ARMA II vs. ARMA terrain textures

[Rapier 10]

I went back to play a few missions in ARMA and since I like to fly around I noticed there is much less of popping of textures of the terrain.

Granted, less detailed, but from a pilot point of view, the terrain is a lot better looking and no graphical anomalies and pop-ins (with almost max view settings)

Here is something interesting. This terrain is the same game engine , compare it to ARMA II terrain:

http://images.bit-tech.net/blog/2009/05/what-makes-a-game-a-game/vbs2_113.jpg

Edited September 27, 2009 by Rapier

[derk yall 0]

VBS Engine is slightly different, it doesnt have so much GFX like ArmA I.

These are things that happen with developement of technologies GF card, ram, etc., in two, thre, four? years crysis will be playable on every low-end PC.

[Rapier 10]

VBS Engine is slightly different, it doesnt have so much GFX like ArmA I.

These are things that happen with developement of technologies GF card, ram, etc., in two, thre, four? years crysis will be playable on every low-end PC.

My concern is not whether or not my system is able to run the game, but the extreme amount of popping in of trees and textures, the draw distance is just way too limited or very noticeable compared other games with open terrain.

[Maddmatt 1]

Most objects in ArmA 2 do not render beyond a certain distance. I guess BIS did this so we can have a higher viewdistance without as much of a performance hit, but the drawback is that the extra rendered terrain is bare.

Not a change I agree with though :(

Although in that VBS2 pic there are things that make that voiewdistance easier to render - lack of special shaders (normal maps ect), lower res terrain texture, less complex terrain and overall less detail on most things.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Maddmatt

[xmongx 0]

Thats why i wish i had enough spare money to piss away on vbs2, i'd take greater fidelity of simulation over greater fidelity of visuals any day.

That said, i have very few issues with arma2's terrain and my machine is a piece of shit. Runs like a dream on high since 59210 using e5300@3.00GHz, HD4650 AGP!!!!!!. Just have to be conservative with view distance (c2000).

Edited September 28, 2009 by xmongx

[Marc Shepard 10]

VBS engine isn't ArmA (or ArmA2) engine.

ArmA terrain (not the grass, just the terrain) is approximatively the same than the ArmA2 terrain...

[xmongx 0]

....d'oh

Edited September 28, 2009 by xmongx
Im a moron...double post

[zOMGREI 10]

Thats why i wish i had enough spare money to piss away on vbs2, i'd take greater fidelity of simulation over greater fidelity of visuals any day.

That said, i have very few issues with arma2's terrain and my machine is a piece of shit. Runs like a dream on high since 59210 using e5300@3.00GHz, HD4650 AGP!!!!!!. Just have to be conservative with view distance (c2000).

Even if you had the money to piss away on VBS2, you wouldn't be able to buy it. VBS sales are restricted to authorized users only, unless they've changed this in the past few years.

[Deadfast 43]

VBS engine isn't ArmA (or ArmA2) engine

It is - Real Virtuality 2.0.