ARMA 3 base terrain textures WORSE than the original Operation Flashpoint

[LeeManatee 4]

all because of arma 3 use TOH engine. TOH have same FOV, since it was supposed to work on very long distances

[viper[cww] 14]

Alphaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa FPDR

[Bryce23 10]

I agree, the bad textures really are a game killer at times. I'm sure they'll fix them though. Then again, the distant textures on Chernarus were terrible too, I could barely play that map without using that landtex mod that made them look much nicer. Lets hope history doesn't repeat itself here. :pray:

[NevilleBartos 10]

yep was one of the first negative things I noticed too, hopefully this will be improved in time.

[QuiteFranklyMyMaN 1]

I hope they don't FORCE CHANGE and make them pretty, as the lower quality textures are much easier to load. So please, leave the low quality textures for the machines that wish to use them with other high settings.

Course this is simplified into a Terrain Quality menu option. WHATEVER

[LeeManatee 4]

getting really rired of retarded excuses like"this is alpha". everyone know that. stop it.

[viper[cww] 14]

getting really rired of retarded excuses like"this is alpha". everyone know that. stop it.

Actually it seems people do not know this, they complain about all sorts of shit, the game is frickin' alpha for ducks sake... It is not a polished game, it is a game with base features and base graphics. Get Over It!

[NeMeSiS 11]

;2320485']Actually it seems people do not know this' date=' they complain about all sorts of shit, the game is frickin' alpha for ducks sake... It is not a polished game, it is a game with base features and base graphics. Get Over It![/quote']

I doubt they have held back on the terrain textures 'because its an alpha'. ArmA3 just doesn't look very good at medium distance. Try Chernarus in ArmA3, you really need to crank up the settings and even then everything still seems to degrade into a very low lod with low-res textures after a small distance, while in ArmA2 it would look great on normal settings.

Its fine, it can be changed, that's why we have an alpha, But it does deserve attention. If we don't complain about anything then there wouldn't be much point at having an alpha.

Edited March 8, 2013 by NeMeSiS

[QuiteFranklyMyMaN 1]

That is some interesting speculation NeMeSiS. However, when is the proposed release date? Certain games have held back in the past, one of them being Mass Effect 3.

[freemangl 1]

I just realize it's lacking of ground shadows!

It's the shadows that makes the mountain alive!

look at Outerra:

http://www.outerra.com/wallpapers/outerra_003.jpg

http://onlyhdwallpapers.com/wallpaper/mountains_landscapes_nature_outerra_desktop_1920x1080_hd-wallpaper-718244.jpg

and Just Cause 2:

http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/3160128/img/Anonymous/JustCause2-2010-03-28-14-37-08-74.bmp

Edited March 8, 2013 by freemangl

[QuiteFranklyMyMaN 1]

http://onlyhdwallpapers.com/wallpaper/mountains_landscapes_nature_outerra_desktop_1920x1080_hd-wallpaper-718244.jpg

that second link was to porn brah.... and I hope I didnt just get a trojan from that sh**

[bad benson 1733]

the problem here is that the terrain texture is based on a satellite photo. it contains shadows and or artifacts from methods to remove those shadows. this is a known issue since arma 1 and was in arma 2 in the case of chernarus fixed by a user made addon which changed the texture's look not its resolution. it's not so much a matter of resolution as it is of the texture itself.

when i was making a terrain for arma/arma 2 i was putting a lot of time into making a smooth texture from a satellite photo. it takes a lot of work but it's worth it. the key is to smoothen it without making it look blurred and getting rid of shadows without creating areas of flat colours. the problem is that by using a satellite photo most people think it will look perfect since it's the real thing. the reality is that it will only look good in a certain angle, under certain lighting conditions and a certain distance. in addition to that the mid range texture is a procedurally generated texture which basically creates very blurry transitions between different ground types like sand and grass. this mid range area needs some kind of cheap grass alpha layer or something else that creates random but sharp details.

this CAN be fixed. it's true that it's an alpha and that there will most certainly go more work into this but it's totally ok to bring this up and maybe make it a higher priority since it has been a problem since the current terrain layer system has been introduced with arma 1. since then close distance details have been improving which makes this flaw stand out a lot more.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Bad Benson

[Montanaro 0]

Don't care. Ya'll can count dirt if you want.

[-Coulum- 35]

the problem here is that the terrain texture is based on a satellite photo. it contains shadows and or artifacts from methods to remove those shadows. this is a known issue since arma 1 and was in arma 2 in the case of chernarus fixed by a user made addon which changed the texture's look not its resolution. it's not so much a matter of resolution as it is of the texture itself.

when i was making a terrain for arma/arma 2 i was putting a lot of time into making a smooth texture from a satellite photo. it takes a lot of work but it's worth it. the key is to smoothen it without making it look blurred and getting rid of shadows without creating areas of flat colours. the problem is that by using a satellite photo most people think it will look perfect since it's the real thing. the reality is that it will only look good in a certain angle, under certain lighting conditions and a certain distance. in addition to that the mid range texture is a procedurally generated texture which basically creates very blurry transitions between different ground types like sand and grass. this mid range area needs some kind of cheap grass alpha layer or something else that creates random but sharp details.

this CAN be fixed. it's true that it's an alpha and that there will most certainly go more work into this but it's totally ok to bring this up and maybe make it a higher priority since it has been a problem since the current terrain layer system has been introduced with arma 1. since then close distance details have been improving which makes this flaw stand out a lot more.

+1. Best description of the situation I have heard. I hope BIS pursues this. Dwarden said he was suggesting this to the team so... we can hope.

[root 1]

the problem here is that the terrain texture is based on a satellite photo. it contains shadows and or artifacts from methods to remove those shadows. this is a known issue since arma 1 and was in arma 2 in the case of chernarus fixed by a user made addon which changed the texture's look not its resolution. it's not so much a matter of resolution as it is of the texture itself.

when i was making a terrain for arma/arma 2 i was putting a lot of time into making a smooth texture from a satellite photo. it takes a lot of work but it's worth it. the key is to smoothen it without making it look blurred and getting rid of shadows without creating areas of flat colours. the problem is that by using a satellite photo most people think it will look perfect since it's the real thing. the reality is that it will only look good in a certain angle, under certain lighting conditions and a certain distance. in addition to that the mid range texture is a procedurally generated texture which basically creates very blurry transitions between different ground types like sand and grass. this mid range area needs some kind of cheap grass alpha layer or something else that creates random but sharp details.

this CAN be fixed. it's true that it's an alpha and that there will most certainly go more work into this but it's totally ok to bring this up and maybe make it a higher priority since it has been a problem since the current terrain layer system has been introduced with arma 1. since then close distance details have been improving which makes this flaw stand out a lot more.

+1. Best description of the situation I have heard. I hope BIS pursues this. Dwarden said he was suggesting this to the team so... we can hope.

+1 from me as well

[10t 12]

There's a good post from Bushlurker on one of the linked threads about why it's possible to improve the appearance without increasing the size of the textures.

I urge anyone concerned about a "performance hit", or anyone saying "they're low res to guarantee better performance" to read it.

Until there's word from BIS saying "The lomg-distanced textures in the Alpha do not represent those in the Final", then it's perfectly valid to bring attention to them.

[naizarak 4]

yeah the low-res terrain textures have really been bugging me. i mean arma 2 looks better at this point, and it runs a little better, too.

[rehtus777 10]

i mean arma 2 looks better at this point, and it runs a little better, too.

For the 1000th time, "It's an Alpha." :) I'm holding final judgement on the mid-range textures until "Release." I've played many hours of ArmA 2 (Vanilla and ACE 2) and I can tell you that the ArmA 3 Alpha is just a "Test" run for the Beta and Final. Logic dictates (because of technology over time) that ArmA 3 will look better than ArmA 2 in the final product. IOW's they've left stuff out on purpose in the Alpha, especially the environment stuff (eye candy). It's not important at this time. Sure, they are trying to sell a product, but in the end they won't release their best stuff until the final release. I think the game looks fantastic. True, the mid-range texture look "average".....but again, I believe they did this so that most computers could handle the load at this time. My phenom ii 4 quad 965 / GTX 470 / 8 RAM runs this game on ultra (4500 view distance) with no problem. I have a feeling when they release the final product, that is going to change.

Edited March 8, 2013 by rehtus777

[NordKindchen 12]

For the 1000th time, "It's an Alpha." :) I'm holding final judgement on the mid-range textures until "Release." I've played many hours of ArmA 2 (Vanilla and ACE 2) and I can tell you that the ArmA 3 Alpha is just a "Test" run for the Beta and Final. Logic dictates (because of technology over time) that ArmA 3 will look better than ArmA 2 in the final product. IOW's they've left stuff out on purpose in the Alpha, especially the environment stuff (eye candy). It's not important at this time. Sure, they are trying to sell a product, but in the end they won't release their best stuff until the final release. I think the game looks fantastic. True, the mid-range texture look "average".....but again, I believe they did this so that most computers could handle the load at this time. My phenom ii 4 quad 965 / GTX 470 / 8 RAM runs this game on ultra (4500 view distance) with no problem. I have a feeling when they release the final product, that is going to change.

I really really really hope you are right.

But as I said - to be honest I dont think the mid range textures are dummies. I rather think that stratis is final graphic wise.

But...that would be a really big disappointment for me=(

Ps: Again - the close up and the far distance look astonishing! But sadly - the main engagements will happen at about 300 meters - exactly the range of that average detail.

[tremanarch 6]

its the engines limitation I guess. And its nearly final. They could change something, but other stuff is just more important.

there is prob no way to make it look better within the engines borders.

And it looks good and awesome on some days and perspectives and awfull on others.. get on with it

[jumpinghubert 49]

its the engines limitation I guess. And its nearly final. They could change something, but other stuff is just more important.

there is prob no way to make it look better within the engines borders.

And it looks good and awesome on some days and perspectives and awfull on others.. get on with it

do you have noticed the first posting of this thread? Do you have seen the screenshots? There you can see ground texture from Operation Flashpoint. Engine limitations.....triple-lol

[hellfire257 3]

Reserving judgement until release means it is far too late to do anything about it.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Reserving judgement until release means it is far too late to do anything about it.

Yeah, i dont really get why people say 'its an alpha!' to every complaint. We know its an alpha, the entire point is to point out everything that isnt as it should be.

[NordKindchen 12]

Ok I have taken my time to get into the game files.

I managed to get right into the map layers and am able to take a look on how many details there are possibly at stratis with the current resolution.

I have to say - as it is there is no way to improve it...................

But there are some ways to change things:

1. increase the satmap image - that would indeed bring us a performance draw back. Also it calls for a lot of work for bohemias artists.

2. implement something like a mid range texture set. This would decrease performance too and would cost a lot of development work...but the system as it is seems pretty antique...there needs to be some improvement to get in line with other modern fps (graphic wise).

I want to explain the rendering process of the map for a second so everyone understands where arma stands.

At the moment the whole map is based on one big satelite image. On top of that image are all the objects like houses cars vegetation etc.

Now if that would be all - you would have pretty blurry textures under your feet - so in your close distance there is a "close up" texture aligned around you. This texture is based on - I for now call it a - information-picture. It has the same size as the satelite picture but indeed works like a big map with different colour that stand for different grounds - like sand, gras, cement etc.

Based on this picture is the surrounding in a decent radius around you aligned.

Now to make the things a little bit prettier you got some texture overlays for this and that - thats for example the little detail you see in mid distances. Sadly this is a small file that is set together in infinite numbers and sometimes doesnt fit to the grounds very well.

So as a summation - we got one big picture and for close distances we got a high resolution generic texture.

For close and for far away - thats works really well!

Close up

Far distance

but the mid distance really....sucks=( And it hurts myself to say that because I really love the idea behind Arma=( (I even bought Arma2 and OA three times to support BIS^^)

So - since we are in 2013 and not 2000 - there MUST BE a solution for this!

Either increase the overall island resolution - or create a mid range system for distances between100 and 300 meters! I think apart from the development time and cost - the second one is the better idea...

Greetz and best regards....

Ps: If you guys want to take a look at the satelite picture for yourself - I could post a picture - but I am not sure if I am allowed to do so since its BI-property.

But simple instruction: Get Eliteness 2.95 running and DePbo the "map_stratis_data_layers.pbo" the "S_###_###_lco.paa" are the satelite image textures. You only need a texture viewer to take a look at them.

Edited March 10, 2013 by NordKindchen

[luizsilveira 5]

Whole-Heartedly agree. Disappointing considering everything else terrain detail wise looks great. It's the only thing we see at distance when the grass LODs are eliminated. I always hated that grass view distance wasn't allowed to go out further. One because when people look through scopes at distance character models camouflage means nothing.

Years and years go by yet problems are the same.