St. Jimmy

I recommend not to update drivers unless there's actually something that's making the current driver bad or worse. There's pretty much only a chance to get worse performance with a driver update.

How to know if the cloud cover on you is cirrostratus or altostratus: - Check if you can see your shadow. If you can't it's altostratus. It happens in the real life. Altostratus is the most common and noticeable example. The clouds are very basic in the game so it's only checked from the overcast/cloudiness.

I'll put blame on the explosion sounds themselves because thunder is finally a thunder :P

Yep it happens and it's good that it happens.

Thunder finally fixed! https://feedback.bistudio.com/T71840 https://feedback.bistudio.com/T73543

Too bad that many interiors are at least partially locked.

So many are pretty much against the whole thing, that I don't believe this will see a light or the proposal will at least be very heavily modified to a pretty much different proposal.

The Helicopter DLC had the same problem. I just checked and it took 3 days to fix it.

What is the size of the whole map? I mean in a way as Altis is 900 sqkm with 270 sqkm of land.

It's a dual-core CPU without hyper-threading, not a quad... Dual core can easily go 80-100% in Arma.

Yep game updater said 1.6GB and Steam doesn't download anything...

Yes the LODs start to change bit worse after 100m already. That's why i don't use above 100m shadow distance.

Those are good pictures. You're now too aggressive. I prefer the 1.60 pictures except the ghillie suit is broken and the clouds are too bright. //Night time could also be bit brighter but that should at least change in the next patch or so.

The old visuals weren't good either. They just fit Altis and Stratis but things didn't look natural. https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/183128-real-light-reshade-preset-by-solano/ ^ Likely inspired devs to do something.

Honestly the first one reminds me more of bright day with few clouds. The second one is too dark. The second one has a cool look but it isn't really any better than the first one.

[quot https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Geometric_Occluders Also this technology has likely be applied now better on the objects. Not sure if the technology just was there but it wasn't applied until just now.

Btw does anyone else feel like that the Brightness and Post-process Brightness have bit different effect? I know that the PP brightness has wider range but it feels that those two have bit different effect, so you need to tweak both of them.

Images are without clouds and some cloud cover http://imgur.com/a/IXt6x gamma=0.83006543; // 0.8 brightness=0.74836606; // 0.7 ppBrightness=1.0806885; // 108 ppContrast=0.99156141; // 99 ppSaturation=1.1698157; // 117 ppBrightness might be bit too much but those settings should give a nice base. Saturation is usually very personal setting. //No idea how my post was fucked up. Also I lowered brightness bit 115->108

//My post was just totally wrong first, sorry It shines because of the burning wreck. The ground doesn't get lit up at all.

Just put them behind a bush or in shadow and you'll see them shine like a torch. The default camo is the only thing that takes shadows right. Other camos don't get shadowed/darkened enough. Actually now that I watch they maybe do the opposite, they get brighter in darker area and dark in brighter area :D I created a ticket https://feedback.bistudio.com/T117141 //Or were you just talking about the visuals only and not about the camo issue?

Yes I also noticed 15fps increase in the Altis benchmark results so the performance improvement is real! Average increased from 57->72fps and both tests were in HDD, so my fps would be even bit higher. Also YAAB bit over 2fps increase. From 42->44 (tested multiple times)

The thing is that you need to find the right settings. I found about the right settings for me after 30mins (back in the day when it hit dev-branch). Now I've fine tuned it a bit. I can give my settings: gamma=0.83006543; // 0.8 ppBrightness=1.1549608; // 115 ppContrast=0.99156141; // 99 ppSaturation=1.1698157; // 117 brightness=0.74836606; // 0.7

This is how my game looks. In my opinion there's not much wrong, other than that the cloudiness darkens the scene bit too quickly like I explained in the last post. http://imgur.com/a/IXt6x //Edit: Video settings: gamma=0.83006543; // 0.8 ppBrightness=1.1549608; // 115 ppContrast=0.99156141; // 99 ppSaturation=1.1698157; // 117 brightness=0.74836606; // 0.7

Between 0.6-1.0 overcast the lighting doesn't change at all. From 0.3-0.6 the overcast affects too much lighting. You should smooth those up. 0.6 is pretty open sky, even when there's chance for rain. Even 0.8 shouldn't be the darkest, it should go smoothly to the 1.0.

People who are complaining about moon light: Go in editor and set Stratis. Set date July 10th 2035, 20:00 o'clock and set clear weather. Put yourself on the radio tower where there are three of them. Play and you should see the moon on the SE. I suggest you to watch the opposite direction. Then put setAccTime 200 in the debug console that you should find in the escape menu and execute it. Now observe the lighting conditions through the night. It gets dark first, then it starts to lighten up more. Notice that if the moon is for example SW and there's a hill on the SW, it looks very dark. But then look the opposite direction and you'll see that everything is bright. If it isn't bright you likely want to reduce contrast. There's a freaking huge difference with one or two value here and there. For example I've set mine to 99, but 104 is already too dark. I tuned the values in the daytime because in my opinion higher contrast made some dark things look bad in the daytime. So it's not a cheat value for me, it's the best value through the whole 24h. // I have to agree with the clouds. Full overcast clouds are too bright.