Graphics engine improvement

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peanuckle_00 @ 05 May 2003,18:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The graphics are fine. Making the resolution any on objects any finer will only increase the specs required to play the game. Let's talk about increasing the draw distance even for flying jets.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk Spanel @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> And yes, we're going to implement DX9 features in the engine and we really like pixel and vertex shaders and we're going to use it in the engine extensively. <span id='postcolor'>

And think about it, end of 2004, OFP2 comes out with same graphics as OFP1, disaster. Graphics may be fine, but not for the future.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

I agree with bn880 on this one. If they want to earn some money with ofp2 it would be crazy to not improve the graphics significantly. I dont know what the average system specs would be late 2004 but thats what the flashpoint will require.

[benreeper 0]

This is why the future is DOOMED to shallow games, which means all studios will only develop for the consoles.

Graphics are the #1 important element to game design above all else. Are you all saying that if the graphics stayed exactly the same but all of the games shortcomings were fixed, (including having hundreds of units battling on screen at once)

you wouldn't buy it.

Even as it is now there isn't a pc made that could play OFP maxed out.

Ben

[bn880 5]

It seems to me that if the graphics stayed exactly the same, many people who bought OFP1 would not come back for OFP2.

Not referring to most people on the forum, just the other million or so.

I think the graphics are important for looks and CPU load, if properly used this will aid in making larger battlefields still work at a reasonable framerate.

[jtec 0]

The guys are right about having better gfx as whats the point on just having a ofp 2 when they could just bring a addon pack out to sort out minor bugs and improved netcode. I didnt upgrade my system to play games that look the same from over 2 years back (plus ofp gfx will be 3 years old by the time ofp2 comes out). I brought it to play the latest games with the latest game engines and gfx. As for veiw distance how bout getting a larger processor, some more ram and gfx card What ever BIS do, i believe they will make the right choices as they listen to their public and bring us what we want plus extras. Well done BIS on bring us Ofp2 cant wait till E3 to see what ive been waiting for since last year

[S_Z 0]

It sounds like some of you believe the use of vertex/pixel shaders equal unrealistic looking environments. Vertex/pixel shaders have nothing to do with that at all, it’s up to the textures being used in combination with the lightning.

Vertex/pixel shaders are just as fixed function (T&L) about hardware programming but shaders are much more flexible and let programmers write their own vertex/pixel programs.

I hope BIS will make good use of shaders in OFP2, in late 2004 I think most people will have a card supporting shaders.

[SlickPilot 0]

[sesam2k 0]

I would defenitely like BETTER EXPLOTIONS, for instance if you put a rocket in a truck or car, it kinda fusses and sparkles in OPF... hmmm. Also, burning soldiers who happen to be near the fireworks. Id like to think a nice cloud of fire would be appropriate so if the vertex/pixel thing does the trick, go ahead. And yes, give hi-end users the option of a great visual experiance.

[cideway 0]

A better night vision system would be a great addition to the game. If it was made like in real life when you fir off a gun you can't see shit until your eyes adjust back to the darkness

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

flash suppressors are your friend at night

[haunted 0]

Your eyes take 40 minutes to fully adjust to dark conditions. And then, any hint of light and your eyes have to readjust. If you think im doing bugger all for 40 mins only to have my rifle go of and be shagged for vision again your wrong

[vortex3d 0]

1. Realistic water color: Water isn't blue everywhere.

2. Realistic ricocheing bullet trails, with realistic colors at night only for Veteran mode.

3. Tall Grass: Animation should be an option for hi-end computers.

4. Add Trains.

5. Better colors: Current colors look wasshed out.

6. Improved animation response: Characters react too leasurely when compromised. ie: Dropping to the ground after firing a RPG weapon.

7. Improved controls: Often i've been killed attempting to find the right action just to be faced with a changed menu. ie: Ejecting from an aircraft in a hurry while using a Joystick. What about making every action programmable?

8. Optimized AI: I've asked my team mates to drive a truck from point A to point B, and they get stuck or go VERY slow every time, no matter what combat mode.

9. can we climb trees? :)

10. Close combat!: Knifes, etc

[CopyCon 1]

5. Better colors: Current colors look wasshed out.

I like the colours.

I don't want it to have the over saturated colours that a lot of other games have.

[Heatseeker 0]

5. Better colors: Current colors look wasshed out.

I like the colours.

I don't want it to have the over saturated colours that a lot of other games have.

I like the colors at night, sunshine and sunset (low light conditions), but i too think that during day everything looks a bit watercolored , the terrain, vegetation, game units look a bit waterpainted, i find real hard to explain this .

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

heatseeker, put your brightness up and your gamma down.

[Guest]

5. Better colors: Current colors look wasshed out.

I like the colours.

I don't want it to have the over saturated colours that a lot of other games have.

I like the colors at night, sunshine and sunset (low light conditions), but i too think that during day everything looks a bit watercolored , the terrain, vegetation, game units look a bit waterpainted, i find real hard to explain this .

I agree....if you really find the colours too washed out ( ) then fiddle the settings on either/both your Monitor and your Graphics card.

I think the colours look excellent, and really suit the enivironment they were trying to create (or rather, where they live, Eastern Europe).

Now to my 2 cents:

1. Particles. Better lighting for this

2. Particles. More options. Billboard and Space are very useful, but there are limitations to this.

3. Particles. Currently you can pass a vector (direction + velocity) from an object to a particle, but you can't then pass that particle's vector onto another particle. This would make for greater flexability in making smoke effects, etc etc.

4. Water. The way it is currently done (two textures, one RGB, one Alpha) works reasonably well for the land, but doesn't work for the water. Why? Water is transparent, land isn't. A better solution in my mind would be to have two RGB textures, and have them both animated.

5. Water. the current animation cycle (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,6,5,4,3,2,1) is awfully hard to make good water textures for. A much better way to go would have been 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (then loop to 1). This allows texturing to give the impression of waves in a far easier manner.

6. Land. The use of an alpha layer is good, but how about leaving the possibility open for it to be animated? In particular for Winter/Desert Maps, where having a subtle underlayer of movement could enhance the impression of snow/sand.

7. Texture animation. Please for the love of god.....blend them! In the above example with water the textures "hardcut" from one to the next. A very quick dissolve would look so much better, especially in the skies.

8. Skies. Besides the animations being blended, what about using jpgs for them? Reasons why...they are there ALL the time, so don't have to be loaded/dumped from VGA memory. Cards now have more than enough memory to handle a 512x512 (or more) jpg texture being in memory all the time. Also, because they are there all the time, why not make them look better?

9. Terrain Streaming. Am I right in guessing this will be a kind of "LOD" for terrain. Like 5m grid close to you, up to 100+m grid further away? Could work very nicely

Anyway since that's well over 2 cents, so I'll shut up now.

[Necromancer- 0]

Anyone remember Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear?

Last time i threw a flashbang too near, I got stunned, blinded and deaf for a few seconds.

About getting deaf... You'd hear your ears ring after you have continiously fired a M249 SAW. Would be nice if this was implemented in the game.

Ack... wrong topic..

sorry.

[Phleep 0]

9. Terrain Streaming. Am I right in guessing this will be a kind of "LOD" for terrain. Like 5m grid close to you, up to 100+m grid further away? Could work very nicely  

I am hoping that is correct. It would really make flying infinitely more pleasant if the visibility was raised and terrain LOD existed. I just wonder how it would work through binoculars and scopes, that would be the hard part.

Anyway BIS have one of the most developed LOD systems for 3D models and I have full faith they can pull it off if they choose to do so.

[bn880 5]

This terrain LOD stuff may also be a problem in MP. It's tough, object positions do not really match from one terrain LOD to the next. There is probably a way though, and that would be a truly amazing feature.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Anyone remember Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear?

Last time i threw a flashbang too near, I got stunned, blinded and deaf for a few seconds.

About getting deaf... You'd hear your ears ring after you have continiously fired a M249 SAW. Would be nice if this was implemented in the game.

Ack... wrong topic..

sorry.  

Well, from my experience I can tell you that you don`t hear a ringing. As a matter of fact you hear the bang, than a whistle in your head and nothing more after that. If you have bad luck the whistle will continue. After that there`ll be recovery time and infusions.

[Phleep 0]

This terrain LOD stuff may also be a problem in MP.  It's tough, object positions do not really match from one terrain LOD to the next.     There is probably a way though, and that would be a truly amazing feature.

If the terrain were made so that if an object's position was submerged on a long distance lower detail grid then it would still appear through the terrain (ie. the terrain would be transparent to objects meant to be at ground level). I can foresee masses of difficulties in applying this but I believe it would be necessary to make jungle look convincingly lush from ground level and above.

I was also thinking that for making grass LODs the up close one could be a decent model but the far away LODs be like the Il-2 Sturmovik forest which was a couple of layers of bush parallel to the terrain in sheets of texture. In the case of grass it would be small green lines.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Quote[/b] ]We were told BIS is working on pixel and vertex shading, this is extremely important if OFP2 is to look better but I'm worried about one thing:

One thing pixel shading would make possible is real-time shadows cast by buildings, mountains, etc.

"New World Order" was trying to accomplish this and the screenshots were gorgeous, but when I went to try the demo it lagged like crazy, and my system was well over specs!

I would like to see mountain and building shadows, interior shadows, etc., but not at the expense of smooth gameplay.  It's not worth it.  It would be very nice to be able to hide in shadows from human players, though, as with some maps in Unreal Tournament and its mods.

Other things I'd like to see are better "dark sides" of buildings, vehicles, etc.  Darker human shadows in some cases.

Also, when a bonfire or headlight lights up a building or soldier, I don't want to see the whole object light up, as if it was made with a huge fiber-optic cable.

Quote[/b] ]  There are tons of bugs and unrealistic shit in this game, but the gameplay makes up for it.

Most of your post should have gone in the physics thread, Axe.

Quote[/b] ]Hopefully something like this comes (trilinear displacement mapping on flat surface with vertex shaders)

<a href="http://users.belgacom.net/xvox....k">http

Looks like a tiled map, like something from the Delta Force series...

Quote[/b] ]I dont want to much of all that new and "cool" graphics it doesnt look realistic at all, i will be extremly dissapointed if it will turn out to look like BF1942 or Unreal2.

I second that.  I'd just like to see the view distance increased, even if it means the draw distance on objects is reduced.  I want to see mountains in the distance, when weather allows.

I'd also like to see rolling fog banks, like the fog that sometimes hugs the floor in "Enter the Matrix".  Very cool.

Quote[/b] ]OFP already outperforms on size, freedom and realism yet many are not playing it because of graphics and sound shortcomings.

Which is silly... because guys I know playing Counter-Strike were amazed by the graphics in OFP.  As someone else said, the immersion factor of the graphics on any game lifts in about 48 hours of play.

Quote[/b] ]When a shell explodes, I want to see dirt clods and dust.  I want deformable terrain so we get shell craters, foxholes, trenches, caves etc..

I want dust on dry days when tanks roll over dirt, I want torn up grass and mud on rainly days.

Vegetation wise I want real grass that you can hide in

Better damage models on hit vehicles.  Better fire effects.  Rubble and really destroyed buildings.

Trees that sway in the wind, grass that ripples.  Water that splashes in puddles, streams, paddies.  Creeks, canals, small terrain features.

All reasonable requests... VietCong's vegetation all sways and doesn't bog they way that Ghost Recon does, but VC has smaller maps than OFP.

Quote[/b] ]to some extent, i'd love to see some graphics related stuffs like bushes and foliages be more realistic given that island size remains the same.

But not at the expense of gameplay.  Trust me, you pay about zero attention to trees when you're in the Army and in even simulated combat conditions.  The "nicer" trees on Nogova resulted in less foliage to conceal you.  And in OFP, which has no real grass like DF2, it is necessary to have the shrubs to hide you.

Quote[/b] ]And you can't say things like "no ATI Trueform please" because it's just optional support which more cards I think will have in one form or another by the time OFP2 is released.

Yes, I'd definitely like to see TruForm support in OFP2.  I might even buy a Radeon for that!  It only makes sense.  Instead of having the modeller work on all of those triangles, let the card do it.

Quote[/b] ]You have to feel you immersed by the rain, it was not the case with OFP 1, somethimes I even didn't realised it was raining.

True.  There needed to be some droplet objects falling near the soldier, with little splashes on the ground, like in Rogue Spear.  Otherwise, the existing system is good for "background" rain.

Quote[/b] ]Something that for example would greatly improve this are windscreen washers on the car like in the old game "Hard Truck", where you can see the droplets on the windscreen if you don't wash the windscreen, and the droplets that trickle on the side if you are moving and even more details.

Yeah, the droplets on Enemy Engaged:  Commanche Versus Hokum were really cool... especially turning on the wiper blades to clear the windscreen.

Quote[/b] ]Realistic and plastic seawaves ...

Water clarification

Waterfalls !!! (not only simple startedge-fall-poll) i mean stream, edge, notch, fall, rock, spatter, fall, rock, edge, notch, fall, pool) ... u get idea?

That would certainly be nice.

Quote[/b] ]1) Ability for water to occupy multiple levels is the world.

Yep.

Quote[/b] ]3) Ability to go below mesh level. Right now if you place an object on the world mesh it sits right at ground level. If you were to make a basement of a building and set the building so that the basement was actually below the world mesh you can't go into it.

Yep.

Quote[/b] ]Let's talk about increasing the draw distance even for flying jets.

Yes, very much needed.

Quote[/b] ]as whats the point on just having a ofp 2 when they could just bring a addon pack out to sort out minor bugs and improved netcode.

Well, because mid-game joining requires a total overhaul of the game's code, anyway.

Quote[/b] ]I would defenitely like BETTER EXPLOTIONS, for instance if you put a rocket in a truck or car, it kinda fusses and sparkles in OPF... hmmm. Also, burning soldiers who happen to be near the fireworks. Id like to think a nice cloud of fire would be appropriate so if the vertex/pixel thing does the trick, go ahead. And yes, give hi-end users the option of a great visual experiance.

Yeah, I'd like to see ammo in burning vehicles exploding and cooking off, firing away from the vehicle in some cases.

Quote[/b] ]Your eyes take 40 minutes to fully adjust to dark conditions. And then, any hint of light and your eyes have to readjust. If you think im doing bugger all for 40 mins only to have my rifle go of and be shagged for vision again your wrong  

Once, sitting in a foxhole, the girl Private in the foxhole with me took a snapshot with a flash.  My eyes saw nothing but red for about 10 seconds!  My night vision was surely shot for quite some time after that.

However, the eye works like this... if you look directly at something at night you may not see it because you have lost your night vision, but when you look at it with your peripheral vision you'll be able to see it better.

Quote[/b] ]A better night vision system would be a great addition to the game. If it was made like in real life when you fir off a gun you can't see shit until your eyes adjust back to the darkness

Yeah, two light spectrums need to be in the game, a visible light spectrum and an invisible light spectrum.  Night Vision devices see both, and that is how the you can see during the night with such a device.

Quote[/b] ]5. Better colors: Current colors look wasshed out.

That is taken care of by tweaking the action gamma and then adjusting the brightness.

Quote[/b] ]2. Realistic ricocheting bullet trails, with realistic colors at night only for Veteran mode.

Yep, if for no other reason than cosmetics.  Ricocheting rounds don't have to hurt, but if ricocheting rounds COULD be made to hurt it would help take care of the lack of "area of effect" on the LMG's, because ricocheting rounds might hit collateral targets.

--Uziyahu-IDF

http://www.idfsquad.com/

[Batukhan 0]

u know there r many open areas/large fields in ofp1, especially on everon... imagine, if somewhere would be a wheat-field or corn or something and the high vegetation moves in wind... oh this would be seriously beatuful end even more seriously it would burden GPU...

i saw something about vertex and pixel shaders/stencil shadows... yes it WOULD be extremely cool... bumpmaps on blown-up, old rusty ACPs :P ... neat... but IF u do make these shaders/stencils, PLEASE think of lower specs. computer-users like me , so the graphics levels should be VERY adjustable accordingly for ur own needs...

[Jinef 2]

i would like to see realistic lighting when wearing NVGs, with big greeny white blobs flying around (heavy calibre projectiles) and not have light sources coming through ground, allow a larger area to be affected by light and fade it more instead of having jagged light areas and no light areas.

[cornhelium 0]

I'd love to see better particle effects/animations when bullets hit mud/concrete/wood/metal/water etc. Firefights in Sebnampack2 are the most awesome thing I've ever seen/heard - if all those bullets could also be throwing leaves, mud and woodchips everywhere it'd just be complete sensory overload

Not sure what game has the best example of this at the moment - Max Payne does it about perfect IMO. Raven Shield also has nice particle effects but I'd like more of 'em