Jump to content
bis_iceman

Visual Upgrade – Feedback

Recommended Posts

BIS of course !! 95 % of the assets used in those maps are coming from vanilla Arma 1 and 2 contents, contents that should have been updated by BIS while doing A3.

Arma lives because of its community. Destroying the mods is not the right way to ensure its survival. Who better than them (ie BIS) can easily update all the previous contents ?

Through an incredible work of multiple people, we had A3MP, AiA and now CUP that gives us the ability to play on nearly all the previous maps. Right now, every assets has to be updated (again?). Sorry but the non shadow on A1/A2 trees are just making everything unreal.

you should really go out more dude...BI is a commercial entity. it cannot and it should not port over and updated older content. They already did a lot more than other people who abandon older games, they released ALL their content as it is and allowed it to be used in current engine version. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, if BI officially release Chernarus as a DLC map pack, then yes, they would have an obligation to ensure ongoing quality.

 

But if they did, we would have a bunch of people on here complaining about the nerve of BI charging to port forward their old maps. 

 

I would have gladly paid a DLC at A3 launch to get all the A1 and A2 assets ported to A3 !! :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have gladly paid a DLC at A3 launch to get all the A1 and A2 assets ported to A3 !! :)

 

Since I am one of the guys that has spent a lot of time porting these assets, let me assure you that any such DLC would be as expensive as the finished game. Otherwise the effort is unjustifiable for a commercially operating company. It's just too much work and we all know that 50% of the people would think they are entitled to the stuff anyway ("I already bought Arma 2") and would refuse to pay for it.

 

And yeah, I am being optimistic here.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We dont need BI to update those maps, the mod-maker will do this on their own.

What we are asking for is a proper documentation on the changes.

 

Who have the configs for maps changed, what has to be implemented, what can be left out? What has to be implemented in case of weather and lightning?

Whats about the different pixelshaders BI uses for Altis/Stratis and why is TerrainBuilder not able to use them for his own RVMATs (as you are not able to select in which way TB will create those RVMATs)?

How do the layers affect the map-look and what could be changed in their RVMATS, nohq etc to make them look proper (and at least give them some shadows back)?

In what degree have the layer.paa and the satmaps been toned down in brightness to give them a good look for the new version?

 

All these things would help mapmakers to adjust their own maps and give them a proper look for 1.6. Unfortunately all of them have to find out themselves via douzend try and errors (and if you ever tried to create a map you know how long it takes to update, pack, repack etc just to find out there is still some error or bad look and start all over again). A documentation on those changes would make it far easier to adjust the mod-maps to 1.6.

 

As there is none and the BI-Studio-Wiki has not been updated... it will take some more time or even let some mod-makers wait and surrender.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 we all know that 50% of the people would think they are entitled to the stuff anyway ("I already bought Arma 2") and would refuse to pay for it.

 

 

Yes, I sadly agree with you...

 

 

About the aperture: is it possible to change it outside the camera ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news (or bad one depending of what side of the thrill-ness you are)

I'm starting to like the visual update. As the visual memories of the former rendering are progressively forgotten, I think the upgrade is actually going on the good path.
Watching and analyzing the real world thru the eyes and not thru pictures, makes me approximately realize that the outside world lightning is as ugly as the visual upgrade.
In short, it seems we are accustomed to get «beautiful» graphics for games, meaning realistic AND beautiful with artistic scenes. The arma 3 visual upgrade try to make the thing realistic only. So that's a shock a first sight, like seeing a gorgeous actress in a photoshopped poster then seeing her in the street without makeup…

However, my opinion still concerns day light situations only. Night is broken as we know, and dawn/dusk still need adjustments. And I want to mention that I'm pretty sure that post-processed correction parameters must keep their values at 100 !!!

 

I also switched SSAO from HBAO+ to HDAO, reducing the darkness of ambient occlusion effect to a decent level. Then, if the case of this AO darkness is to be considered realistic, it makes me think that the main issue is now the textures, like the white buildings or as noticed earlier by others, camouflage colors. It also applies to the oversaturated colored signs. To be precise, objects with matte appearance have an diffuse reflectivity power (albedo) that cannot return more light than the source. So there is a certain pixel brightness and saturation to never exceed otherwise it turns to render the object fluorescent. These values must be standardized by BI.

 

About the low light conditions, I reminded that the human eye has separate color sensitivity for rod and cone cells. To simulate the eye perception at the monitor screen (because it is obvious that a screen doesn't generate the same dynamic range as the one that the eye can sense, that's maybe why the night is currently so dark in the current upgrade), the saturation of colors must be reduced as the brightness of light is reduced, and totally gone under a certain limit, which is, different for the red, green and blue components (see the chart I posted earlier, it is easier to read the green than the blue due to different eye's colors sensibilities).

Moreover, the rods can't see the red light so it must appear black in game.

Such eye perception simulation would remove the oversatured colors at deep dawn/dusk times. However, that would totally be irrealistic for color blind people.

And I think the game's HDR is too wide at low light conditions, but is too thin at night because it's too uncomfortable to watch on the screen.

 

I hope it will help devs and I wasn't boring to read…

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I sadly agree with you...

 

 

About the aperture: is it possible to change it outside the camera ?

 

I doubt it. The aperture is adjusted dynamically based on light levels and desired exposure value.

 

edit: You could do what defunkt suggested above, but it would only look right for a given range of light levels. Setting the aperture to 140 will make day look okay, but night will be literally completely black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If BI wants to keep the current lighting changes,, the materials must be altered. MultiCam for example does not contain glowing white dots, only light tan dots, and the green is darker and does not tend into the "lime" hue.

Also the white MX and MK18 should be fixed by texture, to make it post processing proof.

 

In short, all the glowing white on military materials and the shine has to go.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't play Arma as much as I use to, but when I saw the news about the visual update I got excited until i saw the effect. I really don't like the new visuals, but I can live with them. What I can't live with is the nighttime. Like many others here, I agree that the nighttime is badly broke. It is unnaturally dark, and things like chemlights or flashlights seem to do very little to combat the all encompassing darkness.

 

Like any good Arma player, I jumped on the feedback tracker to either make a ticket or vote for a ticket. Well, I see a few tickets about nighttime being too dark, and they are all closed tagged as fixed.

 

I am not on the dev branch at the moment, but for those of you that are, has it been fixed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HDR exhibits some odd behavior during the nighttime showcase. When you look towards the horizon, the entire screen dims. Not sure if this is related to the overly dark nights people have been mentioning. Either way, I made a ticket.

 

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T117202

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BIS already tampered with their game so it would be a cluster f--k if they continue to tamper with it more. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you should really go out more dude...BI is a commercial entity. it cannot and it should not port over and updated older content. They already did a lot more than other people who abandon older games, they released ALL their content as it is and allowed it to be used in current engine version.

This right here is what some people don't seem to get. Bis is a small studio bringing an ambitious game. Sometimes too ambitious and ever evolving improving . A bigger game thqt better financed AAA publishers wouldn't touch. Arma 3 yes the game you love. They wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Because A :it wont reap the high fast buck rewards of a more greedy dlc approach game franchise would. and B: the heads of the studio are too in touch with their product and community.

They give too much freedom, they give too much input from the community and they certainly under value their work /pricing of dlc to Try be fair to the fans of the series.

Now this is about visual feedback.

Tanoa is looking splendid on this update. Drink that down for a second. Not the Arma 2 maps. Maps bis "allowed" the good people at cup to port. thank you cup and rhs modders.

Look play Tanoa. Then judge the update. Play maps that will be made by modders with the 1.60 visuals properly included or adjusted. Then make your call. Decide if it's a step forward. But to shout down the hard work and vision for the future of Arma 3 now. Is severely short sighted. As was the groaning about the new sounds. Again. Crafted work that takes time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx defunkt & roshnak.

 

edit: You could do what defunkt suggested above, but it would only look right for a given range of light levels. Setting the aperture to 140 will make day look okay, but night will be literally completely black.

 

ok, thx, so this is not the magic wand to get the best of both world (old and new visual).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...But folks this is Arma!!! Stuff always needs to be tweaked. Its the price we pay for a developer that continues to update their product for free!

 

:) :D :huh:

 

But if something is already beautiful-looking like pre-1.60 AA3,  does it really NEED tweaking?

Reminds me when I dated oldfashioned Barbara a few years ago, she wore hideous victorian clothes and flat shoes and badly needed updating, so I bought her a pair of sexy high heels but she refused pointblank to wear them and we broke up soon after.

Drat, I was planning to get her a Wonder Woman outfit later..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if something is already beautiful-looking like pre-1.60 AA3,  does it really NEED tweaking?

Exactly, honestly the only thing that needed to be added was the cool water reflections, besides that everything else was boss. Improve the chemlights, hell maybe even add some more dynamic lighting effects for flashlights and vehicle headlights, maybe. But good god I would have never touched the color correction unless I was making a custom mission.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, honestly the only thing that needed to be added was the cool water reflections, besides that everything else was boss. Improve the chemlights, hell maybe even add some more dynamic lighting effects for flashlights and vehicle headlights, maybe. But good god I would have never touched the color correction unless I was making a custom mission.

 

They can't add dynamic lighting effect because light pass through the building.There is reason why vehicle lights only have low beams

and that flashlights are so dimm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the vast majority haven't played on any desert maps.

Or maybe they simply understand that mod makers need time to achieve best use of the new parameters.

 

We'd never see any fundamental improvements if BIS were governed by your "the sky has fallen, my mods are broken" knee-jerk reactions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look play Tanoa. Then judge the update. Play maps that will be made by modders with the 1.60 visuals properly included or adjusted. Then make your call. Decide if it's a step forward. But to shout down the hard work and vision for the future of Arma 3 now. Is severely short sighted. As was the groaning about the new sounds. Again. Crafted work that takes time.

 

This.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  When I have a lush green sat image and get it into game and it turns out piss yellow, there's something wrong.  I shouldn't have to make my textures 5 shades darker than the look I'm really going for and then hope for the best that those same textures will render in the same color once they render in world with stock settings.  Before this update there was a consistent 1:1 comparison between out of game images and in game images, but not anymore, even after playing with the post process lighting and gamma settings.  They helped, but it's still not 1:1 as it should be.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  When I have a lush green sat image and get it into game and it turns out piss yellow, there's something wrong.  I shouldn't have to make my textures 5 shades darker than the look I'm really going for and then hope for the best that those same textures will render in the same color once they render in world with stock settings.  Before this update there was a consistent 1:1 comparison between out of game images and in game images, but not anymore, even after playing with the post process lighting and gamma settings.  They helped, but it's still not 1:1 as it should be.  

what color space do you use for your images?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All custom maps look much worse than before despite modders updating them to 1.60 lighting.

Altis and Stratis look fine but I stopped playing on other maps, not appealing enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, thx, so this is not the magic wand to get the best of both world (old and new visual).

I think the problem with using aperture or contrast sliders is that it doesn't address the disconnect between the contrast on objects (characters, vehicles, buildings, trees and other clutter) and the terrain. You can make the background look better by increasing contrast but then the foreground objects have too much, it's just shifting the problem.

 

Apart from de-noising the satmap (ala Landtex for those who remember it) BIS changed all of the RVMATs from diffuse[] = {0.25,0.25,0.25,1}; to diffuse[] = {1.0,1.0,1.0,1}; which makes the colour truer to the original texture but also a lot lighter and a bit washed-out compared to nearby objects which have more contrast.

 

default

 

diffuse_0.75 (I think the objects and terrain blend better)

 

diffuse_0.50 (better blended still but it no longer looks as Mediterranean)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem with using aperture or contrast sliders is that it doesn't address the disconnect between the contrast on objects (characters, vehicles, buildings, trees and other clutter) and the terrain. You can make the background look better by increasing contrast but then the foreground objects have too much, it's just shifting the problem.

 

Apart from de-noising the satmap (ala Landtex for those who remember it) BIS changed all of the RVMATs from diffuse[] = {0.25,0.25,0.25,1}; to diffuse[] = {1.0,1.0,1.0,1}; which makes the colour truer to the original texture but also a lot lighter and a bit washed-out compared to nearby objects which have more contrast.

 

default

 

diffuse_0.75 (I think the objects and terrain blend better)

 

diffuse_0.50 (better blended still but it no longer looks as Mediterranean)

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};

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×