Module graphics settings for Arma 3 Vote please

[Flash Thunder 10]

The breakdown

Graphics settings

Dynamic View Distance (already possible through a script on Arma 2) This would simply raise the View distance when in an Air vehicle and lower it when on foot).

Terrain Draw distance

Object Draw distance

Ground cover Draw distance

^These three options should be set with an exact number instead of using sliders bars.

All your general graphics options, Res, textures, etc

Dynamic Shadow map size 256x256 to whatever is the highest resolution shadow map

Water Quality [low] [medium] [high] (determines extra effects on water and overall fidelity)

Reflection quality [low] [medium] [high] this changes the reflection maps resolution

Render to Texture [Enabled] [Disabled] Dunno if this is possible or if its going to impact performance enough to justify disabling it. RTT enabled real time mirrors, cameras and other useful equipment functions.

Effects determines overall quality of particle effects, smoke, fire, debris, decals, muzzle flashes etc.

High Dynamic Range Quality current A2 setting

---------------------------------

POST PROCESS EFFECTS NEED TO BE SEPARATE OPTIONS!

Motion Blur- Enabled/Disabled

Film Grain- Enabled/Disabled (Mainly for Machinima purposes)

Depth of field (DOF) (not affected while in optics)- Enabled/Disabled

Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO) - [Low] [High]

This requires a lot more work by BIS but in the end it makes the end product more accessible for people with lower

than recommended system specs, also the separation of motion blur and Depth of field is NUMBER 4 on Arma 2 feature CIT.[/i]

A simple Yay or nay we just need to make sure BIS remembers to implement this into Arma 3.

Please feel free to add more settings that would help out lower spec users to enjoy Arma 3.

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/3718 <<<<<<<<<<< LINK to Arma 2 CIT Separate post process settings

Since we now have an ARMA 3 CIT please feel free to create a new ticket in the ARMA 3 FEATURE CIT if ones not already present.

Thank you.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Flash Thunder
CIT link

[PRiME 1]

Need better object and terrain draw distances. I would love to see REAL draw distances, think how flightsims do it such as il2 etc... Many games these days are doing away with the fog of war, surely BIS can too. Just need conservative terrain LOD, perhaps DX11 can help?

[johanna 11]

well, yes! the more changeable settings is great, the downside of it may be that all you end up doing is alter the settings for the 'perfect' look on your system... (like i did for my tv 6 months)

And i like to see color settings as well, today i cant play arma 2 without the blue night color filter... :(

[ArmAriffic 10]

rag-doll should be a y/n aswell

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

rag-doll should be a y/n aswell

That would be like saying bullets are optional. Isn't going to happen.

[messiahua 0]

The most important aspect of all this stuff - every graphical option should be forced by server. For example, it's very sad, that in arma2 anyone can turn off shadows and gain an advantage over other players.

[aus_twisted 0]

The most important aspect of all this stuff - every graphical option should be forced by server. For example, it's very sad, that in arma2 anyone can turn off shadows and gain an advantage over other players.

Forcing things like shadows from objects on within the server is a bad idea for people who cannot run at a decent frame rate with them on. It can be a advantage in PVP at close range but everyone has the option to turn them of.

[Bulldog Six 10]

no scroll bars for draw distance settings! that sucked before and will suck again. I want to be able to set the distance EXACTLY to a specified number of meters.

[messiahua 0]

Forcing things like shadows from objects on within the server is a bad idea for people who cannot run at a decent frame rate with them on. It can be a advantage in PVP at close range but everyone has the option to turn them of.

It could be optional. For example grass and viewdistance are and they are also on server-side by default. Following your logic nobody should play on any server, because there could be grass on (which is fps-hungry), but this parameters could be changed via scripting and shadows couldn't.

Edited May 20, 2011 by MessiahUA

[b00tsy 28]

Voted for Yay. Anything that could improve performance over quality would be welcome. I rather play with a decent frame rate then being amazed about the realistic environment.

As I mentioned in an other topic, I would love to see an option for static lighting as well.

[Mr. Charles 22]

no scroll bars for draw distance settings! that sucked before and will suck again. I want to be able to set the distance EXACTLY to a specified number of meters.

Herp a derp. Alter the settings in the config :j:

[drivebyhobo 10]

Film grain is a plague...

[Flash Thunder 10]

Film grain is a plague...

In this context its used for Night Vision Goggles

[nikiforos 450]

I dont believe there we be any big difference in graphics compared to ARma 2.

I dont know how much work BIs are putting into this project but to be fair I believe that the nice graphics is important to make more people to choose Arma 3 from other games.

I recently played some other games just to see how the graphics developed besides Arma 2 . I tested Farcry 2, Just Cause 2, Crysis 2, and all of these games has much better graphics and enviroment then Arma 2.

[dm 9]

In this context its used for Night Vision Goggles

So who would ever play with it on then?

Switch film grain off

use NVG

see perfectly

???

profit

Vs

Switch film grain on

use NVG

see nowt but grainy images

???

loss

[Rhodesy77 11]

So who would ever play with it on then?

Switch film grain off

use NVG

see perfectly

???

profit

Vs

Switch film grain on

use NVG

see nowt but grainy images

???

loss

Becuase some people actualy like a lil immersion..

[metalcraze 290]

I recently played some other games just to see how the graphics developed besides Arma 2 . I tested Farcry 2, Just Cause 2, Crysis 2, and all of these games has much better graphics and enviroment then Arma 2.

Are you joking?

Those games have 6 years old graphics with muddy textures and lack of polys plus ugly bloom filters to cover up the lack of detail. Not mentioning that save for JC2 they are corridor games (well technically JC2 is a corridor game too in quest design)

Graphics don't develop on consoles which still have 6-7 years old hardware.

I mean:

http://www.gameland.ru/filestorage/000184/efs183140/just-cause-2-10.jpg

vs.

http://i1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc379/comradekraze/ArmA%20II/arma2oa_chernarus_02.jpg

And let's not even compare FC2...

Crysis 1 is the only game that can give AA2 run for its money in terms of graphics and environments and AA3 will possibly change that.

Still if graphics is the No. 1 priority for players in AA3 - there's something wrong

Edited August 12, 2011 by metalcraze

[dm 9]

Becuase some people actualy like a lil immersion..

Point is, some things need to be forced on/off for the sake of "fairness" and/or balance, being able to switch things that will adjust your visability on/off on client side is not great for an MP game...

[dmarkwick 261]

Too much fuss is made over small "advantages" in MP. When you've dictated whether people must use shadows, or must use PP, or must have X viewdistance, how are you going to dictate what resolution people play at, for fear that higher-res players have an unfair advantage?

Just play man :)

[gossamersolid 155]

That would be like saying bullets are optional. Isn't going to happen.

/facepalm

not quite there bud. There's quite a few games that allow you to turn off ragdolls. They're glorified death animations really, they have little to no effect on gameplay.

[cia_kid 10]

well, yes! the more changeable settings is great, the downside of it may be that all you end up doing is alter the settings for the 'perfect' look on your system... (like i did for my tv 6 months)

And i like to see color settings as well, today i cant play arma 2 without the blue night color filter... :(

Hey Johanna,

I only have 10x as much RAM as you. I'm serious.

I can only just play OFP, I'm rubbish anyway so it doesn't matter.

I'm good at making MP & SP Missions though.

[Windexglow 10]

One idea I like about the source engines is how they do the background. There are 2 scenes - one where the player moves around, and another scene that acts as the background. The background scene is extremely simple, and as the player moves around in the first scene the background also moves with him.

In short - it would add realistic looking terrain at the end of what the player already sees. In arma there's a very fast fog at the end of your view distance. It could instead be smoothed over with this second terrain.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

If mission makers are able to "force" graphics settings, devs have to be careful. Like limiting us to select two or three of all settings that are to be forced. I like to play with motion blur for the added immersion of not being equally effective on the move, but it is a nightmare to have on when FPS drops to 8-12 (I'm at 15-25 normally). Sometimes I can overcome it by setting textures to lowest, but in wooden areas this is not a good option (can't see through leaves anymore, completely blinding me).

Being able to detect settings (but not force them) might work better, at least compared to having full freedom in what we dictate. I could detect "unfair settings", and keep notifying user to change using an annoying hintC on what he needs to do.

I'm all for fair play, but how to solve it needs some brainstorming. Indiscriminately allowing us to do whatever we want, is dangerous. If I'm forced to play at 8-12 FPS due forced settings running at 1280x1024, that's not exactly "fair" compared to someone running at 50-60FPS at 1920x1600 either. Should FPS be considered into the mix? Is it really worth it?

I have mixed feelings, to be honest.

[-FHA-Dynamo 0]

Forcing things like shadows from objects on within the server is a bad idea for people who cannot run at a decent frame rate with them on. It can be a advantage in PVP at close range but everyone has the option to turn them of.

in that regard everyone has the option of upgrading.

i guess servers can adjust their setting to the lowest computer connected.. but that kinda suck for those of us who actually invested in our rigs to run A3 at it's most sexiest.

[rscarrab 10]

Im in the same boat as Carl. Im torn between two possibilites.

On the one hand i like for PvP to be fair. Mission/Game type rules can play a big factor but more importantly removing blur or shadows for instance CAN create an advantage. IMHO an unfair advantage.

On the other hand im equally just as informed about how unfair it would be to force others to use PP features that they dont want to use. I myself would begrudge such an idea if i found i was being forced into it.

So yes, i have mixed feelings too.

---

I would suggest an option to make missions only available to a certain type of graphical fidelity, please dont take that comment out of proportion though. For fear of segmenting the community maybe have three options (as opposed to a whole list of advanced GFX options).

Option #1 is low-end, Option #2 is high-end and Option #3 is "anything goes". High end players can obviously play with lower end, which i cant see there being any advantage to the higher end user (apart from one, but ill get to that in a moment).

The graphical options in (low-end) Option #1 could comprise of a tried and tested "sweet-spot" and i suppose the (high-end) Option #2 would have no glass ceiling.

---

DMarwick, you make an interesting point in regards to Resolution settings; forcing a higher resolution would be insane. The only problem here is that it isnt as comparable to, for instance, blur -in this case.

Blur and subtle screen warping (sweat/fatigue) attempt to make it harder to spot people, let alone make out whether they are friend or foe (although a sound squad leader shouldnt necessarily let this become an issue :p).

Now take Resolution and for the sake of argument lets say that most people play at --anywhere from-- 1680x1200 to 1920x1080. The difference is a sharper image and a bit more screen real-estate. The extra amount of space on the screen can help alright, dont get me wrong. I just dont believe that its in the same league as what were discussing. :)

My main issue with advantage/disadvantage is the motion-blur. Not the screen warping or anything else for that matter. As Carl points out, he enjoys the added immersion but at the sacrifice of being more effective as a squad member.

---

To put it simply; while running (not sprinting) i can identify contacts more effectively and from a greater distance without motion blur. With it ill have to either stop and have a look, or walk with my weapon raised for a moment.

I find that the two aforementioned scenarios can create a disadvantage in PvP.