Not to mention Skyrim's tree models are incredibly low quality, barely a step above Oblivion's. All vegetation is spaced out so as not fill the screen, the game only loads one small cell at a time with any detail. On top of this, there is barely any grass, again unlike Oblivion, which was a true PC-buster.
I actually get poorer FPS in dungeons, on account of all the high poly models, like the ones you get in ArmA.
Polycount really isn't the killer, textures usually require more performance than a simple shaded high polygon model. For example, in many engines normal maps take 2x the resources that a same size diffuse does, so if you have a 2048x2048 and a normal map of the same, you could equate that to a 4096x4096 diffuse, which is why many games generally have them at half size. Another reason is as many have said, vegetation..normal maps do not like alpha channels for the most part, if you look at Crysis vegetation you may be surprised to know that there are NO normal maps in the bushes or trees and as such it gets a great boost from it.
Meanwhile in Arma2's case you have normal maps on bushes and tree's, I can't recall if grass uses them but in any case they really cause a hit, which is why the lowplants addon is so successful in frame rates, it doesn't have those shaders. The other big thing is that there is no way to disable these maps, take a look at nearly every game out there and you will see that they have options to disable shaders from least to more intensive including normal maps. The strange thing is that Armed Assault (Arma 1) actually allowed this by setting texture detail to low, you would lose specular AND normal maps but gain a huge frame increase.
If there was a full fledged addon pack including vehicles and infantry that redistrubuted the pbo's with half sized normal maps and blank ones for tree's (unless possible to remove the rvmat altogether) I garuntee you would see a dramatic increase in performance.
@ Froggy Luv
Under the hood, yes...that's why I asked because I don't know, which I stated at the onset. Your guidance is to inquire, but your answers are laced with irritation. Perhaps being less eager to "fire indirect" and more eager to just have an adult conversation like the others did might serve you better?
P.S. Close...Point of origin. Where we fire our counter batterys and send combat patrols to the p.o.o. after we get hit by insurgents.
@ Liquid Pinky
I'll have to check out how much further I can push it. With that being said it looks great now and I wonder if it's necessary. Thanks.
Last edited by frostybowman; Apr 27 2012 at 17:26.
Well sorry if my tone offends you but I do get irritated with the amount of what I believe to be false and unfair comparisons. To me OFP series has always been somewhat overly ambitious and while glorious in its achievements, of course sometimes falters due to its all encompassing enourmous scale. As an old head gamer playing since the late 70's, more and more todays games are imo, getting serverly watered down in terms of content and really over doing the splashy "wow!" graphics with no substance. OFP series is almost like a bastion or oasis against an ever encroaching horde of medocrity so yes, I get a bit defensive because it's all I gotOriginally Posted by frostybowman
It was really this statement which I believe triggers a knee jerk reaction
IMHO, they are only competitors in that they both make game.
Last edited by froggyluv; Apr 27 2012 at 18:57.
~The bearly literate pugilist~
Spoiler:
Stop discrimination! Fight for bot rights for them to thrive indoors! http://dev-heaven.net/issues/25349
Accurate Wounds Arma 3: https://dev-heaven.net/issues/26350
@ Froggy Luv
Fair enough, but don't be irratated. I think Arma is great and I preach about it regularly to my peers, suboordinates and leadership who have never seen it (well most have in VBS2 form but didnt know).
For the record, I agree that OFP/ARMA has been a bastion against mediocrity too. That is an excellent way to describe it. I just believe both graphics and content are truly possible.
As far as the term competitors, I meant it in the simplest business model form. I want BI to get more money through more sales. I would like EA, UBISOFT and other mediocraty masters to disappear. However, they truly have mastered at least the graphical content and there is always something to learn...even from ones competitors.
Take care.
P.S. I'm waiting for an "...am I not merciful ?!" Lol.
Last edited by frostybowman; Apr 27 2012 at 19:14.
That's kinda harsh... those mediocre publishers and their games have their place... just like Michael Bay films have their place... those who want some action with no substance... there are those who every once in a while just want to be wowed with big hollywood explosions (NOT referring to myself). The beauty of ArmA is that you can be wowed by realism... I agree with you though. Graphics and Content are possible together, and ArmA2 already accomplished that. Now, Graphics, Content, and "Runnability" is another thing. You can get graphics and content on a really good rig, but the challenge is getting graphics and content together on medium-grade rigs. That's where the idea of "Optimization" comes in. Optimization is the process of modifying a software system to make some aspect of it work more efficiently or use fewer resources (that's from Wikipedia). This is basically my understanding of optimization. I haven't taken the time to analyze just how much "resources" ArmA2 uses. But cutting down resources is what will determine to what extent you can have graphics in addition to content on medium-grade machines. Ideally, it would be great if ArmA3 could use fewer resources than ArmA2, without sacrificing graphics. But, chances are, that reduction is going to have to come through customers lowering some graphics settings, and there goes graphics and content. You then have to prioritize, what graphical settings are most important. PPFX or Textures for example. Ultimately, getting back to the OP's point, BIS shouldn't worsen graphics to achieve the content-playability balance. Nor should BIS remove content to achieve a graphics-playability balance. If BIS could find a way to reduce the amount of resources used, in whatever form those resources may be, without sacrificing graphics or content, then we could have a graphics-content-playability balance. That'd be an ideal scenario, where players could have good enough graphics and not sacrifice FPS.
IF BIS were to decide to lower ANY graphics settings across the board (I know they won't do this), then I'd rather BIS scale back particle effects over detailed models or textures. As proven with COD (hate to use them as an example), particle effects can be faked to seem real. On that note, it'd be kinda nice if players with low-end machines could choose "fake" particle effects a la COD while players with really good rigs could choose ArmA's authentic, realistic particle effects. Smoke is one example. I'm not sure how much that would help with FPS or what not, but something like that is a possibility.
I'm not sure what your talking bout but it sounds like you've been a Busy Little Bowman!P.S. I'm waiting for an "...am I not merciful ?!"
Hehe, well again sorry about the snappy attitude as it sounds like we all want the same thing -a successful Arma3 that looks great and we can all run and enjoy.
If you can't afford the hardware, you're not interested enough in the game.
And a fivefold increase in sales? I highly doubt that.
For one, I wouldn't buy ARMA 2 if it went back to OFP graphics. Or even ARMA 3 if it stayed on ARMA 2 graphics.
Right, because there is a direct correlation between someone's ability to pay for something and someone's interest in something. There's a difference between willingness to pay for something and the affordability of something. I can be really interested in buying a Lamborghini but not have the money to pay for it, meaning I can't afford it.
Well you shouldn't force everyone else to drive a Yugo with you either. ARMA is the road, not the car.
Posting Permissions
HOME 
Reply With Quote
