ARMA 3 - still unrealistic optics

[scarecrow398 43]

Why not just a zoomed in 3d model like this?

(watch 0:34)

I'd prefer this over the 2D scopes anyday and you could blur the edges to hide the outside view. It's actually doable without much experiments.

If you take a look at ArmA3 or ToH mirrors you allready see that BIS halfed the FPS on the mirrored objects for performance reasons and that would look pretty stupid on a rifle scope. A zoomed in 3d model wouldn't need any of that.

Its nice and all but it just doesn't 'feel' like a scope, it just feels too much like a zoomed in Aimpoint (though, that is what it is :P) it also seems a little too inaccurate for my tastes.

Though the Dragon Rising Acog wasn't too bad, while still accurate and similar style.

I think two of the important things to help with it though is on scopes and all sights really, to have proper motion of the reticule when aiming up, down, left, right, and making it look like the sights and reticule is turning rather than just adding motion blur, and also giving the scope depth like how DasAttorney has done, giving the effects of a slightly off sight picture And second, having propper deapth of field when looking at objects, also with the rifle, your eye can't focus on the rear sight, front sight and target all at once, but that also probably wouldn't look very nice, so a slightly blurred rear sight with DOF after the front sight when looking at trees and such.

I already suggested this and yes its much better than black texture. It actually looks like the scope only would be zoomed with the way the image moves inside the scope, excellent solution:

http://www.moddb.com/mods/alpha-project2/videos/3d-scope-shaders#imagebox

Hmm, that does indeed look nice.

[Kamov 1]

Would be amazing if you could do this in the ArmA engine.

[Angle 10]

Would be amazing if you could do this in the ArmA engine.

For the average of 10 times per page in this thread and threads like it, lets repeat again. It it technically possible in Arma 3, As in the engine since take on helicopters has the functionality to produce this effect. But it is not worth the performance penalty.

At the same time I have to say that the Arma 2 style optics don't cut it anymore visually. ACE Animated Scopes + Das Attorney's ScopeFX should be how they should look like at a bare minimum.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Angle
Sorry got the Wrong name for the ACE optics thing. 3D Vs Animated

[Smurf 12]

For the average of 10 times per page in this thread and threads like it, lets repeat again. It it technically possible in Arma 3, As in the engine since take on helicopters has the functionality to produce this effect. But it is not worth the performance penalty.

At the same time I have to say that the Arma 2 style optics don't cut it anymore visually. ACE 3D Scopes + Das Attorney's ScopeFX should be how they should look like at a bare minimum.

QFT, make it sticky, close topic. :581:

[-Coulum- 35]

For the average of 10 times per page in this thread and threads like it, lets repeat again. It it technically possible in Arma 3, As in the engine since take on helicopters has the functionality to produce this effect. But it is not worth the performance penalty.

At the same time I have to say that the Arma 2 style optics don't cut it anymore visually. ACE 3D Scopes + Das Attorney's ScopeFX should be how they should look like at a bare minimum.

Agreed. Fake 3d is good enough for me.

For those that want the real 3d scopes, don't worry, I am sure there will be many mods for it. And there probably is hardware that can run 3d scopes well enough now I just think its BIS goal to make the range of computers able to play arma 3 a large as possible thus not including rtt scopes.

And the alpha hasn't even been released, so who knows, maybe they will find away to fit them in.

[slatts 1978]

I've never delved into fake 3D optics, would range finders (PSO scale etc.) be accurate? You could still do fake 2D optics..might be easier?

[Dwarden 1124]

the effect could be done even different way, using shaders to simulate optic ,

it could mean the scene part is rendered on higher resolution (or just central are than rest of scene)

e.g. 2-4x more to allow higher fidelity when zoomed via shader

[Hillsbills 1]

I always liked good old Delta Force's magic floating scope. Got it done, of course it wasn't perfect, but it could be refined.

[slatts 1978]

Like what was said before, it's rendering the view twice, and for Arma that will cause performance issues.

[Kamov 1]

For the average of 10 times per page in this thread and threads like it, lets repeat again. It it technically possible in Arma 3, As in the engine since take on helicopters has the functionality to produce this effect. But it is not worth the performance penalty.

At the same time I have to say that the Arma 2 style optics don't cut it anymore visually. ACE Animated Scopes + Das Attorney's ScopeFX should be how they should look like at a bare minimum.

I am well aware, I'm giving examples of 3D optics, how they're different and their obvious situational awareness benefit.

[chortles 263]

I am well aware, I'm giving examples of 3D optics, how they're different and their obvious situational awareness benefit.

And in turn the devs seem to have clearly made a judgment call of "not worth the effort to attempt to implement since we couldn't get RTT in RV4 to have 1:1 framerate with the rest of the view."

Kind of a moot point to me, really.

[metalcraze 290]

There is an alternative that will have no performance impact whatsoever - do optics like Design Mastery Weapons mod does. You get your 3D optics on the screen with realistic magnification, but its 3D model fully obscures side view - so no cheating.

The problem is that BIS won't do it so late into the development.

[roberthammer 582]

There is an alternative that will have no performance impact whatsoever - do optics like Design Mastery Weapons mod does. You get your 3D optics on the screen with realistic magnification, but its 3D model fully obscures side view - so no cheating.

The problem is that BIS won't do it so late into the development.

Zoomed 3D view isn't good at all - it looks better than 2D but your scope ranges aren't working properly so it's kinda useless when you get a "aimpoint with magnification"

Edited February 9, 2013 by RobertHammer

[chortles 263]

The problem is that BIS won't do it so late into the development.

This is pretty much all the answer that's needed, the internal plans for the public alpha have been locked down for a month now and I'm guessing that at this point pre-release development is mainly going to be bug fixes and UI tweaks based on player feedback.

(Here's Gaia on Thursday: "Having a brilliant idea for the next big #Arma3 thing is pretty dangerous, especially when you need to stay focused on the current one.")

[WhiteArcticFox 1]

Hang on hang on

You guys are complaining about rendering the scene twice? As far as I remember the submarine footage showed Rendering the scene THREE times with the picture in picture mechanic, this is very much possible.

[metalcraze 290]

It is possible. Except fps on those screens was like 3 frames a second and they were also low-res.

Of course BIS can try seeing how it would work for optics in one of later betas

[slatts 1978]

Hang on hang on

You guys are complaining about rendering the scene twice? As far as I remember the submarine footage showed Rendering the scene THREE times with the picture in picture mechanic, this is very much possible.

I think the problem with scopes is that one render is variable and the outside must always be the same zoom. Where as the sub is the same zoom all the time. (I think, someone can correct me)

[WhiteArcticFox 1]

I think the problem with scopes is that one render is variable and the outside must always be the same zoom. Where as the sub is the same zoom all the time. (I think, someone can correct me)

It's still rendering thrice

[Mr. Charles 22]

is rtt really that expensive? will it really be imposible to make an rtt with a different resolution and level of detail?

looking at the public materials ( http://img1.playm.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/0005-Arma3_screenshot_1202_20.jpg, also the undersea ship) there will be scenarious where the driver has direct access to 5 rtt areas, possible to see 3 at the same time.

what if inside scope is the main renderer with full framerate and the outside the rtt with low framerate?

No one answering this gentleman here?

I've driven the Fennek at Gamescom and the performance impact wasn't too serious with around 5 RTT sources. Cut that down to 1 RTT for the outside of the scope + super low resolution (320x240), then stretch that to 1920x1080, bam you have your blurry image.

[maturin 12]

The game almost certainly can't change your resolution instantly, and staggered or delayed resolution changes combined with ultra low-FPS peripheral vision is just more jarring and useless than nothing at all. At this point it's just asking for stylistic changes.

[metalcraze 290]

The problem is that ideally it shouldn't be blurred and should have the same fps.

One of the reasons I play with aiming deadzone is because I can effectively aim at a point somewhere to the right while having a clear view of the left half of the screen so I can always take a peek there. This is really useful when moving slowly through dense areas like villages or forests, expecting the attack to come from one corner of the building but also seeing the other one.

Blur effects are always a problem because they are not realistic. Your eyes do not have focus on the stuff of the screen you aren't focused on anyway. And when you will look with them outside the scope it will be just a very annoying blur. The reason to have an "open" (as opposed to "closed") scope is to maintain awareness of close quarters. Otherwise render-to-texture will be nothing but a performance-expensive gimmick since you can just magnify with 1 camera and blur everything outside the scope heavily anyway. It isn't like you will spot an enemy crawling through bushes 50m away in 320x200 either way.

"Being practical" should be prioritized over "looking cool".

Edited February 9, 2013 by metalcraze

[Scoggs 1]

The problem is that ideally it shouldn't be blurred and should have the same fps.

One of the reasons I play with aiming deadzone is because I can effectively aim at a point somewhere to the right while having a clear view of the left half of the screen so I can always take a peek there. This is really useful when moving slowly through dense areas like villages or forests, expecting the attack to come from one corner of the building but also seeing the other one.

Blur effects are always a problem because they are not realistic. Your eyes do not have focus on the stuff of the screen you aren't focused on anyway. And when you will look with them outside the scope it will be just a very annoying blur. The reason to have an "open" (as opposed to "closed") scope is to maintain awareness of close quarters. Otherwise render-to-texture will be nothing but a performance-expensive gimmick since you can just magnify with 1 camera and blur everything outside the scope heavily anyway. It isn't like you will spot an enemy crawling through bushes 50m away in 320x200 either way.

"Being practical" should be prioritized over "looking cool".

I agree completely. I hate when games use depth of field blur. The developers don't know what I am looking at at any given time. My eyes will naturally blur what is in my peripherals anyways. So it is a waste of resources imo.

[chortles 263]

I think the BI perspective (at least based on Jay Crowe's past 2012 comments) is that "any performance impact is too much".

[Mr. Charles 22]

I think the BI perspective (at least based on Jay Crowe's past 2012 comments) is that "any performance impact is too much".

That's why we put 5 RTT sources on the Fennek

[slatts 1978]

This is were I'm coming with maybe it is because the scope is rendering two scenes at 2 different LODs while the cars etc are all at the same LOD...maybe I dunno..only reason I can think off why cars work and scopes are said not to.