Arma 3 lighting

[krazikilla 5]

lol, antoineflemming and Pufu, you seem to have a lot of fun in pretty much all actual posts :D

i suggest to drop this useless fighting.

Lets have the forum the use which is ment to be: Lookin forward to ArmA3 :D

@Pufu, i dont think thers much use to discuss with him, he acts like he is a bit much younger then the average forum user here and therefor he has his own, uhmm.. other point of view.

Not that its bad to be young, but usually youngers just think a bit .. diffrent.

After the few posts from him i overread: He is playing all kind of Battlefield, Ghostrecon Games and wants ArmA to be more like those. Which is totally ok, i just hope noone will make it.

[Nike619 1]

http://www.sydlexia.com/blogstuff/runaway_train_derailed_thread_soul_asylum.jpg

Yep.

[Clarkey1 10]

Welcome to the forums poppidypoop. This topic is already being discussed in depth here. And use antoineflemming's link for specific light engine wishes.

[antoineflemming 14]

lol, antoineflemming and Pufu, you seem to have a lot of fun in pretty much all actual posts :D

i suggest to drop this useless fighting.

Lets have the forum the use which is ment to be: Lookin forward to ArmA3 :D

@Pufu, i dont think thers much use to discuss with him, he acts like he is a bit much younger then the average forum user here and therefor he has his own, uhmm.. other point of view.

Not that its bad to be young, but usually youngers just think a bit .. diffrent.

After the few posts from him i overread: He is playing all kind of Battlefield, Ghostrecon Games and wants ArmA to be more like those. Which is totally ok, i just hope noone will make it.

If by younger you mean adult, then yes. I actually do not play Battlefield or Ghost Recon. I want ArmA to be as realistic as possible. And I said I don't want ArmA to be another COD or MOH or BF. I don't think it's ok to flame, regardless of who it's directed at. I am also looking forward to ArmA 3, by the way.

@Clarkey1 That's what I said but MaxPower said this thread was fine. Although it does seem to be redundant.

[PuFu 4600]

@Pufu, i dont think thers much use to discuss with him, he acts like he is a bit much younger then the average forum user here and therefor he has his own, uhmm.. other point of view.

Not that its bad to be young, but usually youngers just think a bit .. diffrent.

After the few posts from him i overread: He is playing all kind of Battlefield, Ghostrecon Games and wants ArmA to be more like those. Which is totally ok, i just hope noone will make it.

So, it is not only me and Cam that has this feeling then..

If by younger you mean adult, then yes. I actually do not play Battlefield or Ghost Recon. I want ArmA to be as realistic as possible. And I said I don't want ArmA to be another COD or MOH or BF. I don't think it's ok to flame, regardless of who it's directed at. I am also looking forward to ArmA 3, by the way.

Why do you always have to be defensive?

And out of my own curiosity, what is your age then and what do you do for a living? Maybe i have misjudged you for a younger fellow. That is of course if it's not sensible information for some reason.

[Haystack15 10]

From the looks of the screenshots, the lighting in Arma 3 already looks good. I really think the new Arma is going to have some good graphics, but I think they should take into account the lighting in past video games and use it as an example. For example, STALKER Call Of Pripyat was phenomenal with the lighting, and looked almost photorealistic in some parts with a few mods installed. Lighting is one of the most important parts of video game graphics.

I have always felt that lighting wasn't quite good to me, But I didn't pay much attention to the lighting when I was playing the original ARMA II, but when BIS went full out on allowing players to enter just about any building they see. That's when I've started to think that lighting and shadows could be worked on a bit.

Once again, It isn't something that is needed to make the next ARMA, but it's one of those items I'd love to see improved. Especially since we can enter just about any building.

@PuFu: We can see that you don't like how some people speak as if they know of something, And I'm getting the vibe that you wish they will stop speaking as such. But in return, do you think you can be a bit "nicer" in your responses?

I've asked you this in the past, but really, "Pretty Please? with a cherry on top cover with cherry flavored whip cream" :o

[boredgunner 1]

Lighting already looks much better, and you can improve ArmA 2's dullness with a custom FXAA injector since they have adjustable exposure, bloom, and HDR. These don't fix a whole lot, but they do help.

From the looks of the screenshots, the lighting in Arma 3 already looks good. I really think the new Arma is going to have some good graphics, but I think they should take into account the lighting in past video games and use it as an example. For example, STALKER Call Of Pripyat was phenomenal with the lighting, and looked almost photorealistic in some parts with a few mods installed. Lighting is one of the most important parts of video game graphics.

Call of Pripyat's lighting by default is nearly as dull as ArmA 2's.

[erupter 1]

Looking at the new videos from E3, the lights themselves look appropriate.

Many diffuse and illumination effects.

But I see two problems. I take

video to show my points.

One is with HDR, in the video at 0:45 and 2:30 (at least) you can clearly see there is no blinding effect.

Looking directly into a vehicle's halogen headlights at night should probably hind your sight for a good 2 minutes, if not even mildly damage your retina.

Looking at the sun from underwater should have lighter effects, like altering the scene contrast.

At 2:38 when passing below the rocky formation, everything should get darker while the lighted spot should become over-exposed.

So maybe some details are still missing from the lighting engine.

My other problem is with shadows.

Not sure, but I think HDR should account for this, as (optically speaking) it should be a modifier of a pre-calculated value.

So in the video, from 0:14 on to quite a few seconds, we see a 24hrs cycle.

Now shadows are always the same "tone".

Shadows *shouldn't* have a tone, but rather be an absence of light.

So I suppose that, for the amount of things going on behind the scene, a radiosity engine is out of question. But nevertheless the HDR should enhance shadows in high contrast situations.

Let's change video to have a better look at the shadows:

Here at 1:03 (pause it to appreciate the facts better) the view is pointed towards the sun at sunset, and the player is behind a wall-like obstacle protruding for a few meters.

If you didn't know (from watching it from the start) that there were shadows, you would be hard pressed to see them, so faint they are.

In reality the contrast in that situation is so high, that shadows would be almost pitch black.

All the more because you would be blinded by the setting sun if looking at it.

Also compare the shadows of an armoured transport at sunset (same video, minute 2:03) and at about midday (

minute 8:24): they are too light! Both situations are high contrast, and in both situations shadows should be much darker.

Ideally shadows are pitch black at sunrise, get lighter as the sun rises through the morning, get darker again towards midday, get lighter again in the afternoon, and pitch black again at sunset.

I really think work is still needed in the lighting department.

Especially for the blinding effect! That should really affect the gameplay!

Shadows too, but they are easily faked by a check "is object shadowed -> true/false"

[SaBrE_UK 0]

I would agree, a higher contrast would be desirable but may be too difficult to implement whilst allowing the player to see detail in both light and dark areas as the human eye can compensate for. As long as we don't have the sunset brightness/contrast issues we got in Arma2 I'll be happy.

[erupter 1]

a higher contrast would be desirable but may be too difficult to implement whilst allowing the player to see detail in both light and dark areas

Well why should you?

IRL you don't really see details everywhere in such conditions.

[dmarkwick 261]

Well why should you?

IRL you don't really see details everywhere in such conditions.

Well, to be fair the HDR system replicates how a camera reacts to those conditions rather than the human eye. The human eye has a much higher range than can be displayed on monitors which is why the notion of HDR exists in the first place. The trickery is in how to compress the HDR image down into this space.

[Panda_pl 0]

If I might comment.

Anyone who bothered to actually go to Crytech page and download their presentation on their lighting and shaders should have realized deffered lighting is not some miracle cure. It's rather a cure to one problem that creates a cascade of others.

People keep parroting the opinion that deferred lighting, while causing "some" overhead cost reduces cost per light.

While largely true I would like to point out:

light bleeding is a big issue when using deferred lighting and it needs a workaround. In cry engine 3 they use stencil in inverse manner - instead casting shadows on geometry it is used to cast light - to limit the angle and penetration of light and prevent light bleeding. This could maybe work even without deferred lighting (!).

In other words: deferred shading does not solve the key problem people keep bringing up: light bleeding. It makes it harder to solve since now meshes and shading are rendered separately.

There are some serious arguments against deferred lighting shading - it breaks normal map handling and transparent surfaces, it does not work with AA, it will not allow for scaling graphics settings (minimum requirements) and it seriously limits the variety of materials you can have in one scene. It will require both shaders and assets to be redone (namely materials/specular maps and normal maps possibly will need additional maps as per Crytech's workaround).

Cryengine has its shaders and materials built around the concept in the first place and with specific applications in mind. If you for example want to have longer draw distances without z-fighting this is added cost, they dumped it.

I will point out dynamic lights casting shadows can be seen in Destroyer Command, probably because the engine was built with some solution from ground up.

Please read Crytech presentation on their web page before you judge.

For now we are assured ArmA will at some point get dynamic shadows. It might be deferred lighting once technology matures, or another solution not yet in existence. Maybe hardware advances will make current methods obsolete once more in meantime.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Panda_pl

[metalcraze 290]

Ideally shadows are pitch black at sunrise

What?

[Steakslim 1]

What?

I concur. I've walked to work during many a sunrise and shadows are not pitch black. The illusion that they are is caused by you looking in the direction of the sun itself and your eyes adjusting for the light, resulting in them becoming less able to make out details and light within the area's that have shadows.

ArmA3's lighting seems to be having the right idea. Nothing too dark or too light without being affected by something else to change it, and not resulting in a rising and falling bloom effect rampaging on your eyesight.

[erupter 1]

I concur. I've walked to work during many a sunrise and shadows are not pitch black. The illusion that they are is caused by you looking in the direction of the sun itself and your eyes adjusting for the light, resulting in them becoming less able to make out details and light within the area's that have shadows.

ArmA3's lighting seems to be having the right idea. Nothing too dark or too light without being affected by something else to change it, and not resulting in a rising and falling bloom effect rampaging on your eyesight.

Well ok I exagerated it a bit.

But contrast is a key issue.

There is a reason why entry points and entry times are evaluated against time of day and season.

It's to have the advantage of light blinding the enemy when looking at you.

If midday is almost the same as sunrise and there is no blooming at all... well then let's just have two types of missions: day and night, without the 24hrs fake cycle.

IMHO lights MUST blind/hinder the player when looking directly at them (depending on the condition obviously).

Btw ME3 (DirectX9) and even HalfLife Episode 2 (DirectX8) do a much better job with HDR.

[dsi24 12]

HalfLife Episode 2 (DirectX8)

Hahah, what?

[maddogx 13]

well then let's just have two types of missions: day and night, without the 24hrs fake cycle.

Not sure if serious...

[frostwyrm333 1]

You can run source engine games in DX8 mode, with limited graphics.

[Panda_pl 0]

Not sure if serious...

I think just unaware of fuzzy logic concept.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Not sure if serious...

Herpaderp infection is spreading. :-O

ArmA series has one of the best 24 hour day/night cycles in the industry - the amount of detail, the pristine vignette colours, (which can only be achieved through artificial filters in PS) that can be seen during certain times of day (dusk) are perfect-o!

Incidentally, this system in ArmA II is a direct contributor to the success of DayZ.

[frostwyrm333 1]

The quality of post-E3 discussions is reaching critical levels.

[nodunit 397]

HalfLife Episode 2...HDR.

No thanks...

Edited June 11, 2012 by NodUnit

[roberthammer 582]

Half Life 2 or Source HDR is even more bugged than ArmA's HDR

[frostwyrm333 1]

Half Life 2 or Source HDR is even more bugged than ArmA's HDR

At least it doesn't cause entire screen to be black/white as often as Arma 2. I would be happy with something like Skyrim HDR.

[nodunit 397]

Arma 3 doesn't show signs of suffering from that, we've seen several points of going from light to shadow and more towards being in the sun without sign of HDR trying to adjust, or it's become more subtle.