5LEvEN
-
Content Count
280 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by 5LEvEN
-
-
While if the technology being developed by euclideon is real, then arma 4 will be AMAZING to say the worst....
-
Hi,Yes, this would be a pretty nice feature indeed! :)
I see some problems when making this possible though, for a vehicle like a simple car, lets say you get in the driver seat, would be pretty much simple to achieve in comparison to getting in the gunner position for example.
To get in the gunner the unit would need to open door, get inside vehicle, travel inside the vehicle to gunner position etc, while much can happen at this point, such has the vehicle exploding or something like that.
Now even worst would be vehicles like a C-130, truck, etc, where units would need to travel inside the vehicle.
Would be brilliant if something like this would be implemented/possible to do, but i can only imagine how hard to achieve it.
_neo_
But that's how it is in real life. You don't just poof into the gunner seat, you have to climb into the gunner seat. It would take more time to enter the gunner seat, just as in real life. As of right now you could hide behind the humvee and wait tell the enemy is close enough, then just poof into the gunner seat and cut them down. With it being fully animated you could not do this. I would like to see animations for entering the gunner seat. The main reason is because of the added realism and immersion.
---------- Post added at 01:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 AM ----------
When I saw the title of this thread I thought the OP meant actual vehicle embarkation. As in driving a vehicle into the back of a C-130 or loading a tank onto a landing craft, that sort of thing. Ah well, I can dream right?I would also like to see this...
-
ah yes. This is also a new feature. When you adjust your grenade launcher you will actually see that the sights have been corrected and you have another angle of view.Here are 2 pictures of it. I excuse myself for the poor quality but at this moment i was not really concentrated on the camera^^. But i guess you'll see what i mean.
Are those proper leaf sights, or arcade sights (Can't really tell from the pictures)? I am really hoping for proper leaf sights.... ;)
-
This:YifGESd0o0A
Please, no discussion about VBS2 here!
Is that done with an attachto command, or is it done more like Joint Operations? Because the attachto command works for vehicles, although is somewhat tedious to do, but it doesn't work for allowing me to walk around the platform whilst it is moving.
-
I was just about to say!In Joint operations (Loved that game to death) u could move freely in helicopters, boats and maybe more but dunno.
Really gave that immersive feeling to it.
I can remember a awesome moment i had in JO
I got shot down with my little chopper and crashed in the water, i survived and swimmer back to the shore were the enemy base was. A chinook with his back directly pointin to the beach was standing there and i rushed to it. I walked inside the chinook and noticed some enemy players were going to fly it. So before i knew we were in mid air, me and 3 enemy players. I shot the first, walked to the cockpit and killed the other 2. And then to take over the chopper.
Mmmh nostalgia
It is an amazing game. I really really hope the developers check it out, and learn from what they did with vehicles and the cargo bay....
-
Add an option to see detailed server information under multi-player. Like who's playing, any forced settings, time limits, ect...
-
In my opinion the goal of immersing the player in a game is to make the player feel like he/she is inside the game, apart of it basically. The head bob makes me feel like I am watching it, not apart of it. That is why it kills the immersion for me, and I prefer not to use it.
I would enable motion blur if it wasn't tied to PP. I can run motion blur fine, its just the PP that kills my system. Also when my frames start to drop, the motion blur gets worse. Even if the drop is all cause of my **** CPU.
This whole discussion started because of wanting to be able to force graphics to "balance" the game. But I do not see a need to. Also when players FPS starts to drop, then someone having a better system has an even greater advantage. For example I can compete on PvP, but if I enable PP (obviously motion blur is included in that setting) and my CPU begins to bottleneck (as it always does) then motion blur for me would be overkill and I would no longer be able to compete with others. If you left that option up to the players, then I would still be able to compete, and if someone thinks I have an advantage they could easily turn off their PP, so there is no longer an advantage. What we have currently is enough. Everything else should be up to the player.
BTW my GPU actually handles arma fine at my settings even though it's low end. It's my CPU that bottlenecks. It doesn't matter if PP is done on the GPU, the moment my CPU bottlenecks, motion blur becomes unbearable.
-
Well, like it or not people do refer to CAPS as shouting; when typing on the internet. That was my interpretation of aggravated in this case. There's no need to get into something as mundane as this lol.It is biased because you cant experience said feature the way it was intended to be experienced. Your low frame-rate turns it into a hindrance.
Head-bob effects motion-blur as in both effects compliment each other -"part-and-parcel". This can affect ones opinion of motion-blur if head-bob is non-existent. Like in your case.
You state there is no motion-blur when your running forward, yet you have head-bob turned completely off so that your head is in essence almost floating. How realistic is that?
Look at a few helmet-cam clips; you'll notice that whenever running/jogging the soldier in question is a lot closer to what i describe than to what you show (in your youtube video); if your looking for realism then you have it backwards.
Your completely disregarding the fact that a soldier at any one time can be carrying 80lb's of equipment and when under duress --trying to avoid bullets, lugging heavy gear, chin-strapped helmet etc-- it can "feel like trying to move your head forward in a rocket" -as my esteemed colleague points out.
I dont care if your Linford Christie; its still a far cry from your average 8 mile run up a dirt road.
From what i gather you prefer performance and cant afford the added realism. It is because of people in your situation that i suggest this as being an optional feature available to mission makers. Not an across the board -forced feature.
And lol... This whole defeat thing, to quote yourself, is "really funny" considering you were the one that started yelling troll. :rolleyes:
Ugh... This is becoming very annoying now... I feel like a robot who only knows how to repeat him self....
-It is not biased if you can see how it is "supposed" to be. And it's actually fine on my computer all the way up until combat starts and the lag kicks in for me.
-Head bob only makes a SMALL difference to motion blur... Do I really need to upload another video just to prove this stupid point?
-I already stated that I USE CAPS JUST AS YOU WOULD USE italics. So I never yelled at anyone.
-Of course you're going to see a lot of bobbing up and down on a head cam. Have you ever used one? Go ahead and just walk normally. Yeah, the camera still bobs a lot, but your vision looks level. It's not what the camera shows you, its what YOU see.
-I am against this feature because it waste the developers time in my opinion. It waste time that should be used on increasing realism. I don't care if it takes only five minutes for them to do, it's still a waste of time.
-I prefer realism. Realism being as close to reality. Your brain makes corrections for your head bobbing up and down. So you don't notice it. Even when just walking you head is bobbing, yet you don't notice it.
-Oh and I have seen helmet cams on soldiers. Here's some proof for that (hope you enjoy them, I know I did :) )
---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 PM ----------
I would like the option under audio to turn down vehicle noises (mainly from helicopters).
---------- Post added at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------
§12 ;)Btw, how is caps lock that much easier than ctrl i or ctrl b or ctrl u? One user feature this forum software got very right compared to most others I use. Not the worst "crime" I've seen. Didn't even notice, but I tend to skip posts that are "bad" for shouting reasons or otherwise.
Because I just hit capslock with my pinky. While ctrl+i requires me to hold ctrl with my pinky and hit the i with my middle finger. Then click out of the zone for italics. Also ctrl+i does not work for me... So to use italics I have to stop typing, click the button, start typing, stop typing, click out of the italics zone, and continue again. Or I just hit capslock keep typing and hit capslock again...
-
FPDR...i am pretty sure you are a yank, just by that fail statement.know greece is going from some hard times atm, but still...
Please don't stereotype people... Although, IMO people in america that are ignorant are common, there is still a lot of people that are not... You're assuming the ENTIRE population is ignorant.
-
Lol, thanks for the english lesson.Im not referring to any second meaning, you just spoke with a LOT OF CAPITALS. (capitals can be interpreted as shouting, shouting can be interpreted as being agitated) :p
There's not much more to say about settings, after the upload of the video i was able to get a glimpse at what type of performance you were getting and with roughly what FPS. Your understanding of the settings were diluted imo; mainly due to the fact that you had head-bob off.
Im not suggesting that your delusional per-say, more-so that you are incapable of running all of said settings with a desirable framerate. Myself and Carl pointed out before that low FPS can make motion-blur a lot more pronounced; giving an undesirable effect in comparison to how its intended to be interpreted. Im of the impression that your opinion is heavily biased in that regard.
I originally pointed out that i want to segregate these features so as to even the playing field, to suggest that i suddenly saw defeat is obnoxiously wrong considering the fact that i proposed this idea from the start. :)
I use CAPITALS just as you would use italics. I honestly don't get why people have to think capitals are for shouting. Youtube for example has no italic capabilities (to my knowledge) so I use capitals instead. And it's also a lot easier to just FLIP ON THE CAPSLOCK AND TYPE STUFF, then it is to use the button, and type in between the symbols, or type the symbols. Hope that makes sense :) Also most on YouTube understand this, so I usually don't get the "why are you shouting at me" expression, and when I do I explain this.
I have tried a lot of combinations for settings. Mainly for performance reasons. I have also tried them for immersion. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to max out the game, but I just don't have the hardware nor do I have the money for the hardware. When I have low FPS I am all for performance, when I have spare FPS I start cranking up settings. And on some games (oblivion for example) I get graphical mods, and force AA, AF, and some other settings via the Nvidia control panel... Or a better example BF2, as some of the settings do effect your gameplay (like grass), but I still crank up the settings all the way because I can.
How exactly does head bob effect my opinion of settings. That is really funny that you think that.... So let me get this straight... Because I prefer performance, and realism. My opinion of settings is delusional, and biased, whilst yours is not? rofl...
I was talking about seeing defeat on the motion blur being almost non-existent while just running without movement of the head or weapon, and it's also basically the same with head bob at max. I do see what you are talking about with motion blur and low FPS BTW.
-
10%, 5%... Your numbers baffle me.I never said you have screen tearing, but you seem to think that v-sync is a hard for someone like myself to grasp, thats laughable.
Just because your agitated does not automatically mean im trying to troll. :rolleyes:
If you want to play Arma2 with barely any of the visual features available then i put forward the valid suggestion to give the mission maker the option to force a few of these features, so those of us that prefer the added immersion can play together knowing that everyone is in the same boat so to speak.
I came in here and suggested this, you replied to my comment and disagreed. I have every right to defend my point of view. You have every right to disagree. If that is your definition of trolling then you need to look that up too. :)
If you dont feel like taking part in this discussion anymore than your more than welcome to "agree to disagree".
While I am sorry that there is no real way to determine exact numbers, thus it requires YOU to interpret the numbers. If you honestly think the difference is greater then 25% I would say you're blind or you are trolling. Actually you are the one being agitated. Hear to save you time I looked up the definition for you
ag·i·tate
verb /ˈajiËŒtÄt/ 
agitated, past participle; agitated, past tense; agitates, 3rd person singular present; agitating, present participle
Make (someone) troubled or nervous
- the thought of questioning Toby agitated him extremely
Campaign to arouse public concern about an issue in the hope of prompting action
- they agitated for a reversal of the decision
Stir or disturb (something, esp. a liquid) briskly
- agitate the water to disperse the oil
I believe you are talking about the 2nd meaning. Which you are the one suggesting to be able to force settings, while I am saying LEAVE it alone.
I get the feeling you are trying to troll, because before the upload of a video it was a discussion about settings. Now its you trying to say this and that because of my settings (which is what I HAVE TO RUN, so I can actually play the game, believe me if I had money, I would buy a new computer, and that computer would max out arma). And that I am delusional ROFL... Also that I am not having the same "challenge" as you. It's as if you saw defeat so you're trying to change the subject to something you can win at.... A disagreement is not trolling.
-Just what I am thinking, do not want to argue about this-
BTW I don't think you play at my FPS. Because I have 25 FPS without a lot of combat and without fraps, and at my settings. I have 28FPS as a MAX. You recorded with fraps just as smoothly as I run the game without fraps. You probably get to my FPS (without combat and without recording) when in heavy combat or recording, which during recording I have 9 FPS, and during heavy combat I can get down to less then that easy...
-Just what I am thinking, do not want to argue about this-
-
Oh, I see. Haven't played ArmA 2, and I'm not quite sure of the functionalities that you described. But that doesn't sound like a realistic system to me. Actually, i had NWD's tank FCS mod for ArmA 1 in mind... but that mod didn't seem to have been passed on to ArmA 2.Anyway, it's probably too much to expect this sort of detail---- they haven't got it in VBS 2, why would they spend the money to implement such a feature that could potentially drive customers away in ArmA?
While I don't know what tank you are gunning but, the Abrams has an excellent fire control system. As in it's vary accurate and calculates where to fire very fast. I would recommend you do some research on that.
-
Lol, i think your the one that needs to look up v-sync. There's such a thing as screen tearing, as Carl points out in so many words. :rolleyes:Count yourself fortunate that you dont notice screen-tearing; which funnily enough makes you the one who isn't well versed in the usefulness of v-sync.
Your right, we all have arma; but im not the one that feels the need to create subjective video's on youtube (ie with headbob removed).
The low FPS that you are experiencing is woeful, its blatantly obvious that fraps is only adding to that. I play arma no problem @ 25FPS+ with PP on, if you want to book a flight from the US over to Dublin and watch me play your more than welcome to. FYI the vimeo video was made using Fraps.
You say you turned on head-bob to max, "small difference"... just like motion-blur is "almost noticable". Combine the two and you get "quite noticable". TBH i believe your downplaying the significance of the both combined.
Of course in RL Joe civilian's head doesnt bob as much as that; its an effect created by the developers, for soldiers. As i pointed out before; soldiers in the field have to carry around a lot of heavy equipment and when they are attacked they have to move quicker. Its hard to keep your head level like that when under duress, with such heavy weight pushing down on your back; going for a run can be challenging.
The whole point of this feature is to simulate that. Your gpu is weak and cannot withstand the punishment that v-sync, AA, PP, shadows etc. dish out. So you've convinced yourself that you dont need these features and that they are in-effect, useless.
Hence im not surprised in the slightest that you have no idea what challenge im referring to.
So to summarise;
Its either; an ALMOST noticable difference (PP), a SMALL difference (headbob) or a RARE case (shadows).
Get a better system and play the game in all its glory, otherwise --let me re-iterate;
"...accept the fact that you like to play with a lot of features turned down or off completely and that due to this you arent experiencing the added challenge that i describe."
Ugh, I don't get how it's that hard for you.... I said I DON"T have screen tearing so I don't need it. Which is funny you're telling me to go look it up, because I already answered that I DON"T need it, because I DON"T have screen tearing. Yes I understand I have a low end GPU, and I do WANT a better one for obvious reasons. shadows, AA, and PP are in my opinion EYE CANDY. And by small difference with very high PP and max head bob, I mean like literally a 10% difference. Which makes it still BARELY NOTICEABLE when moving without moving weapon or head. I run 6 days a week at an average of 8 miles a day. I don't run on the tread mill, I run on trails and roads. I know for a fact that I am able to focus on objects close and in the distance while running, and that my head doesn't bob like that. I also know people in the military who do not confirm what you're saying about head bob. TO be honest I get the feeling you are trying to troll....:j:
---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------
Speaking of low fps, is firerate still influenced by it?Yes. You fire a hell of a lot slower when you got low FPS. That you can trust me on... :)
-
I think cars will be much more modern in arma 3. The reason being the real island is not really a 3rd world country... As you can see in the pictures
-
Some CCIP video from FC2.A-10A Maverick use.
As you see very simple and requires TDC left, right, up and down, zoom and just a lock and fire button. 1st you slew the TDC in the HUD, then lock once to Stabilise then slew TDC in the maverick display, zoom and lock. Then fire, its simple in LO FC2 for A-10A and thats the sort of fire control procedure you want. Mav seeker is very similar to the UAV display in OA except the ground stabilise which locks the seeker in the image from there its quite easy to slew the TDC to exactly where you want it.
Is the A-10A capable of CCRP bombing? I never learned to use the A-10A, I just learned the A-10C...
---------- Post added at 04:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 AM ----------
Oh such a large thread... Probably my point will be drowned on it but anyways.First, the Tablock problem is pervasive across all weapon systems - be it choppers, tanks, or hand-held ATGMs. It is awful because it implies that the weapon system knows instantaneously where every enemy are, leaving you the job of just pulling the trigger. Compare to the small arms system for the infantry, where you have to take into account the ballistics and recoil of the weapon you firing, and then see the massive difference in complexity between the two.
Second, the system could be improved by applying simple mechanisms. Its not the intention of ARMA to be a full-fledged SAM simulation. But it is also the intention of ARMA to be the "console-kind-of-push-button-and-things-go-boom-game"? So a middle ground must be found.
We don't need all the cockpit buttons and dials and radar modes you have in the aircrafts. We just need to model the interactions between:
- The firing platform acquisition and fire control systems;
- The weapon;
- The target.
For example, an AH-1Z pops up behind a hill to survey the area. What the pilot could use to find its targets?
- From onboard equipment: CCD/IR cameras only. The human pilot (or the human gunner) would have to acquire the target visually in an MFD.
- From outside: static target position relayed by laser designators (a simplified JTAC), a moving target could be provided by continuous laser designation.
The AH-1Z then fires its own laser to paint the target (which should have a maximum ON timer and a cooldown timer). The target in this case is a T-90, which has laser detectors. The tank commander fires a smoke screen to interrupt the designation, while trying to also maneuver to cover.
The chopper is now unable to engage, but it has coordinates close to the tank position. It, however, cannot move closer to fire its rockets since the pilot sees in its RWR the presence of a Tunguska system painting it with its search radar. The RWR only displays an imprecise bearing of where the threat is, and knowing how the Tunguska outranges its own missiles, the pilot asks the special forces on the ground to find and destroy it so it could prosecute the armored targets.
Isn't this description much more fun, with more teamwork involved, than the simply absolute superiority choppers have currently? And you don't need to delve deep into the small details of the equipment involved - just keep it abstracted, but do not abstract the necessary interactions between the platform the weapon and the target. Doing so dumbs down too much to be acceptable.
I absolutely agree. Which is why I would LOVE arma 3 to have realistic vehicle simulation, not this current arcade crap :)
-
Not for me. Low FPS is pretty much guaranteed. ;)It adds to my immersion, but yeah I'm glad we can set how much.
Some do. Also it enables sampling on a sub pixel level, so it does have the potential of providing just the same kind of advantage you get from a low reolution display over a high resolution display. Again, highly subjective, and personally I don't use it either.
You think they invented V-sync just for adding a separate button? Depends greatly on the draw rates you're able to achieve. It doesn't make a static image better, but when you start seeing a pesky drawline crawl up your display, you might change your mind.
If you're hiding in the right outfit in the right place in the shadows of the forests of Chernarus, believe me, I'll pick you out far easier with shadows disabled compared to when they're on. It does rely on very near combat situations though.
Better than what I'm getting with PP at normal, unless I choose low textures. I feel it's getting somewhat more difficult to pick up things while on the move. I don't want it to become impossible, just a hint. For me, immersion all the way.
AA in some games does add an advantage. For example in DCS A-10C if I turn on AA the buildings don't flicker on the edges, and makes it easier to distinguish them. But in arma I have noticed no advantage.
In some rare cases shadows do make a difference when spotting enemies. Out of all the games I have played (multi-player, single-player, and just screwing around in the editor) probably only 5% of the encounters with personal, shadows made a difference. In fact there are a few games that I have noticed actually need to have shadows disabled or enabled (other then performance reasons). When I enable shadows is to give me a slight warning. Because I can see the enemies shadow, but in arma its almost never needed. Maybe I am just different, but I have yet to find one game where shadows make a huge difference in spotting capabilities (other then seeing the enemies shadows).
Yes I know what v-sync is. And I have never needed it enabled. I have yet to find one game that the screen "tears" on my system.
I am a little interested in your system specs, because most people get better frames then me (most meaning around 99.9% of arma players)... If you actually get worse FPS then me, you are the first I have met.... :)
-
I would refer to that video as showcasing what it looks like with head-bob turned off. :rolleyes:I would also like to point out that it is a well known fact that if you dont have a solid frame-rate to support motion-blur it makes the effect a lot more pronounced and incredibly unbearable. In that video the frames are too low to support motion-blur without it becoming a nuance.
Judging by the settings displayed it must be a fairly weak gpu if it is to suffer with; AA off, Shadows off, vsync off when trying to display full PP.
Though not the best example, this is a video i made of a few of us goofing about (PP is on very high)(also, there is a slight bit of ghosting which is due to the video conversion);
---
Of course if the head is not moving you wont get any motion-blur. Turn on head-bob, then re-upload another vid to youtube. :)
Otherwise accept the fact that you like to play with a lot of features turned down or off completely and that due to this you arent experiencing the added challenge that i describe.
Low FPS is because of fraps. You have head bob on right? Cause you have just as much motion blur as I do. Also head bob is over kill... I know for a fact in real life my head doesn't bob up and down that much, and that my brain makes corrections to the image I see, so that even if it is, my vision is normal, and it is barely noticeable. So headbob is an immersion killer.
AA is useless in my opinion, I don't give a **** if I see the jaggies. V-sync... LOL I get the feeling you don't even know what that is, so please go look it up, cause it doesn't make anything look better. Shadows are in the same vote for AA. Shadows do not give any type of disadvantage or advantage in a game like arma FYI. And yes it is a low end GPU. And as I stated before the low FPS is caused by fraps.
I turned on head bob to max, guess what... SMALL difference. It is still in my book almost unnoticeable. So I am not going to waste time uploading a new video. We all have arma right? So go ahead and try it your self.
Oh and what challenge? I would like to see you play arma @ 25FPS or 23FPS (with PP). Are you really going to say I have no challenge? Domi drops my frames down to around 15 FPS....
-
Your test wasnt very concise considering that statement is incorrect. Its quite existent.You dont have to do like an ostrich, just dont join said game. Im not suggesting that it be forced across the board.
I call this almost non-existent....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giB9-k9bBA
It is almost non-existent without moving the mouse. Doesn't matter what direction you move in or how fast it will look like that. It doesn't become horribly noticeable until you move the mouse. Go ahead do your own test. I dare you to try and prove me wrong.
-
If you were to stop or walk with your weapon raised as i pointed out before you wouldnt have that problem with motion-blur activated. From what ive been told; this is something that has to be done in real-life. Carrying heavy equipment on your back adds strain which can make it harder to keep your focus when moving fast. You say you move quickly and like to check the edges of your screen, seems more like a play-style that your not willing to change. If you were to implement motion-blur you would have to adapt your play-style.The advantage that you state in regards to moving up resolutions; can help alright (as i stated before). The difference is that resolution and monitors dont exist solely to impede the player. Which is why i make the argument that they arent in the same league.
A lower/higher resolution is something that is universally accepted and isnt a feature privy to just one game. The way motion-blur has been employed is specific to Arma2; other games use it very subtly and it serves no real purpose. In Arma it does.
Bohemia decided to add this feature to this game, they made that conscious decision.
Now that the option to use it is there; just like the guy with 3 monitors; im hardly going to not use it. But if someone was to join my PvP mission (still hypothetically speaking here) i wouldn't like for him to not face the same challenge that myself or others that i play with face. Simple as that. :)
Here allow me to be more precise. I did do testing to refresh my memory before my last post...
When walking, running, and sprinting motion blur is almost non-existent. When moving your view via head movements or weapon movements it becomes very noticeable. I do not move in a given direction without scanning my surroundings. My play style for arma is to move from cover to cover, and scan the environment. When moving without scanning the problem is non-existent. When aiming or looking the motion blur is over kill. When moving and aiming or looking the motion blur is even more so over kill. I have compared what I see in game to what I see in real life, and motion blur is over kill. I am not going to put my head in the dirt so I can play arma with motion blur. That's just stupid, since arma requires situation awareness. I dare you to do your own test, and do the comparisons. Motion blur in arma is just over kill.
-
Roll your eyes all you want. :)Point is that 3 monitors aren't designed by the developers to challenge the players ability to spot contacts, cause --yes your right-- blur is a setting.
My whole point has been the fact that they are 2 seperate things and should be treated as such -in regards to this debate. I don't believe the advantage of 3 screens is greater than that of motion-blur being off; to the point where i couldnt care less if someone has 9 screens. As long as they have 2 eyes its all good.
Turning off motion-blur removes a key part of the immersion which Arma offers in the visuals dept. I asked one of my arma buddies earlier this evening about his opinion on this (he served in the British army). He stated that the motion-blur that is included in Arma2 is most definitely a feature which he himself would not play without.
Why? Because of the challenge which comes part-in-parcel with said effect; in real-life he and the men he has served with suffer from a similar disadvantage. I asked him for his opinion because i wanted to find out if the effect is over-done or even valid in regards to the challenges that a soldier faces.
When it came to resolution, the numbers that you cited were well off and after correcting yourself it clearly isnt as much of an advantage --pixel-wise-- as you would have liked to have made out. Similarly i would prescribe to the opinion that your 3 monitors argument holds a lot less water than that of what iam pointing out.
Tbh i simply do not believe that there is no difference between motion-blur on/off, in regards to spotting enemies. From what i gather you just dont like the feature; it "gives you a headache". Whether its a case of severe corneal oedema or not; is anyones guess. :rolleyes:
I am constantly checking the edges of my screen for small things, especially when moving quickly. The blur gives me a headache over time basically because of the fact I have to take a blurred image and transfer it to something understandable.
Yes I corrected it. But to say there is a small difference is really amusing to say the least.
Numbers in bold = Total pixels divided by base pixels (480p)
720×480 = 345,600 1
1280×720 = 921,600 2.666666666666667
1440x900 = 1,296,000 3.75
1680x1200 = 2,016,000 5.833333333333333
1920x1080 = 2,073,600 6
2560x1600 = 4,096,000 11.85185185185185
5760x1080 = 6,220,800 18
7680x1600 = 12,288,000 35.55555555555556
I would like to think that having that many more pixels is an advantage. Not even two months ago I was on a resolution 1440x900 and now I am on a resolution of 1920x1080. I see a difference in my game play. I am now even better because I can spot and aim much more quickly. It is much more easier to aim at five pixels then it is to aim at one pixel for example...
And IMHO the motion blur is really over kill. I can only replicate the blur in game turning at an average pace (the average pace being how fast I turn in real life) if I turn my head as fast as I can. And if I turn my head slowly in real life I get no blur, while in game I get some blur. So I actually see the blur as an immersion killer and over kill.
-
The same can be said conversely; 3 monitors does not take away the dis-advantage of motion blur.Motion blur and 3 monitors are 2 seperate things. Which is why I made that statement. 3 monitors is an advantage on its own, and motion blur, is a setting. Some see it as a disadvantage, and others may not see it having any disadvantage. Motion blur does not effect my ability to see enemies. The only thing it does is give me a headache after some time. I honestly don't see why anyone would want to force it in the first place. If you believe you are at a disadvantage becuase you have it on, then turn it off, you would gain performance and not have the disadvantage. :rolleyes:
---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 PM ----------
As a fill in pilot for our team there's only 1 real graphic option I want to see - graphic options differences between in a vehicle and out of a vehicle. When I'm infantry I rarely need more than a 3k view distance, but in a helicopter I need at least 5k, and a fixed wing around 7k. It's such a PITA to change your view distance when you jump in and out of vehicles. It was even more difficulty when I had to turn off shadows and such with my older video card to get acceptable framerates while flying.Some missions have scripts that allow you to change it, but I'd like to see something like this become official, at least with a .cfg change or something.
Agreed....
-
actually 5760x3240/7680x4800 would be 9 monitors, not 3. Not that extreme but still a huge difference.3 monitors is 5760x1080/7680x1600
Ah my mistake, I will correct that. I made that comment at at around 2 or 3 in the morning so...:)
---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------
I wouldnt go as far as saying im complaining. Rather im debating in a topic where the OP has raised the question. Also providing constructive idea's.About the 3 monitors. I play with a guy who has that setup using Eyefinity. I do believe what your describing can have an advantage yes, a very expensive one. One which i would gamble the vast majority of players dont have.
For the sake of argument though it is a valid point. But if the guy with 3 monitors has motion blur activated then he is going to experience the same effect that the guy with 1 monitor does; Blur.
Im not looking for a purist "truly fair" scenario. What i suggest is primarily to segregate the features which fall into the category of "added realism through PP effects".
Keyboards, mice and even TrackIR's are subjective. Each person will inevitably continue to use whatever they feel comfortable with. I myself have TrackIR5 and dont use it. I did when i first got it, but i tend to shift my position a lot while gaming, hardly ever sitting up straight. TrackIR makes me feel uncomfortable and even when i was using it i found myself using the alt-key to freelook anyway (im used to it).
I would definitely welcome the option to force settings, possibly only motion-blur or any newer features that are similar in their function. Give the mission maker this option and let him decide. :)
Motion blur does not take away the advantage of 3 monitors. And I would rather just have it off. Everyone can turn it off, and it does cost some performance to turn it on.
-
Yes to adding the option to adjust graphical settings further...
Now about the MP...
No, servers should not force settings. There is A LOT of factors to consider if you're doing it to "balance" the game. The player should be able to decide what he/she wants, this would allow the player to have the best possible experince on his/her computer. Everyone has the same options, you're not forced to have shadows on, nor should you be forced to have certain settings.
You guys are complaining about a player having an unfair advantage because of his/her graphical settings, when you can turn yours down to. Some of you who invest in your gaming rigs have HUGE advantages in both hardware and settings. For example, track IR, more then one screen, higher resolutions, better speakers, better mouse, better keyboard, better internet, and better joysticks. So if you want a truly "fair" MP experince, you would have to have a LAN party, where everything is exactly the same. Also lets not forget that you can have an advantage with options turned up...
Bottom line...
Do not force settings.
---------- Post added at 08:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 AM ----------
Now take Resolution and for the sake of argument lets say that most people play at --anywhere from-- 1680x1200 to 1920x1080. The difference is a sharper image and a bit more screen real-estate. The extra amount of space on the screen can help alright, dont get me wrong. I just dont believe that its in the same league as what were discussing. :)
You are correct in the parameters given by you. But you are failing to understand this... 3 monitors at 1080p = 5760 x 1080. Now that is one hell of a difference from my 1920 x 1080 monitor. Also you can have 3 monitors each at 2560 x 1600, and a total resolution of 7680 x 1600...
Also here is the pixel difference between set ups
1680x1200 = 2,016,000
1920x1080 = 2,073,600
2560x1600 = 4,096,000
5760x1080 = 6,220,800
7680x1600 = 12,288,000
-
ArmA 3 is an infantry sim. As much as I like sims of all kinds I think BIS should keep its priorities straight.Even if BIS will model some plane with every smallest detail you still have problems like the lack of a proper map (say the size of some Korea from Falcon 4), the ability for it to get filled with enough action without making CPU burst in flames (like in Falcon 4 which uses simple AI for everything on the ground - whereas it's vice versa for ArmA) and the simplicity of anti-air weapons which are either hit the target way too easily or get too easily put off-target by counter-measures.
BIS should keep focusing on infantry. It's impossible to do everything.
To quote my self..
"Please give me a source for where BIS said arma was an infantry simulator? I have not seen it in any of there advertisements, nor I have I seen it in any statements made by them... As I have stated before... I think people believe arma is an infantry simulator because it's the best simulated part in the game, but I have yet to see one developer state it is an infantry simulator. I believe arma is more a general combat simulator (based on advertisements, features, content, and game play), which is it's flaw...
Nothing in the game is not in need of improvements to make it more of a simulator... Aircraft and land vehicles are the worst simulated by far... Which is why you see a push from a lot of people to increase it's simulation... Also since arma already has great infantry simulation with just minor improvements needed, I do not see this at all as too much work... It should be one of the main focus's for arma 3 (increase simulation of land and air vehicles)...
Honestly what in the world do you think will take them a year to do involving the simulation of infantry? Revamped animations are not necessary, but is wanted to make movement more fluid (so don't try saying animations as something)..."
Also unlike arma 2, I don't get up to around 400-500 knots in the a-10c for DCS. My max speed was 340 knots, and I average about 220knots. Lemnos is supposed to be 2.5 times bigger then takistan, and I can make the a10a in arma 2, which is moving at least 400knots work in that small enviroment. Also lemnos is surrounded by water, and the water just keeps going and going. So the enviroment is big enough for the a-10c, and is definetally big enough for helicopters.
As I stated in my quote, all vehicles should be improved, this also means the targetting and counter measure systems. Also the handheld AA weapons could be improved as well.
Now what in the world makes you think that you need the map to be hugely populated? Also IDK about you, but I would be flying for CAS, which means I WAIT untill I get the call. So untill then I am just enjoying the view... If the simulation is bumped up, it would be nice if some people learned how to use the 9-line system....
AUDIO! Make it right this time!
in ARMA 3 - GENERAL
Posted
Don't know if this has been stated. But sounds for crawling on different surfaces. I think right now there are only two sounds for this, one for off road, and one for on road. I would like to see a greater variety. Sounds for each surface in arma 3. Like for dirt, grass, leafs, sand, wet ground, cement, ect...