Terrain Improvement (dev branch)

[zimms 22]

Show me an Outerra video with complex game mechanics, dozens of AI, realistic ballistics and stable net code. Because I'd like to have a game, not a pretty screensaver.

[jefcostello 1]

Wow, that outerra would be awesome, but sounds impracticle, too good to be true, for now, for ArmA. It would be cool tho if that technology could be applied to generate bumpmaps and grass with similar procedural qualities to fit that midrange gap.

[tremanarch 6]

Show me an Outerra video with complex game mechanics, dozens of AI, realistic ballistics and stable net code. Because I'd like to have a game, not a pretty screensaver.

I did only see some texured mountains. no objects no nothing.and he didnt zoom in, could be very low res too.

[PuFu 4600]

I did only see some texured mountains. no objects no nothing.and he didnt zoom in, could be very low res too.

good christ. You know you can always test this engine yourself if you feel it's a hoax, don't you? Those textures are one of the best i've seen in a game recently.

[tremanarch 6]

no I dont, and why should I if I get such a bad presentation anyway?

[r3volution 0]

Well, I'm testing it. It looked pretty insanely good from the stuff I found on youtube. And yes there's always the tired old fanboy retort (and don't get me wrong I'm a fanboy too) of 'yeah but its not simulating x, y and z as well, which Arma does'. But nobody would be expecting the entire planet in an Arma game, so obviously through having a restricted map area you'd get a lot of cpu/ram/gpu resources back.

I don't know, it looked pretty awesome to me. Definitely worth investigating how they've managed to code it.

[NordKindchen 12]

@OMAC I took the satmap_image out of the games data. I dont know where BI gets their images but it could as well be googlemaps.

As to the outerra video: I think a bit part in this engine is the use of normal or displacementmaps.

There sure is a way to implement such things into the engine - but that would cost way too much manpower time and money. Also its hard to tell how big the performance impact would be.

In the end - the Outerra video is a nice look into the future but completely unrealistic to implement at the moment. We need to stay realistic here;)

As I allways emphasize - BI is no multimillion dollar studio! Its a rather small company with niche products.

So if we try to help improve our game - we need to think about the most cost-effective way to enhance the game.

I am working on some new screens to visualize my idea even more.

Oh and - may I ask you guys to do sth?

Would you mind putting a link into your signature towards this topic to support this idea?^^ I would be the happiest headphone wearing finger in the whole world^^ ;)

Best regards!

[jumpinghubert 49]

Nordkindchen, is it possible to realize your ideas as a mod/addon?

[10t 12]

I did only see some texured mountains. no objects no nothing.and he didnt zoom in, could be very low res too.

Didn't zoom in? What video were you watching? The camera bumps off rocks. Two clicks - one to Youtube, one to the thread he's linked to - will take you to the Outerra forums, where this video was originally posted. The static screens in there with vehicle models give a good idea of the scale.

No-one's saying "Yo BIS, Outerra's in ur base killin ur game engine". Nor criticizing BIS for not using Outerra. I think the post just demonstrates that fractal terrain geometry & good texturing: can be rendered real-time, and looks exquisitely good. It's something BIS everyone making a game engine that renders outdoors ought to aspire to, even if they rightly choose never to achieve it (there are better places to spend calculations before we get to terrain that finessed). I would love to play Arma on that terrain. I know I won't for a very long time. I'm ok with that, but it won't stop me dreaming.

Edited March 16, 2013 by 10T

[NordKindchen 12]

Nordkindchen, is it possible to realize your ideas as a mod/addon?

I am no programmer but I rather dont think so because its a basic mechanic of the engine that first needs to be integrated into the engine.

I dont know if Arma is enough modable to do so - and then still - there might be not even someone capable of integrating such thing into the engine in the community.

So this is up to BI^^

Best regards!

[lightspeed_aust 681]

excellent work mate - would improve the look enormously and also hide opfor better at distance (versus now where they stick out)

[Guest]

Voted!

[LordZombie14 1]

Very nice post! The work that went into such a "Quick" post, as you call your work, shows your dedication.

Thought it was my settings till I saw this post.

Keep up the great work! :)

[dnk 13]

I agree this is very needed. Such bland mid-range textures were acceptable in A1, less so in A2, but they really shouldn't still be around in A3, especially since this is where a TON of action happens in these games - 150-350m away is prime firefight distance, yet that's where the engine suffers the most?

And while we're at it, there's another thread dealing with a related mid-/far-range rendering issue, except for how models are obscured by the grass:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?148861-Rendering-grass-at-long-distances-My-thoughts-about-it

[Mirudes 1]

I would like to show my support for this proposal. NordKindchen did a impressive job here.

The more I look at the artistic impressions he made, the more I want it.

[metalcraze 290]

This is a very good solution. It also solves the problem of the lack of distant detail that would mix soldier with itself to get him less noticeable.

[Steakslim 1]

oh yes, this is getting up voted, great work.

[christud 0]

Amazing.

Don't understand a word of it but the screenies do all the talking I need... :bounce3:

And it means the 'other' (excellent) thread dealing with the distant grass issue would be unecessary (the fix, not the thread) as combining the effects would make the enemy practically invisible and the game perhaps too brutal to be enjoyed.

Also, hopefully the fact that Placebo noticed, and liked, the suggestion means that it'll get some serious consideration at ze BIHQ.

And anyway they must be rolling in Ferraris after the last 4 months of dominating the Steam charts. So, if they were just to sell the vile pink one, they could even get NordKindchen to do the job for them!

Really, really good stuff. Keep this thread alive.

[johncage 30]

The idea would be to save time in creating the "medium-range logic map" to replace the current "mid-range overlay" which is now the blurry satellite image. A spectral classification of multiband satellite imagery would quickly generate an island-wide map of internally homogenous, spectrally distinct classes (say 20-50 in number), somewhat similar to his logic map. Each class would have distinct spectral characteristics based on (one method) maximum likelihood statistical analysis of each pixel in all spectral bands, based on the spectral variation between different landuse/landcover types.

http://www.lvc.ele.puc-rio.br/projects/interimage/images/classification.png (463 kB)

Here is a very simple map with a small number of classes:

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0924271611000517-gr3.jpg

For example, one class would be dense forest veg, one shallow water, one deep water, one grasses, one bushes + grass, some bare rock, some for bare soil, pavement, etc. Then medium-range textures could be developed and assigned to each class.

Perhaps BIS did this already in making the short-range logic map? It looks that way, but I don't know.

Another super easy way to generate the medium-range logic map would be to apply a focal majority filter to the short-range logic map to simplify it, and possibly reduce the number of classes in it.

All the above could be done in a few days for the entire island using the original multiband satellite image (probably Ikonos, Quickbird or something like that). We do this kind of thing for entire countries (example partial raw image base, pre-classification, 30m pixels). What I guess would take the most time would be generating the medium-range textures for each class, but I don't really know since I am a geophysicist, not a video game developer!

from what i understand, bis already has the logic map. and look at how detailed it is. every distinctly colored pixel will have its own tileable noise texture:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4934308/Arma%203/mid_range_problem/logic_map.jpg

[-Coulum- 35]

And it means the 'other' (excellent) thread dealing with the distant grass issue would be unecessary (the fix, not the thread) as combining the effects would make the enemy practically invisible and the game perhaps too brutal to be enjoyed.

I disagree. I think both of these features should be implemented as they will compliment each other very well. They could quite possibly solve the problem of units being easier to spot from far range than at a close distance, for unmagnified optics. The brutality of it is the fun part.

Of course once magnification is introduced the balnance gets tipped. there will need to be further steps taken in order to make camoflauge and partial concealment possible against magnified optics. Speaking of which, is the range at which these mid range textures are rendered increased depending on the magnification that is being used?

Edited March 17, 2013 by -Coulum-

[johncage 30]

looks like they're rendered at a set radius around the player.

also lol @ the guy complaining about increased realism in an arma game.

[Chocolate 1]

Up vote

[christud 0]

Haha,

If that was aimed at me - I'm just saying it IS a game after all and I've played them all and loved them all but I'm no fan of taking things THAT far. I mean - do you quit when you die because that's real isn't it....? :j:

Still love the suggestions though. And I do feel that one of them is absolutely necessary.

Keep the thread going.....

[NordKindchen 12]

@-Coulum- currently the texture overlay for the mid range is as far as I can possibly see with my optics. So there shouldnt be a problem;)

@the question towards the performance: Its not totally clear but it seems it will have a rather small performance impact. Possibly even none? -> I mean - look at all those graphic options which dont change the framerate even if you turn them from "low" to "ultra". possibly the same here^^

Best regards

[-Coulum- 35]

@-Coulum- currently the texture overlay for the mid range is as far as I can possibly see with my optics. So there shouldnt be a problem

Yeah upon testing it out for myself I find you're right. If they ever do stop being drawn it is far beyond where my vision can detect them. Awesome!

While I am playing I am just imagining how much better the game would look and feel with NordKindchen's ideas. I gotta say that this would be a huge improvement and I really hope it happens.