Disapointed in the ground detail.

[ordy 10]

First let me start by saying I am a huge Arma 2 fan and always recommend it to friends and anyone I happen to be talking to about gaming and especially shooters. Bohemia Interactive has a fan and a customer for life.

I am writing this post to ask the community if they are as disapointed as I am about the low resolution ground textures used in Take On Helicopters? It was mentioned during beta that for a simulation that is mostly flown low and slow that bad ground textures really pull you out of the game and hurt the experience. I agree with this completely. The year is 2011 and as a flight sim enthusiast since 1990 I am still hoping and waiting for that fly over my own house and land in the back yard experience. I think most people who fly sims are hoping for that experience one day. I know the technology is still not there but the ground resolutions used for one city in Take On Helicopters was a huge letdown for me personally. I have read all the reviews I can find and they all describe the terrain as lacking and low resolution for such a sim. I am hoping a mod maker or maybe even Bohemia will release an update that will bring the ground detail to a level that Google or Bing Maps use. I can't imagine I am the only one who felt this way when they fired up the sim for the first time. I am interested in others thoughts on this. Please destroy me or just let me know what you think.

[armored_sheep 56]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=125578

Take On is about flying most of the time. We started with same technology as Arma for ground textures mix. We have much larger map and we choose to use 4 types of "generic" ground surfaces everywhere, based on satelite images (mask). Seattle is 60x60km, Asia 120x120km. Ground detail is allways compromise with size of the map - total amount of ground shape points/vertices is fixed. Also editing the satelite map takes some time. The base satelite textures size on each Take On map is 61440x61440 pixels. We bought real world data made from earial photage with detail better than 0.5m per pixel.

Repeatable detail textures and clutter are from Arma. On top of this we added new shiny material to draw water (rivers), aditional NOrmal map that is visible from distance and we have brand new technology for night scenery ("emmisive" texture).

If you prefer more detail on ground and smaller map you should search those forums for advice about porting Arma addons in Take On Helicopers.

[jedra 11]

I kind of agree with you. We have been so spoilt by the quality of both BI and community maps that I was a little shocked to see the Seattle map. However, thinking about it, if they were to accurately depict the whole of the city then it would have a huge impact on the download size of the game and also the performane in game. There aren't really any maps in Arma that have such a big urban area in full detail. Fallujah maybe, but compromises were made in the repetive nature of the buildings in that map.

I have played some of the Arma 2 maps in ToH (Chernarus, Utes for example) and there is certainly a performance hit.

I think also that if they were to make it a full quality map, they would still be doing it now and we wouldn't be playing.

In principle I do agree with you though - in places it does look rather unfinished. It will be interesting to see if any community maps are made, how they look and perform.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I am disappointed in your disappointment. :icon_slap:

[[evo] dan 79]

I have edited maps for Arma 2. I started making a prototype map that was only 40km by 40km and the image was to googlemaps level detail. Shall I tell you how big the file was for the image? 1.5gb. the map file was also huge and that was WITHOUT any buildings being put on it, as well as it having a good amount of water (which I changed the colour on to save space on the pbo).

[Sealife 22]

I am writing this post to ask the community if they are as disapointed as I am about the low resolution

i have played on Arma2 maps that are 200km and in order for them to be playable the ground detail had to be made very basic , when i first saw the ground detail in TOH i was actually impressed with the quality in comparison and as others have said the actual gameplay has shifted from the ground to the air , i think BIS have acknowledged this and vastly improved the detail of the clouds to compensate the new horizon for the player .

[max power 21]

For a flight simulator I'm actually kind of impressed.

[vonduck 10]

I am just curious about all this... the size of maps etc... in real life, just how far on average does a chopper pilot travel? I would assume no too far otherwise an airplane would be used? If relativley short distances then having smaller detailed maps should be no issue?

Just a thought :D

[max power 21]

The range of an md500C is 600 km, the bell 412 is 750 km, and the EH101 is 1400 km. I don't know exactly how much time that equals, but the AH-1S consumes on average 115 gallons per hour and has a tank capable of holding 260 gallons for a total of 2.3 hours of continuous flight at 280 km/h for a maximum range of 575 km (obviously other factors are included in this range since 280 * 2.3 is 644). Even the md500 could fly from Seattle to Vancouver (226 km) and back again on a tank of gas.

[4 IN 1 0]

Of cause, you can make yourself a 15GB ground texture pack that almost no one can run the game with any time:D

[Hrabosky 10]

Started to agree with Ordy, but need more tinker time.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Hrabosky

[scruffy 21]

My biggest gripe with graphics is that separate textures for streets and even runway/taxiway on the airports are missing. On South Asia the runway markers on the airport disappear when getting close and I have problems to differentiate roads or other lines on the sat-texture from small rivers unless the sun comes from the right direction.

[WarriorM4 10]

My biggest gripe with graphics is that separate textures for streets and even runway/taxiway on the airports are missing. On South Asia the runway markers on the airport disappear when getting close and I have problems to differentiate roads or other lines on the sat-texture from small rivers unless the sun comes from the right direction.

I agree with you.The roads look horrible and the disappearing cars are also annoying but being both an MSFS flight simmer and an Arma player I can see why they did what they did for the sake of performance,flight sim wise.

[armored_sheep 56]

Road network in Arma is made by road "models". Models are hand positioned and the network consists of limited amount of model types.

Seattle has significantly more roads, turns and crossings that one can place the same way and fit them to match satmap source.

[maddogx 13]

Road network in Arma is made by road "models". Models are hand positioned and the network consists of limited amount of model types.

Seattle has significantly more roads, turns and crossings that one can place the same way and fit them to match satmap source.

"One can"? :D

I assume that doesn't translate to "we (BIS) are in the process of", ey? ;)