New exclusive Screenshots

[shadow 6]

I know, but thats really pushing it memory-wise. I don't think its reallistic to hope for that kind of texture resolution used extensively in a open-ended game like OFP.

[Heatseeker 0]

I have yet to see a model using bump maps that doesnt look blurry or low resolution when you look or zoom real close , i have seen plenty of it on wall textures and while it makes surfaces look bumpy/rough over distance it looks crappy if you zoom in on a bump mapped surface. Also bump mapping might increase performance saving on poly counts in small corridor games but wont it increase the amount the textures loaded in the game drasticaly? Like OPF engine uses a large amount of texture data when you load a mission but it loads very fast, even Nogova being massive and with higher poly counts and very sharp textures loads rather fast, wont bump mapping increase load times and stress the HD used on such a huge game like flashpoint?

I also hope it wont replace/screw some of the great photorealistic work i have seen made for this engine, i am rather ignorant in the matter but still a bit reluctant on this subject... Doom3 uses bump mapping on its models, yet they still look like shit if you look closely, nowhere near the jaw dropping work ive seen made by the VBS1 art team honestly.

...

edit: Shadow beat me to it...

[Dwarden 1125]

i think Armed Assault need same sort of short promotion videos like BattleField 2 Special Forces ... because they look better than game really is lol

[llauma 0]

I have yet to see a model using bump maps that doesnt look blurry or low resolution when you look or zoom real close , i have seen plenty of it on wall textures and while it makes surfaces look bumpy/rough over distance it looks crappy if you zoom in on a bump mapped surface. Also bump mapping might increase performance saving on poly counts in small corridor games but wont it increase the amount the textures loaded in the game drasticaly? Like OPF engine uses a large amount of texture data when you load a mission but it loads very fast, even Nogova being massive and with higher poly counts and very sharp textures loads rather fast, wont bump mapping increase load times and stress the HD used on such a huge game like flashpoint?

I also hope it wont replace/screw some of the great photorealistic work i have seen made for this engine, i am rather ignorant in the matter but still a bit reluctant on this subject... Doom3 uses bump mapping on its models, yet they still look like shit if you look closely, nowhere near the jaw dropping work ive seen made by the VBS1 art team honestly.

...

edit: Shadow beat me to it...

The Doom textures looks blurry cause the textures are very low res when playing with normal settings. The CWC textures are higher resolution than the normal Doom3 textures.

Here are two identical models, one of them is using a 256x256 pxl normal map. As you can see the normal maps add so much more than just some bumps and dents. The normal map in this example is generated from a 30.000 polygon model which means that the shadows behaves as if the low poly model is as detailed. Just look at those detailed eyes, they dont exist yet you see the shadows behave as if they were present on the model.

The bad thing about 'computer generated realism' is that it doesn't normally look as good in screenshots as 2048x2048 pxl textures created from real photos. The huge difference though is that the textures such as the ones in VBS1 and OFP are static which means that none of the shadows or highlights changes when the object or light source moves. So the normal maps are best when experienced live.

I'm sure that you can make normal maps look perfect in screenshots too if you would use 1024x1024 pxl textures with a 1024x1024 pxl nomal map. The total size of those two textures is half of a 2048x2048 VBS1 texture.

Normal mapped models can look very shiny but they don't have to be. With difuse maps and such you can make it even more subdued than OFP.

Here's another example using a normal map from a 4 million triangle model on a 500 triangle model. Sure you could just use a texture as we do in OFP and make it look identical in a screenshot but while watching it live you won't see a big difference between those models.

[Heatseeker 0]

Still not convinced , i think developers are making use of recent technology and techniques just to be ahead and win the hearts of graphics biased reviewers and enthusiasts but not really achieving very good results so far, just increasing HW requierements, increasing development time and drifting away from creating natural, smooth looking 3d simulation.

That head is a good example, bump mapping or normal mapping might give impressive visual efects but if you just wrap it with a high resolution texture it will look more human and RL alike imo, also if BIS increased overall poly counts and texture resolutions for VBS models and still have it perform better than OPFR i see no reason why they would make their game shiny, blurry and squary.

Photorealistic textures impress me more than shiny plastic/metalic ones, call me old fashioned but i spent more time admiring the sharp looking textures applied to some Nogova buildings than i did looking at plastic looking Far Cry for some reason, its hard to explain .

[Antichrist 0]

I am all for normal mapping, even if it not utilized fully at the moment. At least it is some sort of "future proof" technology that might make things easier for addonmakers later in ArmA's life.

[llauma 0]

I guess it's pointless to try to convince you. The future games from BIS will use normal mapping etc. so you just have to get used to them. The only possibility of real-time lighting methods not being added to the future games is if they don't release any more games.

You can't compair games like Farcry to OFP. When OFP came it didn't look anything like the other games such as CS which felt very plastic in comparison. With difuse maps you can make objects the opposite of shiny. Perpixel specular can make metal look and act like metal. Just check out the Game2 pics, they aren't perfect but they show were BIS is heading. I'm sure they know what they're doing. I know they will provide realistic high res textures along with normal maps.

I don't like games that has to feature all the latest things but most of these things were available back in 2001 when OFP was released so I don't really buy that it's increasing the HW requirements. Infact OFP has pushed the CPU and RAM requirements more than any game I know, and it's still pushing them four years later. Meanwhile the gfx's cards haven't done hardly any work at all so I think it's time to assign a task for them.

[Heatseeker 0]

Not sure if OPFR really "pushes" cpu/ram requirements, i think it just doesnt take advantage of them has the game is quite old and wasnt made with current hw taken into acount, all games that make use of latest graphics technology are rather... small (D3, fear), yet very demanding so it might be a while before we have oily models in OPF future engine versions .

I believe games that feature multiple texture layers tend to have squary models and art, (Doom3 ), possible compromise? Also developing a OPF sized game featuring those techniques would require a very long development cycle .

We are heading too much into the future here, i'll end up saying the latest 4 Aras pics look good enough to me, bump maps or not .

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]

That head is a good example, bump mapping or normal mapping might give impressive visual efects but if you just wrap it with a high resolution texture it will look more human and RL alike imo, also if BIS increased overall poly counts and texture resolutions for VBS models and still have it perform better than OPFR i see no reason why they would make their game shiny, blurry and squary.

Photorealistic textures impress me more than shiny plastic/metalic ones, call me old fashioned but i spent more time admiring the sharp looking textures applied to some Nogova buildings than i did looking at plastic looking Far Cry for some reason, its hard to explain.

For Normal mapping ingame, you need TWO textures, not one. The one displayed in the heads example is a lighting control file, you do not 'see' that texture, only the effects of filtering through it.

The other texture is your actual base texture. It can be a photo, or it can be an artificial construct, doesn't matter. The normal map only gives it depth.

If it's shiney, that's an issue with the engine lighting, and perhaps the sharpness detail of the normal maps.

[orange juice 0]

In case you haven´t seen it yet, here´s a link to Metal Gear Solid 4 Trailer.

This shows some normal map and other fancy stuff in quite an impressive way, if it is realtime which they claim it is. Those Konami guys always had cool cinematic cutscenes in their MGS games (if not the best at all), so definately worth watching. It has nothing to do with OFP of course, except it also is military themed, but still shows very well what can be done using top notch lighting methods.

edit: that trailer is also available on Gamespot / MGS 4 media section, if the konami link wouldn´t work...

[Heatseeker 0]

For Normal mapping ingame, you need TWO textures, not one. The one displayed in the heads example is a lighting control file, you do not 'see' that texture, only the effects of filtering through it.

The other texture is your actual base texture. It can be a photo, or it can be an artificial construct, doesn't matter. The normal map only gives it depth.

Im aware, it just seems comon for artists to use a lower resolution skin texture when normal mapping is used, same for bump mapping, results ive seen usualy simulate more depht to the surfaces at the expense of resolution and small details, not really sure why .

[xnodunitx 0]

These days imo pixel shaders and bump maps are a must,if ya want proof just do a google image search for "pixel shader 3.0" and you will be given an example between 2.0 and 3.0 split between two pictures,even if this was the only graphics upgrade they added it would definatly add alot especially considering that these effects only show up in certain lighting,just not something that shines so bright that it looks like plastic toys from Army Men running around with some color on em.

[llauma 0]

In case you haven´t seen it yet, here´s a link to Metal Gear Solid 4 Trailer.

This shows some normal map and other fancy stuff in quite an impressive way, if it is realtime which they claim it is. Those Konami guys always had cool cinematic cutscenes in their MGS games (if not the best at all), so definately worth watching. It has nothing to do with OFP of course, except it also is military themed, but still shows very well what can be done using top notch lighting methods.

edit: that trailer is also available on Gamespot / MGS 4 media section, if the konami link wouldn´t work...

Damn that's some crazy stuff. Everything looks smooth and perfect. At some points you can see that the models aren't high poly but if no one would have mentioned it I would had taken it for a rendered movie trailer for sure.

[xnodunitx 0]

Eh I saw a few pics of MGS4 the other day,big MGS fan. The shading on Otacons face looks amazing doesn't it? Its almost exactly like real life if ya think about it,wonder why Snake got so old and Otacon didn't age a bit though....

Pretty amazin how graphics are becommin huh? I wonder what they will look like in 07 or 10.

[EiZei 0]

Eh I saw a few pics of MGS4 the other day,big MGS fan.  The shading on Otacons face looks amazing doesn't it? Its almost exactly like real life if ya think about it,wonder why Snake got so old and Otacon didn't age a bit though....

Well.. I did mention in an another thread that the original MGS2 script mentioned something about Snake aging rapidly because of his genetic legacy. Did'nt make the game though.

Quote[/b] ]

Pretty amazin how graphics are becommin huh? I wonder what they will look like in 07 or 10.

Considering that PS3 is probably coming out in late 2006 or (more probably IMHO) 2007 it looks just like that in 2007.

[jakerod 254]

Quote[/b] ]Well.. I did mention in an another thread that the original MGS2 script mentioned something about Snake aging rapidly because of his genetic legacy. Did'nt make the game though.

*Looks at the name of the company the board belongs to*

*Looks at the name of the game the forum is for*

ArmA

[snoops_213 75]

Wow are we really hanging out that much for new info that we are starting do dribble shit about another game and how it looks, well OT.

Whatever they do to ArmA we will not be disappointed Im sure . The screenshots that we have so far look great(and getting better) and do beat what we're all playing now. As for what they implement we have to wait and see/ be told.

Visual improvements are not that high on my wish list(cant speak for the rest of you) however we can see obviously that they are, I just hope its not for eye candy and more to improve game play. I mean if they have moving creases and folds on soldiers uniforms great eye candy but if it slows the game down not worth it. I however trust BIS wont let us down