Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rasdenfasden

Render To Texture + Scopes = ???

Recommended Posts

I was just thinking, would it be possible to use RTT to make "3D" scopes? How hard would the performance hit be?

It sure would look cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can tell of ARMA 3's existing RTT for vehicles, enough of a performance hit that they didn't go with "3D" scopes. :( If you look closely at the dashboard monitors for vehicles, there seems to be some sort of framerate difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And before you will go "oh but RO2 did it" keep 2 things in mind

a) draw distance and thus amount of detail in ArmA3 is much much higher than quite corridorish RO2. Basically your PC will have to render twice the usual detail.

b) scope markings in RO2 are unimportant due to all sniper rifles shooting dead on target. However in ArmA they make all the difference in the world. May be hard to achieve in 3D, which is also the impression I got from DM's M4 mod which has 3D scopes but markings are not precise at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b) scope markings in RO2 are unimportant due to all sniper rifles shooting dead on target.

What do you mean by this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness, with RO2 you had the "adjustable zeroing" where the point-of-aim 'reticle' would actually move, unlike ARMA 2's (and seemingly ARMA 3's) unchanging reticle... and at one point, didn't the bullet simply leave the muzzle in RV3-starting-with-OA then change trajectory at the point of leaving the muzzle according to your zero? I don't know if RO2's ballistics with adjustable-zero weapons worked the same, but I think they've an acceptable excuse on scope markings.

Nevertheless, based on my own experiences looking through a magnified scope (Fleet Week), I would at least expect something more like the stereotypical-conventional-FPS-ACOG* instead of if we can't simply have the RO2 scope view with only 4x zoom instead of a sniper scope's zoom.

* That is, the sort that looks oddly similar to an reflex sight with the ARMA zoom-in, as opposed to the ARMA and COD4 ACOG which is more like a conventional-FPS sniper scope view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean by this?

That they don't have bullet drop, which they have, and the markings also move when you change your zeroing.

While I really like to see a 3D scope, I don't think they will be delivered so a system like ACE's would be definitely better than the actual.

The options we have now are:

Hole in a cardbox (A2 default).

Two cardbox with holes, dynamic\proper marking (ACE2)

Fake 3D, with the whole screen zooming in. (with (AA3, BF2PR) or without (invasion 44 sniper rifles, check them out) blur due unfair advantage)

Full 3D, zoom only in the scope (RO1,RO2, Insurgency... no much more)

Edited by Smurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b) scope markings in RO2 are unimportant due to all sniper rifles shooting dead on target. However in ArmA they make all the difference in the world. May be hard to achieve in 3D, which is also the impression I got from DM's M4 mod which has 3D scopes but markings are not precise at all.

DM's m4's ACOG's were basically aimpoints with TA01 crosshairs instead of a red dot with an extreme zoom as far as how they functioned. A fun idea but only so useful.

If RTT were to be applied I imagine the markings would match up as it would be like the classic view slapped onto the eyepiece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean by this?

What he means is that in RO2 the weapons use Hit Scans thus there is no bullet drop or wind compensation needed. In Arma 3, there are no hit scans, instead there are simulated bullet models that literally travel through the simulated world until they hit something. This is good because it makes it very realistic and also you now have to compensate for bullet drop and wind and etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What he means is that in RO2 the weapons use Hit Scans thus there is no bullet drop or wind compensation needed.

Just like in Counter-Strike back in 1998? Oh, dear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What he means is that in RO2 the weapons use Hit Scans thus there is no bullet drop or wind compensation needed. In Arma 3, there are no hit scans, instead there are simulated bullet models that literally travel through the simulated world until they hit something. This is good because it makes it very realistic and also you now have to compensate for bullet drop and wind and etc.

Uh, RO2 doesn't use hitscan. It has a pretty good ballistics system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitscan (tends to) be in the context of games where there isn't scope zeroing -- and yes, RO2 DOES have zeroing, hence my remark about how RO2 does visible bullet drop compensation using a moving (raising/lowering) point-of-aim indicator, unlike ARMA 2: OA where the only difference is the distance number in the upper right, which seems to have carried over to ARMA 3.

Edited by Chortles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RO2 uses hitscan for Under 50 metres, simply because the bullet flies fast enough that it's next to pointless calculating it during those distances. After this distance, it uses a proper balistics system (Traveling bullet) with drop taken into account, but not wind.

People should actually read-up on things before blindly stating such things as fact. :X

As for RTT scopes, it would look very pretty indeed. Although I think my PC would have a heart attack, twice because of the double rendered view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, RTT scopes would be nice but the performance drop would be bad.

Although maybe it could have an option to switch between RTT and the usual 2D scope style... Killing Floor has such an option for the Crossbow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the FPS won't be hit too much if automatically lowering the pixel filling rate outside the scope while aiming. Say, use 50% pixel filling rate outside the RTT scope while still keep 100% pixel filling rate within the scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People should actually read-up on things before blindly stating such things as fact.

It won't stop some people. Sadly, for some people it works like this: if it's not true, then it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It won't stop some people. Sadly, for some people it works like this: if it's not true, then it should be.

This really made me laugh XD Niceone DM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just like racing games,things showing on the mirror have a far low quality compared to game's graphics .

@metalcraze

They don't have to take draw distance into account and just keep 100 m draw distance for things showing on the mirror !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the FPS won't be hit too much if automatically lowering the pixel filling rate outside the scope while aiming. Say, use 50% pixel filling rate outside the RTT scope while still keep 100% pixel filling rate within the scope.

It is not only about performance drop. For both tkoh and A3, the refresh rate for that the RTT screen is way below 60hz (hence the small stutter). Doubt that will change. For scopes, the generic FPS approach (zoom in the entire screen would be enough, and obviously a better solution that the hole in the cardbox approach. my 2 cents anyways

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clear something up about RO2, and this is seriously off topic so any more discussion should probably take place in the form of PMs. Ro2 used to use server side ballistics, with SV hitscan out to 50m. With Mekhazzio's work on client side ballistics the game has been changed to client side, with the same ballistics, and options for more advanced ricochets and refraction through materials. The only thing really missing is wind.

I would love to see RO2 style 3D scopes, although I can understand if they're not in the game. The outside of the scope visibility given with RTT scopes is just fantastic though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's both fantastic and (shooter-dependent) realistic, but I understand that there's technical limitations -- and in any case, we do have alternatives such as America's Army 3 and Project Reality-style views... or something akin to MW3/MOH:WF's "magnifier-for-reflex-optic" views.

The point is, RTT optics would be cool but as long as we're not stuck with the same "hole in an otherwise black screen" I think we'll be okay. (Oddly enough, I find the ARMA 3 zoomed-in-RDS view to be closest.)

Incidental note: several games have bullet drop but I believe that where ARMA 3 stands out is in weapons being zeroed at a specific distance, not out to a specific distance -- so unlike those other games, point of impact may be higher at shorter ranges in addition to lower at longer ranges like those games also do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidental note: several games have bullet drop but I believe that where ARMA 3 stands out is in weapons being zeroed at a specific distance, not out to a specific distance -- so unlike those other games, point of impact may be higher at shorter ranges in addition to lower at longer ranges like those games also do.

I'm almost certain that RO2 does this too. It doesn't seem particularly unique to me. Most games that have bullet drop either simply make you aim higher (that is, you can't adjust the point of aim) or allow you to alter the point of aim of the weapon, which can make the weapon shoot 'high' at close range when zeroed far out. I can't think of any game that allows you to adjust weapon zero, without distant zeroes causing you to shoot high at close range. If that was the case, you could just play the whole game zeroed at the maximum range to shoot dead on target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, the RTT was very sluggish in the vehicle demo because there was 7 different mirrors and screens + the exterior.

With only one render target, the FPS would be much better, but probably not good enough (30 fps+) for something as critical as aiming and shooting.

For a javelin, on the other hand, where the targeting is assisted and you don't need to be as accurate and with as much instant feedback, this could probably be a viable option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not just like racing games,things showing on the mirror have a far low quality compared to game's graphics .

This works only on objects will low points of interest, i.e. mirrors, rear-view cameras, where quality is not that important. All the demos I've seen of ArmA III show mirrors being rendered at a low Hz rate, which isn't that big of a problem.

I don't think RTT scopes are practical. Can't one add some special filters and/or other effects to current scope method "to simulate" the optics?

---------- Post added at 08:57 ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 ----------

P.S. Post good examples of RTT scope implementation in other games.

9kUpgFThySI

6Co5vySMOaU

How is it done in RO2? I know the the back of the scope isn't displaying anything when out of scope view, so theoretically if you put 100 snipers together there shouldn't be an FPS hit vs. a 2D scope. What happens to an outside observer, if they use the scopes at the same time? BSOD? :icon_twisted:

Edited by Iroquois Pliskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm almost certain that RO2 does this too. It doesn't seem particularly unique to me. Most games that have bullet drop either simply make you aim higher (that is, you can't adjust the point of aim) or allow you to alter the point of aim of the weapon, which can make the weapon shoot 'high' at close range when zeroed far out. I can't think of any game that allows you to adjust weapon zero, without distant zeroes causing you to shoot high at close range. If that was the case, you could just play the whole game zeroed at the maximum range to shoot dead on target.
I'm of the vague belief that BF3 (and BC2 before it) are examples of games where there is bullet drop after a certain distance but no bullet "rise" within this distance, though of course there is no adjusting weapon zero, so to players it looks akin to what RO2 is claimed to do ("hitscan within 50 m, then ballistic model if the bullet would go further than that").
With only one render target, the FPS would be much better, but probably not good enough (30 fps+) for something as critical as aiming and shooting.
Maybe enough for ARMA 2 aiming and shooting, but this is ARMA 3 aiming and shooting! :D

Seriously though, it seems that RTT scope function only "works" in the sense of being "usable" if it can be forced to consistently refresh at the same Hz/frame rate as the unmagnified screen view around the magnified scope view, and it could be (although this matching rate seemed to work in Iroquois Pliskin's video of the Blender example) that this has not yet been achieved -- or may not be achievable -- within RV4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm of the vague belief that BF3 (and BC2 before it) are examples of games where there is bullet drop after a certain distance but no bullet "rise" within this distance,

wat?

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bullet_trajectory.htm

when you point your gun up into the air, the bullet rises in every shooter but doom 1 (Where you couldnt aim up though)....

so what are you talking about? The last i checked i could shoot helicopters in the air... you couldnt?

if you aim straight - parallel to the world - the bullet will NEVER rise.

--> in this picture the guy aimed into the air! (or the scope was set up for that range - result the same: aim up in the air)

bullet_trajectory2.jpg

most ppl look at the pic of these kind and think bullets magically fly into the air after being fired even when fired straight and parallel to the world. How come? there was newton and such, some hundred years ago. gives a good read if you havent already!

more important is the earth acceleration. I dont know how A2 is doing it. and i dont know if all bullets in the real world have a maximum dropping speed. Maybe the shape of a bullet can edit this behaviour. But I think there is a close maximum to all normal gun bullets at maybe 300 - 400 km/h... so a bullet will never reach lightspeed in the vertical department ^^

btw. bullet drop must be accelerated but not linear.

BFBC2_Bullet_Drop.png

you can see the bullet reaches a maximum velocity <- air resistance.

g = ~ 9.8 m/s^2 the object gets faster and faster with time it falls..

you can divide a bullets path into to vectors. one that travels along the barrel and on that simply falls to the ground.

you can see the bullet fell 5 meters in 1 second:

G = 9.81 m/s^2; t = 1 s

s = 1/2 * g * t^2

s= 4.905 m/s

so its basically right.

example after 0.2 seconds:

s = 1/2 * g * 0.04 s

s = 0.196 ~ 0.2 m

example after 0.6 seconds:

s = 1/2 * g * 0.36 s

s = 1.7658 ~ 1.8 m

how far the bullet traveled in this time really only depends on the speed (muzzle speed, but think that the bullet maybe gets slowed down by air.. so the bullet maybe slows down while it flies).

Edited by tremanarch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×