viewdistance and other dissapointments

[luckyhendrix 10]

Just make the test your self ,on the editor put a tank at one side of the airport of stray sobor, put you on the other side , put view distance to 2000m, even tough you may see the ground at 2000m you won't see the tank , because the distance at wich you can see object is not related to the "view distance settings" in the graphical settings. In the first ARMA this was fixed at 2700m (even if you put view distance to 5000m, you won't see any object further than this) and now in ARMA II it's 1000m or so , really this is a big issue , because when people will have better PC in 1 year or 2 they will be able to put viewdistance to 3000/4000m but this will be pointless because anyway they won't see enemy further than 1000m...

[Daniel 0]

I can't believe I read this whole thread ... *sigh*

My sentiments exactly. :eek:

[galzohar 31]

It shouldn't be hard to test, I noticed just by playing around that stuff seem to appear when they get within 1800m (white blob of recruit difficulty appears at around 2000m), with view distance set to 4500.

[dayglow 2]

A2 already goes beyond what a PC can do today. I don't know of any computer that can run 10km view distance and you are saying you want 15-20km?

[arma2disapointed 10]

A2 already goes beyond what a PC can do today. I don't know of any computer that can run 10km view distance and you are saying you want 15-20km?

Are you sure?

My old computer can run on 10 km, and if set everything else to low then the FPS is not so bad either.

Yes 15-20 km would be nice, and a drawdistance twice of arma1 should do just fine.

[Steakslim 1]

just what hardware did you have in that 'old' computer, and what res did you play at with A2?

[arma2disapointed 10]

just what hardware did you have in that 'old' computer, and what res did you play at with A2?

Well it´s not so bad and not so good either. It all depend how many units is on map at same time.

Amd athlon 3000 2000 mhz. 4G RAM. GTX260.

Here you can se the fps that i have in different situations OFP and Arma2

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=79335

Res is 1680x1050

Edited July 12, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[Wynthorpe 10]

I totally agree, the render distance really needs to be raised, and the more sliders the better! That was everyones tastes for details etc can be catered for.

See this thread here.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=79604

[galzohar 31]

I really don't understand why you'd make terrain so detailed to such distances but never render units past such a short distance. It just doesn't make sense, especially when you can't increase it in any way. One of the main reasons I don't play GRAW 2 anymore (and hadn't played it much) is because the enemy draw distance being limited to 150m ruins the game on any mission that wasn't specifically and carefully designed to work around that limitation.

[Riah069 10]

guess you better start learning how to import ofp tank interiors

Say something usefull.. Appears youre the troll with USELESS contrubutions!

[chaplainDMK 10]

Well it´s not so bad and not so good either. It all depend how many units is on map at same time.

Amd athlon 3000 2000 mhz. 4G RAM. GTX260.

Here you can se the fps that i have in different situations OFP and Arma2

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=79335

Res is 1680x1050

You do know what you just said right?

A 2GHz procesor, 4gigs of ram (probably you have vista witch must slow the shit out of arma 2) and a GTX260 (btw, the 200 series was significantly improved on shading but not much on texture loading)...

Thats not exactly evreyones defenition of old... Tho the CPU might be bringing you down i guess witch should be good to support the GPUs texture loading.

[arma2disapointed 10]

The point is compared to OFP1 and have nothing to do with coputer spec really.

Look at it this way, when you think you have many units in arma2, compare what you have on OFP1, and thats on ANY computer. Using the same settings on full view and full rendering. Everything else as low as possible, to make it fair comparison.

I was really expecting 15-20 km viewdistance and 15 km drawdistance.

Dont understand it wrong, with the right sliders, it´s no problem at all.

Edited July 13, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[arma2disapointed 10]

You do know what you just said right?

A 2GHz procesor, 4gigs of ram (probably you have vista witch must slow the shit out of arma 2) and a GTX260 (btw, the 200 series was significantly improved on shading but not much on texture loading)...

Thats not exactly evreyones defenition of old... Tho the CPU might be bringing you down i guess witch should be good to support the GPUs texture loading.

To be honest i think it´s the GPU:mad: bringing me down, or at least not doing anything to improve FPS on low settings with full viewdistance. As in that case i could use a GPU 5 years old with same result.

Anyway maybe i should be glad that BIS dont taked away all the sliders yet, so i could still play with a 10 year old GPU.

Just a suggestion to BIS, if you going to take all the sliders away, tha least milk nvidia and ati on some cash:mad: Those fakers.

The thing we need is CPU, but thats shit expensive.

And some time later just restore the sliders, and add a few more and longer ones, in a patch 1,21 somthing.

Why did nvidia bought the physic card company in a hurry..... And did very strange things to the idea, that was like a spare CPU, and what would have happen if the physic cards get in the market with 3 ghz(same cost) CPU´s inside, and the nvidia only got 600 mhz in there cards?

Reaserch is costly.

Thanx to the likes of nvidia evolution almost stand still since the cold war crisis (operationflashpoint) era.

---------- Post added at 11:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------

:DWhat about the viewdistance of dragonrising:D

Edited July 15, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[HOPEnSPIRIT 10]

I voted "Increasing units that can be on map simultaniusly (less lag)"

Always nice to have more players and if it can be achieved with better net code for less lag then go for it.

[arma2disapointed 10]

An idea would be too make everything twice as small to achive both viewdistance and less lag, more units on map. It just one way to do it, not the simplest.

A pixel would become larger. Just a tought.

[maddogx 13]

An idea would be too make everything twice as small to achive both viewdistance and less lag, more units on map. It just one way to do it, not the simplest.

A pixel would become larger. Just a tought.

Smaller units create less lag? Pixels become larger? Bwuuh? :confused:

[arma2disapointed 10]

Smaller units create less lag? Pixels become larger? Bwuuh? :confused:

Well they don create less lag if it´s the same number of polygones.

It´s just a way to work around the simplest way.

1 meter will be 2 meters. without the need to increase render and viewdistance, just have to edit some numbers. To be realistic.

[dm 9]

Well they don create less lag if it´s the same number of polygones.

It´s just a way to work around the simplest way.

1 meter will be 2 meters. without the need to increase render and viewdistance, just have to edit some numbers. To be realistic.

Uh, wat?

Anyway, everyone seems hung up on this polygon (no trailing e, otherwise it suggests that there are dead parrots around :P ) count, when with the current gen hardware, the number of polygons in a scene mean very little. Its all about SECTIONS (or groups of polys which require a direct X pass to render.)

Get the sections dealt with and you're on to a winner.

[LJF 0]

Easily physics, they appear fine to me apart from one thing ... speed. It just takes way too long for them to come into full effect. You jump a car for example and land on an angle, say with your back wheels first, it takes about 3 seconds at least for the car to adjust. It's like playing in jelly or underwater or something.

Edit: I think arma2disapointed meant that if you made everything smaller (units - say a tank is half the size), then the RELATIVE size of the gameworld would be larger, like toy soldiers in a kitchen, it's a big place for them :D

Edited July 16, 2009 by LJF

[arma2disapointed 10]

Every addon i tried with detailed models, lag like hell. look at the barrel on low settings OFP vs ArmA2 on the tanks, OFP have 6 polygones ArmA2 have 12. And it really is the answer and confirms everything i tried.

Polygones and animations thats it to at least 90% unless you could prove somthing else. Pleas do.

Well the gun is just one thing, look at the wheels, there will be somthing like 6 in OFP and an uncountable number in ArmA2.

Arma 2 should be able to have more units and more render and viewdistance than 9 years old OFP. It goes hand in hand together:cool:

Instead the view and render is almost the same, and the number of units possible simultaniusly is 100-150% less, if not more.

Behind this is the animations and model detail.

As i can see it has been some work to get around this problem, but it´s far from enough.

The interessting point is that work could bee used to add maybe 50% more units to OFP:j:

And it woul be like 200% difference in number of unit.

Really really low settings could be the answer to this problem, thats more sliders.

---------- Post added at 07:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 AM ----------

Edit: I think arma2disapointed meant that if you made everything smaller (units - say a tank is half the size), then the RELATIVE size of the gameworld would be larger, like toy soldiers in a kitchen, it's a big place for them :D

Thanks, somthing like that yes.:bounce3:

Change everything but the ground, and 20x20 m squere´s will be like 40x40 meter.

That is just if there are some game engine limitations to just increase with longer sliders, maybe it´s possible to have 40x40 anyway, dont know the engine limitations.

Hoestly i dont think there is any limitations like this, it just about willpower, and the lack of it. Maybe i´m wrong, in that case, just resize the units 100% to put it shortly.

Edited July 16, 2009 by arma2disapointed

[NoRailgunner 0]

Why people should play Arma2 with "very very low settings" if they are able to play the game on normal or high settings?

Who is forced to play OFP on low settings with todays hardware?

Dont expect to have brilliant details, highest viewdistance and smoothest gameplay with minimum required hardware. You should better get new hardware - at least a duo core with 3GHz.

..it just about willpower, and the lack of it.

Can you prove it? Please do.

[arma2disapointed 10]

Why people should play Arma2 with "very very low settings" if they are able to play the game on normal or high settings?

QUOTE]

In short, more units and grater viewdistance.:butbut:

[dayglow 2]

but accurate representation of terrain is also important in simulating a battle. I'd much rather have the current 2-3km with even more detailed terrain charator so that when I hit the ground the natural difficile of the terrain provides cover. I think it is more important that they get the grass rendered out to the current engagement distances. I do not want to play on a 15-20km view with billiard table ground and pyramid hills.

Look at flights sims. Lock On can render out to about 100km, but on the ground the terrain lacks the necessary detail to have proper ground combat. Hell people that fly the Black Shark complain that there isn't enough detail to fly a helicopter, let alone infantry or tank combat.

Well rendered realistic terrain to what is a typical engagement ranges is much more important than far off mountain vistas.

[galzohar 31]

It's not even the lack of grass (considering the current grass isn't really "there"), it's how "smooth" or even "flat" the terrain is. Just take a step outside and look yourself what real terrain looks like...

[arma2disapointed 10]

but accurate representation of terrain is also important in simulating a battle. I'd much rather have the current 2-3km with even more detailed terrain charator so that when I hit the ground the natural difficile of the terrain provides cover. I think it is more important that they get the grass rendered out to the current engagement distances. I do not want to play on a 15-20km view with billiard table ground and pyramid hills.

Look at flights sims. Lock On can render out to about 100km, but on the ground the terrain lacks the necessary detail to have proper ground combat. Hell people that fly the Black Shark complain that there isn't enough detail to fly a helicopter, let alone infantry or tank combat.

Well rendered realistic terrain to what is a typical engagement ranges is much more important than far off mountain vistas.

:D Have you seen what you could do with terrain settings in OFP?

there was some long sliders there:D

And those settings could make every new todays mega computer lag. Core duo or core marine core super mega core. Without grass

Edited July 16, 2009 by arma2disapointed