road runner 4344 Posted April 26, 2016 Why do you keep posting this bullshit? Everyone can see the bald mountains in the horizon when you land, the ones that have nothing on them, so the object VD is at max.5500m IF you have the overall VD at 12000m, also the disappearing shadows as you roll your Hornet on the runway shows you aren't using maxed 200m shadow distance. What else is downgraded and why not tell us? Why are you a liar? Do you think you are being funny? Or helping the devs somehow? I run my VD at around 3500 M and shadows 2,500 with everything maxed on a GTX 970 4GB card, with 16GB RAM, and i5 4460 @ 3.2GHZ and I can get anywhere between 50-70 FPS on regular play, but as soon as I max out the Visual distance I lose 50% Frame rate, it's a bit of a no brainer really. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FoxFort 341 Posted April 26, 2016 12k VD is very cool and it means nothing. ArmA3 is primary land based game. Bullets usually fly in both direction up to <1000m so for ground combat having a viewrange over 2500m means nothing much except visually more appealing. As for Air - Air combat, let's say 5000m in more than enough. For CAS missions, 2000m - 4000m is more than enough. Besides, A3 is not optimized to have 12k VD and have lot's of AI at the same time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
road runner 4344 Posted April 26, 2016 I'm guessing that's why Fast Air can't be placed higher than 2-3000 M in the game, the aircraft always seem to do CAS from 2-300M's which is too low really, unless it's gun runs, or for a show of force.But then again, Arma series has always focused on land warfare. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SgtHannes 1 Posted April 26, 2016 I run my VD at around 3500 M and shadows 2,500 with everything maxed on a GTX 970 4GB card, with 16GB RAM, and i5 4460 @ 3.2GHZ and I can get anywhere between 50-70 FPS on regular play, but as soon as I max out the Visual distance I lose 50% Frame rate, it's a bit of a no brainer really. The sad thing is that only the object rendering distance should have a major impact on the performance. But unfortunately, ArmA being arma for 15/10 years, this is not the case. Having a render distance of 12km while having the object render distance at only 2k still takes a huge amount of system resources away (for no apparent reason). It should be possible to render the terrain up to 20km away without having any major FPS drops (provided youre object render settings are low). However, I dont think this will be fixed or tweaked on any time soon. We are lucky that we have the option to set the viewdistance and object render distance types independently in ArmA III. Long story short: The overall render distance uses disproportionaly much resources, considering it is just some terrain data and a large texture. You could have an object render distance of 500m and an overall viewdistance of 12km and the performance would be equivalent of having a 2000m object render distance and a 4000m overall viewdistance, which is absolutely silly. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainAzimuth 714 Posted April 26, 2016 Having high view distance is actually quite crucial to a game, especially a game like Arma. Sure it's not a sim, it's industry focussed, but in most cases recon provides Intel that can be seen extremely far out using high powered optics. Secondly, the view distance is actually quite a nuisance to gameplay in every way. I constantly find myself wanting to change it higher, but being unable to because either FPS, or some other defendant factor. I think that it would be amazing the day view distance doesn't effect FPS, but until then, View Distance will also heavily effect gameplay, in every way, including targeting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vasily.B 529 Posted April 26, 2016 In ACE 3 there is gread option - viewdistance separatly for infantry, land vehicles, air vehicles. But I can eblieve it runs at everything maxed out on 30FPS. For me on stronger CPU (i5 4690 3,5Ghz) it runs on 25-60 FPS (locked in AMD Settings) in VD 3000 and OD (object Distance) on 2,600. Shadows on 100 (max is 200). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pyronick 21 Posted April 26, 2016 I'm guessing that's why Fast Air can't be placed higher than 2-3000 M in the game, the aircraft always seem to do CAS from 2-300M's which is too low really, unless it's gun runs, or for a show of force. But then again, Arma series has always focused on land warfare. I guess its also the reason why fast air is not really "fast" air. Even though combat usually takes place within 300 meters, being able to spot your enemy from as far as 9 km really makes a difference. It also changes gameplay because in some situation you can assess if you need to retreat or apply certain strategies/tactics before you end up in a firefight. It would also change the character of the game from tactics-based to tactics AND strategy-based. That being said, one cannot expect top notch visual fidelity AND huge view distances. There always is and will be a compromise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainAzimuth 714 Posted April 26, 2016 That being said, one cannot expect top notch visual fidelity AND huge view distances. There always is and will be a compromise. With current gen hardware yes. Just wait a few years. When that new technology hits consumer market and games can be made with virtually no limitations. =P Speaking of which, I'm not sure if it's sub-pixel technology, but I noticed that a select number of structures are still visible when object view distance is low, yet that said structure is still rendered far out. Mainly the radio towers and factory buildings on Altis. Is this Sub-Pixel tech in use or something else? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pyronick 21 Posted April 26, 2016 With current gen hardware yes. Just wait a few years. When that new technology hits consumer market and games can be made with virtually no limitations. =P It is already possible, but that means you would have to compromise on graphical fidelity. The thing is that in a few years time, customers will want to see better graphics than current-day Arma 3 and then the developers would still have to compromise. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
I give up 152 Posted April 26, 2016 Why do you keep posting this bullshit? Everyone can see the bald mountains in the horizon when you land, the ones that have nothing on them, so the object VD is at max.5500m IF you have the overall VD at 12000m, also the disappearing shadows as you roll your Hornet on the runway shows you aren't using maxed 200m shadow distance. What else is downgraded and why not tell us? Why are you a liar? Do you think you are being funny? Or helping the devs somehow? HUH? UMAD? Why I should be lying? If I wanted to post performance I would have made a freakin video with mine 2016 machine, which smokes Arma 3 (or any other game). 12000 VD and also 12000VD for objects and all sh1t maxed at ultra except objects and terrain because very high is the max that the game settings offer for a 1 GB Vram GPU. Relax dude, Just pointing one situation related with visual upgrade with which (and as a matter of visuals) is not enough to provide everything that we could get. Or, do you wana duel? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
x3kj 1247 Posted April 27, 2016 Would it be possible to increase specularity of materials on a global level if certain conditions are met? (rain!) I feel like this would improve the feeling of wet weather a lot. Rain just feels like it immediately evaporates atm. Or, do you wana duel? my imaturity detector beeped... 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
old_painless 182 Posted April 27, 2016 I've started to re-play the campaign and now I am stuck at the second mission (Common Enemy) of the Adapt chapter because I can't see anything with the night vision. I got killed by the CSAT patrol. They see me but I can't see them. I have made some screenshots to show the difference of the level of brightness of the night vision in the latest development branch (first picture) and stable branch (second picture): http://imgur.com/a/zv7Og Those are some great comparison shots - and it seems that NVGs are useless currently. Really important to highlight this! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KoalaDSK 122 Posted April 27, 2016 Those are some great comparison shots - and it seems that NVGs are useless currently. Really important to highlight this! I was able to temporarily solve that overbrightness with lowering the brightness (under AA&PP category) to 50 percent. But after that mission (briefing under daylight) everything looked dark and sad. I've already reported that issue to the developers and I really hope they will tweak that NV overbrightness some day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainObvious 95 Posted April 28, 2016 I was able to temporarily solve that overbrightness with lowering the brightness (under AA&PP category) to 50 percent. But after that mission (briefing under daylight) everything looked dark and sad. I've already reported that issue to the developers and I really hope they will tweak that NV overbrightness some day. Seems to be fixed in todays update and the nvs are usable again, which reminds me of just how usable they are in Arma, their image is just so damn clear there's never a reason not to use them as there are in real life, there should be more noise to them or blur or something, it's silly to have perfect vision at night but just a green one. Why I should be lying? Exactly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
R3vo 2654 Posted April 28, 2016 there should be more noise to them or blur or something, it's silly to have perfect vision at night but just a green one. Apparrently modern NVGs aren't that bad anymore: https://youtu.be/EIhFupwqOU4?t=9m57s Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainAzimuth 714 Posted April 28, 2016 Seems to be fixed in todays update and the nvs are usable again, which reminds me of just how usable they are in Arma, their image is just so damn clear there's never a reason not to use them as there are in real life, there should be more noise to them or blur or something, it's silly to have perfect vision at night but just a green one. Exactly. Be careful, because people don't ever welcome night time in any servers these days. Most servers have vote systems for time of day, in which Day is the dominate vote before it even become sunset. Their main reason is because they don't like green circle's. (Aka, they don't like NVG's) Thus making it more realistic could bring a hell storm. (but don't worry, i support more realistic anything in terms of gameplay, despite the mainstream gamers) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twistking 204 Posted April 28, 2016 still real life NVs seem to be pretty limited in dynamic range. perhaps the devs could add some bloom to the highlights, to make the overall nv image less flat without giving even more definition to the low- and midtones. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FoxFort 341 Posted April 28, 2016 Well A3 is set in 2035, NVG will probably in 5th or 6h generation. Much improved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainObvious 95 Posted April 28, 2016 Apparrently modern NVGs aren't that bad anymore: https://youtu.be/EIhFupwqOU4?t=9m57s Ye not bad, but not even close to picture perfect either as it currently is in Arma. For example a situation like this is not gonna happen in Arma, you can always see the enemy even if he is in shade and isn't moving, which in my opinion is a shame as the thrill and excitement just isn't there. The year is 2035, sure , but it's not always good for gameplay to rely on the fact that everything is super advanced in the future, it can easily make a game boring. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teabagginpeople 398 Posted April 28, 2016 I'd love to see on Dev branch. An iteration of nv that matches the new visuals. see if they could make it cool and more appealing. Agree with obvious. the current nv is too clear making it bland. A version adding more atmosphere as a night mission should be more intense. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andersson 285 Posted April 28, 2016 And many of us never play 2035. Myself I only use units from today and older. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vasily.B 529 Posted April 28, 2016 About NV - if you wanna any change please note AI visiion - it should be limited as well to 100M. Otherwise you are just asking for shooting into your leg beacuse uber AI will see you everywhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
road runner 4344 Posted April 28, 2016 NVGs work off ambient light, if it's overcast and dull, the picture will be the same, unless it's a clear night, clear skies and the moon is up, then NVG's will always look poor, of course throwing in an IR torch helps increase the brightness and also points your position out to the enemy with NVGs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
five_seven5-7 56 Posted April 28, 2016 The Arma future is in the past.... http://marinesmagazine.dodlive.mil/2012/03/12/color-nvgs/ Also the FOV needs to be reduced (40º) and the need for grainy screen due to the phosphorus screen, there´s should the a trade-off for using nvd. example: drawing 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted April 28, 2016 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/761083/posts http://www.optoknowledge.com/documents/publications/OKSI-2007-04b.pdf http://www.defensereview.com/infrarednight-vision-fusion-hmd-developed-for-future-force-warrior-ffw/ amazing to watch the jumps in just 15 years of evolution ;) 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
