ARMA 3 base terrain textures WORSE than the original Operation Flashpoint

[johncage 30]

super noisy busy textures=/=realism. mipmapping replicates real life where details fade out in the distance.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Ok read the thread title literally check the evidence in the first post then watch this vid

And tell me you think that OFP terrain textures would be more realistic and an actual improvement over what we have.

Also take into account that the scale of the satellite map for Stratis needs to be comparable to Altis or there is inconsistency in the product. So when talking Atlis scale Satmaps we are in fact many times (exponentially) larger than OFP maps.

If you go back to post #39 you could also note that the ‘improved’ texture is also ‘blurrier ‘ than the original yet it was considered an improvement as its more realistic.

I think this thread is a leg pulling exercise. Not that there is absolutely no room for improvement on the textures. But that the call is largely unnecessary and based on a false premise

[MadMonk 1]

I always assumed that rendering high detail terrain from a distance was too much of an overhead for the engine. A while back, me and a friend did some testing to determine the visibility of a player to someone at distance when the player being observed is crouched in grass and thinks they are fully camoflaged. The results were pretty bad really, the player basically stuck out like a sore thumb for quite a large distance.

Surely, it would be pretty easy to design a system that hid the player at a distance if that player was proned in grass. The hide level could be altered based on crouch, prone and grass length or density.

[-Coulum- 35]

super noisy busy textures=/=realism. mipmapping replicates real life where details fade out in the distance.

I disagree when regarding ranges 100 metres to 500 metres. At these ranges we know something is there, but can't make out the distinct details of it. Ie, At 300 metres in real life I can see the foot wide rock, but I can't actually distinguish it. Therefore it looks like just a little speck of discoloration to me. If there are hundreds of tufts of grass over the hillside that means there will be lots of specks of discoloration... There appears to be "noise".

At far ranges I agree that all these littles specks blend into one and we have the blurring we see in arma 3. But that shouldn't happen until you are over 500 metres or so. Maybe even more.

See in all of these pics, when the distance is aprox. 100-500 metres away you can see there seems to be noise rather than blurring IMO. It is very fine, but it is definitely there.

http://www.esys.org/rev_info/Griechenland/Limnos_Mourtzephlos_Ankerbucht-hq.jpg

http://limnosislandgreece.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sam_0908edit.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jG9REHhUYCU/TzLot_DzrrI/AAAAAAAACvg/uhfm_OPTlOY/s1600/DSC02542.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/3/3a/Limnos_Gomati_03.JPG

It would be neat to have a "noise" draw range in addition to the clutter draw range. Up to 100 metres you have clutter. Then after that you have noise on top of the current textures. The noise would become finer the further way from you it is. Then that noise fades and we see the severely blurred textures we see now when over 500 metres.

Ok read the thread title literally check the evidence in the first post then watch this vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPHT...layer_embedded

Keep in mind that when the textures look really good in that vid it is when you are far away from the ground. The mid range textures still look horrible.

Surely, it would be pretty easy to design a system that hid the player at a distance if that player was proned in grass. The hide level could be altered based on crouch, prone and grass length or density.

This is already implemented. At range, units will "sink" into the ground if they are in high grass. It still doesn't really make them that much harder to spot however because they stick out like a sore thumb against the bland ground. It just a smaller sore thumb.

[DarkDracos89 10]

We still have to remember this is still a alpha, most alphas are not this well detailed when it comes to visauls

[zaksle75 1]

I think it's fine and I think it looks better than ARMA 2. Everythings pretty and not dull.

[antnxx 1]

I think we have to still remember this is Alpha...

Stop saying that please! You all are sounding like a broken vending machine or whatever the analogy is. The truth is that terrain textures look awful at medium range and they have to work on that to get them better.

[liquidpinky 11]

I think we have to still remember this is Alpha...

Stop saying that please! You all are sounding like a broken vending machine or whatever the analogy is. The truth is that terrain textures look awful at medium range and they have to work on that to get them better.

Both points are true though, the game is Alpha and the textures look awful currently. Some people can't handle the truth.

[old_painless 182]

Has anyone made a ticket yet? I'm not getting A3 in a week or so

[VII.Racetrack -ITA- 4]

I completely agree with this Thread

[vivoune 1]

The game is incredibly immersive thanks to the so present & detailed flora coupled with the amazing job on lightnings cloud, shadows and sounds not to mention the distance view, then, you look at a distance.. and everything fall apart :D

If they can manage to work on that it sure will be incredible and entities on a distance would finally have proper cover and blending (just like us from their view point).

[MDK2k 1]

It might very well be that the current textures are placeholder material. The game doesn't seem to be using a whole lot of Vram atm. I was testing with 5760x1080 resolution on Nvidia Surround yesterday and the game didn't have issues with Vram on high settings even when I only have 1.5 gigs per GPU. High resolutions consumes quite alot of Vram and some games are impossible to play in 5760x1080 on my card. Nvidia 600 series cards usually have atleast 2 gigs of memory and 700 series cards are speculated to have even more (Titan has 6gigs). So in terms of texture resolution it's possible to go up. However I don't know if the bigger island will be alot more demanding on Vram.

[white 1]

bohemia should fill the roadmap on the board, with stuff theyre working on and also mention the stuff that will be only worked in the beta for the full release.

this would solve a lot repeated reports for things that they are already aware and plan to fix.

personally i just want to see if making a proper multicore support will be addressed before official launch or not, or if it will be addressed at all.

@ i have noticed the textures but one thing stand out more for me, the repetitive trees, they all look the same and with unnatural leafs.

Edited March 7, 2013 by white

[CK3 10]

They look fine to me :)

[nikiforos 450]

The trees or the terrain textures ?

[NordKindchen 12]

AGAIN I HAVE TO POINT OUT:

Increasing the details on the mid range environments will NOT have a drawback on the performance since the resolution is ALLREADY HIGH ENOUGH.

Example pic1 ---- Example pic 2. Both pics have the same resolution - for those guys who dont understand what I say...And the second pic is basically the same as the first - only blurred and with a rando texture above it. Thats exactly what BIS did. They had a blurry texture blurred ground and put a texture over it.

I hope you guys NOW see why the current texture has much room for improvement without beeing a performce hit at all.

The landscape simply lacks DETAILS in that textures!

Also - I DONT THINK THIS WILL CHANGE BEFORE RELEASE since the current state pretty much looks like Arma and Arma 2 landscapes just a bit improved <<<and thats what they most likely will be confident with!

So we need to point this out to them to get a change!

[Jex 1]

why are people complaining when the game is in alpha stage? I started playing this last night with a friend an overall we were very impressed with an alpha stage game. Even if the textures are that bad i don't care - the overall changes and the overall look of the game is leaps above what we had and puts arma now in the realm of most other FPS's when it comes to moving and animations.

[Minoza 11]

why are people complaining when the game is in alpha stage? I started playing this last night with a friend an overall we were very impressed with an alpha stage game. Even if the textures are that bad i don't care - the overall changes and the overall look of the game is leaps above what we had and puts arma now in the realm of most other FPS's when it comes to moving and animations.

Complaining is not equal to giving feedback. Also, if you're satisfied with crap it doesn't mean that the rest of players have to be as well, figurative speech, don't get me literally.

[VII.Racetrack -ITA- 4]

I'm having a problem running the preview in the editor. I have high settings. At the start the game run fine and i have enough FPS to watch the "panorama" of the island at very long distances, but when the firefight begin i have a dramatic decrease of FPS. The game starts to be UNPLAYABLE, aim or zoom are impossible action eheh

At first i was like.. BUT THEN...

I have a NVidia ZOTAC GTX 580, an i5 CPU and 8 Gb RAM.

I usually run ALL THE LAST TITLE at ULTRA SETTINGS.

I posted this in another thread. Do you have the same problem?

[Jex 1]

Complaining is not equal to giving feedback. Also, if you're satisfied with crap it doesn't mean that the rest of players have to be as well, figurative speech, don't get me literally.

The OP was a complaint. I'm all up for feedback but tantrums at alpha stage hardly seem reasonable?

[NordKindchen 12]

The OP was a complaint. I'm all up for feedback but tantrums at alpha stage hardly seem reasonable?

As I wrote two times before - I am pretty sure that the mid range textures are the "final ones"!

So yes - feedback and/or complaint are reasonable.

This is the time to say these things.

[nikiforos 450]

It will be much better if we receive an answer from BIS about this issue. Is this something you are going to improve and work with in the future?

Too much speculation can be negative so please tell us or give us a hint.

[Leon86 13]

anybody got a link or nr to this issue in the a3 alpha feedback thingy (the one that opens from the main menu).

I dont get why they have these insanely detailed closeup textures and then such dodgy midrange ones. looks like shit especially when there's a high detail rock next to it.

[NordKindchen 12]

Heres another screenshot that shows what this is all about.

Also for people who are saying that Altis will have better textures:

Official Pic_1

Official Pic_2

Both screenshots surely are not from Altis - both screenshots show these blurred midrange textures...=(

[PaperPlane 1]

I agree, they could look better.