Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
coderdfox

ArmA Photography

Recommended Posts

It may be a bit to much to hope for, but since the TOW missle is now using the ITAS targeting system on many platforms I really hope it is guided and modeled after that system.

Just some pointless trivia: The US Army did contract for the development of the TOW-FF Fire and Forget Missle but canceled the project in 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick question - what model of GBU are the Harriers carrying? I thought they were GBU16s, but after closer examination I may be wrong.

Just need to know so I can keep working on my custom stringtables.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are definitely GBU-16, 1000lb LGBs. The shape and colour of GBU-12s is different, look :

GBU-12

gbu12.jpg

GBU-16

LP0093.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No way, in that first pic wouldn't you say it looks like almost just like a blurred background. It's really intense for in the game, but then again, I've never played it tounge2.gif

I'd just have to say it looks a lot like what someone can do with Photoshop.

I remember a mod and developer saying there was a command in AA when it comes to taking images with the camera,a kind of "setfocus" and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, if you have the ability to control the focus, then think of the possibilities ; CS gas, flashbangs, all sorts of visual disabilities a soldier could suffer in battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Color dose not really designate the unit as i have seen many combinations of grey and green on either the warhead or the guidane control unit on the nose.

The real difference is the size of the warhead. For the GBU-12 it uses the Mk 82 (500lb.), and for the GBU-16 it uses the Mk 83 (1,000 lb.) warhead. The size difference is the most obvious characteristic, though not clearly evident unless looking at both.

I believe the grey or green color scheme may be related to Navy or Army/Airforce use of the actual warhead. I believe for the Navy it is called the BLU-(something) instead of the Mk-(whatever) but I'm really not sure of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, the colour can also tell whether the bomb itself is a live or training round, but there is an obvious difference in shape and size between the two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yeah, the colour can also tell whether the bomb itself is a live or training round, but there is an obvious difference in shape and size between the two

The basic shape between the two is the same. One is just smaller. The only differnce in shape in the Paveway II's is the warhead used by other European countries.

In the Naval configuration (as acurately displayed on the Harrier) the best way to tell the difference between a live laser guided and training laser guided round is the size. The LGTR Laser Guided Training Round can be used to train for the GBU-10 up to the GBU-16.

The training round has no "bulge" in the middle and is basiclly just a cylinder along the length. The Navy has adopted this training round but the Army/Airforce is reluctant...or so says those who make it.

Isn't it amazing what one can find on the internet in a few minutes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

talking about bomb, sorry for ot but a short question:

will Arma have better support on the old style dumb bomb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you again, Gart! You've helped me out alot smile_o.gif I'm gonna buy me a widescreen for sure. Your specs are also not far from mine.
Nice res and quality but what about FPS?
Quote[/b] ]And "hot" blur efect wink_o.gif

]http://img212.imageshack.us/img212....]

Very nice effect but only 15 fps in a cutscene?

1. Sorry for my english wink_o.gif

I searched optimal settings but with resolution 1680x 1050 it´s problem huh.gif

I made small test:

Settings Very High, postprocess high - high quality , but only 7 fps icon_rolleyes.gif

Test screen

Other screens:

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/5052/arma2006111722553849vg4.jpg

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3944/arma2006111720593517zz3.jpg

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/320/arma2006111721023142rq8.jpg

Very high settings ,postprocess low

Test screen

Test screen2

High settings ,postprocess low

Test screen

Test screen 2

Normal settings - I'm playing with this settings in editor, only simple mission , FPS is 15 - 20 (in forrest and big city is only 10-15 FPS)

Test screen

Test screen 2

Other screens

Bluefor,Hmwv,Uaz

Pilot in MI-17

MI-17 interior

Opfor sniper

Low settings, azinotrop filter. and anti-aliasing disable

Test screen

Test screen 2

Very low settings, azinotrop filter. and anti-aliasing disable

Test screen

I can play the official campaign with 20-30 Fps in wide 1680x 1050 only with low and very low settings , but it doesn´t look good.

Optimal setting for my computer is this:

1280x1024 ,normal settings

Test screen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gart... OMFG! WTF? What are your pc-specs? If I would image ArmA runs with 7 fps ... Wow I would kill myself... That is crazy... You make me fear that my pc won't handle it!

3Ghz

1Gb ram

X1600 pro 256mb

What would ya say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err...guys remember that you don't have to run the game in "Highest settings physically possible" mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1680x1050 is to high res for a 6800GS and the 3000+ doesn't help much either at such resolutions.

But still some nice screenshots though smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Gart... OMFG! WTF? What are your pc-specs? If I would image ArmA runs with 7 fps ... Wow I would kill myself... That is crazy... You make me fear that my pc won't handle it!

3Ghz

1Gb ram

X1600 pro 256mb

What would ya say?

Just look at Gart's sig:

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ , GeForce 6800 GS , 2 x DDR 512MB 433MHZ CL2.5 Kingmax , DFI NF4-Ultra-Infinity ,

Samsung SpinPoint SP2504C - 250GB SATA II , Sound Blaster Audigy 4

He has an average computer, but can still run the game in normal with a resolution of 1280 by 1024.

I've got a comp with an:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+

Geforce 6800 GS

2 gig of dual channel ram

Same video cart, but faster cpu and ram.

So im not worried, if Gart can run the game in normal biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would ya say?

I'd say change your pants and calm down. It'll be fine, and a demo will be out before too long to reassure you. tounge2.gif

Also, loads of thanks to Gart. Now we can all know exactly what to expect, graphically.k I'm suspecting that I'll probably be running the game on normal, which doesn't look too shabby at all, but we'll see...

I also remember a lot of complaining about the soldiers' eyes looking "dead" in one of the official videos BIS released. I see now that this "dead-eye" effect only occurs in like the lowest settings, so that's good to know now, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gart You are same person as oneoff ?

as he posts exactly same message content with pictures and settings in different topic ...

if You original author then fine otherwise people get bit "dizzy" about what pictures are taken at what specs smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was a great assessment of detail vs. game speed knowing computer hardware.

I was really hoping someone could do the same for VIEW DISTANCE. The big thing for me is view distance.. I love a LONG view distance.

Can some of our Czech friends do an assessment with detail and view distance vs. FPS. Of course PLEASE post your CPU specs so we can compare with our own.

Thanks!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Awesome pics Forrestal.

Thanks for sharing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×