Jump to content

bogey jammer

Member
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by bogey jammer


  1. Of which all of the issues have been brought up NUMEROUS times, in numerous threads and acknowledged many times. It's a feedback thread, indeed, not a constant grip thread, post your feedback, and be patient when these fixes are not forthcoming.

    My boring lectures are in response to the boring repetitive comments by a handful of people, I am NOT against people with issues, it's the constant bringing those up at every given opportunity, it's the snidely and defamatory digs at the games developers which irk me above all.

    Don't like my comments, don't read them... simples ;)

     

    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.


  2. If Arma3 isn't up to your expectations and requirements RuPal, there's nothing stopping you from taking a break from it, and checking in on progress with regards to bug fixes etc, from time to time, that's what I would do, and have done in the past. It's easy to see you're frustrated, you're letting a game control your life, and your emotions, Many games I've been stuck on levels and got so wound up that I wanted to smash the fucking monitor, that's when I realised that I was taking everything too seriously, and I became tolerant and more patient, things will be fixed when they're fixed. ;)

    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.

    • Like 2

  3. Real light was far too high a contrast, and didn't look natural, even with their natural LUT, the Greens and Blues were very prominent. FACT! They produced crisper Lighting than default, and that's what I liked about it, but didn't like the overly contrasted colours.

    You seem to know an awful lot about their strategy over everyone else here, including the Dev's care to enlighten us?

    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.


  4. Is that why everybody still drives a Model T-Ford then? ;)

     

    When I was a kid ( long time ago) the first video game was a plug in to the TV that let you hit a dot with a flat thing and it was fun, then came the commodores and spectrums, and then the sega mega drives and PC's which have got better and better and better pushing the limits constantly.

    Do you recall OFP when it was the dogs bollocks and you thought everything that was made up of 200 Poly's was awesome? and that there was nothing like it? but it evolved as the developers had vision, and that vision continues today, everything is progressing towards APEX they also have a target audience that reaches far beyond these forums with their global sales, they have a road map to how THEY see their future, and where they want the game to be, and how it looks. 

    There's an old saying, you can please some of the people some of the time, you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

    I stick by my original comments, some people just don't like, and wont accept change, and nothing anyone says or does convinces them otherwise, till the finally realisse that things are not going to start going backwards. ;)  ( been there, done that)

    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…

     

    When people started using Solano's Real Light addon, it was hailed as "breathtaking and awesome" I somewhat agreed as I used it for a while too, till a previous update kind of broke it, but I found that I had to change LUT's so get a good balance, but I always found the contrast too high and the colours too vivid with his default setting. He was hailed a visionary.

     

    But when BiS do it, they're villains and horrible people?

    Seriously, if the update pisses you off that much, you're taking the game, way too seriously, I always find that if someone, or something is annoying me to that extent, I ignore them, or stop doing whatever it is that perplexes me.. yeah yeah yeah, paying customers and all that, but you paid for the original game, which was bugged to fuck on release, and has improved exponentially over 3 years, nobody has been shortchanged here.

    BIS, could have, like many other games makers left it without any updates at all.

    There's some aspects of the visuals I don't like, but for me, I'm getting value for my money, and quite happy and the whole community addon's completely change this game.

    People are entitled to their opinions, it's how life works, don't like the new visuals, fine, like them, also fine, but I'd be more pissed taking a backwards step than progressing.

    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.

    • Like 1

  5. old school never like change, but in reality is just an evolution, and if you don't move with the times, you get left behind reminiscing about how great the past was, instead of looking forwards to the future ;)

    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.

  6. When I'm working with textures in Photoshop or GIMP and then I import them into Arma I expect them to look the same color and have the same tone and hue as what I see when I'm editing the image.

    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.
    • Like 1

  7. 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…

    • Like 2

  8. 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 ???

    • Like 1

  9. Altis looks great if you just adjust the post processing settings.  It's a lot of the community made terrains that are suffering right now due to the lack of documentation from BI on the necessary config and rvmat changes.  

     

    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.

    • Like 4

  10. 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

    • Like 4

  11. I have one button to scroll up the adction menu, one for down and one for select. This works for all cases.

    OK, I use this technique too, I thought you meant when press a button, a macro does two step down and valid...

    But it still too long when 10 actions are in the menu when I execute a final approach...

    Does somebody know if binding script actions is possible in UserInfo.cfg?

    What are you talking about SgtEversman?


  12. Hi

    I've not found detailed informations about this,

    I play more often with add-ons planes, but their action menu are complex, so in order to save time, I would like to assign basic actions such as "gear up/down" "open/close flaps" to my joystick.

    Is it possible to bind these actions?

    thx


  13. Yep, it seems there is only one C-17 by Hellden... sad_o.gif

    I was almost sure that there was other ones, in some add-ons sites, but C-130 are majority.

    After verification the other C-17 I have is not a C-17, it's the C-1 from BOH mod. I must clean my eyes ghostface.gif

    Many Globemasters exist in other combat simulations, it's the main plane used by paratroopers at the present time in US, so why only two exist for ofp?

    There's not C-17 used by France, so I think OFrP will not make one.

    Sorry to post in the wrong place.

×