wiresnsnakes

Im no milsim fan and normally avoid everything as dull as games with as a present war-setting. So i can live with differences to real weapons and vehicles. Anyway, Arma got many unique things in it, that made me buy it. Just one fundamental thing regarding realism really is an issue for me and its bound to the things that make arma special, the scale to be more precisly or better: The ranges you interact (/fight) at. The conidtions on the different ranges are totally different regarding the visibility of units and so have a huge impact on the gameplay and the immersion. It just seems like BI doesnt see this as important, but it just ruins the whole infantry-combat over huge distances, cause you are far too easy to spot and limited to reduce your visibilty. -Low poly landscape -blurry textures -no grass/clutter -just a few 3d objects -no shadows at the distance -different impact from lightning ressources on different objects (distant infanrty units are bright lighted in opposite to the surroundings. Its really kind of a ripoff, if you makle everything shiny about 100-200m and beyond that you get the same 10 year old game. I never experienced such a letdown, but arma is the only game I played with the potential for that.

K, that means no textures that compensate for missing clutter and the overall flattness of the terrain, that makes camo usefull and probably no shadows in the distance or something other that darkens places and especially units who fuckin try to use shadows and infantry that gets highlighet by sunlight while they try to use the forrest to be not seen, while the ground isnt effected in the same way, plus enemys that are invisible, cause totally sunken in the ground while your are unable too see shit through the grass. So the infantry combat will still be crap at higher distances, while be great close and the graphics remain 10 years old at those ranges while be up to date near the player. Very sad that all the good aspects are irrelevant cause most elemental things arent there. Anyway, maybe some day a publisher with more money and/or a capable engine will archive a big environment worthy for a milsim or at least an arcade-game. Maybe there is hope for a mod that make the game enjoyable in this regards, but as far as I know there never was one for AA2, or am im wrong? Anyway its laughable that Benson archived quite more and it seems to be fuckin imposibble to get the shadow draw distance from VBS2.##.

Sorry, but the gameplay just sucks with infantry over longer distances cause the issing shadows and the units are brigtly illuminated and "alaised", but not the environment, the flat (/lowpoly) and missing details from textures/objects(/grass). And its fuckin 2013 and a PC game. It is possible to archive it, that the environment doesnt seem so muchd ifferent and everything beyond a few hundred meters like from 10 years ago. They want to make a milsim but cant simulate a decent environment, besides a bit more detail nearly around you and pretty lightning. Every developer can choose what they do, so make everything the same but less good looking or like in A3 pretty nearby surroundings and beyond that...forget it. With a better engine it could be possible to make the environment consistent "and" pretty. The game was horrible without Bensons textures, I could puke if i watch through a scope. Besides its looking bad (breaking the immersion cause the contrast), the gameplay simply sucks if you can spot enemys/be spotten by an enemy so easily. With Benson its still far from good (the textures get blurry if the angle you look at them isnt quite straigt) the clutter is still missing, as are shadows, but its a huge improvement (sharp1). I never would come to the idea to play it without it again. NordKindchens approach seems to be even better then Bensons and it would be huge plus and it could be become great if they archive the shadow-draw-distance from VBS2. They should focus to provide the best for gameplay, so make the visuals compensate for missing detail (-objects) and shadows. Still its the lighting and the contrast between 3d models of troops and the 2d-y environment. Seriously, there are more things, that doesnt seem state of the art. The animations/movement and especially the transitions between them are horrible. I often feel like a broken robot on strings. If you think about how long they work on the arma series its quite laughable, cause even in games like Doom 1 it was fluid. Without the bonus from the Hardcore-Sim-niche-aspect, it would be surely far more critisized, for what is wrong, like one of those cheap arcade-games. The game got most of the reputation from the ambition, not the execution. And I think that will not change, till they make/get a new engine. That may seem rude, but its ridicilous how bad things are whitewashed on one side and people discuss some realism details, that doesnt impact the gameplay much or at all. Overall still: Many things are great executed. And thats why people care about the "less good things", which is a positive thing. Thumbs up for Nordkindchen! Edit: Im still angry cause nothing changed with the beta regarding this. Cant help myself, cause I love and then again hate the game at the same time.

I always heard how realistic the game is. Now after all this years they didnt archived the most most most elemental thing in terms of realism, the environment. There is simply no excuse that the environment differs so much at different ranges, besides deliver good graphics at least near the player to sell it. No matter how limited the hardware is, it is possible to archive that, that the place around doesnt differ that much from the one 500 or 1000m away. Two totally different environments are ok, if it isnt gameplay relevant. But in this case its simply offputting immersion-wise and I cant take it serious as a mil- or whatever sim. The gameplay potential is very limited in terms of stealth. The tech for shadows at high distances or a solution to archive the effect on the enviroment and unit is there, and crisp texture and show grass and clutter, too. Its 2013 and the adverised graphics hide the extreme low detail and the high effects on gameplay. That they have the ressources to put in 3d-scopes is a joke, sorry. No arcade-shooter archived such an offputting effect on me. Everything else can be so great and realistic as it is, but Im irrateted they didnt do anything to fix this. And for real: After all this years and in 2013, for a PC-only-game it should be possible.

I just really hope they fix it and implement whatever they did in VBS2 to create shadows at distance. At bright sunlight as a sniper in Planetside 2 Im dead, if there isnt something behind me. If have something behind me and im in light im easy to spot. If there are other details that distract from my figure, im much harder to spot. In a highly shadowed area with a crisp texture behind me and the right camo im nearly invisible. As i play nearly only as sniper (which I didnt do much in the past) I have spent much time for screening the environment fast in PS2 and if you put some thought on it, the factors of light/coloursatarion, sharp textures one the environment and the units, the right colours and objects/contrasts/details that distract you from units at higher ranges the differences become obivious. And they are HUGE! The game greaty succeed in nearly all other cases, which is a huge success with all the content A3 provides. So it just is fruststrating i fails big time in providing the right conditions for fight at high ranges. Who cares that vehicles and weapons arent used partly in todays military and unrealistic fatigue or flightphysics. THIS issue is far more elemantal regarding realism for the backbone of the army, the soldiers.

I just have too bump this, cause its one of the things that can help by the gameplay and immersion-breaking lack of detail at ranges. Reallly really hope they do something about that and maybe find a way to let there "seem" to be grass and somehow detail, that let anything not flat stick out like the units, bushes, rocks and trees, fake bumpmaps or whatever. The second thing would be shadows or a way too darken places where shadows would be. I saw a thread were they showed that Bohemias VBS2 can draw shadows over long distances and a moderator or developer said, they are on on something Was there any other response? If not: What would make it harder for A3, besides better overall graphics? I can live with visual flaws, but I just have to feel less visible behind a rock against the light and especially in a forrest, were wouldnt be any light normally (Kinda feel sad for fellas in woods, if have a rifle or vehicle-gun, with which i can zoom in). I would even prefer, if just anything is darkened at some range, that woulndt be logical, but at least i feel so exposed to OHKs (which I otherwise like about A3). Till know I only (but very much) can enjoy fights in villages and using it as a flight-sim. The distant visuals (in contrast with the nearby) just take me out immersionwise and I really cant enjoy it to be totally exposed in a realistic Shooter with so limited potential of stealth.

Graphics besides, looking for enemys (enemys looking for you) becomes "Where is Wally" on extremely easy. Instead of 1000 people you get a few trees, bushes and rocks. 90% of the rest is just one giant polygon, with a blurry texture. Everything simply sticks out. Even with Bensons textures its not much harder, cause everything with a form sticks out, cause the flatness, even more i fits moving alaising and lightend. At least if the sun shines its easy. Missing shadows are a problem too. A shade of grey can make it hard to spot someone (even more if everything around is bright and colourfull). The nearby enviroment suggarates, that you are hard to spot, but the opposite is the case. I would like to see them cut everything which is pretty, till they got the resources environment is consistent. I like everything else, but at one of the most elemental aspects they didnt archive much. They could make the game much better, if that wouldnt be the case and an overall stealthelement could be archived, beside crawling kilometers glitched in endless blur.

Besides the missing shadows and textures and grass/clutter at higher distances (or alternatively the removing of grass everywhere) in combination with the stupid grasslayer (message: the grass you lieing on is flattened and so it doesnt cover you from units watching from a higher level, which is often cause: hills) and the drastical consequences for stealth and encounters at higher distances, I find one point that isnt realistic and pretty much let the game seem to be retarded, at least in vehicles. Question: If you are in an vehicle and your head and maybe upper torso is visible/hittable through glass or just air and your lowerbody and legs are hidden by the armored(!) hull of a vehicle or ship and enemys are shooting on you, what would be a reasonable reaction to save your archived comfort in life and the will to reach targets in your future existence? Its to duck and use the hull to not be shoot (if you didnt thought about it please talk with people you trust and/or a therapist). It Shouldnt be to much effort to implement this, if im right (am I?). Besides the amazing(!) options you have to use cover outside, I think this is pretty important for gameplay and really fix situations where you just couldnt duck, cause a total simple thing you would do in reality isnt programmed. I felt that i didnt have the control about my body, as I was shooted at in an Jeep and then just died. One great moment of irony was, as I builded a mission in the editor and me and my fellow soldiers drove with a speedboat a bit from the coast till we got shot at (Im new to the series and often build scenarios I usually die in). It seemed like a satire of american patriotism in warmovies, as no one of these brave soldiers ducked or left the boat and just took death like real men. I had the melody of the "flying valkyers" in my head and wasnt brave, but couldnt duck and got punished for my fear. It was funny, but not what I imagine from a milsim. Or a game in general. [bTW: If you can do this and I just didnt find the button, please dont hit me] I return to do stupid things with the editor and my "skills" to manage them.

Seriously: Do the developers even care about the visibility at greater distances? Is it really 2013? Who thought sinking units would be a solution, especially cause it only effects prone infantry? Its an elemental failure thats seems to be forever in this series, that isnt adressed, instead much details around 200m and fancy effects above all. Why calling it a sim, if it cant even simulate a decent environment, even if its really really pretty. This is what you think is how you and your enviroment looks like: http://i.imgur.com/cx3rdIX.jpg This how you and your environment look like from a few hundred meters: http://www.freewebs.com/dfbunker/Desert%20Sniper.jpg I dont get how so few seem to be took off, cause of it. There are is this so called solution for sinking. At a few points i recognized enemys are completly sunken in the ground. Great! Worse: It only effects while proning. So I have to crawl above the whole map do benefit from it. I feel literally forced to crawl, which isnt fun. I would expected from the beta (devbuild), that they make textures like Bensons or better try a kind like NordKindchens approach. At least! Still with bensons textures (sharp 1), as long as the sun is shining (turning every kind of AA and the shadows off helps very much to spot enemys) you always stick out on a blant and totally flat big polygon. Textures are totally clear. Everything above sticks out cause it isnt totally clear and not part of the flatness behind or beneath. Movements are much easyer to spot cause of this. Cause of this I would expect, at least again, that the silouettes of everything or at least soldiers and vehicles would be slighty blured so you dont stick out, but are still visible. And bumpmaps or anything that makes the polygons not sooo flat. Besides that, I cant get immersed, if everything just stop to exist above a few hundred meters, like in the pictures. I see all the (partly high!) grass around you, but it isnt there. I sticks in my mind the whole time, as i stick out from distance for the enemys. It would be more ok, if there would be any grass at all. Besides if your are prone on flat places and aiming straight for a target, you can see shit. But he can see you. I feel constantly cheated, if im shot from 500-2000m and spot enemys at that distance. Kinda hard in this game, cause you get killed fast and cant instantly spawn in the nearby environment. Overall the stealth aspect is gone and that there are ghillie-suits is ridicilous. You get all that detailed stuff on you, but around you is nothing. They do the opposite of what they are suppposed to do. Grass and other objects highly distract from units, espeally if there is wind. Everything else is so great about the game and its really really(!!!) fun to have engagements within a few hundred meters. If the sunshine is gone its kinda ok too. I dont why there isnt any good approach on the horizon, to fix it. In the year 2013 there should be solution for this.

I dont think there will ever be a solution that isnt just for soldiers who prone. It would be one, if the whole island would be totally flat. In many cases you see units with a hill behind them/at the side of a hill or from above a hill. First: That woulnt mean, that you are behind grass, but the grass would be around you and the grass underneath you would be, well: not visible. A "real" "solution should effect all units proning or not and in a way, that it works, "like" in the distance would be the same details and shadows so the suits from snipers woulnd be totally ridicilous, which is the case two with Bends Textures. So you got a kind of use from your camo and stealth, especially in situations there is something behind you, you blend in with and I would crawl above the whole island, just im not as easy to spot with grass, plants and other stuff, like in a desert. That isnt realism, but limited technology. Besides the undetailed washed out Texture which makes everything easy to spot, which isnt part of the texture you got more things that effect it. Lightning: There lighting in the distance is rudimentary and there is nothing that can effect it, like grass would darken fregments of the scape cause grass actually makes shadows, besides the next point The polycount from the landscape: ...is minimal and there is no bumpmapping-tech so its totally flat, everything above it stands out. Dirt, little stones, and especially grass: All this things kinda dissort the environment, so does your camo did with your body and in the ideal case let you blind in In combanation with shadows: grass, plants, trees and stones have mostly one colour or a tone from it. But shadows effect everything if the sun/light isnt exactly all around it, so parts are much darker so more kinda dissdortion. BTW: Units out of the range from the shadowdraw-distance are easy to spot in woods. Then: Alaising/Antialaising, FXAA and other Filters. the edges of 3D Objects are flickering, so for example a soldier or a tank. On the other side, there is nothing around you that is effected by this. Movement: You move. That makes you easy to spot, even if you move slowly. Grass moves. But there isnt anything that could move. Overall I dont have any knowledge of the tech-part. I really dont care about eyecandy. Which is important is, that the rules of the visuals are always the same, no matter the distance, cause: Gameplay. Gameplay, without fast respawning in the nearby spot. So i would prefer Arma 2 graphics with a real solution for the distance cause every interaction in ranges above 200, are just horrible, dont know how other can stand it, i wish I could or would have known, so I didnt spend money, but... Nordkindchen approach is a first step. Bends textures allready archive a nice effect. But there should be more: 1. lowdetailgrass, maybe with shadows allready build in so: imagine a stripe with two pixels one normal green one extreme dark green. Or: Instead of a grasslayer a disstortionlayer. You can still see the texture underneath it, but it somehow simulates details and objects above it, so many little dots, in case of a area with grass: 40% transperant, 40% green pixels, 20% darkgreen/black pixels. I dont have any idea how this possible, just a idea. 2. An effect that blurs the edges that connect with the environment from soldiers and units, so they blend more in and the alaising doesnt make objects flicker. 3. A way to make the places without shadows under woods, single trees and bushes darker and the units effected by them too. The game is very pretty at close and high range. But the midrange shouldnt be much different, but not cause "the pretty". I would prefer an rather dated looking game, if the visual influences to the gameplay would be always the same. I mean: Its a sim. The sim and so the gameplay aspect should be the first priority. In Planetside I always know, that im pretty visible most of the time, by looking around me. In Arma 3 I would think I wouldnt be so visible from 500 and especially not 1500m from someone with a scope but Im easy to spot. I feel constantly cheated and I just wonder which game it is and from which decade, if i look through a scope and see an enemy. Cause everyone calls it a Mil-Sim I would expect that the environment, so the visuals deliver realism. But there are two games(play's) depending on the range of the engagement. Funny thing is, that im not even a realism-nerd and appreciate many simpe actiongames.

Hello. Im new to the Arma-Series and just want to know if there will be a real fix for the problem that units are so easy to spot or if the devs talked about that. I wasnt aware, that there isnt a solution for Arma 2 or earlier games and was quite pissed as i found it out (cause i buyed apha-access), because engagements at ranges from 100 (or200) to infinity are broken, by the fact, that there are no sharp textures, no Objects above the bland textures like grass and no shadows either, so everything that makes a player hard to spot. I was surpised, that the series is still so popular, cause thats the most essential part for "realism" or a sim for me, specially if you die that fast. I see sharp texture around me and tons of grass, all with shadows which make a salat of details i would feel save from being spotted in my suit from higher ranges. But above 100-200 there is just nothing and in some cases im brigthned by lightning in an overall dark environment and the edges of the playermodel flicker. Results varie, depending on weather. It was much more ok, if it there was no sun at all at daytime. Its the only real problem i have with the game, everything else is good or at least ok, just that thing is the dealbreaker. The grasslayer is rather cheap and not that effective besides it does nothing for crouching and standing units. Especially the last part counts for this approach: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?148861-Rendering-grass-at-long-distances-My-thoughts-about-it and makes it horrible, cause you are forced to prone the whole time to take a use from it. Then you are forced by MP-Servers to use the grass, so you cant get rid of it generally. It looks not that good then, but there is just one environment and not two or more depending on the range. BTW: Are shadows forcable too? In other games it highly depends on the shadows if youre seen or not (besides the details). That really sucks. Anyway its somehow unfair, if people have different settings for grass and shadows. Anyway a general solution seems impossible cause everyone have different computers, you cant set shadows and details (like grass) generally on low, cause the fancy (->sells) and dont force high details cause many could play it then (again ->sells). Anyway there are 3 "maybe"-solutions, that maybe would make it ok for me and others who got huge problems with it I used the textures of bendson (is this his name?) and it improved it (maybe even more if there would be many sharper lines/details and smaller bits that are brighter and darker on the texturesthat distract from the silouettes and other sharp likes from the 3d-models). This approach sounds even better, if it will be optimised for infinrtry couverage: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?149905-Sophisticated-considerations-on-how-to-get-rid-of-the-blurry-mid-range-textures&p=2335482#post2335482 The new midrangetextres and landtex for arma 3 just do nothing. Its sharper but without much sharp details and not much varieng colour, so a alternative to the mix trough parts of grass stones earth and the shades of shadows that would be there. Just there still will be nothing "on" the ground like grass which could be fixed to a disstortion effect or a blurring of the 3d models. So something that simulates the effect most perfectly, if like there would be the same details in regards of texture, grass and shadows (BTW: are there pictures that show the difference if there would be high details and shadows at high ranges?). Last in some cases its far to easy if the enviroment and the units arent shadowed in the same way. Anyway maybe there are ideas for that too. Nordkinchen allready had one, if i remember right. Maybe then the grasslayer could be gone, cause really, i mean...?! There is so much good if not great in that game, just that one point makes it totally broken for me. And its really not about the graphics/aesthatics. http://forums.bistudio.com/images/smilies/frown.png

@samco The tech from outerra would be a great solution. Still the workarounds just dont do it for me, as much i wish they would, but they seem to be the only solution people can expect. The flatness just let all stand out if not prone and a solution just for proning units just isnt fair and i dont want be forced to prone kilometers. if you walk in front of a hill all the details like stones and dirtfragments plus all the grass and overall shadows that draw a picture with much detail and contrasts (shadows!) that makes you hard to spot if someone isnt looking exactly in your direction. Thats just too elementary in a sim where the interacting is relevant above a few hundred meters and you can get killed in a blink. Overall its the inconsequence of the graphic that brakes it forme. Everything is detailed and looks good upclose, yeah great eyecandy, gameplaywise its horrible, if beyond that its a game from 10 years ago and there are totally different rules for the different ranges for encounters. Instead of variating grades of details, I would expect just one. It doesnt fucking matters how good it looks, if its looking bad, undetailed and dated, who cares, who want a milsim, just so its just one world and the same conditions for all interactions in possible engagement ranges. Its just seems like lousy patchwork to make everyone happy (I understand that they "have to" make it pretty so they can get they money they need to pay the employes), instead on focussing on the simulation/realism and the first thing would be a consequent environment. I would be happy if they take all the grass out or just a little low growded low detailed grass , removing the grasslayer use most simple shadows and texture with grass, stones and dirt and faked shadows with the best possible resoltion, but the detail of the textures shadows and everything else would be the same as far as optics allow you to see. If it should be pretty too, you just ahve to wait for better hardware or a solution like in Outerra, if its all about realism and gameplay. Anyway, I should have waited for the full release, before buying it and test if i like it generally and there isnt any dealbreaker for me. So mea culpa.

I dont see any solution. Elcos approach only works for prone units and a bit for crouching units. I dont want to move prone through the whole island to profit from a solution, there have to be something for everyone (it should be clear, but if you are standing in front of a hill with grass, sure if the person looking at you sees the sky there is nothing you can profit from), and to archive that there have something above the groundtexture, so grass and shadows (example simple grass which maybe can get split into half black and half green, if lights hit it, to simulate shadows) or so a layer with a kind of a distortion (so if you look on a grass surface, there are many little points that hide a part from the ground texture units) effect again reacting to light so points with dark and bright points reacting to lightning. Anyway all of this takes much power or is maybe hard to programm, so highly detailed and highly resoluted texture that prevend 3d models stand out of it (again if there are hills behind you from the enemys perspective) "and" maybe a effect that blurs the siloutte of 3d models so you can see the figure but the sharp edges melt with the surroundings and units dont stand out, no matter which settings you are using. Then there are still the shadows or more precisly situations in which the environment and units are not equally darkened by shadows and again people are easy to spot. I read about a low performance cost solution which darkens everything equally somewhere, that sounded good. Shadows are really important for balancing, if i set shadows (and some other settings) off in Planetside 2 I see many more units, that try to profit from the shadows, especially important if the person actually will try to kill me. I always try to stay in the shadows as a sniper or at least try that the sky isnt behind me, from anyone looking in my direction. There isnt much (or I just deactivated it in the settings, i dont know anymore) stuff like grass, you can profit from and even if you are spotted, the time to kill is so high, that you dont die if you get hit by one bullet. And even if you die, you can spawn most times after 10 seconds not far away. In Arma you often die from one bullet and in many cases you have to walk a long long way (Im working, I dont have time to walk the same freaking way ten times, that takes 20 minutes to one hour) to get back. So that are 2 very different cases. I really liked the game as i played it first but nwo im angry that i spend the money on it after i recognized there is just nothing that hides me from enemys far away in the same way especially if im crouching or standing (I crouch to get fast somewhere, but I really will not prone the whole fucking way everytime), as if there would be the same detail (grass+shadows) or actually is the same detail or roles reversed, i see a poor bastard easy to see as a dark stick on a white peace of paper. First could be expected. Its 2013. There could be a solution, but no matter if they just see it as a problem or the engine just cant take it, it really just sucks, I wouldnt need the eyecandy 200 meters around me, dump the whole fucking grass and shadows close up even, its just about realism, that i would expect from a sim. Really: Everything else i great or at least ok in this game. But this really makes every engagement above a few hundred meters a real turn off for me, so literally I played a few times till this situations accour and just couldnt stand it and exit the game. Ah! To make it clear: I dont want to convince people from my opinion, everyone should have as much fun as he can get from Arma 3, Im just sad that there is something that brakes the great overall concept and all the other good aspects for me. Just say that, cause in forums about games, there are always nerdy kids who would like to see you suffer endless pain, if you say something bad about their game and Im afraid I will never want to have kids if I read much more of that. And sorry for my bad english.

I just miss the possiblity to duck. I tried to create a mission with me and a squad on combatboat, but as i got shot by the ai I really wished I could duck behind the drivercover the minigun-protectionplate or as passenger to the ground. Besides...you know...dieing, it would be good for the atmosphere, cause no human being would stand still and get shot, if you arent a Terminator.

First: It isnt possible to get my money back, if im informed correctly? For Fans and other people, who dont have the same issues as I have, this may seem like trolling/flaming or whatever, but im serious and its just my opinion: I buyed the Alpha, unaware of a problem, I never had with any game or where this had a real impact on the overall experience. Its the blantness beyond 100-250 meters of grass/some objects and the awful texture thats used a bit further and then till over 1km or something; anyway as far as i can recognize a unit with the most advanced optics. So too around 200m I get a pretty game for today, with no issues but beyond that a game of 2002 or 04. And thats makes the game look overall bad and more important brakes the immersion. Even more awfull is, that it actually brakes the gameplay and make all this talk about "realism" "tactic" etc. quite laugable. The solution is pretty poor for lieing units but there isnt any for crouching or standing units. You are a sitting duck in the field, just like a black shem on a white ground, which is just horrible considered the effective range of the weapons in this game and the camouflage makes it even worse. Now i searched for solutions, so I dont have to be angry to wasted 25€s. the reworked midrange-texture makes it like a black shem on a grey ground, the advanced version version of the other person here, wouldnt be much better, that you cant see parts of lying units, which would be covered by grass, isnt great either besides it just works for lying units. Nothing of that is the real deal or acceptable, at least for me. Besides its just fucking dishonest, cause that wasnt advertised. So I just feel ripped off. The only solution would be detailed textures in the range of any optics in combination with something like noise which is just cheating and not really helping, but real graphic objects above the ground, so in this case grass. I could accept if there wouldnt be any grass like in planetside 2, where, your know, there is only one environment, which doesnt work against me, no matter how far you look and the graphics are just...yeah: "honest". Seriously: Warn people about that! One of the mainpoints of realism would be a consitent environment, where is no difference in those ranges. And: That the people just can set the settings considered on this for the server is just horrible. Cause of the reputation of the developer and that there probably will be no "real" solution, Im really angry, cause the game just looks like it is be advertised about 200 meters and every engagement above that range is a joke. Other maybe dont get whats the big fuzz about, but i feel the same for people who spend money on this. Anyway, I wish all people fun, who dont feel like I do and sorry. Edit: BTW: There are many things in this game that are great, but that makes it even more sad.