ARMA 3 - still unrealistic optics

[NoRailgunner 0]

Is the sticky thread (still) not working? => http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?125819-ArmA-3-Community-wishes-amp-ideas-NO-DISCUSSION&

[roberthammer 582]

The zoomed 3D optic is a bad idea , it does look nicer than 2D scope but the ranges of the scope aren't working properly and that's why i don't use that method in RH packs

and RTT 3D scope isn't worth the framerate - even in RO2 the scope isn't stable and keeps lagging (there isn't anything more annoying if you want snipe someone and it goes under 15-10fps)

in short even BIS said before that RTT scopes won't be because of framerate issues

[Elcoo 3]

Even though RTT scopes probably won't be possible, we could still have parallax free reddot sights. Those could be achived by just modifying the UV coordinates of the reddot layer, so that they match the actual targeting position.

[Derbysieger 11]

The zoomed 3D optic is a bad idea , it does look nicer than 2D scope but the ranges of the scope aren't working properly and that's why i don't use that method in RH packs

and RTT 3D scope isn't worth the framerate - even in RO2 the scope isn't stable and keeps lagging (there isn't anything more annoying if you want snipe someone and it goes under 15-10fps)

in short even BIS said before that RTT scopes won't be because of framerate issues

Actually the performance impact of RTT in RO2 isn't that bad. With my old HD4870 I had about 15-20fps less RTT which resulted in 30-35fps with some drops when there was lot's of stuff on the screen. Now with the GTX 680 I have stable 60fps with and without RTT and maxed out graphics @1920x1080. Even if there are lots of explosions, smoke etc. it stays at 60fps.

[neokika 62]

99% of the time you're holding a gun, thus its a major part of the gameplay. I would seriously not mind having the capability to change the render to texture framerate as I have a amazing pc.

Why can't they make a scripting command to change RTT framerate?

At least in TakeOn Helicopters it is done through the Graphics Options.

[Kamov 1]

The zoomed 3D optic is a bad idea , it does look nicer than 2D scope but the ranges of the scope aren't working properly and that's why i don't use that method in RH packs

and RTT 3D scope isn't worth the framerate - even in RO2 the scope isn't stable and keeps lagging (there isn't anything more annoying if you want snipe someone and it goes under 15-10fps)

in short even BIS said before that RTT scopes won't be because of framerate issues

In RO1 and RO2 I get perfect framerate, no lag whatsoever with the optic.

[Beagle 684]

As far as I know RO is not meant to be played with a viewdistance of 4000m...a standard VD in ArmA II MP these days.

[Kamov 1]

As far as I know RO is not meant to be played with a viewdistance of 4000m...a standard VD in ArmA II MP these days.

So? Why not have the option available for those who want to use it? All that needs to be done is a scripting command to change rtt framerate.

[Tonci87 163]

So? Why not have the option available for those who want to use it? All that needs to be done is a scripting command to change rtt framerate.

I think there will be an option in the settings. But I doubt that BIS will make RTT scopes. Most PCs wouldn´t be able to handle it.

Nice question of Das Attorney

Question for those in the know: Does RTT have to render both the images with the same LOD? Could you render the scope view in 'full detail' and use a lowered setting for the unmagnified background (and then blur it slightly to cover up the lowered details)? Hypothetically speaking of course.

What do you think?

[Scoggs 1]

I know its not the same engine. But in DCS A-10 I can run my tgp on one ddi and the maverick in the other and still manage to get 50fps. Not sure how they do that but it is possible.

Having 3d scopes would be a nice addition to arma.

[Beagle 684]

DCS uses a world detail that is at best 10% of A3 ones. thats how they do it. Even OFP from 2001 had more detail and in fact the detail In DCS is not that much more than that in Lock On back in 2003.

[panimala 25]

Well, an optional transparency for the holographic sights would be a cheap but nice solution.

And anything would be better than the "hole on a cardboard" for optics; RO style, BF2's PR or ACE's.

Yeah. ArmA 3 could at the very least use Project Reality style sights for their optics, and in fact there is already a mod that gives us very similar optics.

Another mod (which is currently also WIP) by Hogthar brings 3D zoomed in ACOGs and other scopes, and they function like in Battlefield 3.

Watch out for the volume in this one, I could only find a video example of some kid using it. :) 04:56 and forward.

http://youtu.be/uhhLHqKUx3k?t=4m56s

Another issue when it comes to scopes is the way red dot sights work as previously mentioned. They currently simply are red dots put a few centimeters behind the glass, which makes them very unrealistic. There is a mod that puts the red dot several meters behind the glass which technically fixes the issue, but the dot itself still shows even when you aren't looking down the sights.

[soldia 1]

As far as I know RO is not meant to be played with a viewdistance of 4000m...a standard VD in ArmA II MP these days.

DCS uses a world detail that is at best 10% of A3 ones. thats how they do it. Even OFP from 2001 had more detail and in fact the detail In DCS is not that much more than that in Lock On back in 2003.

Obviously ppl never get a feeling of the meaning of a large battlefield like ArmA has.

Yeah, so those scopes work in RO1 and RO2 and RO3 and... but:

1. Different Engine

2. Battlefield that is as small as a compound on takistan against hundreds of squarekilometers

3. A developer won't push their engine to the limits with release of their game. Why? Well, all the gaming magazines out there will complain about the high hardware requirements if extreme settings like RTT or SSAO.

[chortles 263]

3. A developer won't push their engine to the limits with release of their game. Why? Well, all the gaming magazines out there will complain about the high hardware requirements if extreme settings like RTT or SSAO.

This is the most important one as to why there wouldn't be "RTT scopes as people think of them", when you consider Jay Crowe's own stating of development priorities and goals back around E3/Gamescom, as well as Vespa's talk about development focus and being proud of actually removing features.

[Kamov 1]

Obviously ppl never get a feeling of the meaning of a large battlefield like ArmA has.

Yeah, so those scopes work in RO1 and RO2 and RO3 and... but:

1. Different Engine

2. Battlefield that is as small as a compound on takistan against hundreds of squarekilometers

3. A developer won't push their engine to the limits with release of their game. Why? Well, all the gaming magazines out there will complain about the high hardware requirements if extreme settings like RTT or SSAO.

Actually Frostbite 2 is capability of much much larger maps then that of Battlefield 3 while remaining heavily detailed. Have you seen their techdemos and Armoured Kill's map sizes?

[chortles 263]

Armored Kill is Battlefield 3... just because it's a DLC doesn't invalidate that.

[Kamov 1]

Armored Kill is Battlefield 3... just because it's a DLC doesn't invalidate that.

No, its Battlefield 3: Armoured Kill. Not Battlefield 3. Would you call Half-Life 2: Episode 2 just Half-Life 2? No.

[-Coulum- 35]

The 3d scopes are neat and all but honestly I can do with out them. IMO, There are much better things to spend fps on rather than fancy scopes. For example, heres what I suggest for magnified optics and zooming in general: Have the clutter and shadow draw distance increased by the magnification being used instead. Not only will it make the game look nicer, but it will also improve gameplay. IMO this would be way better way to spend fps rather than 3d scopes, even if they do look cool, because it will not only be aesthetically pleasing but will help to bring the currently overpowered magnified weapons in balance with the other weapons.

Heres an example comparing What we have now with what I suggest. The shooter is 200 metres away from the prone soldier. Clutter and shadow draw distance is around 50 metres on high settings at default zoom. The shooter is using a scope with a magnification of 4x. In relation to the default zoom this actually works out to be 8x magnification. Thus when looking through this scope clutter and shadows will be drawn at 400 metres away. Further than that, clutter wouldn't be drawn, but at this range most scopes won't be able to see you in any detail anyways. Yes this would eat up frames, but I doubt as much as the rtt scopes (due to the fact that with higher zooms, the FOV that needs to be rendered is decreased) and it adds just as much to immersion and in addition makes a significant gameplay improvment. Rtt scopes would be nice to have, but in comparison to something like what I have suggested, I could care less about them. What do you guys think of that?

And, for a substitute to 3d scopes, I would be happy with whats in the above

but instead of the dark gradient, I would rather outside the scope be blurred so that you can't see it in any detail.

Also, how realistic is the range of view magnified optics provide in arma? I mean, if this is closer to realife optics, why is it our optics look like this rather than like this? Also a possible way to tone down the effectiveness of magnification. Thoughts?

[Smurf 12]

snip

You are correct. TKOH already have greater shadow draw distance and was mentioned in the last DayZ tumblr post. Dwarden (?) hinted that they may improve further for A3, taking advantages of the new engine.

Also, A3 trailers showing lightning effects from greater distances.

K-ibLjCwE1M

But the simple scope overlay just doesn`t cut anymore.

Also, leaning vs scopes. In A2 your character goes \ (wrong leaning) but the scope remains horizontal.

[carzilla 2]

I want whats on the OP's pic

[-Coulum- 35]

But the simple scope overlay just doesn`t cut anymore.

Yes well I could live with it, but I see where you're coming from. However I would much rather have a "fake 3d scope" by having not only inside the scope zoomed, but also outside.Not exactly realistic, but if outside the scope is blurred it will not allow for unrealistic advantages. Plus, it wouldn't require the resources that RTT does - ideally this could be used instead towards increasing draw distance of grass and shadows while zooming. End result would look something like this at 200 metres. I would be pretty happy to play with that any day.

RTT scopes would look something like this at 200 metres in the exact same situation. While it does look neat and very authentic, it still does nothing to really address the problems with magnified weapons - they are far to easy to acquire targets with.

TKOH already have greater shadow draw distance and was mentioned in the last DayZ tumblr post. Dwarden (?) hinted that they may improve further for A3, taking advantages of the new engine

Not sure if those distant shadow will actually cover up objects though. My understanding was that their solutions to long range shadows was to simply draw them onto the map - so they don't actually project, but they appear to be on the ground. Maybe they found away to cover up units with these "map" shadows as well though...

Compare this:

with this:

I have to say I prefer the latter quite a bit more. Its releativel attractive and it adds gameplay value. Note they are exactly the same situation, and position just the first is using rtt kind of scope and the second uses a "fake 3d" scope but with increased draw range for shadows and foilage. Does everyone disagree with me?

[Kamov 1]

Yes well I could live with it, but I see where you're coming from. However I would much rather have a "fake 3d scope" by having not only inside the scope zoomed, but also outside.Not exactly realistic, but if outside the scope is blurred it will not allow for unrealistic advantages. Plus, it wouldn't require the resources that RTT does - ideally this could be used instead towards increasing draw distance of grass and shadows while zooming. End result would look something like this at 200 metres. I would be pretty happy to play with that any day.

RTT scopes would look something like this at 200 metres in the exact same situation. While it does look neat and very authentic, it still does nothing to really address the problems with magnified weapons - they are far to easy to acquire targets with.

Not sure if those distant shadow will actually cover up objects though. My understanding was that their solutions to long range shadows was to simply draw them onto the map - so they don't actually project, but they appear to be on the ground. Maybe they found away to cover up units with these "map" shadows as well though...

Compare this:

http://imageshack.us/a/img35/5969/armartt.png

with this:

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/8456/tothis.png

I have to say I prefer the latter quite a bit more. Its releativel attractive and it adds gameplay value. Note they are exactly the same situation, and position just the first is using rtt kind of scope and the second uses a "fake 3d" scope but with increased draw range for shadows and foilage. Does everyone disagree with me?

1st one is realistic.

[-Coulum- 35]

1st one is realistic.

Where as I argue the second one is more realistic because in real life grass and shadows do not simply "turn off" at a distance. The second will lead to more realistic gameplay - look how hard it is to spot that guy compared to the first image. Of course if I could have the 3d sights and increased draw distance I would want both, but assuming resources are limited to just one... well you know what I think.

[Kamov 1]

Where as I argue the second one is more realistic because in real life grass and shadows do not simply "turn off" at a distance. The second will lead to more realistic gameplay - look how hard it is to spot that guy compared to the first image. Of course if I could have the 3d sights and increased draw distance I would want both, but assuming resources are limited to just one... well you know what I think.

It would be the same if you were using anything with 2d optics in arma. Camouflage does not work in arma unless you run max graphics and its 24:00.

[Tonci87 163]

The 3d scopes are neat and all but honestly I can do with out them. IMO, There are much better things to spend fps on rather than fancy scopes. For example, heres what I suggest for magnified optics and zooming in general: Have the clutter and shadow draw distance increased by the magnification being used instead. Not only will it make the game look nicer, but it will also improve gameplay. IMO this would be way better way to spend fps rather than 3d scopes, even if they do look cool, because it will not only be aesthetically pleasing but will help to bring the currently overpowered magnified weapons in balance with the other weapons.

Heres an example comparing What we have now with what I suggest. The shooter is 200 metres away from the prone soldier. Clutter and shadow draw distance is around 50 metres on high settings at default zoom. The shooter is using a scope with a magnification of 4x. In relation to the default zoom this actually works out to be 8x magnification. Thus when looking through this scope clutter and shadows will be drawn at 400 metres away. Further than that, clutter wouldn't be drawn, but at this range most scopes won't be able to see you in any detail anyways. Yes this would eat up frames, but I doubt as much as the rtt scopes (due to the fact that with higher zooms, the FOV that needs to be rendered is decreased) and it adds just as much to immersion and in addition makes a significant gameplay improvment. Rtt scopes would be nice to have, but in comparison to something like what I have suggested, I could care less about them. What do you guys think of that?

And, for a substitute to 3d scopes, I would be happy with whats in the above

but instead of the dark gradient, I would rather outside the scope be blurred so that you can't see it in any detail.

Also, how realistic is the range of view magnified optics provide in arma? I mean, if this is closer to realife optics, why is it our optics look like this rather than like this? Also a possible way to tone down the effectiveness of magnification. Thoughts?

^this!