Visibility

[NeMeSiS 11]

Quote[/b] ]ofpforum Posted on Nov. 18 2005,23:53

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you please use a normal image host like imageshack.us or something?  

here it is

http://img448.imageshack.us/my.php?image=500010nl.jpg

seem like the quality is bad after i had it in paint.

Yes well, i dont think that BIS expected anyone to run this game with that viewdistance, so they probably didnt spend much time on that LOD

[t80 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes well, i dont think that BIS expected anyone to run this game with that viewdistance, so they probably didnt spend much time on that LOD

yes an that probobly explain why bullets dissapear in 2500m to i think. anyway hope somone from BIS read this sometime and get inspired, so if everyone vote for 10000m maybe they could go halv the way and give us 5

poll here

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=49102

[llauma 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes well, i dont think that BIS expected anyone to run this game with that viewdistance, so they probably didnt spend much time on that LOD  

yes an that probobly explain why bullets dissapear in 2500m to i think. anyway hope somone from BIS read this sometime and get inspired, so if everyone vote for 10000m maybe they could go halv the way and give us 5

poll here

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=49102

Why would anyone need to fire a bullet at a distance of 2500m?

This example shows me killing a T80 slightly over 3000m's away with full gunner zoom.

That's how high I had to aim to hit it with a Sabot. At that distance it's really hard to have the precision to hit it even when you have calibrated your aim for that distance. Requiring that the game supports tank battles at 5000m is pointless as no one would hit anything anyway.

This isn't a tank sim where the details can be sacrificed to get a realistic view distance. When I play as a infantry and move inside a house I want to be able to turn on the lights and see a room which looks like someone's home. OFP is on a big scale already great, it's the details which needs most work.

[Jinef 2]

On a very clear day in reality you can see about 40 miles.

On a clear day in reality you can see about 26 miles.

On a normal day maybe 20 miles

On a slightly misty/overcast day say maybe 10 miles

On a very overcast day say maybe 5 miles

Below 5 miles is pretty IFR territory and pilots try to avoid flying in it.

.........................

The greater the view distance the better. Engagements where you have to move to get into range add a whole new element. Than simply blasting away as soon as you see the enemy.

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]tank battles at 5000m is pointless as no one would hit anything anyway.

They would with proper sights and possibly even a fire control computer. And with AT missiles, like the ones on BMPs, not to mention aircraft. I don't really see any reason why >5km view distances wouldn't be realistic, useful and possible.

[llauma 0]

Quote[/b] ]tank battles at 5000m is pointless as no one would hit anything anyway.

They would with proper sights and possibly even a fire control computer. And with AT missiles, like the ones on BMPs, not to mention aircraft. I don't really see any reason why >5km view distances wouldn't be realistic, useful and possible.

The area covered by 5000m view distance is around 30 times as big as the area covered by the standard 900m from resistance. So even though there are lods and perhaps many other resource saving features in the next generation engine, having 5000m+ real view distance (where you can actually see everything and not just the ground) would probably mean that the game would have less detail than CWC.

If you really must play a realistic tank sims then try a game which is especially made for that. Those who wan't a very detailed tactical shooter should try something from the rainbow six series. OFP and the future games from BIS are games which offers the whole spectrum so they have to compromise to make it possible.

The only possible solution would be if BIS released a infantry sim, tank sim, helo sim and a flight sim which would be compatible with each other. So when playing the flight sim version you can't get out of the plane and when playing the infantry part you can't enter planes. The level of detail would alter between those versions. This might be a cool thing but I don't think it would work in a game, maybe in a training tool such as VBS.

[Spy17 1]

For me the high vievdistance in OFP is one of the most important aspects of the game.

To make the several weapon systems more realistic and enjoyable to play a bigger viewdistance would be great!

I would prefer an OFP with todays graphics and just improved AI physics and viewdistance over a just better looking game.

I would for example like to play ground units in a flight simulator world (Falcon4).

But thats just a gameplay viewpoint the game would probably not sell good enough.

I think BIS has the spirit to make the right decissions here!

It is what makes OFP stand out!

[Metal Heart 0]

Well, that's where we're different. I don't care that much about flashy graphics, like detailed soldier models with straps on their helmets that wave in the wind and stuff like that.

But I must disagree once again that >5km would automaticly mean CWC-esque graphics. Not today and especially not in the year 2007, or whenever Game2 is coming, and if the engine is designed for the task. See Söldner for example, it wouldn't be that big step up from there.

I just tried OFP on an island without objects out of curiosity, it runs perfectly on my old pc with 5km view distance.

[Maddmatt 1]

The area covered by 5000m view distance is around 30 times as big as the area covered by the standard 900m from resistance. So even though there are lods and perhaps many other resource saving features in the next generation engine, having 5000m+ real view distance (where you can actually see everything and not just the ground) would probably mean that the game would have less detail than CWC.

If you really must play a realistic tank sims then try a game which is especially made for that. Those who wan't a very detailed tactical shooter should try something from the rainbow six series. OFP and the future games from BIS are games which offers the whole spectrum so they have to compromise to make it possible.

The only possible solution would be if BIS released a infantry sim, tank sim, helo sim and a flight sim which would be compatible with each other. So when playing the flight sim version you can't get out of the plane and when playing the infantry part you can't enter planes. The level of detail would alter between those versions. This might be a cool thing but I don't think it would work in a game, maybe in a training tool such as VBS.

Just because the area is 30 times bigger doesnt mean that much more will be rendered. A green bush on green grass isn't really going to be visible at 2000m, so it wont be rendered. OFP is not optomised that well at all, so with alot of optomisation, and more powerfull pcs (we wont have game 2 before Q4 2006), a viewdistance of 10k may be possible. At more than 3k not many of the objects will need to be rendered because they wont be visible anyway. And why would the game need less detail than CWC to have such a high viewdistance? Thats what LODs are for, and, as I already said, not everything needs to be rendered. Maybe BIS will also create terrain LOD, which may help create a longer viewdistance.

And what have you got against OFP becoming more realistic for tanks? Just making the tank battles more realistic wont turn it into a sim. Besides, some long distance tank battles would be pretty cool. OFP is realistic and why would you want the vehicles to stay arcadish? As it is, OFPs tank battles aren't that great.

[ebns72 0]

Check out any $100k+ REAL sim to see how OFP is already better in some regards.

* Maximum terrain resolution in OFP is 50m by default. Conversely, MilSim FS's are typically 100m minimum.

* Object viewability is lod'ed by distance in both. The only difference is the object count (typically limited by instancing), and optimization. For a crappy video showing an abuse of Speedtree in a commercial sim, check this out : CIGI Explosion. Note the uniform 'movement'.

Zoeldner however does have a visually appealing aspect, that is it appears to blur lod's together rather than step them. This is clearly a performance tradeoff compared to stepping, but could be compensated in instancing.

* CIGI Speedtree 'forests' These are dynamicly region placed, and not accurately positionable from RL data. Also note the long range object view clipping. The terrain looks great off in the distance doesn't it?

* Here's an aerial shot, this is going to make great ground textures right?

CIGI St. Louis

Wrong. This is what it looks like at helicopter flight view levels CIGI closer view Now suppose you're a little soldier running around down in those trees, perhaps a mere 2D PIXELLATED SPRITE as is common, one pixel of stretched texture might cover the same 50m.sq size of an OFP texture at 512x512, or even 2048x2048 pixels.

If i read your post right, this is a FLIGHT SIM. you cannot compare a ground infantry game and a flight sim.

[nx_illusion 0]

I hope the visibility is not less then 5000m, so it will be possible with more realistic wars,tanks,choppers,snipers, and so u can see the difference between a tank and car at that distance, not just black dots. it would give time to prepare ambush of different kind. loading time is NP for me, i can wait 2-3 mins, 10 if i have to. and i like OFPR how it is now, to bad it only use 600-700/RAM, i tried with BF2, and it use 1200-1300/RAM so a game of OFP size i think 4000-8000 RAM. its cheap everyone can buy it. sorry for my english.

1200-1300, 4000-8000 RAM?

LOL!!!

[LoTekK 0]

For visibility, I'd definitely like to see some sort of LODing for the terrain. Right now terrain gets rendered at exactly the same detail whether it's right in front of you, or 5km away and shrouded in fog.

Of course, I assume the reason for this is that the terrain detail greatly affects the vertical positioning of things (stand somewhere on a hill and change the terrain detail from very low to very high to see what I mean). If that could be nicely approximated in a terrain LODing system, that would be a nice performance boost in and of itself.