ARMA 3 base terrain textures WORSE than the original Operation Flashpoint

[tremanarch 6]

what I was ever curious about is the details of the grass. We have now a 100m radius around ust detailed textures and grass.

Why is that grass so well modelled that it has such a fps hit? maybe we could have some low poly grass that reaches a little farther out? yesterday I forgot why we are complaining -> sometimes the world looks pretty and you dont recognize the mid texture phenomena. I hope the engine gets as much optimization as possible.

[Minoza 11]

It's not just about poly count especially when it comes to vegetation, overdraw plays a big role here.

[Leon86 13]

Problem is already solved by Picolly

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149036-Landtex

[down8 30]

Problem is already solved by Picolly

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149036-Landtex

Yeah, and without performance hit, if it is like Chernarus landtex, because the texture size is the same that Vanilla´s.

[mathiask1 1]

Guys, its alpha!

[PsychoPigeon 10]

I just assumed work hadn't finished yet, it looks horrible and there's no way they're leaving it like that when we've seen better in Arrowhead.

[-Coulum- 35]

I just assumed work hadn't finished yet, it looks horrible and there's no way they're leaving it like that when we've seen better in Arrowhead.

I think arrowhead had the same issue, just it wasn't noticeable because takistan was pretty much all sand.

[NordKindchen 12]

I just assumed work hadn't finished yet, it looks horrible and there's no way they're leaving it like that when we've seen better in Arrowhead.

I think arrowhead had the same issue, just it wasn't noticeable because takistan was pretty much all sand.

Exactly - I explained it here:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147715-ARMA-3-base-terrain-textures-WORSE-than-the-original-Operation-Flashpoint&p=2326009&viewfull=1#post2326009

[b00tsy 28]

I personally care about fps and performance and mechanics way way more then some textures and details. Every shiny that gets added reduces the performance more and more and then after some time we indeed need to call NASA if we can use their computers to play ArmA.

[icewindo 29]

Guys, its alpha!

Your point? :rolleyes:

This issue was allready present in A2. There's a good chance it will be the same in the final release unless people raise this issue.

[NordKindchen 12]

I personally care about fps and performance and mechanics way way more then some textures and details. Every shiny that gets added reduces the performance more and more and then after some time we indeed need to call NASA if we can use their computers to play ArmA.

Better resolutions for mid range textures adds a very important feature into the game - camouflage.

You cannot hide in blurred textures.

Higher resolution mid range allows for great advantages of camo.

At the moment thats not quite possible (besides hiding in bushes)

Greetz

[-Coulum- 35]

I personally care about fps and performance and mechanics way way more then some textures and details. Every shiny that gets added reduces the performance more and more and then after some time we indeed need to call NASA if we can use their computers to play ArmA.

Yeah I too usually prefer mechanics and performance over visuals (I was one of the guys who really didn't care that much for the new lighting), but like NordKindChen said, it is important for gameplay as well. Currently hiding from someone is far easier to do within 100 metres of them than it is at 300 metres from them. That is backwards, and less blurry ground at mid range will help fix this.

[lordprimate 159]

just a heads up ...

there is another inGame shader and color effects addon ..

SWEETFX

it works with Arma 3 because it is still a DirectX based game...

Sweet effects works with DX9 threw DX11..

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=17836

[NordKindchen 12]

just a heads up ...

there is another inGame shader and color effects addon ..

SWEETFX

it works with Arma 3 because it is still a DirectX based game...

Sweet effects works with DX9 threw DX11..

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=17836

Thx for the advise! Sadly... I dont get any influence in the game.

It seems to be installed correctly and the log.log file which it allways creates tells me its allright too. I tried ridiculous values to get any influence in the game but nothing did happen.

Tell me if you mange to get any change.

Greetz

---------- Post added 03-11-2013 at 12:35 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-10-2013 at 11:02 PM ----------

Ps: I thought about a more recource saving method to accomplish better results.

Since its allready possible to assign special ground textures for close ups to different parts of the sat layer (thats just how the whole thing works) - why not switch the current system with only one .mco file (which gets infinetely tiled) into this kind of system? Namely with differnet .mco files for different mid range undergrounds.

This would basically only mean to transfer the currently existing system into another state. Only with the difference that it should not be an RGB picture but somekind of bump/normal map.And since you could basically add infinite new special textures for this - but could on the other hand even only remain with one (as it is basically now) - you could add as much detail as you want and save as much calculation power as you want.

There could be one texture for the mid range sand (a tiled bump map which gets overlayed) and one for each other kind of underground.

But also there could be special custom made textures for for example the site of a canyon or sth.

The only problem will be that they must be able to fit with each other.

But I think if you manage to get this system running you can save a lot of performance and make the game look waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more beautiful (in mid range) than it is now.

Also you could easily create several qualitys of this procedure (for high/mid/low settings) simply by reducing the resolution.

Still you would have the full quantity of creative designs to choose from while refurbishing the surroundings.

Edited March 11, 2013 by NordKindchen

[xer0x 1]

ArmA 2 OA

TOH

ArmA 3

it's fine for me :P

[VII.Racetrack -ITA- 4]

People have to realize that this is a Alpha. Are people that stupid now a days? They think it's the finished product. Alpha is only 15% of the game right now...

Instead of complaining make suggestions, you don't need to be mentioning that we have better ram since 2001, be more helpful. Your a Alpha tester people.

I think that the real problem of this Alpha test is the AI. Graphics, texture and effects can be improved but the real problem is the huge hardware that this game require. I'm not speaking about "video settings", i'm speaking about hardware. I've tried run a game with all the settings to "low". No way the game lag the same.

[Malke1123 1]

Hopefully this is fixed.

[Placebo 28]

For the attention of those of you replying in this thread "Dude it's an alpha", read my signature please.

[sqb-sma 66]

How did BF3 get those extremely high res ground textures from a distance? It may not have been a great game, but the graphics designers earned their pay!

Whatever system that used I think that's what we should focus on.

[KilKenny 10]

I'm also one of those who find the mid-range textures to be blurry (same issue since ARMA1).

After searching, I still haven't found this issue raised in the Arma3 Alpha feedback tracker.

Does anybody have a link ?

I say, this is not only a graphics issue, this is also a gameplay issue.

It is significant in terms of gameplay, because most of the engagements are at range : 100-600m.

And at this range we see only blurry textures and few vegetation.

Humans "stick out" on the background, even if they wear camouflage.

BIS has adressed this issue by merging the distant humans into the ground, but it is just a workaround, because staying prone at distance means you are invisible to human players even if they have scoped weapons.

Why not render grass (and maybe all objects) around the target when using magnified optics (in vehicles and infantry weapons). That would at least solve part of the gameplay problem.

Edit : this last point is adressed here http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=3954

Edited March 11, 2013 by KilKenny

[Minoza 11]

ArmA 2 OA

TOH

ArmA 3

it's fine for me :P

Holy shit could you please share your color profiles so that I can try that out?! It looks great!

[NordKindchen 12]

How did BF3 get those extremely high res ground textures from a distance? It may not have been a great game, but the graphics designers earned their pay!

Whatever system that used I think that's what we should focus on.

I just calculated the approximate resolution per meter of Stratis's satmap. The satmap is about 5515x5515 px or less (29 Arma3 satmap .tgas with a resolution of 1024x1024 each - I only counted the satmap parts with a part of the island on it - no water only pieces)

Stratis is about 20Km^2. That makes about 1,52 px/m^2 for Arma 3. That means the smallest detail you are able to see on stratis satmap are over 1,5 sqm in size. (wasnt that the same ratio Arma2 had??? At least I once followed a tut with a sat image of 5120x5120px...)

If you look at Bf3 - their resolution is somewhat about 100px/m^2 I would guess. ( That would mean the smallest detail is about 0,1m^2 or 10cm long and 10 wide)

Thats the reason why their textures look crisper.

Btw: They arent even that crisp! They only did a really good job with contrast and highlights in the textures

Theres no way to redo the whole sytem of armas map rendering. And I think in its theory - its allright. But while the close and the far distances quality improved - the mid distance (namely the most important since firefights happen at that distance) was left completely the same as in Arma2.

So I am not saying redo the whole system. I am saying: Add a new system for the mid range.

Best regards

Edited March 11, 2013 by NordKindchen

[killerwhale 1]

The terrain should have rocky and tundra areas where grass is less. Every inch of land is massed with grass.

[NordKindchen 12]

The terrain should have rocky and tundra areas where grass is less. Every inch of land is massed with grass.

Thats not true - there are areas without gras. Look at camino firing range for example.

[-Coulum- 35]

@NordKindchen

Would you be willing to create a ticket on the feedback tracker concerning this issue? Your understanding of the system seems quite good and your suggestions for possible solutions are the most in depth.

I think many people realize there is a problem, but not everyone understands where it stems from so it is hard to write a good ticket up.