Chopper blades and props handling.

[EDcase 87]

Title is a bit crap. It should be blades and props rendering.

I really don't like the stuttery look of chopper blades and props in ArmA2.

I hope BiS will improve this for A3

I would like to see proper blured blades that give the real impression of their speed. (Would be great to have same blur for shadows of course ;))

What do you think....?

Edited June 7, 2011 by EDcase

[DaveG 0]

voted new blur look on the assumption you meant something like the new props on IL-2 CLOD. Those look freakin' amazing!

[Serclaes 0]

Funny, OFP had a blurred surface as rotor. :o

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I don't even know what this is about? What's wrong with ArmA 2's rotors now? :confused:

[nodunit 397]

What do you mean impression of speed? the fact that we see them is more of a digital effect, our eyes can't actually flow how quickly they rotate in the real world, they are about right the only thing missing is a blurring effect on the hub.

[EDcase 87]

What do you mean impression of speed? the fact that we see them is more of a digital effect, our eyes can't actually flow how quickly they rotate in the real world, they are about right the only thing missing is a blurring effect on the hub.

I'm saying

is what the rotors should look like.

Right now they look like being filmed with a high speed shutter of about 1/2000sec NOT how the human eye would see them.

Note that most videos of helicopters use a fast shutter as they are looking into bright sky with auto exposure so you get a similar result to ARMA. That is not how the human eye sees them.

Edited June 7, 2011 by EDcase

[nodunit 397]

So you are talking about the blur texture itself or the entire assembly?

[EDcase 87]

Mainly the blades.

The rotor hub isn't that blured as its not moving that fast.

So the hub could still be rotating geometry as it is now and just the blades could be a texture.

is another nice example with the good'ol Comanche.

There are a couple of shots that you can see the shutter sync with the rotors so you can see the blades.

Edited June 7, 2011 by EDcase

[nodunit 397]

It's a mixed deal, if you have moving blades then you can't really have a full set on blur because you won't see the movement very much especially if the blades are flat planes with a texture, that is possibly one of the reasons that DCS rotor blurs are what they are.

Edited June 7, 2011 by NodUnit

[EDcase 87]

Well BlackShark hasn't got it right either.

What do you mean by "the movement"?

I don't even know what this is about? What's wrong with ArmA 2's rotors now? :confused:

LOL BigDawg, its not that complicated :D

Edited June 7, 2011 by EDcase

[nodunit 397]

The motion of the blades flexing and twisting depending on the prop type, it's difficult to see when the blade is paper thin, if you look closely at DCS blades where it blurs, the blur is still 3D http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/fe6/4b4eebfcc42105319d28480c2da1379b.jpg but because it's not entirerly paper thin you can see.

Another likely reason for it done the way it is, is due to the hub having no blur at all so it looks a bit odd when the rotors blur 100% but there is none on the connecting parts, so it transitions instead.

I forgot how to use the time command but skip to 3:56

how much of that do you think you would see if the texture was paper thin and a full blur? Edited June 7, 2011 by NodUnit

[Big Dawg KS 6]

LOL BigDawg, its not that complicated :D

You're right, it's not. The rotors in ArmA 2 look pretty much just like that video you posted. So where's the complication?

[MoS 0]

So after some serious complaints from users about the rotors in ArmA II, BIS decided that this is how rotors will be in the final version of ArmA III:

eJ6vadFVjYg

YOU HAPPY NOW!? :D

[[frl]myke 15]

The problem lies in the difference between digital rendering (ingame graphics) and real footage.

While the eyes don't have a shutter (and therefor capturing visual info seemless) we notice the moving blades as blurred something. Also known as "motion blur".

Video cameras do have a shutter and there the time how long the shutter remains open defines how intense the motion blur is noticeable. In the "UFO Helicopter" the shutter time is shorter than usual and the rotation speed of the rotor matches the FPS the cam is recording. That said, everytime the cam takes a new shot, the blades are in a identical position as they were in the previous shot(s), this then results in the observed effect like the rotors wouldn't rotate at all. But for sure, the audience present there have seen a regular rotating rotor with the well-known blurring effect.

Now back to rendered graphics. The PC animates the rotor and renders the pics according to the FPS it can produce. So when it's ready to render, it takes the actual rotor position and renders it accordingly. Since this is equivalent to a extremely short shuttertime, the resulting pic doesn't have any blur at all.

ArmA 2 fakes this motion blur effect we're used to see by switching the solid rotor model to a blurred.

I can only assume that BIS chosen that solution over rendered motion blur effect to save CPU/GPU ressources.

So at the end, it is a simple cost/gain evaluation.

[EDcase 87]

You're right, it's not. The rotors in ArmA 2 look pretty much just like that video you posted. So where's the complication?

LOL, I think you need glasses :D

Myke: Baiscally they need to change to a complete disk at full speed so the blur can be more than a couple of blade widths.

Nodunit: You are talking about the blade pitch making the blur have some height. In real life the angle change is very low during flight and hardly more than the thickness of the blade. The blur object doesn't have to be a flat disk. It can be a very thin cylinder.

Edited June 8, 2011 by EDcase

[nodunit 397]

The blade sure but pending on the prop there is more twisting than just the blade, anyway ff the concern is the blade blur itself it would be easy but it's not currently doable without opening the models, a friend of mine tried to texture a wider blur but found out that they are using rectangular planes that only extend the width of the actual blade.

Edited June 8, 2011 by NodUnit

[DaveG 0]

this is what I was talking about in my post.

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

not the best video but the only one I could find. you'll notice it's not really a textured disc and the effect is totally governed by the rpm. Also you'll notice the blades become more visible when they catch the sun too.

you can't see the in the video but the blades are not flat when viewed from the side either. it looks to be a proper simulation of a prop, at least how a camera would see a prop, but it's a darn site better than any other implementation I have seen.

[EDcase 87]

Yeah Dave. Thats just what I'd like to see!

(Now that we've seen a bit of footage from E3 it looks like the blade blur is better :D)

[nodunit 397]

Ooh okay I think I got it..well that's easily done, all you do use single planes and twist them a bit to make them appear thicker and yes I think they did that with the comanche :D

[DaveG 0]

yes Nod. they also change angle when you move the prop pitch lever!