Camouflage and draw distance

[KAASKOP 10]

Is it possible to script ArmA 2 in such a way, as to make human figures stick less out in the open? Because of the draw distance and general limitations of what hardware can render, a lot of detail (bushels, grass) is removed at (long) distances. A figure is never removed, so in fact all the possible camouflage options you have with the grass and bushels, only works on short distances, but not on long distances. You'll always stick out like a black silhouette on a low res. texture of the ground.

Example:

1 lone AI stands out in the open. No background blend, no 'washed out' (lighter) silhouette. Just straight dark. Major drawback imo.

It would be swell if these silhouettes are not as black and will be more lighter (just as hills seem lighter when farther and farther away they get) or,

silhouettes of humans (and perhaps vehicles as well) are partially blurred or blended with the texture (depending on the height of these flora) as to mimic reduced sighting by bushels and tall grass.

Just a thought, I am in no way an expert, just a noob and old fanboy looking forward to playing a decent predecessor of OFP.

Edited April 16, 2009 by KAASKOP

[SaBrE_UK 0]

This thread might interest you :)

[Alex72 1]

That would be or should be given high priority as units always stick out so heavily at distances. Making the game feel "closer/smaller" than it is. I think i saw that you can have really far grassVD in AA2 but not from the standard settings but by INIT it. That wont solve it online though as all cant play with over hundred meter grass VD. Also the grassVD plus ground resolution is on the same setting (ARMA1) and i dont know if thats good or not. Dont know if the ground res have a big effect on performance or not. Might be better to separate them.

But anyway. Im with you on this. Units always stick out from distances and are easy to spot/shoot. One solution is to move in cover wich they seem to do more in AA2. Dont know if the ground have to be darker over distance than it is or if the units texture/colour have to adapt over long distances to the ground colour. I dont know either how to fix a thing like this technically. But it would be amazing with working camo over distance for sure.

Alex

[sparks50 0]

Indeed. Right now its very easy to observe people at a distance. A sniper rarely has any use for a spotter in the game, because of this.

Would help if the uniform at long distances could take a bit of color from the landscape and/or blur the outer lines slightly to compensate?

Edited April 17, 2009 by sparks50

[walker 0]

Hi all

Key problem with camouflage at high distance LODs is the failure to match histograms.

The process is thus:

Obtain several different distanced reference pictures at the same time in the same environment of

1) Just the target background,

2) Just the camouflaged object against a white back ground,

3) Just the camouflaged object against a black back ground,

4) And last but not least the camouflaged object against the target back ground,

To give even better data you can add

5) Just the camouflaged object against a red back ground,

6) Just the camouflaged object against a blue back ground,

7) Just the camouflaged object against a green back ground,

Do this over several days in several light environments: Dull Day, Bright Day, rain, early morning, mid morning, noon, afternoon, dusk etc

That is your reference data.

Next Do histograms of each. You are not interested in the data you are interested in the percentage divergence. That divergence is what you have to match with your distance LODs

It is the kind of thing an academic might do in say a Masters paper. The data itself is probably worth something. There is probably a PHD in an image recognition algorithm for this but you would have to do it in a secure lab and the research would be classified.

Kind Regards walker

[sk3pt 0]

I think antialiasing makes them a little harder to spot at a distance, but yeah, I agree.

Would help if the uniform at long distances could take a bit of color from the landscape

That's how Predator does it. :D

[7 0]

Indeed. Right now its very easy to observe people at a distance. A sniper rarely has any use for a spotter in the game, because of this.

Would help if the uniform could take a bit of color from the landscape and/or blur the outer lines slightly to compensate?

Definitely. It's not technically impossible to make units blend in in the distance without using the silly transparency-trick. Distant unit-LOD's need a shader that makes them blend in with the background depending on which angle they're looked at. I doubt it would be very resource-intensive and the result would make things much more realistic and fun!

^

That's how it should be.

[Benoist 0]

What? No, the guy is running in open field, of course you are going to see him!

[max power 21]

Yeah, please no semi transparent predators running around in the distance.

[7 0]

Yeah, that was a bit exaggerated and I didn't really know exactly what had to be done.

When the 3D renderer shrinks the textures to just a few pixels in size, small shadows that didn't stand out now take up a much bigger space than it used to before, due to the anatomy of pixels. Obviously people shouldn't become transparent, but the default result isn't realistic the slightest bit, unless the soldier in the picture (IRL) would be wearing almost a fully black suit.

This is more what I wanted to demonstrate.

Now it would actually be possible to hide in the darker splotches without being seen, as long as the soldier stays still.

Edited April 17, 2009 by 7

[Electricleash 133]

I remember playing with the CryEngine 2 editor and there being a checkbox on objects to enable them the take on a certain percentage of the ground colour at the point of contact... this may have been only for the vegetation system, but was applied to rocks and ground clutter also.

Not sure of the would be a good system, but maybe just a pipe dream.

[KAASKOP 10]

nt...

Edited April 17, 2009 by KAASKOP
double post

[Nigelwow 10]

yeah the dark silhouette is very frustating online too,

they always see you...

And it need to be possible to hide in dark spots and the AI or other players dont spot you .

[W0lle 1050]

KAASKOP

Please do not quote images. Since you are new here I suggest you get familiar with our forum rules.

[KAASKOP 10]

Yeah, that was a bit exaggerated and I didn't really know exactly what had to be done.

When the 3D renderer shrinks the textures to just a few pixels in size, small shadows that didn't stand out now take up a much bigger space than it used to before, due to the anatomy of pixels. Obviously people shouldn't become transparent, but the default result isn't realistic the slightest bit, unless the soldier in the picture (IRL) would be wearing almost a fully black suit.

This is more what I wanted to demonstrate.

Now it would actually be possible to hide in the darker splotches without being seen, as long as the soldier stays still.

Yes, thats what I mean with blending in with the environment.

I would make it a bit different though as tall grass and bushels normally dont reach up as high as your head, but more between knees and the waste.

So if standing, the part of the body below the waste should be almost enitrely blended in with texture map. And when laying prone, the whole body:

srry for the double post with quote image, accidently double post, was not finished. I would never quote an image...:D

Edited April 17, 2009 by KAASKOP

[sidhellfire 0]

I have nothing against the visible dark silhouette, if there would be a bigger variation in colour of terrain. Now when fields are plain green, like a golf ones, it makes these discussions exist, but changing the environment would make it pointless.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Although I agree in principle that changing color against ground objects might be useful, the problem with computer games is that you are limited already to an extremely low resolution compared to real life. Spotting enemies in ArmA is already way too difficult, especially considering the AI doesn't seem to be affected by this.

Now, I'm playing using a pretty good resolution (1800 windowed approx), and I can see and engage targets that nobody using a 1280 display could see. So if anything, maybe this reduction in 'visibility' could be coupled to the advantage in display resolution? A low res screen would have the current system, while a high res screen would have the improved system? Not sure about this one.

[Second 0]

Spotting enemies in ArmA is already way too difficult, especially considering the AI doesn't seem to be affected by this.

Now, I'm playing using a pretty good resolution (1800 windowed approx), and I can see and engage targets that nobody using a 1280 display could see. So if anything, maybe this reduction in 'visibility' could be coupled to the advantage in display resolution? A low res screen would have the current system, while a high res screen would have the improved system? Not sure about this one.

My old crappy computer with old crappy resolution of 1280 and i was able to spot prone soldiers from 200-300 meters distance in very short time. I had to scan 45-60 degree wide area infront of me to find them. There was three targets prone at said distances placed randomly and i could usually spot them in less than minute, if they were unlucky enough and didn't get placed behind bush or rock. Not totally realistic/complete test, but i was awed by fact how easy it was. Only few small rocks did cause problems as they looked bit like prone soldiers.

Those ranges, that time without any kind optical aid (i did use maximum iron sight zoom) sounds pretty wicked. Alerting satellite textures to more spotty ones did add more time to spotting, but we discuss about minutes of time as they were not able to actually hide from me even in that case. So eventually they all were discovered. I wasn't happy, and in the end i stated to think that something should be done to soldier's camouflage, as just making terrain to have more variation isn't necessarily enough. Haven't tried with my new computer and new resolution.

Alteast with OFP i've ended up thinking that better resolution after certain point starts to make spotting harder, as troops can be broken into more pixels (=more colors), which then again mixes them better into terrain. Don't know is it true, that is just feeling i'm having.

[KAASKOP 10]

Judging from the preview (Like the 1 from Gamestar), we still have the 50 meter vs 500 meter visibility issue. Guys at 50 meter disappear in the grass (hurray!), but at 500 meters, where the grass is not rendered, figures stand out like an ant on a white wall :(

I read that the texture map can be raised a little so people at prone at more harder to spot.

Also I read that figures can be made semi-translucent (not my preferred method), resulting in partially same effect.

Whatever works to partly blend in with the environment, will be great, but I am not confident the above methods work satisfactory, in Player vs. AI. How can a fix be made different then above methods, without changing the draw distance, so that people at 500 meters are even more harder to spot, then from 50 meters?

Edited April 28, 2009 by KAASKOP

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Alteast with OFP i've ended up thinking that better resolution after certain point starts to make spotting harder, as troops can be broken into more pixels (=more colors), which then again mixes them better into terrain. Don't know is it true, that is just feeling i'm having.

Might be true. Not sure to be honest. I'm a bit concerned that ArmA2 will have too much of that tall 'grass' going. Talle being 'grass' vegetation that reaches up to half a mans height, which becomes impossible to fight in. And that AI isn't affected properly with it.

If grass is possible to turn off this time (not sure what I want until I see it in practice), at least do not couple of with the terrain accuracy setting. In a mission, I might i.e. allow grass to be turned off, but not the lowest level of terrain accuracy since enemy units will float way above it.

[scruffy 22]

Judging from the preview (Like the 1 from Gamestar), we still have the 50 meter vs 500 meter visibility issue. Guys at 50 meter disappear in the grass (hurray!), but at 500 meters, where the grass is not rendered, figures stand out like an ant on a white wall :(

I read that the texture map can be raised a little so people at prone at more harder to spot.

Also I read that figures can be made semi-translucent (not my preferred method), resulting in partially same effect.

Whatever works to partly blend in with the environment, will be great, but I am not confident the above methods work satisfactory, in Player vs. AI. How can a fix be made different then above methods, without changing the draw distance, so that people at 500 meters are even more harder to spot, then from 50 meters?

I just posted this in the press coverage thread but I think it belongs in here, too.

The editor of the Gamestar arcticle answered in the comments: The grass layer is not included in his version.

I guess BIS is still working on this, they wouldn't miss this :confused:

[maddogx 13]

I just posted this in the press coverage thread but I think it belongs in here, too.

The editor of the Gamestar arcticle answered in the comments: The grass layer is not included in his version.

I guess BIS is still working on this, they wouldn't miss this :confused:

Indeed. Since the distant grass layer was in ArmA1, I don't see why they wouldn't include it in ArmA2. Though I wonder why it wasn't in the preview version...

Maybe they've improved/optimized it. :)

[Rocco 0]

Indeed. Since the distant grass layer was in ArmA1, I don't see why they wouldn't include it in ArmA2. Though I wonder why it wasn't in the preview version...

Maybe they've improved/optimized it. :)

So its actually possible to hide at more then lets say 150m? Even though the grass isnt rendered 500m away? What happens if people play with lower quality, it would be a big advantage right?

[maddogx 13]

So its actually possible to hide at more then lets say 150m? Even though the grass isnt rendered 500m away? What happens if people play with lower quality, it would be a big advantage right?

I believe the distant grass layer is even drawn on low quality settings. As far as I know, it's basically just a texture layer drawn about 0,5m above the normal ground texture at a distance. It shouldn't be a problem for most machines.

You should be able to test the ArmA1 implementation yourself, considering it's been there since version 1.05, possibly earlier. Not sure.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

distant grass layer

The problem with the "distant grass layer" is that it looks like a mono-colour carpet with an easy-to-spot disturbance in it -> your target. The grass layer should rather be a restless pattern of appearing/disappearing pixels which could simulate grass with flowers in the wind (mainly green with other colors for the flowersin this example). This would make it much harder to spot the target.