Increased view distance, quite stunning

[walker 0]

I don't think this modification will be useful for my low-end machine. If I set VD more than 1000, My arma will be a slide...

Hi all

In reply to inferno7312

Yes if you have not got got the money for a computer with a high end graphic card then like you; you will have to drop view distance to three times that of RV6, Fear and CS in order to play ArmA.

Of course if you have a mid range card such an X1950 pro with 256mb that cost 120 UK pounds or less rather than the 512mb XTX Dslyecxi has you will only be getting about 10 times the view distance of RV6, FEAR and CS. at around 3500m

Of course BIS could have prevented all the people who would not be able play ArmA at max view distance from playing it. That is what EA would have done.

But luckily for my laptop and me they went down the same route they did with OFP, I can play ArmA at Low settings and it is still beautiful and I have great games of Berzerk in MP for hours like I did last night.

They gave us a game like OFP that as the cost of high end computers goes down, halving in price every six months means you can play ArmA now and when you upgrade your computer you will still be playing ArmA. For the record OFP has been the only game I ever installed on 4 upgrades of computer; and ArmA will be the same.

So just like with OFP they future proofed ArmA.

I think we need to thank inferno7312 for pointing out ArmA still runs great on low end machines and thank Dslyecxi for showing those of us without a high end machine how good ArmA is with videos like this.

Here's a video of what it looks like flying a Harrier around with a 6km view distance.

http://ofp.umbr.net/videos/mar13_6km_vd.wmv

Kind Regards walker

[Blanco 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bart thats just your settings, a high spec machine running objects and textures at very high never see's these lods issues.

Fracry etc also has the same LOD issue. Zoom in and see stuff load basically and retexture.

Not really. I have the same issue with my X1950XTX 512 even with very high details.

It would be logical when trees become bigger (more leaves) when you zoom in and smaller (less leaves) when you zoom out.

When I stand on the runway in North Sahrani and I zoom in and look at the trees over there, the palmtrees become bigger and the leavetrees become thinner.

This effect increases with postprocess on high.

I doesn't really bother me, it's just weird...

[muska54 0]

loving that video.. but such smooth framerate , and 30fps without fraps on that setting!

i am lucky to get 30 fps with 1.2km view on anything exept low/verylow settings. And my machine is:

3.4ghz P4

8800gts 640mb

2gb PC5300 ram

hopefully theres a performance upgrade with that patch too.

As a pilot i am really looking forward to it thanks

[Odie3 0]

Wow, glad I read this post, since I have a 8800GTS and I thought I was going nuts on the view distance setting.

[bravo 6 0]

Here's a video of what it looks like flying a Harrier around with a 6km view distance.

http://ofp.umbr.net/videos/mar13_6km_vd.wmv

this should be the normal viewdistance in a normal computer with the normal settings required by BIS

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Here's a video of what it looks like flying a Harrier around with a 6km view distance.

http://ofp.umbr.net/videos/mar13_6km_vd.wmv

this should be the normal viewdistance in a normal computer with the normal settings required by BIS

It will be in a year or two.

[max power 21]

I hope that they finish supporting crossfire soon... then I will be able to enjoy this too!

[OFPDude 0]

Hey all...I've been experimenting with the arma profile cfg file in "MyDocuments/ArmA" and found some interesting setting which removes all that fog for increased distance viewing:

open the ArmA.cfg file in notepad and depending on your card (I have a Nvidia 7600) check the following setting:

HDRPrecision=8;

If its set to 8 then changing this to 16 will give a more foggy distanve view but much better HDR effects.

If its set to 16 then changing this to 8 will remove the fog for increased distance view but "fit inducing" HDR light effects.

I have not tried 0 or 32 yet. does anyone know what this setting really does or mean ?>

Another thing about the ArmA video settings I have noticed is that High Shadows give much better frame rates than Low/Medium Shadows.

[chipper 0]

Does this mean we can call in an orbital strike?

[Maximus_G 0]

When i increase the viewing distance, my fps get lower.

But if my view is obstructed with some close objects, trees for example, my fps still get lower. That's what it was like, at least in 1.02, when i've been testing it.

Hope it would be fixed.

[negator 0]

think i'll spend the cash i was saving on a flight sim X for a better graphics card

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]But if my view is obstructed with some close objects, trees for example, my fps still get lower. That's what it was like, at least in 1.02, when i've been testing it.

Hope it would be fixed.

It's probably because the extra geometry and objects cause a load on the cpu even when the gfx card doesn't render it. You still have to know where every potentially visible terrain feature and object is to work out what's obstructed and what's not.

Or it's just cheaper to render everything instead of checking for every single leave on every single tree if they happen to obstruct some distant objects.

[kiwi1234 0]

So just like with OFP they future proofed ArmA.

Walker, I have to disagree with you on this one, how do you explain the issues that abound with 8800 users and vista users also?

Future proofing is all well and good, but the 8800 architecture is the future of DX10 capable gaming, and it will be on Vista, so why does ArmA run on vista machines with 8800s like a drunken russian oiltanker captain, crashing into every iceberg it comes near?

We have problems with white fog which this improvement will enable us to see even more of, helpful.. not to mention all the crashes etc that came with 1.05. futureproofing isnt futureproffing if the software cant handle even current top end hardware.

just a thought...

hey anyone want to buy an 8800 gts? 10000m of white fog included....

[Metal Heart 0]

Poorly working Nvidia drivers and Vista's poor performance with games made for DX9 is hardly BIS' fault. ArmA box says that it requires Windows 2000 or Windows XP with DirectX 9, if it however runs at all in Vista you should be happy.

[BroK3n 0]

yup... it could most probably be because of vista not being so compatible with Arma. Arma wasnt developed when Vista was already in stores.

Guess we gotta wait for the testimonials of people with XP + 8800 cards + the next patch to find out if Vista really is the problem.

[Rofflecopter 0]

I've got xp and 8800gtx

I've got the white fog bug that makes it very soupy after about 1000m, no matter what distance I have it on.

I have got everything set to Very high apart from post process, shading and AA.

I get around 15-20fps in certain bushes and anywhere between 25 and 60 anywhere else.

[guerilla -MCY- 0]

so far there is no rig or system able to handle ArmA like it should be. OFP was also ahead of his time in gameplay but ArmA seems to be stuck somewhere in between dx9c and dx10. there is no vista support, it's not duo / quad optimized, 4 gigs of RAM are not needed etc..

The whole GFX think should lowered at least 30%, all gunfire sounds should be exchanged, the anim's are in a beta status of 50%, way to robotic and not resposive, real physic should be implemented with use of physic cards, a little bit more arcade wouldn't hurt as not everyone is into Coop.

the xbox version was released before the 360 came out, so to late and same goes for ArmA, 2007 is Vista 'n DX10. so when there is no rig able to handle ArmA with 10000 on high, what are those option there for then?

[dslyecxi 23]

guerilla,Mar. 22 2007,08:21]

Quote[/b] ]so far there is no rig or system able to handle ArmA like it should be. OFP was also ahead of his time in gameplay but ArmA seems to be stuck somewhere in between dx9c and dx10. there is no vista support, it's not duo / quad optimized, 4 gigs of RAM are not needed etc..

You're completely wrong. The rig I run ArmA on is perfectly capable of running it at 1600x1200 with good details. It looks great. There are plenty of other people who can run it just fine. DX10 means little right now. I've run ArmA on Vista with zero, repeat, ZERO problems. Dual or quad core support would be nice, but it's not a huge deal, and there's always the possibility of getting it in a patch in the future. 4GB of RAM shouldn't be a requirement for any games right now, I don't know why you even brought that up.

Quote[/b] ]The whole GFX think should lowered at least 30%

Uh, no?

Quote[/b] ]all gunfire sounds should be exchanged

Some sounds could be improved, but saying they should all be exchanged is so unrealistic and impractical that it's just a pie-in-the-sky "Golly gee, wouldn't it be swell?" naive thing to say.

Quote[/b] ] the anim's are in a beta status of 50%, way to robotic and not resposive

I don't think so. 50%? You're using a quite a bit of hyperbole to attempt to get your "point" across.

Quote[/b] ] real physic should be implemented with use of physic cards

You know, I got to this point and wondered why I was bothering with a reply to you. If you honestly believe that a physics card solution is even remotely practical, you have a complete lack of realistic perspective on computer gaming.

Quote[/b] ]a little bit more arcade wouldn't hurt as not everyone is into Coop.

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here aside from that you seem to want unrealistic gameplay in a game that is supposed to tout itself as a realistic experience.

Quote[/b] ]the xbox version was released before the 360 came out, so to late and same goes for ArmA, 2007 is Vista 'n DX10.

Not really. DX10 means little right now, same with Vista. You're far over-exaggerating things again.

Quote[/b] ]so when there is no rig able to handle ArmA with 10000 on high, what are those option there for then?

I would imagine it has something to do with being able to use them in a year or so when hardware has reached that level. Since the life cycle of ArmA is unquestionably longer than a year, it seems like a pretty logical thing to do. OFP was the same way. I can't believe you're complaining about forward-thinking, scalable visuals.

The fixed view distance stuff is fantastic. You should be happy to see it, and not just come in here and try to use it to springboard your way into a complaint post about the game.

[guerilla -MCY- 0]

ah your rig is capable, cool for you, i didn't spoke for your rig, i spoke for the mass and btw, i don't believe you're running it at 1600 on high with 60fps + except in the desert. i've a 6700 & 8800GTX OC compination and its far from being good.

If you like plastic bullet sounds, 20fps, Anim's that keep walking after you stoped, vehicles jumping 100 times like footballs than keep 1.05.

don't get me wrong, i love the game as you do, but if you're just into eye candy, you might just take a walk outside. i just think there are more important thinks than viewdistance right now and if arma would have been made to be used in 1-2 years, it would be dx10 and not in stores yet.

[Dallas 9]

OFP/ArmA were never about eyecandy. I don't need 10K viewdistances, but I'd like to lose the milky fog.

[Maddmatt 1]

guerilla @ Mar. 22 2007,17:06)]ah your rig is capable, cool for you, i didn't spoke for your rig, i spoke for the mass and btw, i don't believe you're running it at 1600 on high with 60fps + except in the desert. i've a 6700 & 8800GTX OC compination and its far from being good.

If you like plastic bullet sounds, 20fps, Anim's that keep walking after you stoped, vehicles jumping 100 times like footballs than keep 1.05.

don't get me wrong, i love the game as you do, but if you're just into eye candy, you might just take a walk outside. i just think there are more important thinks than viewdistance right now and if arma would have been made to be used in 1-2 years, it would be dx10 and not in stores yet.

If you seriously have a problem with the bullet sounds, then get a mod. Asking for all sounds to be changed in a patch is ridiculous.

As for the animations, they are fine. My character doesn't keep walking when I stop, you might have lag or something.

"i just think there are more important thinks than viewdistance right now"

Nobody said that this was the only thing going to be fixed, it was one of the issues in the game and I'm glad it's fixed. Obviously other issues are being fixed too .

"if arma would have been made to be used in 1-2 years, it would be dx10 and not in stores yet."

WTF are you talking about? The game runs fine on current systems, even on a 6600GT. The highest settings will be used on future hardware (think of dual 8800 systems, surely they could handle 10k or close to it - when driver issues get sorted out). Would you prefer the "normal" settings for the game to be the limit so that you can be running on the highest settings and feel all special?

Changing everything to DX10 would be loads of work, it's not just a matter of pressing a button.

Personally I can run the game just fine with a viewdistance at 4k.

Asking for graphics to be forced down for everyone just so that you can have them at "max" and feel all special is just dumb.

[BroK3n 0]

mmm i dont get that "still running without any buttons pressed" thing on my main comp. On my old Acer laptop i did though. Mustve been the CPU or RAM not being enough.

The sound in Arma is fine... plenty of mods out there like FDF's that are small in size to download.

Eye candy? Arma with shadows on high = whoa hoho hohoooo!!!! Nice.

[Scrub 0]

I get the occasional extra step or two when I try to stop cold from a sprint, but I expect that.. That happens to me IRL chasing my kids

Jogging and walking have no such issues for me.

[max power 21]

guerilla @ Mar. 22 2007,16:06)]ah your rig is capable, cool for you, i didn't spoke for your rig, i spoke for the mass and btw, i don't believe you're running it at 1600 on high with 60fps + except in the desert. i've a 6700 & 8800GTX OC compination and its far from being good.

If you like plastic bullet sounds, 20fps, Anim's that keep walking after you stoped, vehicles jumping 100 times like footballs than keep 1.05.

don't get me wrong, i love the game as you do, but if you're just into eye candy, you might just take a walk outside. i just think there are more important thinks than viewdistance right now and if arma would have been made to be used in 1-2 years, it would be dx10 and not in stores yet.

I've an x850 and 4400+, oc'd somewhat. It runs fine for me, averages just over 30fps with a 4000m view distance and most things on normal or low. I'm not sure what your problem is in terms of performance. I find the game to look very good and perform adequately.

Noone needs 10,000m view distance. Not even il2 has that. It would be nice to simulate the terminal effectiveness of some missiles and stuff but really. The argument that this game sucks because you can't max out every setting is stupendously inane.

If you're looking for more arcadiness, better performance and better graphics with a higher view distance, you can get 3 / 4 and play one of the battlefield titles. I hear that the project realism mod is something.

OFP lasted much longer than DX8, so that last argument is right out.

[d3dsh33p 0]

soo.. who here has played on just cause's 1400 square mile island?

cuz uhh it's pretty nice