ARMA 3 base terrain textures WORSE than the original Operation Flashpoint

There's got to be something that can be done about it it's probably one of the bigger graphical hang ups that exist in the game currently

The "It's an Alpha: be quiet" argument would be fine if the textures we're talking about were pure #FF00FF magenta or something and obviously placeholders. As they stand, they're good enough that they might be the intended final version. Given that, the fact that it's an Alpha (where the point is to give feedback), and the absence of any guidance from BIS as to whether the textures will be improved for the Final - then it's perfectly fine to point out that the current state of the textures isn't good enough.

There are demonstrated ways (see the linked threads above) to improve the middle-distance ground texture appearance without increasing the load on the machine.

The "It's an Alpha: be quiet" argument would be fine if the textures we're talking about were pure #FF00FF magenta or something and obviously placeholders. As they stand, they're good enough that they might be the intended final version. Given that, the fact that it's an Alpha (where the point is to give feedback), and the absence of any guidance from BIS as to whether the textures will be improved for the Final - then it's perfectly fine to point out that the current state of the textures isn't good enough.

There are demonstrated ways (see the linked threads above) to improve the middle-distance ground texture appearance without increasing the load on the machine.

Yeah the whole point of an alpha is to gather feedback and find bugs, parroting 'it's an alpha guyyyys' over and over and is counter productive and IMO should be considered spam as it adds nothing to the discussion. Complaining about a lack of a certain feature or the limited/shoddy nature of one warrants 'it's an alpha' legit criticism does not.

Yeah the whole point of an alpha is to gather feedback and find bugs, parroting 'it's an alpha guyyyys' over and over and is counter productive and IMO should be considered spam as it adds nothing to the discussion. Complaining about a lack of a certain feature or the limited/shoddy nature of one warrants 'it's an alpha' legit criticism does not.

Completely agree...people must stop saying "Its an Alpha"It will be fine!"....No,it won't be fine if we don't point it out.

So please,stop with this nonsense...

They do look bad. Games starts to feel "flat" after a while of playing it. The best thing about it is the lighting model and new pine trees which look great.

Ok I have taken my time to get into the game files.

I managed to get right into the map layers and am able to take a look on how many details there are possibly at stratis with the current resolution.

I have to say - as it is there is no way to improve it...................

But there are some ways to change things:

1. increase the satmap image - that would indeed bring us a performance draw back. Also it calls for a lot of work for bohemias artists.

2. implement something like a mid range texture set. This would decrease performance too and would cost a lot of development work...but the system as it is seems pretty antique...there needs to be some improvement to get in line with other modern fps (graphic wise).

I want to explain the construction of the map for a second so everyone understands where arma stands.

At the moment the whole map is based on one big satelite image. On top of that image are all the objects like houses cars vegetation etc.

Now if that would be all - you would have pretty blurry textures under your feet - so in your close distance there is a "close up" texture aligned around you. This texture is based on - I for now call it a - information-picture. It has the same size as the satelite picture but indeed works like a big map with different colour that stand for different grounds - like sand, gras, cement etc.

Based on this picture is the surrounding in a decent radius around you aligned.

Now to make the things a little bit prettier you got some texture overlays for this and that - thats for example the little detail you see in mid distances. Sadly this is a small file that is set together in infinite numbers and sometimes doesnt fit to the grounds very well.

So as a summation - we got one big picture and for close distances we got a high resolution generic texture.

For close and for far away - thats works really well!

Close up

Far distance

but the mid distance really....sucks=( And it hurts myself to say that because I really love the idea behind Arma=( (I even bought Arma2 and OA three times to support BIS^^)

So - since we are in 2013 and not 2000 - there MUST BE a solution for this!

Either increase the overall island resolution - or create a mid range system for distances between100 and 300 meters! I think apart from the development time and cost - the second one is the better idea...

Greetz and best regards....

Ps: If you guys want to take a look at the satelite picture for yourself - I could post a picture - but I am not sure if I am allowed to do so since its BI-property.

But simple instruction: Get Eliteness 2.95 running and DePbo the "map_stratis_data_layers.pbo" the "S_###_###_lco.paa" are the satelite image textures. You only need a texture viewer to take a look at them.

Great explanation of the situation. This is not a new problem. It has been around since arma 1. I think that creating a mid range texture layer that sits ontop of the sat map is the best way to go. This way modders can also produce good looking mid ranges and use a sat map rather than having to draw the entire terrain out. I think it was also what Dwarden was suggesting here

and yes there is lot to be improved (ALPHA hint) and medium to far range textures was always of my interest too

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?57386-Medium-and-Distant-ground-texture-detail&highlight=texture+detail]

yes, this thread I wrote in 2007 ... and I still remember and haunt our programmers with that and many similar like this

That was way back in 2007. These poor textures are not because "it's an alpha" and "these are placeholder". They have been around for many years and it is just the way BIS renders the terrain. This being an alpha, the time to bring up and address these problems is now. Hopefully BIS has the resources to improve this because it is one of those things in arma I have always hated.

I was about to post the same thing before seeing this thread. The game looks flat or weird or something. I also think it's the ground textures. Glad many others have noticed it. I was not really as impressed as I thought I'd be with my first play through, high end PC, everything on max. Granted I know it's alpha and things will only get better.

maybe in ArmA 4.

For now the Performance should be the first target priority. The world looks really pretty 80% of the time.. thats enough for now i think.

couldnt there be some kind of work around? why not alpha blend some generic mid range textures with bump mapping? just for the 100m - to 500m range

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

this is how it should look like

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jG9REHhUYCU/TzLot_DzrrI/AAAAAAAACvg/uhfm_OPTlOY/s1600/DSC02542.JPG

notice the sharp stuff in the mid range etc -

instead of a midrange colour maybe a low poly object that covers some ground textures would work too? or some low poly grass here and there? just for some random noise here and there... cant really tell

maybe in ArmA 4.

For now the Performance should be the first target priority. The world looks really pretty 80% of the time.. thats enough for now i think.

couldnt there be some kind of work around? why not alpha blend some generic mid range textures with bump mapping? just for the 100m - to 500m range

It is allready...and its exactly the same texture overlay as in takistan OA...^^

The thing is...you got the very same texture over every terrain...so if you got white sand and green grass in the distance then the texture will lay over both...and that looks pretty unnatural.

Granted - 2007 that was allright - and still in the very far distance thats still a very good solution! But at distances of 100- 500 meters thats just disgusting=(

=*(

I want Arma to be great! And the graphics part is a huuuge part in that=(

Btw...didnt they say the satmap resolution should be 4 times higher? I cant see that=(

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?119512-Arma-3-Confirmed-features-info-amp-discussion

Here are 3 real beautis I made today:

Pic1

Pic2

Pic3

And I dont want to be the bad guy who is only criticizing=( I want to say - Hey guys! Great work! Way better than I thought! But sadly I cant atm=(

---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 PM ----------

I think of a system that lets you lay another high resolution satmap over CERTAIN parts of the island. This way you could refine ONLY PARTS that would otherwise look bad.

You could for example put another high res texture over the side of a hill - blending over in mid distance - but spare out the forest on top of it because the trees are good enough as details.

This way the framerate impact could be a bit lower maybe? It would also reduce the work.

At the moment the whole sat map has the same resolution. The mid range map would not need such restrictions maybe?

That also had the advantage that one could turn these mid range files off - for low end systems...

I bet the programmers will kill me with words when I would suggest that to them=) But still - thats the nature of them:P Even if it would work in the end - the complaints and stuff are part of the work^^

At least it was like that in my 3 years in the gaming industrie;) Ps: I liked our programmers^^

yeah i like the system really just maybe some easy ideas could get it even better

i had an idea i just smoothened the colours made it less saturate more grey and darker and tried with sharpening and RGB Noise to give it back some texture

http://www.abload.de/img/unbenannt19uaz.jpg

of course its not so good, but it was just a 5 minute idea. the textures just shine so white and bright ti seems not so right.. more dark more shar noise texture stuff could work maybe.. not sure..

I am afraid that it will allways look more than a phothoshop filter than a natural landscape if one applies randomized algorithms=(

But as we are talking - I have another but this time really simple idea for another thing which bothers me in the Arma3.

While most trees look formidable in the distance - the main type of Armas trees is a bit off in colour to my fine taste^^

Example:

Like it is_1

Like it could be_1

Like it is_2

Like it could be_2

A simple adjustment in the LODs is all that is needed.

A bit darker and a little colour adjustment - and if one is funny- one could draw a bit more shadows on the lower leaves.^^

your fine taste pleasens my eyes:) i really like it, at least for this time. how do the trees look at other lightings (evening morning etc)

if you release that as a mod I would try it out!

^^

Ill try to do that by time.

To the other lightings - look at the other trees in the vanilla screens - they are basically allready this colour and they look just fine in our lightings.

So absolutely no need to worry - they will fit in exactly as the others;)

Your adjustments look better to me, too :)

People have to realize that this is a Alpha. Are people that stupid now a days? They think it's the finished product. Alpha is only 15% of the game right now...

Instead of complaining make suggestions, you don't need to be mentioning that we have better ram since 2001, be more helpful. Your a Alpha tester people.

Thank you for not reading our suggestions and thank you for not reading our complaints about people who allways point out "its an alpha"

Of course its an alpha - but the mid range texture are pretty sure final.

Next time pls read at least the last page - there are two different suggestions how to solve this issue + I ve read myself into the basics of moding the last three days to help in this issue - so basically...jeah next time prepare yourself better before complaining.

Greetings

I think its an issue of overall smootheness along every aspect of the game. Textures looks too smooth(in comparisson to armaII sharper look even with sharper filtering), weapon sway while walking/running seems floaty as well as with most animation.

Like it is_1

Like it could be_1

Like it is_2

Like it could be_2

[...]

A bit darker and a little colour adjustment - and if one is funny- one could draw a bit more shadows on the lower leaves.^^

promising! well seen and well done. this should be easily tweaked by the devs.

concerning the medicore textures at medium distance: i already saw that as a problem with arma 1. close sourrounding - fantastic, far distance - fantastic, medium distance where great deal of gameplay takes place (shooting people) - meh!

i always thought having another lod for grass far away could help. of course it would cost performance, but i would be well invested. even if it would be really simple low quality semi-transparent clutter to fill up the medium distances.

I think its an issue of overall smootheness along every aspect of the game. Textures looks too smooth(in comparisson to armaII sharper look even with sharper filtering), weapon sway while walking/running seems floaty as well as with most animation.

You have to differ here. Arma 2s mid range textures were blury as hell too - basically comparable.

BUT in Takistans map in operation arrowhead - there was only one texture kind all the time - sand. And since at mid range there is a bump map lay over over the texture - you wont notice that the texture in fact is blury. You will only see a big white/yellow area with some crisp bump mapping texture which repeats itself every few meters.

Thats why Takistan doesnt seem blury in distance whereas Chernarus was blury! Hallelulja it was! That must be nostalgic feeling which leads people to say otherwise^^

You think Arma was crisp? Think again:

Pic_1

Pic_2

Pic_3

Here a comparibal picture of takistan

You see since the texture is very much the same everywhere - theres no way to see that its blury.

The same as if you mix two coloured mixtures - if you mix red and blue and turn it around it will look all blurred up. But if you mix two white mixtures you wont see that they are actually squirred and blury.

Oh and look at the red cyrcles. Here you can see the mid range bump map which is as I mentionned the same as in Arma 3s Stratis.

And here a comparison to Arma 3 so you can see the similarity.

Also - a compliment to the Arma developers - the range of gras is quite big now! And I dont hink we need more range for it. Instead a mid range texture with low details I think would be better for the hardware and look at BF3 - that can look veeeeeeeeery good.

And Bf3 doesnt have high definition textures. (think about the little consoles) and the gras distance is comparable. But what it has are REALLY GOOD textures - and of course higher resolution textures than Arma 3 in MID RANGE....

Also it would be nice to have small variations in color along the forest

---------- Post added at 01:42 ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 ----------

yeah I guess your right its also because I havent yet used ultra quality and ultra anisotropic filtering, but the fact the texture looks a bit blurry in the distance makes my overall perception blurry as well. Could also be an issue of contrast, like in cameras too much contrast can kill the depth or latitude of light, I think arma II was less contrasty in that matter. (exemple using random unrelated picture because Im not in my gamestation)

I couldnt help myself but mess around with some pictures in photoshop^^

As a great luminary of the gaming industrie once said: Contrast is everything.

Thats the reason why BF3 is so overcontrasted for example;) It makes stuff more crisp and in overall has a great affect - even if the real world isnt so overcontrasted - but on the other hand are the games missing millions of details compared to the real world arent they?

Well... I had to do the same with an Arma pic^^

Mh...it worked to some extent^^

Vanilla

Over f**cking hell contrasted!!! Jeah^^

Well...it shows at least that one can still fetch something out of the engine just by adjusting the contrast.

And thats my adivse for you!:

Try to play around with brightness and contrast in your settings - dont look at the example pic in the options but at the very landscape in your game! It made a huge difference for me in the game!

Greetz

People have to realize that this is a Alpha. Are people that stupid now a days? They think it's the finished product. Alpha is only 15% of the game right now...

Instead of complaining make suggestions, you don't need to be mentioning that we have better ram since 2001, be more helpful. Your a Alpha tester people.

Who is "people"? I read suggestions in this thread. What a valuable first or second post of yours. "Alpha is only 15% of the game right now": I'm laughing very hard now. You are the people.

@NordKindchen:

I like your adjustments as well.

I used to do this in ArmA 2 - till I realized that I just liked the more natural look of ArmA so well.

The more you change contrast etc the information gets lost. The strength of arma is its landscape at different daytimes and lightings and viewedn from diff. angles etc.

this is the stuff I usually did:

just added more colour and made this coloured pic really sharp and selective blurry and some colour changes (yellow more to green, pink more to red blue more blue ;) )

then I mix this pic over the original and use higher contrast..

while this may look good in this time, it may look shit throughout the game at night etc.

in my eyes the more natural look of arma makes it more comfortable to play it for hours! its the same in music with compressors and dynamic - the louder sth. sounds the better, but your ears get tired soon!

the more I think of it I must say the Devs did a great job, and the game looks so good (just compared to arma)

wow really arma 3 is sth. big!

--

maybe a slight increase in Contrast is the thing I do too. but I tend to stay in normal. i still like the original look most! its the most natural and easy for the eyes.

When I look at your example pics I must admit that both have their advantages.

Exspecially the mountains in your example pic look nice both ways.

Thats obviously a question of taste then=)

I don´t like this high contrast look. Like comic. I prefer the realism in coloring and lightning. In bf3 all looks like heavily toasted :-P