Module graphics settings for Arma 3 Vote please

[Flash Thunder]

The breakdown


Graphics settings

Dynamic View Distance (already possible through a script on Arma 2) This would simply raise the View distance when in an Air vehicle and lower it when on foot).

Terrain Draw distance
Object Draw distance
Ground cover Draw distance

^These three options should be set with an exact number instead of using sliders bars.

All your general graphics options, Res, textures, etc

Dynamic Shadow map size 256x256 to whatever is the highest resolution shadow map

Water Quality [low] [medium] [high] (determines extra effects on water and overall fidelity)

Reflection quality [low] [medium] [high] this changes the reflection maps resolution

Render to Texture [Enabled] [Disabled] Dunno if this is possible or if its going to impact performance enough to justify disabling it. RTT enabled real time mirrors, cameras and other useful equipment functions.

Effects determines overall quality of particle effects, smoke, fire, debris, decals, muzzle flashes etc.

High Dynamic Range Quality current A2 setting

---------------------------------

POST PROCESS EFFECTS NEED TO BE SEPARATE OPTIONS!

Motion Blur- Enabled/Disabled
Film Grain- Enabled/Disabled (Mainly for Machinima purposes)
Depth of field (DOF) (not affected while in optics)- Enabled/Disabled
Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO) - [Low] [High]



This requires a lot more work by BIS but in the end it makes the end product more accessible for people with lower
than recommended system specs, also the separation of motion blur and Depth of field is NUMBER 4 on Arma 2 feature CIT.[/I]

A simple Yay or nay we just need to make sure BIS remembers to implement this into Arma 3.

Please feel free to add more settings that would help out lower spec users to enjoy Arma 3.


http://dev-heaven.net/issues/3718 <<<<<<<<<<< LINK to Arma 2 CIT Separate post process settings


Since we now have an ARMA 3 CIT please feel free to create a new ticket in the ARMA 3 FEATURE CIT if ones not already present.

Thank you.

[PRiME]

Need better object and terrain draw distances. I would love to see REAL draw distances, think how flightsims do it such as il2 etc... Many games these days are doing away with the fog of war, surely BIS can too. Just need conservative terrain LOD, perhaps DX11 can help?

[johanna]

well, yes! the more changeable settings is great, the downside of it may be that all you end up doing is alter the settings for the 'perfect' look on your system... (like i did for my tv 6 months)

And i like to see color settings as well, today i cant play arma 2 without the blue night color filter... :(

[ArmAriffic]

rag-doll should be a y/n aswell

[Iroquois Pliskin]

rag-doll should be a y/n aswell

That would be like saying bullets are optional. Isn't going to happen.

[MessiahUA]

The most important aspect of all this stuff - every graphical option should be forced by server. For example, it's very sad, that in arma2 anyone can turn off shadows and gain an advantage over other players.

[AUS_Twisted]

The most important aspect of all this stuff - every graphical option should be forced by server. For example, it's very sad, that in arma2 anyone can turn off shadows and gain an advantage over other players.

Forcing things like shadows from objects on within the server is a bad idea for people who cannot run at a decent frame rate with them on. It can be a advantage in PVP at close range but everyone has the option to turn them of.

[Bulldog Six]

no scroll bars for draw distance settings! that sucked before and will suck again. I want to be able to set the distance EXACTLY to a specified number of meters.

[MessiahUA]

Forcing things like shadows from objects on within the server is a bad idea for people who cannot run at a decent frame rate with them on. It can be a advantage in PVP at close range but everyone has the option to turn them of.

It could be optional. For example grass and viewdistance are and they are also on server-side by default. Following your logic nobody should play on any server, because there could be grass on (which is fps-hungry), but this parameters could be changed via scripting and shadows couldn't.

[B00tsy]

Voted for Yay. Anything that could improve performance over quality would be welcome. I rather play with a decent frame rate then being amazed about the realistic environment.

As I mentioned in an other topic, I would love to see an option for static lighting as well.

[Mr. Charles]

no scroll bars for draw distance settings! that sucked before and will suck again. I want to be able to set the distance EXACTLY to a specified number of meters.

Herp a derp. Alter the settings in the config :j:

[drivebyhobo]

Film grain is a plague...

[Flash Thunder]

Film grain is a plague...

In this context its used for Night Vision Goggles

[Nikiforos]

I dont believe there we be any big difference in graphics compared to ARma 2.
I dont know how much work BIs are putting into this project but to be fair I believe that the nice graphics is important to make more people to choose Arma 3 from other games.

I recently played some other games just to see how the graphics developed besides Arma 2 . I tested Farcry 2, Just Cause 2, Crysis 2, and all of these games has much better graphics and enviroment then Arma 2.

[DM]

In this context its used for Night Vision Goggles

So who would ever play with it on then?

Switch film grain off
use NVG
see perfectly
???
profit

Vs

Switch film grain on
use NVG
see nowt but grainy images
???
loss

[Rhodesy77]

So who would ever play with it on then?

Switch film grain off
use NVG
see perfectly
???
profit

Vs

Switch film grain on
use NVG
see nowt but grainy images
???
loss

Becuase some people actualy like a lil immersion..

[metalcraze]

I recently played some other games just to see how the graphics developed besides Arma 2 . I tested Farcry 2, Just Cause 2, Crysis 2, and all of these games has much better graphics and enviroment then Arma 2.

Are you joking?

Those games have 6 years old graphics with muddy textures and lack of polys plus ugly bloom filters to cover up the lack of detail. Not mentioning that save for JC2 they are corridor games (well technically JC2 is a corridor game too in quest design)

Graphics don't develop on consoles which still have 6-7 years old hardware.
I mean:
http://www.gameland.ru/filestorage/000184/efs183140/just-cause-2-10.jpg
vs.
http://i1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc379/comradekraze/ArmA%20II/arma2oa_chernarus_02.jpg

And let's not even compare FC2...

Crysis 1 is the only game that can give AA2 run for its money in terms of graphics and environments and AA3 will possibly change that.
Still if graphics is the No. 1 priority for players in AA3 - there's something wrong

[DM]

Becuase some people actualy like a lil immersion..

Point is, some things need to be forced on/off for the sake of "fairness" and/or balance, being able to switch things that will adjust your visability on/off on client side is not great for an MP game...

[DMarkwick]

Too much fuss is made over small "advantages" in MP. When you've dictated whether people must use shadows, or must use PP, or must have X viewdistance, how are you going to dictate what resolution people play at, for fear that higher-res players have an unfair advantage?

Just play man :)

[GossamerSolid]

That would be like saying bullets are optional. Isn't going to happen.

/facepalm

not quite there bud. There's quite a few games that allow you to turn off ragdolls. They're glorified death animations really, they have little to no effect on gameplay.

[cia_kid]

well, yes! the more changeable settings is great, the downside of it may be that all you end up doing is alter the settings for the 'perfect' look on your system... (like i did for my tv 6 months)

And i like to see color settings as well, today i cant play arma 2 without the blue night color filter... :(

Hey Johanna,

I only have 10x as much RAM as you. I'm serious.

I can only just play OFP, I'm rubbish anyway so it doesn't matter.

I'm good at making MP & SP Missions though.

[Windexglow]

One idea I like about the source engines is how they do the background. There are 2 scenes - one where the player moves around, and another scene that acts as the background. The background scene is extremely simple, and as the player moves around in the first scene the background also moves with him.

In short - it would add realistic looking terrain at the end of what the player already sees. In arma there's a very fast fog at the end of your view distance. It could instead be smoothed over with this second terrain.

[CarlGustaffa]

If mission makers are able to "force" graphics settings, devs have to be careful. Like limiting us to select two or three of all settings that are to be forced. I like to play with motion blur for the added immersion of not being equally effective on the move, but it is a nightmare to have on when FPS drops to 8-12 (I'm at 15-25 normally). Sometimes I can overcome it by setting textures to lowest, but in wooden areas this is not a good option (can't see through leaves anymore, completely blinding me).

Being able to detect settings (but not force them) might work better, at least compared to having full freedom in what we dictate. I could detect "unfair settings", and keep notifying user to change using an annoying hintC on what he needs to do.

I'm all for fair play, but how to solve it needs some brainstorming. Indiscriminately allowing us to do whatever we want, is dangerous. If I'm forced to play at 8-12 FPS due forced settings running at 1280x1024, that's not exactly "fair" compared to someone running at 50-60FPS at 1920x1600 either. Should FPS be considered into the mix? Is it really worth it?

I have mixed feelings, to be honest.

[[FHA]Dynamo]

Forcing things like shadows from objects on within the server is a bad idea for people who cannot run at a decent frame rate with them on. It can be a advantage in PVP at close range but everyone has the option to turn them of.

in that regard everyone has the option of upgrading.
i guess servers can adjust their setting to the lowest computer connected.. but that kinda suck for those of us who actually invested in our rigs to run A3 at it's most sexiest.

[rscarrab]

Im in the same boat as Carl. Im torn between two possibilites.

On the one hand i like for PvP to be fair. Mission/Game type rules can play a big factor but more importantly removing blur or shadows for instance CAN create an advantage. IMHO an unfair advantage.

On the other hand im equally just as informed about how unfair it would be to force others to use PP features that they dont want to use. I myself would begrudge such an idea if i found i was being forced into it.

So yes, i have mixed feelings too.

---

I would suggest an option to make missions only available to a certain type of graphical fidelity, please dont take that comment out of proportion though. For fear of segmenting the community maybe have three options (as opposed to a whole list of advanced GFX options).

Option #1 is low-end, Option #2 is high-end and Option #3 is "anything goes". High end players can obviously play with lower end, which i cant see there being any advantage to the higher end user (apart from one, but ill get to that in a moment).

The graphical options in (low-end) Option #1 could comprise of a tried and tested "sweet-spot" and i suppose the (high-end) Option #2 would have no glass ceiling.

---

DMarwick, you make an interesting point in regards to Resolution settings; forcing a higher resolution would be insane. The only problem here is that it isnt as comparable to, for instance, blur -in this case.

Blur and subtle screen warping (sweat/fatigue) attempt to make it harder to spot people, let alone make out whether they are friend or foe (although a sound squad leader shouldnt necessarily let this become an issue :p).

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. :)

My main issue with advantage/disadvantage is the motion-blur. Not the screen warping or anything else for that matter. As Carl points out, he enjoys the added immersion but at the sacrifice of being more effective as a squad member.

---

To put it simply; while running (not sprinting) i can identify contacts more effectively and from a greater distance without motion blur. With it ill have to either stop and have a look, or walk with my weapon raised for a moment.

I find that the two aforementioned scenarios can create a disadvantage in PvP.

[5LEvEN]

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

[rscarrab]

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. :)

[Flash Thunder]

So who would ever play with it on then?

Some people enjoy the extra immersion

and yes it would be a server setting.

[Derbysieger]

You are correct in the parameters given by you. But you are failing to understand this... 3 monitors at 1080p = 5760 x 3240. 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 4800...

Also here is the pixel difference between set ups
1680x1200 = 2,016,000
1920x1080 = 2,073,600
2560x1600 = 4,096,000
5760x3240 = 18,662,400
7680x4800 = 36,864,000

actually 5760x3240/7680x4800 would be 9 monitors, not 3. Not that extreme but still a huge difference.
3 monitors is 5760x1080/7680x1600

[5LEvEN]

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.

[Flash Thunder]

Edited original post.

Added

Reflections
RTT
GPU Physx

[rscarrab]

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.

The same can be said conversely; 3 monitors does not take away the dis-advantage of motion blur.

[Baff1]

Please allow me to turn off the blur!

I have 3 monitors. But I turn it off on single monitors too.

[rscarrab]

Hypothetical situation;

Ive made a PvP mission, one of the requirements to join is that you have motion-blur activated.

No-one is forcing you to join, its your choice. You can keep blur off and play another mission on another server.

Lets say we know you and want you to join, because we'd feel slightly guilty otherwise. No problem, just restart the mission and change the parameter "Force Blur" to off.

Its optional.

---

Motion-blur admittedly does cause a performance drop. Though the same could be said about AA. Actually as a matter of fact AA can cause a greater performance drop in comparison (on an nvidia card, i believe Ati handle it better tbh). Other features can be turned down to compensate.

I run my game without AA in order to take advantage of other immersive features. I will admit i miss the smoother edges, doesnt look nice in screenshots but its look fine in practice.

Im not going to go on and on about it, ive made my case in that the features are intended to A. add a more realistic immersive effect and B. at the same time handicap the player (added challenge).

Ive tried to separate post processing effects away from personally subjective tweaks (ie. mouse, keyboards, TrackIR, more monitors and resolution) while at the same time taking into account the predicament that some people face when trying to get the best performance out of Arma.

To suggest that somebody must be forced to play with certain settings is obviously not acceptable. But i dont see why it shouldnt be if its an optional feature. :)

[BOTA:49]

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.

[Minoza]

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.

+1

This always bothered me.

[Flash Thunder]

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.

Dynamic viewdistance is already possible with VBS 2 and i think a mod for Arma 2 I agree it is a hassle to always having to change it when you get into fixed wing aircraft, infantry dont need that viewdistance unless you just want the small eye candy of the vast world in front of you.

[Elmas]

Dynamic viewdistance is already possible with VBS 2 and i think a mod for Arma 2 I agree it is a hassle to always having to change it when you get into fixed wing aircraft, infantry dont need that viewdistance unless you just want the small eye candy of the vast world in front of you.

This, BIS for the love of God i hate having to change the view distance very time i use the UAV also, if i zoom (in the UAV), the view distance should change as well.

[5LEvEN]

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....

[rscarrab]

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:

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-and-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:

[5LEvEN]

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.

[rscarrab]

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. :)

[5LEvEN]

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.

[rscarrab]

When walking, running, and sprinting motion blur is almost non-existent.

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.

[CarlGustaffa]

Overkill or not I think depends on what fps you're able to run with, and also highly subjective. I'm already struggling, but I choose to use these effects pretty much regardless. My test is this; run down the street and try to read license plates of stationary and moving cars. While running, I'm just not capable of doing the same distances I manage when still and calm.

[5LEvEN]

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.

[Richey79]

Good list of suggestions.

These are things that it would be of real benefit for the community not to have to pick up because Bis deprioritised them.

[Dead3yez]

My impressions are that people are going to need a super computer to play the game smoothy. With these options it only makes the game more accessible, I am very much for them.

[rscarrab]

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);

http://vimeo.com/24603290

---

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.

[5LEvEN]

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);

http://vimeo.com/24603290

---

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 @<hidden> 25FPS or 23FPS (with PP). Are you really going to say I have no challenge? Domi drops my frames down to around 15 FPS....

[CarlGustaffa]

Low FPS is because of fraps.

Not for me. Low FPS is pretty much guaranteed. ;)


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.

It adds to my immersion, but yeah I'm glad we can set how much.


AA is useless in my opinion, I don't give a **** if I see the jaggies.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.


Oh and what challenge? I would like to see you play arma @<hidden> 25FPS or 23FPS (with PP). Are you really going to say I have no challenge? Domi drops my frames down to around 15 FPS....

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.

[5LEvEN]

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.... :)

[GossamerSolid]

Low FPS is because of fraps

Well derp... if you record you will get low frames. Idling with fraps on won't decrease framerate though.

[rscarrab]

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. Guess why i've got D3DOverrider running atm (cryptic clue: for games that dont support v-sync -ie Metro 2033 when it first came out).

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 @<hidden> 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."

[Wen]

The view distance could use some enhancements. If I remembered correctly, the official campaign in ArmA 1 was composed based on a view distance of 1200m. More than that, you will have all sorts of issues like premature triggers and that. This is ridiculous at best, how a healthy man can only be allowed to see over a distance 1200 metres on a nice and sunny day :(

[Windexglow]

Speaking of low fps, is firerate still influenced by it?

[5LEvEN]

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 @<hidden> 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... :)

[rscarrab]

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".

[5LEvEN]

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 /ˈajiˌtāt/ 
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-

[rscarrab]

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


I get the feeling you are trying to troll, because before the upload of a video it was a discussion about settings.

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.


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...

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.


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.

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. :)

[5LEvEN]

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.

[CarlGustaffa]

§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.

[rscarrab]

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.

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.


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...

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:

[mrcash2009]

Also as regards setting audio, first person voice needs its own slider as radio has, music separate to GUI sounds.

Ive been asking for first person voice to have its own slider since arma2 was announced, and my question was asked on Sahrani Radio with Ivan back then.

I agree on all graphics slider options here.

[5LEvEN]

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 :) )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYvHiDMMtOw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hqbHAzja-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r28glpybl1M

---------- 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...

[rscarrab]

In regards to you feeling aggravated and robotic, i told you already; you can agree to disagree if you so feel like it. You choose not to. :)

I state that its biased because in your view you would not like to use a feature which is highly detrimental to your performance. You say it runs fine until you reach a battle yet it runs way below what i would expect even on a strained GPU with Fraps enabled @<hidden> 500 Visibility (not to mention all the other features turned either down/off).

Of course i acknowledge the fact that a camera and a pair of eyes are both vastly different in regards to how they deal with processing of images, yes, though at the end of the day this is a feature employed by the developers to simulate the effect and because of this feature; game-wise, i ask that it become an optional parameter/requirement. Were a long way from a one-to-one copy of real-life, i think we can all agree on that. ;)

BI arent creating 2 images and super-imposing them on top of each other in order to simulate two eyes; its done with one camera. Giving some weight to the head is the best that anyone can hope for, given the current state of GFX. That is what they are trying to portray since they cant actually walk into your humble abode, strap some heavy gear onto your back and push you down the stairs. The bottom line being that helmet cams are the only example in which to go by. Not only that, but i adamantly stand by the assumption that carrying such weight and being pushed to the peak of ones endurance can cause strain on ones neck, not necessarily the eyes themselves.

What BI are obviously trying to do is give more immersion to the player; that can hinder them in a challenging way. The fatigue (screen warping), motion-blur, head-bob, bloom/blinding sun are all effects that are within the realm of visuals.

These are a disadvantage to those that use them, but its something that is immersive and enjoyable. If your in a competitive PvP environment it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that there be some kind of standard here, at least an optional one.

Arma being a sandbox may differ in what one man expects compared to the next man. To suggest such a feature is hardly blasphemy given that statement.

You argue that this is a waste of time for the developers, when there is quite a significant number of people that like this effect --both soldiers and non-soldiers. The developers were the ones that took the time in the first place to develop this game and i believe they are more qualified than you or i to make the decision on whether it is appropriate to include this feature or not. The fact that they have included it already says something about what they are trying to do.

Considering the fact that it is there, one can only assume that since they said they wont remove any features; it will either be improved upon or remain as-is. If it remains as-is and proves to be unacceptable to people with low-end GPU's then i would hope there is some option for a mission maker to enable it.

I appreciate the linkage, as i havent seen that and will give it a watch later. In terms of watching an hour long video right now; i find it best to refer to shorter clips which show-off the feature that BI are trying to perfect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyk7e0VMwmw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRsIpIwEdh0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZHrubLXGR8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7f1-cDSZWk

---

As is said, BI included this feature -its there. They are the ones that decided during the development process to add this feature, i doubt it took them five minutes. To negate the developers decision as non-realistic or less immersive is your opinion, which i believe to be biased due to your performance constraints. As much as ive re-iterated my case i find that the disadvantage plus added immersion is a non-issue, the crux of my argument is that it be a parameter so that those of us who play with it have piece of mind knowing that everyone is on an even keel.

[5LEvEN]

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.

[rscarrab]

Well it is a camera effect after all, which does its best to simulate head-strain coupled with fast movement. Slightly blurry vision (with good fps) is there to remove the constant "perfect focus" that is otherwise present.

It is unacceptable for those that enjoy using this feature to turn it off in order to have a fair fight. I find that its far more acceptable to create the option for those of us that use it; to play amongst ourselves from time to time (and through an ingame setting; ensure that it is enforced). :)

[RangerPL]

I'd like to see some more settings for PP effects. Some are good but there are others like bloom that just make me sick.

[rscarrab]

Bloom did tend to go a bit "full on" in regards to looking up a bit. One could almost find the exact point at which bloom would go full on, aim down a bit and it would dissipate very quickly. If it was a lot more gradual id welcome that, for sure. It would be nice to break up the PP features if that wasn't addressed. :)

[sillik]

More customise options post process settings would be nice. Specially exessive bloom is annoying.

[NielsS]

As long as i can turn off PP i'm happy but please, NO fixed settings. We get enough of that crap from console ports.
As i'm a SP and COOP player i don't care about MP, but i can understand that people who play PvP a lot want a system implemented that keeps it fair for everyone playing.:cool:

[Bouben]

I would like to have as many settings as possible in some kind of separated "advanced" mode so that it would not scare casual players who are important for BIS too. Especially LOD details like in the first OFP would be great.

[arigram]

I am not sure if it would be possible that a graphic setting I would have liked to see is regarding the amount and duration of particles, so smoke can be thicker, plumes can be longer, boat wakes can have a more realistic length, etc .

[sillik]

Or atleast there could be advanced commands to add in "arma.config" if they like/want to keep GUI simple..


Do the devs even have time to read these, it's been over 1 year since, i saw post
I hope we will be able to give further control in future, btw, over PP effects to users. but haven't seen any updates about that.

[sillik]

Any news on this front ?

[Flash Thunder]

Im sure someone at BIS has seen this thread or a similar thread they're busy at work.

[PuFu]

Animation (this would mean higher detail at larger distances)

Terrain mesh quality

GPU Physx's simulation checkbox
Just seen this one...The above are not possible because:
1. Animations? What does it have to do with view distance? Maybe i am missing something here
2. Terrain Mesh Quality (i would assume you are talking about the actual terrain grid size) which cannot be defined client size. It is impossible unless there is tessellation available
3. GPU Physx is NOT gonna be in anyways. (i would not hold my breath for anything other than the ragdolls and vehicles physics, such as particles and effects generated with physx)

Other than that, i am all for breaking all the individual GFX options down into more categories, especially for PP effects where things don't need to be connected as they are now in A2 and TKOH...

[batto]

3. GPU Physx is NOT gonna be in anyways.PhysX is about off-loading physics processing to GPU AFAIK.

[DM]

PhysX is about off-loading physics processing to GPU AFAIK.

You know wrong :wink:

[batto]

You know wrong :wink:

Quoting wiki:


Video games supporting hardware acceleration by PhysX can be accelerated by either a PhysX PPU or a CUDA-enabled GeForce GPU (if it has at least 32 CUDA cores), thus offloading physics calculations from the CPU, allowing it to perform other tasks instead. This typically results in a smoother gaming experience and additional visual effects.

Even Ivan mentioned PhysX compatibility with graphics cards in interview with Briggsil.

[DM]

can be, being the key words.

BI have already stated that their physX implementation will be CPU only.

Edit: Its useful because the physX library can do so many more things than the self-written physics code BI created all those years ago...

[batto]

can be, being the key words.

BI have already stated that their physX implementation will be CPU only.

Well, that doesn't make sense. If PhysX engine decides that GPU is from nVidia why should BIS force it to compute on CPU? I'll look at PhysX thread anyway.

EDIT: Also the checkbox for limiting PhysX on CPU doesn't make sense either IMO.

[DM]

It doesnt make sense for the most part because physics have nothing to do with graphics (With the exception of physics-enabled particles or cloth "sim"). As is typical with these forums, everyone just goes "give us all the things!"

[batto]

It doesnt make sense for the most part because physics have nothing to do with graphics (With the exception of physics-enabled particles or cloth "sim").

Of course, but graphics cards are called "graphics card" because so far they've been useful only for graphics but you can utilize those hundreds of floating point processors for physics too. Bitcoin mining has nothing to do with graphics.


As is typical with these forums, everyone just goes "give us all the things!"

If it means zero work from BIS than why not. It's handled by PhysX isn't it?

[dunedain]

As for the original subject of this topic, I'm definitely for more graphic options.

It would also be nice to expand object draw distance with three new options, such as building draw distance, ground vehicle draw distance and air vehicle draw distance. I think it would be very useful.

An option to turn off HDR and choose to disable or not different post processing effects would be nice too. :bounce3:

[DM]

If it means zero work from BIS than why not. It's handled by PhysX isn't it?

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups :j:

[Flash Thunder]

Just seen this one...The above are not possible because:
1. Animations? What does it have to do with view distance? Maybe i am missing something here
2. Terrain Mesh Quality (i would assume you are talking about the actual terrain grid size) which cannot be defined client size. It is impossible unless there is tessellation available
3. GPU Physx is NOT gonna be in anyways. (i would not hold my breath for anything other than the ragdolls and vehicles physics, such as particles and effects generated with physx)

Other than that, i am all for breaking all the individual GFX options down into more categories, especially for PP effects where things don't need to be connected as they are now in A2 and TKOH...

1. I have seen in some games honestly don't know the actual performance increase in the settings, nor how they work was just throwing it out there.

2. Dunno if the term mesh is correct in this instance but the option would be to decrease or increase the warping effect on the terrain at distance, it would simply reduce the quality of the terrain its a terrain LOD. Look this game FPDR to see what I'm trying to explain. Again if not possible disregard just throwing out options. If you played that "other game" when you're in a helicopter you can see this in affect, the terrain will literally warp 200 meters in front of you.

3. Physx was confirmed to be all done on CPU sometime ago right? I'll update my first post.

:)

If you guys have options you would like to add that I've missed let me know on here or in PM.

[crazyjake56]

If it means zero work from BIS than why not. It's handled by PhysX isn't it?

How do you know?

[batto]

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups :j:

It's funny because same applies to you.

[DM]

Again, you assume ;)

[Flash Thunder]

Can you two both stop spamming my thread already?

Do it in PM.

Thanks.

[Leon86]

MOAR SETTINGS!!!!

I'd want more control over the LOD switching, I dont mind the game looking a bit shitty closeby. In arma 2 you have constant lod switching with a smoothing animation making it worse and the 3 closest trees make your fps drop massively.

[spacemarine]

Forcing things like shadows from objects on within the server is a bad idea for people who cannot run at a decent frame rate with them on. It can be a advantage in PVP at close range but everyone has the option to turn them of.
that would force me to run the game in ugly-mode .. I'd rather not play it at all if ppl can lower settings to gain an unfair advantage.
And grass+vegetation better be hardcoded in Arma 3 too .. so ppl cant turn it off..