Module graphics settings for Arma 3 Vote please

[5LEvEN 11]

Yes to adding the option to adjust graphical settings further...

Now about the MP...

No, servers should not force settings. There is A LOT of factors to consider if you're doing it to "balance" the game. The player should be able to decide what he/she wants, this would allow the player to have the best possible experince on his/her computer. Everyone has the same options, you're not forced to have shadows on, nor should you be forced to have certain settings.

You guys are complaining about a player having an unfair advantage because of his/her graphical settings, when you can turn yours down to. Some of you who invest in your gaming rigs have HUGE advantages in both hardware and settings. For example, track IR, more then one screen, higher resolutions, better speakers, better mouse, better keyboard, better internet, and better joysticks. So if you want a truly "fair" MP experince, you would have to have a LAN party, where everything is exactly the same. Also lets not forget that you can have an advantage with options turned up...

Bottom line...

Do not force settings.

---------- Post added at 08:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 AM ----------

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. :)

You are correct in the parameters given by you. But you are failing to understand this... 3 monitors at 1080p = 5760 x 1080. Now that is one hell of a difference from my 1920 x 1080 monitor. Also you can have 3 monitors each at 2560 x 1600, and a total resolution of 7680 x 1600...

Also here is the pixel difference between set ups

1680x1200 = 2,016,000

1920x1080 = 2,073,600

2560x1600 = 4,096,000

5760x1080 = 6,220,800

7680x1600 = 12,288,000

Edited August 15, 2011 by 5LEvEN
added some , and fixed error

[rscarrab 10]

I wouldnt go as far as saying im complaining. Rather im debating in a topic where the OP has raised the question. Also providing constructive idea's.

About the 3 monitors. I play with a guy who has that setup using Eyefinity. I do believe what your describing can have an advantage yes, a very expensive one. One which i would gamble the vast majority of players dont have.

For the sake of argument though it is a valid point. But if the guy with 3 monitors has motion blur activated then he is going to experience the same effect that the guy with 1 monitor does; Blur.

Im not looking for a purist "truly fair" scenario. What i suggest is primarily to segregate the features which fall into the category of "added realism through PP effects".

Keyboards, mice and even TrackIR's are subjective. Each person will inevitably continue to use whatever they feel comfortable with. I myself have TrackIR5 and dont use it. I did when i first got it, but i tend to shift my position a lot while gaming, hardly ever sitting up straight. TrackIR makes me feel uncomfortable and even when i was using it i found myself using the alt-key to freelook anyway (im used to it).

I would definitely welcome the option to force settings, possibly only motion-blur or any newer features that are similar in their function. Give the mission maker this option and let him decide. :)

[Flash Thunder 10]

So who would ever play with it on then?

Some people enjoy the extra immersion

and yes it would be a server setting.

[Derbysieger 11]

You are correct in the parameters given by you. But you are failing to understand this... 3 monitors at 1080p = 5760 x 3240. Now that is one hell of a difference from my 1920 x 1080 monitor. Also you can have 3 monitors each at 2560 x 1600, and a total resolution of 7680 x 4800...

Also here is the pixel difference between set ups

1680x1200 = 2,016,000

1920x1080 = 2,073,600

2560x1600 = 4,096,000

5760x3240 = 18,662,400

7680x4800 = 36,864,000

actually 5760x3240/7680x4800 would be 9 monitors, not 3. Not that extreme but still a huge difference.

3 monitors is 5760x1080/7680x1600

[5LEvEN 11]

actually 5760x3240/7680x4800 would be 9 monitors, not 3. Not that extreme but still a huge difference.

3 monitors is 5760x1080/7680x1600

Ah my mistake, I will correct that. I made that comment at at around 2 or 3 in the morning so...:)

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

I wouldnt go as far as saying im complaining. Rather im debating in a topic where the OP has raised the question. Also providing constructive idea's.

About the 3 monitors. I play with a guy who has that setup using Eyefinity. I do believe what your describing can have an advantage yes, a very expensive one. One which i would gamble the vast majority of players dont have.

For the sake of argument though it is a valid point. But if the guy with 3 monitors has motion blur activated then he is going to experience the same effect that the guy with 1 monitor does; Blur.

Im not looking for a purist "truly fair" scenario. What i suggest is primarily to segregate the features which fall into the category of "added realism through PP effects".

Keyboards, mice and even TrackIR's are subjective. Each person will inevitably continue to use whatever they feel comfortable with. I myself have TrackIR5 and dont use it. I did when i first got it, but i tend to shift my position a lot while gaming, hardly ever sitting up straight. TrackIR makes me feel uncomfortable and even when i was using it i found myself using the alt-key to freelook anyway (im used to it).

I would definitely welcome the option to force settings, possibly only motion-blur or any newer features that are similar in their function. Give the mission maker this option and let him decide. :)

Motion blur does not take away the advantage of 3 monitors. And I would rather just have it off. Everyone can turn it off, and it does cost some performance to turn it on.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Edited original post.

Added

Reflections

RTT

GPU Physx

[rscarrab 10]

Motion blur does not take away the advantage of 3 monitors. And I would rather just have it off. Everyone can turn it off, and it does cost some performance to turn it on.

The same can be said conversely; 3 monitors does not take away the dis-advantage of motion blur.

[Baff1 0]

Please allow me to turn off the blur!

I have 3 monitors. But I turn it off on single monitors too.

[rscarrab 10]

Hypothetical situation;

Ive made a PvP mission, one of the requirements to join is that you have motion-blur activated.

No-one is forcing you to join, its your choice. You can keep blur off and play another mission on another server.

Lets say we know you and want you to join, because we'd feel slightly guilty otherwise. No problem, just restart the mission and change the parameter "Force Blur" to off.

Its optional.

---

Motion-blur admittedly does cause a performance drop. Though the same could be said about AA. Actually as a matter of fact AA can cause a greater performance drop in comparison (on an nvidia card, i believe Ati handle it better tbh). Other features can be turned down to compensate.

I run my game without AA in order to take advantage of other immersive features. I will admit i miss the smoother edges, doesnt look nice in screenshots but its look fine in practice.

Im not going to go on and on about it, ive made my case in that the features are intended to A. add a more realistic immersive effect and B. at the same time handicap the player (added challenge).

Ive tried to separate post processing effects away from personally subjective tweaks (ie. mouse, keyboards, TrackIR, more monitors and resolution) while at the same time taking into account the predicament that some people face when trying to get the best performance out of Arma.

To suggest that somebody must be forced to play with certain settings is obviously not acceptable. But i dont see why it shouldnt be if its an optional feature. :)

[Nutlink 10]

As a fill in pilot for our team there's only 1 real graphic option I want to see - graphic options differences between in a vehicle and out of a vehicle. When I'm infantry I rarely need more than a 3k view distance, but in a helicopter I need at least 5k, and a fixed wing around 7k. It's such a PITA to change your view distance when you jump in and out of vehicles. It was even more difficulty when I had to turn off shadows and such with my older video card to get acceptable framerates while flying.

Some missions have scripts that allow you to change it, but I'd like to see something like this become official, at least with a .cfg change or something.

[Minoza 11]

As a fill in pilot for our team there's only 1 real graphic option I want to see - graphic options differences between in a vehicle and out of a vehicle. When I'm infantry I rarely need more than a 3k view distance, but in a helicopter I need at least 5k, and a fixed wing around 7k. It's such a PITA to change your view distance when you jump in and out of vehicles. It was even more difficulty when I had to turn off shadows and such with my older video card to get acceptable framerates while flying.

Some missions have scripts that allow you to change it, but I'd like to see something like this become official, at least with a .cfg change or something.

+1

This always bothered me.

[Flash Thunder 10]

As a fill in pilot for our team there's only 1 real graphic option I want to see - graphic options differences between in a vehicle and out of a vehicle. When I'm infantry I rarely need more than a 3k view distance, but in a helicopter I need at least 5k, and a fixed wing around 7k. It's such a PITA to change your view distance when you jump in and out of vehicles. It was even more difficulty when I had to turn off shadows and such with my older video card to get acceptable framerates while flying.

Some missions have scripts that allow you to change it, but I'd like to see something like this become official, at least with a .cfg change or something.

Dynamic viewdistance is already possible with VBS 2 and i think a mod for Arma 2 I agree it is a hassle to always having to change it when you get into fixed wing aircraft, infantry dont need that viewdistance unless you just want the small eye candy of the vast world in front of you.

[elmas 10]

Dynamic viewdistance is already possible with VBS 2 and i think a mod for Arma 2 I agree it is a hassle to always having to change it when you get into fixed wing aircraft, infantry dont need that viewdistance unless you just want the small eye candy of the vast world in front of you.

This, BIS for the love of God i hate having to change the view distance very time i use the UAV also, if i zoom (in the UAV), the view distance should change as well.

[5LEvEN 11]

The same can be said conversely; 3 monitors does not take away the dis-advantage of motion blur.

Motion blur and 3 monitors are 2 seperate things. Which is why I made that statement. 3 monitors is an advantage on its own, and motion blur, is a setting. Some see it as a disadvantage, and others may not see it having any disadvantage. Motion blur does not effect my ability to see enemies. The only thing it does is give me a headache after some time. I honestly don't see why anyone would want to force it in the first place. If you believe you are at a disadvantage becuase you have it on, then turn it off, you would gain performance and not have the disadvantage. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 PM ----------

As a fill in pilot for our team there's only 1 real graphic option I want to see - graphic options differences between in a vehicle and out of a vehicle. When I'm infantry I rarely need more than a 3k view distance, but in a helicopter I need at least 5k, and a fixed wing around 7k. It's such a PITA to change your view distance when you jump in and out of vehicles. It was even more difficulty when I had to turn off shadows and such with my older video card to get acceptable framerates while flying.

Some missions have scripts that allow you to change it, but I'd like to see something like this become official, at least with a .cfg change or something.

Agreed....

[rscarrab 10]

Motion blur and 3 monitors are 2 seperate things. Which is why I made that statement. 3 monitors is an advantage on its own, and motion blur, is a setting. Some see it as a disadvantage, and others may not see it having any disadvantage. Motion blur does not effect my ability to see enemies. The only thing it does is give me a headache after some time. I honestly don't see why anyone would want to force it in the first place. If you believe you are at a disadvantage becuase you have it on, then turn it off, you would gain performance and not have the disadvantage. :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want. :)

Point is that 3 monitors aren't designed by the developers to challenge the players ability to spot contacts, cause --yes your right-- blur is a setting.

My whole point has been the fact that they are 2 seperate things and should be treated as such -in regards to this debate. I don't believe the advantage of 3 screens is greater than that of motion-blur being off; to the point where i couldnt care less if someone has 9 screens. As long as they have 2 eyes its all good.

Turning off motion-blur removes a key part of the immersion which Arma offers in the visuals dept. I asked one of my arma buddies earlier this evening about his opinion on this (he served in the British army). He stated that the motion-blur that is included in Arma2 is most definitely a feature which he himself would not play without.

Why? Because of the challenge which comes part-and-parcel with said effect; in real-life he and the men he has served with suffer from a similar disadvantage. I asked him for his opinion because i wanted to find out if the effect is over-done or even valid in regards to the challenges that a soldier faces.

When it came to resolution, the numbers that you cited were well off and after correcting yourself it clearly isnt as much of an advantage --pixel-wise-- as you would have liked to have made out. Similarly i would prescribe to the opinion that your 3 monitors argument holds a lot less water than that of what iam pointing out.

Tbh i simply do not believe that there is no difference between motion-blur on/off, in regards to spotting enemies. From what i gather you just dont like the feature; it "gives you a headache". Whether its a case of severe corneal oedema or not; is anyones guess. :rolleyes:

Edited August 15, 2011 by rscarrab
grammatical error.

[5LEvEN 11]

Roll your eyes all you want. :)

Point is that 3 monitors aren't designed by the developers to challenge the players ability to spot contacts, cause --yes your right-- blur is a setting.

My whole point has been the fact that they are 2 seperate things and should be treated as such -in regards to this debate. I don't believe the advantage of 3 screens is greater than that of motion-blur being off; to the point where i couldnt care less if someone has 9 screens. As long as they have 2 eyes its all good.

Turning off motion-blur removes a key part of the immersion which Arma offers in the visuals dept. I asked one of my arma buddies earlier this evening about his opinion on this (he served in the British army). He stated that the motion-blur that is included in Arma2 is most definitely a feature which he himself would not play without.

Why? Because of the challenge which comes part-in-parcel with said effect; in real-life he and the men he has served with suffer from a similar disadvantage. I asked him for his opinion because i wanted to find out if the effect is over-done or even valid in regards to the challenges that a soldier faces.

When it came to resolution, the numbers that you cited were well off and after correcting yourself it clearly isnt as much of an advantage --pixel-wise-- as you would have liked to have made out. Similarly i would prescribe to the opinion that your 3 monitors argument holds a lot less water than that of what iam pointing out.

Tbh i simply do not believe that there is no difference between motion-blur on/off, in regards to spotting enemies. From what i gather you just dont like the feature; it "gives you a headache". Whether its a case of severe corneal oedema or not; is anyones guess. :rolleyes:

I am constantly checking the edges of my screen for small things, especially when moving quickly. The blur gives me a headache over time basically because of the fact I have to take a blurred image and transfer it to something understandable.

Yes I corrected it. But to say there is a small difference is really amusing to say the least.

Numbers in bold = Total pixels divided by base pixels (480p)

720×480 = 345,600 1

1280×720 = 921,600 2.666666666666667

1440x900 = 1,296,000 3.75

1680x1200 = 2,016,000 5.833333333333333

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 6

2560x1600 = 4,096,000 11.85185185185185

5760x1080 = 6,220,800 18

7680x1600 = 12,288,000 35.55555555555556

I would like to think that having that many more pixels is an advantage. Not even two months ago I was on a resolution 1440x900 and now I am on a resolution of 1920x1080. I see a difference in my game play. I am now even better because I can spot and aim much more quickly. It is much more easier to aim at five pixels then it is to aim at one pixel for example...

And IMHO the motion blur is really over kill. I can only replicate the blur in game turning at an average pace (the average pace being how fast I turn in real life) if I turn my head as fast as I can. And if I turn my head slowly in real life I get no blur, while in game I get some blur. So I actually see the blur as an immersion killer and over kill.

[rscarrab 10]

If you were to stop or walk with your weapon raised as i pointed out before you wouldnt have that problem with motion-blur activated. From what ive been told; this is something that has to be done in real-life. Carrying heavy equipment on your back adds strain which can make it harder to keep your focus when moving fast. You say you move quickly and like to check the edges of your screen, seems more like a play-style that your not willing to change. If you were to implement motion-blur you would have to adapt your play-style.

The advantage that you state in regards to moving up resolutions; can help alright (as i stated before). The difference is that resolution and monitors dont exist solely to impede the player. Which is why i make the argument that they arent in the same league.

A lower/higher resolution is something that is universally accepted and isnt a feature privy to just one game. The way motion-blur has been employed is specific to Arma2; other games use it very subtly and it serves no real purpose. In Arma it does.

Bohemia decided to add this feature to this game, they made that conscious decision.

Now that the option to use it is there; just like the guy with 3 monitors; im hardly going to not use it. But if someone was to join my PvP mission (still hypothetically speaking here) i wouldn't like for him to not face the same challenge that myself or others that i play with face. Simple as that. :)

[5LEvEN 11]

If you were to stop or walk with your weapon raised as i pointed out before you wouldnt have that problem with motion-blur activated. From what ive been told; this is something that has to be done in real-life. Carrying heavy equipment on your back adds strain which can make it harder to keep your focus when moving fast. You say you move quickly and like to check the edges of your screen, seems more like a play-style that your not willing to change. If you were to implement motion-blur you would have to adapt your play-style.

The advantage that you state in regards to moving up resolutions; can help alright (as i stated before). The difference is that resolution and monitors dont exist solely to impede the player. Which is why i make the argument that they arent in the same league.

A lower/higher resolution is something that is universally accepted and isnt a feature privy to just one game. The way motion-blur has been employed is specific to Arma2; other games use it very subtly and it serves no real purpose. In Arma it does.

Bohemia decided to add this feature to this game, they made that conscious decision.

Now that the option to use it is there; just like the guy with 3 monitors; im hardly going to not use it. But if someone was to join my PvP mission (still hypothetically speaking here) i wouldn't like for him to not face the same challenge that myself or others that i play with face. Simple as that. :)

Here allow me to be more precise. I did do testing to refresh my memory before my last post...

When walking, running, and sprinting motion blur is almost non-existent. When moving your view via head movements or weapon movements it becomes very noticeable. I do not move in a given direction without scanning my surroundings. My play style for arma is to move from cover to cover, and scan the environment. When moving without scanning the problem is non-existent. When aiming or looking the motion blur is over kill. When moving and aiming or looking the motion blur is even more so over kill. I have compared what I see in game to what I see in real life, and motion blur is over kill. I am not going to put my head in the dirt so I can play arma with motion blur. That's just stupid, since arma requires situation awareness. I dare you to do your own test, and do the comparisons. Motion blur in arma is just over kill.

[rscarrab 10]

When walking, running, and sprinting motion blur is almost non-existent.

Your test wasnt very concise considering that statement is incorrect. Its quite existent.

You dont have to do like an ostrich, just dont join said game. Im not suggesting that it be forced across the board.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Overkill or not I think depends on what fps you're able to run with, and also highly subjective. I'm already struggling, but I choose to use these effects pretty much regardless. My test is this; run down the street and try to read license plates of stationary and moving cars. While running, I'm just not capable of doing the same distances I manage when still and calm.

[5LEvEN 11]

Your test wasnt very concise considering that statement is incorrect. Its quite existent.

You dont have to do like an ostrich, just dont join said game. Im not suggesting that it be forced across the board.

I call this almost non-existent....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giB9-k9bBA

It is almost non-existent without moving the mouse. Doesn't matter what direction you move in or how fast it will look like that. It doesn't become horribly noticeable until you move the mouse. Go ahead do your own test. I dare you to try and prove me wrong.

[Richey79 10]

Good list of suggestions.

These are things that it would be of real benefit for the community not to have to pick up because Bis deprioritised them.

[Dead3yez 0]

My impressions are that people are going to need a super computer to play the game smoothy. With these options it only makes the game more accessible, I am very much for them.

[rscarrab 10]

I would refer to that video as showcasing what it looks like with head-bob turned off. :rolleyes:

I would also like to point out that it is a well known fact that if you dont have a solid frame-rate to support motion-blur it makes the effect a lot more pronounced and incredibly unbearable. In that video the frames are too low to support motion-blur without it becoming a nuance.

Judging by the settings displayed it must be a fairly weak gpu if it is to suffer with; AA off, Shadows off, vsync off when trying to display full PP.

Though not the best example, this is a video i made of a few of us goofing about (PP is on very high)(also, there is a slight bit of ghosting which is due to the video conversion);

http://vimeo.com/24603290

---

Of course if the head is not moving you wont get any motion-blur. Turn on head-bob, then re-upload another vid to youtube. :)

Otherwise 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 15, 2011 by rscarrab
Spelling.

[5LEvEN 11]

I would refer to that video as showcasing what it looks like with head-bob turned off. :rolleyes:

I would also like to point out that it is a well known fact that if you dont have a solid frame-rate to support motion-blur it makes the effect a lot more pronounced and incredibly unbearable. In that video the frames are too low to support motion-blur without it becoming a nuance.

Judging by the settings displayed it must be a fairly weak gpu if it is to suffer with; AA off, Shadows off, vsync off when trying to display full PP.

Though not the best example, this is a video i made of a few of us goofing about (PP is on very high)(also, there is a slight bit of ghosting which is due to the video conversion);

http://vimeo.com/24603290

---

Of course if the head is not moving you wont get any motion-blur. Turn on head-bob, then re-upload another vid to youtube. :)

Otherwise 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.

Low FPS is because of fraps. You have head bob on right? Cause you have just as much motion blur as I do. 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.

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

I turned on head bob to max, guess what... SMALL difference. It is still in my book almost unnoticeable. So I am not going to waste time uploading a new video. We all have arma right? So go ahead and try it your self.

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....

Edited August 15, 2011 by 5LEvEN
added last paragraph