Latest screenshots available

[sniper pilot 36]

I never noticed how good ArmA smoke is until d034rk posted thoses screenshots. It is impressive compared to what we were used to and because of that i'm happy with it.

Yes thank you man, I thought somthings not right, when really that somthing was OFP!

[teacup 2]

About the smoke.. I don't like it.

It looks too "realistic" for the rest of the game.

I wait to see it in motion, but there is a reason why I don't use John's Fire & Smoke effects.

MfG Lee

I have to agree with that. It's not game-real, it's photo-real - and it stands out.

Honestly, i'm underwhelmed by the looks of the game. Judging by the screenshots, it will look much like the current OFP. Sure, normalmaps here, higher res there, it's all great! But visually, the game still doesn't shine. And my major beef here is with the shading/lighting.  Just as with OFP, éverything seems to be made from the same dull material: ground, cars, human flesh, clothing, plants, asphalt, etc.. Given the nature and scope of the game, they can't have uber-expensive shaders, fancy shadows or pre-rendered light and whatnot, But still..

Maybe it's all that eyecandy E3 brought with it this year that's clouding my reason, but these are my 2 cents. Peace.  

[sniper pilot 36]

About the smoke.. I don't like it.

It looks too "realistic" for the rest of the game.

I wait to see it in motion, but there is a reason why I don't use John's Fire & Smoke effects.

MfG Lee

I have to agree with that. It's not game-real, it's photo-real - and it stands out.

Honestly, i'm underwhelmed by the looks of the game. Judging by the screenshots, it will look much like the current OFP. Sure, normalmaps here, higher res there, it's all great! But visually, the game still doesn't shine. And my major beef here is with the shading/lighting. Just as with OFP, éverything seems to be made from the same dull material: ground, cars, human flesh, clothing, plants, asphalt, etc.. Given the nature and scope of the game, they can't have uber-expensive shaders, fancy shadows or pre-rendered light and whatnot, But still..

Maybe it's all that eyecandy E3 brought with it this year that's clouding my reason, but these are my 2 cents. Peace.

Hey if you want a pretty picture... PAINT ONE! this is war, not some Teletubies fun house like BF2... lmao

[Scrub 0]

Oh that's funny.    I hope that the high texture dirt only lasts for the expansion phase of the explosion, and softens quickly to 3D if it IS only 2D... Didn't think how bad the billboard type cloud is when moving around it.

[Heatseeker 0]

Honestly, i'm underwhelmed by the looks of the game. Judging by the screenshots, it will look much like the current OFP. Sure, normalmaps here, higher res there, it's all great! But visually, the game still doesn't shine. And my major beef here is with the shading/lighting. Just as with OFP, éverything seems to be made from the same dull material: ground, cars, human flesh, clothing, plants, asphalt, etc.. Given the nature and scope of the game, they can't have uber-expensive shaders, fancy shadows or pre-rendered light and whatnot, But still..

Maybe it's all that eyecandy E3 brought with it this year that's clouding my reason, but these are my 2 cents. Peace.

I like the OPFR lighting and how it affects the "world" depending on weather conditions and day time (even time of year), wich are dynamic unlike 97% other games.

The artwork and texturing in the Arma pics is above average, i mean everything you can see from a single tree or bush up to a building, a soldier, weapon or vehicle is high poly and textured acordingly. Lets forget we are talking about a graphics engine that can and will give you expensive outdoor terrain and cities, forests, etc in real time for a moment.. What is wrong with the Arma graphics?

This is not the first time someone throws coments like this and i honestly dont find anything wrong other than some WIP bugs. Some say that they dont mind and graphics arent a priority because the game is very big and realistic .

Whats really wrong with the graphics?

What greatness have you seen at E3? I dont remember seeing anything groundbreaking or even very interesting for that matter..

I think Arma has killer graphics, can someone prove me wrong?

[.pablo. 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is not the first time someone throws coments like this and i honestly dont find anything wrong other than some WIP bugs. Some say that they dont mind and graphics arent a priority because the game is very big and realistic  .

Whats really wrong with the graphics?

What greatness have you seen at E3? I dont remember seeing anything groundbreaking or even very interesting for that matter..

I think Arma has killer graphics, can someone prove me wrong?

the problem is that you are looking at Arma's graphics from the perspective of current generation technology, while teacup is looking at the graphics from the perspective of the next-generation technology that will be found in the flashiest games when Arma is released (such as crysis).  such games have very resource-demanding lighting/shadowing effects (just watch a crysis video to understand what i'm talking about); so from that perspective, no, Arma does not look very realistic.

i personally think its ludicrous to look at Arma's graphics from that perspective, given the huge difference in nature between the two types of games (i'd like to see crysis extend those fancy lighting effects out 2km), but that is just the kind of thinking you are going to be getting from the mainstream gamer.  that's why i think BIS should forget the graphics, and improve the engine and gameplay.  the mod community has done a fantastic job creating pretty graphics, but they can't (for example) set ofp to use terrain LODs so that we can play with higher viewdistances; only BIS can do that. the mod community can't make AI that seek out hard cover and fire from behind it; only BIS can do that. the mod community can't play with the game code so that rivers, streams, and water on multiple elevations is possible; only BIS can do that. so BIS: forget the ever-present graphics-whores and work on what will really make OFP stand out from the pack.

[aus_twisted 0]

About the smoke.. I don't like it.

It looks too "realistic" for the rest of the game.

I wait to see it in motion, but there is a reason why I don't use John's Fire & Smoke effects.

MfG Lee

I have to agree with that. It's not game-real, it's photo-real - and it stands out.

Honestly, i'm underwhelmed by the looks of the game. Judging by the screenshots, it will look much like the current OFP. Sure, normalmaps here, higher res there, it's all great! But visually, the game still doesn't shine. And my major beef here is with the shading/lighting.  Just as with OFP, éverything seems to be made from the same dull material: ground, cars, human flesh, clothing, plants, asphalt, etc.. Given the nature and scope of the game, they can't have uber-expensive shaders, fancy shadows or pre-rendered light and whatnot, But still..

Maybe it's all that eyecandy E3 brought with it this year that's clouding my reason, but these are my 2 cents. Peace.  

You must be blind because it looks nothing like the current OFP no matter what mods you use, the shadows and lighting is far better.

[Cpt Viper 0]

.pablo., you're absolutely right. Graphics are not a priority, gameplay is what it's all about, graphics are just a nice little extra.

Sure, it's an excellent little extra if the graphics are indeed good, they add to the realism, but the main point will always be gameplay.

By the look of things, BIS has already done a great job on the graphics, let's hope they also improved the gameplay, AI, etc etc.

But I'm sure that'll be ok.

- Viper

[Potatomasher 0]

If the latest screens really represent the final state of the graphics, i'm very happy with that. BIS has been able to imprvove gfx from the E3 amazingly fast. It wasn't long ago when i watched those videos from simhq and thought "my god that looks just like old OFP". Now it looks like new game like it should.

BIS stop listenening all the whiners(not that you have) and use your time in fixing the bugs, improving the AI and animations.

[[aps]gnat 28]

BIS stop listenening all the whiners(not that you have) and use your time in fixing the bugs, improving the AI and animations.

... and fix up a few script commands as well as add a couple of missed ones

[Blanco 0]

Quote[/b] ]...when Arma is released (such as crysis). such games have very resource-demanding lighting/shadowing effects (just watch a crysis video to understand what i'm talking about); so from that perspective, no, Arma does not look very realistic.

Yeah, I saw that video, physics are impresive but what's the viewdistance in Crysis?

200-300m?

[maxqubit 1]

OFP:E was already a 'living' game with bees, waves, waving grass, etc. In comparison standard OFP feels dead. In OFP:E the immersion was there + Midgame joining, collision detection ok, + more.

Now ArmA will offer the same with higher res, higher viewdistance, more units, better animations/models (+ full blown editor, + mods + TrackIR)

My god, what more do you want?????

I just want ArmA Now! (i mean asap;)

[GBee 0]

the problem is that you are looking at Arma's graphics from the perspective of current generation technology, while teacup is looking at the graphics from the perspective of the next-generation technology that will be found in the flashiest games when Arma is released (such as crysis). such games have very resource-demanding lighting/shadowing effects (just watch a crysis video to understand what i'm talking about); so from that perspective, no, Arma does not look very realistic.

Am I the only one who thinks Arma looks more realistic, at least in lighting and finish, than Crysis?

I'll grant that Crysis has amazing graphics, but in all the screenshots/videos I've seen everything has an unrealistic gloss/shine. The lighting is far too intense. The real world is more matt than gloss.

Where Crysis does beat Arma is in the density and level of detail of objects. Whether it's vegetation, a building or just ground debris crysis has the details down and that's what you are really noticing not the lighting/textures etc

Take for example forests. In one of the early Crysis videos it showed a jungle forest with fallen trees and branches in various states of decay, realistic undergrowth, climbers, leaves on the ground and saplings. OFP Forests and what little we've seen of Arma forests have little/none of those things.

Buildings are a similar story, in Crysis there is a shack similar to the one we recently saw in the second TIR video. This shack looks like it is made of a thousand individual parts and would collapse if you blew hard enough, you see chicken wire, corrogated iron, planks of different widths, objects leaned up against it, all the different parts textured individually etc The Arma shack has none of this detail.

Everyone who said graphics is not a priority is right. Level of detail is not a priority either but IMHO it should be a higher priority than graphics. It would do more to make Arma look realistic than any further tweaking of the graphics engine.

Edit: As pointed out, level of detail is more correct than attention to detail.

[stegman 3]

]Am I the only one who thinks Arma looks more realistic, at least in  lighting and finish, than Crysis?

I'll grant that Crysis has amazing graphics, but in all the screenshots/videos I've seen everything has an unrealistic gloss/shine. The lighting is far too intense. The real world is more matt than gloss.....etc

No, your not the only one who thinks so.  They look almost cartoony, while ArmA looks...'dirty', if you will.

Also, come on guys, it looks pretty good.  No it doesn't look exactly realistic.  Thats becouse its a game and not actually real.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Agreed. The only thing they have to fix would be the weapons. The scale and textures are kinda' out of place IMO (Maybe they're working on it, I dunno)

[max power 21]

Where Crysis does beat Arma is in the density and attention to detail of objects. Whether it's vegetation, a building or just ground debris crysis has the details down and that's what you are really noticing not the lighting/textures etc

Take for example forests. In one of the early Crysis videos it showed a jungle forest with fallen trees and branches in various states of decay, realistic undergrowth, climbers, leaves on the ground and saplings. OFP Forests and what little we've seen of Arma forests have little/none of those things.

Buildings are a similar story, in Crysis there is a shack similar to the one we recently saw in the second TIR video. This shack looks like it is made of a thousand individual parts and would collapse if you blew hard enough, you see chicken wire, corrogated iron, planks of different widths, objects leaned up against it, all the different parts textured individually etc The Arma shack has none of this detail.

Everyone who said graphics is not a priority is right. Attention to detail is not a priority either but IMHO it should be a higher priority than graphics. It would do more to make Arma look realistic than any further tweaking of the graphics engine.

I think you're confusing attention to detail with level of detail. Computer game development is a game of checks and balances. Just because they didn't choose to put that level of detail in doesn't mean they accidentally forgot. I think that the level of detail that they chose to render their towns and forests in have more to do with presentation priorities and gameplay / performance issues.

[Commando84 0]

true, true Bis tries to make games that work not games that only a few rich people with uber gaming machines can play

[Chaos 0]

Hello people!

If you wan´t to see three new Armed-Assault screenies from the GC2006 in Leipzig (Germany) then visit http://www.ofpmdb.net/

<span style='color:red'>Please don´t public these screenshots on o your sites/newssites before the 24th August 2006</span>

[lwlooz 0]

Well, In my opinion I can understand why there are so many people asking for "Crysis"-like graphics or at least hoping for them.On first sight the comparison seems silly since Crysis and his friends are FPS-games while OPF/Arma-series claims to be a "First person military combat simulation" which obviously is a complete different thing. Yet BIS sometimes seems confused itself what they are doing and thus ArmA and probably future games will get the priority in being appealing to said mainstream FPS gamer rather than to resident Sim Gamer who is all interested in having the most realistic

tactical warfare on a large scale rather than a 20 hour cinematic experience like in your standard FPS game.

[Spoock 3]

NICE

Striker by wood is perfect - ArmA get near GAME2 - GAME2 have Next gen graphic, but ArmA is very near

I WANT DEMO or NEW INGAME movie

[Potatomasher 0]

Hello people!

If you wan´t to see three new Armed-Assault screenies from the GC2006 in Leipzig (Germany) then visit http://www.ofpmdb.net/

<span style='color:red'>Please don´t public these screenshots on o your sites/newssites before the 24th August 2006</span>

THX a lot !

BIS ! Release the ArmA allready !

I drool all over the keyboard every time i see new screens.

[kernriver 4]

Hello people!

If you wan´t to see three new Armed-Assault screenies from the GC2006 in Leipzig (Germany) then visit

Screenshots look great, but i'm still not comfortable with that soldier aiming SAW like that. I've never held it so i wouldn't know, but is it possible to aim it like that from kneeling position AND be accurate? It weights around 9 kg, right?

[bravo 6 0]

very impressive.

[GBee 0]

I think you're confusing attention to detail with level of detail. Computer game development is a game of checks and balances. Just because they didn't choose to put that level of detail in doesn't mean they accidentally forgot. I think that the level of detail that they chose to render their towns and forests in have more to do with presentation priorities and gameplay / performance issues.

You're right that "level of detail" is more appropriate than "attention to detail".

My point was not that Arma isn't detailed enough but rather that a better looking game can achieved by focusing on level of detail instead of graphic engine tricks.

The level of detail also has an affect on gameplay where graphics doesn't. I'd gladly sacrifice some of the graphical touches to have more detail and I reckon many people would believe it looked better, not worse.

Not that I'm criticising Arma or BIS, or asking them to make changes at this late stage. I'll be quite happy with the game in it's current state (even though I'll sob for a minute at the lack of rivers).

[snuffles 0]

All those screenshots look very nice indeed.

Though I should point out the strange looking particles with dust flying through the air (in GC_beta_56.jpg), looks like johns fire 'n smoke. It's all good though.

=====

Did a few people who posted before me not read past some other peoples' posts' first paragraphs' (i.e. the crysis side of view, from .pablo.), You seemed to have taken that way out of context...He explained he doesn't support this in the second paragraph...and points out a few good reasons why he doesn't support this.

I'm talking about GBee @ .pablo. from before...