Stencil shadows vs Shadow Maps

[max power 21]

Just so that you are aware in the future, users get notifications for PMs and moderators don't have inbox limits. So, there is no need for you to announce you have made a PM. Moderators will get to your PM in due course. Also, most users have a profile page where you can leave visitor messages. That seems like a more appropriate place to leave a reminder about a PM than in a thread body where it is irrelevant to the discussion and therefore spam. If you have any questions or comments about this I invite you to PM me again.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Dwarden or DNA, any chance you could give us some feedback from the developers on whether or not this is by design and intentional? Or is there any chance we can have full Shadow Maps?

[kridian 33]

I'm glad to see this issue brought up as I noticed the shadow difference immediately when looking at all vehicles placed in-line. If Stencil Shadows are causing more CPU computation then it should be an obvious choice to get rid of them once and for all... unless the engine just can't handle it(?)

Is it 2013?

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

I'm glad to see this issue brought up as I noticed the shadow difference immediately when looking at all vehicles placed in-line. If Stencil Shadows are causing more CPU computation then it should be an obvious choice to get rid of them once and for all... unless the engine just can't handle it(?)

Is it 2013?

Yep I agree absolutely. If even on an i7 heavily overclocked, we are still CPU limited in some cases, then removing stencil shadows so we can put more work on the GPU sounds like a dream come true. I hope BI responds on this issue, they obviously have to be aware of this post.

[max power 21]

They do not customarily reply to threads of this nature. They are likely aware of it tho.

[Maddmatt 1]

Stencil shadows should be dumped completely. Pure cascaded shadows would look better, especially if more work was done on them so they could be higher resolution for first-person models and vehicle interiors.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Maddmatt

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Stencil shadows should be dumped completely. Pure cascaded shadows would look better, especially if more work was done on them so they could be higher resolution for first-person models and vehicle interiors.

Yep, cascaded shadow maps are already there. That's why I don't understand what the reason is behind using mixed shadow modes and putting that much more work on the CPU. Shouldn't be alot of work at all to transition to full shadow maps.

The only real thing I can see is maybe they do want stencil shadows for really close up things to get that higher clarity and detail, but at the same time it's not worth it because they're so limited. They use lower polygon models for the stencil shadow and it doesn't mix well with the shadow maps.

Just really hope they fix this eventually.

And a few more shots to show the difference in Stencil shadows and Shadow maps.

First is Stencil only (shadows on low) - note the helicopter shadow and vegetation:

http://imageshack.us/a/img59/7770/2013050800003.jpg

Next is Shadow Maps (shadows on very high) - now notice how smooth the shadows are, and how detailed they appear:

http://imageshack.us/a/img577/2651/2013050800004.jpg

Overall Shadow maps not only look far better, but they also perform better too. In almost every single area of Stratis, transitioning from Low shadow details to Medium provides a sizable boost to performance, while simultaneously increasing the graphic quality of the scene.

Edited May 10, 2013 by DaRkL3AD3R

[PN11A 2]

It seems to me they are using the stencil shadows on things that can be destroy run over, or supposed to have some sort of interactive quality. It also appears that objects are larger are using shadow maps. It maybe to taxing on a GPU to convert everything thing to shadow maps. Shadow maps are basically bitmaps that would need to be stored in memory, that is alot of maps that would need to be stored, on top of the textures and anything else stored.

[wipman 1]

Hi, the weapons, vehicles & units shadows were all stencil shadows on the ArmA & ArmA2, true low poly shadows... i would have preffered 'em to be as the rest of the shadows, they look much more natural and better IMO. Let's C ya

[max power 21]

They also seem to fall apart under some circumstances. You get weird banding over shadowed surfaces sometimes. It must have something to do with precision.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

They also seem to fall apart under some circumstances. You get weird banding over shadowed surfaces sometimes. It must have something to do with precision.

Yep, the banding is a known issue with the shadow map technique and it's difficult to completely remove. It's called shadow acne and it happens when an object has self shadowing enabled and the shadow slope bias is too low. Thankfully with the right settings internally coded it can be avoided most of the time, but it's always there to an extent. From what I've seen in the alpha, Bohemia has done a great job in avoiding it. I very rarely see it in Arma 3 as opposed to games like Skyrim where it's prevalent almost all over the terrain.

An interesting read I dug up from Naughty Dogs, the creators of Uncharted and several other high caliber Playstation games: http://www.terathon.com/gdc05_lengyel.pdf

Worth noting is the major point in the Pro vs Con section, under Cons, where they mention and I quote "Significant CPU work required." This is exactly what I experienced for the last decade and now have confirmation from a triple-A game developing studio that this is true. Well folks, there you have it. Arma is universally CPU bottlenecked, getting worse and worse the higher end your graphics card is, and in this situation alleviating any stress off the CPU and onto the GPU that we can find, should be paramount.

Edited May 11, 2013 by DaRkL3AD3R

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Updated the OP with my feedback tracker ticket: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8233

I ask that everyone please up-vote this ticket so we can see some interaction with BI!

[max power 21]

Do you mean action on BI's part with respect to the ticket, or do you mean interaction with BI staff? I think voting tickets might make them aware and therefore might increase the likelihood of the former but it is unlikely to produce the latter.

[mr.g-c 6]

Voted!

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Do you mean action on BI's part with respect to the ticket, or do you mean interaction with BI staff? I think voting tickets might make them aware and therefore might increase the likelihood of the former but it is unlikely to produce the latter.

I mean for them to be aware of the ticket. The feedback tracker is the proper way to interact with the devs and help point out what needs fixing, so that's the medium we need to use. I have this thread for discussion on the topic, and for other users more thorough input.

Eventually yes I do hope they give us some inside feedback on what their goals are for shadow rendering, otherwise who knows what they really want to do with it. We might be asking for something that is totally against their direction. The only way to know for sure and possibly have a positive outcome that the overall community agrees with is for enough people to up-vote that ticket and see what happens!

Either way I'm excited and hope things go well.

[white 1]

i agree and voted up

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Thanks to all for voting.

Not quite sure how the ticket system works? It still says the ticket hasn't been reviewed or assigned to anyone yet. Is it just a matter of the ticket receiving more votes?

[max power 21]

I don't think votes are the only factor. I'm not comparing your idea to this but imagine a ticket that says pink unicorns should be added to the game. Maybe a lot of people think that's a great idea for humour or irony or whatever, and the ticket gets 10,000 votes. I really doubt that ticket would go anywhere or do anything. If BI is working in sprints, they probably have two to four week periods where their goals are set, plus stretch goals. Your idea would require a design review for the lighting and shadows system. I would imagine that if the ticket is going to get reviewed it would be when they are doing other work on the shadows or rendering stuff. Also I think there are moderators for the feedback tracker. I think the feedback might be vetted through them. I hear that they are a bit beleaguered, that is to say, there are a lot of tickets and few of them, so I would just be patient :)

Edited May 14, 2013 by Max Power

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Very good point on the pink pony uniforms lol. I'll just be patient with it, there are a lot of tickets like you said.

Doesn't hurt for folks to up-vote in the meantime though! Keep the votes rolling guys.

[nodunit 397]

A bit over lapping or no, I'd love to see shadow maps become the standard. Currently signs use stencil but light posts use the new method, I also remember playing in the alpha before the new shadow method came into play, how you could stand near the radio tower near the base and see an eight sided cylinder blinding as day...it...didn't look so great I'll be honest. But now with the the new technique the effect is smoothed out and looks nowhere near as polygonal as it did before.

And as the patches have gone they've gone better and better, and it really makes no sense to say have it for the H-9 series but not the kasatka's. Or to have it on civil but none of the military vehicles, hands down the new method is the best blend between these two, I really hope that infantry shadows get this as well..really those clawed fingers are rather frightening, I feel as though I'm looking at a darker side of myself ever time I look at my hands.

[metalcraze 290]

Look closely.

Soft shadows will definitely look good on vanilla models too

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Look closely.

Soft shadows will definitely look good on vanilla models too

Really nice find metalcraze. Those appear to be lower resolution too, so in the Alpha with the high resolution cascaded shadow maps it would look even better.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Bumping. Could use some more votes

[nodunit 397]

Bump the ticket then, not the thread.

The number of votes aren't going to be the deciding factor, what the populous wants is not necessarily what the devs want, just look at the many threads with hundreds of votes and have been ignored, not even reviewed.

Still...it is just plain silly to have different types of shadows on higher settings, I'd say that if this isn't fixed by beta then there should definately be some vocality, currently there are other things to be concerned with.

[DaRkL3AD3R 1]

Bump the ticket then, not the thread.

The number of votes aren't going to be the deciding factor, what the populous wants is not necessarily what the devs want, just look at the many threads with hundreds of votes and have been ignored, not even reviewed.

Still...it is just plain silly to have different types of shadows on higher settings, I'd say that if this isn't fixed by beta then there should definately be some vocality, currently there are other things to be concerned with.

I wasn't aware I could bump the ticket? If I knew that I wouldn't have posted a simple bump on this thread, which apparently lead to an infraction...

Anyways, thanks for agreeing and showing support. I actually get the feeling they might be planning to do a total shadow maps solution anyway as you can see with the A/MH-9 aircraft they do cast shadow maps in at least 3rd person. That's a good thing, so hopefully they continue to make these changes for the entirety of the games content.