Visual Upgrade – Feedback

[Sniperwolf572 758]

That awful feeling when 15 years ago headlights were more advanced  :D

 

Man, vertex-based lighting. Such an advanced technology. It's so realistic how the lights light up the terrain in hexagonal shapes.  :rolleyes:

[ninja970y 142]

Hi, just look at two screenshots below. Before (using reshade) and after (new light engine). The old maps look like s..t, why they never give us option to turn it off or on ? Do not tell me to check post processing options because I spend hours on it and NO GO.

 

 

 

after:

 

 

Can someone tell me which one is better ? I think we all new , which one... BIG FAILURE...

 

 

Lol the update fuck up all ur shadow's!!

[Vasily.B 529]

Yes but the old lighting created a more atmospheric environment

You are still able to set this "atmospheric" :P

Contrast 70-80

Saturation 95

Brightness 100

from Display:

Brightness 0.9

Gamma 0.9

Magic?

I found fast way to restore warm temperature for AMD users - go to Radeon settings, display, and use the bar below named "Colour Temperature".

BTW real Afghanistan:

http://d1vmp8zzttzftq.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/An-Ariel-View-Of-A-Section-Of-The-City-Of-Jalalabad-In-Afghanistan-1600x1059.jpg

 

[bogey jammer 16]

When I'm working with textures in Photoshop or GIMP and then I import them into Arma I expect them to look the same color and have the same tone and hue as what I see when I'm editing the image.

That is simply impossible. It's like hoping for getting the same printed color on paper as the one the screens shows. The texture seen in a image editor responds to the sRGB colorspace, 100%. But in game, there is no more such calibration. The texture is shaded and colored depending on light sources, so it is dramatically altered in the render. A good way is to create a reference texture, tune it until it looks realistic in game, then apply the same correction to convert good looking textures in image editor to good looking ones in the game.

BTW real Afghanistan:

http://d1vmp8zzttzftq.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/An-Ariel-View-Of-A-Section-Of-The-City-Of-Jalalabad-In-Afghanistan-1600x1059.jpg

Don't be fooled by photography. Unless it is HDR, the camera has a limited dynamic range. Nothing beats the eye.

[nikiforos 450]

Lol the update fuck up all ur shadow's!!

Funny thing is that some people insist that new lighting is wondeful for old terains! Time to go see the optician :)

[Fushko 59]

Hi, just look at two screenshots below. Before (using reshade) and after (new light engine). The old maps look like s..t, why they never give us option to turn it off or on ? Do not tell me to check post processing options because I spend hours on it and NO GO.

 

 

 

after:

 

 

Can someone tell me which one is better ? I think we all new , which one... BIG FAILURE...

 

Holy shit the nerve of some people.

 

1. The lighting was tweaked to look good on the only officially supported maps and not on old maps from previous games. Bohemia doesn't have to make sure modded in maps look good, modders have to, and if you think otherwise you're completely out of touch with reality, so you coming with this "I diserve attention!11" attitude makes you look like nothing more than a fool.

2. The changes are not something you can turn on/off at the flick of a switch.

2. You cannot honestly believe that the extremely washed out sky in the first pic looks any good in comparison to the sky in the second pic. You even failed to take the second pic at the same location and time.

[road runner 4344]

Lol the update fuck up all ur shadow's!!

Did they? I see shadows quite clearly under the canopies in the foreground, which means the sun is behind the camera, ergo the shadows on any buildings would be behind it.

 

The original picture is where the sun is in FRONT of the camera, casting the shadows of the buildings towards the camera

 

If you want to make accurate comparisons, take screens of the same place at the same time, otherwise your argument is flawed.

Old picture has a game look about it, new look is more crisp, and natural looking.

[five_seven5-7 56]

Hi, just look at two screenshots below. Before (using reshade) and after (new light engine). The old maps look like s..t, why they never give us option to turn it off or on ? Do not tell me to check post processing options because I spend hours on it and NO GO.

 

Can someone tell me which one is better ? I think we all new , which one... BIG FAILURE...

 

Besides the shadows issue, don´t rely on Hollywood image filters for believing a hot climate for Middle East or African.

 

Example: 1

[Alwarren 2767]

Yes but the old lighting created a more atmospheric environment

 

Seriously, I prefer REALISTIC. And the new lighting is much more realistic than it ever was in Arma.

Not to mention that I found something by chance yesterday... on one of the scopes... a specular highlight! I was... surprised.

[Guest]

I prefer a balanced blend of realism and fantasy because at the end of the day it's a video game. If I wanted 110% realism I go outside.

[jumpinghubert 49]

Arma3 isn´t a phantasygame. Its all about realism feeling (=immersion) like in a sim. The problem is obviously that older maps aren´t adapted to the new visuals. In the first days I was very sceptical, but with a little bit of finetuning in the graphicsettings and aside from night i am very happy now with the new visuals at stratis and altis.

[Hatchet_AS 201]

Hello,

the Visual Upgrade has recently been enabled in the Dev-Branch. Please use this thread for providing your splendid feedback and suggestions.

Thanks!

 

Massive improvements in the overall scheme of things. Many props guys! 

I am particularly pleased with the water reflections.  :wub:

[Guest]

Arma3 isn´t a phantasygame. Its all about realism feeling (=immersion) like in a sim.

 

And this is the wonderful moment where we agree to disagree. If that was true then Day Z would never exist.

[roshnak 41]

And this is the wonderful moment where we agree to disagree. If that was true then Day Z would never exist.

 

Cool. But now you're just arguing about personal preferences and not the objective qualities of the patch, which is pointless since everyone has their own individual taste and expecting BI to cater to yours specifically is unrealistic at best.

 

I mean, I could say I prefer a cartoony TF2 look over an attempt at realism, but who cares? I'm not the art director for Arma 3 and I don't get to determine the art style of the game.

[Guest]

expecting BI to cater to yours specifically is unrealistic at best.

 

That's not what I'm saying you just made that up. Originally Arma 3 had a balanced universal look which pretty much catered to everyone. The new update at best caters to 50% of the community.

[LykosMactire 298]

In all honest opinion all they need to do is turn down the aperture (as seen in a comparison shot reposted below credited to Roshnak) and give us back shadows. then it would be good. Many map makers have already taken into account when updating the aperture and they look lovely in my opinion (ie. Napf, esseker, G.O.S maps, Unsungs maps)

Current lighting on altis

If they turned the aperture down (Roshnak used splendid here to do so)

[Guest]

I actually just started using the set aperture command and it definitely improved the visuals closer to how it originally looked like at night.

 

But I've noticed the colors are a bit more intense and the flashlights are overly bright to the point where you can't see objects on the floor very well. Small annoying bug but it's doable. Band aid fix at best if you want to salvage your custom missions for now. 

[St. Jimmy 272]

In all honest opinion all they need to do is turn down the aperture (as seen in a comparison shot reposted below credited to Roshnak) and give us back shadows. then it would be good. Many map makers have already taken into account when updating the aperture and they look lovely in my opinion (ie. Napf, esseker, G.O.S maps, Unsungs maps)

Current lighting on altis

If they turned the aperture down (Roshnak used splendid here to do so)

Honestly the first one reminds me more of bright day with few clouds. The second one is too dark. The second one has a cool look but it isn't really any better than the first one.

[Defunkt 431]

I think the second one looks more true to life but it doesn't show any units in close proximity. When I experimented with decreasing aperture any nearby characters & vehicles were over-contrasted.

 

It's almost like we need negative-Bloom to boost the intensity of distant elements without over-contrasting what's nearby.

[Beagle 684]

I made a few comparison screenshots that highlight the current lighting problems before I made my own visual update, reverting to 1.58.

 

All Scenes exept the camo comparison are made in the showcase scenarios. Default high, no alterations to gamma or brightness

 

camo effect on typical terrain 1.58

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243285643229/C9FE1F535F9DBD2DEE9CBD6C545A35867FD697B4/

 

Same in 1.60

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243285644107/5D4F52C11D2FF51B3442938C2C14A172FC0AAB61/

 

A hallway: 1.58

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243285640636/6327E3332A2C902AFACA3052EEA85EE7F58F5795/

 

same in 1.60

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243285648011/DA6A9AA5FEF64D68D0E564F28D861C75600BBD40/

 

A stairway 1.58

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243285640862/177BAD2B8FA4553F565B475241AF5FB3B787856D/

 

 

same in 1.60

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243285648295/64596F82ABC25100B58CA4F8B6A215041FB2AFBE/

 

CSAT color schemes in 1.58

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243285638653/AB6CBF1856E5CCF40894C79AADC6C6A78E355079/

 

in 1.60

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243285645892/03AEB6C6CF9BFB8A5F1E4905A6BB3DAD29231D0A/

 

 

airport 1.58

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243285638423/742257371B72BDEC6FF52D87486866EC8A174343/

 

airport 1.60

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/263838243285645163/754033D6FF1EA3D073A176CF09082FBC2F867CCE/

[cosmic10r 2331]

Having had a play with it thanks to Tpw.

I can 95% say that anyone could find their ideal setting using

setAperture _value;

I tried setAperture 85; on Tak and wow
Amazing. Not that I dislike the cup lighting.. but our eyes all perceive different values and then have different preferences and then are looking at different screens...

I had to set it back to 30 for virtual reality as it was so dark..

It truly is map specific as a preference.
I urge everyone to go into the editor and play with it in the console...

Note... it's not an instant change... local exec the command and escape out to let mission run and the change will happen

[tpw 2315]

Yeah you can often get the general landscape lighting looking pretty good with a bit of setaperture wrangling. As defunkt noted the problem seems to be the disparity between character/vehicle lighting and environment lighting. A well setaperture adjusted environment generally seems to be giving massively overcontrasted characters that are almost black where not directly exposed to light. If you adjust setaperture to get nicer character lighting then the environment is heavily overexposed and washed out.

 

Default (Kunduz)

 

Adjusted for landscape detail:

 

Adjusted for character detail

[cosmic10r 2331]

this was setAperture 85 on Tak... but as you say... its off between terrain and character lighting a bit ... as in it doesnt change at the same rate it seems

 

[roshnak 41]

It looks like people are getting really aggressive with the aperture command some of these screenshots look really underexposed or overexposed.

 

But there does appear to be some discrepancy between the way objects and terrain are lit. Perhaps it has to do with material settings?

[cosmic10r 2331]

It looks like people are getting really aggressive with the aperture command some of these screenshots look really underexposed or overexposed.

 

But there does appear to be some discrepancy between the way objects and terrain are lit. Perhaps it has to do with material settings?

 

in the case of my picture do you find it over exposed...

im just fiddling with settings but love the blue sky lol...