Visual Upgrade – Feedback

[spain 1]

I find it interesting to see that many of the recommendations average out to practically 100 which is the default setting.

I dunno, seems like all the examples you pointed out agree that gamma and brightness are too high.

 

But I have to agree with the others posting their settings, 100 saturation is not enough after messing with the other values. I have increased it to 110 in my game to get back those lovely blue skies from 1.58:

 

 

Brightness 0.7

Gamma 0.8

 

Brightness 95

Contrast 90

Saturation 110

 

EDIT: oh, and BLOOM 150

[Antilochos 106]

I agree, he he he.

On a serious note, in which way the ones having trouble adjusting the settings to their liking are actually adjusting them? Little by little and checking the results and then adjusting some more of those settings that you find are still off?

Or is it more like this:

 

and then heading to the forums to ridicule the work and motivations of Bohemia?

 

Well, I start playing on default and only calibrate a little bit when I spot an element that looks off to me. I did this since the first Operation Flashpoint and it always worked fine.

 

Like I wrote before; a game should be good enough on default and it should not be nescecery to be adjusting the game for hours and hours just to get it playable. Beside that, I believe the average Arma player is no complete fool and also knows the game series quite well.

 

But, that also is not the point. The point is that it's not just a small element that is off, or just a little bit of adjusting is needed. A lot is off and it is off a lot. This is simple not small enough to correct it with the settings. My opinion, but looks like the images people are producing are backing it up as more objective than a subjective matter.

[nodunit 397]

I've spent about an hour on tweaking, but not satisfied yet.

 

Among other things, like others have mentioned:

- White parts are glowing, which you can counter a bit by reducing bloom, but I'm not sure that's how it should be

- Military stuff glows too much and is sometimes shiny! For instance fly around in black Ghosthawk during bright day. It's shiny. Military things are not shiny.

- Too much green

- Visual settings have different effect on close-by and far-away objects/terrain

 

I'll try some more, to also allow time for some 'getting used to'. I do wonder two things though:

- Who is happy with the default visual settings? Or has everyone at least tweaked the settings?

- To me the default new visual settings looked awful, objectively overexposed. I would expect some other default settings at least. It's strange to think new players who just bought the game will be greeted by these visuals.

 

The shineyness is due to values in the rvmats and _smdi textures, and it has always been that way.  Compare the blackfoot to the hunter for example, hunter has no shine whereas the blackfoot can have white, which isn't necessarily wrong if its heavily weathered enough.

http://militaryedge.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AH_64D_UAE.jpgnewish

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/AH-64_Apache_extraction_exercise.jpgseen some things.

 

[roberthammer 582]

http://imgur.com/a/WlhmI

 

It looks good to me after i toned down my brightness in A3 screen options , version 1.61 dev btw

[St. Jimmy 272]

images

 

It looks good to me after i toned down my brightness in A3 screen options , version 1.61 dev btw

Just put them behind a bush or in shadow and you'll see them shine like a torch.

 

The default camo is the only thing that takes shadows right. Other camos don't get shadowed/darkened enough. Actually now that I watch they maybe do the opposite, they get brighter in darker area and dark in brighter area :D

 

 

I created a ticket https://feedback.bistudio.com/T117141

 

//Or were you just talking about the visuals only and not about the camo issue?

[Antilochos 106]

 

 

It looks good to me after i toned down my brightness in A3 screen options , version 1.61 dev btw

That does look better than the sheit on my screen, but then again I'm in 1.60.

Did you try night in 1.61 perhaps?

[CaptainObvious 95]

Like I wrote before; a game should be good enough on default

I don't think anyone is arguing anything else, I don't like the default setting either and think it should be adjusted.

 

It should not be nescecery to be adjusting the game for hours and hours just to get it playable.

It shouldn't and atleast for me it wasn't, maybe an hour or so of tinkering the settings including messing around in the editor trying out various times and dates.

Besides the night time and the few obvious mismatches on some of the materials, I find it better than it ever was before.

And even if I don't like the defaults, I don't think it's even close to unplayable.

 

The point is that it's not just a small element that is off, or just a little bit of adjusting is needed. A lot is off and it is off a lot. This is simple not small enough to correct it with the settings.

My opinion, but looks like the images people are producing are backing it up as more objective than a subjective matter.

I really don't know what to think about this, on my screen I see a good looking game with a few quirks but reading some of the posts here one could think the game looks like Super Mario...

Anyhoo, something didn't go right when a poopstorm of this magnitude broke loose, must be golden to be a dev at Bohemia :D

[lev 21]

Hey guys,

 

I'd like to take a moment to discuss an aspect of Arma that I've always enjoyed but I feel that has been under represented so far in Arma 3: night time.  With the new 1.60 visual update, the nights are even darker during twilight hours which is great!  Unfortunately tools such as the flashlight are still too dim to be of much use.  I've taken several screenshots from my tests to find out what the useful range of illumination is and I believe it is for the most part inadequate.  I performed this test by placing a soldier with a range finder, NVGs, a flashlight attachment and an offroad to demonstrate various lighting situations.  I then approach a target building with the illumination on until I can make out the faintest outline of the building which I consider the point at which a player might be aware there was something there besides darkness.  My findings are below:

 

For a offroad, at ~93m the light starts providing illumination on the target building.  If you look closely at the center you can see a faint outline of a house start appearing.

Here is a shot of it with NVGs on to show you what you are actually seeing:

 

I believe this does a fairly good job of illuminating a target object or building.  Once you pull a bit closer than 93m with the offroad headlights you can see much more detail and at a reasonable range.

 

Another test I've done for the offroad is road illumination.  See the following images for what the headlights look like and the NVG view as well:

 

Now take a look at this wikipedia article regarding headlights and the sample images provided:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlamp

 

The offroad does a great job of simulating the low beam mode of a vehicle headlight.  The ingame image looks very similar to the real life one.  However, while driving on a dark road at night there are advantages of having high beams on.  It would be great if the devs could add in a high beam mode for the lights as well.  This might also be used tactically when using the vehicle to illuminate a target object or building.

 

For a flashlight, at ~33m the light starts providing illumination on the target building.  Once again it's a faint outline at this point.

Here is a shot of it with NVGs on:

 

In my opinion, the flashlight is completely inadequate for anything other than lighting a small building or room up.  

 

Here are some sample shots from real life flashlight tests (not conducted by myself).  Of course while a camera capture of an image would be different from what the naked eye would see, it provides some basis for comparison between the Arma3 flashlight and how a real flashlight would perform.

 

100ft is 30.48m for reference.  The objects in the image below are far brighter than what we are experiencing in Arma right now at a similar range.

 

When it comes to detectable range (faintly illuminated).  Check out the following image:

source of the image: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/11/jim-barrett/gear-review-streamlight-protac-hl-flashlight/

 

According to the author of that image, the trees illuminated by the beam are approximately 100yards away which is equivalent to 91.44m away.  Even if the author had misrepresented the range by 2x, it is still far more illuminating than the flashlights we currently have in Arma 3.  I think it would be great if the devs could take this information into consideration and make the lighting in 1.60 even more awesome by giving the players tools to properly enjoy a night time scenario.

[Jackal326 1181]

And I'd like to take a moment to point you in the direction of this thread where this post probably should have gone :)

Dwarden, a BI dev, has mentioned (in the thread I linked to I believe) that night-time ambient lighting and such is going to receive further tweaking - primarily because of the feedback post-1.60

Hopefully something can be done with lights too as I've often felt, even prior to 1.60 that they didn't really illuminate as much as they probably could/should do, especially weapon flash-lights.

[roberthammer 582]

Just put them behind a bush or in shadow and you'll see them shine like a torch.

 

The default camo is the only thing that takes shadows right. Other camos don't get shadowed/darkened enough. Actually now that I watch they maybe do the opposite, they get brighter in darker area and dark in brighter area :D

 

I created a ticket https://feedback.bistudio.com/T117141

 

//Or were you just talking about the visuals only and not about the camo issue?

I meant the new lighting obviously ,but i can see the issue there

 

it must be some rvmat issue because it doesn't hide in the shadow at all

 

That does look better than the sheit on my screen, but then again I'm in 1.60.

 

Did you try night in 1.61 perhaps?

Well here you go - nights are really dark even on Dev still

http://imgur.com/a/cLbQX

[Beagle 684]

As you wish ;)

 

Setting is all default "High", no lighting adjustment. See how the vegetation is lit up  brighter than the grousn itself, giving the odd ArmA II effect. Also note high light the Weapon body is, compared to the Holosight, that is still somewhat "coyote" in color.

@Beagle, please provide screenshots or video, thanks

[Beagle 684]

Another example of the "ivory white" camo paint on the MX family.

 

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243276055465/C197678415FC6B78C9A58CFD5164CD9E95E292C9/

[roberthammer 582]

@Beagle - you know what bothers me more? that the Holosight texture is still pixelated :p

[St. Jimmy 272]

As you wish ;)

 

Setting is all default "High", no lighting adjustment. See how the vegetation is lit up  brighter than the grousn itself, giving the odd ArmA II effect. Also note high light the Weapon body is, compared to the Holosight, that is still somewhat "coyote" in color.

 

//My post was just totally wrong first, sorry

 

It shines because of the burning wreck. The ground doesn't get lit up at all.

[Vasily.B 529]

Another example of the "ivory white" camo paint on the MX family.

 

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243276055465/C197678415FC6B78C9A58CFD5164CD9E95E292C9/

Actually your screen looks ok, maybe little too bright. Did you tried lowering the brightness in Display settings? I mean the Brightness/gamma setting. Color looks normal to me.

[Beagle 684]

Actually your screen looks ok, maybe little too bright. Did you tried lowering the brightness in Display settings? I mean the Brightness/gamma setting. Color looks normal to me.

It's not O.K. since this was supposed to be a visual improvement, and it did not look that way because the vegetation did not shine that way before. It looks like ArmA II again and thats simply not an improvement. As statet in my initial pst thats default setting, all default becaue you can't use custom seting to fix a basic problem with lighting.

 

THis is a combat game not a civil RPG so there is always somethign burning in the vincinity at night and day.

Also the fact that the fine balance in color and shades of the camoflages and camo paint is thrown off is harly acceptable. In into camoflage myself a lot and it is a science in itself. Throwing off the color schemes in that way is a catastrophy for me, since nothing fits the terrain anymore and "camoflaged" units stand out of the terrain more then ever before.

 

note how the ground in the daylight comparison screen is brighter than the grass clutter, but in NVG with a burning wreck 200m away suddently the grass ad foilage is bright and the ground is dark.

 

current lighting of grass clutter is not acceptable by 2016 standars and it was not even by 2009 standards.

[x3kj 1247]

MX rifles and MK18 Are much too bright now in appearance, in low light the weapons sticks out like painted white instead of Coyote or flat brown earth, the colours mostly used for camo paint on rifles. The Rifles appear much paler then any other gear which negates the camoflage idea behind paintign weapons.

MX has never been coyote, it has always been very light tan.  Why did you never notice it? Because the horrible lighting never showed the true color of anything. This all becomes exposed now, because the lighting doesnt affect the colors anymore like it did before and also shows alot more specularity that was almost completely suppressed in the past. That's not an issue of the lighting. It's an issue of individual assetts - if you can call it an issue... i certainly don't in case of the light-tan rifle... i can see the point for the grass / ground.

MX vs eotech original texture

 

Edit: Specular/Gloss map for both (notice how eotech has way darker grey levels on spec and gloss):

[Sniperwolf572 758]

The major factor why most light sources are short range and cover the least area as possible is compensation for the fact that lights don't cast shadows. Smaller and shorter lights have less room to show that problem.

Most of the light sources were "nerfed" due to that. If you look at alpha footage, you'll notice bright chemlights, high beam vehicle headlights and so on.

It's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" things. I don't really blame them.

[Beagle 684]

MX has never been coyote, it has always been very light tan.  Why did you never notice it? Because the horrible lighting never showed the true color of anything. This all becomes exposed now, because the lighting doesnt affect the colors anymore like it did before and also shows alot more specularity that was almost completely suppressed in the past. That's not an issue of the lighting. It's an issue of individual assetts - if you can call it an issue... i certainly don't in case of the light-tan rifle... i can see the point for the grass / ground.

In that case we have now a big fat design flaw that makes us wield nearly white rifles, (the MK18 is really white now) giving away our movement over large distances.. I see a real need to fix all the new camoflage related issues. RL such isues are dealt with matte, IR proof spray paint, that we cant do in game.

[x3kj 1247]

In that case we have now a big fat design flaw that makes us wield nearly white rifles, (the MK18 is really white now) giving away our movement over large distances.. I see a real need to fix all the new camoflage related issues. RL such isues are dealt with matte, IR proof spray paint, that we cant do in game.

Devs can't take a spray paint and paint it either. But they can modify the texture out of game, and so can you.

[Beagle 684]

Devs can't take a spray paint and paint it either. But they can modify the texture out of game, and so can you.

What I do to remedy it for me does not work globally. I play mainly CTI TvT, where you have to pass thorugh large volumes of open spaces so I'm most concerned about what co-players see, and how they can make me stand out of the terrain by exploiting the pp settings. (was an issue nack then in DayZ, hence the limitation of brightness and gamma that came with ArmA II 1.5x

 

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/modernmilitaryonline/images/d/dd/Soldiers_army_military_scars_rifles_fn_scar_mk-16_desktop_1024x835_hd-wallpaper-921697.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130820212036

 

See above, that's a color to subdue the outline of the rifle aginst the operator equipment. It would not work if the rifle was any lighter in color. The camo of the weapon hs to fit the overall hue of the uniform pattern, or no low obersevability is achieved. To wag such a bright object in front of you while moving is like waving a flag, Neither Altis nor Stratis are true desert terrain, so using a pure dry desert pattern there, and the upgrade turned most NATO pattern into a destert hue,  is not wise at all.

[x3kj 1247]

 

What I do to remedy it for me does not work globally. [...]

Neither Altis nor Stratis are true desert terrain, so using a pure dry desert pattern there, and the upgrade turned most NATO pattern into a destert hue,  is not wise at all.

It works globally if you release the mods you do. At least within your community...

And i disagree that the upgrade did turn it into something else. It only revealed what it actually has been since forever. That choice of camo from the getgo wasn't wise - well fuck. It's not the first time it happened.

 

Interesting tidbit:

Promo picture

 

Shortly after release

 

So if anything, it's just as they advertised prerelease xD except it took a while to get rid of the yellow tinted glasses.

[teabagginpeople 398]

This is what i see when I look at the mx on 1.60. it is pretty much what I expect to see. I can not see how the choice for mx camo is 1.60 visual updates fault.

 

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/262712343370332690/6452B44D6C5E2C9F2687F646696F70756D288476/

 

This is comparing to camo from csat heli. http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/262712343370364767/730C355371DDF80DFB5569863EB1F40776F56C1D/

 

try'd to get similar as yours beagle with holo sight http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/262712343370446429/AD9C813B0D003D066DDB6D7A810D9472E90D7949/?interpolation=lanczos-none&output-format=jpeg&output-quality=95&fit=inside|2048:1152&composite-to=*,*|2048:1152&background-color=black

[mobile_medic 43]

I think the visual upgrade looks pretty good overall... New water reflections and such are nice, and there has been no noticeable performance impact for me... On YAAB, in fact (after it got updated today) I gained about 2 fps over the last patch. Same settings (except water turned up all the way with this patch). This on a 6700k, though, so ymmv.

 

The main thing that sticks out at me so far, though... is lighter colors... the sandy, whiter terrains tend to be too washed out and lose detail in their texture as a result. If they did some work with the whiter shades, to bring some depth back into them and not have them look overexposed, I think it would add a lot more depth to the terrains and white altis buildings, in general.

[soulkobk 40]

I thought I'd do some more 'tweaking' (or at least try to) with these new 'visual update' adjustments, as for me... the 'default' profile is absolutely horrible. After a few days of messing with the sliders whilst next to buildings/grass/sand/water... I came up with a 'tolerable' setting as you can see in the 3 following screen shots... http://i.imgur.com/icbtaYe.jpg http://i.imgur.com/821eUDU.jpg http://i.imgur.com/WDnmPUO.jpg

 

My Arma3Profile shows these as...

gamma=0.83006543;
ppBrightness=1.14;
ppContrast=0.97999996;
ppSaturation=0.77680522;
brightness=0.5;

I have also since tried SweetFX and a custom profile done by a friend... it helped somewhat, but I ended up turning it back off again. Sure it made some difference, but the whites were still... extremely white (and appeared to glow). What do I mean?... Check these 2 screen shots whilst I was playing some A3Wasteland last night using the above profile settings and sweetfx was off. http://i.imgur.com/A9GDhOc.jpg http://i.imgur.com/gHTmMxM.jpg

I mean... really? I can't comprehend or understand how the devs or players think the current settings are 'natural' to the eye (as the environment is seen through my own eyes), because it is NOT. I mean, the words 'dynamic range' keep coming to mind. On a side note about dynamic range... check this out and have a read and a watch, as it's all based on what I'm trying to explain. Also on a side side note... check out this video about SDR versus HDR in the realms of video composition... as it somewhat relates.

 

There is a 'natural' representation of the environment (pre visual update), and there is the 'unnatural' representation of the environment (current visual update). IMO nothing had to be changed in regards to the visuals... colors, lighting, shadows, etc... they were ALL completely fine... I never heard a whisper of complaints about the in-game visuals before the 1.60x update... and now, a LOT have spoken up (including myself). Are we here to complain? in short, yes, in long no.

 

We play Arma 3 because we greatly enjoy the game (passionate?), it's concept and everything to go along with it... so when the 'devs' suddenly do a major change to the game in regards to the overall visual appearance when it was not really needed, and it affects a HUGE player base... something needs to be said, and that's what we are all doing. I try to be as constructive in my responses as I can be... but it is hard to type down everything at once.

 

If BIS kept the color scheme/dynamic range/saturation/etc exactly the same and just did the updates to the water and reflections, it would have been a HUGE plus... but instead it's caused a lot of unhappy end-users to vent their concerns about it on these forums

I REALLY hope BIS listens to all of us, and reverts back to a proper solution regarding the color scheme (visual updates) to as-it-once-was, as it would be a greatly needed (re)start for 1.60x... for the 'The Road To Apex'.

 

-soul.

 

*EDIT... regarding my current in-game visual settings... this is how it is with SweetFX OFF and ON (using a custom SweetFX profile).

 

On another quick adventure to find a nice spot to take those 2 screen shots... I also found that shadows now glitch on and off. See this video (don't mind the spotify music in the background ;P).
 

Edited June 3, 2016 by soulkobk