Terrain Improvement (dev branch)

[Anachoretes 10]

I dont have to do better to see what you do right or wrong.©

Let's finish this.

[Colonel-ONeill 11]

like it

+1

[NordKindchen 12]

I for my part made examples of what and how I want to improve. And there are by now 780 (minus you) who like what I did.

I dont want to argue with you but I am sick of your critizising comments. I am open for feedback but you simply rewrote your argument 3 times week after week.

And OF COURSE there are different tastes. If you dont like contrast its ok for me. I like it.

Its not for nothing that a flying word in the graphics industrie is "contrast is everything".

If you dont like it - so be it then. But theres no way for me to overdo my whole work just because you dont like that style.

As I mentionned about 30 times in the course of this forum entrance - this is a showcase! Its no MOD yet. And it is created with my taste in mind. (as I even wrote in my opening post)

Either way its AN IMPROVEMENT SINCE IT DELIVERS MORE VARIATION. So here we have the "do it better" part.

So what you did is come here and tell me you dont like my taste and you want to have it changed. Now since its not even going to be in the game this way: This would only cost my time without any benefit to none besides you. (no offense)

So again: If you dont like it: Remember its a showcase of possibilities. And you are welcome to do your own textures and share them.

In the end all I showed was the POSSIBILITES of the introduced system. ITS NOT ABOUT THE ART DIRECTION.

ONLY AFTER SUCH SYSTEM IS INTEGRATED I would listen to such advice. And if you had read well enough you would have come across a comment of mine in which I said that I would be happy to create several different versions to please every taste ONCE THE DAMN SYSTEM IS IMPLEMENTED.

So: I dont want to argue with you but you clearly mistook the purpose of this thread.

Now I still would be glad to see how you do it better - since as I said: I showed what I wanted to make better. You didnt.

And yes: Lets finish this. I have to write my exams and have to keep my head clear.

And no, I am not mad at you. I just had to make my position clear.

Best regards.

[twistking 204]

But this guy just made few images with oversharping and dirty spots and found that it gives him the right to criticize someone's work. It's very strange.

It is childish to say, that one should do a certain thing better, before one is allowed to critize. I can't programm a better engine, yet i can point out, what i think is not so good with the engine. Nord has the right to criticize BI, as long he does it in a polite and "helpful" way. Saying that BI lacks professional capabilities is a bit harsh and impolite, i agree, but apart from that, the front post of this thread is a wonderful example of helpful and professional criticism! If you call Nords review a "mod" than you have clearly not understand the idea behind this great effort by him!

Edited July 21, 2013 by twistking

[Anachoretes 10]

twistking

Basically, i talk just about a showcase images. They looks not better than vanilla, and not help for representing general idea.

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:34 ----------

And there are by now 780 (minus you)

I am already upvoted your ticket.

[NordKindchen 12]

I cannot help you if you think so. In my opinion its a 100% improvement.

But thats ok.

You cannot please everyone.

Greetz

Ps: Thats the reason why I said 780 (minus you) like what I did. Since I was sure you voted but also I know you dont like what I did.

Edited July 21, 2013 by NordKindchen

[Anachoretes 10]

In my opinion its a 100% improvement.

As i say this is are "punchy" improvments. More details. But lose tonal range.

[wiresnsnakes 1]

Sorry, but the gameplay just sucks with infantry over longer distances cause the issing shadows and the units are brigtly illuminated and "alaised", but not the environment, the flat (/lowpoly) and missing details from textures/objects(/grass).

And its fuckin 2013 and a PC game. It is possible to archive it, that the environment doesnt seem so muchd ifferent and everything beyond a few hundred meters like from 10 years ago.

They want to make a milsim but cant simulate a decent environment, besides a bit more detail nearly around you and pretty lightning.

Every developer can choose what they do, so make everything the same but less good looking or like in A3 pretty nearby surroundings and beyond that...forget it.

With a better engine it could be possible to make the environment consistent "and" pretty.

The game was horrible without Bensons textures, I could puke if i watch through a scope. Besides its looking bad (breaking the immersion cause the contrast), the gameplay simply sucks if you can spot enemys/be spotten by an enemy so easily.

With Benson its still far from good (the textures get blurry if the angle you look at them isnt quite straigt) the clutter is still missing, as are shadows, but its a huge improvement (sharp1). I never would come to the idea to play it without it again.

NordKindchens approach seems to be even better then Bensons and it would be huge plus and it could be become great if they archive the shadow-draw-distance from VBS2.

They should focus to provide the best for gameplay, so make the visuals compensate for missing detail (-objects) and shadows. Still its the lighting and the contrast between 3d models of troops and the 2d-y environment.

Seriously, there are more things, that doesnt seem state of the art.

The animations/movement and especially the transitions between them are horrible. I often feel like a broken robot on strings. If you think about how long they work on the arma series its quite laughable, cause even in games like Doom 1 it was fluid.

Without the bonus from the Hardcore-Sim-niche-aspect, it would be surely far more critisized, for what is wrong, like one of those cheap arcade-games.

The game got most of the reputation from the ambition, not the execution. And I think that will not change, till they make/get a new engine.

That may seem rude, but its ridicilous how bad things are whitewashed on one side and people discuss some realism details, that doesnt impact the gameplay much or at all.

Overall still: Many things are great executed. And thats why people care about the "less good things", which is a positive thing.

Thumbs up for Nordkindchen!

Edit: Im still angry cause nothing changed with the beta regarding this. Cant help myself, cause I love and then again hate the game at the same time.

Edited July 21, 2013 by wiresnsnakes

[EwokVillage 1]

Nice!!

[Anachoretes 10]

Btw, mapping for midrange. Maybe usefull for someone.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Anachoretes

[Wolfstriked 11]

Are we letting it all out lately.....:rolleyes:

[tremanarch 6]

i think with one of the latest patches the grass distance was raised to 200 m (was 100 before) - with the best or second best setting.

ArmA's problem is that it features realistic landscapes. in most arcade shooters the landscape is small and full of hills and sight blocking buildings and stuff that help to hide away the ranged textures etc.

even the soo great battlefield 3 looks ulgy in the distance, but it just plays like a big deathmatch, you dont travel far and have time to watch the scenery.

in bf3 they use some neat tricks aswell: contrast textures and dust and the like.

all those maps have been built with the object range in mind - i am sure that this was one of the original limits to the mapmakers ;)

the battlefield engine is not capable of rendering realisitc landscapes and contain the same sexyness they have with their small maps. but I dont want to bash them. its also a nice engine, and they have good indoor mechanics (nice levels and transition from indoor to outdoor).

--

bohemia could invent an alien ice world (like planetside 2) or their mars landscape. that is where the engine shines most! chernarus is pretty beautiful, but all those trees need huge ressources. so far stratis is a nice well thought out compromise!

now that ice landscape idea spooks inside my head :/

a game to compare arma partially is planetside 2 - it has big maps, but they feel totally artificial. super small stuff, hills and mountains wherever you look. in total it has just a size of 2 cities, but it has obejcts like it should be a biig vaste landscape. anyway:

http://abload.de/img/unbenannthrudm.png

http://abload.de/img/werwerweroeuna.png

within those limis arma 3 looks even better!

--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AliM8l2vv9Q&feature=youtube_gdata

in other games the landscape looks big, but it aint.

I guess even skyrim isnt as big as stratis.. (not even talking about altis)

but I deviated. just to say it could well be that its impossible with our actual hardware to realize - there is no reference point - someone else who did it.

this is one of the real problems: feel save but sometimes easy to spot due to detail difference to the background scene..

--

arma could have some weather / pollution depending "bloom" effect. on rainy days or in hot polluted cities you cant see that far. only on some good cold days it is possible.

Edited July 22, 2013 by tremanarch

[jiltedjock 10]

As i say this is are "punchy" improvments. More details. But lose tonal range.

You are totally not getting what this thread is about. It is not about how the mock ups look per se, it is about demonstrating a new method to improve the variety of texture overlays so that midrange doesn't look so lacking in detail.

[Anachoretes 10]

within those limis arma 3 looks even better!

You oversharp this images or this is in-game sharpness?

[NordKindchen 12]

@Wolfstriked mhh ...jeah a bit^^

And thanks for your support guys. You seem to have understood what I wanted to underline here.

And tremnarch: Nice post of yours.

Especially the last picture with the "hidden" (well not so much at distance) guy behind the bush is exactly what arma is still missing.

We strongly need better camouflage abilitys at distance.

A way to do so would be:

a: Different tree models which finally grow farer to the ground.

b: darker areas under trees and bushes on the satmap to compensate for the lack of shadows.

c: better coherence between environment rendering and soldier rendering.

If at least the two first ones are implement right this wouldnt be much of a problem anymore.

And to be honest: It feels really strange to not have a single bush grow towards the ground.

I allready opened a topic about that problem but just got closed with the argument that "maybe the bushes grow this way" ...well....maybe in the 2000 bushes on altis there should at least a FOURTH grow to the ground.

Not only for the benefit of realism but also for the benefit of gods sake camouflage.

Even in OFP you could better hide in bushes.

[Anachoretes 10]

It would be nice to force LOD to work with Z-depth or something. This would solve the problem with bushes. But this is another switch for renderings. But Alpha grass technic looks like good solution. We see.

The problem with masking can be divided into two parts.

1. Detection with naked eye.

2. And armed with optics.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Anachoretes

[NordKindchen 12]

You mean the LODs should switch with the level of zoom?

[bad benson 1733]

a: Different tree models which finally grow farer to the ground.

b: darker areas under trees and bushes on the satmap to compensate for the lack of shadows.

c: better coherence between environment rendering and soldier rendering.

i think C is the real problem here. i think a lot of the problems could be solved if the lower detail lods of the characters would have less bright and sharp colours. it could have a great effect at least for camouflage. and i think in general the bluefor soldiers have the most porblems with camouflage because BI made the multicam way too bright. it's ridiculous from far away. people look like they have bright tan uniforms. make those shots you made with opfor and compare. i noticed that a lot of times when playing PvP too. opfor is at least half as visible as bluefor.

[Anachoretes 10]

For now, LoD is depend from camera\player movements. That's why when we zooming(or use 3D scopes) we see backround\middleground level of details. But it is likely to lead to a number of difficulties.

multicam way too bright

Maybe this is done with an eye to the Altis? It seemed to me he have more greens.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Anachoretes

[bad benson 1733]

how does a bright desert camo (BI's multicam) help with more green? or did i misunderstand you?

[Anachoretes 10]

Hello, i'm rock.

He works with a light ground, stones, dry grass. It is are difficult to have a universal camo. And they still need to use it. It's not enough just to wear it.

---------- Post added at 23:02 ---------- Previous post was at 22:53 ----------

or did i misunderstand you?

My fault. I was thinking about AAF digital. Nevertheless, Limnos richer in colors.

About grass and masking.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Anachoretes

[bad benson 1733]

so your point is? the soldier in the picture is behind a bush. i don't see how the rock in the background is of any relevance. it's just the other far end of stratis' colour palette. multicam should be inbetween and not on one extreme end of the palette. sure it's difficult to make a universial camo (a.k.a multicam) but BI isn't helping by making it too bright compared to what they are basing it on.

in these pictures you can see camo patterns that look like the rock in the background you pointed out. does it make them the right camos for stratis just because they have the same colour as the rock?

http://www.militaryuniformsupply.com/files/1943-tru-spec-closeout-desert-digital-jacket.jpg

http://www.militarygearhq.com/c1016-l.jpg

i was talking about camouflage effectiveness. opfor camouflage works way better than bluefor camouflage. on both sand/rock and grass. bluefor would work better, if it was tweaked. my point isn't even that it doesn't resemble real multicam. just look at it and you see what is wrong.

so i don't get what you are trying to say. the current overly bright BI multicam is perfect and the status quo and nothing should be changed at all eventhough it simply is not working well? hmm. i disagree. maybe i'm not understanding what you are trying to say but so far it makes no sense. sorry.

edit:

Limnos richer in colors.

that makes even less sense. in your new picture about something with grass you can see that even on the brightest ground the soldier still stand out a lot. more green tones will make the problem just worse...

[Anachoretes 10]

i don't see how the rock in the background is of any relevance

Because you eyes see rocks, then bushes, and then 'rocks' again. Actually, you can't even see this soldier in the bush from middle range.

be inbetween and not on one extreme end of the palette

"Middle" solutions works "middle" on any ground. So, if you are using camo properly he's working. Maybe someone had reason's to do that.

the current overly bright BI multicam is perfect and the status quo and nothing should be changed at all eventhough it simply is not working well?

I say, that perfect camo is not exist. And this is not are big problem for modders. And as we know it's are smallest problem. That's why i'm not worring about.

in your new picture about

About what need to be done first in disguising issue. No matter what colors you wear if you hiding on the flat surface.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Anachoretes

[bad benson 1733]

That's why i'm not worring about.

what do i care what you worry about and how is that relevant? and besides that, your arguments (for what ever you are arguing) are weak. so now you are saying the texture shouldn't be changed because modders can change it and also it's just too bright because of HDR? sorry dude but that makes no sense. if the engine's lighting makes something too bright, tweak the engine or tweak the textures. simple.

"Middle" solutions works "middle" on any ground.

yea seems you understood it now. but then again it seems you didn't. ^that is the point of multicam...

i have no idea why you have the need to try to prove my statement wrong. or why you think you have to defend that particular texture or every little detail of what BI does (there seems to be a pattern in your posts). i mean at least bring some valid points:rolleyes: but i guess you have your reasons...

anyways. i'm done here.

[Anachoretes 10]

Bad Benson

i have no idea why you have the need to try to prove my statement wrong

Do you think every message addressed to you as a call to the dispute or charges? I just argue about priorities.

f the engine's lighting makes something too bright, tweak the engine or tweak the textures.

Better if someone who knows "where and how" will make simple addon and compare. Like ticket. Because I know what you mean, but I can't fix it.

so now you are saying the texture shouldn't be changed because modders can change it

I'm not saying that. I said, that is not are problem which expected in-engine. It's just are maps. "paa-tga-rgb_curves-tga-paa". This is proper multicam pattern but need work with luminocity.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Anachoretes