Sorely Unimpressed with Arma 3's Graphics as they exist in the Alpha.

[eymerich 11]

how did u get so much contrast myke?

I would like to know it too...

[simjedi 10]

how did u get so much contrast myke?

I would like to know it too...

If you guys want to know how to adjust the picture see THIS thread.

[Alabatross 1]

You still didn't anwser Specta's question. It is a good question and I pose it to anyone here saying that Arma 3 doesn't look as good as it should. Give an example of a milsim that is as expansive as Arma 3 and looks as good or better than Arma 3. I haven't seen one yet. I am not sure what some here are expecting but the graphics in this game are really good. In a lot of games you either get substance or pretty shinny things to look at. BIS has done a good job of giving players both.

Call me crazy but I think Planetside 2 looks better than Arma 3 does right now (though I do not like planetside2's arcady gameplay or sci-fi style, im just talking graphics here) and not only does it look better but its even less of a performance hit. Don't get me wrong, A3 still looks good but trees and distance quality are still laughable for the memory its hogging. (Don't even say AI because im talking no-ai multiplayer)

Edited April 9, 2013 by Alabatross

[[frl]myke 14]

Call me crazy but I think Planetside 2 looks better than Arma 3 does right now (though I do not like planetside2's arcady gameplay or sci-fi style, im just talking graphics here) and not only does it look better but its even less of a performance hit. Don't get me wrong, A3 still looks good but trees and distance quality are still laughable for the memory its hogging. (Don't even say AI because im talking no-ai multiplayer)

Please do not compare a released game with a game in alpha status. Thank you.

[down8 30]

I still don't know what the OP and others are talking about - A3 looks better in game to me than any of the E3 screens:

Here is the original BIS concept screen on Armaholic:

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/arma3_e3_release_49_4.jpg

Recreated in game with similar weather and terrain at the Kamino Lighthouse:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/4f0176ea547a9731201b6a8a32b39c67/tumblr_mky2jsxXtB1sneir7o1_1280.jpg

2nd one looks better to me, the 1st one still has the A2 brown desert filter over it, also probably doesn't have the final lighting engine?

So true. Beautiful pic.

[almanzo 144]

I honestly dissagree. I think ARMA III looks great! But I would also like to point out that ARMA does look much better with Post-Prosess off... Blur makes the enviroment look undetailed, and it makes ut much more difficult to spot enemies.

I've run without PP since ARMA II, as I've never liked it.

[Alabatross 1]

Myke;2369058']Please do not compare a released game with a game in alpha status. Thank you.

Of all the alphas I've been a part of I've never seen any huge graphical changes aside from flickering being patched and performance increase.

But yes it is unfair to compare the framerate right now. But I doubt we'll see much change to the visuals between now and release because gameplay is the most important (and I agree)

The person who I made that comment to asked for me to give him a large scale game that looks better or as good. He did not say "in alpha"

misunderstanding

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

One problem we have is no one pays any attention to the weather effects and time/date. Nearly every map I play is left on the standard July / 14:00 with the harsh blue sky. Try some winter/50% overcast/early mornings - it changes things completely e.g. this I did earlier today:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/a50a92ace84c83448aac7eed6dfe7035/tumblr_mky2jsxXtB1sneir7o2_r1_1280.jpg

Weather effects are under intel in the mission editor - it's the symbol with the cloud/sun.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[jw custom 56]

I didn't notice much complaining about vegitation(LOD) in OA and that was AWFUL.

I'm actually really pleased with vegitation in A3, don't screw up the LOD to gain a few FPS for the "low performance" crowd, thanks.

[marcai 1]

Planetside is actually a very good comparison for Arma; large maps, masses of players and vehicles, large scale battles with high graphical quality. It does all of these with far better performance than I've ever gotten out of an Arma game. It's just somewhat unfortunate that making these points on the forums tends to lead to people demanding you find military sims with the same quality, or wave their hand and say it's an alpha build. The former is somewhat baffling to me, as it somewhat overlooks the problem by pointing at the style of game, such as those on Total War forums who rabidly defend the poor pathfinding by the soldiers in game with "name a game that does it better". Just because a competitor game doesn't do it better doesn't mean it's the best it could be.

This isn't just a case of the game being in alpha, as some are issues that have spanned the entire series, which we have no information of whether they are to be looked at or not. A friend of mine was discussing with with me the other day, and said he had no intention of buying Arma, as to play Arma 1&2, you *needed* to download mods that the community had made to finish the game, both gameplay-wise and graphically, and doesn't want to get a game which is half-done at release. From what I've seen, mods that affected fire, smoke, gun effects, muzzle flash and graphics tweaks were not only popular, but universally lauded for the enhancements that they brought to the game.

Now before I start going off on a tangent, I am pretty pleased with the looks of Arma 3. I've had a run around an was very impressed with the detail of the maps, the little touches, the high quality textures on the majority of key interfaces* and items. I've already sunk over a hundred hours into it simply smashing the choppers we have into various sections of ground and enjoying every minute. What do let it down are the mid-range textures; popping-in trees bushes, bushes grass; a few particle effects and smoke effects (Again, see the mods for Arma 2, there were some damned impressive animations made by amateur modders). Without shadows, such as in overcast weather, the game does start to resemble Arma 2, however, and the polish dulls to reveal a rather similar-looking game beneath the new sheen. It goes without saying that we all support the game and want it to turn out well, I just hope the graphical tweaking doesn't get overlooked before the game is released. I know plenty of games that have gone through alpha and beta with people assuring each other that certain issues will get fixed, and saying the same thing over and over as each successive patch came out.

Lastly, would anyone honestly complain if the game could look better than it currently does? It might not the the most important thing in the world, but who doesn't want an even prettier game than we already have?

*My pet peeve of graphical oversights at the moment (After the popping-in trees and mid-range textures, of course) is in the cockpit of the little bird. As I fly around, I just look at the pixelated rivets at the top left of my screen and wonder why they're so low-res compared to the beautifully done instrument panel.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Last time I played Planetside 2, don't remember was it beta or full already, the performance was even worse than in Arma 3 and there was't even much vegetation.

I agree that mid range textures could look better in Arma 3 and the LOD popping should be fixed. There are times when trees looks bad near the edge of my screen both left and right but they look good in the middle.

But I'm happy about the graphics overall. Only thing is graphics maybe look bit candy.

[Alabatross 1]

Planetside is actually a very good comparison for Arma; large maps, masses of players and vehicles, large scale battles with high graphical quality. It does all of these with far better performance than I've ever gotten out of an Arma game. It's just somewhat unfortunate that making these points on the forums tends to lead to people demanding you find military sims with the same quality, or wave their hand and say it's an alpha build. The former is somewhat baffling to me, as it somewhat overlooks the problem by pointing at the style of game, such as those on Total War forums who rabidly defend the poor pathfinding by the soldiers in game with "name a game that does it better". Just because a competitor game doesn't do it better doesn't mean it's the best it could be.

This isn't just a case of the game being in alpha, as some are issues that have spanned the entire series, which we have no information of whether they are to be looked at or not. A friend of mine was discussing with with me the other day, and said he had no intention of buying Arma, as to play Arma 1&2, you *needed* to download mods that the community had made to finish the game, both gameplay-wise and graphically, and doesn't want to get a game which is half-done at release. From what I've seen, mods that affected fire, smoke, gun effects, muzzle flash and graphics tweaks were not only popular, but universally lauded for the enhancements that they brought to the game.

Now before I start going off on a tangent, I am pretty pleased with the looks of Arma 3. I've had a run around an was very impressed with the detail of the maps, the little touches, the high quality textures on the majority of key interfaces* and items. I've already sunk over a hundred hours into it simply smashing the choppers we have into various sections of ground and enjoying every minute. What do let it down are the mid-range textures; popping-in trees bushes, bushes grass; a few particle effects and smoke effects (Again, see the mods for Arma 2, there were some damned impressive animations made by amateur modders). Without shadows, such as in overcast weather, the game does start to resemble Arma 2, however, and the polish dulls to reveal a rather similar-looking game beneath the new sheen. It goes without saying that we all support the game and want it to turn out well, I just hope the graphical tweaking doesn't get overlooked before the game is released. I know plenty of games that have gone through alpha and beta with people assuring each other that certain issues will get fixed, and saying the same thing over and over as each successive patch came out.

Lastly, would anyone honestly complain if the game could look better than it currently does? It might not the the most important thing in the world, but who doesn't want an even prettier game than we already have?

*My pet peeve of graphical oversights at the moment (After the popping-in trees and mid-range textures, of course) is in the cockpit of the little bird. As I fly around, I just look at the pixelated rivets at the top left of my screen and wonder why they're so low-res compared to the beautifully done instrument panel.

Great post, alot of good points there

If we look back on the COMPLETED Arma 2 game you can see Arma doesn't have a great track record wtih performance, but A3 is already doing better so well see

[Sixgears2 1]

I personally think the game looks great on ultra settings. The only issues I've seen so far are a few jaggies that I can't seem to kill with any amount of AA or FXAA, some rather muddy textures on some of the actual structures in the game, and quite a few nonsensical frame drops when operating near clumps of buildings (lowering settings doesn't help, oddly). The trees, grass, lighting, and (most importantly to me since I like to play in third person) soldiers all look fantastic. Certainly a big improvement over ArmA 2. It needs a little more polish, but considering the amount of stuff the game has to render at any given time I have no complaints. Screenshots of upcoming games always look better than the final product, just like pictures of a Big Mac on a menu always look tastier than the actual meal. That's just marketing.

You also have to remember that making a game too resource intensive will force a lot of potential players right out of the market, and that's bad for both BIS and those of us who want the game to succeed. Sure, I wish the game could push my rig a little more, but I'm more than happy to sacrifice a little fidelity for a thriving community.

Just my two cents. ;)

[metalcraze 290]

Yeah if you say ArmA3 is poorly optimized play Planetside 2. Planetside 2 map sizes are microscopic compared to ArmA's, graphics detail is Xbox 360 level, view distance seems to be locked at ~500m or a bit more and yet FPS just goes down for no reason (even when there's no combat), especially when you are indoors. And that's a finished game, unlike alpha of ArmA3.

And on a snowy world where view distance is at times no more than 100m - FPS still breaks down and falls.

E.g. Planetside 2 is a very very bad example of performance.

[simjedi 10]

The only issues I've seen so far are a few jaggies that I can't seem to kill with any amount of AA or FXAA,

IMO FXAA is a bad form of AA as it induces ghosting from it's sharpening filter. Since I switched over to using SMAA through SweetFX, the AA is improved over ArmA's presets. What's especially noticeable is I have no more mosaic patterns on flat surfaces at an angle from my POV.

Get it HERE.

[Dwarden 1124]

SimJedi our FXAA & SMAA in- ARMA 3 (TOH and OA too) engine is adjusted to and optimized for our rendering pipeline,

while injected FXAA/SMAA can't exclude various pp filters, effects nor GUI etc.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Dwarden

[simjedi 10]

Yes I noticed the effects on fonts in the menu's, but I can live with that as it's not too bad. The FXAA presets in game leave ghosting artifacts on all the rendered edges though. I also noticed while playing around with the injector that the textures seemed to be adjusted to FXAA's sharpening filter because without using Luma Sharpen they are quiet soft. And for some reason the SMAA in game blurs them even more, that's the opposite of what SMAA is known to do. Maybe it just needs a little bit more of tweaking to make them better.

[metalcraze 290]

SMAA in ArmA3 looks worse for me than the one in ArmA2. ArmA2's implementation was great, it smoothed edges like a 8x hw antialiasing with so little blur it was unnoticeable. ArmA3's SMAA seems to be quite blurry and jaggies are just blurred instead of being removed.

What about implementing SMAA T2X? There's already some game having it and it looks even better than SMAA did in A2.

[Alabatross 1]

Yeah if you say ArmA3 is poorly optimized play Planetside 2. Planetside 2 map sizes are microscopic compared to ArmA's, graphics detail is Xbox 360 level, view distance seems to be locked at ~500m or a bit more and yet FPS just goes down for no reason (even when there's no combat), especially when you are indoors. And that's a finished game, unlike alpha of ArmA3.

And on a snowy world where view distance is at times no more than 100m - FPS still breaks down and falls.

E.g. Planetside 2 is a very very bad example of performance.

I've never had any of those FPS problems on PS2, and no I don't ever recall being limited to seeing only 100-500m, I have no clue what you're talking about

Uh they aren't microscopic at all. Maybe to Atlis but definitely not Stratis

I'm not unhappy with how Arma 3 looks, other than it looking like playstation 2 200ft ahead of you. The close up areas look great, but like I said I only brought up PS2 because someone wanted an example of another large scale game.

Just as I expected, planetside 2's map dwarfs stratis:

http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/web_stratis_map_overview1.jpg (208 kB)

http://forums.finalgear.com/attachments/entertainment/planetside-2/7020d1339261390-mapsize.jpg (233 kB)

So that is no excuse for quality (performance yes, but its an alpha so that can't be judged yet)

And heres the PS2 map compared to Atlas

http://i.imgur.com/LvBaA.jpg

Edited April 10, 2013 by Alabatross

[chrisb 196]

With the in-game settings, your monitors own settings and any other bits we all can use, there really is no need to be that un-happy with the look of the game, you can tweak till your hearts content and really get a great looking image on screen.

Here in arma 3 I am using FXAA-Ultra, really like it sharp. Soft focus SMAA type of effect is not for me, don't use PP either. I was using 2xAA, but am moving to 4x as it doesn't seem to hit that much performance wise, 8x has a hit value, but even that is worth it to get the game looking tip top.

Looks wise, the game is striking a good balance with the graphics, for me anyway, it looks real enough, don't want glossy. Considering what they have, and still are achieving, an open world go anywhere environment, plus everything else that goes along with this series, its great that the graphics reached this level, o.k. they could be better, but at the cost of….

I think with everything taken into consideration BIS have done pretty well, so far. Even performance seems to be getting better, its going in the right direction and its still early days yet..:)

[calin_banc 19]

As far as performance goes, Utes runs well, Cherno not so much. If the big island will come and kill all but the most powerful PCs out there, some people will take "forum rage" to a whole new level demanding optimization and "gameplay above graphics". Us PC players, we're a funny bunch: "doesn't look good - we want better! Looks good and needs resources - poor unoptimized turd!" :)

[chortles 263]

BI can't win, and no wonder other companies would lean towards consoles and "less demanding" players. :p

Then again, I'm honestly not surprised if terrain size does affect "performance" (as defined by framerate consistency).

[dnk 13]

IMO FXAA is a bad form of AA as it induces ghosting from it's sharpening filter. Since I switched over to using SMAA through SweetFX, the AA is improved over ArmA's presets. What's especially noticeable is I have no more mosaic patterns on flat surfaces at an angle from my POV.

Get it HERE.

Personally, I prefer a luma sharp filter, though not the FXAA one for some reason. A good luma sharpness increase really brings out highlights on objects/buildings that add an increased sense of dynamic range and realism to the picture that are lacking in the fairly dull, low contrast rendering of OA.

Also, the various FXAA settings all have the same effect - low/ultra are the same, but it might be my old card (GTS 250 on W7, drivers are new).

[Earion 1]

@tremanarch, how did you do that ?

[marcai 1]

BI can't win, and no wonder other companies would lean towards consoles and "less demanding" players. :p

I keep hoping that they don't read the forums as a constant torrent of unimpressed players who think the game is naff, but rather a lot of enthusiastic players who all have suggestions on how to improve. Just in case, however: We love you BI, make us more nice things.