Foliage cover and drawing distance?

[Smurf 12]

Unless you want a big retrocess in graphical quality, that is not an argument. Everything in OFP was much simple,models,textures, the terrain itself; that's why they blended so well.

[Bouben 3]

Unless you want a big retrocess in graphical quality, that is not an argument. Everything in OFP was much simple,models,textures, the terrain itself; that's why they blended so well.

Is it really a problem to make LODs that would blend with environment? I mean, we have low quality ground textures now in ARMA 2 when observed from the distance = low quality ground textures from OFP. What is so problematic about making textures of LODs that would blend with it better? What prevents us from changing colour of distant LODs? LODs can be primitive as in OFP if it does its job.

[nodunit 397]

They already do, mip maps degrade the quality of texture by reducing the resolution over distance to free memory.

OFP had a relatively washed out color palette so everything mimiced eachother. http://games.softpedia.com/screenshots/Operation-Flashpoint-Cold-War-Crisis_7.jpg This picture shows that the ground shares nearly, if not the exact palette of the uniform and as a result blends much better.

When you look at the shots on the previous page you can see that the ground and bushes do not share this, as a result it appears to make the marpat pop much more visibly. Just a personal opinion but I think the problem is in the way distance terrain is rendered, it seems as though close terrain is rich and dark but in the distance it becomes brighter than it actually is.

For example if you look at an M1A1 up close it tends to blend nicely, but if you look at it from afar on a hill it pops right out because the terrain around it is so much brighter.

Edited December 19, 2012 by NodUnit

[Minoza 11]

I think galzohar is on a right track here. Everything else seems much more complicated, and shouldn't be considered before terrain issue is solved. I noticed I have a hard time noticing opponents in a distance in BF3 (even tanks), while reading your post, I figured that might be it - they have a lot of details in their distant textures which makes it really hard to spot a sniper with appropriate camo. Of course, all the in-game helpers destroy the purpose of camo anyways (I'm looking at you red triangle) but point is, detailed texture should help a lot. Plus, they have bigger grass crumbs render on longer distances. It's like sets, flowers disappear after aprox. 2-5 meters, grass extends for another 15-30m and then you have small bushes crumbs which extend even more and then blend it in with a nice distant texture.

[instagoat 133]

My Idea is to give Units at a distance a grade of transparency dependent on their underground and camo value in the config. So a ghillie suited sniper in a forest would be more transparent at 500 m than a civilian in a T-shirt standing up on a beach at 500 m.

Dunno if that´d work though...

[wipman 1]

Hi, on the BF3... the players literally dissapear at some distance, what makes the snipers visible is the attached head light and are the only ones who've a solid distant LOD, but this don't happens on all the maps; so that's not a solution for us. Our islands are bigger, we've more weapons, more vehicles and therefore... more situations that think about than on the BF3; gradual transparent LODs with good enough background textures is what we need for this, IMO. Let's C ya

[Bouben 3]

I am, too, for gradual transparency and other great techniques to be used to help us simulate better ambushes, camo/stealth based on skill and so on. But only after the ground issue is solved in the first place.

[Minoza 11]

^^Exactly. I'm not saying nay to all the ideas, it's just, I wouldn't touch what ain't broken, before trying to improve ground textures in the first place.

[acoustic 82]

One of the things that makes Arma II's firefights feel unrealistic. The majority of time (in real life) you don't know what you're shooting at, in Arma II though...it seems everyone is standing out in the open. Needs to be addressed for III for sure.

[galzohar 31]

In Arma 3 everyone are standing out in the open because that's all you got. I've always said that's one of the biggest realism issues in Arma. How many objects they can actually squeeze onto an island and how much microterrain they can make work, though, without killing our computers and without delaying the game until 2015, only BIS can tell.

As for the topic, though, better terrain textures is probably the best improvement in terms of cost vs benefit while not damaging the realism.

[scrim 1]

One of the things that makes Arma II's firefights feel unrealistic. The majority of time (in real life) you don't know what you're shooting at, in Arma II though...it seems everyone is standing out in the open. Needs to be addressed for III for sure.

In my experience that has had much to do with just how foliage works now. On maps like Sangin you don't see much of the enemy, but the problem is that they can see you. On other maps I think it's mainly down to the fact that the AI can't take cover as effectively as you'd do IRL, or as human players in Arma.

[maturin 12]

Yeah, there's nothing sub par about the number of objects in forest maps like Chernarus. It may not be equal to a real forest, but it has as much vegetation as parts of Afghanistan where the Taliban make themselves invisible just fine. Computers can't render camouflage and the appearance of diverse human objects in clutter like the human eye can. Even when you play against humans, they will almost always be more visible when hiding than they would be in real life. It's as simple as that. I agree about the textures though.

[froggyluv 2136]

I'd rather have smaller maps with more micro terrain than the current trend of bigger and bigger maps.