Visual Upgrade – Feedback

[daytrader 33]

These are my settings:

http://imgur.com/a/7v9sL

Can't go higher than standard with HDR.

Terrain somehow keeps jumping from Ultra to High/Very High after some missions, no idea why.

 

Cheers

How the hell do you get thouse fps with just a 770 ?, i know a friend with 6700k and 1080 that get no where near them fps, i mean with all your distances maxed out, overall and object at 12000.

 

Even with my 6700k DDR4 16 GB 3000 ram, 780ti, and settings just below i only just get 60fps.

3797

2087

100

[road runner 4344]

 

How the hell do you get thouse fps with just a 770 ?, i know a friend with 6700k and 1080 that get no where near them fps, i mean with all your distances maxed out, overall and object at 12000.

 

Even with my 6700k DDR4 16 GB 3000 ram, 780ti, and settings just below i only just get 60fps.

3797

2087

100

 

Well, it's easy enough as the FPS are recorded for that scene render, if you throw half a dozen vehicles and 20-30 AI into that scene, I'm willing to bet there's a 20% drop minimum in FPS. ;)

[daytrader 33]

Well, it's easy enough as the FPS are recorded for that scene render, if you throw half a dozen vehicles and 20-30 AI into that scene, I'm willing to bet there's a 20% drop minimum in FPS. ;)

Yeh i know what you mean, but when players quote there fps in game, usually that means how they actually play from day to day, i can get 200fps if i look at the ground even with 100 vehicles/100 ai on screen :) then 1 fps when i look up, still cant believe he gets those fps playing with 12000 on both, playing normally.

[Vasily.B 529]

Yeh i know what you mean, but when players quote there fps in game, usually that means how they actually play from day to day, i can get 200fps if i look at the ground even with 100 vehicles/100 ai on screen :) then 1 fps when i look up, still cant believe he gets those fps playing with 12000 on both, playing normally.

I got barelly 20 fps  while playing with 40AI, on 3KM view distance/ 2500 object distance, with PIP disabled, fullHD, Low detail of clouds, and v.high textures. Off course i cant use AA, as this would cut my fps to 17, maybe in action even to 12. Thats totally unplayable for me. If FPS for arma 3 would be locked to 20, this could be enjoyable, as there would be better control reaction, and more stable gameplay, but 20FPS in 2016? Right now i'm gonna test it on ShadowPlay campagign, on reinstalled game+ system allocator on Win10. If this wont work as it should, i freeze gaming in this game untill 64bit support.

[road runner 4344]

Yeh i know what you mean, but when players quote there fps in game, usually that means how they actually play from day to day, i can get 200fps if i look at the ground even with 100 vehicles/100 ai on screen :) then 1 fps when i look up, still cant believe he gets those fps playing with 12000 on both, playing normally.

well....... I have pretty much the same settings, and I'm between 45-60 depending on the Map in game, never had a massive drop in FPS apart from when I've been watching Artillery barrages it will dip a tad, but then after the FSX (Blastcore), it's back to normal.

I placed 60 AI into a series of compounds close together on Clafghan, a few technicals, dusk time, and raided it with a 6 man AI team all with lasers enabled via MadCheese's C2 addon, again no real perfomance issues either, apart from my AI team were fucking shocking and all dead within 20 mins cause they couldn't navigate inside the compounds.

[Grumpy Old Man 3550]

still cant believe he gets those fps playing with 12000 on both, playing normally.

Never said that.

The object/view distance was to point out the weird haze that's been added with the visual upgrade, my regular view/object settings are 3500/2500 with the rest of the settings as seen in the screenshots.

I'm usually between 40 and 50 fps, as stated before I'm playing with low unit count and compensate it with a tougher to beat AI due to scripts/FSMs.

 

Cheers

[daytrader 33]

Never said that.

The object/view distance was to point out the weird haze that's been added with the visual upgrade, my regular view/object settings are 3500/2500 with the rest of the settings as seen in the screenshots.

I'm usually between 40 and 50 fps, as stated before I'm playing with low unit count and compensate it with a tougher to beat AI due to scripts/FSMs.

 

Cheers

Ah i see, that explains it then, cheers

[fabio_chavez 103]

On 14.4.2016 at 1:09 PM, googlava said:

Yes for an old light config you need all old textures and the model of the sky.

I will make the tutorial about the what is new in the lighting, haze, and water sea. I hope it will be helpful for you. But before I would like finish the current lighting with your feedback. 

Thank you for asking about  this interesting parts of our game.

googlava, can you please confirm that it is still possible to load old obloha.p3d and old horizont.p3d into the game to use old configs and sky textures?

i cant seem to get it to work anymore.

[joostsidy 685]

Is the visual upgrade and/or config system for the maps still being tweaked?

 

My current settings look ok for Altis and Tanoa, so they are optimized for my screen/eye. But after a long time returning to play a mission on Stratis, I was surprised by how bad Stratis looks.

 

Especially at close to medium range the terrain seems to consist of blotches of weird color, mostly yellow and green that do not look natural. From medium distance, terrain sometimes looks like yellow/green moss covered rocks rather than patches of dirt/grass. Trees and bushes seem 'stuck on' instead of being part of the landscape.

 

When I first started playing, I started on Stratis, because Altis seemed overwhelmingly huge at the time. Stratis was a little Island, consisting of compressed beauty. I would very much like to get it back.

 

 

[.kju 3245]

@googlava and @DnA

 

can we get the documentation and in extensive form on the new lighting system please in January 2017?

 

also please share your process of tweaking the lighting config and the rvmat of assets.

do you have any internal tools to make the process less painful? or do you also only have diag_mergeConfig,

restarting the terrain for each change and the game for rvmat tweaks?

[Vasily.B 529]

@.kju - Where's your avatar ? ;)
I'm connecting to question, i was playing with 3D objects, and started to make textures, rvmats (simple objects). They was half transparent somehow. Then i saw in game objects with same issue (CUP_Terrains). Its very needed documentation before all community made maps will mess up you know.

[pvt. partz 248]

   It's been many months since the Visual upgrade which unfortunately for the most part turned out to be a Visual Experiment. However, since 1.66 I can say that imo, it looks (I thought of may words but it really it just comes down to,) perfect! Often I just go into the Editor, change weather, TOD, and location, just to look around even after 3000 hours.

[joostsidy 685]

17 hours ago, pvt. partz said:

   It's been many months since the Visual upgrade which unfortunately for the most part turned out to be a Visual Experiment. However, since 1.66 I can say that imo, it looks (I thought of may words but it really it just comes down to,) perfect! Often I just go into the Editor, change weather, TOD, and location, just to look around even after 3000 hours.

 

Just flying around in a helicopter on my own and enjoying the scenery is one of my favorite pastimes :-)

 

But having said that, I still think there are problems and I am seriously interested what you think about the following:

- I like Altis and Tanoa very much, but I am not happy at all about the lighting on Stratis. Do you play on Stratis? What do you think of the lighting there? If not, will you try it and see?

- I still think the lighting on non-natural objects is too bright. So the terrain of Altis can look beautiful, but things like traffic signs, bricks, uniforms, weapons, cars etc. look too bright, almost luminescent. Especially if their textures contain white or light colors. What are your feelings about this?

[Varanon 892]

Sorry If I am bringing up that old subject of night lighting again... but...

While the general night lighting is better than before, there is still a major gripe with it (well, I have a major gripe with it). If you have a red car in a forest at night, the forest itself is absolutely dark, while the car is practically glowing. 

 

This doesn't look right. The car is in shadow, it shouldn't be so visible, especially considering that the background is far too dark

[Alwarren 2767]

The night lighting is way too dark and has way too much contrast, compressing the dark tones to almost black and stretching mid and high values way over the top. Especially in shadows or under trees, this makes everything vanish into a muddy pile of nothingness while mid-tones are unnaturally exaggerated.

[joostsidy 685]

14 hours ago, Varanon said:

Sorry If I am bringing up that old subject of night lighting again... but...

While the general night lighting is better than before, there is still a major gripe with it (well, I have a major gripe with it). If you have a red car in a forest at night, the forest itself is absolutely dark, while the car is practically glowing. 

 

This doesn't look right. The car is in shadow, it shouldn't be so visible, especially considering that the background is far too dark

Good example. And it doesn't occur only at night. Many man-made (?) objects (cars, houses, uniforms) reflect to much light, they reflect light that is not there if you look at the surroundings, making them look slightly luminescent.

 

If you take a ride at dawn on Altis in a white guerilla offroad, you see the same thing. Ok, there is some daylight, but the car is shining like a beacon. The car stands out just like your example and the whole thing looks 'off'.

 

I agree with alwarren that is has something to do with dark vs light tones being compressed or exaggerated.

[Vasily.B 529]

I think its realistic. Look what mods like ENB, reshade, etc are doing in other game. For example GTA V with redux, have same night on all presets. You should not be OP and see everythink in dark, thats balance for Ai without NVG., and personally, i see same black hole when i'm outside house in night. Take in account there is no snow in game, so light reflection is almost zero :)

[joostsidy 685]

5 minutes ago, Vasily.B said:

I think its realistic. Look what mods like ENB, reshade, etc are doing in other game. For example GTA V with redux, have same night on all presets. You should not be OP and see everythink in dark, thats balance for Ai without NVG., and personally, i see same black hole when i'm outside house in night. Take in account there is no snow in game, so light reflection is almost zero :)

 

I agree black hole darkness should be possible in the game. Making some types of object reflect less light will help this. In a pitch black night, you would never see that red car so clearly, it should be a darker gray (less colour) outline.

[Alwarren 2767]

4 hours ago, Vasily.B said:

I think its realistic. Look what mods like ENB, reshade, etc are doing in other game. For example GTA V with redux, have same night on all presets. You should not be OP and see everythink in dark, thats balance for Ai without NVG., and personally, i see same black hole when i'm outside house in night. Take in account there is no snow in game, so light reflection is almost zero :)

 

There is no way to represent every possible situation, but as it currently is, it represents no situation at all. The lighting is simply no realistic. Some lighter grass seems to be emitting light because the mid- and high-tones are completely exaggerated, while low-tones are crunched into a corner. This is simply not how it works. 

 

The problem is, yes, there is no light reflection at all, meaning that all shadows are absolute zero even though this is not what happens in reality. A starless, moonless night under thick cloud cover SHOULD be dark, however, clear sky with starlight already provides a lot of illumination. But it all is irrelevant, it's not really a problem with the illumination, but with the tone mapping. 

 

And I know some people like to point out that there are NVG's and how nobody would go on a night mission without NVG's, but that is completely missing the point. It's like saying even if it rains it's not crap weather because you can take an umbrella. Yes, that might keep you dry, but it doesn't change the fact that the weather is crap. Likewise, NVG's help you in the dark (overpowered in Arma 3 as well), but that doesn't change the fact that the natural night lighting is simply fubar.

[x3kj 1247]

The question is if the fubarness of night time is because of the graphic engine, or it it is simply due to inconsistency in the shaders/materials/textures used on environmental stuff like trees, grass and terrain mesh (compared to vehicles). I would assume that it is due to the later. Considering the high inconsistency in the diffuse textures of various uniforms/characters/gear/etc that where highlighted by the graphics/Visual update i have no reason to believe that it is any better with the things that you dont really see directly (specularity and glossiness of low-specular things, like trees or ground textures).

[Vasily.B 529]

@AlwarrenI dont like also how colors and lighter objects are beheaving in dark (light grass, this red car...) but overall, ieven in clear weather (no single cloud) there is not so light, i can record video, but believe me it will be pitch black. Only june (i believe) nights can be little bit brighter when moon is closer to earth.

[Alwarren 2767]

3 minutes ago, Vasily.B said:

@AlwarrenI dont like also how colors and lighter objects are beheaving in dark (light grass, this red car...) but overall, ieven in clear weather (no single cloud) there is not so light, i can record video, but believe me it will be pitch black. Only june (i believe) nights can be little bit brighter when moon is closer to earth.

 

Video is irrelevant, it has a completely different aperture. Photos or video cannot be used as a reference.

I am not saying it isn't dark outside. I am saying that the way that the contrast is "enhanced" by squashing all low-tones and emphasizing the mid- and high-tones is simply wrong. Because it is.

[Alwarren 2767]

4 hours ago, x3kj said:

The question is if the fubarness of night time is because of the graphic engine, or it it is simply due to inconsistency in the shaders/materials/textures used on environmental stuff like trees, grass and terrain mesh (compared to vehicles). I would assume that it is due to the later. Considering the high inconsistency in the diffuse textures of various uniforms/characters/gear/etc that where highlighted by the graphics/Visual update i have no reason to believe that it is any better with the things that you dont really see directly (specularity and glossiness of low-specular things, like trees or ground textures).

 

That red car is a vanilla asset, and still it is way too visible compared to the surroundings. However you turn it, there is too much contrast.

It's also a question of practicality. Right now, night time play has become virtually impossible without NVG's, which would be highly inappropriate for low-tech guerrilla missions or WWII  or other scenarios. In reality, ambient light brightens up even shadows. As it is now, any shadow, even a tiny one, is utterly pitch black. This is even true in towns which are, by all means, usually washed out with light due to ambient reflections even in shadow areas. Since Arma doesn't do global illumination, the result is not realistic no matter what you chose. But in the interest of gameplay, the current situation is completely unacceptable.

[Vasily.B 529]

This is how it should look like

 

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

I don't see how posting a video of GTA is helpful. The only video that would make sense is any from Arma 3 from before the lighting update because that's exactly how the game should look.

 

Sometimes I see videos on YouTube from 1.58 and earlier and honestly it bums me out.