Visual Upgrade – Feedback

[Defunkt 431]

Although if you unpack most custom terrains the layers folder with all the rvmats haven't changed and still state: diffuse[] = {0.25,0.25,0.25,1};

Well of course, am talking about BIS terrains. Only a terrain's maker would change this.

[x3kj 1247]

I would like to know if we should tweak our textures and satellite images darker now and be done with it for the new visual update or should we wait for an update from BIS in regards to engine/lighting config clarification?

I would wait. Jumping on the train right away when things are not yet completely nailed down (BIS said they are still tweaking) can lead to extra work. That's been this way with every new feature so far though... it's just this time that mapmakers are affected.

[Defunkt 431]

I would like to know if we should tweak our textures and satellite images darker now and be done with it for the new visual update or should we wait for an update from BIS in regards to engine/lighting config clarification?

If you want to experiment without investing a lot of effort, below is the command line I used to test rvmat changes on Altis/Stratis, will do a search and replace on all rvmats in the specified folder (uses fart.exe from https://sourceforge.net/projects/fart-it/).

fart -r -- .\terrain.altis\*.rvmat "diffuse[] = {1.0,1.0,1.0,1};" "diffuse[] = {0.75,0.75,0.75,1};"

[pvt. partz 248]

 

If this update taught me anything is that it's not our game, it's somebody else's game and BIS will make changes to fit their own needs. Can't blame them for that because well... It's their game.

What?

 

We're paying for it !!!

[Beagle 684]

What?

 

We're paying for it !!!

Standard sofware license... you have payed to be allowed to use it, you don't own it. Leasing a car does not make you the owner neither.

[roshnak 41]

What?

 

We're paying for it !!!

 

You also pay for movies. That doesn't mean you can tell directors and writers how they should end.

 

I mean, the game is being actively developed and player feedback is important, but at the end of the day it's still the developers' game.

[spamurai 3]

I don't think this feels very much like an upgrade at all.

 

My strong initial impression is that it makes Arma look dated.

 

The world object textures all look flat, with a strong wallpaper effect.  There is no "texture" to them. It looks like someone has simply wallpapered a picture of the object onto a flat surface...  like older games would do that lacked proper rendering shaders for height and bump mapping (ie: Operation Flashpoint).   This is especially pronounced in towns with dilapidated buildings, burned cars and otherwise old, neglected looking things.

 

There are no shadows on objects,  like under a concrete bridge until you approach them... it looks janky and out of place because there is no depth to the world. The contrast is way oversaturated on things, making artwork look fake and really accentuates that "dated" look to everything.

 

I wish I had more pictures of the older visuals to compare with because the ones in 1.60 make me suspicious of how awkward Arma III looks now.  I used to marvel at how good ArmA looks and how well it holds up, but now I'm wondering if it has always looked this bad and I just hadn't noticed until now.

 

I think it's because the new visuals draw too much attention to the details that would go unnoticed and now I can't stop looking at them. 

 

Sad Schpam is Sad. You make me mournful of how old ArmA looks now :(

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I don't think this feels very much like an upgrade at all.

I wish I had more pictures of the older visuals to compare with

 

[katipo66 94]

the pre-1.60 graphics have been generally fine for years haven't they, so why did BIS decide to try to improve them, were people complaining or what?

 

Imo and what i thought was common knowledge is that the lighting much like the sound was flat and lifeless, thankfully both are getting an over haul, the lighting or lack off would really stand out when using Solano's reshade for example and switching it on/off in-game, perhaps theres enough demand here for Solano to create a pre-update version. Personally i really like the update and direction its going.

[DarthRogue 25]

what color space do you use for your images?

do you also tweak the rvmat or just the diffuse/color textures

 

 

I use standard RGB color space.  I haven't done any tweaking to the rvmats, either before or after the update.  

[danil-ch 165]

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

[Guest]

What's the matter? You ain't feeling that amazing realistic pitch black look? Dude open your eyes just adjust your settings, it's all perfect on my monitor. I love the direction they are going in, it's exciting and innovative.  

 

Think the way I think and stop disagreeing. It must mean because you don't like realism. Must be yet another knee jerk response ;) 

[Beagle 684]

Day 6 of trying to get use to it, but I still cant. I give up on tweaking and revert to 1.54 the last version I was fully content with. No Tanoa for me under such circumstances. Indoors look really bad now, the lighting indorr/outdoor is the same just like in old ArmA II and I can't get the colours right so that camo (fatigues, objects and vehicles) works as before in the terrain,

[Defunkt 431]

What's the matter? You ain't feeling that amazing realistic pitch black look?

Jesus, they've already said they're going to look at illumination at night, you can stop squealing for a bit.

 

Steam > Properties > Betas > Arma3Legacy158

[Beagle 684]

Jesus, they've already said they're going to look at illumination at night, you can stop squealing for a bit.

 

Steam > Properties > Betas > Arma3Legacy158

ArmA3Legacy158 did it for me. After 6 Days of tweakign and squeaking I've finally found peace again, and a single player only game.

[roshnak 41]

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

 

[screenshots]

 

In what way were the headlights in OFP more advanced? Brightness? Guys, this is crazy. You can't judge the quality of a rendering technology by the brightness of headlights.

 

I'm sure it's not the case, but it really seems like there are a lot of people posting in this thread who really don't understand what they are looking at. It's probably just people being absurdly hyperbolic, though.

[danil-ch 165]

Distance. If headlights in RL were same as in A3 1.60 you would never be able to drive during the night without hitting something.

There is a troubling pattern. A3 Alpha > A3_1.00 > A3_1.60 (night lightning get less and less realistic).

[Dwarden 1124]

just side comment on the OFP

in OFP and Arma 1 and even Arma 2 the headlights were 1 light source per vehicle,

in A2OA it could be 2 on some vehicles (it was increased by e.g. corepatch but it counts toward against lightsources limit too fast)

and in Arma 3 afaik it's 2 for most if not all vehicles (but feel free to correct me)

[inlesco 233]

In what way were the headlights in OFP more advanced? Brightness? Guys, this is crazy. You can't judge the quality of a rendering technology by the brightness of headlights.

 

I'm sure it's not the case, but it really seems like there are a lot of people posting in this thread who really don't understand what they are looking at. It's probably just people being absurdly hyperbolic, though.

Nobody said 'rendering tech is bad, replace it, mothafuckas'. Danil's screens simply prove headlights and overall night visuals need some serious tweaking, that's it.

 

Let's not take ourselves too seriously, shall we?

[Defunkt 431]

Let's not take ourselves too seriously, shall we?

Like harping on and on about an issue BIS acknowledged and have already said they're going to do another pass on?

 

Nights; too black now, not black enough before. Let's see what they come up with.

[infrareddimming 195]

Distance. If headlights in RL were same as in A3 1.60 you would never be able to drive during the night without hitting something.

There is a troubling pattern. A3 Alpha > A3_1.00 > A3_1.60 (night lightning get less and less realistic).

 

 

Except nights tend to be pitchblack IRL, especially when driving due to the brightness of the headlights and the minor tint of the windows. Arma's landscapes tend to be mostly rural, so light polution is kept to a bare minimum. That screenshot is actually quite realistic from a driver's perspective. Roads tend to have reflective cat's eyes and other markers which allow the driver to better follow the road at night.

[Vasily.B 529]

From this comparsion i can say the old lighting was dimmed overally, like someone putted some dirty, dark glass on my monitor, now image is much cleaner.

[nikiforos 450]

From this comparsion i can say the old lighting was dimmed overally, like someone putted some dirty, dark glass on my monitor, now image is much cleaner.

Yes but the old lighting created a more atmospheric environment

[pawelkpl 29]

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...

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

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

What if i told you that advanced and realistic, aren't synonymous. In other words, that picture with the hunter is more realistic than the OFP picture. I can tell you from experience, the headlights on my car don't light up anything but whats directly in front of me, and they avoid illuminating up to high, so as not to blind the people driving 2 car lengths in front of me. Most vehicles are designed this way and have been for a long time, and of course, only using high beams would result in excess illumination of the environment.