MamiyaOtaru

heh sorry, not annoyed with you. Â I just tend to hear the same thing a whole lot. Â If I am going to post that link each time someone brings it up, I have to keep in mind that I haven't brought it up with that person before, so I can keep calm. I understand why it happens though, they are zeroed at a pretty large distance, and after years of games with simplistic straight line (hitscan) bullets it can be a surprise to see it working in game as it would IRL.

heh sorry, not annoyed with you. Â I just tend to hear the same thing a whole lot. Â If I am going to post that link each time someone brings it up, I have to keep in mind that I haven't brought it up with that person before, so I can keep calm. I understand why it happens though, they are zeroed at a pretty large distance, and after years of games with simplistic straight line (hitscan) bullets it can be a surprise to see it working in game as it would IRL.

This is a bug in the original ArmA data, not the mod. (Although the scope is out by about half an increment before modding - i.e. between the crosshair and the next mark up - so maybe the mod increases the error?) That's not a error <- some illustrations

This is a bug in the original ArmA data, not the mod. (Although the scope is out by about half an increment before modding - i.e. between the crosshair and the next mark up - so maybe the mod increases the error?) That's not a error <- some illustrations

Normal detail shadows are looking a lot worse with the 1.05 patch. Â A lot of it has to do with the grass layer. Â Some of it is just weird. As seen in this shot, shadows projected onto the footpath below the Paraiso cathedral are very blocky. Â http://img85.imageshack.us/img85....MG] (text in pic reads "no such problems here. Roads are fine too." Darn jpg compression) The grass layer does something similar, as can be seen in this shot: http://img85.imageshack.us/img85....MG] Closer up, same problem, plus you can see the grass layer's low resolution compared to the ground: not pretty http://img83.imageshack.us/img83....MG] Weirder in the north. Â Conifers have nice triangular shadows on the grass layer, but even before the grass layer they look wrong: http://img85.imageshack.us/img85....MG] With grass totally off, the shadow is normal: http://img83.imageshack.us/img83....MG] So, the weird shadows on the walkway below the cathedral may have been there before (don't remember), but the weird shadows on the grass layer are obviously new, and not so good looking. Â Fixing them and making the grass layer have a nice texture like the ground may eat into FPS more than the grass layer already does unfortunately. Â The weird shadows of the conifer are strange. Â Why does having a grass layer make the conifers' shadows look weird even where the grass layer isn't? Last of all, missing shadows! Â This might have been there in 1.04 too, not sure. http://img214.imageshack.us/img214....MG] edit: so, thumbnails seem to be broken. Â Not sure why, but the links work :-/

Well, I had sort of already made the same suggestion myself. So it's not like I discounted your suggestion, it just wasn't anything new.  Not sure why you are so intent on letting me know you told me something I had already said lol.  You were also guessing, just like I was, since you aren't a dev either. You can't blame me for being happy with an answer from a dev  The thing he explained that neither of us touched on, the thing I said made perfect sense, is why it's necessary to draw the tracer from where the hit was detected.

That's the weird part. Â In South Sahrani, it doesn't screw up the shadows where it isn't drawn, as one can see in the first shot, next to the pathway. Â It only seems to mess up conifers. Â You could be right about the cause though, that it is everywhere but is transparent close to you. Anyway, I quite like the grass layer. Â Some tweaks might help. Â For now, make sure you don't catch a grass layer transition in one of your snaps for the photography thread! A note: the grass layer has no problems with high detail (non-static) shadows. In the north, that's fine. I think they look better (softer and and darker and moving) in the forests, and I actually get higher performance in N Sahrani with high detail shadows. In the south, building and palm tree shadows projected in flat roadways looks better, and in the south for me normal shadows are faster, so I wish they worked a little better with the grass layer.

Thank you! That makes perfect sense. So why does the same effet happen when shooting a box?  I'll answer myself here.  There's only one hitzone on a box, so even if you hit the very top part, the tracer is drawn hitting the middle.  Better than seeing the tracer go through it, and only visible from a couple feet away in third person from the side  no problem This all makes it obvious how complex everything is.  Every frame I gues syou have to check in advance if the bullet is going to hit something so the next frame it can be drawn to where it hits.  Or maybe the drawing lags a slight bit behind where the shot actually is, so you don't have to predict?  Some people might say you can save some headaches by not drawing so many tracers Anyway, it makes my head hurt a bit.  Impressive stuff this all is, no wonder a bug or two slips through.

Um, duh? Still doesn't make sense, so I ask. You have to admit it looks weird hehe. Your idea looks about the same as mine, it's the only thing I can think of. Anyway, if Suma deigns to explain further, cool. If not, I await the next patch!

How can that be? I have a hard time understanding how it's a problem with collision detection. That makes it sound like a hit to the head was mistakenly detected as a hit to the torso. That's not the problem though, shots really are hitting the torso. Am I to understand that I hit the head, and it was mistakenly detected as a hit to the torso and so the game drew the tracer headed to the torso? Just confused how a shot not going at all where it is pointed is a hit detection thing If it's indeed fixed in the next patch though I'll just be happy being confused.

Especially amusing watching an AI do this, standing up, with an m107. The player can't really, every shot (when standing) kicks like a mule and you almost have to unzoom to get pointed the right direction again. Not so the AI. Bang bang bang! Each time the gun kicks to 40 degrees up, but in a split second the AI has it back down with the target reaqcuired no difficulty at all

Core 2 duo and nvidia 7900gt here, and no issues. Performance is exactly the same as in 1.04, aside from the grass layer. Remove it, and both versions have the same framerate. 1.05 seems to do better wit LOD textures for me too. I know it isn't helpful for someone with problems to hear that, but it underscores that there is no simple solution. If there really is a problem (not placebo effect or people not knowing about grass layer) it probably isn't as simple as picking out a processor/gpu combo. Well, maybe the geforce 8800, those seem to be rather borken

Why? The man has an opinion. I think the grass layer is great. Finally something for extending grass's cover out beyond where it is drawn. Yay! Still, there was talk of either coloring the parts of objects that would be below the grass line (to look like the ground) or making them see through. Those two ways might conceivably be better, doesn't hurt to discuss it. I'm just glad something is in there at all, rather that than nothing, but if things can be improved, yay! Of course, even with the grass layer I think they can be. It's a lot lower res than the ground (obvious through sniper scopes) and it is drawn at the same distance no matter how far out the actual grass is drawn. No effect from setting terrain detail. I also worry about editing the grass. In 1.04 I edited sara.pbo to have less dense grass that extended out farther from the player. I fear in 1.05 the grass layer will stay as close as always, defeating the point. screeny of issues There's always room for improvements! Will BIS do it? dunno, but it doesn't hurt to make our thoughts known.

Same with auto aim on or off, veteran or normal difficulty.

See this thread for my mspaint visual explanation.

You might be talking to me. I didn't mention new grass textures so much as a new grass layer. Beyond where the actual grass is drawn, a grass layer is drawn above the ground, hiding peoples' feet, or their whole bodies if prone. It is actually something extra drawn to the screen that wasn't there before. You can see where it begins approximately where the actual grass ends. It wasn't there before. If one takes it out of the picture (by setting terrain detail very low) 1.05 gets exactly the same performance as 1.04 (on terrain detail very low). The performance loss only shows up with grass enabled, since 1.05 has something extra that 1.04 didn't. At least on my machine then, the FPS loss is due to that extra layer, and I find it an acceptable tradeoff.

I don't find that statement awsome. Infact i find it unbelievable. Hardly. It's a very tough problem. How do you know if you can skip drawing things that are behind a polygon, if part of that polygon is see through, with weird shapes (leaves)? It would be a lot easier with voxels (since you just move outwards from the player along the z axis once per pixel until you hit something instead of trying to calculate which polygons are behind other polygons), but you don't see that tech used a lot anymore Man, Outcast looked amazing for 1999.. Anyway, there isn't an easy solution, and I'm glad BIS is working on it. If they can solve it that'd be a huge boost but we gotta be realistic.

I don't find that statement awsome. Infact i find it unbelievable. Hardly. It's a very tough problem. How do you know if you can skip drawing things that are behind a polygon, if part of that polygon is see through, with weird shapes (leaves)? It would be a lot easier with voxels (since you just move outwards from the player along the z axis once per pixel until you hit something instead of trying to calculate which polygons are behind other polygons), but you don't see that tech used a lot anymore Man, Outcast looked amazing for 1999.. Anyway, there isn't an easy solution, and I'm glad BIS is working on it. If they can solve it that'd be a huge boost but we gotta be realistic.

The graphics slowdown is entirely due to the new grass layer, period Here anyway; read on. So I decided to do some framerate tests. Â Before patching, I saved a couple missions (one in S Sahrani, one in N Sahrani) with just me on the map. Â Started each mission, and without moving recorded the framerate looking to the left, right, straight ahead, through irons, and through irons+zoomed. Â Then I patched to 1.05, loaded the same missions (so I am in the exact same spots) and measured. (same settings of course) numbers are FPS looking left, right, ahead, irons, irons+zoom With Grass South Sahrani (looking over Somato from hill to south) 1.04 52, 58, 56, 44, 48 1.05 48, 53, 52, 40, 44 North Sahrani (in forest east of Eponia) 1.04 34, 32, 33, 28, 26 1.05 32, 30, 30, 26, 26 This is an average of 7.3 percent fewer frames per second. I am assuming the loss is due to the extra grass layer drawn now. Â To test this, here are figures from 1.04 and 1.05 without grass. Â If there is little difference between 1.04 and 1.05, we can assume the drop I experiences with the first set of figures is due to the grass layer. Without Grass South Sahrani (looking over Somato from hill to south) 1.04 60, 72, 69, 50, 49 1.05 60, 72, 69, 50, 49 North Sahrani (in forest east of Eponia) 1.04 43, 37, 37, 32, 31 1.05 43, 37, 37, 31, 31 This is a .2% performance loss, statistically insignificant. Â 1.05 performs exactly the same as 1.04 with grass turned off. Â The drop we see in 1.05 then is due to the new grass layer. Â Since that lets AI and other players hide somewhat in grass at long distances, it may be worth it. Â Tests run on Core 2 duo 6600 2 GB ddr2-800 Intel G965+ ICH8 chipset geforce 7900gt Windows XP Low postprocessing, low antialiasing, 1024*768 Viewdistance ~1600 Normal textures, shading, shadows. Normal terrain detail (except on no grass test, where it was very low).

Of course All sorts of variables with elevation of shooter and target and such. Hopefully we can at lest get the basics across.

A bullet will climb if you fire up. Â And that is what you have to do to hit a target that is level with you. Â You aim up a slight amount to offset the amount the bullet will fall due to gravity (and it will fall, it doesn't get where it's going instantaneously). Â So yes, the bullet does rise before it falls. The sniper rifles are zeroed at 500 meters. Â That means the sight is exactly where it needs to be to hit someone at 500 meters by aiming the cross right at him: the aiming slightly up part is built in. Â If he is farther away, you need to aim up even more (putting the cross above him), since the bullet will take longer to get there and will fall more. Â Obviously, if he is closer than 500 meters you don't need to aim as high (so you put the cross below him), since the bullet won't have time to fall fast enough to offset the slightly upward momentum given by the built in slight upward angle of the barrel compared to the scope. This is pretty simple stuff. Â Just have to get it through your head that the scope isn't exactly parallel with the barrel, it's already adjusted to "aim higher." Â If the target's too close, then the gun is aimed too high (so you have to aim down, putting the cross below him). Â Simple as that.

The new grass layer (lets AI and people in multiplayer hide in the grass even far away) is nice.  Many kudos to BIS for doing something about hiding in the grass  There are a couple things about it that bother me though.  1:The texture of the grass layer is far less detailed than the ground texture.  2: Setting terrain detail higher increases the range at which actual grass is drawn.  Unfortunately it does not increase the range at which the new grass layer appears.  Why not?  If grass is drawn farther out, the grass layer shouldn't need to appear until farther out! Screenshot with notes: Higher resolution texture would be nice, one like the ground underneath it.  It's really most noticable right where it begins to appear, when you are zoomed. Far away, even zoomed, it looks just like the ground. Basically it just needs to be as detailed as the ground underneath it. Maybe save mem/fps by not drawing the ground underneath it with as much detail where it isn't seen? And letting the distance at which it appears be controlled by terrain detail would be nice, keep it appearing where the grass disappears.  Thanks BIS!

 Not really  If I throw enough units on the map though, a drop from 25 to 22 starts to get to where I can't stand it. Wouldn't hurt of some other folks tried it.  Would be a little more scientific.  That's why I ran my little test with no AI.  Unless there are a ton more seagulls, I think any change can be attributed to changes in the graphics. Anyway, I think the grass layer may be at fault for part of it.  It is extra stuff to draw.  Unfortunately it is a lot lower resolution than the ground underneath it, especially obvious when zoomed in on it

So I decided to do some framerate tests. Â Before patching, I saved a couple missions (one in S Sahrani, one in N Sahrani) with just me on the map. Â Started each mission, and without moving recorded the framerate looking to the left, right, straight ahead, through irons, and through irons+zoomed. Â Then I patched to 1.05, loaded the same missions (so I am in the exact same spots) and measured. (same settings of course) I averaged 7.3 percent fewer frames per second. Â Figures below. numbers are FPS looking left, right, ahead, irons, irons+zoom South Sahrani (looking over Somato from hill to south) 1.04 52, 58, 56, 44, 48 1.05 48, 53, 52, 40, 44 North Sahrani (in forest east of Eponia) 1.04 34, 32, 33, 28, 26 1.05 32, 30, 30, 26, 26 I would assume the loss is from the AI is doing more or something (we keep asking for that) except that in my tests there was no AI on the map at all. Â The loss is entirely degraded graphics performance. Â Is it the new grass layer? Â Maybe the loss comes from keeping extra textures or LODs in memory and ready to display quickly to try to mitigate teh low LOD seen up close problem. Â If so (and if it works) I guess it's a worthy trade. Â That's the only reason I can come up with why things might be slowed down graphically: that it is tied ti improvements. Anyway, the performance loss is real for me. Â Tests run on Core 2 duo 6600 2 GB ddr2-800 Intel G965+ ICH8 chipset geforce 7900gt Windows XP Normal textures, terrain detail, shading, shadows. Â Low postprocessing, low antialiasing, 1024*768 Viewdistance ~1600

In the pine forests of north Sahrani I get about 4 fps more with high shadow detail than I do with normal  In cities in south Sahrani I get more fps with normal shadow detail.  Not sure what the difference is, but it's there. It's fine by me though: in the forests and grass of the north, the blobby shadows look better, everything looks a little darker under the canopy. In the south, the sharper (yet static) normal shadows look better. Palm fronds against roadways look better when you can see each frond's shadow instead of a blob. So for each half of the island, the better looking option is faster