FP : DR - News & Discussion

[boomar. 10]

It wasnt to say how wtf bbq OFP: DR;s graphics are. Its just showing how far graphics have gone since the first title.

Like comparing star wars episode 123 to episode 456, massive difference in quality between the 2 trilogies..

Edited May 9, 2009 by boomar.

[NeMeSiS 11]

It wasnt to say how wtf bbq OFP: DR;s graphics are. Its just showing how far graphics have gone since the first title.

Like comparing star wars episode 123 to episode 456, massive difference in quality between the 2 trilogies..

Alright then, yeah there certainly is a massive increase. Personally i think that Crysis would have been a better comparison though, it doesnt hide its graphics in superbloom.

[Litos 10]

I got a 2.33 dual core CPU, so that might actually be the problem... Im pretty sure GTX 260 can handle pretty large scale environments such as armas. So I guess it might be my processor.

[Maddmatt 1]

Interesting to see how graphics have changed over the years, AlexVestin at OFP: DR forums posted a comparison or OFP: CWC and OFP: DR graphics.

Amazing how big the graphics jump has been over the years. Can only imagine what it will be like in 10 years.

It's even more impressive if you compare OFP: CWC pics to ArmA 2 pics, or Crysis...

OFP2 is far from the best example of modern graphics. Half-arsed post processing and it seems to have hardly any normal mapping.

Goes to show how overdone the bloom is when it even sticks out in those tiny pictures.

Maybe someone can edit those pictures and add an ArmA 2 comparison there? Would be cool.

I really hope they do something about that post processing before release.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Maddmatt

[boomar. 10]

My real concern with OFP: DR is the actual gameplay. Some shooting games really mess up how shooting works, sounds play a big role in this.

What i look for in an FPS game, is fun shooting mechanics. And very good sound.

Examples of good and fun shooting and shooting sounds:

Americas Army 3:

Guns looks fun to shoot.

Honourable mention to CS: Source M4 also.

Bad shooting and shooting sounds:

COD4 has really bad shooting/sounds, probably the worst ive noticed, it really affects gameplay for me. Especially hate M$ without silencer, the gun model sucks and sounds terrible shooting it. Compare this to Americas Army 3 shooting sounds and yeah you get the point.

Not a fan of BF2 shooting and sounds of guns either.

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

I dont really get the fuss about the graphics hate on OFP: DR. This is a 2009 game so we shouldnt be worried about graphics. Im just hoping they dont make them too good so i can still run the game on high settings with my 8800GT 512mb.

[Zipper5 74]

Much more impressive than the difference between OFP and DR, I think. ;)

[nodunit 397]

Interesting to see how graphics have changed over the years, AlexVestin at OFP: DR forums posted a comparison or OFP: CWC and OFP: DR graphics.

Amazing how big the graphics jump has been over the years. Can only imagine what it will be like in 10 years.

OFP: DR

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5215/helolove.jpg http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6918/kanadensare.jpg

OFP: CWC

OFP: DR

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6215/trekant.jpg[/img]http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1842/kvistar.jpg

OFP: CWC

Nice improvement in the sequel.

http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=352839

While true that graphics have greatly changed over the years this is not the wisest comparison, it's actually rather misleading because most will look at it as a "What CM had back then as opposed to what they have now" while the truth is they had nothing to do with OFP's graphics or anything to do with OFP except for the marketing.

Also it's not the sequel. It could be considered a sequel if it had something to do with the original story but it doesn't.

@ Madmatt. Yes I hope so too, that and the bloom, I think this reflects perfectly. http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=224 And I don't mean this to come off as a "hate" but DR really does have too much brown (atleast in the video's we've seen, I hope that it is just a filter) and bloom in both videos and images.

Edited May 9, 2009 by NodUnit

[Deadfast 43]

...I think this reflects perfectly. http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=224 ...

That couldn't be more fitting :D

[Journeyman 0]

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/zipper593/evolution.jpg

Much more impressive than the difference between OFP and DR, I think. ;)

Zipper5 that's cool! If you could do a high res version it would be even better?

[arigram 0]

Just point them towards the Arma 2 Press Kit:

http://www.arma2.com/supply/presskit/folder.html?lang=en

[celery 8]

Is it just me or does Arma 2 look quite brown as well? I don't think I've seen a properly blue sky in any of the screenshots.

[nodunit 397]

Is it just me or does Arma 2 look quite brown as well? I don't think I've seen a properly blue sky in any of the screenshots.

It does but mostly to the extent of autumn and dead plants.

http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/arma2_chernarus_nature_02.jpg

http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/arma2_chernarus_military_03.jpg

Also blue skies.

http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/Arma2_chernarus_inhabited_03.jpg

http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/Arma2_chernarus_inhabited_04.jpg

Most of the images show a whiteish sky and I'm not sure why that is but at the same its not casting an overly bloom effect. But even stranger is this effect is mostly seen in the screenshots, not most of the videos (which I'm grateful for) But this thread is about DR not Arma2 so lets keep that to a minimum :)

Lastly I don't think DR is as brown as it appears in some earlier screenshots and the several video's. Judging by a few of the screenshots they appear to be less brownish, I hope that is the case and that there was just a filter on the last video.

Edited May 9, 2009 by NodUnit

[Zipper5 74]

Zipper5 that's cool! If you could do a high res version it would be even better?

As arigram pointed out it's from the press kit. Download the evolution of the RealVirtuality engine to see it, amongst other things.

[walker 0]

not that bad, the destruction stuff for the vehicles is good, I like to see the vehicle parts fly. The artillery explosions are cool.

And the music is really nice:)

Hi all

Care to work out what the cost of that is in terms of bandwidth for synchronization, of that physics based destruction, on a per object basis?

Or is it that it only happens on the client? And therefor bits of the wreck are at the bottom of the hill and you are hiding behind it on your computer, but it is at the top of the hill on your opponents computer and that is why they were able to shoot you when your computer said you were in cover?

I am guessing maybe the systems analyst for CM DR, when they were doing the initial analysis and design, did not work out that either. Hence DR's Micro Multi Player, micro battles, no jets, no civilians, low entity count etc.

Kind Regards walker

Edited May 9, 2009 by walker

[max power 21]

I was just assuming that the 'gibs' off the wreck are client-side and just disappear after a short while.

[Balschoiw 0]

Hey Walker...usually a fan of your posts....

Still...

This one´s stupid. It´s a fullscale weapon/explosion effect drawn locally as with OFP, Arma. The visuals do not get transferred via web but are enacted locally on the client. Damage date from surrounding obj, buildings, whatever are transferred to client as with Arma. Visualization is done locally on lient.

Bandwidth is minimal.

Cheers...and pls don´t try to make everything look bad that´s not coming from BIS...

[walker 0]

Hi Balschoiw

I am not talking about the explosion. I am talking about the results of the explosion.

I am talking about CM's wrong choice in using the modified Dirt Engine.

By doing that they inherited its physics engine, and that physics engine is the underlying core of the problems CM are suffering with DR.

That engine is fine for small numbers of entities and MP players in the 4 to 8 region but after that it suffers from an inherent exponential increase in the number of calculations as you add players.

Synchronization is not just about all seeing the same thing, it is a source of cascading error

And yes it all has to transferred to every client, you cannot escape it. If they are not synchronized you are not seeing the same thing; and being killed, when you think you are safe, is just a minor example of the results. It physically alters the environment, box (a1) prevents bullet (f20034) from hitting its intended target. It is a cascading error. The problem escalates as synchronization errors build up. Entity x on player A's Game is dead so where did that bullet come from that killed entity G on player D's version of the game? For want of a nail. Massive crash on server and all clients here I come.

The problem is, whoever was in charge of the project did not do that initial math.

Let me repeat They did not do the math!

The physics is great for graphics but useless for game play particularly in MP.

That is I think the main reason they keep having to cut functionality.

It is exactly the same reasons as Ragdoll does not work in MP.

Do you not think BIS would have included Ragdoll if it would work?

When people do not properly analyse a project at its inception and preliminary planning stage; when all the fundamental parameters are set it annoys me. Failure to plan is inexcusable in any software project.

Yes I get annoyed at other things; like selling a pig in a poke and saying something is a sequel when it plainly is not or attempting to pass off renders as the product.

But gross stupidity from someone who is supposed to be a professional is just inexcusable.

Kind Regards walker

Edited May 10, 2009 by walker

[KorpeN 0]

I ask myself after the Walker's posts.

How GTAIV physics work perfectly in multiplayer and even more when there arent dedicated servers but HomePC hosters?

[walker 0]

I ask myself after the Walker's posts.

How GTAIV physics work perfectly in multiplayer and even more when there arent dedicated servers but HomePC hosters?

Hi Ptolemaios

I ask:

How many players?

How may entities?

Edit almost forgot bullets and other projectiles: "How many Objects"

Once you have done that do the math.

Kind Regards walker

Edited May 10, 2009 by walker
Almost Forgot bullets

[max power 21]

Also, are ragdolling dead characters still relevent to gameplay? If not, they are just another visual effect, and what one player sees does not necessarily have to be the exact same thing as what another sees. If they are still relevent, then all the transformations must be synchronized.

[KorpeN 0]

Hi Ptolemaios

I ask:

How many players?

How may entities?

Edit almost forgot bullets and other projectiles: "How many Objects"

Once you have done that do the math.

Kind Regards walker

Up to 32 players

And a much more "full" world than ArmA.

[walker 0]

Up to 32 players

And a much more "full" world than ArmA.

Hi Ptolemaios

more "full" is not a number.

Numbers are the only thing that count. Pun intended.

How many?

What has to be sychronised?

If a wheel comes off my vehicle in GTAIV does it kill the same person in my version as in player B's version?

MP player count in ArmA is 32 to 120 so far.

Entity count in ArmA is in the thousands.

Object count is in the tens of thousands.

Ptolemaios do the math.

Kind Regards walker

Edited May 10, 2009 by walker

[Maddmatt 1]

I ask myself after the Walker's posts.

How GTAIV physics work perfectly in multiplayer and even more when there arent dedicated servers but HomePC hosters?

I doubt GTA4 bothers with as much accuracy when it comes to synchronisation. The positions of debris and dead bodies is not as important, you can't go prone so they hardly cover you. I think it just lets clients work out their own physics and doesn't worry about the differences.

It would take some testing to confirm that.

Also, it has a relatively small number of AI units around compared to some ArmA coop missions.

Also doesn't GTA4 disable civilians and traffic when you go past 16 players? I'm not sure on this one, just recall reading it somewhere.

OFP2, well who knows whether it synchronises that debris. The debris might just disappear after a short time anyway. There only seem to be a few parts anyway, maybe they can be synchronised easily.

[KorpeN 0]

I doubt GTA4 bothers with as much accuracy when it comes to synchronisation. The positions of debris and dead bodies is not as important, you can't go prone so they hardly cover you. I think it just lets clients work out their own physics and doesn't worry about the differences.

It would take some testing to confirm that.

Also, it has a relatively small number of AI units around compared to some ArmA coop missions.

Also doesn't GTA4 disable civilians and traffic when you go past 16 players? I'm not sure on this one, just recall reading it somewhere.

OFP2, well who knows whether it synchronises that debris. The debris might just disappear after a short time anyway. There only seem to be a few parts anyway, maybe they can be synchronised easily.

Traffic and civs are always an option in GTA for the hoster.

Hi Ptolemaios

more "full" is not a number.

Numbers are the only thing that count. Pun intended.

How many?

What has to be sychronised?

If a wheel comes off my vehicle in GTAIV does it kill the same person in my version as in player B's version?

MP player count in ArmA is 32 to 120 so far.

Entity count in ArmA is in the thousands.

Object count is in the tens of thousands.

Ptolemaios do the math.

Kind Regards walker

I dont need to do any math.The feeling is that physics excuse of BIS is BS.

They simply cannot/dont want (more money to invest) add physics.We have to live with that.Even GTA's AI is more realistic (not scripted) and GTA is not a sim.We have just to wait until ArmA2 released.We have much to discuss and laugh at.

And if you insist about maths.Here do some math.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgkGb9hJnXo

Edited May 10, 2009 by KorpeN

[boomar. 10]

Walker is like a broken record, just keeps going ona bout no jets, no civs, micros battles (lol wut) and such.

No civilians is a very bad point, the island itself doesnt have many people and those few there got evacuated. Sounds more realistic than Arma 2. In Arma 2 civs just going about there daily business while tanks and jets blowing shiz up all around them.

No jets is the only valid point i've ever seen him make. Everything else is easily argued.