Motion blur, bloom : make them options!

[celery 8]

What are you talking about? Unless you're playing in front of a full-wall projection your own natural focus area will easily include the whole of the in-game scene depicted on your monitor including those portions that should represent the periphery of your vision. Could your monitor output luminance equivalent to the actual sun for the benefit of your actual eyes?

Do you even know yourself what you're talking about? Your focus area is very small, you can see it yourself by concentrating on one point of this text and trying to read the rest. Unless you have exceptional visual capabilities, you can read only a few words at a time. The game can't know where you're looking at and even if it does, there's no need for any blurring or DOF because your own eyes do it without such tricks.

[killaalf 0]

What are you talking about? Could your monitor output luminance equivalent to the actual sun for the benefit of your actual eyes?

Actually, HDR is not the issue at hand, its unrealistic motion blur, DoF and bloom. As Celery said your eyes already have MB and DoF built in already, just focus on one point of your monitor and everything else becomes blurry, whip your head around and your environment will be blurred and finally have a look at Arma 2's glowing cows (=overdone bloom) and tell us that this is realistic.

[Mindwalker 0]

My vote goes in the favor of making all these things be a choice.

There is really no excuse for forcing post-processing on people.

[Defunkt 431]

You are still depicting the entire scene in only 20 or so diagonal inches (for most people), you can hardly consider that in the periphery of your own vision. Not that I see that this is particularly related to focus area.

When I run I find it much harder to track fine detail, my natural compensation for movement is imperfect and the more so when it is me (and not just the scene in front of me) doing the moving or when I actually "whip (my) head around", I consider this distinction very well represented by the new FX.

Similarly looking toward the sun makes me squint and impairs my view immensely. Short of somehow creating a similar discomfort with actual luminance the current bloom effect seems to me a very desirable approximation of that phenomenon. IMO this adds considerably to the simulation but more importantly, to go back to my original point, it must be the same for everybody in MP.

[dmarkwick 261]

Simple solution - make it server setting option. That way single player is solved too.

I don't care for post effects, I'd rather not have them. I don't have much PC power to spare, and I'd like to use it all for gameplay and resolution. On the other hand, I might decide to mod some nice ones in that no-ones thought of. :) so, optional please.

[dmarkwick 261]

I'm using Kegety's wonderfull fix.

Can you link us into this fix?

[norsu 180]

Can you link us into this fix?

Here you go:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1300985&postcount=29

[Yoma 0]

You are still depicting the entire scene in only 20 or so diagonal inches (for most people), you can hardly consider that in the periphery of your own vision. Not that I see that this is particularly related to focus area.

When I run I find it much harder to track fine detail, my natural compensation for movement is imperfect and the more so when it is me (and not just the scene in front of me) doing the moving or when I actually "whip (my) head around", I consider this distinction very well represented by the new FX.

Similarly looking toward the sun makes me squint and impairs my view immensely. Short of somehow creating a similar discomfort with actual luminance the current bloom effect seems to me a very desirable approximation of that phenomenon. IMO this adds considerably to the simulation but more importantly, to go back to my original point, it must be the same for everybody in MP.

I was pondering on including a separate "let it be set by server" option, but then again consider this:

Different systems are never "fair": trackir is not an option set by server, nor is setting postprocessing to high.

Someone playing on lower end system will never fully compete with someone playing on a top notch system.

Someone with 3 monitors and some mega graphics setup will be able to see a lot more then someone playing on an old 1024*768 monitor, that's not fair.

What are you going to do, enforce resolution?

This is a problem one cannot solve, however it sucks balls if you oblige stuff to people they do not like or that even make them physically sick after an hour.

Just check the results on the poll and you immediately see where the average demographic of this forum thinks the ball should be.

"It must be the same for everyone in MP" is a bogus argument that makes no sense to me.

That doesn't mean it isn't nice to have some parameters set serverside.

This whole discussion is actually very important as i think BIS lost a lot of supporters by keeping their foot stiff in Arma. I also predict that if they do the same for Arma2 they'll loose out on even more players as the stuff they now implemented is even more intrusive.

[Defunkt 431]

Well by that logic you'd make the crosshair and 3rd-person view available to anybody who felt it made up for their poor hardware. Everyone says this game is about options; if so then what constitutes a level playing field in MP should be for the server-ops' to choose.

[galzohar 31]

There's a big difference between seeing less good because your specs are worse (and even that should be avoided as much as possible), to seeing better because you set your graphics lower. The first is understandable (but should be minimized in effect), the latter should not exist, or at least I shouldn't be required to see other things less good due to processing power wasted on making me see things LESS good.

Options should be about controls, not the actual game behavior. Options that make one player have better abilities than another should be minimized as much as possible as long as it's not hurting the quality of immersion on higher end systems. For example, a good way to help lower resolution players is to have the zoom levels set so that at max zoom a player at 300m will be X pixels in size, and at min zoom (zoom out) you will have Ydeg FOV, and regular is something in between. Oh and remove the silly zoom in/out animations, it's suppsoed to be making up for the fact that I can't have a realistic FOV and a realistic target view distance at the same time, no reason to force a delay. If it's needed to make it easier for some players, make the animation optional. Lower resolution players still suffer, but not nearly as much as they do right now - they may have to gimp their FOV further to shoot something at 300m, but at least they will be able to shoot something at 300m rather than not even seeing the target since it turns into a pixel.

DOF and blur are very hard to implement realistically, in fact quite impossible, to the point where I don't think they have a place in a game. At least not until they have a way to track what part of the screen my eyes are looking at, and accurately measured values of how much blur I should have at different FOV angels compared to the blur I already have with my current monitor size and distance from monitor. In other words, the things that are required to do those effects well will never exist, and therefore they will always be done in a way that simply looks bad and gimping.

Edited June 7, 2009 by galzohar

[dmarkwick 261]

Here you go:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1300985&postcount=29

Thanks NoRSu :)

[dmarkwick 261]

DOF and blur are very hard to implement realistically, in fact quite impossible

You're right. DoF especially is not worth simulating, as you cannot hope to know what it is the player is actually looking at. The method of "focusing" on the point in the center of the screen (usually also the aimpoint) doesn't simulate how people use their vision.

Blur does have an ingame use, but only as a temporary device IMO, say like after a close by explosion, or teargas or something. But as a standard post-effect that's not optional? I don't think so, I'd like the option of opting out :)

[twisted 127]

I really like the blur and find its effect minimal on my PC but that it does add immersion.

That said it seems that lower PC specs exaggerate the blur due to low FPS.

Option for toning down the blur as much as needed would be ok so it becomes easier on all peoples PCs. fair's fair.

but i'd hate to see it disabled completely - because it does add interesting tactical considerations (rolling is no longer the UBER dodge bullets move it used to be with numbnuts rolling every which way. wounded. explosions, running without eagles eyes, being shot at, etc)

interested to see how BIS solves this one.

the HDR effect can be toned down as well. DOF i never really worry about as it is at the sides of my screen where in real life my vision is more motion sensitive than detail orientated anyway and the effect again is quite subdued on my PC.

Which makes me wonder - why is the effect less for me than for others?

Edited June 8, 2009 by twisted

[Binkowski 26]

It lowered my FPS, but I'm using Kegety's fix so, I'm content at the moment. :) Hopefully BIS will make this an option, as well as HDR? If not, kju could make the HDR mod for ArmA2.

[bravo 6 0]

lol, yeah!

[Richard Bruce Cheney 10]

There is a significance in where these effects are used.

In multiplayer, the motion blur is part of the game and represents your simulated cost for your activity on the battlefield. To remove it is akin to using an assist such as an auto-braking feature in a driving game.

I think it should be flagged in multiplayer and set server-side. For single player, however, it should be optional.

[Blake 0]

Option to disable is definately needed, but motion blur needs to be retained as many players have grown to like it.

[Goeth 0]

I would say optional and while you´re at it please remove the blur while and after you´re running, it´s damn annoying.

[Richard Bruce Cheney 10]

Why did they waste development time with that crap?

Because it's not crap. If you had any GPU power you would be able to appreciate the added gameplay and immersion that motion blur gives you. To a lesser extend in the gameplay arena would be bloom, because you should be blinded by bright light - it makes sense.

[Helmut_AUT 0]

I like the effects, but they cost a noticeable framerate. So optional, with a level MP field, would be nice.

[Heatseeker 0]

Because it's not crap. If you had any GPU power you would be able to appreciate the added gameplay and immersion that motion blur gives you. To a lesser extend in the gameplay arena would be bloom, because you should be blinded by bright light - it makes sense.

How do you even know if i have (or not) any gpu power?

I dont even have the game yet, just seen it in the trailers.. it looks rubbish.

When i look around my vision doesnt blur, if i run and stop my vision doesnt blur.. maybe your an alcoholic, old or both and therefore find motion blur realistic.

-------------

Crysis used a motion blur effect to make looking around feel smooth in those forests, my bet is that BIS tried to do the same but it didnt quite work..

[Alex72 1]

-Blur when bomb is going off near as i seen in videos - must have.

-Blur+sway when supressed - cool indeed. Good work BIS. Simulate concentration goes out the window/fear.

-Blur on the sides when running - not so good.

-Blur when skydiving (freefall part) is kinda cool to simulate tunnelvision from the speed and air in eyes.

-Blur when tired - thats ok with me but only if the timing is right i.e when you run a lot or do some heavy stuff for some time. Not when going from prone to standing or run for 20 meters and get it.

-Scopes/optics effect with blur on edges - looks great to me! I dont want ArmA1 slap a black screen with a cut out hole in it only.

-Blur when looking left to right - i dont know yet what effect it has on my pc, but i probably can be without it.

My 2 cents anyway.

Alex

[Dr.Pulp 0]

72;1305129']-Blur when bomb is going off near as i seen in videos - must have.

-Blur+sway when supressed - cool indeed. Good work BIS. Simulate concentration goes out the window/fear.

-Blur on the sides when running - not so good.

-Blur when skydiving (freefall part) is kinda cool to simulate tunnelvision from the speed and air in eyes.

-Blur when tired - thats ok with me but only if the timing is right i.e when you run a lot or do some heavy stuff for some time. Not when going from prone to standing or run for 20 meters and get it.

-Scopes/optics effect with blur on edges - looks great to me! I dont want ArmA1 slap a black screen with a cut out hole in it only.

-Blur when looking left to right - i dont know yet what effect it has on my pc' date=' but i probably can be without it.

My 2 cents anyway.

Alex[/quote']

I perfectly agree to this. A little bit of blur at the right spots is okay!

If BIS would tune down the bloom effect to alittle...it would be great. I like bloom, but not so heavy as used in arma2.

[Sha4lo 10]

it seems to me that not only blur gives such headaches. certainly, the jetters on the screen when running is horrible. moreover, it`s not real. have someone in real life such trembling when running? I think, not. there are a lot of cases when it`s optional in games.

[f2k sel 164]

For me it's not about how it looks even though it's simulating camera effects more than your eyes it's the headaches that this causes that is the problem.

It's not about the FPS as I've played games with good FPS and blur and they're still a problem unless turned off.

For those of us who suffer this problem it renders the game unplayable it's that simple.

Effects should be used but sparingly, over use as were seeing now makes it look like a cartoon.

Also if bloom happened like it does in Arma2 would'nt you have some sort of eye protection?