bogey jammer

You don't like repetitive comments and attacks to your dev Gods ? Don't read them, and more importantly, don't respond to them. Simple. Let the moderators do their job if the situation requires it.

My friend, you should take a break too, you're making that thread painful to follow because of your constant opposition against people talking about their problems with that upgrade, your impersonation of a BI's dev talk, and your boring lectures… Remember, it's a feedback thread, not a reeducation camp.

I think he told about both custom maps and official ones (Altis & Stratis) that also need to be reworked. So BIS is part of the labor too.

The visual upgrade looks fine on Tanoa screenshots…

LOL I gave you this impression ? sorry I don't give a shit about their strategy. If it sucks they will not get my money. I can live without Arma. Don't spit the word fact at my face because you just gave your opinion, certainly not a fact. Too much contrast ? yeah much more than the livid 1.60. Didn't look natural ? hard to say without supporting material. Green and blue prominent ? now in 1.6 it's just green but every colors are oversaturated and fluorescent!! so realistic eh ? I don't agree with you at all. Arguing with you leads nowhere. I posted illustrations of my observations and some rational theories about this update, the pro-update camp, and more importantly, the dev team, should do the same.

Man, don't bring me grotesque examples. I don't need your Ford T, I'll stick to my 90' era car without multiplexing that I can maintain cheaply by myself. I said that the future is welcome, but I want a future that enhance life, not a future that stuffs me things in my ass. And please, spare me your own vision of the BI's vision, you know nothing about their strategy. BI's catalog is full of unknown or failed games so be careful… Real Light corrected the visual just fine, 1.60 visual update overdone it like Sylverster Stallone's mom's face. That's why BI is the villain, because of FACTS.

Yeah but during old-school times, there was a certain vision of the future and a real desire to go for it. So if the present does not match the past desires, it is rejected. The old visual render was not the best but was good enough. It was welcome to be upgraded but not like this.

That is simply impossible. It's like hoping for getting the same printed color on paper as the one the screens shows. The texture seen in a image editor responds to the sRGB colorspace, 100%. But in game, there is no more such calibration. The texture is shaded and colored depending on light sources, so it is dramatically altered in the render. A good way is to create a reference texture, tune it until it looks realistic in game, then apply the same correction to convert good looking textures in image editor to good looking ones in the game. Don't be fooled by photography. Unless it is HDR, the camera has a limited dynamic range. Nothing beats the eye.

Good news (or bad one depending of what side of the thrill-ness you are) I'm starting to like the visual update. As the visual memories of the former rendering are progressively forgotten, I think the upgrade is actually going on the good path. Watching and analyzing the real world thru the eyes and not thru pictures, makes me approximately realize that the outside world lightning is as ugly as the visual upgrade. In short, it seems we are accustomed to get «beautiful» graphics for games, meaning realistic AND beautiful with artistic scenes. The arma 3 visual upgrade try to make the thing realistic only. So that's a shock a first sight, like seeing a gorgeous actress in a photoshopped poster then seeing her in the street without makeup… However, my opinion still concerns day light situations only. Night is broken as we know, and dawn/dusk still need adjustments. And I want to mention that I'm pretty sure that post-processed correction parameters must keep their values at 100 !!! I also switched SSAO from HBAO+ to HDAO, reducing the darkness of ambient occlusion effect to a decent level. Then, if the case of this AO darkness is to be considered realistic, it makes me think that the main issue is now the textures, like the white buildings or as noticed earlier by others, camouflage colors. It also applies to the oversaturated colored signs. To be precise, objects with matte appearance have an diffuse reflectivity power (albedo) that cannot return more light than the source. So there is a certain pixel brightness and saturation to never exceed otherwise it turns to render the object fluorescent. These values must be standardized by BI. About the low light conditions, I reminded that the human eye has separate color sensitivity for rod and cone cells. To simulate the eye perception at the monitor screen (because it is obvious that a screen doesn't generate the same dynamic range as the one that the eye can sense, that's maybe why the night is currently so dark in the current upgrade), the saturation of colors must be reduced as the brightness of light is reduced, and totally gone under a certain limit, which is, different for the red, green and blue components (see the chart I posted earlier, it is easier to read the green than the blue due to different eye's colors sensibilities). Moreover, the rods can't see the red light so it must appear black in game. Such eye perception simulation would remove the oversatured colors at deep dawn/dusk times. However, that would totally be irrealistic for color blind people. And I think the game's HDR is too wide at low light conditions, but is too thin at night because it's too uncomfortable to watch on the screen. I hope it will help devs and I wasn't boring to read…

For whose interested by screen gamma calibration (the most critical setting IHMO before white balance) I use this chart: from this quite old website: http://www.normankoren.com/ but containing a lot of precious info about color management.

Because we still have a sterile debate based on pure subjective opinions, can the devs post to us a solid procedure to tweak the graphic settings to reach the intended quality ? To be honest we still don't know shit about the real goals of this upgrade in scientific terms (why the contrast should be that, why the colors are saturated, why they wanted to add gross baked ambient occlusion at default settings, etc…). How TF do look Arma 3 on the devs' screens ???

Even without post processing, the visual MUST be fine by default. And I consider unacceptable the fact that the current state of this upgrade forces everyone to painfully tweak advanced options to get an eye-edible game.

Ok I'll try that. About your overcast problem, I think that the clouds raise luminosity by reflecting/scattering sun light thus affect the dynamic range. Bright overcast usually hurts my eyes more than a clear sky day

This doesn't look like v1.60 to me

Hello, I am extremely disappointed by this supposed visual upgrade to the point I came here to talk for the first time since everyone usually perform outstanding job. I want to add my contribution to solve this apparent issue, but at first I'd like to know the modus operandi used by BI that made this result, as a starting point for me to make constructive suggestions. At the moment it seems that a single photography was used as the reference. To me it sounds so ridiculous that I can't believe that it was as simple as that… At the moment like many people I noticed the most critical following points : – bleached appearance for non saturated tones, lost contrast and depth perception http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=695290327 – baked ambient occlusion that was discreet is now evident. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=695291329 – fluorescence and oversaturation of the colored tones http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=695292062 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=695293008 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=695293982 – objects seem shaderless, showing all texture's quality limits like 90's games http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=695295426 – playing at night without NVG is now out of the question – greenish ambient hue