Arma III - Explosion and Tracerbullet effects

[Snowden 1]

I agree it should look realistic, but I am more interested in the realism of the physical effect of the explosion. If they nail that then I can handle the generic ball o' fire explosion.

[maturin 12]

Good too see that so many is really on my side of this case, I understand that you need to think about low-performance computer users, but what about the people that really have big performance? should they sit with low graphic and bad explosions because 20 % of the gamers don't meet the requirements?

So the 20% shouldn't be able to play because some of the 80% (nice stats) are too lazy to install mods? Derp.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

So the 20% shouldn't be able to play because some of the 80% (nice stats) are too lazy to install mods? Derp.

Agreed but I suppose it comes down to scaleability. If they can see a way to incorporate a particle/FX slider then it could work. I think the FX mods we have are quite good, but I don't realy mind the default either, so never felt the improvement was quite worth the performance hit. Having to balance performance, with reality, and peoples tastes means it realy needs to be adgustable.

[DarkDruid 96]

would be the light produced in a exposion a variable in the config file? would be posible to change the bright of a texture in the particles?

Yes, you can do it.

Agreed but I suppose it comes down to scaleability. If they can see a way to incorporate a particle/FX slider then it could work.

There is an option in A3 called "Particle quality". You can prepare a different version of the same effect for each particle quality.

[maddogx 13]

There is an option in A3 called "Particle quality". You can prepare a different version of the same effect for each particle quality.

Oooh, that's interesting to hear.

I look forward to checking out the "very high" setting. :D

[Madeon 6]

I look forward to checking out the "very high" setting. :D

[maddogx 13]

Still worth it.

[Madeon 6]

Still worth it.

ROFL.

I'm definitely pumped to test out the settings, it's gonna be fun. :)

[bigpickle 0]

I'd like to see less fire in explosions if there's nothing to actually explode, like if a 105mm shell hits the ground you don't get a big fire ball its just dust dirt and shrapnel, if it hits a vehicle then yay to the fire ball!

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Still worth it.

Very High particles may not be feasible on CPU... but I bet there will a tick option, Nvidia PhysX. OH YEAAHHH. :cool:

Edited August 22, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Opticalsnare 12]

Well the thing with cryengine editor is that it has a built in particle editor which is very very useful as it works in realtime and you can see what your actually doing. ArmA2 doesnt have this and most if not all of the hardwork has to be done via config variables where you cant see what your actually doing but quessing your making the right changes to get the results you want. Once you created a base effect that your happy with or sort of happy with you can use that to make other effects from by making a few changes. It takes awhile and can get rather boring tbh going in and out of game all the time.

[noubernou 77]

Why do I have a feeling that "Very High" will be the the same number of particles that are able to be rendered in A2, and the slider will just lower that count...

The thing that boggles my mind is how 2D billboards take up so much CPU usage... I know they are affected by wind and they have basic physics calculations applied to them, but still, it seems rather excessive/inefficient. Some part of me says it has to do with the timer functionality too in the engine for running sqf scripts on particles (I hope in A3 it can take a compiled function name or a code block instead of an sqf file that is recompiled every time the timer hits!)

[pathetic_berserker 4]

There is an option in A3 called "Particle quality". You can prepare a different version of the same effect for each particle quality.

Cool, love hearing about new functions for A3, especialy from the dev's.....so is this confirmation of a slider?

---------- Post added at 11:47 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------

Why do I have a feeling that "Very High" will be the the same number of particles that are able to be rendered in A2, and the slider will just lower that count...

The thing that boggles my mind is how 2D billboards take up so much CPU usage... I know they are affected by wind and they have basic physics calculations applied to them, but still, it seems rather excessive/inefficient. Some part of me says it has to do with the timer functionality too in the engine for running sqf scripts on particles (I hope in A3 it can take a compiled function name or a code block instead of an sqf file that is recompiled every time the timer hits!)

Actually I'm begining to get some hope that A3 may be handling its particle effects a bit diferently, ....still so many details unkown.

[Nikoteen 24]

Good to ear Opticalsnare on the subject :)

I totally back this thread, and I wonder why FX hasn't really yet improved, especially after OS Blastcore, which should act as reference now.

By some aspects, I shall feel the shift to A3 as a step backward. Because of some mods I get used to such as JSRS, ACE, Blastcore, ASR/ZEUS/SLX, etc.

The features introduced by them are regularly being integrated into the game by BIS and that's good.

Concerning the tracers, I think I tried all the mods and the best setting I found is Blastcore tracers with HDR High (as required) + PPAA=2 (FXAA + sharp filter). I must admit that sharp filter is a game changer regarding A2 graphics !

[DarkDruid 96]

Cool, love hearing about new functions for A3, especialy from the dev's.....so is this confirmation of a slider?

It isn't a slider. It's a list (normal, high etc.). But I guess it's not important right now. It's not final version, we're still working on it. :)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Good to ear Opticalsnare on the subject :)

I totally back this thread, and I wonder why FX hasn't really yet improved, especially after OS Blastcore, which should act as reference now.

They haven't? Oh, do watch the MRLS arty strike video - the explosions may look like petrol bombs, but the way they propagate through the smoke is the best implementation I've seen so far.

[dmarkwick 261]

It isn't a slider. It's a list (normal, high etc.). But I guess it's not important right now. It's not final version, we're still working on it. :)

I'm watching... :)

[dysta 10]

Oooh, that's interesting to hear.

I look forward to checking out the "very high" setting. :D

Without volumetric particle effect, even the very high setting wouldn't looks both realistic and glitchless.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Its not just the explosions and tracers in my opinion. When they showcased the MLRS at Gamescom it looked kinda.....weak. Look up a video of real MLRS and what you'll notice is that when they fire the rockets, there's huge backblast. The entire vehicle is shrouded in dust and somke after 2 or 3 rockets. Also the dust and somke should hang around for a lot longer in my opnion. In the gamescom video it vanished withing a couple of seconds while in real life it takes a couple of minutes for all the dust and smoke to settle.

Arma 3 gamescom 2012 MLRS (@ 07:28):

Real MLRS:

I remember the Modern Warfare Mod for World in Conflict had its effects pretty much nailed, exept for the fact that also these effects didn't stick around for very long:

Edited August 23, 2012 by CyclonicTuna

[maturin 12]

It's just not feasible to clog up everyone's GPU with giant clouds of superfluous dust that last for multiple minutes.

As with most ordinance videos, those MLRS are located in the bloody desert.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

Also it was kind of laughable that the rockets fired by the MLRS still had their motors burning while impacting. In reality they should be burned-off long ago. Lots of more unrelistic things i found in the latest videos.

What about tracers illuminating the area/ground? Now that more light-sources can be displayed at once....

EDIT: Also regarding the ACE Ball tracers... I dont like them, not because they are unrealistic (they are not in reality its also just a pretty "round" glowing tail of a bullet), but because the engine lacks of modelling fast passing lightsources into "streaks" like it is in reality.

Yes, I noticed that to. You'd expect that a company like BI would do their research regarding the weapons in their game. the MLRS rockets can't even impact with their motors still burning because they would spin out of control when they would try to make the vertical turn.

[Gerwazy 10]

http://www.youtube.com/results?gl=US&client=mv-google&hl=pl&q=tracers+wrong+end&submit=Szukaj&nomobile=1 these 2 videos called "tracers wrong end" shows exactly how tracers looks like from interesting point of view (nice 5,56 sonic cracks).

PS I think new arma3 particle effects are nice however they are missing shock wave dust.

[HKFlash 9]

Yes, I noticed that to. You'd expect that a company like BI would do their research regarding the weapons in their game. the MLRS rockets can't even impact with their motors still burning because they would spin out of control when they would try to make the vertical turn.

Have your cared to check ammunition such air-to-air or surface-to-air missiles in ARMA II? Because their boosters also go off after a while but they didn't model that, despiste ARMA II being their third RV game, so I dont see why are you so surprised.

[maturin 12]

MLRS motors in Arma2 burn out before impact, minus a small glow.

[HKFlash 9]

MLRS motors in Arma2 burn out before impact, minus a small glow.

I referred to air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles/ammunition not surface-to-surface.