arma 2 arrrowhead graphics

[xellos 10]

does arma 2 arrowhead have better graphics than arma 2?

[[frl]myke 14]

Hmmm...now how should we compare the look of the green Chernarus with the desert'ish Takistan?

Let's say it this way: both versions do have the same high quality graphics unless you try to play it on a underpowered system.

______________________________________________________________

Was this reply helpful to you?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[frostwyrm333 1]

arrowhead engine is little bit more advanced, and supports SSAO, which is depending on situation barely noticeable.

Also it might be slightly faster.

[pendragonuk 0]

I find that the new maps run faster than the green ones. There is less to draw, that said you get in the middle of the city and it will bring my system to it's knees... I do thing that Chernarus looks way better when playing from OA. The clouds when flying and the mist and rain all looks way better. Go on give BIS some more of your money... They need it more than you.

[purepassion 22]

I would go for a "yes"

but like myke said: very hard to compare!

regarding the technical facts OA is superior to Arma 2. i especially prefer OA trees and the engine updates, which of course have impact on the game graphics

[sgt gul 0]

i usually get more stable fps in takistan, in chernarus with larger cities etc it gives me a drop of fps. But in overall i think OA is better in graphics, just slightly.

[wipman 1]

Hi, yes, the OA have better graphics than the ArmA2 on some aspects; for example, the units (civilians & military) have better models, it's more noticeable with the head models and hand models, also the human skin and faces textures are much more detailed than the ArmA2 ones. I didn't seen any model/texture graphic improvement or increase on the weapons or vehicles, but the OA's houses even the not enterable ones, are more detailed and have more polys. So... yes; the OA have better graphics than the ArmA2. Let's C ya

[Flash Thunder 10]

For the most part yes but theres still parts that make my eyes bleed like the low poly terrain, trees and shrubs that love to stay in low LOD even when your right next to them and a few other things like the back drop picture.

I know im bitching again :o

but yes models look alot better, textures on the uniforms are more crisp, the buildings are beautiful and the foilage is nice when its not in low lod. :)

[dale0404 5]

I just think the lighting is way better when running OA, especially Chernarus.

[pendragonuk 0]

I just think the lighting is way better when running OA, especially Chernarus.

I agree, Chernarus looks beautiful at times. Rain and low lining mist can make for some very atmospheric missions. Wet post dawn in a pine forest, raining, you almost feel cold.

[Craig_VG 20]

Myke;1991293']

Was this reply helpful to you?

[X] Yes

[ ] No

:):):)

[ziiip 1]

Both looks great, but you really need Landtex for Chernarus. Although the orange trees arent that hot from distance, but thats not true if you go closer.

[gossamersolid 155]

I agree, Chernarus looks beautiful at times. Rain and low lining mist can make for some very atmospheric missions. Wet post dawn in a pine forest, raining, you almost feel cold.

Solution: Play Chernarus on OA. You get to play Chernarus (which is way way better than Takistan) and you get to play it on the new engine which has more advanced lighting effects.