Oispakaljaa 10 Posted December 14, 2014 From close range you can pretty much see only turret, from long range you can see whole tank hovering? Whats the problem, I have encountered this also in wasteland with infantry Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Greenfist 1863 Posted December 14, 2014 The terrain is simplified in the distance for performance reasons. So the tank is exactly where it's supposed to be but some of the terrain contours are not. This is perfectly normal. You can make it a bit better by increasing the terrain detail setting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ruPal 143 Posted December 15, 2014 ARMA 3 don't have destructible terrain. Don't understand why terrain details eat so much performance... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SnowSky 12 Posted December 15, 2014 ARMA 3 don't have destructible terrain. Don't understand why terrain details eat so much performance... simply because on a viewdistance of 2,4km you still have 18km² that need to be processed. And because ArmA is not a forrest/Landscape simulator, it needs to simplify things where it doesn't matter this much (like in the distance). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ruPal 143 Posted December 16, 2014 simply because on a viewdistance of 2,4km you still have 18km² that need to be processed. And because ArmA is not a forrest/Landscape simulator, it needs to simplify things where it doesn't matter this much (like in the distance). But why does terrain calculations eat so much performance? There is no need to calculate terrain grid. Because terrain doesn't changebale, it is predefined from mission start. So all you need is to store this information in memory and get this info without any calculations. Sorry for my noobishes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SnowSky 12 Posted December 17, 2014 But why does terrain calculations eat so much performance? There is no need to calculate terrain grid. Because terrain doesn't changebale, it is predefined from mission start. So all you need is to store this information in memory and get this info without any calculations. Sorry for my noobishes. I don't understand this much either, but some of my thoughts: While moving, terrain data has to be copied from the hard disk to your memory, and from the memory to the videocard. The wider your view distance is, the more data it has to load and process (even if it is just loading and copying from hard disk to memory to video memory). Think of it like a differential gear. The difference of data amount from 500 to 600m is much less then 2500 to 2600m. This needs to get compensated by loading less details. Also if it is static data, it always needs to get transferred up and down. In fact, many other things need to be simplified too in order to render just a "fluid" 20 fps. Another example: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(2009_film)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(2009_film)[/url] To render Avatar, Weta used a 10,000 sq ft (930 m2) server farm making use of 4,000 Hewlett-Packard servers with 35,000 processor cores with 104 terabytes of RAM and three petabytes of network area storage ... The render farm occupies the 193rd to 197th spots in the TOP500 list of the world's most powerful supercomputers. ... Often, it would take each frame of the movie several hours to render... A movie with its predefined camera angles, animations etc. isn't variable either, but they try to calculate correct rays, photon movement, diffusion, translucency, reflections, refractions, opacity etc. So in order to give us the possibility to play with such a high framerate, seen realistic, almost every thing has to be simplified to reach that task, and we are still on the edge. Please note my first sentence, I don't know much either. All I wrote is my opinion, my thoughts and guesses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
