View Full Version : Graphics engine improvement
I created this thread to discuss anything about the entire graphics engine as a whole. (Of course I'm not an expert in this)
We were told BIS is working on pixel and vertex shading, this is extremely important if OFP2 is to look better but I'm worried about one thing:
improper use of this may rended the entire game to look pale and faded. Unrealistic like Raven Shield. If you don't know what I am talking about, go play the R6 Raven Shield Demo or full game and look at the colors. It's missing all bright clear colors. Even the fireworks look like a joke. I have seen this in other new games, I don't remember the titles, shading is nice, but it has to be limited and checked with real life appearance.
Also, as discussed before, I would like to see harware vertex tessellation/subdivision as supported by ATI,TRUFORM...
ATI's TRUFORM (http://www.ati.com/technology/hardware/pdf/truform.pdf)
General Surface subdivision (http://www-courses.cs.uiuc.edu/~cs319/subdiv.pdf)
Pixel and Vertex Shading (ATI) (http://www.ati.com/developer/ATIGDC2001Vertex.PDF)
Pixel and Vertex shading (http://www.tweak3d.net/articles/pixvecshaders/)
SpeedyDonkey
Apr 24 2003, 18:02
I dont think pixel and vertex shading is something that automaticly makes games unrealistic. My question is, how will vertex and pixel shading work in a large scale game like ofp2?
i was gonna write something about Bf1942´s water but i realized that was H/TL witch resistance allready has?
That's what I mean, I would appreciate (and we all will I'm sure) if BIS steps back and judges from time to time whether the result is realistic or simply too much fade. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Everything in moderation may be the key here, I'm not sure.
Koolkid101
Apr 24 2003, 18:11
I hope I won't have to buy an expensive video card.
This is one of the common misconceptions, just like the ability to play OFP on 3 seperate monitors with a special video card, and the ability to use 7.1 point directional sound, it would all be optional.
For instance with 1.91, if you have a 5.1 surround system, great, you play with it, if you don't you can play with stereo. Or H&L, if your card supports it you play in that mode, if it doesn't you play in another standard video mode. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
ArchangelSKT
Apr 24 2003, 19:37
Maybe not 100% graphic related , but I hope to be able to move better indoors , of course you spend more time out in the open , but man I`ve had probs inside http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Heatseeker
Apr 24 2003, 20:11
Yeah, Take that Black Hawk Down game for example, it uses lotsa pixel shadding efects and all that but overall it has too many low res. textures and its colors look cartoonish.
one thing bis should look into is light efects during the day, while opf looks amazing at night, and awsome during sunrise/sundown it looks a bit watercolored during the day http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .
DFBHD has really good water effects, it actually looks and seems like water. I'd like to see that and also maybe DFBHD's swimming.
I hope they find a new way of texturing islands so
that we won't be stuck with the same bland generic
simple texturing. I would also like to see more realistic
terrain geometery so we could have ditches and foxholes.
right now the terrain is formed from 10m x 10m squares.
We also need MUCH MUCH more attention to basic
physics in the game. It sucks to see a tank do a huge
jump and land like a fluffy pillow - I want noise and
rattles and shaking! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif And the airplane aspect of the game
could use some more accurate physics, especially when
turning.
One major thing that should be totally redone is the
'Geometery" of the game. You can easily walk through
thin walls, you can get stuck inside objects inside the
houses, and worst of all the game only checks the
geometery if the object is moving!
There are tons of bugs and unrealistic shit in this game,
but the gameplay makes up for it. Imagine what this game
would be like if all these things were corrected... Could
be the best PC game yet...
Even w/ those bugs its the best game yet.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Heatseeker @ April 24 2003,16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, Take that Black Hawk Down game for example, it uses lotsa pixel shadding efects and all that but overall it has too many low res. textures and its colors look cartoonish.
one thing bis should look into is light efects during the day, while opf looks amazing at night, and awsome during sunrise/sundown it looks a bit watercolored during the day http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yep, I think that's actually where pixel/vertex shading can be helpful. In moderation. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
You also noticed how the cars in R3 RVS look cartoonish? too funny http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Having said that, R3 RVS does actually have some really nice sun and shadowing effects.
I think BIS will kick butt with it's decisions on graphics next time around.
Dwarden
Apr 25 2003, 01:52
Hopefully something like this comes (trilinear displacement mapping on flat surface with vertex shaders)
http://users.belgacom.net/xvox/
http://users.belgacom.net/xvox/Xvox.zip
http://users.belgacom.net/xvox/Xvox_source.zip
of course more optimized http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ....
and techniques used by this guy here
http://esprit.campus.luth.se/~humus/
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
i'm sure more can be added than i can find and imagine http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Only problem with tesselating terrain much is the size of OFP islands. Man, this is a fine balancing act they have to perform. Although it will be ok as long as there are configuration options to use very low detail. Like current engine.
HEY, this was bn880's 2880th post. Nostradamus would be impressed.
Heatseeker
Apr 25 2003, 09:34
I can imagine a island the size of nogova without cliping probs inside buildings and with deformable terrain and better fisics... but current hardware would not be able to run it, maybe in the next 10 years or so http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif .
[SZ]Vladimir
Apr 25 2003, 11:59
good idea bn880 http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif using of ATI's trueform and other DX8 (DX9 too ?) functionality http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Vladimir
Hovmand
Apr 25 2003, 12:43
I dont want to much of all that new and "cool" graphics it doesnt look realistic at all, i will be extremly dissapointed if it will turn out to look like BF1942 or Unreal2.
Antichrist
Apr 25 2003, 12:53
I'll be happy as long as BIS don't make the game for a specific videocard manufacturer like retards at Epic did!
Franz_Schall [SWAF]
Apr 25 2003, 13:09
I hope you guys aren't biased only on OFP http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif - it's an excerpt of the developers diary about Söldner - Secret Wars.
There's something very interesting about creating these huge environments, and the difficulties it might bring for customers as well as developers which would target the same problems as BIS might encounter while programming OFP2.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3D HARDWARE ACCELERATION
As you know, Söldner requires DirectX8.1 and a hardware accelerator. The job of a PC game developer is made difficult by the myriad of different cards on the market. Even if brand new GeForce FX or Radeon 9700 cards are in the stores, there are still enough users with Geforce2 or even TNT2 cards out there. So which cards to support? Tough question.
Somewhere you have to draw a line. Currently this line is a GeForce2 for Söldner. We support all sorts of scaling down the game to run on those cards; whether or not we can lower this line to GeForce1 is unknown as we don't want to upset those people with high end cards, right?
The reason I touch this topic is something called static meshes. Due to the history of 3D acceleration, specifically the way hardware manufacturers tune their cards to play Quake-style games, is limiting games in big way. Modern cards are optimized to run static meshes really fast. Static meshes are the Object 3D data uploaded into the memory of the 3D card.
Once inside the card, this object can be displayed really fast: awesomely fast in fact. The drawback? Its static, i.e. it can't be changed.
So if you play a FPS game walls are concrete; they can't be changed or shot at. Remember Duke? That game was far more flexible and dynamic in its environment than for example Doom was. Check out the latest FPS games: even more static, but much more beautiful than the past. In fact recent games display less stuff but spend more time displaying it great.
Check out the Doom 3 movies. How many monsters do they display? Three? But oh boy, they look awesome. But forgotten were the days where you could kill 50 monsters in Doom with a single rocket from your launcher...
In other words the graphics card's power is spent on making things look better, but not making the 3D environment better, interactive, dynamic.
Söldner tries to change this with a lot of effort. In our game everything can be destroyed. This means that we need to update our objects in the 3D card constantly. As the AGP bus is pretty slow compared to the masses of data, we have to optimize everywhere we can. Would the 3D world optimize their hardware to run dynamic meshes we would be in a much better position and even support older cards than GeForce2.
Recently, the vertex shaders and buzzwords like cg compiler are heading our way: a programming language inside the 3D card where we can change meshes already uploaded. But its not here yet, less than 2% of the market has those shaders. So we need to wait.
What I want to say with all this? Well, this is the single reason why Söldner is a tactical shooter. Tactical shooters have the advantage of not needing 100 frames per-second. They can run with less, easily.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r....ge=http (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=89686) [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
[SZ]Vladimir
Apr 25 2003, 15:29
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ April 25 2003,14:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll be happy as long as BIS don't make the game for a specific videocard manufacturer like retards at Epic did![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No for a specific manufacturer, but incule support of ATI's Trueform for personn who have ATI's videocard... there is no difference for personns who have other card http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
And why not any DX8 effect for water (Morrowind make that personn who haven't a DX8 videocard (GF3, GF4Ti, Radeon8500, Radeon9X00(Pro), GFFX) can play this game without this effect, that's all) ?
And OFP2 is released in 1 Year 1/2, you have time to change your videocard http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Vladimir
Hovmand
Apr 25 2003, 15:35
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([SZ]Vladimir @ April 25 2003,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And OFP2 is released in 1 Year 1/2, you have time to change your videocard http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My videocard is just fine (gforce 4 ti 4200), I just dont think all those effects have a place in OFP.
I dont want to see them kill the size of the game just to make it look pretty http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif I think ofpr was fine. they have every thing they need in ofpr to make the game look better. just look at the inside view of the Oh-58. if they did all inside views of vehicles like that, it would look great. I want more power to the fight not the looks!
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hovmand @ April 25 2003,11:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([SZ]Vladimir @ April 25 2003,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And OFP2 is released in 1 Year 1/2, you have time to change your videocard http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
My videocard is just fine (gforce 4 ti 4200), I just dont think all those effects have a place in OFP.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Which? Hardware vertex tessellation has no place in OFP? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif What's wrong with nicer HW accelerated graphics options?
Hmm... it's really important for BIS to work on the graphics (and sound), it will be good for their sales and good even for veteran OFP players.
OFP already outperforms on size, freedom and realism yet many are not playing it because of graphics and sound shortcomings.
Dwarden
Apr 25 2003, 19:13
nPatches are part of DirectX 8/9, same goes for shaders ...
most of cards (geforce3 and r8500 up) are capable of doing them ...
it's all just about WAY how they are used ... and i'm sure BIS do that correctly ...
I have a 4600 Ti, so ill be able to run anything for a while.
Since im making my own game at the moment, by the time it will be out, everyone will be using 64bit processors (u will, or u aint playing it) this means that 1x1m grids are a possibility, but with this comes more burden on the CPU for computing the physics that everone wants.
Epita
Hovmand
Apr 25 2003, 20:55
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 25 2003,20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Which? ***Hardware vertex tessellation has no place in OFP? *** http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif *** What's wrong with nicer HW accelerated graphics options?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Could you show/tell what it does?
I just wanna keep the realistic way ofp:res looks, without adding to much junk that you dont see in th real world.
[SZ]Vladimir
Apr 25 2003, 22:01
I think OFP can look realistic and use this effects. That don't affect players who don't have videocard with this effects, and game look better for players who have videocard with this effects...
Vladimir
Schoeler
Apr 25 2003, 22:21
I'm not much for the tech talk, but these are the sorts of graphics improvements I want to see:
When a shell explodes, I want to see dirt clods and dust. I want deformable terrain so we get shell craters, foxholes, trenches, caves etc..
I want dust on dry days when tanks roll over dirt, I want torn up grass and mud on rainly days.
Vegetation wise I want real grass that you can hide in
Better damage models on hit vehicles. Better fire effects. Rubble and really destroyed buildings.
Trees that sway in the wind, grass that ripples. Water that splashes in puddles, streams, paddies. Creeks, canals, small terrain features.
I know, I know. Wait until I get my 75GHz Pentium 14 system right! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
RalphWiggum
Apr 25 2003, 22:50
to some extent, i'd love to see some graphics related stuffs like bushes and foliages be more realistic given that island size remains the same.
also, am i the only one who still feels uncomfortable with lighting in OFP with GF3 or higher(pixel shading related?)?
ale2999
Apr 26 2003, 06:08
I bet there is gonna be no islands, but I think that the visual improvement should be only in the models and foliage and the rest, lol I will not upgrade for 2-3 yrs so I would like a 2.4 with geforce4 4200 run it well lol. and please no ati trueform or ati optimization, they got lousy programmers. If u got a great card that can do only in benchmark but crash only in games 4get about it lol
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Could you show/tell what it does?
I just wanna keep the realistic way ofp:res looks, without adding to much junk that you dont see in th real world. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Vertex subdivision/tessellation (http://www-courses.cs.uiuc.edu/~cs319/subdiv.pdf)
As I posted in the first post, and this is basically what ATI's trueform does only onboard the video processor instead of your CPU.
This, with proper usage will make things appear more realistic not less. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
And you can't say things like "no ATI Trueform please" because it's just optional support which more cards I think will have in one form or another by the time OFP2 is released. If you say no Trueform support because ATI sucks so what? If people buy the video cards and OFP2 is for these people, why not support their video cards great features. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I'm not pushing any brands here, it's just extremely important to utilize all hardware features in OFP since the battlefields are so large. The CPU has a very hard time as it is, the more work shifted to the GPU the better.
Hovmand
Apr 26 2003, 12:49
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ 26 April 2003,08:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Could you show/tell what it does?
I just wanna keep the realistic way ofp:res looks, without adding to much junk that you dont see in th real world. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Vertex subdivision/tessellation (http://www-courses.cs.uiuc.edu/~cs319/subdiv.pdf)
As I posted in the first post, and this is basically what ATI's trueform does only onboard the video processor instead of your CPU.
This, with proper usage will make things appear more realistic not less. *** http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
And you can't say things like "no ATI Trueform please" because it's just optional support which more cards I think will have in one form or another by the time OFP2 is released. ***If you say no Trueform support because ATI sucks so what? ***If people buy the video cards and OFP2 is for these people, why not support their video cards great features. ***http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ***I'm not pushing any brands here, it's just extremely important to utilize all hardware features in OFP since the battlefields are so large. ***The CPU has a very hard time as it is, the more work shifted to the GPU the better.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Oh okay, my mistake http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Im sorry if you have misunderstood me, but i´ve never said i dont want Trueform, it should be in every game as it is not very hard to code in, or so i´ve heard.
Its a little hard for me to explain what i mean im not into all those technical terms.
Stuff like the water in Morrowind, yeah it looks good and all, but i just dont think it would fit in with the rest of the ofp enviroment.
[SZ]Vladimir
Apr 26 2003, 13:41
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hovmand @ 26 April 2003,14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Stuff like the water in Morrowind, yeah it looks good and all, but i just dont think it would fit in with the rest of the ofp enviroment.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If rest of environement is adaptaded that can be good... but you're right, for personn who havn't pixel or vertex shader (I never remember) that don't look good...
Vladimir
bangcraher
Apr 26 2003, 19:27
You have to feel you immersed by the rain, it was not the case with OFP 1, somethimes I even didn't realised it was raining.
Something that for example would greatly improve this are windscreen washers on the car like in the old game "Hard Truck", where you can see the droplets on the windscreen if you don't wash the windscreen, and the droplets that trickle on the side if you are moving and even more details.
During storms the flashs must be more impressive and the thunder must have better sound.
Dwarden
Apr 27 2003, 04:06
Realistic and plastic seawaves ...
Water clarification
Waterfalls !!! (not only simple startedge-fall-poll) i mean stream, edge, notch, fall, rock, spatter, fall, rock, edge, notch, fall, pool) ... u get idea?
Grass !!! Huge load and variety of grass and small bushes, dynamic !
Dynamic shadows thru branches & foliage creating these fantastic light effect when u are in wood http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
etc...
mads bahrt
Apr 27 2003, 05:00
Support for larger maps would be nice. It seems that, in the current engine, the map displayer/editor is the limit on large maps like WRPdouble and WRPquad. It seems that this is due to the map being rendered at viewingtime. On the other hand there is no problem with these large maps in the game itself (excluding mapview). I think this is because the engine doesn't render beyond your viewdistance.
Instead of rendering the map from the 3d-model at playingtime the engine should just use a bitmap made at map-making time. It's not like the map changes during a game anyway.
The map you see in-game does change during the game. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif hehhe
EDIT: Position of bushes,trees etc is update live on the map...
Lt_Damage
Apr 28 2003, 02:34
got some new words for you: "terrain streaming" http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
PitViper
Apr 28 2003, 17:18
It may not possible, but I'd love to see fields, tall grass and underbrush. The forests are good but they are very bald at the ground level.
Perhaps this is something for the future http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
guys,
all this talk about ATI Trueform is senseless, because this technology is already dead, or so to say only usefull for older games with low poly models.
no, I'm not a nVidia fanboy (I'm still uncertian which card to buy next, ATI or nVidia).
Eureka there... we are using it as an example of Hardware support.
EDIT: This thread is NOT about ATI Trueform, it's about improving the graphics engine and utilizing all possible HW acceleration.
I believe BIS need to address the "Pop-Up" graphical effect present in OFP, because it's a total nuisance.
How best to explain? Hmm...
In game, stand ~20ft away from any tree. Now, walk slowly towards the tree; you will notice that the tree suddenly sprouts branches and leaves. I find that really disconcerting - I think something's jumping out at me! (Attack of the killer trees, lol)
Yes, I know it's probably to do with LODs and the like, but I am sure OFP could "scale" the objects far better than they do now. And Bn880, love your idea about TruForm. I have an ATI 9700 myself and it's so underused by current games, it's a crime (sniff)
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
May 2 2003, 00:30
Its called scalability tracy.
If the default settings were to have the tree details higher at further ranges, people with shit pcs wouldnt be able to play. Its assumed that if you have a decent pc you will tweak the LOD and drop down settings.
Erm,
Baron - I'm running a 3Ghz PC with Radeon 9700 Pro and 1Gb of RAM. I've set the graphics settings to 800x600 @60Hz (60Hz doesn't strain the adapter so much.)
Are you telling me my PC's not good enough? No matter what settings I have and how far I drop the view distance this happens, so what gives?
So, tell me what you know about LODs in OFP models? Feel free to explain in technical detail: I work as a software engineer abd am quite well versed in graphics programming so I'm sure I'll understand you. I await your reply.
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
May 3 2003, 19:15
Tracey, I didn't say that the effect could be removed, only that it would be adjusted.
I'm sure a software engineer can figure out which settings to change to give the best performance
(HINT - GAMES LOOK CRAP AT LOW RESOLUTIONS)
(HINT2 - if you want to raise visual range, lowering settings is unlikely to do so [may help it run better @ bigger range but wont give more range])
Settings you might like to tweak are
geometry performance
auto drop down
objects LOD
You can't stop the LOD changing but you can definitely make it happen further away.
Having entire forests 3k away in a 90degree view at maximum detail (IE LOTS of polys as opposed to 2) wil work on any pc.
Its simply not possible to display that many polys on todays hardware; you ARE going to get LOD changes at some point, and all you can change is the range they change at.
Okay first of all stop fighting here. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif It never goes well once people start getting personal.
tracy_t, I think you can completely disable user mipmaps in your driver configuration. That will be a killer on your system but there should be no more LOD flipping. Also in your video driver you may be able to tweak the LOD to a more -ive value. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
No more of this in this thread please.
I just hope the new graphic engine allows larger maps. Plus be able to see further than about 1.5k's without slowing the game down to a slide show. I would love to be able to see rising smoke from miles away, to allow you to line up properly when flying suypport aircraft. Games like "Lock On" have promising terrain... a little under-detail for FPS/Military Sim but you get the idea.
AngusHeaf
May 5 2003, 06:09
While on the subject of graphical upgrades I have a few to add that I haven't seen addressed specifically. Although admittedly I haven't read EVERY post on this entire section of the forums, so forgive me if I am saying what someone else already has. I did read the FAQ though. Heh. Anyways...
1) Ability for water to occupy multiple levels is the world. Currently there's one global water level with tides and such. I would like the ability to do water at more than one elevation and water that slopes (such as a stream running downhill). A game I used I play all the time was Myth: The Fallen Lords (an RTS) and it had fixed water level. Later Myth 2: Soulblighter came out which included multiple water levels. It was accomplished simply by using a greyscale water elevation bitmap.
2) Ability for not all water to have tides. Pretty basic and probably mentioned before. But streams don't go up and down like the ocean.
3) Ability to go below mesh level. Right now if you place an object on the world mesh it sits right at ground level. If you were to make a basement of a building and set the building so that the basement was actually below the world mesh you can't go into it. Need to fix this (well, not fix, just add/update). This will add an entirely new element of tunnels (great if OFP2 is during Nam or something similar) and sewers and the aforementioned building basements. Things like true foxholes and fighting positions could then be done also.
Those 3 are my big big hopes. Finer mesh detail, deformable mesh (craters) better foliage and all that is just prettier windowdressing but doesn't really expand gameplay like the above suggestions would. I mean let's not get spoiled guys... we already play a game with probably the largest playing area that you can roam freely. Sure a 20km x 20km island would be great but can you imagine how long it would take to foliate (is that a word?)?
//relic//
May 5 2003, 09:11
bn880, the 9x00 series cannot do truform in hardware, so unless their target performance is based around an 8500 (and totally ignoring nvidia cards) then no truform for you...
Software implementations of adaptive tesselation yes - but not hardware ones, unless nvidia/ati produce something in the future using it.
peanuckle_00
May 5 2003, 22:48
The graphics are fine. Making the resolution any on objects any finer will only increase the specs required to play the game. Let's talk about increasing the draw distance even for flying jets.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (//relic// @ 05 May 2003,05:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bn880, the 9x00 series cannot do truform in hardware, so unless their target performance is based around an 8500 (and totally ignoring nvidia cards) then no truform for you...
Software implementations of adaptive tesselation yes - but not hardware ones, unless nvidia/ati produce something in the future using it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: This thread is NOT about ATI Trueform, it's about improving the graphics engine and utilizing all possible HW acceleration.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peanuckle_00 @ 05 May 2003,18:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The graphics are fine. Making the resolution any on objects any finer will only increase the specs required to play the game. Let's talk about increasing the draw distance even for flying jets.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk Spanel @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> And yes, we're going to implement DX9 features in the engine and we really like pixel and vertex shaders and we're going to use it in the engine extensively. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And think about it, end of 2004, OFP2 comes out with same graphics as OFP1, disaster. Graphics may be fine, but not for the future. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
SpeedyDonkey
May 6 2003, 16:28
I agree with bn880 on this one. If they want to earn some money with ofp2 it would be crazy to not improve the graphics significantly. I dont know what the average system specs would be late 2004 but thats what the flashpoint will require.
benreeper
May 7 2003, 22:50
This is why the future is DOOMED to shallow games, which means all studios will only develop for the consoles.
Graphics are the #1 important element to game design above all else. Are you all saying that if the graphics stayed exactly the same but all of the games shortcomings were fixed, (including having hundreds of units battling on screen at once)
you wouldn't buy it.
Even as it is now there isn't a pc made that could play OFP maxed out.
Ben
It seems to me that if the graphics stayed exactly the same, many people who bought OFP1 would not come back for OFP2.
Not referring to most people on the forum, just the other million or so. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I think the graphics are important for looks and CPU load, if properly used this will aid in making larger battlefields still work at a reasonable framerate.
The guys are right about having better gfx as whats the point on just having a ofp 2 when they could just bring a addon pack out to sort out minor bugs and improved netcode. I didnt upgrade my system to play games that look the same from over 2 years back (plus ofp gfx will be 3 years old by the time ofp2 comes out). I brought it to play the latest games with the latest game engines and gfx. As for veiw distance how bout getting a larger processor, some more ram and gfx card http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif What ever BIS do, i believe they will make the right choices as they listen to their public and bring us what we want plus extras. Well done BIS on bring us Ofp2 cant wait till E3 to see what ive been waiting for since last year http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
It sounds like some of you believe the use of vertex/pixel shaders equal unrealistic looking environments. Vertex/pixel shaders have nothing to do with that at all, it’s up to the textures being used in combination with the lightning.
Vertex/pixel shaders are just as fixed function (T&L) about hardware programming but shaders are much more flexible and let programmers write their own vertex/pixel programs.
I hope BIS will make good use of shaders in OFP2, in late 2004 I think most people will have a card supporting shaders.
SlickPilot
May 14 2003, 07:40
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
sesam2k
May 23 2003, 19:43
I would defenitely like BETTER EXPLOTIONS, for instance if you put a rocket in a truck or car, it kinda fusses and sparkles in OPF... hmmm. Also, burning soldiers who happen to be near the fireworks. Id like to think a nice cloud of fire would be appropriate so if the vertex/pixel thing does the trick, go ahead. And yes, give hi-end users the option of a great visual experiance.
cideway
May 27 2003, 15:19
A better night vision system would be a great addition to the game. If it was made like in real life when you fir off a gun you can't see shit until your eyes adjust back to the darkness
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
May 27 2003, 22:18
flash suppressors are your friend at night
haunted
May 28 2003, 08:42
Your eyes take 40 minutes to fully adjust to dark conditions. And then, any hint of light and your eyes have to readjust. If you think im doing bugger all for 40 mins only to have my rifle go of and be shagged for vision again your wrong http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
vortex3d
May 28 2003, 11:30
1. Realistic water color: Water isn't blue everywhere.
2. Realistic ricocheing bullet trails, with realistic colors at night only for Veteran mode.
3. Tall Grass: Animation should be an option for hi-end computers.
4. Add Trains.
5. Better colors: Current colors look wasshed out.
6. Improved animation response: Characters react too leasurely when compromised. ie: Dropping to the ground after firing a RPG weapon.
7. Improved controls: Often i've been killed attempting to find the right action just to be faced with a changed menu. ie: Ejecting from an aircraft in a hurry while using a Joystick. What about making every action programmable?
8. Optimized AI: I've asked my team mates to drive a truck from point A to point B, and they get stuck or go VERY slow every time, no matter what combat mode.
9. can we climb trees? :)
10. Close combat!: Knifes, etc
Copy Con
May 28 2003, 17:08
5. Better colors: Current colors look wasshed out.
I like the colours.
I don't want it to have the over saturated colours that a lot of other games have.
Heatseeker
May 28 2003, 18:56
5. Better colors: Current colors look wasshed out.
I like the colours.
I don't want it to have the over saturated colours that a lot of other games have.
I like the colors at night, sunshine and sunset (low light conditions), but i too think that during day everything looks a bit watercolored http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif , the terrain, vegetation, game units look a bit waterpainted, i find real hard to explain this http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif .
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
May 28 2003, 19:52
heatseeker, put your brightness up and your gamma down.
5. Better colors: Current colors look wasshed out.
I like the colours.
I don't want it to have the over saturated colours that a lot of other games have.
I like the colors at night, sunshine and sunset (low light conditions), but i too think that during day everything looks a bit watercolored http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif , the terrain, vegetation, game units look a bit waterpainted, i find real hard to explain this http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif .
I agree....if you really find the colours too washed out ( http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif ) then fiddle the settings on either/both your Monitor and your Graphics card.
I think the colours look excellent, and really suit the enivironment they were trying to create (or rather, where they live, Eastern Europe).
Now to my 2 cents:
1. Particles. Better lighting for this
2. Particles. More options. Billboard and Space are very useful, but there are limitations to this.
3. Particles. Currently you can pass a vector (direction + velocity) from an object to a particle, but you can't then pass that particle's vector onto another particle. This would make for greater flexability in making smoke effects, etc etc.
4. Water. The way it is currently done (two textures, one RGB, one Alpha) works reasonably well for the land, but doesn't work for the water. Why? Water is transparent, land isn't. A better solution in my mind would be to have two RGB textures, and have them both animated.
5. Water. the current animation cycle (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,6,5,4,3,2,1) is awfully hard to make good water textures for. A much better way to go would have been 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (then loop to 1). This allows texturing to give the impression of waves in a far easier manner.
6. Land. The use of an alpha layer is good, but how about leaving the possibility open for it to be animated? In particular for Winter/Desert Maps, where having a subtle underlayer of movement could enhance the impression of snow/sand.
7. Texture animation. Please for the love of god.....blend them! In the above example with water the textures "hardcut" from one to the next. A very quick dissolve would look so much better, especially in the skies.
8. Skies. Besides the animations being blended, what about using jpgs for them? Reasons why...they are there ALL the time, so don't have to be loaded/dumped from VGA memory. Cards now have more than enough memory to handle a 512x512 (or more) jpg texture being in memory all the time. Also, because they are there all the time, why not make them look better?
9. Terrain Streaming. Am I right in guessing this will be a kind of "LOD" for terrain. Like 5m grid close to you, up to 100+m grid further away? Could work very nicely http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Anyway since that's well over 2 cents, so I'll shut up now. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
Necromancer-
Jun 5 2003, 16:40
Anyone remember Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear?
Last time i threw a flashbang too near, I got stunned, blinded and deaf for a few seconds.
About getting deaf... You'd hear your ears ring after you have continiously fired a M249 SAW. Would be nice if this was implemented in the game.
Ack... wrong topic..
sorry. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif
9. Terrain Streaming. Am I right in guessing this will be a kind of "LOD" for terrain. Like 5m grid close to you, up to 100+m grid further away? Could work very nicely ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I am hoping that is correct. It would really make flying infinitely more pleasant if the visibility was raised and terrain LOD existed. I just wonder how it would work through binoculars and scopes, that would be the hard part.
Anyway BIS have one of the most developed LOD systems for 3D models and I have full faith they can pull it off if they choose to do so.
This terrain LOD stuff may also be a problem in MP. It's tough, object positions do not really match from one terrain LOD to the next. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif There is probably a way though, and that would be a truly amazing feature.
FallenPaladin
Jun 6 2003, 18:44
Anyone remember Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear?
Last time i threw a flashbang too near, I got stunned, blinded and deaf for a few seconds.
About getting deaf... You'd hear your ears ring after you have continiously fired a M249 SAW. Would be nice if this was implemented in the game.
Ack... wrong topic..
sorry. ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif
Well, from my experience I can tell you that you don`t hear a ringing. As a matter of fact you hear the bang, than a whistle in your head and nothing more after that. If you have bad luck the whistle will continue. After that there`ll be recovery time and infusions. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
This terrain LOD stuff may also be a problem in MP. ***It's tough, object positions do not really match from one terrain LOD to the next. ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif *** There is probably a way though, and that would be a truly amazing feature.
If the terrain were made so that if an object's position was submerged on a long distance lower detail grid then it would still appear through the terrain (ie. the terrain would be transparent to objects meant to be at ground level). I can foresee masses of difficulties in applying this but I believe it would be necessary to make jungle look convincingly lush from ground level and above.
I was also thinking that for making grass LODs the up close one could be a decent model but the far away LODs be like the Il-2 Sturmovik forest which was a couple of layers of bush parallel to the terrain in sheets of texture. In the case of grass it would be small green lines.
Uziyahu--IDF
Jun 9 2003, 18:37
Quote[/b] ]We were told BIS is working on pixel and vertex shading, this is extremely important if OFP2 is to look better but I'm worried about one thing:
One thing pixel shading would make possible is real-time shadows cast by buildings, mountains, etc.
"New World Order" was trying to accomplish this and the screenshots were gorgeous, but when I went to try the demo it lagged like crazy, and my system was well over specs!
I would like to see mountain and building shadows, interior shadows, etc., but not at the expense of smooth gameplay. ***It's not worth it. ***It would be very nice to be able to hide in shadows from human players, though, as with some maps in Unreal Tournament and its mods.
Other things I'd like to see are better "dark sides" of buildings, vehicles, etc. ***Darker human shadows in some cases.
Also, when a bonfire or headlight lights up a building or soldier, I don't want to see the whole object light up, as if it was made with a huge fiber-optic cable.
Quote[/b] ] ***There are tons of bugs and unrealistic shit in this game, but the gameplay makes up for it.
Most of your post should have gone in the physics thread, Axe.
Quote[/b] ]Hopefully something like this comes (trilinear displacement mapping on flat surface with vertex shaders)
<a href="http://users.belgacom.net/xvox....k">http (http://users.belgacom.net/xvox/)
Looks like a tiled map, like something from the Delta Force series...
Quote[/b] ]I dont want to much of all that new and "cool" graphics it doesnt look realistic at all, i will be extremly dissapointed if it will turn out to look like BF1942 or Unreal2.
I second that. ***I'd just like to see the view distance increased, even if it means the draw distance on objects is reduced. ***I want to see mountains in the distance, when weather allows.
I'd also like to see rolling fog banks, like the fog that sometimes hugs the floor in "Enter the Matrix". ***Very cool.
Quote[/b] ]OFP already outperforms on size, freedom and realism yet many are not playing it because of graphics and sound shortcomings.
Which is silly... because guys I know playing Counter-Strike were amazed by the graphics in OFP. ***As someone else said, the immersion factor of the graphics on any game lifts in about 48 hours of play.
Quote[/b] ]When a shell explodes, I want to see dirt clods and dust. ***I want deformable terrain so we get shell craters, foxholes, trenches, caves etc..
I want dust on dry days when tanks roll over dirt, I want torn up grass and mud on rainly days.
Vegetation wise I want real grass that you can hide in
Better damage models on hit vehicles. ***Better fire effects. ***Rubble and really destroyed buildings.
Trees that sway in the wind, grass that ripples. ***Water that splashes in puddles, streams, paddies. ***Creeks, canals, small terrain features.
All reasonable requests... VietCong's vegetation all sways and doesn't bog they way that Ghost Recon does, but VC has smaller maps than OFP.
Quote[/b] ]to some extent, i'd love to see some graphics related stuffs like bushes and foliages be more realistic given that island size remains the same.
But not at the expense of gameplay. ***Trust me, you pay about zero attention to trees when you're in the Army and in even simulated combat conditions. ***The "nicer" trees on Nogova resulted in less foliage to conceal you. ***And in OFP, which has no real grass like DF2, it is necessary to have the shrubs to hide you.
Quote[/b] ]And you can't say things like "no ATI Trueform please" because it's just optional support which more cards I think will have in one form or another by the time OFP2 is released.
Yes, I'd definitely like to see TruForm support in OFP2. ***I might even buy a Radeon for that! ***It only makes sense. ***Instead of having the modeller work on all of those triangles, let the card do it.
Quote[/b] ]You have to feel you immersed by the rain, it was not the case with OFP 1, somethimes I even didn't realised it was raining.
True. ***There needed to be some droplet objects falling near the soldier, with little splashes on the ground, like in Rogue Spear. ***Otherwise, the existing system is good for "background" rain.
Quote[/b] ]Something that for example would greatly improve this are windscreen washers on the car like in the old game "Hard Truck", where you can see the droplets on the windscreen if you don't wash the windscreen, and the droplets that trickle on the side if you are moving and even more details.
Yeah, the droplets on Enemy Engaged: ***Commanche Versus Hokum were really cool... especially turning on the wiper blades to clear the windscreen.
Quote[/b] ]Realistic and plastic seawaves ...
Water clarification
Waterfalls !!! (not only simple startedge-fall-poll) i mean stream, edge, notch, fall, rock, spatter, fall, rock, edge, notch, fall, pool) ... u get idea?
That would certainly be nice.
Quote[/b] ]1) Ability for water to occupy multiple levels is the world.
Yep.
Quote[/b] ]3) Ability to go below mesh level. Right now if you place an object on the world mesh it sits right at ground level. If you were to make a basement of a building and set the building so that the basement was actually below the world mesh you can't go into it.
Yep.
Quote[/b] ]Let's talk about increasing the draw distance even for flying jets.
Yes, very much needed.
Quote[/b] ]as whats the point on just having a ofp 2 when they could just bring a addon pack out to sort out minor bugs and improved netcode.
Well, because mid-game joining requires a total overhaul of the game's code, anyway.
Quote[/b] ]I would defenitely like BETTER EXPLOTIONS, for instance if you put a rocket in a truck or car, it kinda fusses and sparkles in OPF... hmmm. Also, burning soldiers who happen to be near the fireworks. Id like to think a nice cloud of fire would be appropriate so if the vertex/pixel thing does the trick, go ahead. And yes, give hi-end users the option of a great visual experiance.
Yeah, I'd like to see ammo in burning vehicles exploding and cooking off, firing away from the vehicle in some cases.
Quote[/b] ]Your eyes take 40 minutes to fully adjust to dark conditions. And then, any hint of light and your eyes have to readjust. If you think im doing bugger all for 40 mins only to have my rifle go of and be shagged for vision again your wrong ***
Once, sitting in a foxhole, the girl Private in the foxhole with me took a snapshot with a flash. ***My eyes saw nothing but red for about 10 seconds! ***My night vision was surely shot for quite some time after that.
However, the eye works like this... if you look directly at something at night you may not see it because you have lost your night vision, but when you look at it with your peripheral vision you'll be able to see it better.
Quote[/b] ]A better night vision system would be a great addition to the game. If it was made like in real life when you fir off a gun you can't see shit until your eyes adjust back to the darkness
Yeah, two light spectrums need to be in the game, a visible light spectrum and an invisible light spectrum. ***Night Vision devices see both, and that is how the you can see during the night with such a device.
Quote[/b] ]5. Better colors: Current colors look wasshed out.
That is taken care of by tweaking the action gamma and then adjusting the brightness.
Quote[/b] ]2. Realistic ricocheting bullet trails, with realistic colors at night only for Veteran mode.
Yep, if for no other reason than cosmetics. ***Ricocheting rounds don't have to hurt, but if ricocheting rounds COULD be made to hurt it would help take care of the lack of "area of effect" on the LMG's, because ricocheting rounds might hit collateral targets.
--Uziyahu-IDF
http://www.idfsquad.com/
Batukhan
Jun 17 2003, 10:29
u know there r many open areas/large fields in ofp1, especially on everon... imagine, if somewhere would be a wheat-field or corn or something and the high vegetation moves in wind... oh this would be seriously beatuful end even more seriously it would burden GPU...
i saw something about vertex and pixel shaders/stencil shadows... yes it WOULD be extremely cool... bumpmaps on blown-up, old rusty ACPs :P ... neat... but IF u do make these shaders/stencils, PLEASE think of lower specs. computer-users like me http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif, so the graphics levels should be VERY adjustable accordingly for ur own needs...
i would like to see realistic lighting when wearing NVGs, with big greeny white blobs flying around (heavy calibre projectiles) and not have light sources coming through ground, allow a larger area to be affected by light and fade it more instead of having jagged light areas and no light areas.
cornhelium
Jun 21 2003, 20:36
I'd love to see better particle effects/animations when bullets hit mud/concrete/wood/metal/water etc. Firefights in Sebnampack2 are the most awesome thing I've ever seen/heard - if all those bullets could also be throwing leaves, mud and woodchips everywhere it'd just be complete sensory overload http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Not sure what game has the best example of this at the moment - Max Payne does it about perfect IMO. Raven Shield also has nice particle effects but I'd like more of 'em http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Uziyahu--IDF
Jun 22 2003, 04:48
I'd like to see some lit-up windows at night, and the A.I. to go along with this would be that any A.I. who were in a lit room at night would have difficulty seeing anything outside in the darkness. (But if they are in a completely dark room they will see someone outside before the person outside will see them.)
FatNinjaKid
Jun 29 2003, 11:05
I am really hoping for a better light engine. I think a lot of atmosphere is lost in Flashpoint1 because of poor light effects. When different light sources are overlapping you get that annoying flicker also the streetlamps supplied by BIS are much to bright.
This has been really bugging me. I can't see why they did not pay more attention to that right from the start when they started developing the engine.
Uziyahu--IDF
Jun 29 2003, 23:59
Probably because they were focusing on game-play issues that won them the Action Game of the Year.
FatNinjaKid
Jun 30 2003, 13:17
Probably because they were focusing on game-play issues that won them the Action Game of the Year.
an rightly so! Don't get wrong i love flashpoint http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Still that bug is a bit odd
LoneSoldier
Jul 1 2003, 05:52
I get where bn880 is coming from.
I dont get why people are arguing over his opinion?
If its option in the preferences menu in OFP, then thats ok.
If you dont have the PC Specs to support such graphical changes, then dont play the game like that.
I'd be happy to play OFP with better gfx, just as long as BIS add options to turn it off, and just as long as BIS know when to draw the line between graphics and gameplay.
IMO, they should focus on all the cool little features, but then if the game has those features, they wont be nicely pulled off without a good graphics engine will they?
Heatseeker
Jul 1 2003, 19:09
I would like... a shinny hot SUN, the sun in flashpoint is kinda small, and it should be more realistic, bigger with more light, and we should not be able to look at it directly without having sun glare (?) effect on our digital eyes, the sun in OPF looks kinda dead, perhaps they made it small cause we can look at it not only on the ground but also from high altitude, i dunno...
Perhaps they should make it bigger, brighter, and with better light efects when we look directly at it (imagine your a pilot and you loose your target because of sun light, or a possible tactical pilot evasion manuever http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif ), i think this is a reasonable request and it shouldnt be very hard to incorporate, devs: stop working for half hour, put on your sun glasses, go out for a beer and enjoy the weather (sun) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif .
I would like... a shinny hot SUN, the sun in flashpoint is kinda small, and it should be more realistic, bigger with more light, and we should not be able to look at it directly without having sun glare (?) effect on our digital eyes, the sun in OPF looks kinda dead, perhaps they made it small cause we can look at it not only on the ground but also from high altitude, i dunno...
Perhaps they should make it bigger, brighter, and with better light efects when we look directly at it (imagine your a pilot and you loose your target because of sun light, or a possible tactical pilot evasion manuever http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif ), i think this is a reasonable request and it shouldnt be very hard to incorporate, devs: stop working for half hour, put on your sun glasses, go out for a beer and enjoy the weather (sun) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif .
I understand you. The sun seems to be a bit weak, I'd like to be blinded by looking right to it. Though, it's not funny if the AI is not blinded too! This could bring new tactics: attacking with the sun behind us to blind the ennemy at dawn !
On the other hand, the sun, as many other light sources on the map, is able to shine through mountains and objects... This is quite annoying, no ? When playing a night mission, and being able to see a light miles behind a mountain...
Or is it my video card ?
Heatseeker
Jul 2 2003, 22:00
I understand you. The sun seems to be a bit weak, I'd like to be blinded by looking right to it. Though, it's not funny if the AI is not blinded too! This could bring new tactics: attacking with the sun behind us to blind the ennemy at dawn !
On the other hand, the sun, as many other light sources on the map, is able to shine through mountains and objects... This is quite annoying, no ? When playing a night mission, and being able to see a light miles behind a mountain...
Or is it my video card ?
The sun behind back thing you discribed is a feature of OPF, i dont think it afects a.i. though, a good oficial mission where you can see this is the one where you are in Morton and your called to rescue the Lt. from an Ambush (1985 campaign), it is hard to see the ruskies because the sun is behind them but when you reach their position you can see your dead teamates very easily, im going a bit offtopic but i really love that neat feature, sorry bout that http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .
Quote[/b] ]The sun behind back thing you discribed is a feature of OPF, i dont think it afects a.i. though, a good oficial mission where you can see this is the one where you are in Morton and your called to rescue the Lt. from an Ambush (1985 campaign), it is hard to see the ruskies because the sun is behind them but when you reach their position you can see your dead teamates very easily, im going a bit offtopic but i really love that neat feature, sorry bout that ***.
I really loved that mission the first time I played ! Allways wondered if he could be saved if we moved in quickly enough... But I don't remember being blind cause of the sun.
FatNinjaKid
Jul 11 2003, 12:17
not quite on topic :
What about displaying GIFs and AVIs?
Shataan
Jul 12 2003, 23:11
"but I'm worried about one thing:
improper use of this may rended the entire game to look pale and faded"
this sort of makes me laugh, and no offence meant. ;0) But I have always thought FP looked like water color, or rather the visuals look like a water color painting. To me in many ways the stock Flashpoint does look very pale/faded etc. Alot of low rez texture usage is most likely the culprit.
I must commend the makers of the hi rez skies, hi detail weap pack for making at least these areas look outstanding, and I love the added immersion factor because of these addons. Not to mention even FPs default sound effects SOUND pale/faded, especially incomparison to all the awesome sound packs for FP made by the mod dudes.
It would be pretty sad if BIS ends up not doing as good a job with FP 2 in these areas, that the mod dudes have done in FP GoTY Ed./Resistance. Here is to hoping.
Gollum1
Jul 13 2003, 08:28
I would like... a shinny hot SUN, the sun in flashpoint is kinda small, and it should be more realistic, bigger with more light, and we should not be able to look at it directly without having sun glare (?) effect on our digital eyes, the sun in OPF looks kinda dead, perhaps they made it small cause we can look at it not only on the ground but also from high altitude, i dunno...
Perhaps they should make it bigger, brighter, and with better light efects when we look directly at it (imagine your a pilot and you loose your target because of sun light, or a possible tactical pilot evasion manuever http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif ), i think this is a reasonable request and it shouldnt be very hard to incorporate, devs: stop working for half hour, put on your sun glasses, go out for a beer and enjoy the weather (sun) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif .
You´re right about the sun, I´ve never thought about it that much. It´s so tiny and weak as it is, I really hope BIS fixes this for OFP2 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
server1
Jul 13 2003, 17:43
i hope OFP2 will have ropes
please ropes ropes and anemations and grafiti not too much
server1
Jul 13 2003, 18:16
I hope ofp has ropes becouse the guns on the backs of
soldiors look realy bad ropes kan help meny tings in the game
for example heli can have real loking moving cargo ropes
and soldiors in heli can wear seat belts, cargo in planes
or helis can be lockt whit real looking ropes Paradrops like the ones in world war 2 and parashoots can have more realistick
ropes and rope climbing for spec ops flags whit ropes (flags on vehicles dont have ropes looks like rubish).
ropes would make the game more realistic and more fun! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
i hope BIS reads this http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
sorry for my english im DUCH! not that duch ppl cant speak english http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
Hovmand
Jul 13 2003, 19:49
i hope OFP2 will have ropes
please ropes ropes and anemations and grafiti not too much
Quote[/b] ]Connor: You know what we need? Some rope.
Murphy: What are you, insane?
Connor: No, I'm serious. Charlie Bronson's always got a rope. In the movies, they've always got rope and they always end up using it.
Murphy: That's stupid! Name one fucking thing you're gonna need a rope for.
Connor: It's not what they need it for, they just always need it.
Murphy: What's this "they" shit? This isn't the movies.
[Connor picks up a huge knife outta Murphy's bag]
Connor: Oh, is that right, Rambo?
Murphy: All right, get your stupid fucking rope.
Boondock saints ;)
A solution to the deep grass or mud problem:
At larger distances the grass detail could be degraded to a ground texture and the soldiers could only have their top half visible (depending on how deep). Same could apply to mud.
Decent mud or grass will make OFP2 significantly better.
FenderHSS
Jul 18 2003, 06:13
At larger distances the grass detail could be degraded to a ground texture and the soldiers could only have their top half visible (depending on how deep). ***Same could apply to mud.
The problem here is, because the way the engine works, even if a complex graphics scheme like this is not occuring in the field of view of the player, it still takes a lot of memory to keep track of everything. Just because it's not being rendered at huge distances, doesn't mean you're not losing a lot of RAM so the game engine can keep track. With Islands as big as the ones in OFP, this could be a huge problem, especially if terrain type affected the way the unit moves.
ale2999
Jul 18 2003, 07:17
whatever, I believe ofp2 engine will be very scalable, so people with mid/high performing machine can still get the best visually and gameplaywise
At larger distances the grass detail could be degraded to a ground texture and the soldiers could only have their top half visible (depending on how deep). ***Same could apply to mud.
The problem here is, because the way the engine works, even if a complex graphics scheme like this is not occuring in the field of view of the player, it still takes a lot of memory to keep track of everything. ***Just because it's not being rendered at huge distances, doesn't mean you're not losing a lot of RAM so the game engine can keep track. ***With Islands as big as the ones in OFP, this could be a huge problem, especially if terrain type affected the way the unit moves.
It shouldn't be a problem if it is treated the same way as chunks of forest. They are treated as a single object so distant viewing you don't see individual trees. We already have individual reeds for the outskirts.
Better z-occlusion (or whatever the technique is called) so that the vid cards are not rendering pixels that are not visible - in OFP the FPS is the same whether you're looking across an open space in a city or looking straight at the side of a building.
A better example - standing on the side of a hill below a town higher up that hill...If you look straight into the hill (so that you would be looking at the town if the hill did not exist), you get the FPS drop of looking at the town, even though there is a hill between you and it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
ABsintheminded
Aug 5 2003, 21:27
Whatever is done to the graphics engine should be done with gameplay in mind, not eye candy. However, considering the nature of the game, this includes just about everything. Sun glare is one of the oldest combat tactics in history, good textures on plants and effective lighting will make camouflage a more important aspect of the game, and changes to the terrain such as flattened grass or craters/shattered trees would help the thoughtful player track troops or determine the way a battle went, which could be amazing additions to OFP gameplay. Even the swaying of plants in the wind would change how people sneak through foliage, and what good is the ground if you can't use bumps and ditches as cover?
Almost EVERYTHING about the graphics engine will directly affect gameplay, so playing the "graphics shouldn't come first" card is nothing more than a bluff. But there should be compromises, in my opinion, as to exactly what is included. Water effects, for example, don't have to be spectacular. Though it looks cool, perfectly smooth ripples aren't going to change the way you pilot a boat up a river. Just the basics will do.
Now, I understand all these things take processing power, which is a shame. But personally, I'd be willing to deal with release delays if it means getting the right code in there to do the job and do it well. I have great faith in Bohemia and Codemasters, and I'm sure with the classic ofp gameplay intact, even standard updates to the engine will be a blessing. I look forward to seeing how this turns out.
Introduction of z-occlusion and a lod system for the terrain would give heaps more potential for the ditches and trenches mentioned above. No need to use processor time on those details if they are more than 100m away, a texture will suffice.
Maybe a different LOD for vertical distance as well as horizontal. This would be quite a bit of work but BIS only has to enable it not use it to the fullest, they can just use same lod for vertical and horizontal. It would open up an opportunity for aeroplanes to have a better view.
@ABsintheminded: the grass would not be eye candy it would definitely add to the tactics.
ABsintheminded
Aug 6 2003, 23:24
Phleep: That's what I'm saying, man. There are very few things that -wouldn't- add to the gameplay, as far as the graphics go. Everything that won't should be spared, in the name of including the little things that do. Even that, though, probably won't be enough, so it's a question of what superslick stuff to exclude to keep the game playable.
I'm not sure if this is right Topic and if anyone mentioned it before but explosions in OFP are very unrealistic.
- flash, explosion, smoke cloud it looks another way, much bigger and not in such hollywood style.
I hope it will improve in OFP2
OneStiffRod
Aug 27 2003, 20:15
Graphics wise I think OFP2 needs hi-frequency textures...
These are very small textures that are tiled - think of it like the background of a webpage - these textures are tiled and layered in a small radius around the player/camera/or visible short distance. This is the technique they use in racing games to give texture to the road and ground so you can see even the little pebbles and grass blades.
Right now I think OFP uses a triple layer general texture effect - with hi-frequency textures you could give very nice visual effects to the road/grass and even the outside of buildings.
toadlife
Aug 27 2003, 23:23
On the other hand, the sun, as many other light sources on the map, is able to shine through mountains and objects... This is quite annoying, no ? When playing a night mission, and being able to see a light miles behind a mountain...
Or is it my video card ?
Nope it's not your vid card. I've seen this happen in OFP on Geforce2 MX, my old Geforce3 and my current Geforce 4. I don't know weather it happens with ATI cards. Tis' weird to have a streetlgiht flashing through a mountain.
They should use the same engine as Stalker: Oblivion Lost. Its can suport large terrain areas, and extremely well handled textures, and it comes with the RAGDOLL EFFECT!! YIPPIE!
Ragdoll is a must, I just bought Hitman, and I'm hooked.
Stalker: Oblivion Lost Screenshots:
http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/sb_xray_15.jpg
http://images.3dgamers.com/screenimages/games/oblivionlost/stalker4.jpg
Dauragon
Sep 14 2003, 21:27
They should use the same engine as Stalker: Oblivion Lost. ***Its can suport large terrain areas, and extremely well handled textures, and it comes with the RAGDOLL EFFECT!! YIPPIE!
Ragdoll is a must, I just bought Hitman, and I'm hooked.
Stalker: ***Oblivion Lost Screenshots:
http://www.stalker-game.com/downloa...._15.jpg (http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/screenshots/sb_xray_15.jpg)
http://images.3dgamers.com/screenimages/games/oblivionlost/stalker4.jpg
Excuse my ignorance, but what is Ragdoll effect?
is that some kind of karam system from UT2k3? ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
Chances to see ofp2 graphics like stalker graphics 1 out of 10000000 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
The ragdoll effect is starting to get real big with games now. It's easily put as having the AI interact with the enviroment after death, they have no preset death scripts. Say you target an OpFor on a gaurd tower, after you kill him, gravity and physics will kick in and his death sequence will be different every single time. If you have ever played the Hitman series, it is used in that and it is a masterpiece, Hitman would not be as great as it is if it didn't have it.
The ragdoll effect is starting to get real big with games now. ***It's easily put as having the AI interact with the enviroment after death, they have no preset death scripts. ***Say you target an OpFor on a gaurd tower, after you kill him, gravity and physics will kick in and his death sequence will be different every single time. ***If you have ever played the Hitman series, it is used in that and it is a masterpiece, Hitman would not be as great as it is if it didn't have it.
The ragdoll effect has been requested many times on this forum. Can I point out that in OFP you are likely to have a considerable amount of soldiers dying simultaneously and the CPU intensive ragdoll effect would tax the PC much more than the linear 1 on 1 style FPSs.
Possibly the addition of ragdoll effects when only a single soldier is dying and standard sequences for large quantities but that isn't really what OFP is about eh?
Quite true, maybe if you could possibly tone down the ragdoll to where only certain bodyparts move? Or have alot more then two or three preset deaths.
Quite true, maybe if you could possibly tone down the ragdoll to where only certain bodyparts move? ***Or have alot more then two or three preset deaths.
Good idea. Maybe use the ragdoll system to generate some death scenes and then "save" them as standard death animations. There are only a few ways you get hit really.
quakergamer
Sep 21 2003, 15:23
What I want to be added is more materials choices:
-Chromed Reflective/Refractive materials. We could have the water like that or just use them on planes!
-Metallic "Shiny Parts": It is not nmecessary to make it reflect things but it would be great if we could make metallic materials.
-Modifying Environnement Material: We should be able to make a material that would modify the environement. An example should be the heat at the jet exhausts.
Thats for the materials! Now for other effects:
Wind effects for the trees. Let's say we have a Huey landing at an LZ, I would like to see the trees move depending on the direction of the chopper ;0!
Finally, the animations. Could it use a bone system like found in 3Ds Studio Max. If not, it would be great if we could use the skeletoon technique that we found in Character Studio.
That's it!
Later
Heres what would be nice, your own death maker.
You have a seperate program, you get maybe 10-15 saved deaths, you then get to pick how great the explosion, or the caliber of the rifle, then you shoot maybe a non textured, blocky dummy, how he dies on a flat surface is different everytime, right? ***Well then you would save that, then include it in the game as your own custom made deaths. ***Then if you ever got bored, you could make new ones, and then there would be a whole new section of addons for ofp: ***Death Sequences ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif . ***I know I would get bored after watching the same death occur over and over again.
The Frenchman
Sep 22 2003, 02:27
Chances to see ofp2 graphics like stalker graphics 1 out of 10000000 ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
Remember that this game (OFP2) is going to be released in 2005 or later. I would not be suprised if it wasnt better than STALKER.
Snypa UK
Sep 22 2003, 16:50
A small graphics thing that would never the less look cool
you see on all that gulf war footage shot with night scopes? the way the bullets make big round balls of light could you do that with the NV goggles it would look very cool on the night battles
Acidcrash
Sep 22 2003, 17:12
lense flare you mean? yes when tracers (or any light for that matter) enters your field of view would be nice to see, but essentially eye candy... probebly best that if we had that then theres the option to turn it off also as it could strain some of the les powerfull computers
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Sep 22 2003, 19:41
you dont see lens flares and things like that IRL, thats the effect of looking through a camera. ***Too many games stick loads of lens flare in because they think it looks pretty- it just looks stupid.
svendejong
Sep 22 2003, 20:46
agree on the lensflairs Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Crassus
Sep 22 2003, 23:18
Quote[/b] ]I would not be suprised if it wasnt better than STALKER
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif Now wouldn't that be something! OMG!.....no more "bear claws" for hands......among other things!
AirwolfPL
Sep 24 2003, 16:13
Common guys... You're talking about vertex/pixel shaders, about mesh tesselation, ragdolls... while current engine doesn't support even simple graphical effects! There are much more important things missing in this game!
I'm talking here about things like:
high color textures (OFP's engine AFAIK supports only 256 colour textures (+ alpha) - even if texture is loaded from 24bit TGA or JPG image - engine converts it to 256 colours before texturing)
enviromental mapping (even simple enviromental mapping but it's just A MUST!)
volumetric fog (it would be nice to have fogged valley and clear sky above them)
projected shadows (softer more natural shadows)
animated textures (someone already mentioned it, it would be nice to have possibility to apply animated textures)
better specular lighting working in both - HW T&L and normal modes
material properities (like specularity, enviromental map etc) should be kept in the p3d file itself (not partially configured in the p3d file and partially in the cpp file).
better visibility distances without serious frame rate drop
(face it - in the current engine even if weather is clear visibility distance is very small which makes all the planes (in many cases choppers too) almost unusable)
bump mapping would be nice as well but it's not a must for me
Quote[/b] ]better visibility distances without serious frame rate drop
(face it - in the current engine even if weather is clear visibility distance is very small which makes all the planes (in many cases choppers too) almost unusable) Well that's partly why I mentioned the Hardware based vertex tesselation and so on, to let the graphics processor do more of the work and leave the CPU free as a seagul. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif I think supporting any hardware optimizations is more important than the effects you mention above, as it adds the overall effects that can be supported on the large map with a good viewdistance.
However there probably isn't so much available in hardware...
EDIT: Once you have a free CPU you can pump the effects you mention to good levels. (that would be so sweet, to have all the special graphical effects packaged with a gigantic map and a good viewdistance, the fog idea is great too)
AirwolfPL
Sep 24 2003, 17:29
Well that's partly why I mentioned the Hardware based vertex tesselation and so on, to let the graphics processor do more of the work and leave the CPU free as a seagul. ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif *** I think supporting any hardware optimizations is more important than the effects you mention above, as it adds the overall effects that can be supported on the large map with a good viewdistance.
However there probably isn't so much available in hardware...
EDIT: Once you have a free CPU you can pump the effects you mention to good levels. ***(that would be so sweet, to have all the special graphical effects packaged with a gigantic map and a good viewdistance, the fog idea is great too)
I can't agree with you. While hardware tesselation is generally good idea it's not very popular feature of graphic chipsets (AFAIK only ATI Radeons supports it - and probably not all of the Radeons). I suppose it would be quite hard to implement it in the game as well. I think software generated terrain detail levels would do the thing - just like in other games - of course I can't tell if it would be easier to implement such feature (perhaps not).
All of the effects I mentioned are pretty easy to implement. These features are supported by DirectX since version 3 or 5. Influence of these effects on the overall graphic quality would be greater than you think I suppose. (Other fact is that those features are supported by hardware for a long time now and CPU has almost nothing to do with them so I don't really understand your "EDIT" argument ;-)
PS.: I only hope that they're able to extend this list of graphic engine's features without creating new code for this engine from scratch.
If it's done in the Graphics processor than what are we arguing about? Any effects that can be handled by the GPU should be added, while load on CPU removed. We are stuck at the stupidity/cheapness of using a single processor in the PC, so we have to divert as much of the load to other peripherals as possible. I find it disturbing that processor developers keep having trouble with miniaturization and frequencies when all you have to do is expand into parallel processing or even better analog systems. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Schoeler
Oct 6 2003, 18:08
I just read on article on the upcoming Pentium 5 chip. Projected clock speeds are 5-7GHz without heat problems! That should help the OFP2 engine along nicely and make the graphics engine spectacular.
cornhelium
Oct 20 2003, 23:33
I still have to fire up Max Payne now and again to get my fix of bullet-hit effects. I love the way the different surfaces have their own animations so that bullets chew up wood splinters, throw up sparks, plaster or snow etc. I'd love to see that in OFP2, even expanded for shells, grenades etc.
Thanks for listening http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
havocsquad
Oct 23 2003, 17:44
I would be satisfied in OFP 2 if I can regularly see a distance of 10 kilometers or slightly more visual range when in tanks, ifv's, recon units, and aircraft (fixed and rotary). ***Without having to buy a supercomputer just to have a vastly visible environment from considerable distances.
TheManWithManyIdeas
Nov 12 2003, 13:46
The graphics engine will be a major problem to solve for BI. OFP is a very open and wide game in terms of ambience. There are only 2 clear-cut solutions that i can see.
1) Crank down the graphics complexity of the game.
or
2) Install the latest graphics card.
Unfortunately it seems that most companies like the second option as it passes the problem on an entirely different market.
SnypaUK
Nov 19 2003, 16:25
I think i may have said this already but a small change would be like on those CNN videos shots taken with NV lens with that big ball of light where the bullet is that looks very cool could we do that? just imagine wathching an APC blasting of these rounds from a 50.cal and watching them ricocheting off buildings and floor etc
SnypaUK
Nov 21 2003, 19:33
In rough unfarmed fields btw there are often mounds and little tufty bushes and long grass. as well as looking good these would also provide lots of cver could we have tufts of long grass and lumps in rough fields or moorland?
SnypaUK
Nov 21 2003, 19:36
Oh yeah dont worry about character models or trees BIS short of multi million polygon trees that sway in the wind theres no point improving trees, same with character models. There should be a bit more light with all gunshots though and the light when APCs fire should be downplayed a bit
Quakerman
Nov 26 2003, 16:32
Jungle from game Joint Operations and enviromental graphic engine is very nice! Operation Flashpoint2 with graphic from this game will very good! Hidden & Dangerous 2 interface inventory is super. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/unclesam.gif FLASHPOINT.CZ (http://flashpoint.bonusweb.cz)
ACT SMILEY
Dec 7 2003, 17:13
Proper design of an engine should make it scalable - the first game's engine did a very good job of that, actually. If the second can be just as scalable but with higher detail we should be very happy little gamers.
The areas in which I feel that the graphics could be improved are:
Environmental Detail - Yeah, performance hits, but just look at some of the new islands to see how much even the first game can be improved. Hopefully the second game can be designed from the ground up to have environment details as good as games like Stalker.
Object details - a big issue with the first game's were the poor textures. Hopefully these can be improved in detail by the team's experiences on ofp1 and on a technical level by the higher resolution textures and larger polygon counts they can use on a Radeon 9800.
Weather effects. Yeah, a bit of changing weather and fog and such could case a little trouble for performance but nothing too bad.
I'm not really too sure as to how stuff such as pixel shaders etc could be used in OFP2 - unlike games such as Doom3 it doesn't seem suitable to have a pixel shaded lighting system, although for some little effects like nightvision and water might use it?
Of course, huge view distance is always a plus http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
The size of bullet holes are a bit excessive in OFP1 i think.
If you shoot an addon pistol at the ground, because the addon maker feels it neccessary to be able to kill with one shot the bullet hole looks like a 23 mm cannon shell hole.
Having bullet hole sizes seperate from damage would be an improvement.
Crassus
Jan 21 2004, 23:29
Quote[/b] ]Oh yeah dont worry about character models or trees BIS short of multi million polygon trees that sway in the wind theres no point improving trees, same with character models.
Oh no, please. Please fix those hands. They look as if they were frostbitten or something--bloated.....And please fix the marriage of hands to weapons--no more meltin'.
(Yes it is I, Broken Record.)
Weather effects. Yeah, a bit of changing weather and fog and such could case a little trouble for performance but nothing too bad.
Rain / snow that is driven by wind would be so great. Wind could be set to either `constant' or `blustery' so that rain / snow was pushed directionally either constantly (during storms etc.) or every now and then as the wind changes direction. Or maybe the constancy could be proportional to the strength of the wind, so that weak winds don't affect rain (though maybe do affect snow), medium winds are blustery, sending the occasional sheet of rain in the same direction it's blowing, causing snow flurries, and strong winds are constant with the rain / snow slicing in at 45 degrees.
TheManWithManyIdeas
Jan 28 2004, 09:57
You know, all these things are possible, but they'd all need a 1GB Geforce10 to run.
cornhelium
Feb 17 2004, 22:05
I guess a viewdistance/LOD distance scaling system that increases viewdistance/decreases LOD distance according to how fast a player is moving would help with the viedistance/detail issue.
For example:
1. If you're a forward observer on foot, you want a good viewdistance with good detail and the highest detail/eye candy up close in case you run into enemy troops.
2. If you're flying an OH-6 and hovering over a treeline, you'll need a longer viewdistance, but can probably lose a bit of detail. When you stop hovering and start moving to your next position, you can lose some more detail as at 100km/h you don't have time to notice.
3. If you're flying a Phantom at 800km/h, you need a huge viewdistance, but don't need anywhere near the same detail level as in 1 and 2, so the lowest LODs can be used even within 250m distance.
If your Phantom gets hit by a SAM and you eject, the game engine will start scaling down the viewdistance and increasing the LOD distance as your body decelerates, so that by the time you hit the jungle floor you have the same set up as in 1.
Just a thought - cheers,
Cornhelium
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Feb 18 2004, 11:21
I guess a viewdistance/LOD distance scaling system that increases viewdistance/decreases LOD distance according to how fast a player is moving would help with the viedistance/detail issue.
For example:
1. If you're a forward observer on foot, you want a good viewdistance with good detail and the highest detail/eye candy up close in case you run into enemy troops.
2. If you're flying an OH-6 and hovering over a treeline, you'll need a longer viewdistance, but can probably lose a bit of detail. When you stop hovering and start moving to your next position, you can lose some more detail as at 100km/h you don't have time to notice.
3. If you're flying a Phantom at 800km/h, you need a huge viewdistance, but don't need anywhere near the same detail level as in 1 and 2, so the lowest LODs can be used even within 250m distance.
If your Phantom gets hit by a SAM and you eject, the game engine will start scaling down the viewdistance and increasing the LOD distance as your body decelerates, so that by the time you hit the jungle floor you have the same set up as in 1.
Just a thought - cheers,
Cornhelium
If that idea is possible, it would be great.
Baphomet
Feb 21 2004, 14:35
In regard to the aforementioned quote and post. I was just thinking the same thing. Right now unless you want to suffer a frame rate hit. You have to jack up your viewdistance quite a notch if you want to fly fast planes competently.
I would love to see a system in which involves advanced LODs or perhaps allowing you to specify what your graphics look like while operating in certain conditions. For people who are piloting, shifting the game's LOD to resemble this:
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefo....a04.jpg (http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/pic.php/gallery/Flight_Sim/A-10_Cuba/A-10Cuba04.jpg)
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefo....a06.jpg (http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/pic.php/gallery/Flight_Sim/A-10_Cuba/A-10Cuba06.jpg)
http://www.gamershell.com/imagefo....a01.jpg (http://www.gamershell.com/imagefolio/pic.php/gallery/Flight_Sim/A-10_Cuba/A-10Cuba01.jpg)
That would be great in my opinion. Some people wouldn't like it. However that would kind of be the point of making it user-definable. I know I wouldn't want to walk around as a soldier with the game looking like that, however for aircraft that would be perfect. I'd take those sorts of graphics over a choppy framerate any day.
BTW: A-10 cuba is probably one of the most enjoyable flight sims I've ever played despite the graphics. If only for it's incredible physics engine.
... the only -serious- problem I see with this initiative is getting damned addonmakers to support it. Gauranteed there'd be a lot of shut-ins or industry professionals who are gamers who seem to assume that everyone can get an intel-deal (essentialy a top-notch intel box for roughly 300 bucks, the 3.2 box sitting in my room is an example of said deal) or assume people have money to burn on exorbitantly expensive equipment (ATI graphics cards for one, 600$ for a card is absoultely ridiculous).
Which to me isn't fair, because OFP is all about the addons. It's what makes this game great. The variety. Still. It's out of my hands. I can still piss and moan about it. *** http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
FragMASTER
Feb 21 2004, 17:28
Quote[/b] ]http://www.gamershell.com/imagefo....a04.jpg
omg, runway incursion!
I think it's pretty much fine the way it is, maybe they could make the forests, bushes, and houses very low detail except when in a chopper.
Baphomet
Feb 21 2004, 23:10
Unless you've got a powerful machine it isn't really. Not unless you like living with lag, and I don't. Scalable draw distances for exceptions like when you're flying planes would also be good. I know that could probably be exploited in some way, but it would be nice with someone with an average machine could fly a plane with a reasonable draw distance so they can see further and switch when you're no longer doing so.
winchuff
Feb 28 2004, 13:18
I have heard that OpenGL is a superior protocol to DirectX (comparitive performance in IL2 Sturmovich does support this). Apparently particular differences are in the memory management (high level /low level memory cacheing) associated with very large worlds, evident as objects move into and out of the viewing distance and/or viewing frustrum. The relatively long time taken for these operations causes temporary pauses in frame update (stutter) which are quite common in OFP even with substantial (i.e. 128Mb Ti4600) graphics cards.
IL2 also provides many other low level or hardware configuration options which can produce dramatic improvements in performance. One of them in particular is the option to use TEXTURE COMPRESSION. This option, can alleviate the large model cacheing problems by reducing the memory required for textures alone.
Would it be possible in OFP2 to give the user option to use OpenGL OR DirectX? Could we please also have access to low level hardware options?
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif
Please bis, make this game look awesome! I know that you can do it. I saw soldner ss today and my friend has a beta and I was stunned, by how good looking it was. ofp is ofp but it would kick butt for ofp2 to be years ahead under every technology aspect ^^ cya all
Please bis, make this game look awesome! I know that you can do it. I saw soldner ss today and my friend has a beta and I was stunned, by how good looking it was. ofp is ofp but it would kick butt for ofp2 to be years ahead under every technology aspect ^^ cya all
I think Soldner looks bad considering it's 3 years after OFP.. It's something like a mix of OFP and CS.
I would be very dissappointed if OFP2 looked like it.
Please bis, make this game look awesome! I know that you can do it. I saw soldner ss today and my friend has a beta and I was stunned, by how good looking it was. ofp is ofp but it would kick butt for ofp2 to be years ahead under every technology aspect ^^ cya all
I think Soldner looks bad considering it's 3 years after OFP.. It's something like a mix of OFP and CS.
I would be very dissappointed if OFP2 looked like it.
actually ofp2 better be better than soldner. soldner looks extremely good. you have to see it running. and I think they have some kind of terrain streaming technology, not sure though.
Hi all,...
First: I dont understand why modern games (AA,CoD,OFP,...)
dont use antialiasing. Its available with HW support on most videocards. If i turn it on on OFP, the fonts are getting unreadable, and i have to reinstall videocard or mipmap smthg... so it doesent works enywhere.
Make the Object visible on long distances too, i hate when i dont see the tank wich is shooting my base to dust.
I Hope there will be particle system too in ofp2 for fire and explusions.
I miss the Grass. I remeber, Delta Force had a primitive grass, and in CoD Grass looks great, but still not perfect.
What Graphical engine is used by Bi? Is This a secret? Does it has its own? I Hope OFP2 will be ahead of his time,...like OFP was.
Tanks
FragMASTER
Mar 5 2004, 15:58
Doesnt OFP already have particle effects? I could have sworn I've seen em.
If you look at the steppingstones for VBS1 and OFP1 you can see that Maruk and Ondrej basically made their own graphical engine. Similarly to how Duke Nukem or R6 had eventually made their own.
I can honestly say I look forward to seeing OFP2's graphics, I am sure they will be a lot better than OFP1. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif I'd better get myself a well paying job though to afford the PC for this. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
If you look at the steppingstones for VBS1 and OFP1 you can see that Maruk and Ondrej basically made their own graphical engine. ***Similarly to how Duke Nukem or R6 had eventually made their own.
I can honestly say I look forward to seeing OFP2's graphics, I am sure they will be a lot better than OFP1. ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif *** I'd better get myself a well paying job though to afford the PC for this. *** http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
I have more than trust that Maruk and Ondrej are gonna make sometin great. They just have to convince the rest of the planet. Lots of gamers are shallow in that way, you know what I am saying, and I bet that bis is better off with 4 million sold copies than a million only. I wish them 4 million!
Aye, I wish them 10 mil at least, that's not easy... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
check this chart out
http://www.the-magicbox.com/Chart-USPlatinum.htm
videogames is where the money is at. No wonder they making an xbox version. I wish them best of luck. Actually ill buy a copy of that too
Lee_H._Oswald
Mar 11 2004, 22:08
I am wondering about flickering textures on far away objects/soldiers/vehicles.
Modern graphic cards(or the drivers?) do not suppoert w-buffer anymore.
I can see those flickering textures on the FAR CRY demo also.
What will the solution in ofp2?
MfG Lee
threat.at
Mar 21 2004, 13:13
I think, this thread should also be mentioned here:
Lights improvement (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=57;t=38128)
It also has something to do with "Game Physics", but I think, it is sufficient, when I mention it here ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Additionaly I want to say, that the lighting of a village isn't pure white light, but, when lighted by light bulbs, it has a yellow touch, and when lighted by neons, it has a blueish touch in the distance (this is a physical filtering effect, I'm sure http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif ).
This clean white light is like in a football stadium, when a match is played... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
About the video realism. Thing that is most important are photo-textures in my opinion. Bf1942 or Bf:V mostly got hand made textures, as I suppose, and it somehow in hard to explain way makes game too cartoonish, to colourful what takes the mood. OFP landscape and it's palette is great and realistic, for some that lives in california or southern italy it probably is too washed out, but bohemia are from czech, I am from Poland and I assure you these "Twin Peaks" grey pallete is set perfectly in OFP. I hope it will not be more colorful in OFP2. It is not so hard to make great landscapes in game, graphicans just need to still keep as close to photographs.
Other thing is grass, after playing some in BF:Vietnam I must say that it is a new level in computer graphics and makes everything much more realistic, not only as small cosmetic change. In other post I also wrote that polygon count is the less important thing in games, polygon count does not make game better, but somehow game developers think that it actually is. There is many other things much more important than polygon count that takes most of CPU/GPU power.
Hard shine surfaces would be nice, imagine the moment when you incidentally spotted the enemy sniper because of short sunny flash reflected from his scope. I think it is thing not too hard to include (cars in Gta Vice City got this kind of flickering reflection/flare while driving against the sun direction).
Copy Con
Mar 30 2004, 19:46
I also wrote that polygon count is the less important thing in games, polygon count does not make game better, but somehow game developers think that it actually is. There is many other things much more important than polygon count that takes most of CPU/GPU power.
True!
Its far to often that game designer use models that arent fully optimized. Just look here:
http://home.wnm.net/~bgriff/MW_BretF.html
Look at the bottom of the page. This guy made the original models (to Morrowind) even better, with lower polycount :-)
Goeth[kyllikki]
Mar 30 2004, 20:18
What i want from ofp2 engine is decent water, water where you can swim and see. I think this is not an impossible request since all new engines manage to do it. And this is not just eye candy, it would be really useful.
Of course there´s many other things that should be fixed but this one is important and top of my wishlist.
Balschoiw
Mar 31 2004, 15:19
I think DirectX9 water will be used in OFP2. At least I hope so.
I want to have all the nice effects of circles , bullets and vehicles water in a real way of pushing away water and such.
But I´m pretty sure it will be implemeted.
Here are some other things I´d like to see. Deformable grass that bows down when you step on it.
Deformable bushes, bushes that exist of different parts. When you run into one, little branches could break away and drop to the ground.Of course with sound so it offers a nice feature for MP maps where you want to do a stealthy approach. Same goes for going prone in a bush. If you do while standing in bush, parts of bush should be flattened. When you approach bush prone no harm should be done to bush. According to the way you choose to use bushes you can benefit by going in there unnoticed or making a big noise and dammage to bush when you don´t be careful.
The whole dammage system of OFP 2 world should be very different to OFP1 where you only have
1. alive bushes, houses, trees
2. dammaged bushes, houses, trees.
In fact there should be a step in between.
1 a . Partly damaged or transformed.
Or at best
1b. Direct dammage depending on dammage done to object,
like burning trees, ripped of branches, dropping leaves, holes in walls, burnt inner rooms, parts of roof flying off, etc....
I hope you get the idea. Right now it´s like black and white. To focus on the "grey" of objects would be nice.
Or at best
1b. Direct dammage depending on dammage done to object,
like burning trees, ripped of branches, dropping leaves, holes in walls, burnt inner rooms, parts of roof flying off, etc....
I hope you get the idea. Right now it´s like black and white. To focus on the "grey" of objects would be nice.
Stop it! You are getting me all excited. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif I'm suppost to be angry today not excited. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/blues.gif
Postduifje
Mar 31 2004, 16:53
Indeed, it does sound very tasty http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Goeth[kyllikki]
Mar 31 2004, 17:57
Here are some other things I´d like to see. Deformable grass that bows down when you step on it.
Deformable bushes, bushes that exist of different parts. When you run into one, little branches could break away and drop to the ground.Of course with sound so it offers a nice feature for MP maps where you want to do a stealthy approach. Same goes for going prone in a bush. If you do while standing in bush, parts of bush should be flattened. When you approach bush prone no harm should be done to bush. According to the way you choose to use bushes you can benefit by going in there unnoticed or making a big noise and dammage to bush when you don´t be careful.
Aah that would be very nice. I assume you´ve played H&D 2, there was really nice tall grass in that game, in one mission you had to assault enemy trenches on tall hill which was covered in tall grass, sherman and infantry advancing and tall grass folding under their tracks and boots...very nice atmosphere. Went a little offtopic here but yes it would be nice.
Balschoiw
Mar 31 2004, 19:22
It would add new fun to MP also. Imagine tracking a trace of enemy through high grass, hearing some *knack* behind you when a branch is broken off or things like that.
I know that it is pretty demanding to do such but I am sure it would add another extra fun and realism to have the environment more flexible.
Imagine animals, that will be most likely in OFP, making sound in woods nearby and you are frightened as hell because you are on enemy grounds. Then some deer shows up and vanishes again http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Endless possibilities you see.
freddern
Mar 31 2004, 19:40
I'm getting very exited while reading these suggestions. How awesome is ofp2 going to be if they realy makes it kick ass good (wich I think they are planning on doing.) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Aye BIS WE LOVE YOU!! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Hmm yes well these are suggestions not definates. Hopefully BIS can confirm some features but until then im not getting my hopes overly up (dont want to be severely dissapointed when there isnt a totally interactive environment.....)
I think most of this will probably have to wait for OFP3 (due to be released in 2008, preorder at Amazon.com NOW!). But even if only some of the suggestions would be possible to implement in OFP2 it would be awesome!
Friedchiken
Apr 1 2004, 15:44
Well, for this sequel, I'd like to put another vote for graphics that are used for work. ***I want a focus on large playing grounds and tons of cover opportunities. ***Something like FarCry but the graphics are focused on enhancing gameplay and don't detract valuable cpu cycles from ai or places to hide behind.
EDIT:: I mean make the graphics engine more efficient and scalable.
I am affraid that nice idea with grass that bends and leaves trails by broken bushes etc is now rather too hard even for nowadays hardware. Imagine mplayer game and then amount of info needed to be sent to every player on the map.
I'd stay with better explosions/particles/grass and better reflecting water. Some animals from time to time, and wind blow that makes trees/grass swaying. Some realism like adjustable sniper scope and weapon jamming. Even wound and damage detection was okay in OFP1 and is in my opinion enough. You are shot in leg, you cant walk etc. Maybe in choppers there is no difference when you shot the tail rotor or bottom of chopper. When tail rotor shoot, chopper should spin, and give an opportuninty for a better pilot to land somehow. But things like water diving or giving other soldier a pack of cigarettes are in my opinion not as needed in war game as these above. There should be some barreers, because soon we will want to take broken boots from soldier's feet because they stink (default by "alt+b"), and to be able to smash simulated mosquito on the neck (default by "alt+s")
Not with that technology yet.
The worst thing is that probably people from BIS are not reading these suggestions at all.
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Apr 2 2004, 12:28
I am affraid that nice idea with grass that bends and leaves trails by broken bushes etc is now rather too hard even for nowadays hardware. Imagine mplayer game and then amount of info needed to be sent to every player on the map.
No it is not. H&D2 does it.
OFP already damages bushes etc when they are run over, its a small step, given well enough optimised models.
God damn, probably you all here know about this game, but for me - it is the best achievable graphics and mood in games:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/stalker/screens.html?page=336
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/stalker/screens.html?page=337
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/stalker/screens.html?page=331
If THE SAME graphics would be used in OFP, I would be happy. Now we need to pray that BIS will be as close in mood/realism as these screens from stalker.
ArchangelSKT
Apr 4 2004, 22:30
Yes STALKER looks very good imo , back on topic I wonder if the fact that it has been stated that the Islands / maps in OPF2 will be larger then in OPF then I hope we get some higher mountains / peaks .
I don`t remember how high the highest point is in OPF but I hope OPF2 will beat it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
debug2112
Apr 5 2004, 09:32
In relation to Maps.
I would like to see world (regional) maps.
This is not hard to do, as you could break countries such as Germany, France, or any other, into regional sections that are Clock-Speed and Bandwidth friendly. You may anywhere from 5 to 50 sections per country/nation, and yes it would require an extra CD for these, but it would be worth, and would spawn a growth in end users.
////////////
As for water that was mentioned earlier. I am seriously surprised that BIS didn't take a hint from Delta Force and model their water, or a close representation of. It was a good game for its time, not too graphics flashy, however you could swim, parachute, etc.
You don't need a lot of flashy graphics, just decent graphics that promote a semi-realistic atmosphere/environment.
Paper-bag houses are a no-go, having the transform into a choice of 1 - 10 ruins depending on struture size would be nice and Cpu friendly.
DracoPaladore
Apr 5 2004, 21:08
Have people suggested anything about the trees yet? OFP seems to have this geneveral thought that all trees are exactly lined up in rows and are all the same height http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Mr. Snrub
Apr 6 2004, 01:03
Yes STALKER looks very good imo , back on topic I wonder if the fact that it has been stated that the Islands / maps in OPF2 will be larger then in OPF then I hope we get some higher mountains / peaks.
OFP2 will use terrain-streaming, which will do away with the limitation of using islands. The playable area will be incredibly big indeed.
Sorry I overlooked this thread before. Funny it was at the top. Anyway.
I would like to suggest:
1. Normal Mapping
2. .dds file support
3. Truform
Normal mapping would be great for simulating high detail models. Ive been playing with it lately, and its very cool.
I don't care for the paa and pac formats. Seems that its impossible to avoid texture compression or dithering artifacts. It would be nice to use the directx texture format with dxtc.
And Truform. Truform is cool but seems you have to impliment it right. Rainbowsix3 Ravenshield shows good support for truform. Its easy to tweak buy using proper smoothing on your models. If proper smoothing isnt used then the objects will become bloated. If proper smoothing is used then the model will show seams. But ATI has info on avoiding these seams. There is a .m file format that they use that fixes this. I think truform could work very well in conjunction with normal mapping.
Derek Baker
Apr 24 2004, 21:40
Quote[/b] ]I don't like OFPs "gloomy" look and their ground textures..
Hopefully OFP2 can look like S.T.A.L.K.E.R or something.
from here (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=56;t=38750;st=30)
jantenner
May 9 2004, 20:31
im sorry i cant read trought the whole thread so things may have been said
what id like to see improved in ofp2:
better weapon efx, explosions, damage models, flying debris
a ironview like for example in call of duty which actually shows how you take the gun up and look thru the ironsight
but keep it black/dark like in ofp1
and bis, have a look at far cry, in this game when you get hit you get a blurred black/white image for some seconds. would be nice to implement it, so that you also get this if for example a heat round explodes near you
jantenner
May 9 2004, 20:33
and a death cam which replays the action when you were hit
Have people suggested anything about the trees yet? OFP seems to have this geneveral thought that all trees are exactly lined up in rows and are all the same height http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
I agree totally, there needs to be more variation in size and shape of trees.
BoweryBaker
Jun 13 2004, 22:21
how about sparks when bullets hit metal objects. Sometimes bullet holes. Better damage effects instead of crumpling. The blackness is cool.
Well I've done a lot of water activities and if you are dropped from a helicopter into the north sea, you can't see much below you, just dark muggy blackness.
However if your swimming in the med you can easily see and be seen.
So instead of having standard transparency and textures for water, maybe have it customisable in relation to the climate the terrain is representing.
It would make combat divers or such hard to use in clear water at daytime as airborne units could see them.
Oh and Fish is a must, maybe a shark or two on guard mode also ;)
Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
Jun 14 2004, 06:53
I can personally also attest that when infantry swim (river/ loch/ etc crossings) - they do not stick their heads under the water and look at the pretty fishies - if the water is clear enough, which it usually wouldn't be with big feet stirring the mud up at the bottom.
But scuba/ snorkel using units, submarines, submersibles, yeah show them some fish if they are in-game.
Easy_tiger
Jun 15 2004, 16:05
just a quick comment,
I noticed a comment about clipping when inside buildings, I myself have experienced really nasty clipping when in buildings which has resulted in whole towns dissapearing :P
It would be really great if the maths behind the clipping method in OFP2 is better as theres nothing more disorientating that watching objects vanish! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Maybe this issue is just the result of not enough work on the orginal objects
rambozo
Jun 18 2004, 17:41
Displacement mapping.
And a skinning method similar to Soldner. A base detail texture with a camouflage overlay would be nice. This also makes it easy for people to use their favorite camo patterns.
If there are a few aiming modes, say 3, most people should be happy.
1-The normal, relaxed view (that already exists) that allows the arms to move the floating aimpoint in open range combat.
2- The tight ironsights for distance shooting (that already exists).
3- Now add a wider-viewing-angle ironsight view that locks the view to the sights (i.e. sight doesn't float from the arms like the open range view) - and doesn't 'wobble' when strafing left and right for CQB.
Because various cover is at different heights, it would be nice to have the ability to go lower or higher in a crouch, or on tip-toes behind a wall. ***Not to mention the leaning ability to peek around corners and cover. Just asking for 4 buttons of fine tuning your stance in a position. that's not too much, is it? (maybe, yeah) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
Another idea I'd like to see in OFP 2 is penetration of softer materials. ***The textures can carry another variable, like armor value. ***A projectile could be allowed to go through a barrier object if the penetration value of the round was greater than the material hit (checked upon pixel level collision detection). ***Maybe subtracting the damage of the piercing round by the armor value of the texture for realism. ***So a wooden door would not stop bullets like a concrete wall, but it would absorb some damage.
Just some ideas..
If there are a few aiming modes, say 3, most people should be happy.
1-The normal, relaxed view (that already exists) that allows the arms to move the floating aimpoint in open range combat.
2- The tight ironsights for distance shooting (that already exists).
3- Now add a wider-viewing-angle ironsight view that locks the view to the sights (i.e. sight doesn't float from the arms like the open range view) - and doesn't 'wobble' when strafing left and right for CQB.
Because various cover is at different heights, it would be nice to have the ability to go lower or higher in a crouch, or on tip-toes behind a wall. ***Not to mention the leaning ability to peek around corners and cover. Just asking for 4 buttons of fine tuning your stance in a position. that's not too much, is it? (maybe, yeah) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
Another idea I'd like to see in OFP 2 is penetration of softer materials. ***The textures can carry another variable, like armor value. ***A projectile could be allowed to go through a barrier object if the penetration value of the round was greater than the material hit (checked upon pixel level collision detection). ***Maybe subtracting the damage of the piercing round by the armor value of the texture for realism. ***So a wooden door would not stop bullets like a concrete wall, but it would absorb some damage.
Just some ideas..
BIS should definitely include the fixed crosshair CQB view as that is a common complaint for people who have moved across from other games. Also it should be hard to implement.
Maybe add view compression 10 pixels around the edge of the screen to simulate peripherial vision. So you can't tell what is there but if your head is still you will notice the movement.
Re. your adjustable height: It should only require one button which you hold down while you press w or s for up and down. Then possibly when you reset your stance to standing or crouching you can just tap the button to move to your last custom height. This means you can pop up and back down behind a wall without feeling like a car jack.
Quote[/b] ]BIS should definitely include the fixed crosshair CQB view as that is a common complaint for people who have moved across from other games.
Just one mans opinion, but please DON'T do this BIS :-) IMHO the floating T-sight gives a much better simulation of (in)accuracy than those stupid expanding crosshairs in other games.
mac
Quote[/b] ]BIS should definitely include the fixed crosshair CQB view as that is a common complaint for people who have moved across from other games.
Just one mans opinion, but please DON'T do this BIS :-) IMHO the floating T-sight gives a much better simulation of (in)accuracy than those stupid expanding crosshairs in other games.
mac
I was actually mentioning that it was a complaint I have seen many times when discussing the game with people who didn't like it. As long as the normal views are retained and it is merely an additional option it should be fine.
It would likely increase reaction time in CQB though. If it isn't implemented it won't bother me, I just thought it would increase the customer base. Twitch gamers are becoming more open to OFP style games now with the advent of AA:O and similar.
Quote[/b] ]Phleep Posted on June 20 2004,14:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (sbsmac @ June 20 2004,21:30)
Quote ***
BIS should definitely include the fixed crosshair CQB view as that is a common complaint for people who have moved across from other games.
Just one mans opinion, but please DON'T do this BIS :-) IMHO the floating T-sight gives a much better simulation of (in)accuracy than those stupid expanding crosshairs in other games.
mac
I was actually mentioning that it was a complaint I have seen many times when discussing the game with people who didn't like it. ***As long as the normal views are retained and it is merely an additional option it should be fine.
It would likely increase reaction time in CQB though. ***If it isn't implemented it won't bother me, I just thought it would increase the customer base. ***Twitch gamers are becoming more open to OFP style games now with the advent of AA:O and similar.
And I'm no SWAT team-member / DELTA operator either, but don't they typically move crouched, weapons loose and down until needed? ***Then move and aim with their whole body, and their eye locked down the sights? ***I don't believe I've ever seen (again.. I'm no expert here, can anyone confirm IRL?) just flicking their arms seperate from their body to aim. ***Maybe close angles off the current heading, but must be, IMO, less than the standard OFP view. ***That is my thoughts that drive for this type of aim system.. And BTW Phleep, I really like your idea of peripheral vision being implemented. the situational awareness in CQB is difficult to grasp without sweeping wildly, more than naturally, from side to side, which creates it's own vulnerabilities (I understand that it's necessary, but not if eye movement can be approximated). ***Acoustical methods only work if the enemy is winded or moving. ***Anyway, as you said, SBSMac, one man's opinion.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif ***
And for the record, no-one mentioned anything about those horrible expanding crosshairs. True sights / aimpoints only plz. ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif ***Lets define here the most realistic method. ***Sounds like a blending of modes to me, a little arm float, a little wider angle of ironsight view, some form of peripheral vision. ***Lets sound off and define what it should be before OFP2 even alphas.. ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
Scrub
funnyguy1
Jul 25 2004, 12:34
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif !3D weapon view! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Like in Vietcong, or Call of Duty
CQB will be more realistic
paelleon
Jul 30 2004, 10:30
OPERATION FLASHPOINT HAS THE BEST GRAPHIC AROUND RIGHT NOW!
No other game can feature such a big map with this photo-realistic textures and effects. You do not need ultra-defined graphic when shooting someone at 400m. Colors in games like Unreal Tournamets are so vivid that seems fake, while everything in OFP seems "obscured" (sorry, I cannot find the proper word) by the air, the atmosphere.
Many addons makers have already improved the capability of OFP graphic engine, for me it's enough.
Hey, after all, who is able to play OFP at the maximum terrain detail fluently?
Friedchiken
Jul 31 2004, 02:30
well, I'm sure we all want more cover and foliage opportunities...
EDIT:: I mean that maybe ofp2 should scale down the distance a "little" bit so that there is more natural cover to use.
funnyguy1
Aug 12 2004, 07:41
1. I would like to see the wheel tracks on the roads, not only textures of it. I mean, even the ColinMcrae04 haven`t got it.
2. How about idea that soldiers can get dirty... I mean, their clothes, if soldier steps into swamp he`ll get dirty right?
When he`s crawling he must be dirty.
Vassago
Aug 16 2004, 16:54
Pixel and vertex shaders aren't just for graphics. You can use them to handle "clones" as well. What I mean is, you could have 50 soldiers on screen, for the rendering cost of a single soldier. That is, as long as they are identical (clothing/body-wise).
I'd like to see real pixel shaded water as well, even if it's as simple as Soldner's.
As far as "more realistic" terrain goes, you can always crank up your OFPR settings for terrain to "high". This will bring even the fastest PC to it's knees, however. It adds massive amounts of geometric detail to the landscapes.
spm1138
Aug 18 2004, 18:09
re: crosshairs tethered to the center of the screen.
IMHO FP has it right now.
From the hip you can move the weapon and with the crosshair off you have to adjust your aim based on watching the bullets land.
Aimed the weapon is tethered to the center of the screen.
Some sort of "faded-out" sight view where only the sight at the centre of the screen is solid might be good for CQB to simulate having both eyes open but generally I don't think a tethered cross-hair a la other games would be a Good Thing.
Balschoiw
Aug 20 2004, 15:28
I´d like to have free sizeable media windows in OFP 2 engine for both , briefing and ingame. Or at least the chance to play movies fullscreen ingame. Prerendered cutscenes or media briefings or simulated video-com´s wouldn´t be a bad thing imo. Right now it´s pretty hard to implement such things. Ingame it´s impossible.
Also transparent overlays for the ingame screen would be nice.
This way you can simulate flashbacks or separate cutscenes from the missionflow in a visual way.
Overlays that came to my head:
light brown (old movies)
black and white
There should be a way to implement this as :
a) Ressource from drop down menu in editor
b) a directx feature (Kegetys uses something similar in his effectpack)
To burst the bubble, I suggest to have video-com in OFP 2.
As the game will most likely be as futuristic as OFP 1 was (engine) it wouldn´t be bad to have a feature for a video chat function, where a little window is used for :
a) video chat (in case someone has a webcam)
should work like the regular com; option not a must
b) window could be used for engine in engine, let´s say a surveilance cam window. The window would display a different area of the mission area in a shrunk way, or satellite images, or UAV stream or whatever the mission editor wants it to show. Once again done as resource, resizeable by mission designer.
You get the ideas I hope.
Commando84
Aug 29 2004, 19:07
I don't know if this has been mentioned before but water falls would be a nice addition to islands especially if you could drive boats down them http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif seriously it would open up for some fun scenarios in both mp and sp http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
you are chasing a small zodiac boat and it disapears and you drive after it and voila you are falling down after if with your boat or amphibious apc or what vehicle or swimmable soldier that suits you http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif yeah being able to swim would be very cool. Anyways there are other stuff that has been said here that was good, the whole aim discussion would be easy to be able to choice in options what kind of cross hair you want http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Dwarden
Sep 20 2004, 03:06
i hope OFP2 use this or something better http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif (mmmhmmmm geometry instancing (download nvidia version of demo for that http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif )
SpeedTree Pangeaa (http://www.idvinc.com/html/pangaea_main.htm)
Batukhan
Sep 22 2004, 08:55
I would like to change the field of view. The plain square view just isn't right IMO, it should be at least 110degrees (considering that a normal is 90)
KimTuomi
Oct 26 2004, 18:47
Heyy!! Someone else have noticed that Speedtree demo! I was thinking myself that it looks pretty good! I could easily imagine something like that in OFP.
What comes to colors, NO WAY any Q3/Unreal Tournament/FarCryish candy-colored toy-graphics. I want to see OFP2 with gritty, war-torn color space. Keep the palette about the same it is now in OFP1.
For some reason, OFP1 seems to still lag seriously even with top-of-the-line computers. I would love to have good view distance like 1500 meters with proper LoD, without objects vanishing in horizon suddenly.
Good nature modelling and down-to-earth experience is good for OFP. When playing single missions, that experience is very good to give the proper immersion in game.
I have mentioned this here before; moving trees and dynamic wind/weather would be good. Isn't it great when you can't actually tell (even in single player?) when there is going to be a stronger wind, rain and maybe snow/hail? And of course the hail hitting the chassis of a vehicle... oh man! With tanks, I think it would cause almost any sound because of thick armor.
Soundwise; wouldn't you love the vivid sound of bullets hitting obstacles in Omaha Beach in movie Saving Private Ryan? Good realistic, maybe a bit emphasized sound effects with dynamic range is also good. Explosion delays are even now very cool.
Friedchiken
Oct 27 2004, 21:51
I may be a little repetitive but I think the devs would be unique in the way that they should sacrifice anything for practical environments:
Realistic view distances
Tons of cover/concealment objects
Weather that may not look the best but at least aids/hinders view realistically
It would be nice if some eye candy was utilized but I think that nothing justifies compromising realistic (read: practical) gameplay environments
This is just my opinion; I also love great graphics like anyone else here.
shinRaiden
Nov 20 2004, 08:18
Some thoughts.
First off, the terrain deformation in [Z]oldner is not persistently dynamic, if you go wway long enough it flattens back out, or maybe that was one of its many many bugs. The 'craters' they made though are extremely simple, and could easily by netsynced. Basically if you passed the params of the deformation from serverside the clients could then add it to their loaded terrain.
Secondly, suprised no-one's really covered this. [Z]oldner like many other games now blur their LOD transitions. In OFP you either see the LOD or you don't, making for the nasty chop. What would make a whole lot of difference is objects fade to transparent at the viewdistance, and the LOD transitions involve multiple layers blurred together.
Unfortunately a lot of games today do not properly handle the LOD'ing of dense vegetation. Take for example SOF II. You can see stuff in detached view that you can't in first-person or more so in scope-view because of the much lower LOD. If you're in scope view, your vision is obstructed as well asinpenetrable objects 'appear'. Out of scope view, your vision is not blocked, and you can shoot without blocking.
Contrast that with OFP today. In OFP, your LOD is fixed, regardless of how 'strong' your scope maybe. That needs to be corrected so that you see the higher LOD in scope-view, but the fire geometry needs to stay consistent as it is now.
I also think it would be nice to have access to rudimentary shaders at the mod level, that could enhance the ability of mod-makers to create vintage film, NVG, thermal, flashbang, nuclear flashpoint, and other rendering effects beyond the limits of the particle and overlay system currently available.
There's already been some request for more destructable materials. Whether they are implemented or not, it would still be nice to be able to add a "non-destructable" LOD in certain cases. I guess this has more to do with the issues surrounding destroyed warping. [Z]oldner handles downed trees 1/2 way okay, if you run into them they have a collision LOD you have to drive over, but if you hit them a second time they disappear. It would be nice if they could break, but if they don't, leave them as is so we can build barricades and other mayhem.
Contrast that with OFP today. In OFP, your LOD is fixed, regardless of how 'strong' your scope maybe. That needs to be corrected so that you see the higher LOD in scope-view, but the fire geometry needs to stay consistent as it is now.
Usually one does have lower lod in scope view in OFP... as the framerate improves in the limitied FOV. But now always.
And yes no kidding you could synchronize terrain deformations... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Terrain wise I think far Cry has the crown. Quality is amazing and size f Islands is H U G E!! I wonder is same can be implemented with OFP2? The water (swim in it) .. grass .. trees. Talk realism .. that would be the ultimate!
Baphomet
Dec 9 2004, 18:08
The islands weren't bigger than OFP's in Farcry.
What with all the mention of "Zoldner"... let's also bear in mind that that game was a flaming piece of crap that had ridiculous hardware requirements for what it offered.
If OFP2 was so resource intensive in terms of relative quality as that game I don't think I'd want to play it.
I doubt that will be the case though. Zoldner just really seemd highly unoptimized. It didn't even look good, if that's what some of you really want in a game. It had craters, it had houses that could be shot apart, which while admittedly interesting, doesn't make up for the appalling performance of the game.
If I just see an optimized engine with capability for rich and dense foliage I'll be happy. I want to see a good jungle environment, or a good forest dense forest.
If I just see an optimized engine with capability for rich and dense foliage I'll be happy. I want to see a good jungle environment, or a good dense forest.
I'd also like some dense forests, similar to the Trees of Pangaea (http://theunsung.ofpnam.com/leaders/korax/Pub/ofp2.jpg) environment. (15000 trees and smooth framerate on a mid-end system)
That'd be just perfect for Ofp2 in my eyes ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Quote[/b] ]I also think it would be nice to have access to rudimentary shaders at the mod level, that could enhance the ability of mod-makers to create vintage film, NVG, thermal, flashbang, nuclear flashpoint, and other rendering effects beyond the limits of the particle and overlay system currently available.
Hear hear...
Maybe even at mission editing level... (??)
Some saturation stuff would be quite nice so you could make that Band of Brothers/Saving Private Ryan coloring in your cut scenes, maybe to the whole mission...
Not to mention camera shutter speed etc camera effects...
i dont think they should try and change or make the graphics look anybetter maybe just make things abit more round and shadows abit more neater. Because i think the graphics for ofp is a very large part of what makes this game great. If you went and made it some of the best graphics up to date at the moment i dont think the game would feel as good as it does now
ofpchaos
Apr 30 2005, 09:56
Hello BI team.
Unfortunately I must communicate you that you are on the wrong path if you thinks the graphics would be not importantly.
Its very important !
The graphic is just as important as everything else. It must at least to the "Enemy in Sight" or "S.T.A.L.K.E.R" near-rich. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Greetings
Chaos
i dont think they should try and change or make the graphics look anybetter maybe just make things abit more round and shadows abit more neater. Because i think the graphics for ofp is a very large part of what makes this game great. If you went and made it some of the best graphics up to date at the moment i dont think the game would feel as good as it does now
Don't confuse good graphics with poor graphics. Many modern games actually have very poor graphics as everything is overly shaded and round... looks like, what FADE should do. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
They can improve the graphics a lot, and still keep the realistic, non-faded look.
funnyguy1
Apr 30 2005, 18:41
i dont think they should try and change or make the graphics look anybetter maybe just make things abit more round and shadows abit more neater. Because i think the graphics for ofp is a very large part of what makes this game great. If you went and made it some of the best graphics up to date at the moment i dont think the game would feel as good as it does now
Don't confuse good graphics with poor graphics. ***Many modern games actually have very poor graphics as everything is overly shaded and round... looks like, what FADE should do. ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
They can improve the graphics a lot, and still keep the realistic, non-faded look.
That`s right...
Just look at Doom3, quite revolutionary graphics....
but without shaders...yhhhh it looks almost like
]:->doom(1)]:->
ok you might not of understood what i mean i mean the graphics shouuldnt look to neat and tidy
Sure, that's really an artform, to make nice graphics but not fake ones. Also often it costs more vertices to simulate uneven "stuff".
I'm curious personally as to how much OFP2 will be improved in the graphicsdepartment. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Acecombat
Apr 30 2005, 20:14
I'm curious personally as to how much OFP2 will be improved in the graphicsdepartment. *** http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Your not the only one bn880 , i guarentee you that http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif .
Heatseeker
May 1 2005, 22:20
Far Cry, Doom3, Joint Operations, etc all have good graphics... but not good enough for OPF2, i dont want squary models and bumped low rez textures, no thanks id rather have some of those photo realistic looking addons from OPF.
Lets be realistic, lighting, shadows and shadders dont make up for squary objects, vehicals, weapons, etc.
I played Far Cry at 1280x1024/high detail, pretty i admit but honestly i didnt really like it, give me "round" models and sharp textures anyday.
Now i hope to see better looking shadows, increased poly counts and image quality, some DX9 efects like vehical exaust heat efects, vapor and explosions but for the rest i dont really expect miracles, we have all seen VBS1 footage, now lets hope they are able to improve the rest of the game acordingly (spl? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif ).
Sniperwolf572
May 8 2005, 21:21
BTW anyone played Splinter Cell - Chaos Theory?
If you look at Sam Fishers model you'll notice that his biceps look rectangular in contrast to his face and fists which have excessive amounts of polys,shaders,bump mapping etc.
ofpchaos
May 16 2005, 19:08
Hi BI Team !
New suggestions from me:
- different sizes for people (fat, normal, slim, big, middle, short)
- removable backpacks and removable silencers/magazines from weapons
- face camos
- better face editor for mp AND sp
- Using of custom Faces in SP WITHOUT addon
- changable (manually and automatic) number codes on tanks or aircrafts (see RHS idea for this)
- better performance for islands (see Tonal or Gaia performance with 6 and more Tank Platoons or groups)
- better weather (wind, snow, rain)
- realistic rivers
- terraforming for bomb craters, trenches etc.
- better AirCraft possiblity
- more working Airfields on one Island
- personal Dammage System (look CRDS-P from me in ofpec.com scripts/misc) ;)
Plz find possiblity to use the ofp2 name. The new name "Armed Assault" is not good for identification. You can write "OFP" and anybody knows what it is. When you wrote "AA" any thinks its "Americas Army" or others. Letz the tradition not die !
simulacra
May 18 2005, 16:01
Removeable silencers should ony be the beginning, if I were to create a game like ofp2 I would simulate all the equipment available for soldiers today.
My idea is that you see a loadout screen before the mission where you have different specialized slots, each slot should be a pouch on your webbing.
Some pouches like a buttpack could carry any gear but the location of it would make an equipment swap take longer time since the location of the pack is abit awkward, some pouches could only carry one type of gear, magazines for instance.
And some could be easy to reach general pouches which would make a sight swap relatively fast.
All weapon equipment takes some room and you can add pouches but every pouch limits your movement adn every piece of equipment adds weight and slows you down a bit.
In SF for instance you would be able to use mounting rings from GG&G which sports quickrelease levers.
So a soldier could carry a number of sights for different situations and even mount these sight anywhere on the gun.
For instance you would be able to use a PVS14 nightvision tube in front of a M68 Aimpoint sight or even an eotech 552.
The sights should be fully simulated of course.
Things like the m203 would not be as easy to detach but it should be possible, even though it wold take somewhere around 30 secs assuming a RIS/RAS is used.
and carrying the m203 on you would require a backpack or similiar.
If a RIS/RAS isn't used the launcher should be static of course.
All this is just my little wet dream though. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
_Nebular_
May 20 2005, 07:56
Only a small detail, i saw on few screens that some soldiers had an "robotic look" ... their eyes are looking at something without emotion ... Need to make their look more alive
only a detail, but it can improve realism/etc
edit : and an action, a jump button or an action to get over a wall / a fence can be cool, because when a soldier stay blocked in front of a fence of 50 cm it's a bit .... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif lol
And on the screens, the way to hang the weapon (maybe a diferent anim for each weapon will be cool)
I noticed in this (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/138/914623_20050519_screen024.jpg) picture that the shadows look pretty much the same as Ofp1's, which were particularily bad for one reason: they were too sharp, too clean. In my opinion they should have a slight 'blur' around the edges (like in this pic. (http://www.eleventwentyseven.com/shadow.jpg))
Just a little suggestion of mine.
I noticed in this (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/138/914623_20050519_screen024.jpg) picture that the shadows look pretty much the same as Ofp1's, which were particularily bad for one reason: they were too sharp, too clean. In my opinion they should have a slight 'blur' around the edges (like in this pic. (http://www.eleventwentyseven.com/shadow.jpg))
Just a little suggestion of mine.
Yeah, it looks a bit like Doom III in the shadow department. I would like to see varying degrees of sharpness in the shadows depending on the weather. This isn't as arduous as it first sounds since we already have the most difficult shadows - the sharp projected ones.
On very overcast days there would only be a blurred shadow directly underneath an object when it was close to the ground. On stormy days you wouldn't even need to bother.
It would be great to see a shadow dynamically blur as a cloud moves in front of the sun.
I am also concerned that the bumpmap lighting on the leaves (another pic) is pointing in the wrong direction. I worry about this since it took them a very long time to correct the landscape shading in the first game.
It would be very nice if the aircraft had better HUD and PIP capability, with the ability to alter or script different HUDs. I feel the PIP is very necessary though.
Multiple camera panes in the view, with the ability to use dialog boxes on an active 1st person view (being able to move and shoot in between making selections..
Thanks BIS!
Hi, i don't know if this the place to sugest this or don't... but i gonna say it here; if the OFP2, the Armed Assault, both or whatever gonna be based on a theorical year 2010, i think that IR goggles, Vehicle commander optics & gunner optics will be very very necessary. And if it gonna have... destroyable buildings like we seen in that VBS1 new expansion pack... will add much more realism to be able of use IR optic systems to detect units behind some covers; not only that... the IR could let use use the ICIS (= Individual Combat Identification Systems) that will expand the range of possibilityes in MP like in SP and i ever missed a M82A3 or a Remington M40A3 with IR scope, or DAMN... that Starlight scope that've been with us from the days of the Nam war. Anyway, i think that that'll be necessary in a OFP2/Armed Assault or whatever (i gonna buy both) and i'll like to see that; there's no way of make that for the OFP®, a fella & i checked it out & there's no damn way that we'd found. Let's cu
-=Ronin=- Uldics
May 25 2005, 10:06
I think the different meanings about NEW as in newest games and OLD graphics as in OFP1 doesnt see one thing.
1. OFP1 graphic is old but it is realistic cause of low contrast.
2. NEWest games use better graphics BUT they use too much contrast, too rich colours, what makes it unrealistic. But much more attractive to arcadish 12 year olds. No offence, they are just the biggest group of consumers in game industry. But the majority of OFP community are not from that group, because we love realism. And in my opinion BIS should use all the possibilities in new rendering possibilities, but remember of realism in all of its varieties.
Really?
I find quite the opposite, almost all new FPS titles have had low contrast, faded graphics, wrong tint, overall a disaster. Okay so some may have high contrast, rather actually high shine!
Check this out, see if you know what I mean:
http://xs3.xs.to/pics/04472/rocks.jpg
OFP2 screenies so far: between the Farcry and Normal example rocks ;p Bring it a bit closer to Normal, and it's gold. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
(Thanks Killswitch for finding that image http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif )
SgtH3nry3
May 26 2005, 14:29
I really wanna see SpeedTree RT in Flashpoint 2, actually I want to see SpeedTree RT in most of all games.
If you look at the forests VBS1 and OFP has you know what I mean.
The LOD is simply to low both in models as in textures...
_Nebular_
May 28 2005, 08:27
Working laser on your M4 or pistol maybe a PEQ 2 !! and for the laser, when u aim threw smoke, u see the lil red ray ,would be great, the lil red point on a wall and u know that the enemy can see it, so don't turn it on when patrols are near***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
What I would like to see improved in the graphics engine, is smashing glass. The windows in OFP1 looked and sounded plastic when shot at, so what i'd like to see is, an eastern grunt in a window, with me hiding in a bush, he sees me, i shoot at the window, the bullets get him, but leave shards of glass sticking out of his skin. lol
Hauk
I'd just love some glass http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
Batukhan
Jul 3 2005, 18:36
bn880, nice and true comparison. Just loved the Doom3 one http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
I think the contrast is very true in OFP1. But from the pictures of OFP2, it doesn't look so good. More like Farcry.
gandalf the white
Jul 3 2005, 19:00
I noticed in this (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/138/914623_20050519_screen024.jpg) picture that the shadows look pretty much the same as Ofp1's, which were particularily bad for one reason: they were too sharp, too clean. In my opinion they should have a slight 'blur' around the edges (like in this pic. (http://www.eleventwentyseven.com/shadow.jpg))
Just a little suggestion of mine.
Yeah, it looks a bit like Doom III in the shadow department. I would like to see varying degrees of sharpness in the shadows depending on the weather. This isn't as arduous as it first sounds since we already have the most difficult shadows - the sharp projected ones.
(...)
It would be great to see a shadow dynamically blur as a cloud moves in front of the sun.
the correct term for this is softshadowing (http://www.terathon.com/images/drumsoft.jpg).
A problem, however, is that these shadows require double the ammount of data, making it only suitable when there aren't more then 10 units on the map at thesame time. to have this in a game designed to handle hundreds of units, buildings, and objects on-screen at thesame time! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
It's an okay suggestion, but the more I read the more I am thinking people are asking for the impossible (Suma, pull this off and i'll arrange your next generation http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif ). I understand everybody has a dream... but there are limits to what hardware can do...
However, an option to enable / disable it would ofcourse be welcome http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif .
ofpchaos wrote:
- different sizes for people (fat, normal, slim, big, middle, short)
Yes I'm thumbs up for that suggestion. It would be some work load for the developers though, all those different physical models and movements to take care of.
You could end up with some 30 stone guy lagging the server, or maybe a gang of midgets on a TK mission ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
No disrespect to big people...i'm big myself....down below http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif
funnyguy1
Jul 22 2005, 18:34
would be cool if they implemented some kind of mirage
effect.
Especially cool when you`re in a desert area...when objects in the background are disorted and so on...
At least some kind of air waveing(?) when It`s hot, or near warmed metal surfaces, or planes/chopper`s engines...
ninjatek
Aug 15 2005, 02:24
Granted not everyone's PC is created equal so video setting options will be unique for most users. Howerver for those that use elements of terrain such as vegiation and grass for concealment and stealth should not have that concealment stripped from them by a player who turns off or down certain video effects.
If the best way across a certain field of tall grass is to crawl on your belly thru it, but sniper BOB turns off his grass effect and then makes the players completely visisble who are crawling across that field then what's the point of it tactially? Players will simply turn off those effects so they can reveal other players and that is just wrong. ***JO did a good job balancing this issue. ***If the grass is turned off then the player simply can't be seen in that field of grass he's crawling through. Players who turn on such settings can have a better chance spotting the target, because they may see thru parts of the grass or notice the grass moving irregularly.
Also grass, treess and bushes should blow around with the wind. And when your Helicopter comes landing down in a field of tall grass to pick up or unload some soldiers you should see the grass being pushed down by the force of the chopper blades. This was done in JO so I know it can be done easily, that little touch makes a huge authentic feel to chopper insertions and extractions.
Oh, and grass/forest fires would be a nice touch too. It would be a great tactical maneuver to route, block or destroy enemies. But setting such fires may have variables depending on weather and time of year. Random fires may set off themselves too from explosions, crashes, tracers, etc.
Im just wondering, but is all that possible on the huge maps? My 3.6 Ghz (built it my self) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif gets choppy when i do HUGE (and i mean insainly huge!http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif battles on everon. but these battles are nothing compaired to the gigantic dynamic stuff bis say they can do. so i hope they have some way of making this possible... is there a way to pull this off for a 1 ghz comp? It all seams pretty CPU intensive...
edit:
oops, OT had to many windows open, lost track http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif
ninjatek
Aug 19 2005, 03:32
Im just wondering, but is all that possible on the huge maps? My 3.6 Ghz (built it my self) ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif gets choppy when i do HUGE (and i mean insainly huge!http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif battles on everon. but these battles are nothing compaired to the gigantic dynamic stuff bis say they can do. so i hope they have some way of making this possible... is there a way to pull this off for a 1 ghz comp? It all seams pretty CPU intensive...
edit:
oops, OT had to many windows open, lost track http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif
I've been playing the old OFP again with a hell of a lot better system then I had before. But some mission FPS are very dissapointing. I imagine that it has to do with the old engine and certain limitations in it. Probably this will be addressed with the revamped engine optimized for DX9. (crossing fingers)
Mad Computer Doggy
Sep 12 2005, 13:10
Im just wondering, but is all that possible on the huge maps? My 3.6 Ghz (built it my self) ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif gets choppy when i do HUGE (and i mean insainly huge!http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif battles on everon. but these battles are nothing compaired to the gigantic dynamic stuff bis say they can do. so i hope they have some way of making this possible... is there a way to pull this off for a 1 ghz comp? It all seams pretty CPU intensive...
edit:
oops, OT had to many windows open, lost track http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif
I've been playing the old OFP again with a hell of a lot better system then I had before. But some mission FPS are very dissapointing. I imagine that it has to do with the old engine and certain limitations in it.
ANd it's not only the limitation. The old engine also seems to be quiet unoptimized in terms of speed ;(
Acecombat
Sep 12 2005, 14:36
would be cool if they implemented some kind of mirage
effect.
Especially cool when you`re in a desert area...when objects in the background are isorted and so on...
At least some kind of air waveing(?) when It`s hot, or near warmed metal surfaces, or planes/chopper`s engines...
This sort of effect is present in GTA:SA. Verymuch possible to do in OFP2 aswell.
I'm worried about one thing:
improper use of this may rended the entire game to look pale and faded. Unrealistic like Raven Shield. ***If you don't know what I am talking about, go play the R6 Raven Shield Demo or full game and look at the colors. ***It's missing all bright clear colors. ***Even the fireworks look like a joke. ***I have seen this in other new games, I don't remember the titles, shading is nice, but it has to be limited and checked with real life appearance.
The founder of this thread made this important point.
After the release of some screenshots quite a few people I play OFP with are getting agitated about the colours and how the whole engine seems too faded and light.
Just remember, get a photo of the real thing, take a sample of the colour and implant it on to the engine representation ... if it matches ... great!
crave22
Oct 18 2005, 02:05
I'm sorry if it's been brought up before, but this has been eating me up little by little. (not really, but you know http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif )
I'm not sure if it's just me, but don't the rocks and grass on the ground look a little too repetitive in the desert screens? Anyone agree with me there? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif It looks like the same rocks were put around at exactly every three or so feet. Does anyone get that same feeling when looking at the pics? I think I'd like to see a slightly more random system of that with the graphics. Maybe some rocks of different sizes and not so close together.
Sure I agree, the ground textures are also very repetetive and boring. I think this will all be addressed for Game 2 though.
FireLord
Nov 1 2005, 20:17
I would like to see high quality textures along with support for things like pixel shader 3.0. This makes a huge difference in the detail of games, like in Half Life 2 with pixel shader 3.0 then it appears like every cobblestone is 3d. However, if you have a graphics card that only supports shader 1.1 then you would only get 1.1 effects. This works well in games like Far Cry.
If the graphics options are very scalable then I think it would be possible for all the latest effects to be used.
I suppose it maybe a little too much to ask for HDR Lighting http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
meyamoti
Nov 4 2005, 09:14
Yeah pixel shader 3.0 can definatly do some pretty beauitiful stuff,and with it the addon makers could make things even twice if not three times as good.
Commando84
Nov 15 2005, 10:36
i think it would be cool if the game engine could sense that the date is somewhere around november to february or if its snowy and cold island , area the a.i's and players breath clouds could be seen you know http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
played call of duty 2 a bit lately and its very nice when you notice all the small details here and there, would be cool if ofp 2 would have such a system. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/thumbs-up.gif
Acecombat
Nov 15 2005, 11:16
Yeah but Call of duty is a laggard and in no way matches the depth and width of OFP2 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif .
I tried CoD2 with high settings and in outdoor envoirnments i was getting like -1FPS. Only indoor did it play well.
I agree with firelord. High res textures that can be supported by pix shader 3 are a must. But maybe by the time this game comes out pixel shader 4.0 could be out too...(or a newer version than 3.0) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
Is it me or do the screenshots look strangely .... bleached.
OFP had some really dark realistic looking textures and lighting.
I really liked it.
> The new screens look bleached out as if the gamma is too high.
> The colours look blended in and desaturated.
> There is a lot of highlighting on objects accentuating reflections.
If BIS could just turn down the gamma a bit and turn up saturation it would look better. Also the grass is radioactive, I would prefer deep dark green grass which easily shadows a soldier hiding within, not bright green which highlights him.
Has the planet lost a few inches of O-Zone layer? Maybe it actually looks like this since I last went outside, or does anyone else agree with me?
funnyguy1
Jan 27 2006, 12:26
http://www.republika.pl./funnyguy1/images/armatank.jpg
One of the scanned screens. Those objects do look like made of glass, or iluminated by a nuclear blast...
It`s not really realistic to have a heavy, dirty armour looking like that...
edit:
On some screens ArmA looks like a cartoon...
Both ArmA and Game 2 need better looking explosions and fire effects...not to mention smoke..
edit: important: It`s ArmA screen of course...
NeMeSiS
Jan 27 2006, 16:27
Also the grass is radioactive, I would prefer deep dark green grass which easily shadows a soldier hiding within, not bright green which highlights him.
The grass in my backyard has more or less the same color, and i dont live near a nuclear reactor or something,,, ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
EDIT: well, actually it doesnt, but it depends on the pic... ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
EDIT: This (http://www.cgm.cz/obrazek/ofp2_5.jpg) color is ok
This (http://ofp.gamezone.cz/news/pics2/FP2e3shot03.jpg) color is indeed kinda weird... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
It looks like the fist pic is in full sunlight (check the face) but i dunno what's up with the second
But it also depends on your monitor(setting), mine is kinda fucked at the moment so everything looks like crap (have to play OFP1 with the brightness and gamma all the way up to actually see something... ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif )
funnyguy1
Jan 27 2006, 18:34
The grass isn`t that bad, and when it comes to Game2, there`s still time to do such things...
I`m worried rather about those gamma settings ***http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
Vehicles ,especially in the evenings, are shning like they`ve just left the car wash...Old ofp also have this problem...
edit:
That`s a feature! What about raindrops on the glass or transparent surfaces...Yeah, just like in NFS http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
guyguy1
Feb 11 2006, 19:34
I'm hoping for realistic shadows (Not blade sharp shadows everywhere, but soft shadows as well) and high resolution textures that can surpass those of Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault. If game2 is coming out in 2007 then im definitely hoping that it has better graphics than medal of honor or battlefield 2 (which both came out in 2005), but if not, oh well I'll still buy the amazing game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif .
ShadowVS
Feb 26 2006, 08:16
give me the water/ocean depth from Silent Hunter 3 and i'll be a happy camper.
Having been an avid OFP player (and having created some graphic custom content as well) I of course find these new upcoming games very interesting.
However, judging from the screenshots of Armed Assault so far, the graphics seem weak to me...and not up to todays graphics standards.
As AA is supposedly a "beefed up" OPF, one can perhaps forgive the poor looking graphics on that one (at the screenies it graphically looks no better than your pretty average UT2004 mod)...but at the same time, whats the point to even bother if you don't make considerable improvements?
This is 2006 and anything less good looking or less featured in terms of grahics as the Half Life 2 source engine (which now btw is considered pretty old) would simply be a waste of time IMO....especially for any completely new retail realease.
And if you really want to make something that will not be put to shame by todays standards, you'll have to produce something similar to the Unreal 3 engine or Gamebryo (elder scrolls IV) in terms of quality.
Huge landscapes, deformable terrain, dynamic weather etc...it can be done and all while still looking gorgeous. Look at Alan Wake for example. If you worry about needing more powerful graphics cards, this is hardly an excuse to completely nerf a new title. Besides, you can always remove whats there (i.e. tweak your graphic settings for the game) but you can't add whats not.
I say BIS should do their best to produce a graphics engine using all available features today because frankly, you'll soon have truckloads of user made modifications using the Unreal 3 engine alone...and releasing a retail title that won't even be on par with user mods in terms of visual quality seems like a waste.
Also, make the engine as customable as possible. Make limitations dynamic instead of hardcoded as much as possible. Avoid silly hardcoded limitations like "there can only be one minigunner on a chopper" etc. The original OFP was an editing success in many ways, but to be honest it was not thank's to BIS.
All the editing tools in the beginning were user made and when BIS after a long time finally decided to release their editing tools it was under strict control and by this time many serious editors in the community had already given up. Also, there were far too many pointless hardcoded limitations which made editing more complicated than it should be.
Flexible is the keyword I think...and by adding as many graphics features as possible from the start (so people won't have to make weird editing workarounds just to achieve basic effects that are todays overall standard) and by very flexible editing possiblities (as few hardcoded limitations as possible) as well as providing fully working editing tools from the start they can't go wrong IMO.
D
Edited: Changed "Armored" Assault to "Armed" Assault...which is of course what I meant...my bad. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
guyguy1
Mar 25 2006, 05:00
It's Armed Assault by the way. Anyway, AA has been delayed since late 2005 already and everybody is anxious to get their hands on it. The graphics are somewhat near the range of HL2 (the water isn't probably), but you know...the gameplay will compensate for the graphics if they are not eye candy. Game2 looks like it has some excellent lighting and HDR effects, as well as good textures and shadows (not those razor sharp edges, but more closely resemblent of "soft shadows"). ppl have to remember that even though the gamma may seem really high, you can turn it down in the options menu. Same goes with the difficulty that everybody's been so crazy about lately. The only weakness I've seen so far graphicswise is the ground texture. OFP and a few screenshots from ArmA are known to have..well, not the best ground textures out there. Other than that though, I can't find anything to nag about Game2's awesome graphics. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif
Berghoff
Apr 8 2006, 18:38
I was thiking about another feature.
When its very rainy, everything looks a bit more saturated, roads, tree bark etc also when its dry some things look a bit more desaturated, wouldn't this be nice to see it ingame? I don't know if it is possible to do this =).
bravo 6
Apr 14 2006, 23:07
well im not sure how game 2 will be, now that we saw ArmA pics..
I lost imagination for game 2 when i saw New Arma pics..
how will be the new generation game? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.