Graphics engine improvement

[SnypaUK 0]

Oh yeah dont worry about character models or trees BIS short of multi million polygon trees that sway in the wind theres no point improving trees, same with character models. There should be a bit more light with all gunshots though and the light when APCs fire should be downplayed a bit

[Quakerman 0]

Jungle from game Joint Operations and enviromental graphic engine is very nice! Operation Flashpoint2 with graphic from this game will very good! Hidden & Dangerous 2 interface inventory is super. FLASHPOINT.CZ

[ACT SMILEY 0]

Proper design of an engine should make it scalable - the first game's engine did a very good job of that, actually. If the second can be just as scalable but with higher detail we should be very happy little gamers.

The areas in which I feel that the graphics could be improved are:

Environmental Detail - Yeah, performance hits, but just look at some of the new islands to see how much even the first game can be improved. Hopefully the second game can be designed from the ground up to have environment details as good as games like Stalker.

Object details - a big issue with the first game's were the poor textures. Hopefully these can be improved in detail by the team's experiences on ofp1 and on a technical level by the higher resolution textures and larger polygon counts they can use on a Radeon 9800.

Weather effects. Yeah, a bit of changing weather and fog and such could case a little trouble for performance but nothing too bad.

I'm not really too sure as to how stuff such as pixel shaders etc could be used in OFP2 - unlike games such as Doom3 it doesn't seem suitable to have a pixel shaded lighting system, although for some little effects like nightvision and water might use it?

Of course, huge view distance is always a plus

[Jinef 2]

The size of bullet holes are a bit excessive in OFP1 i think.

If you shoot an addon pistol at the ground, because the addon maker feels it neccessary to be able to kill with one shot the bullet hole looks like a 23 mm cannon shell hole.

Having bullet hole sizes seperate from damage would be an improvement.

[crassus 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh yeah dont worry about character models or trees BIS short of multi million polygon trees that sway in the wind theres no point improving trees, same with character models.

Oh no, please. Please fix those hands. They look as if they were frostbitten or something--bloated.....And please fix the marriage of hands to weapons--no more meltin'.

(Yes it is I, Broken Record.)

[Pipski 0]

Weather effects. Yeah, a bit of changing weather and fog and such could case a little trouble for performance but nothing too bad.

Rain / snow that is driven by wind would be so great. Wind could be set to either `constant' or `blustery' so that rain / snow was pushed directionally either constantly (during storms etc.) or every now and then as the wind changes direction. Or maybe the constancy could be proportional to the strength of the wind, so that weak winds don't affect rain (though maybe do affect snow), medium winds are blustery, sending the occasional sheet of rain in the same direction it's blowing, causing snow flurries, and strong winds are constant with the rain / snow slicing in at 45 degrees.

[TheManWithManyIdeas 0]

You know, all these things are possible, but they'd all need a 1GB Geforce10 to run.

[cornhelium 0]

I guess a viewdistance/LOD distance scaling system that increases viewdistance/decreases LOD distance according to how fast a player is moving would help with the viedistance/detail issue.

For example:

1. If you're a forward observer on foot, you want a good viewdistance with good detail and the highest detail/eye candy up close in case you run into enemy troops.

2. If you're flying an OH-6 and hovering over a treeline, you'll need a longer viewdistance, but can probably lose a bit of detail. When you stop hovering and start moving to your next position, you can lose some more detail as at 100km/h you don't have time to notice.

3. If you're flying a Phantom at 800km/h, you need a huge viewdistance, but don't need anywhere near the same detail level as in 1 and 2, so the lowest LODs can be used even within 250m distance.

If your Phantom gets hit by a SAM and you eject, the game engine will start scaling down the viewdistance and increasing the LOD distance as your body decelerates, so that by the time you hit the jungle floor you have the same set up as in 1.

Just a thought - cheers,

Cornhelium

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I guess a viewdistance/LOD distance scaling system that increases viewdistance/decreases LOD distance according to how fast a player is moving would help with the viedistance/detail issue.

For example:

1. If you're a forward observer on foot, you want a good viewdistance with good detail and the highest detail/eye candy up close in case you run into enemy troops.

2. If you're flying an OH-6 and hovering over a treeline, you'll need a longer viewdistance, but can probably lose a bit of detail. When you stop hovering and start moving to your next position, you can lose some more detail as at 100km/h you don't have time to notice.

3. If you're flying a Phantom at 800km/h, you need a huge viewdistance, but don't need anywhere near the same detail level as in 1 and 2, so the lowest LODs can be used even within 250m distance.

If your Phantom gets hit by a SAM and you eject, the game engine will start scaling down the viewdistance and increasing the LOD distance as your body decelerates, so that by the time you hit the jungle floor you have the same set up as in 1.

Just a thought - cheers,

Cornhelium

If that idea is possible, it would be great.

[Baphomet 0]

In regard to the aforementioned quote and post. I was just thinking the same thing. Right now unless you want to suffer a frame rate hit. You have to jack up your viewdistance quite a notch if you want to fly fast planes competently.

I would love to see a system in which involves advanced LODs or perhaps allowing you to specify what your graphics look like while operating in certain conditions. For people who are piloting, shifting the game's LOD to resemble this:

http://www.gamershell.com/imagefo....a04.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/imagefo....a06.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/imagefo....a01.jpg

That would be great in my opinion. Some people wouldn't like it. However that would kind of be the point of making it user-definable. I know I wouldn't want to walk around as a soldier with the game looking like that, however for aircraft that would be perfect. I'd take those sorts of graphics over a choppy framerate any day.

BTW: A-10 cuba is probably one of the most enjoyable flight sims I've ever played despite the graphics. If only for it's incredible physics engine.

... the only -serious- problem I see with this initiative is getting damned addonmakers to support it.[snyde] Gauranteed there'd be a lot of shut-ins or industry professionals who are gamers who seem to assume that everyone can get an intel-deal (essentialy a top-notch intel box for roughly 300 bucks, the 3.2 box sitting in my room is an example of said deal) or assume people have money to burn on exorbitantly expensive equipment (ATI graphics cards for one, 600$ for a card is absoultely ridiculous). [/snyde]

Which to me isn't fair, because OFP is all about the addons. It's what makes this game great. The variety. Still. It's out of my hands. I can still piss and moan about it.  

[FragMASTER 0]

Quote[/b] ]http://www.gamershell.com/imagefo....a04.jpg

omg, runway incursion!

I think it's pretty much fine the way it is, maybe they could make the forests, bushes, and houses very low detail except when in a chopper.

[Baphomet 0]

Unless you've got a powerful machine it isn't really. Not unless you like living with lag, and I don't. Scalable draw distances for exceptions like when you're flying planes would also be good. I know that could probably be exploited in some way, but it would be nice with someone with an average machine could fly a plane with a reasonable draw distance so they can see further and switch when you're no longer doing so.

[winchuff 0]

I have heard that OpenGL is a superior protocol to DirectX (comparitive performance in IL2 Sturmovich does support this). Apparently particular differences are in the memory management (high level /low level memory cacheing) associated with very large worlds, evident as objects move into and out of the viewing distance and/or viewing frustrum. The relatively long time taken for these operations causes temporary pauses in frame update (stutter) which are quite common in OFP even with substantial (i.e. 128Mb Ti4600) graphics cards.

IL2 also provides many other low level or hardware configuration options which can produce dramatic improvements in performance. One of them in particular is the option to use TEXTURE COMPRESSION. This option, can alleviate the large model cacheing problems by reducing the memory required for textures alone.

Would it be possible in OFP2 to give the user option to use OpenGL OR DirectX? Could we please also have access to low level hardware options?

[ale2999 0]

Please bis, make this game look awesome! I know that you can do it. I saw soldner ss today and my friend has a beta and I was stunned, by how good looking it was. ofp is ofp but it would kick butt for ofp2 to be years ahead under every technology aspect ^^ cya all

[Llauma 0]

Please bis, make this game look awesome! I know that you can do it. I saw soldner ss today and my friend has a beta and I was stunned, by how good looking it was. ofp is ofp but it would kick butt for ofp2 to be years ahead under every technology aspect ^^ cya all

I think Soldner looks bad considering it's 3 years after OFP.. It's something like a mix of OFP and CS.

I would be very dissappointed if OFP2 looked like it.

[ale2999 0]

Please bis, make this game look awesome! I know that you can do it. I saw soldner ss today and my friend has a beta and I was stunned, by how good looking it was. ofp is ofp but it would kick butt for ofp2 to be years ahead under every technology aspect ^^ cya all

I think Soldner looks bad considering it's 3 years after OFP.. It's something like a mix of OFP and CS.

I would be very dissappointed if OFP2 looked like it.

actually ofp2 better be better than soldner. soldner looks extremely good. you have to see it running. and I think they have some kind of terrain streaming technology, not sure though.

[LaKing 0]

Hi all,...

First: I dont understand why modern games (AA,CoD,OFP,...)

dont use antialiasing. Its available with HW support on most videocards. If i turn it on on OFP, the fonts are getting unreadable, and i have to reinstall videocard or mipmap smthg... so it doesent works enywhere.

Make the Object visible on long distances too, i hate when i dont see the tank wich is shooting my base to dust.

I Hope there will be particle system too in ofp2 for fire and explusions.

I miss the Grass. I remeber, Delta Force had a primitive grass, and in CoD Grass looks great, but still not perfect.

What Graphical engine is used by Bi? Is This a secret? Does it has its own? I Hope OFP2 will be ahead of his time,...like OFP was.

Tanks

[FragMASTER 0]

Doesnt OFP already have particle effects? I could have sworn I've seen em.

[bn880 5]

If you look at the steppingstones for VBS1 and OFP1 you can see that Maruk and Ondrej basically made their own graphical engine. Similarly to how Duke Nukem or R6 had eventually made their own.

I can honestly say I look forward to seeing OFP2's graphics, I am sure they will be a lot better than OFP1. I'd better get myself a well paying job though to afford the PC for this.

[ale2999 0]

If you look at the steppingstones for VBS1 and OFP1 you can see that Maruk and Ondrej basically made their own graphical engine.  Similarly to how Duke Nukem or R6 had eventually made their own.

I can honestly say I look forward to seeing OFP2's graphics, I am sure they will be a lot better than OFP1.     I'd better get myself a well paying job though to afford the PC for this.  

I have more than trust that Maruk and Ondrej are gonna make sometin great. They just have to convince the rest of the planet. Lots of gamers are shallow in that way, you know what I am saying, and I bet that bis is better off with 4 million sold copies than a million only. I wish them 4 million!

[bn880 5]

Aye, I wish them 10 mil at least, that's not easy...

check this chart out

http://www.the-magicbox.com/Chart-USPlatinum.htm

[ale2999 0]

videogames is where the money is at. No wonder they making an xbox version. I wish them best of luck. Actually ill buy a copy of that too

[lee_h._oswald 0]

I am wondering about flickering textures on far away objects/soldiers/vehicles.

Modern graphic cards(or the drivers?) do not suppoert w-buffer anymore.

I can see those flickering textures on the FAR CRY demo also.

What will the solution in ofp2?

MfG Lee

[threat.at 0]

I think, this thread should also be mentioned here:

Lights improvement

It also has something to do with "Game Physics", but I think, it is sufficient, when I mention it here  

Additionaly I want to say, that the lighting of a village isn't pure white light, but, when lighted by light bulbs, it has a yellow touch, and when lighted by neons, it has a blueish touch in the distance (this is a physical filtering effect, I'm sure ).

This clean white light is like in a football stadium, when a match is played...

[morgus 0]

About the video realism. Thing that is most important are photo-textures in my opinion. Bf1942 or Bf:V mostly got hand made textures, as I suppose, and it somehow in hard to explain way makes game too cartoonish, to colourful what takes the mood. OFP landscape and it's palette is great and realistic, for some that lives in california or southern italy it probably is too washed out, but bohemia are from czech, I am from Poland and I assure you these "Twin Peaks" grey pallete is set perfectly in OFP. I hope it will not be more colorful in OFP2. It is not so hard to make great landscapes in game, graphicans just need to still keep as close to photographs.

Other thing is grass, after playing some in BF:Vietnam I must say that it is a new level in computer graphics and makes everything much more realistic, not only as small cosmetic change. In other post I also wrote that polygon count is the less important thing in games, polygon count does not make game better, but somehow game developers think that it actually is. There is many other things much more important than polygon count that takes most of CPU/GPU power.

Hard shine surfaces would be nice, imagine the moment when you incidentally spotted the enemy sniper because of short sunny flash reflected from his scope. I think it is thing not too hard to include (cars in Gta Vice City got this kind of flickering reflection/flare while driving against the sun direction).