fraczek

You mean the thread few months (?) back in one of the beta threads? Wasn't that a case of only *some* tree trunks being bugged? I remember some comparison pictures with red and green fluffy clouds visualising knowsabout or such stuff ;-)

Variable cell size depending on locally desired terrain detail would be awesome, or procedural microterrain (but how about syncing it across MP?), though probably not until Arma4 at the very least :)

http://resources.bisimulations.com/wiki/Visitor_3:_Making_of_simple_landscape If I understand correctly, grid size a x b is the number of map points with elevation, and cell size is the distance between these points in meters. Anything between two grid points is planar surface. Now a smaller cell size for a same grid size map would be like more detailed contour map, with more varieated terrain possible (more terrain detail) in the same area than with a larger cell size. Just imagine the map as a 3D mesh of polygons. A smaller cell size means more polygons. So as you yourself summed it up, the Arma 3 terrain will be more detailed like the Proving Grounds map than the Shapur map. Just to which extent remains to be seen (or deducted from released videos and pictures). /edit: Ninja'ed by PurePassion :)

Yes, the TWPC_AI_S has both the script and PBO version included, and is the official release while the previous one was WIP, as far as I understand it (not affiliated with the development in any way).

Yep, the Evan Lahti interviews are probably the best and most inside ones on A3 so far... Some highlights:

Still, one not that much likely I think. The FSA have access to what, at most some liberated MANPADS? And by first accounts, the F4 was downed while still over Turkish waters, which would be a pretty difficult feat for an older handheld MANPADS like Strela or something like that. Of course that is just speculation based on few public sources and "claimed" performance envelopes.

It's excellent! Had some great fun with the (older, pre 1.0 PBO) version yesterday in SP, gonna try this one soon. One suggestion - as it is a pretty new addon, and one that you are probably gonna work on more, can you get it on Six Network so we can check development and update through SixUpdater?

Take On Monty Python NoRailGunner, priceless video :D

Yes, it was a BIS prank, they played us all along like with the Iranian Hackers when they announced Arma III last year or the Take On Helicopters Aprils Fools Day announcement. They first showed a teaser image of Japanese flag superimposed on Arma II logo back in April the 1st, everybody thought it was a only good April Fools joke, then a month and a half later they showed those pictures you linked, which the community promptly deciphered to contain Czech units and vehicles (Pandur, Dingo, CZ805BREN, Sa Vz.58 - so no Komatsu there, see the thread I linked, although the Komatsu can look superficially similar to Pandur II...), and a few days later they announced the DLC:ACR proper (with the photos correctly labeled as ACR vehicles and weapons). Since then the relabeled proper announcment has been rewritten into a normal DLC:ACR without the relabeled screenshots but with normal screenshots). It's just confusing a bit now if you missed the discussions few weeks ago, since they removed the relableled "fog of war lifted" screenshots from the announcement but left the old JSDF fog of war troll announcement there...(or perhaps that's another ruse and they will all surprise us with JSDF as well ;) Still, seems their ruse did work out pretty well ;-) I am still waiting for the Take On Zombies april's fool prank to turn out into a real game though ;-)

Alright, I know I should keep up the suspense, but read this post and compare the screenshots with and without "fog of war". The former announcement had the fog of war sort of removed when they ended the baiting, but they have since rewrote it into normal DLC:ACR announcement without the baiting they did before with so called "JSDF"... just read through the whole thread and the ACR thread if you don't believe me ;-)

Did you, err, perhaps miss something ? ;-)

Yep. I loved the "micro" terrain in good old OFP (on Very High), although that one was how, proceduraly generated?

Yes! I would like to test today, but better not with work incoming in 6 hours I better get some sleep...keep up the good work!

I am still somewhat confused about both methods ( I am still reading up on CGI tonemapping) - Reinhard has just two parameters, with the first affecting the highlights clipping and maybe overall key of the scene, second affecting the shadows (mostly seems just like a shadow cutout, the bigger it is the sooner shadows get clipped). Does the key value get computed automatically, or is it set manually once for all? But Filmic with SetToneMappingParams uses 7 parameters? Do these params affect the image curve directly, or through some equation? And is there any local adaptation difference between the two methods? Gameplay wise, I still don't know which I would prefer :) The new ones look nice, Filmic will have nice cutscene use definitely (especially since we can change the params), normal missions? Arma or Reinhard? Still not sure...:) Gammadust, could you give me an example of your script to change the values on the fly (seems you did from the screenshots you posted)? I am really bad when it comes to Arma scripting, but I would like to explore the different values on the fly. Debug console (thanks for reminding me, grothaur!) will help here, although I would really like to use/modify a script tied to keypress EH or something like that. And yeah, Dwarden, I remember your testing in your DayZ server - at one point I did not see anything in the forest during day with some insane amount of contrast you tried out :D Still, that's the point of testing, so I am off to more testing...

I am not sure. Mind you, the screenshots were taken each in its own editor session (place soldier, place nearby gamelogic, preview, abort, change the gamelogic init for diff. tonemap, preview,...), not by scripting to switch them instantly in one session, like I should have done (will do later). So there might by very slight differences in brightness due to the quirky way the engine reacts to sky. From your screenshots it seems Maruk's and 93825 are the same. Hard to tell ;-) I really can't be sure until I script it. I of course didn't move and waited around 30 seconds for the exposure to stabilise, but who knows how it works... However, the main issue for me are the severely clipped shadows during daytime. That's why I prefer "Arma" or "Filmic", since they at least display something in the shadows (although Filmic being overall darker, it does not clip the shadows unlike Maruk/Dwarden Reinhard). Although I can understand why DayZ and other night mods would want to have clipped shadows (no more gamma/brightness exploit anymore at night), having them clipped in daytime as well sucks :)

Comparison screenshot gallery here, including vanilla 1.60 I offer some feedback, from a graphic artist playing on calibrated Eizo LCD capable of shadow separation down to levels 2-3 from 0. TL;DR: New beta default tonecurve brings some clipped, pitch black shadows during daytime, more contrast and pleasing colours (from higher contrast). Tonemapping method - observations 1) Arma - most shadow detail, compressed highlights, for casual user looking "bland" but IMO shows most RL-like view (just up saturation for RL-like vivrant colours) 2) Reinhard - Dwarden's parameters (0.9,-0.00987) - the most horrible (sorry David ;)), too much contrast, horrible shadow clipping (outside in forest, all fern trees and tree shadows are clipped to 0 black. I don't remember pitch black ferns in Ceske stredohori from my hiking trips there ;D. Upped contrast makes the image pop out and colours the illusion of more vibrant, but it's just contrast and clipped shadows. Looks like 20 years old slide film underexposed in a Zenit ;-) 3) Reinhard - Maruk's parameters (0.9,-0.003) - somewhat better than Dwarden's, still too contrasty and some clipped shadows, but not so much (while Dwarden's clipped whole fern trees to pitch black, now only the inside part of the shadowed tree is pitch black). 4) New Beta default (without any custom tone_mapping code) - similar to Maruk's, still some shadow clipping, tiny less contrast. 5) Vanilla (pre-beta) - Much lighter then the ones above, but shadows can be too light. All too familiar Arma 2, sometimes too much light. Problems: Both Maruk's and especially Dwarden's Reinhard parameters totally block up shadows on a sunny day. By block up I mean the shadows are pitch black, clipped to level 0 if loaded into photo editor. The new Beta default setting also blocks up shadows, about the same as Maruk's params. That was testing at full noon sunny day with slight overcast. Question to devs Could you please elaborate more on the setEyeAdaptMax and setEyeAdaptMin commands? Kudos to devs for allowing us the control in the first place! Please just reconsider the black shadows as a new default :) System settings: AMD 6870, Win8 latest Catalyst 8.93.7. Ingame settings: All Very High for sake of testing (including HDR & PostProcessing), editor Chernarus 16th June 2012 12:00 ingame, slight overcast.

If it is a public server, I definitely prefer Chernarus, as like others wrote, it offers a harder game, where people have to go more on foot to clear out the towns, with less incentive for everybody just sniping from the mountain and more incentive for proper team play. That's partly due to the terrain, partly due to the Opfor being stronger (usually the Russians), and partly possibly of the mission setup. Of course I had some nice firefights with squads in Takistan as well, with proper insertion and town clearing and support from above, but not so often. Actually, I would prefer to play on a server with fixed loadouts, holo sights at most and only few specialised sniper slots et cetera...

Nice work. From loading the screenshots into image editor, the Beta one's histogram is clipped in the shadows, while the older one has no clipping whatsoever. BTW, what was your HDR setting set at, when you took these?

It's best to run official campaigns and missions without ACE and other game-changing mods, as it changes too many things. There are user-made campaigns that are ACE compatible. For better experience the campaigns can probably be played with just cosmetic mods like WarFX and JSRS, some maybe with ASR_AI or similar (but if you encounter any campaign bugs it's probably because of the campaign not being compatible with the mod, even the AI mod like ASR_AI can have influence on how the campaign plays out).

Bootcamp. If your mac is powerful enough (both GFX card and CPU, Arma needs both). BTW, a nondesctipt thread without your system config doesn't help much us help you... Also check this thread if you feel like experimenting. Otherwise, check your Mac's system specs and compare them to the official minimum specs. Usually the bottleneck will ne thje GFX card, unless you are running one of the latest iMacs or MacPros.

Ok, one important fact to get clear - were your friends running the same A2OA beta version as you, or were you on DayZ server with you running the latest beta and them perhaps still few bets versions behind or on 1.60 vanilla?

How about asking on the DayZ forums? :) With the latest betas, mission makers have the ability to set several lighting parameters in the mission file itself. So far all of the screenshots showing "bad lighting" I have seen came only from DayZ. So the forums for a specific mod seem like a good place to ask about the mod. Perhaps Rocket did adjust the parameters in the mission to his taste? If it turns out to be a generic bug in the whole Arma 2 engine, by all means please post it here, but there needs to be ruled out it's not a DayZ feature first, before naming it an engine bug...

tpw, your dl link for the PBO version does not work, no file found...please make a new one, I would pretty much like to try this in non-ACE SP missions...

Not an easy way working right now that I know of. As much as I like the occassional DayZ, it would be nice to be able to do it when I want to find some public coop or other servers I can't search for by name. Two suggestions how this could be done by BIS or Rocket: 1) This is easier, petition Rocket to change Mission Type in his mod from Coop to some Other (perhaps "DayZ"), so you could filter servers by Coop if possible (still would not get Coop and CTI onscreen at once but not a big deal). Would require a new DayZ mission file to propagate to all the servers (or wherever is the mission type stored). Then you could filter by Mission Type for e.g. Coop and DayZ would not show in it (seriously - DayZ is coop? The second most time I was killed was by player due to my carelessness - once I got more careful and crawled, the most time I died it was crawling under a tree and killed by colliding with the tree geometry bug) 2) BIS would have to rewrite Multiplayer Browser in new beta to allow search to use NOT operand, as in filter by server name NOT DayZ. With current popularity of DayZ, this would be nice to have at least in the full 1.61 patch when it comes. In the meantime, or if nothing like that happens, a somewhat clunky solution is to use an online arma server browser, at least one allowed NOT operands, find the server you want there, and then filter by server name ingame. Or if SixUpdater supports NOT operands in its own server list, you could connect to the server directly from SixUpdater (which is an excellent mod downloader/manager/server browser all in one).

That's a problem of comparing youtube videos to real life - this one is obviously filmed in manual exposure mode, and pretty closed aperture as well. Just open up the aprture there for more ambient dark (notice the without the flashlight, there is only black except in the sky) and the flame could get brighter. In real life your eyes would get quite a bigger afterglow of the flame, especially since they would be wide open and adjusted for the dark. Not discussing if it's accurate or not, just pointing out defficiency of comparing videos to real life which is what Arma should be modelled after..