Visuals two steps forward - one step back

[TankCommander 3]

Eh, all of those trees look pretty unappetizing, no offense to anyone. There's just something they need to do with the mid-long LODs. Clearly, they can do it given past games, so I'm guessing these LODs weren't a priority for the alpha release. At any rate, it needs fixing.

Course they aren't as quality as Arma3 trees. The point was to demonstrate there are older trees which convey lighting much better than Arma3 trees. It's to show a contrast between lit trees and flat ones.

[Janez 507]

Is anyone else getting massive FPS drops when close to forests?

[gliptal 25]

Is anyone else getting massive FPS drops when close to forests?

Me, but only since yesterday for some reason...

Yay!

[dnk 13]

Course they aren't as quality as Arma3 trees. The point was to demonstrate there are older trees which convey lighting much better than Arma3 trees. It's to show a contrast between lit trees and flat ones.

No, I was talking about both the visual aesthetics AND the flatness. Neither look nice, though certainly having some shadows makes the mod trees less flat (but still, they look fairly flat to me).

[doveman 7]

I'm still noticing LOD switching on trees when changing viewpoint, not just moving. I also find the way the entire tree trunks sway, as if they were made of rubber, rather distracting. This is the same in A2 but it would be nice to see this fixed as it's totally weird and doesn't serve any purpose that I can see and must use some resources.

I'd like to see the vehicle interiors made to look more realistic as well. I took some screenshots of one and I think you can see they don't look very realistic which ruins the immersion. I think some of the other vehicles are a bit better in this respect though.

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/2904/arma320130321153928152.jpg (128 kB)

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/8362/arma320130321154014409.jpg (133 kB)

Hmm, not sure what's going on with the links there and why it's decided to show the 3rd image but only link to the other two, maybe a filesize thing.

[sasori55555 1]

what!?

[3instein 10]

I'm still noticing LOD switching on trees when changing viewpoint, not just moving. I also find the way the entire tree trunks sway, as if they were made of rubber, rather distracting. This is the same in A2 but it would be nice to see this fixed as it's totally weird and doesn't serve any purpose that I can see and must use some resources.

I'd like to see the vehicle interiors made to look more realistic as well. I took some screenshots of one and I think you can see they don't look very realistic which ruins the immersion. I think some of the other vehicles are a bit better in this respect though.

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/2904/arma320130321153928152.jpg (128 kB)

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/8362/arma320130321154014409.jpg (133 kB)

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1677/arma320130321154124690.jpg

Hmm, not sure what's going on with the links there and why it's decided to show the 3rd image but only link to the other two, maybe a filesize thing.

I am sure this is just a copy and paste of a post a few weeks ago,I sure remember reading the exact same wording>

Mick. :)

[Janez 507]

Me, but only since yesterday for some reason...

Yay!

Sometimes it drops by 40FPS! And the trees look really bad for me untill I come close (atleast 5m away) and zoom in. Something wrong there for sure.

[doveman 7]

I am sure this is just a copy and paste of a post a few weeks ago,I sure remember reading the exact same wording>

Mick. :)

I'm sure you didn't, certainly not by me and I didn't copy and paste anything for my post so if there was an identical post it would be very strange. Do post a link if you remember where you saw it.

[zimms 22]

What are your settings doveman? If you have your texture setting turned down, of course your interiors won't be as splendid.

[CHB68 10]

Well, in the meantime I got used to the Real Virtuality game engine, but actually I'm really disapointed or better terrified to find so many "unpleasant effects" the Armed Assault series suffers since Armed Assault 1 (Real Virtuality engine 2). This is the Real Virtuality game engine 4, but it seems to be old wine in a new wineskin.

Either the all engine simply sucks, or nobody on the planet is able to get a grip on it. Sad, really sad..... :pet5:

[doveman 7]

What are your settings doveman? If you have your texture setting turned down, of course your interiors won't be as splendid.

I think Terrain is on Standard as it's been reported that it cripples framerates higher than that. Object and Texture are both on V.High and I tried changing all the settings from High/V.High to Low/Disabled and didn't see any change in the vehicle interiors. If you can make that vehicle interior look much better with particular settings though, do post some screenshots.

[chrisb 196]

I don’t think vehicle interiors are great the Ifrit is a little better than the Hunter, but overall they are nothing to go mad over. I think some mod vehicles will hopefully change that later.

Performance wise, terrain and vd are fps killers for sure, but most of the rest can go on Ultra. I turn PP off (never liked PP), v-sync off (never have it on), and AA x2, PIP off (waste of time, hope that they port blakes mirrors), terrain standard and vd 1200. Thats it really, put the rest on Ultra, other than particles, thats limited at very high.

Tree's are o.k. but really the whole thing just looks smoother, if anyone can understand that, in looks, nothing else. Seems like it went through a filter of some type and came out refreshed..:)

[white 1]

just wish the game had a bigger variety and amount of bushes/debris to use as cover, and that they didnt stand out as much from the terrain textures.

[Caiden 1]

I think the trees look much better in ArmA 3, am I the only one?

[doveman 7]

I don’t think vehicle interiors are great the Ifrit is a little better than the Hunter, but overall they are nothing to go mad over. I think some mod vehicles will hopefully change that later.

Performance wise, terrain and vd are fps killers for sure, but most of the rest can go on Ultra. I turn PP off (never liked PP), v-sync off (never have it on), and AA x2, PIP off (waste of time, hope that they port blakes mirrors), terrain standard and vd 1200. Thats it really, put the rest on Ultra, other than particles, thats limited at very high.

Tree's are o.k. but really the whole thing just looks smoother, if anyone can understand that, in looks, nothing else. Seems like it went through a filter of some type and came out refreshed..:)

Yeah, my settings are similar but mostly on V.High rather than Ultra although I'll try it and see if it hurts. PP off, PIP off, AA x4, VD 3000, Object 1500. I prefer a bigger VD as around 1000 I find it weird to be able to see a hill (or at least be aware of it) but not able to see what's on it, even though I should be able to see things moving on it and feel I'm at rather a disadvantage from anything on that hill targeting me.

To me overall it just looks smoother, brighter, sharper, nicer colours but no massive change. It's certainly a nice improvement and is much easier on the eye but I just hope that BIS fix all the major annoying issues, not just performance, as I haven't got the patience for another game that's just as buggy and annoying as A2OA.

[gliptal 25]

Try FXAA: it has no impact on performance, and makes the image a lot clearer and crisper...

Yay!

[Caiden 1]

Try putting this on your Launch options aswell. Makes it run much smoother for me!

-maxMem=8192 -cpuCount=4 -exThreads=7

[gliptal 25]

The -exThreads is new to me, what does it do?

Yay!

[3instein 10]

I'm sure you didn't, certainly not by me and I didn't copy and paste anything for my post so if there was an identical post it would be very strange. Do post a link if you remember where you saw it.

Originally posted by doveman,

"Swaying trees and bad vehicle interiors carried over from A2

Having had a quick look at the Alpha, I see the ridiculous swaying tree trunks from A2OA are still there. Fair enough if it's too hard/cpu intensive to make the branches sway but don't make the entire tree sway as a substitute, because it just looks weird and doesn't help with immersion. I also noticed the near/mid trees still thin out and fill in as you move view unless Objects is on V.High as with A2OA.

I also see we've still got the terrible vehicle/helo dashboards/control panels which look like they've been drawn in crayon by a kid. I realise the focus is on testing Infantry at the moment and a lot of content is still to be added but I imagine the vehicle and helo that are in the Alpha are probably considered finished as far as the interiors go. Maybe I'm just spoilt by DCS Black Shark but again it doesn't really help with immersion when you see this in a vehicle and it's hard to see how anyone could justify calling it a "simulator" as it seems rather arcadey when in vehicles, what with all the indicators in the top left showing damage and altitude/air speed in helos, instead of having proper gauges/readouts on the dash or this information on the HUD (for helos which have a HUD). It seems like the vehicles/helos are somewhat of an afterthought and the only part that is intended to be a simulation is the infantry.

Doesn't really strike me as massively different from A2OA (obviously I've been using mods like JSRS, so I'm not comparing to vanilla), more of a cosmetic paint job, with much nicer/richer colours and lighting."

I knew I had read the same thing before,maybe not a cut and paste job,but as it is by yourself I would consider that a very close second. ;)

Mick.

[doveman 7]

I knew I had read the same thing before,maybe not a cut and paste job,but as it is by yourself I would consider that a very close second. ;)

Mick.

Well no, you hadn't read the same thing before. It might be about the same subject and similar in some respects but you said you were "sure" it was a copy and paste job and were "sure" you remembered the exact same wording, which you now admit you were wrong about. I was much more careful to try and be constructive in my criticism of the vehicles here as I have no wish to cause any offence to whomever drew the vehicle interiors and I didn't even look at that previous post when composing the one in this thread. Even had it been identical, this author of this thread clearly said it is "to discuss some of the visual shortfalls of Arma 3. In particular, the current trees on Stratis." so this would be an appropriate place to re-post any thoughts on those subjects.

You might want to check next time before saying you're "sure" about something ;)

[3instein 10]

Well no, you hadn't read the same thing before. It might be about the same subject and similar in some respects but you said you were "sure" it was a copy and paste job and were "sure" you remembered the exact same wording, which you now admit you were wrong about. I was much more careful to try and be constructive in my criticism of the vehicles here as I have no wish to cause any offence to whomever drew the vehicle interiors and I didn't even look at that previous post when composing the one in this thread. Even had it been identical, this author of this thread clearly said it is "to discuss some of the visual shortfalls of Arma 3. In particular, the current trees on Stratis." so this would be an appropriate place to re-post any thoughts on those subjects.

You might want to check next time before saying you're "sure" about something ;)

Thanks for the advice,not that I need it though as that is what I went and done,check.

You just can't admit it can you?

I said I was sure I had read the wording before and turns out I had,and a bonus it turns out the post was by yourself as well. LOL.

At least I admit when I am wrong M8.

You might want to check the meaning of "wording"

Mick. :)

[kremator 1064]

Are you kidding ? I can run on MAX view distance, MAX objects distance, no PP, 2xAA and still get 35-47FPS depending where I look. Visuals going back ... not in my book.

Of course, this is without any AI, but I consider these new GFX conditions as a major step forward in the engine!

[nodunit 397]

instead of having proper gauges/readouts on the dash or this information on the HUD (for helos which have a HUD). It seems like the vehicles/helos are somewhat of an afterthought and the only part that is intended to be a simulation is the infantry.

Many of the steam gauges function in the cockpits; air speed, altitude, attitude, bank, RPM, clock and climb rate.

Oddly enough the KA-60's digital displays are useless compared to it's own gauges. The only functions on them are the horizon (which is oddly enough tied to the bank mark ticks) and heading.

It's a bit saddening how BI treats digital displays as generally less worth than their analogue counter parts. It would be nice to see the H-6 brought up to a more modernized level such as this http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8182/7976027357_4ac7f8cf0b.jpg or this https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQx8IRrzUaDnzLHZjscphw2Z5Pck_R3Anl9YKEnJBVP8zTas3vCjg Amongst the KA-60, RAH-66 and no doubt Mi-28N styled watchamacallit, the little bird will look oddly out of place unless it goes to the independants.

Edited March 22, 2013 by NodUnit

[3instein 10]

IMHO the vehicle interiors are really quite good and a big improvement on what went before even though they could/will be "tweaked".

One thing I hope doesn't happen is that they don't go mad with the highlighter pen.I thought it was a little overdone during some of the updates to Arrowhead and eventually made it look worse than it was,so please go easy.

Mick.