Terrain Detail

[NeoJD[NY]]

Yeah its like when you use BAF in ArmA2 but dont have the DLC I guess.

[lusht]

Terrain detail behave really strange. When looking away from helicopter, grass pops up and trees are much nicer. But if i look AT the helicopter, grass disappears and trees become less detailed.

Is that some scaling at work i'm not aware of? Even if one pixel of a helicopter is visible on screen, LOD (grass, trees) drops.

[OMAC]

Did you try to disable picture in picture?

I refuse to turn PiP off (so far). Although there is very little time to look (and enjoy) the rear-view mirror, it is such a cool feature that there's no way I'm gonna compromise on it. My performance will have to suffer accordingly, and I'll tweak other settings to optimize.

I noticed the poor FPS performance in the preview, but the Seattle environment is much more demanding (and spectacular) than Takistan.

I may start a new thread pertaining to optimal video settings, where people can post their game settings that they have developed through experimentation. Settings I use in A2 CO/RNF and the comm prev are simply not optimal for the beta. I will eventually put my optimal settings in my signature.

---------- Post added at 08:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 AM ----------

I'm getting the same fps using a 2500k @ 4.8Ghz and two GTX470. The problem is that the graphic cards are not being used by the game. It's usage, according to MSI Afterburner is always around 50% each, and it doesn't seem like the cpu is being stressed a lot (less than 60% if I remember well).

I have noticed the same. My gpu usages are commonly around 50%. Does anyone recommend going to the more recent NVIDIA beta drivers? I'm using 280.26 (see signature).

---------- Post added at 08:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 AM ----------

PIP makes a big difference in performance (I assume this is the mirrors)? Turning it off adds about 10 fps for me. This keeps me at 30+ fps when setting all of the dials pretty high. Making some other adjustments easily gets me to 50-60 fps.

Could you please post your in-game video settings?

[zoog]

The best performance boost I had was with changing view distance and object distance. Still I can get only about 15fps max with decent settings (with Quad PhenomII 3.2ghz, 4890HD 1GB, 4GB memory and installed on SSD with recently reinstalled windows 7 64 bit)

[OMAC]

I updated my signature with settings that look pretty good and have ok fps.

After more flying, I don't really have a problem with the terrain detail. Working with satellite and airborne imagery has been my career since 1988, and the detail in the beta seems to be a nice compromise. Sure it could be better at close range, but when flying it looks pretty good from low altitude. You could have higher-res IKONOS or Quickbird imagery interpolate in when standing on the ground or from very low altitudes, but that would degrade performance.

I'm almost done with the first challenge involving the PMC guys, and it is a HIT!!!!!!!!!!!! Love the dialog, difficulty (playing on expert), and the various BIS touches. Top notch.

Had a few soft, flushable CTDs with nothing shown in RPT file. Possibly AToC?

[_YoYo_]

Here my settings: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...223275846.jpg/

For me 40+ fps from vc over Seattle, near 50-60 over rest of map. Outside of copter 60+.

[metalcraze]

Can anyone make a comparison screenshot of this?

http://www.exmixer.com/ScreenShots/SeattleCityDay.jpg

It's from FSX, just curious about the difference in what BIS did

[zoog]

Here you go:

[MadDogX]

I've just realized: isn't the terrain in the beta still lacking the "normal mapping" feature BIS talked about recently?

[BiggerBoat]

I have continued to fiddle with settings, and things are getting a bit better. I have some issues/suggestions:

* There is a green tint to the terrain textures. Even building shadows (I'm talking shadows hard stamped into the photo textures) are green. Were the satellite textures artificially recolored or run through some sort of filter? All-in-all, the landscape colors just feel a bit off and cartoonish. It's pretty easy to see the difference when comparing google earth to a piece of the map. Everything has a yellowish-green tinge in the TakeOn map.

* Turning down object distance really helps frame rates, but the pop-in is very noticeable. Is there any possibility of an alpha fade, perhaps combined with a bit of haze in the distance?

* There are a few 3d freeway interchanges, and these really help. I'd love to see a bit of this detail through downtown Seattle.

* The airports are a bit of a mess. I would have imagined that at least a few of the airports would have got artificial runways, taxiways, etc. overlaid on top of the photos in order to make them look less like a bad photo.

Looking across the water at the downtown skyline is sublime. I wish things looked as good from a few thousand feet, but I think there is hope here.