Swaying trees and bad vehicle interiors carried over from A2

[qbert 10]

The only thing with interiors that looks off, and I assume this is the "crayon drawing" that op talked about, is that the control screens in the hellicopter look to bright, as if the shadows hit everything but the screens. Other then that, the fidelity while inside a vehicle is pretty amazing. I spent probably an hour using the rear vew camera to run over civilian AI in the editor. (Don't judge me)

[nodunit 397]

The only thing with interiors that looks off, and I assume this is the "crayon drawing" that op talked about, is that the control screens in the hellicopter look to bright, as if the shadows hit everything but the screens. (Don't judge me)

Digital display screens nowadays use LCD and are back-lit just as a computer monitor is. If you ever get the chance and have an LCD with power, take it out into the sun..it will get glare but not shadow, or if you know someone with an electronic display in their vehicle, keep an eye on it and watch how the illumination of the cab doesn't cause it change save for glare. Case and point, check 1:42

look at the positioning of the shadow in relation to the display, it doesn't effect it.

The crayon drawing is just how he refers to the way digital displays look, http://www.aeroer.com/Uploaded/trc1000a%5B1%5D%281%29.jpg

http://talkaviation.com/images/Books/phak/chpater-17/electronic%20flight%20instrumentation.jpg though I think they are more Amiga personally.. that said though, the Ka-60 confuses me in that it only takes into account horizon, pitch and heading when the BI 64 also took into account altitude as well.

Edited March 12, 2013 by NodUnit

[wipman 1]

Hi, the fallen trees still not serve as solid cover as on the ArmA2/OA...?, looking at some videos of the Alpha, seems that the trees are made out of "blobs" and that any graphic setting under Object Detail = Very High will resoult on the threes leaves as true blobs beyind the 50m from the player; that's something that pulls me back from buy the game. On those videos i've also seen how the vehicles behave and... seems that they don't have their real mass, a 5t wheeled vehicle wouldn't bend that much in a turn at 65Kmh, no matter how high the center of gravity is placed; the suspensions of the military vehicles are perfectly adjusted for common off road tasks, so what i'd seen on the videos don't looks good.

But im more worried about the trees, that are solid cover when they're standing but become into a simple visual object instead keep being a solid cover when they're on the ground after had been blown off or teared down by a tank that collides wiz 'em; that's a bad point that i'd hated on the ArmA2 and seems that this kind of "little things" hasn't changed on the ArmA3. I think that that's very bad. Let's C ya

[qbert 10]

@NodUnit

Thanks for the clarification. Looking at that picture and video makes the display design make a bit more sense. Never been a flight guru or anything but this was informative. It also puts some interesting differences between how Arma details go, and how most video game details go.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

The LCD screens do look a little out of place if you are new to them, and perhaps are a little bright but the vehicle and helo interiors are splendid. A vast improvement over A2.

The only cartoonesque things i can see are possibly the mirrors/live cams, but their low res is to keep FPS down surely?

For me, the interiors are superb.

Rgds

LoK

[lugiahua 26]

I only hope that we get full interior inside tanks and IFV like OFP(with working commander cupola), instead of having eyes glued to periscopes in Arma1/2

It's always funny that Stryker, BMP, BRDM had interior in Arma2, but tanks didn't.

[nodunit 397]

Thanks for the clarification. Looking at that picture and video makes the display design make a bit more sense. Never been a flight guru or anything but this was informative. It also puts some interesting differences between how Arma details go, and how most video game details go.

You're welcome, and certainly. while BI doesn't have everything moving on their displays and they may not be the most authentic, the fact that they move at all is a distinction in and of itself. I don't know if you are interested in these things at all military and civil use a different style as well, whereas civil tries a sort of 'soothing' and pleasing to the eye with to complex gradients, color gradients and synthetic vision systems

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/as-the-croft-flies/evs-cirrus.jpg

http://garmin.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451bb7069e2011572318ff1970b-800wi

the military goes for a deceivingly simplistic and bare minimum style.

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/F_Models/07-08735/CH-47F_Chinook_helicopter_07-08735_Cockpit_Master.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3067/2644574569_4c480d6f67_o.jpg

Remember the C-130J in Arma2? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkQpZOroR2c That is how the displays actually look. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/8/0/1138086.jpg

The only cartoonesque things i can see are possibly the mirrors/live cams, but their low res is to keep FPS down surely?

Correct, the resolution of the display is a great deciding factor in how quick the refresh rate is. This is why the mirrors and display on the hunter don't look so great up close but have a seamless flow whereas the civlian pickup's side and rear view mirror stutters. You need twice the frames or something like that to the pickup to be visible..though it looks a bit off because you have this clarity but no shadows, which can make looking in the rear view mirror 'very' unsettling.

Edited March 13, 2013 by NodUnit

[metalcraze 290]

Interiors in armored cars look outstanding so I don't know why would anyone complain about that?

BLUFOR car even gives me that good old claustrophobic feeling that vehicles in OFP had and yet it's perfectly playable from 1st person, just like it was in OFP.