Improving the Light Engine| What and How

[purepassion 22]

In my opinion, the only thing that keeps most people from saying "Wow, Arma has some really impressive graphics" is it's lighting. We have one of the highest polycounts, texture size, viewdistance and a lot more but still it's somehow not quite convincing for a big part.

Popular games such as BF3 show whats possible with a fancy light engine.

It has some very poor models and muddy textures, however the overall picture looks stunning.

you can learn a bit more about how DICE is doing it.

It is NOT the idea or the purpose of this example to use Frostbite's light engine but simply an example for what kind of a difference the light engine actually makes and to look at the technology behind it rather than how DICE uses it:)

Compare the "naked" quality with the finished one

This shows, even with a rather low "true" quality of objects, the light engine is what actually makes these things look awesome. How awesome it would be with Arma's stock quality is currently written in the stars.

fAsg_xNzhcQ

I remember a post of Dwarden where he said he would absolutely love to see something similar to this in Arma. And that's the point.

How do you think this "similar" could look like in Arma and what is your wish? :)

As some food for your thoughts just imagine how scenes like this would look like with a improved light engine.:eek:

(Not even starting with the clouds :rolleyes:)

The greatest achievements were at first and for a time dreams. The oak sleeps in the acorn.

Best regards

Pure

Edited January 2, 2012 by PurePassion
Remember this is not a request for DICE's light engine;)

[Minoza 11]

Nice thread! Yes, yes and yes!

I guess so far differed lighting like in CE3 showed pretty impressive results - so is this technique the way to go? I remember reading that differed engines always have issues with AA and few other things though.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Minoza

[maturin 12]

I'm not convinced that ArmA 3 image would be drastically improved with Dice's lighting. Sure, you could doll it up with movie effects, but where does that leave you the other 86,399 seconds in that day, in all weather? Dice's maps are frozen in time in order to look that good.

What BI really need is a proper interior lighting system. Buildings are just plain dreadful.

[PuFu 4599]

true, BI cannot use pseudo-ray tracing maps dice is using baked in their models, since in armaverse, the sun goes around.

BUT, i would expect for a 2012 product to have real time soft shadows for all light sources, more than 2 light sources affecting the environment and content (the sun and the moon in this case) and so forth, including fixes for buildings and light going through objects.

[maturin 12]

I agree with you there. First priority in the lighting engine should be flashlights that are stopped by hard objects.

[dragon01 902]

I fully agree with this. I wondered, why a Polish game from a barely known studio (Sniper: Ghost Warrior) looks better than ArmAII, or why Crysis seems so photorealistic despite being quite old. Now I know. I thought that it was just because of my settings, but then I realized how much the lighting really matters. I think it should be a quite high priority to improve the lighting to at least on par with newer games.

I'd like to see something like that for AIII:

Currently, while Lemnos comparison images showcase realistic layout of the island, they're still a bit away from that level of similarity (while I initially thought that they should surpass the picture I posted).

[Timmoboy 10]

I'm all for improving the lightning but just don't make it unrealistic with too much bloom like battlefield 3.

It would certainly make all the buildings look better inside :)

[Flash Thunder 10]

Thats what i wanted mainly graphically from Arma 3 is an immensly improved lighting engine, capable of rendering more than 2 dynamic shadow light casters at once.

Deferred lighting method seems like something that is possible within the development cycle.

But yes, soft shadows, improved shadows in general Arma 2 look too cookie cutter like sharp and not soft in nature.

Lighting bugs/ and or limitations, like lights not colliding with terrain and buildings, improved particles would go hand and hand like the presentation discusses.

Its amazing already what BIS has bitten off for Arma 3, Whole new API, DX10 and 11, Improving the data streaming tech, 4x higher resolution sat maps, physx and new animation systems. It would be hard for me to ask them to improve the lighting engine on top of all these other changes but for me personally as I stated before lighting engine would boost the graphical fidelity of this game by 10 fold. Arma 2 already has nice models and textures. Time to see a more state of the art lighting engine for Real Virtuality.

Whats good to hear currently that BIS volumetric clouds will cast shadows on the terrain! :D

[sakura_chan 9]

Even if BIS was 100% stuck on their current lighting system, they should at least try to increase the number of lights visible at one time. It currently handles less than 10 at once, I remember ofp having 32 lights. At the bare minimum, they should rethink their management of the lights. For example, if you look at a scene with 7 bright streetlamps in the distance and one tiny lightbulb close up, the engine will render the brightest lights first even though the small light is a higher priority due to the player location. Even something as simple as having the lights fade in and out instead of just completely turning on or off would have a huge impact on the visual smoothness at night. If Arma 3 has drastically improved lighting it would really just finish off the lingering "legacy code" feeling of this whole series.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Although I'm sure it's done for performance reasons, the influence of at least #lightpoint may suddenly cease if you get too far away from them at any given brightness setting. Means that we're forced to use unrealistically powerful lighting just to have them show up.

Another thing is how they seem to ignore shading side (at least for some materials). Try putting in #lightpoint's on each of the hangars light fixtures in the ceiling, and it lights up also the external parts of the hangars. Very disturbing.

[metalcraze 290]

No. What you suggest is not improving but ruining the engine.

Lighting in BF3 and Crysis2 is completely ridiculous

IRL there are no overexaggerated contrast, pitchblack shadows and lensflares in your eyes from everything that shines. BF3 and Crysis2 use it to cover their dated graphics and it looks terrible as sometimes BF3 also looks black and white. Do you really want ArmA3 to look like a cartoon?

The lighting in ArmA2 is realistic and that's how it should stay. The only thing the engine needs is point light sources

Edited November 8, 2011 by metalcraze

[maddogx 13]

The lighting in ArmA2 is realistic and that's how it should stay. The only thing the engine needs is point light sources

It already has point light sources, they just don't cast shadows. That's what needs to be improved. ;)

Otherwise I do agree with you, but only in part - I would hate to see Arma3 go the way of BF3, with all the exaggerated bloom, lens flares and reflective crap on your screen.

On the other hand, there are some other things that could use improving:

- The bloom needs toning down. Fortunately Dwarden has already confirmed that this will happen.

- Proper soft shadows, or at least shadow texture dithering. Currently the shadows in the RV engine are pretty ugly.

- Increase the number of possible light sources.

[metalcraze 290]

VBS2 already has an increased number of lightsources so I assume ArmA3 will have too.

However I do agree about shadows. Too many jagged edges and yeah lightsources need to cast some.

[dm 9]

No. What you suggest is not improving but ruining the engine.

Lighting in BF3 and Crysis2 is completely ridiculous

IRL there are no overexaggerated contrast, pitchblack shadows and lensflares in your eyes from everything that shines. BF3 and Crysis2 use it to cover their dated graphics and it looks terrible as sometimes BF3 also looks black and white. Do you really want ArmA3 to look like a cartoon?

The lighting in ArmA2 is realistic and that's how it should stay. The only thing the engine needs is point light sources

If its not ArmA, then it is wrong and bad right?

The HDR and bloom in ArmA is fucking terrible, or have you ever seen glow in the dark cows a-la ArmA2? Very REALISTIC I must say... :j:

[roberthammer 582]

On the other hand, there are some other things that could use improving:

- The bloom needs toning down. Fortunately Dwarden has already confirmed that this will happen.

- Proper soft shadows, or at least shadow texture dithering. Currently the shadows in the RV engine are pretty ugly.

- Increase the number of possible light sources.

^ this :cool:

DX11 soft shadows will be the best

[PuFu 4599]

No. What you suggest is not improving but ruining the engine.

Lighting in BF3 and Crysis2 is completely ridiculous

IRL there are no overexaggerated contrast, pitchblack shadows and lensflares in your eyes from everything that shines. BF3 and Crysis2 use it to cover their dated graphics and it looks terrible as sometimes BF3 also looks black and white. Do you really want ArmA3 to look like a cartoon?

The lighting in ArmA2 is realistic and that's how it should stay. The only thing the engine needs is point light sources

You again? Still posting out of ignorance

Do you know the difference between post process effects an lighting engine? Bloom, lensflares, exagerated contrast and so forth go into the first category.

As DM said, the bloom in arma is even worse than crysis and BF3 TOGETHER. Case of point, you just can't have a white surface, or high reflectivity one without making it glow...

[Cripsis 10]

I hope one day BIS can develop a ARMA sequel that has graphics equivalent to this -

http://www.lazygamer.net/xbox-360/squares-new-photorealistic-luminous-engine/

[metalcraze 290]

If its not ArmA, then it is wrong and bad right?

No - if it's a game where lighting gets broken just to cover up something.

In BF3 you can have a room with 4 windows during bright day and yet the room will be pitch black - can't get any more wrong than that.

The HDR and bloom in ArmA is fucking terrible, or have you ever seen glow in the dark cows a-la ArmA2? Very REALISTIC I must say... :j:

I play without the bloom since 2009 so I dunno

Dwarden also said that said bloom will be gone/fixed in ArmA3 so I don't see the problem

Bloom, lensflares, exagerated contrast and so forth go into the first category.

When people talk about how "impressive" lighting in BF3 looks they talk about these things, no?

It's hard to see any sophisticated lighting behind them - I certainly can't - everything is either very dark or blindingly white

Also see above

Edited November 8, 2011 by metalcraze

[EricM 0]

Indeed Deferred lighting implies an overhead cost at first to set up all the buffers, but then it allows you so many things : the number of light sources and dynamic shadows can be increased dramatically, as the number of rendering effects.

I'm sure BIS and Suma have considered it at some point, they have eyes too.

But how much work and overhead does it bring on the game is another question.

[maddogx 13]

Indeed Deferred lighting implies an overhead cost at first to set up all the buffers, but then it allows you so many things : the number of light sources and dynamic shadows can be increased dramatically, as the number of rendering effects.

I'm sure BIS and Suma have considered it at some point, they have eyes too.

But how much work and overhead does it bring on the game is another question.

Well, from what I understand, deferred lighting takes some load off the CPU and shifts more of it to the GPU... and since the RV engine is generally considered to be CPU-dependent, perhaps this would be a good thing. Freeing up CPU cycles for other stuff, like PhysX and AI. On the other hand I'm no expert on graphics engines, so I could just be talking out of my arse. :D

[dmarkwick 261]

Even if BIS was 100% stuck on their current lighting system, they should at least try to increase the number of lights visible at one time. It currently handles less than 10 at once, I remember ofp having 32 lights. At the bare minimum, they should rethink their management of the lights. For example, if you look at a scene with 7 bright streetlamps in the distance and one tiny lightbulb close up, the engine will render the brightest lights first even though the small light is a higher priority due to the player location. Even something as simple as having the lights fade in and out instead of just completely turning on or off would have a huge impact on the visual smoothness at night. If Arma 3 has drastically improved lighting it would really just finish off the lingering "legacy code" feeling of this whole series.

Indeed Deferred lighting implies an overhead cost at first to set up all the buffers, but then it allows you so many things : the number of light sources and dynamic shadows can be increased dramatically, as the number of rendering effects.

I'm sure BIS and Suma have considered it at some point, they have eyes too.

But how much work and overhead does it bring on the game is another question.

Well, from what I understand, deferred lighting takes some load off the CPU and shifts more of it to the GPU... and since the RV engine is generally considered to be CPU-dependent, perhaps this would be a good thing. Freeing up CPU cycles for other stuff, like PhysX and AI. On the other hand I'm no expert on graphics engines, so I could just be talking out of my arse. :D

Indeed, deferred lighting is the way to go no doubt about it :) it allows, for one thing, unlimited point light sources. It is true that there is an initial overhead, but once that overhead is absorbed, the overhead per point light is really small, so the overall benefits outweigh the initial cost.

Link to several interesting PDFs on the subject.

---------- Post added at 10:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 AM ----------

No. What you suggest is not improving but ruining the engine.

Lighting in BF3 and Crysis2 is completely ridiculous

IRL there are no overexaggerated contrast, pitchblack shadows and lensflares in your eyes from everything that shines. BF3 and Crysis2 use it to cover their dated graphics and it looks terrible as sometimes BF3 also looks black and white. Do you really want ArmA3 to look like a cartoon?

The lighting in ArmA2 is realistic and that's how it should stay. The only thing the engine needs is point light sources

Got to really disagree with you there :) how those games look for a given lighting engine is more about implementation than technique. And you can't tell me that ArmA's current lighting & rendering are as good as it can get, either by technique or implementation :)

I'm not really a graphics whore but I'd have to say that a robust, capable lighting engine would benefit ArmA more than you might think, entire towns can be lit up from streetlights, windows, vehicles & fires, patrols can search through forests each with their own torch, and you can approach a streetlight without it suddenly blinking on and meanwhile a vehicle's light blinks out in response.

[purepassion 22]

Remember that BF3 is just an example of how the light engine can ridicously improve the overall visual quality. ;)

I think, like already pointed out, dynamic soft shadows, lightsources and the implementation of indirect illumination (deferred shading) are the way to go for Arma

Edited November 8, 2011 by PurePassion

[danny96 80]

Good Idea. +1

[nodunit 397]

Call me a strange one but I rather like the terrain lighting system in A2 and TKOH, the dullness adds to the realism as in real life when we look at landscape and what have you there is a certain..'dullness' (note this is talking about how the terrain is lit, nothing pertaining to HDR)

There is no denying that the light system in other aspects is behind the times however, HDR I'm crossing my fingers will either not be as swift in adjustment or have some other manner to not be as hindering as it is, thanks to it building interiors are more or less out on their head..

Having light sources that case light AND shadow would definately be great, I mean we've been able to use headlamps through a structure wall or unit for how long now? Aviation nav lights aren't so much lights as much as dots that vary in size with camera distance. It saddens me because I remember Arma1 having the nav lights cast light upon the unit, but it looked rather poor due to the lights lack of intensity (green was visible red barely was) and due to color bleeding into the cabin, this falls into the area of lights casting their own shadows. Just imagine having scenes like this http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/397/5978092039fce6f78d6ao.jpg

There is no denying that the light engine has gone through quite a few updates but they have all remained for the sun and moon, between the lack of these things and the HDR is quite possibly the main reason we see very little interest in any indoor environemnts whatsoever.

Edited November 8, 2011 by NodUnit

[mr burns 131]

Remember that BF3 is just an example of how the light engine can ridicously improve the overall visual quality. ;)

^^ Someone imagine what Stalker would look & play like without it´s stunning lighting going on?

At least ArmA has lot´s of room for improvements in that end, lets hope it´ll be filled..