defeat on the motion blur being almost non-existent while just running without movement of the head or weapon, and it's also basically the same with head bob at max. I do see what you are talking about with motion blur and low FPS BTW.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

§12 ;)

Btw, how is caps lock that much easier than ctrl i or ctrl b or ctrl u? One user feature this forum software got very right compared to most others I use. Not the worst "crime" I've seen. Didn't even notice, but I tend to skip posts that are "bad" for shouting reasons or otherwise.

[rscarrab 10]

I use CAPITALS just as you would use italics. I honestly don't get why people have to think capitals are for shouting. Youtube for example has no italic capabilities (to my knowledge) so I use capitals instead. And it's also a lot easier to just FLIP ON THE CAPSLOCK AND TYPE STUFF, then it is to use the button, and type in between the symbols, or type the symbols. Hope that makes sense Also most on YouTube understand this, so I usually don't get the "why are you shouting at me" expression, and when I do I explain this.

Well, like it or not people do refer to CAPS as shouting; when typing on the internet. That was my interpretation of aggravated in this case. There's no need to get into something as mundane as this lol.

How exactly does head bob effect my opinion of settings. That is really funny that you think that.... So let me get this straight... Because I prefer performance, and realism. My opinion of settings is delusional, and biased, whilst yours is not? rofl...

It is biased because you cant experience said feature the way it was intended to be experienced. Your low frame-rate turns it into a hindrance.

Head-bob effects motion-blur as in both effects compliment each other -"part-and-parcel". This can affect ones opinion of motion-blur if head-bob is non-existent. Like in your case.

You state there is no motion-blur when your running forward, yet you have head-bob turned completely off so that your head is in essence almost floating. How realistic is that?

Look at a few helmet-cam clips; you'll notice that whenever running/jogging the soldier in question is a lot closer to what i describe than to what you show (in your youtube video); if your looking for realism then you have it backwards.

Your completely disregarding the fact that a soldier at any one time can be carrying 80lb's of equipment and when under duress --trying to avoid bullets, lugging heavy gear, chin-strapped helmet etc-- it can "feel like trying to move your head forward in a rocket" -as my esteemed colleague points out.

I dont care if your Linford Christie; its still a far cry from your average 8 mile run up a dirt road.

From what i gather you prefer performance and cant afford the added realism. It is because of people in your situation that i suggest this as being an optional feature available to mission makers. Not an across the board -forced feature.

And lol... This whole defeat thing, to quote yourself, is "really funny" considering you were the one that started yelling troll. :rolleyes:

[mrcash2009 0]

Also as regards setting audio, first person voice needs its own slider as radio has, music separate to GUI sounds.

Ive been asking for first person voice to have its own slider since arma2 was announced, and my question was asked on Sahrani Radio with Ivan back then.

I agree on all graphics slider options here.

[5LEvEN 11]

Well, like it or not people do refer to CAPS as shouting; when typing on the internet. That was my interpretation of aggravated in this case. There's no need to get into something as mundane as this lol.

It is biased because you cant experience said feature the way it was intended to be experienced. Your low frame-rate turns it into a hindrance.

Head-bob effects motion-blur as in both effects compliment each other -"part-and-parcel". This can affect ones opinion of motion-blur if head-bob is non-existent. Like in your case.

You state there is no motion-blur when your running forward, yet you have head-bob turned completely off so that your head is in essence almost floating. How realistic is that?

Look at a few helmet-cam clips; you'll notice that whenever running/jogging the soldier in question is a lot closer to what i describe than to what you show (in your youtube video); if your looking for realism then you have it backwards.

Your completely disregarding the fact that a soldier at any one time can be carrying 80lb's of equipment and when under duress --trying to avoid bullets, lugging heavy gear, chin-strapped helmet etc-- it can "feel like trying to move your head forward in a rocket" -as my esteemed colleague points out.

I dont care if your Linford Christie; its still a far cry from your average 8 mile run up a dirt road.

From what i gather you prefer performance and cant afford the added realism. It is because of people in your situation that i suggest this as being an optional feature available to mission makers. Not an across the board -forced feature.

And lol... This whole defeat thing, to quote yourself, is "really funny" considering you were the one that started yelling troll. :rolleyes:

Ugh... This is becoming very annoying now... I feel like a robot who only knows how to repeat him self....

-It is not biased if you can see how it is "supposed" to be. And it's actually fine on my computer all the way up until combat starts and the lag kicks in for me.

-Head bob only makes a SMALL difference to motion blur... Do I really need to upload another video just to prove this stupid point?

-I already stated that I USE CAPS JUST AS YOU WOULD USE italics. So I never yelled at anyone.

-Of course you're going to see a lot of bobbing up and down on a head cam. Have you ever used one? Go ahead and just walk normally. Yeah, the camera still bobs a lot, but your vision looks level. It's not what the camera shows you, its what YOU see.

-I am against this feature because it waste the developers time in my opinion. It waste time that should be used on increasing realism. I don't care if it takes only five minutes for them to do, it's still a waste of time.

-I prefer realism. Realism being as close to reality. Your brain makes corrections for your head bobbing up and down. So you don't notice it. Even when just walking you head is bobbing, yet you don't notice it.

-Oh and I have seen helmet cams on soldiers. Here's some proof for that (hope you enjoy them, I know I did :) )

---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 PM ----------

I would like the option under audio to turn down vehicle noises (mainly from helicopters).

---------- Post added at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------

§12 ;)

Btw, how is caps lock that much easier than ctrl i or ctrl b or ctrl u? One user feature this forum software got very right compared to most others I use. Not the worst "crime" I've seen. Didn't even notice, but I tend to skip posts that are "bad" for shouting reasons or otherwise.

Because I just hit capslock with my pinky. While ctrl+i requires me to hold ctrl with my pinky and hit the i with my middle finger. Then click out of the zone for italics. Also ctrl+i does not work for me... So to use italics I have to stop typing, click the button, start typing, stop typing, click out of the italics zone, and continue again. Or I just hit capslock keep typing and hit capslock again...

[rscarrab 10]

In regards to you feeling aggravated and robotic, i told you already; you can agree to disagree if you so feel like it. You choose not to. :)

I state that its biased because in your view you would not like to use a feature which is highly detrimental to your performance. You say it runs fine until you reach a battle yet it runs way below what i would expect even on a strained GPU with Fraps enabled @ 500 Visibility (not to mention all the other features turned either down/off).

Of course i acknowledge the fact that a camera and a pair of eyes are both vastly different in regards to how they deal with processing of images, yes, though at the end of the day this is a feature employed by the developers to simulate the effect and because of this feature; game-wise, i ask that it become an optional parameter/requirement. Were a long way from a one-to-one copy of real-life, i think we can all agree on that. ;)

BI arent creating 2 images and super-imposing them on top of each other in order to simulate two eyes; its done with one camera. Giving some weight to the head is the best that anyone can hope for, given the current state of GFX. That is what they are trying to portray since they cant actually walk into your humble abode, strap some heavy gear onto your back and push you down the stairs. The bottom line being that helmet cams are the only example in which to go by. Not only that, but i adamantly stand by the assumption that carrying such weight and being pushed to the peak of ones endurance can cause strain on ones neck, not necessarily the eyes themselves.

What BI are obviously trying to do is give more immersion to the player; that can hinder them in a challenging way. The fatigue (screen warping), motion-blur, head-bob, bloom/blinding sun are all effects that are within the realm of visuals.

These are a disadvantage to those that use them, but its something that is immersive and enjoyable. If your in a competitive PvP environment it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that there be some kind of standard here, at least an optional one.

Arma being a sandbox may differ in what one man expects compared to the next man. To suggest such a feature is hardly blasphemy given that statement.

You argue that this is a waste of time for the developers, when there is quite a significant number of people that like this effect --both soldiers and non-soldiers. The developers were the ones that took the time in the first place to develop this game and i believe they are more qualified than you or i to make the decision on whether it is appropriate to include this feature or not. The fact that they have included it already says something about what they are trying to do.

Considering the fact that it is there, one can only assume that since they said they wont remove any features; it will either be improved upon or remain as-is. If it remains as-is and proves to be unacceptable to people with low-end GPU's then i would hope there is some option for a mission maker to enable it.

I appreciate the linkage, as i havent seen that and will give it a watch later. In terms of watching an hour long video right now; i find it best to refer to shorter clips which show-off the feature that BI are trying to perfect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZHrubLXGR8

---

As is said, BI included this feature -its there. They are the ones that decided during the development process to add this feature, i doubt it took them five minutes. To negate the developers decision as non-realistic or less immersive is your opinion, which i believe to be biased due to your performance constraints. As much as ive re-iterated my case i find that the disadvantage plus added immersion is a non-issue, the crux of my argument is that it be a parameter so that those of us who play with it have piece of mind knowing that everyone is on an even keel.

Edited August 16, 2011 by rscarrab
grammar

[5LEvEN 11]

In my opinion the goal of immersing the player in a game is to make the player feel like he/she is inside the game, apart of it basically. The head bob makes me feel like I am watching it, not apart of it. That is why it kills the immersion for me, and I prefer not to use it.

I would enable motion blur if it wasn't tied to PP. I can run motion blur fine, its just the PP that kills my system. Also when my frames start to drop, the motion blur gets worse. Even if the drop is all cause of my **** CPU.

This whole discussion started because of wanting to be able to force graphics to "balance" the game. But I do not see a need to. Also when players FPS starts to drop, then someone having a better system has an even greater advantage. For example I can compete on PvP, but if I enable PP (obviously motion blur is included in that setting) and my CPU begins to bottleneck (as it always does) then motion blur for me would be overkill and I would no longer be able to compete with others. If you left that option up to the players, then I would still be able to compete, and if someone thinks I have an advantage they could easily turn off their PP, so there is no longer an advantage. What we have currently is enough. Everything else should be up to the player.

BTW my GPU actually handles arma fine at my settings even though it's low end. It's my CPU that bottlenecks. It doesn't matter if PP is done on the GPU, the moment my CPU bottlenecks, motion blur becomes unbearable.

[rscarrab 10]

Well it is a camera effect after all, which does its best to simulate head-strain coupled with fast movement. Slightly blurry vision (with good fps) is there to remove the constant "perfect focus" that is otherwise present.

It is unacceptable for those that enjoy using this feature to turn it off in order to have a fair fight. I find that its far more acceptable to create the option for those of us that use it; to play amongst ourselves from time to time (and through an ingame setting; ensure that it is enforced). :)

[rangerpl 13]

I'd like to see some more settings for PP effects. Some are good but there are others like bloom that just make me sick.

[rscarrab 10]

Bloom did tend to go a bit "full on" in regards to looking up a bit. One could almost find the exact point at which bloom would go full on, aim down a bit and it would dissipate very quickly. If it was a lot more gradual id welcome that, for sure. It would be nice to break up the PP features if that wasn't addressed. :)

Edited August 16, 2011 by rscarrab
grammar

[sillik 10]

More customise options post process settings would be nice. Specially exessive bloom is annoying.

Edited August 21, 2011 by sillik

[NielsS 10]

As long as i can turn off PP i'm happy but please, NO fixed settings. We get enough of that crap from console ports.

As i'm a SP and COOP player i don't care about MP, but i can understand that people who play PvP a lot want a system implemented that keeps it fair for everyone playing.:cool:

[Bouben 3]

I would like to have as many settings as possible in some kind of separated "advanced" mode so that it would not scare casual players who are important for BIS too. Especially LOD details like in the first OFP would be great.

[arigram 0]

I am not sure if it would be possible that a graphic setting I would have liked to see is regarding the amount and duration of particles, so smoke can be thicker, plumes can be longer, boat wakes can have a more realistic length, etc .

[sillik 10]

Or atleast there could be advanced commands to add in "arma.config" if they like/want to keep GUI simple..

Do the devs even have time to read these, it's been over 1 year since, i saw post

I hope we will be able to give further control in future, btw, over PP effects to users.

but haven't seen any updates about that.