ARMA HD to lowres in Pictures

[dirtylarrygb 0]

hmm viral marketing on it's best ...

now ... some1 should finally post pic from R600

Let me state, in an earler thread an ATI user posted pics from a 1950 card and right now they look BETTER, as they don't have the fog bug the 8800 suffers from.

An 8800 or R600 should both run Arma with eye candy at high res. A 7 series or 1950 can do the same at smaller res and less AA, not a problem if you run a small monitor but a huge problem if you move to large LCD. A few years ago alot fo people asked why on earth any graphics card would need to do 1280x1024 as 800x600 was fine....

322 LCDs now start at 380 pounds, very soon 32" LCD's may become the defacto standard size for Games PC's. Even dell, alienware, Commodore etc are starting to try and include large LCD's with mid-high spec kit. Until the 8800 this was an issue as current GPU's started to struggle at high res with AA. As you have seen in this thread people have stated you don't need AA.

Run a game at 32" LCD 1 foot from your eyes for a day with aa off then see how fast you turn it back on.

I'm not an nvidia, ati, intel or amd fan. I have just moved back to intel after years of AMD CPU's I would move to ATi if it was a better card at the same price. I upgrade every 6-12 months and go for the best performance GPU I can afford and a resonable CPU. I have stuck with soundblasters since my 486 PC I have found many problems with onboard sound in the last few years.

This thread is about how good arma can look and what you need to get the best from it now not in 12 months, and most probably use it as a benchmark for Games like Crysis and Alan Wake that are on their way and about to break 60% of the PC's currently sitting on people desks that are considered "Games PC's".

There is alot of fuss how good the PS3 is right now, the PS3 version of oblivion does look better than the xbox360 version. But both look like shite compared to it running on my PC. Joke is my PC did not cost much more than my PS3 and it can type letters, edit photos etc and play Games.

I was worried for a while games like Gears of War, Dead Rising, Lost Planet showed just how good the next gen consoles could be and in general looked as good as anything PC games have done for the last 12-24 months. With ARMA all that has changed the PC just jumped ahead again. Crysis and Alan Wake push the PC far ahead again later this year. But for the last year PC gaming felt it was all about the SIM's and WOW with the odd decent RTS, the consoles were taking over.

You want to know how good ARMA looks and plays? I got a PS3 this weekend, I spent 30 mins playing the racing game going "oh arrr nice physics and dust" Then me and my mates played ARMA for 2 days. My mates all vowing to get decent PC's as they want to play ARMA. My new PS3 right now is a cheapo' Blueray player. Amusingly 2 of my mates played Gears of war more on my Xbox 360 than they played the racing game on the PS3.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

HDR set at 8 in arma.cfg

HDR set at 32 in arma.cfg (16 looks the same in a screenshot).

At 8 bit HDR you get the sexy sun flare, fun for a few hours but generally blinds you alot.

At 16 bit the flare goes but actual HDR ligthing effects resemble a decent video camera iris. Looking at the sun then looking away, leads to 3-5 seconds of the HDR effect brightingning up. At 8 bit the effect is far more sharp and works like a camera on mobile phone. At 32 the sunflare is still gone, but suddenly HDR becomes very realistic, there is a very gradual fade up or down when you look into the sun and look away, like a professional HD video camera not the instant effect of 8 bit.

I didn't notice any FPS drop between 8/16/32, so I'm not sure how it affects perfomance, it may be worth trying on your machine to see.

[Maddmatt 1]

...I have to turn off Post Process and Lower Terrain to Low and set VIS to 3km....

Post processing has a very small performance impact on my 7800GT, so I keep it on high. It can probably be regarded as a bug if it has a big impact on an 8800.

[paragraphic l 2]

When I turn postprocess to 32 in the config it resets it self back to 16, I have a 6800GO (slowest off this serie I believe) and it has HDR 32bit support so I should be able to do this, can you check if you really have 32 and it does not go back to 16

For me the only thing that affects my performance is PostProcess and grass, I have grass off and PP on Low and gained 15fps, playing with 30fps. I do have Objects on Normal and Tex on Low as I do run out of memory, the rest is on highest settings and have 3K view distance at 1024*768

Intel Pentium M 740 / 1.73 GHz

1024MB DDR II SDRAM

NVIDIA GeForce Go 6800 256MB (overclocked)

[dirtylarrygb 0]

...I have to turn off Post Process and Lower Terrain to Low and set VIS to 3km....

Post processing has a very small performance impact on my 7800GT, so I keep it on high. It can probably be regarded as a bug if it has a big impact on an 8800.

I think post process has a fit when you are also running shaders v high and terrain and AA. Post process adds a blur to the distant and most objects even if your NOT looking down a scope, this must be eating the GPU alive. If you then sit in grass and look down an optical sight bingo 10 fps.

If I turn the plants, shadows and AA down, PP is fine, but i really love the realism of that lot. Post process is fine off in Mp games. Once I install my E6600 I'll try again as my current CPU may be bottlenecking.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

When I turn postprocess to 32 in the config it resets it self back to 16, I have a 6800GO (slowest off this serie I believe) and it has HDR 32bit support so I should be able to do this, can you check if you really have 32 and it does not go back to 16

For me the only thing that affects my performance is PostProcess and grass, I have grass off and PP on Low and gained 15fps, playing with 30fps. I do have Objects on Normal and Tex on Low as I do run out of memory, the rest is on highest settings and have 3K view distance at 1024*768

Intel Pentium M 740 / 1.73 GHz

1024MB DDR II SDRAM

NVIDIA GeForce Go 6800 256MB (overclocked)

Just checked, stays at 32 with an 8800, can ATI owners and 7 series owners confirm if 32 bit hdr works?

16 is still good though, 8 bit is fun for a few hours then becomes very annoying...

[4 IN 1 0]

from my test the config somehow return to 16 bits, but the game stay at 32 bit, only sunflare is gone but is it just me or am i day dreaming? the game seems to run better in 32 bit

[ziiip 1]

A geforce 7 series can NOT handle all settings maxed at those FPS... my 7600GT runs at 15-35 fps with all normal except PP low, AA low, AF low, and shadows high

EDIT:Nvm, just read what 7600GTs should be and it's better than that

Don't tell me it's normal that our 7600 GTs are struggling on normal-low settings when an X1950Pro can run it maxed out...It's only 2000 marks better than a 7600 GT (in 3DMark05)

[max power 21]

Run a game at 32" LCD 1 foot from your eyes for a day with aa off then see how fast you turn it back on.

Sounds like a good way to get eye cancer!

That's a little close for a 32 inch screen, I think. I have mine at just over arm's length.

Can't... justify running at a non-widescreen res... for post processing... need... peripheral vision... for flying.

I really like this thread. It has a lot of good information in it.

[Kirby 2]

I can't see at arms length my eyesights that bad (Is all blurrey). Plus my screen only 15"

ArmA looks shexy. I want a half decent PC.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

A geforce 7 series can NOT handle all settings maxed at those FPS... my 7600GT runs at 15-35 fps with all normal except PP low, AA low, AF low, and shadows high

EDIT:Nvm, just read what 7600GTs should be and it's better than that

Don't tell me it's normal that our 7600 GTs are struggling on normal-low settings when an X1950Pro can run it maxed out...It's only 2000 marks better than a 7600 GT (in 3DMark05)

I suspect it pipes or some techo bable GPU thing, For some reason the 8800 almost suffers no loss of FPS when Shadows are maxed most other GPU's groan if you try that.

1950 and the 7900 are just faster GPUS's than a 7600 they have more crap inside ;}

it would also be safe to assume people who buy a 1950 probably have a faster CPu and RAM and motherboard etc, this has been noted before the more people spend on a GPU the more they have spent on their PC in general.

ARMA is a machine eater it only takes wrong settings in your BIO's or onbaord sound vs a xifi or a slow fragged harddisk to mess it up.

Try the texture low texture filter high or very high trick that may help.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Run a game at 32" LCD 1 foot from your eyes for a day with aa off then see how fast you turn it back on.

Sounds like a good way to get eye cancer!

That's a little close for a 32 inch screen, I think. I have mine at just over arm's length.

Can't... justify running at a non-widescreen res... for post processing... need... peripheral vision... for flying.

I really like this thread. It has a lot of good information in it.

Nah lcd's are very safe all test have proven them about the same as looking at paper. CRT tubes were different and gave of a crap load of radiation.

Balls still out on Plasma, LCD screens are just getting bigger and cheaper.

Sometimes I lean and look 2 inchs from the screen trying to spot the fookin sniper 1km who is trying to nail me LOL.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

from my test the config somehow return to 16 bits, but the game stay at 32 bit, only sunflare is gone but is it just me or am i day dreaming? the game seems to run better in 32 bit

I think it runs better in 32 as well, that's to of us insane ones.

[Heatseeker 0]

This brag thread must be discouraging for many people out there...

I'll buy a new PC for Arma soon (been saying this for a while now..) but Arma runs ok on low end PC's too. Compared to OPF Arma is an optimisation/scalability marvel imo!

My old spec >> P4 2.4, audigy2zs, 1.5 pc2700 ram and a skinny 6600GT agp with 128 megs on ram.

[*]Terrain very low (no grass).

[*]Textures on low (or try very low).

[*]Shadders normal (woot).

[*]Shadows off.

[*]anisotropic filtering off.

[*]antialiasing low.

[*]Objects low.

[*]View distance 1200.

[*]Resolution 1280x960.

I never checked my fps, in some areas performance drop is noticeable but not much, in most areas and unlike OPF its actually smooth, i think data streaming and much improved LOD transitions over distance make Arma feel smoother when you look around. loading times are also short.

It doesnt look amazing like the pics you will see around but compared to OPF... well... there is no possible comparison, it looks great. I dont have any LOD or memory problems and i have run Arma for hours.

A great deal of what makes Arma demanding is not the code but the content made for it, like dense vegetation or some areas that use lots of detail like large towns. BIS just went crazy with Sara.

I dont kill tasks or shut down anything (like AV) to play Arma or any other game. Never did and never will .

[MamiyaOtaru 1]

Looking at the first two pics in the first post, specifically at the three tall skinny trees in the middle - with the AA on they are quite blurred, and I don't like the effect at all.  Messing around with AA, 2x and 8x look ok, 4x AA makes everything blurry, like a bad version of post processing on high (on 7900gt).  Anyway, I prefer jaggies (which I don't notice when moving) to horrible blur.

*edit* specified card

[dirtylarrygb 0]

This brag thread must be discouraging for many people out there...

I'll buy a new PC for Arma soon (been saying this for a while now..) but Arma runs ok on low end PC's too. Compared to OPF Arma is an optimisation/scalability marvel imo!

My old spec >> P4 2.4, audigy2zs, 1.5 pc2700 ram and a skinny 6600GT agp with 128 megs on ram.

[*]Terrain very low (no grass).

[*]Textures on low (or try very low).

[*]Shadders normal (woot).

[*]Shadows off.

[*]anisotropic filtering off.

[*]antialiasing low.

[*]Objects low.

[*]View distance 1200.

[*]Resolution 1280x960.

I never checked my fps, in some areas performance drop is noticeable but not much, in most areas and unlike OPF its actually smooth, i think data streaming and much improved LOD transitions over distance make Arma feel smoother when you look around. loading times are also short.

It doesnt look amazing like the pics you will see around but compared to OPF... well... there is no possible comparison, it looks great. I dont have any LOD or memory problems and i have run Arma for hours.

A great deal of what makes Arma demanding is not the code but the content made for it, like dense vegetation or some areas that use lots of detail like large towns. BIS just went crazy with Sara.

I dont kill tasks or shut down anything (like AV) to play Arma or any other game. Never did and never will .

Heatseeker you got it in one, I would be surprised if Crysis and Alan Wake run as well on older machines.

The thread is about saying when you upgrade, ARMA alone will blow your socks off for months. Many people say they will wait till Crysis etc.

When you upgrade, ARMA will make the effort worth it.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Looking at the first two pics in the first post, specifically at the three tall skinny trees in the middle - with the AA on they are quite blurred, and I don't like the effect at all. Messing around with AA, 2x and 8x look ok, 4x AA makes everything blurry, like a bad version of post processing on high (on 7900gt). Anyway, I prefer jaggies (which I don't notice when moving) to horrible blur.

*edit* specified card

Some of the blurring is due to the JPG compression. The thing nvidia and ATI don't point out about AA, is that it's not massivley needed at low res on small monitors, it only the last few years GPU's could even do it that well.

When you move to a large screen the small jagged line becomes a huge jagged line. You can either try to run a game at 2400 res to reduce this, or add Anti Alias.

The larger the screen the more annoying it becomes. Its a bit like dolby surround once you have it you don't want to go back.

Its a bit Like VHS DVD and blueray. VHS looks amazing on a 14" screen looks pretty ropey on a 32, DVD looks amazing on a 32 looks terrible on a 50", Blueray looks amazing on a 50" will look ropey on a 100".

If you sat and watched a pixar film with no aliasing you'd soon notice!

[OFPDude 0]

Hey....7600GT rocks

3.0Ghz Intel P4 Dual-Core

256MB 7600GT:

Resolution: 1280x1024

Visibility: 2000

Terrain: Low

Objects: Normal

Texture: Normal

Shading: Normal

Shadows: High

PostProcess: Low

AF: Very High

AA: Normal

FPS Average: 30-50 (20fps in high woody/bush areas)

Only problem I have is in high woody/tree/grassy areas where fps drops to below 20fps. I dont know if this is caused by CPU or GPU bottleneck.

I hate multiplayer missions because I cant turn off the grass. The grass is not really that impressive and would be much better as small clumps scattered around ground.

[OFPDude 0]

from my test the config somehow return to 16 bits, but the game stay at 32 bit, only sunflare is gone but is it just me or am i day dreaming? the game seems to run better in 32 bit

16/32 bit HDR disables the AA, which is probably why you seen performance increases....Well it does on a 7600GT.

Why didn't the developers add an option fro HDR precision within the video settings ?

[max power 21]

Because it's broken because it eliminates the glare of having the sun in your eyes, which, despite what some people may attest, actually DOES happen to people who are staring into the sun.

[OFPDude 0]

Because it's broken because it eliminates the glare of having the sun in your eyes, which, despite what some people may attest, actually DOES happen to people who are staring into the sun.

true, but I can always put on my sun glasses and not have a problem with the sun in my eyes....something BIS forgot to include in the game

besides I dont think anyone is stupid enough to look directly into the sun...in ArmA you have no choice, because the sun glare radius is too big and not anything like the real sun.

[max power 21]

No, because when you're actually staring into the sun it hurts your eyes and you must blink. I suppose they could always make your eyes blur and flutter open and closed.

You have a choice of not looking into the sun in arma too, ie., not looking at it. If your enemy has the sun at his back, then you have some special challenges, but noone is forcing you to blind yourself.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Because it's broken because it eliminates the glare of having the sun in your eyes, which, despite what some people may attest, actually DOES happen to people who are staring into the sun.

true, but I can always put on my sun glasses and not have a problem with the sun in my eyes....something BIS forgot to include in the game

besides I dont think anyone is stupid enough to look directly into the sun...in ArmA you have no choice, because the sun glare radius is too big and not anything like the real sun.

I think your right, if you reduce the glare effect by 70% [the sun flare) and then made the player blink or squint, raise borders top and bottom (eyelids). That would be very real and force people not to fight into the sun. Also give a defensive bonus. The flare is the right idea wrong implementation.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Because it's broken because it eliminates the glare of having the sun in your eyes, which, despite what some people may attest, actually DOES happen to people who are staring into the sun.

true, but I can always put on my sun glasses and not have a problem with the sun in my eyes....something BIS forgot to include in the game

besides I dont think anyone is stupid enough to look directly into the sun...in ArmA you have no choice, because the sun glare radius is too big and not anything like the real sun.

I think your right, if you reduce the glare effect by 70% [the sun flare) and then made the player blink or squint,  raise borders top and bottom (eyelids).  That would be very real and force people not to fight into the sun.  Also give a defensive bonus. The flare is the right idea wrong implementation.

That sounds like a pretty neat idea.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Because it's broken because it eliminates the glare of having the sun in your eyes, which, despite what some people may attest, actually DOES happen to people who are staring into the sun.

true, but I can always put on my sun glasses and not have a problem with the sun in my eyes....something BIS forgot to include in the game

besides I dont think anyone is stupid enough to look directly into the sun...in ArmA you have no choice, because the sun glare radius is too big and not anything like the real sun.

I think your right, if you reduce the glare effect by 70% [the sun flare) and then made the player blink or squint, raise borders top and bottom (eyelids). That would be very real and force people not to fight into the sun. Also give a defensive bonus. The flare is the right idea wrong implementation.

That sounds like a pretty neat idea.

if you think about it, squinting into the sun should give the same view you get out of the driver window in a tank, just change the tank texture to eyelids with some eye lashes.

Sunglasses could eliminate that effect but a shader is applied to your view. Makes it tan (this is done already because at night you see in B/W brown tones).

The game is trying to do this but these simple change would make it even more realistic and present the challenge of shades on or off?