Lighting Tweaking (dev branch)

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

One thing the lighting needs severely tweaked is a properly optimized cascaded shadow map setup. The current one is quite bad.

http://developer.download.nvidia.com/SDK/10.5/opengl/src/cascaded_shadow_maps/doc/cascaded_shadow_maps.pdf

We should be seeing much higher quality shadowing and over a much greater distance than is currently being done. Come on BI, step it up. If Rockstar can get shadow maps out to hundreds of meters away, there's no reason we can't do the same wiht PC hardware in 2013. All you guys need to do is tune up the shadow map cascades and you can increase the distance shadows are rendered from instead of max 200 meters, to max 1000 meters.

[NordKindchen 12]

One thing the lighting needs severely tweaked is a properly optimized cascaded shadow map setup. The current one is quite bad.

http://developer.download.nvidia.com/SDK/10.5/opengl/src/cascaded_shadow_maps/doc/cascaded_shadow_maps.pdf

We should be seeing much higher quality shadowing and over a much greater distance than is currently being done. Come on BI, step it up. If Rockstar can get shadow maps out to hundreds of meters away, there's no reason we can't do the same wiht PC hardware in 2013. All you guys need to do is tune up the shadow map cascades and you can increase the distance shadows are rendered from instead of max 200 meters, to max 1000 meters.

seriously??!?! That would solve so many problems concerning camouflage!!! But I hardly believe it will happen=(

[oldy41 61]

One thing the lighting needs severely tweaked is a properly optimized cascaded shadow map setup. The current one is quite bad.

We should be seeing much higher quality shadowing and over a much greater distance than is currently being done. Come on BI, step it up. If Rockstar can get shadow maps out to hundreds of meters away, there's no reason we can't do the same wiht PC hardware in 2013. All you guys need to do is tune up the shadow map cascades and you can increase the distance shadows are rendered from instead of max 200 meters, to max 1000 meters.

Well, while we are at it talking about shadow maps I thought I might jump in and again try to bring more attention to this related bug, which really spoils ArmA3's otherwise nearly perfect look ;):

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1353

Please lets get rid of all the flickering in village scenery!

[Fushko 59]

Well, while we are at it talking about shadow maps I thought I might jump in and again try to bring more attention to this related bug, which really spoils ArmA3's otherwise nearly perfect look ;):

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1353

Please lets get rid of all the flickering in village scenery!

You have all my support. Shadow quality in this game is what bugs me the most, graphics-wise. We currently have:

-Bad shadow maps (not anti-aliased, lose quality at short distances and have a max. distance of 200 m.)

-Old, super bad-looking, performance-hostile stencil shadows on lots of objects

[xendance 3]

You have all my support. Shadow quality in this game is what bugs me the most, graphics-wise. We currently have:

-Bad shadow maps (not anti-aliased, lose quality at short distances and have a max. distance of 200 m.)

-Old, super bad-looking, performance-hostile stencil shadows on lots of objects

Anti-aliased shadow maps? A bit of an overkill. I think the current filtering scheme on high/ultra settings is really nice and hides most of the jaggies.

But I agree on the shadow distance, the maximum distance should be way further.

[fabio_chavez 103]

a little illustration of how a simple gradient shader for fog might improve underwater immersion.

[Tonci87 163]

What is wrong with the current one? Did you ever dive in the mediteranean? It´s incredibly clean water and you can see quite far.

[oldy41 61]

Anti-aliased shadow maps? A bit of an overkill. I think the current filtering scheme on high/ultra settings is really nice and hides most of the jaggies.

But I agree on the shadow distance, the maximum distance should be way further.

This is less about anti-aliasing the shadows themselves. But currently the edges of objects in front of shadowed surfaces do net get anti-aliased. This is really horrible, e.g. in town scenes like Agia Marina when viewing the modelled iron fences (not the meshed once using transparent textures) in sunlight.

[fabio_chavez 103]

What is wrong with the current one? Did you ever dive in the mediteranean? It´s incredibly clean water and you can see quite far.

1. you are implying all water ever to be used in arma 3 will be "medditerranean type" water

2. even on stratis/altis, as soon as you dive a little deeper, its too becoming a very "flat" experience to float within a monotonous fog.

I have no idea how expensive it really is to create something like it but some kind of volumetric gradient shader sounds like a relatively minor improvement with relatively much benefit, so i am suggesting this.

[Tonci87 163]

Oh so you mean it should get darker the deeper you go? That would indeed be nice.

[Ezcoo 47]

Oh so you mean it should get darker the deeper you go? That would indeed be nice.

I think he means that the angle between player and the observable point in height axis / y-axis should determine the relative brightness of the point, like that you'd see a "dark hole" when you look down and the water above you would kind of "glow". And I agree, that would be damn immersive and realistic (and relatively easy to implement / totally worth it, I guess...?)

Edited December 11, 2013 by Ezcoo
fixed absurd explanation - again! (lol)

[fabio_chavez 103]

yes that pretty much sums it up.

[progamer 14]

Right now the solution they have in place is a giant black platform about half way down in the ocean. To see it for yourself, just drain the ocean.

[Tonci87 163]

I think he means that the angle between vertical line going through the player and the observable point would determine the relative brightness of the point, like that you'd see a "dark hole" when you look down and the water above you would kind of "glow". And I agree, that would be damn immersive and realistic (and relatively easy to implement / totally worth it, I guess...?)

Yeah that would be cool. But I don´t see BIS allocating any more resources to the diving part. it gets so rarely used (mostly because fights play out like stupid line battles, I made a thread on that go look it up)

[progamer 14]

Yeah that would be cool. But I don´t see BIS allocating any more resources to the diving part. it gets so rarely used (mostly because fights play out like stupid line battles, I made a thread on that go look it up)

It's like that because BI needs to work on it more. Like more real diving equipment. Weapons being broken going underwater and so on. And the who reloading while moving thing needs to be fixed because it's been proven possible

[Ezcoo 47]

Yeah that would be cool. But I don´t see BIS allocating any more resources to the diving part. it gets so rarely used (mostly because fights play out like stupid line battles, I made a thread on that go look it up)

Just noticed that my explanation still makes no sense FPDR

It should be more like "the angle between player and the observable point in height axis / y-axis should determine the relative brightness of the point". But yeah, I guess that the underwater element was implemented as something experimental and realizing the potential of it might take some time.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Back on the topic of shadows being drawn at distance, yes it is possible and has been done to great effect in Grand Theft Auto V on the 2005 hardware consoles of last gen. The lighting and shadowing in that game blows away Arma's lighting system.

BIS already has the implementation of cascaded shadow maps built into the game, the issue is that their particular setup is very weak. Rockstar managed to get hard shadows out to what looks like 1km away and still maintain quality at close and mid range. If they had access to the hardware we do on current PC gaming setups, I'm sure an even more pleasing setup could be achieved with great performance.

There's no excuse why shadows have a max distance of 200m in this game. Prior to GTA V's release, I could have said sure that's as far as shadow maps can go and still look good. But when GTA came out in September, my perception on the limitations of shadow maps has changed tremendously.

Here's an example comparison I made of GTA 4 vs GTA V. Look at the DRASTICALLY improved shadow casting distance between the two games. Arma 3 only casts out to about 200m which is a little bit further than what GTA 4 renders out to. Now imagine if Arma 3 could render out to 1km+ ? It makes a massive improvement:

http://imageshack.com/a/img405/7210/b3yl.png (2689 kB)

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Decided to take a personal screenshot myself showcasing the massive shadow render distance in GTA V. I apologize for the quality as I did it using my own smartphone as a photo of my monitor. Not the best quality but I think it delivers the idea of just how truly incredible long distance shadow rendering is to making a scene come alive:

http://imageshack.com/a/img23/3421/3n1h.jpg

[NeMeSiS 11]

Decided to take a personal screenshot myself showcasing the massive shadow render distance in GTA V. I apologize for the quality as I did it using my own smartphone as a photo of my monitor. Not the best quality but I think it delivers the idea of just how truly incredible long distance shadow rendering is to making a scene come alive:

http://imageshack.com/a/img23/3421/3n1h.jpg

You are not the first to post GTA5 screens. And while they look awesome, i feel like (or at least as far as i can see) they are not drawing shadows all that far, except for some objects that would draw significant shadows because of their size/relevance. Many objects in the distance dont seem to draw shadows at all, only the big ones do. Which is a smart move from Rockstar, but may not work at that well in ArmA.

[Maslofski 10]

But yeah, I guess that the underwater element was implemented as something experimental and realizing the potential of it might take some time.

they just did it poorly, they implement such a huge thing, but what do we get to interact with it? scuba gear, we have one peace of equipment for each faction, perfect, a RHIB boat, a patrol boat and a submarine, this is all? the reason to go to the water should be much more then that, ships (wich with the new PhysX can be walked on), drilling rigs, civilian ships (you could have some awesome boat raids with those) and much more.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

You are not the first to post GTA5 screens. And while they look awesome, i feel like (or at least as far as i can see) they are not drawing shadows all that far, except for some objects that would draw significant shadows because of their size/relevance. Many objects in the distance dont seem to draw shadows at all, only the big ones do. Which is a smart move from Rockstar, but may not work at that well in ArmA.

You are correct in that not all objects appear to be casting shadows. However take in account the following:

1) Game is made for 720p max resolution consoles

2) Said consoles are equivalent to mid-tier computer systems from 2005

Now correct these 2 things to adjust for top tier computer hardware in 2013, and you start to see why there's no excuse here. Bohemia CAN do what Rockstar did, they just choose not to.

[nomisum 129]

yeah, whether its because of the tiny team, the tiny budget (all compared to GTA4/5) or not enough talent is just speculation. but technically it would be possible to make the game more revolutionary than what was delivered, thats for sure. but on what costs - its not far fetched to say a big developer would streamline our beloved franchise into some battlefield clone to compensate the higher expenses.

i believe bohemia devs do their best, though thats not satisfying sometimes for us knowing the "blockbuster" title graphics too.

[christianmo 10]

Now correct these 2 things to adjust for top tier computer hardware in 2013, and you start to see why there's no excuse here. Bohemia CAN do what Rockstar did, they just choose not to.

To sum it up GTA V was limited by hardware, while Arma 3 is limited by the amount of programmers not the hardware :( .

Preformance wise DaRKL3AD3R sugesstion of switching from stencil shadows to shadow maps seems resonable, because it will take the load from the CPU and transfer it to the more powerfull GPU. Secondly it is already implemented, just not used for all objects.

I think what GTA V is doing is giving priority to important objects like large buildings so that they are rendered at large distances. The amount of shadows is relatively small and the quality is limited. But that doesent really matter when you are far away.

At the moment it seems A3 is only drawing shadows in relation to the shadow draw distance option. It would help a great deal if object shadows was prioritized based on their importance in the landscape and their distance to the player :D .

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Precisely christianmo.

As you said, for objects in the distance, shadow quality does not need to be perfect. Right now though BIS's implementation limits me to a rather pathetic 200m shadow draw distance. And this may not be critical to infantry, but get in the air and you can see the impact it has quite dramatically. This needs to change.

The whole purpose to me pointing out GTA V's dynamic lighting model is to prove that using 100% Shadow Maps can produce a quality dynamic shadowing technique even when rendering shadows at great distances.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Well Take On Helicopters has a shadow slider that goes up to 2000m and the performance hit seems to be pretty small.