Foliage cover and drawing distance?

[liquidpinky 11]

Anyway back to draw distance... ArmA 2 has the best terrain draw distance and a lovely draw distance slider. Now they just need to add a slider for vegetation draw distance and detail/texture draw distance so they can be equally good.

They will do as it is already implemented in Take On.

The texture draw is also already done through the Anisotropic filter setting.

[mr.g-c 6]

It's a fact that your eyesight degrades with distance in a way that isn't reproduced on a screen. Some sort of distortion is far from a 'fail,' it's a bare minimum compensation for unrealistic advantages. Camouflage doesn't work in ARmA, at all.

Exactly that!

That has to be worked on since its a gameplay issue from day1. A 2013 game should have this fixed. Thanks for your effort BIS.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i've noticed that some games (silly arcades) deal with this issue in the lazyest way, they remove the player LODs at certain distance and sumbstitute it for a brownish like pixel; it gonna be very hard to do this right, on a screen, for camoed units on foot aswell as for civilians with "more colourfool clothes" and vehicles too.

Maybe some kind of half transparent textures made distant LODs for weapons and camoed units could do the trick... but it won't gonna be easy to get it really well and working, i think.

Other thing... is that IRL, many times you spot other (standing) units by their shadow, but if the shadows are not drawn under the engagement ranges together with the grass etc... then i think that it don't gonna work in many if not most of the cases. Let's C ya

[wormeaten 0]

I think this will not be that big problem if people keep PP effect on. Everyone complaining about realism of this feature and turn PP off and have same sharpens on 5m like on 5000m.

I think ArmA3 should PP from minimum to maximum same as shadow but not off. This will fix half of the problem with this issue or make it more tolerable.

I like PP effect but as I play mostly PvP I don't want to be in disadvantage so do what most players do turn off PP.

This is more depending on us than on BIS they already have technical solution for that and in DX11 PP will look even better and more realistic.

More important for me and connected with high grass is when you are prone you don't see nothing and only solution is to go crouch.

We need something for just rase above grass to be able to see your target to shoot. It is more important move than this fancy but more or less useless laying on back shooting.

You could just with shift+prone raise above and with prone again lay down in cover.

[Bouben 3]

I think this will not be that big problem if people keep PP effect on. Everyone complaining about realism of this feature and turn PP off and have same sharpens on 5m like on 5000m.

I think ArmA3 should PP from minimum to maximum same as shadow but not off. This will fix half of the problem with this issue or make it more tolerable.

I like PP effect but as I play mostly PvP I don't want to be in disadvantage so do what most players do turn off PP.

This is more depending on us than on BIS they already have technical solution for that and in DX11 PP will look even better and more realistic.

More important for me and connected with high grass is when you are prone you don't see nothing and only solution is to go crouch.

We need something for just rase above grass to be able to see your target to shoot. It is more important move than this fancy but more or less useless laying on back shooting.

You could just with shift+prone raise above and with prone again lay down in cover.

Good idea.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------

After veiwing this video

3AfDgCmhsyY&feature=related

I have discovered that the mosaic of different colors is what produces the illusion of detail, the illusion of depth, high and low spots, nooks and crannies. This disruptive patterning of color makes distant units much harder to see even at medium zoom and helps them 'blend' into the background. Why is the environment suddenly blandly colored by comparison when on max zoom? The plain coloring is the root of the problem.

Yes, exactly my thoughts. Remember the OFP ground colours? It was mottled and confusing and it worked very well in combination with well blended uniforms of units and there was no need for clutter in distance.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Bouben

[SpecOp9 0]

There is a solution to this problem without a major performance hit.

If anybody has played "Joint Ops: Typhoon Rising" you might remember distant enemies were artificially obscured - almost like masking out the distant player's lower bodies, like feet and legs, depending on the stance, which somewhat gave the appearance that they were hidden in the grass.

[maturin 12]

ArmA always does this, but the model is actually sunk into the ground, which poses a problem for snipers. And the clean line of the grass doesn't really make it harder to spot the head sticking up.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

what if a raycast between player and opposite body determines all the obstacles in line and then renders the body parts invisible which are covered by objects between?

[tremanarch 6]

ArmA always does this, but the model is actually sunk into the ground, which poses a problem for snipers. And the clean line of the grass doesn't really make it harder to spot the head sticking up.

yes i recently noticed this!!! but additionally i think grass = low and pp = low should be forced in MP at least and not be toggle off - able.

[metalcraze 290]

If the server has the grass on (terrain detail = low or higher) I think the grass is enforced on all clients. Unless something got changed.

But yeah, PP=very low should be back.

[Janez 507]

Server sided option for PP should be there, like the rest. Nothing should be forced.

[tremanarch 6]

but it forces player to have a low res bad gfx so they are not at an disadvantage vs others...

same with warfare servers where 0 grass is allowed it forces you to play with 0.. because other do it..

i hate forcing to but i hate more when low hw players force other players with good hardware how to play.

and its totally unrealistic - you cant see soldiers crawling in grass at 1000m so easily etc..

guys with low spec have to buy better hw!

and the overall gaming would be better if also the AI soldiers wouldnt be so good at spotting ^^

[Timnos 1]

One thing I really disliked (game ruiner imho)with ARMA2 was the short range of the foliage cover.

It was much easier to spot people 500m away, as there was NO graphical foliage there; than lets say 50m away, where the foliage was drawn.

It was way too easy to spot people lying on the ground hiding in the distance: In real-life there is no way you would see someone with camouflage clothing hiding behind a tree/bushes whatever 500m away.

In ARMA2 they stick out like......................<-fill in something suitable;)

Steel Beasts Pro Personal Edition 2.6 does an excellent job of concealing distant units, for those who are seriously interested in improving ArmA's distant foliage cover I highly recommend you watch this video -

18NMKfRjov0

[Tonci87 163]

Steel Beasts Pro Personal Edition 2.6 does an excellent job of concealing distant units, for those who are seriously interested in improving ArmA's distant foliage cover I highly recommend you watch this video -

[YOUTUBE]18NMKfRjov0

I don´t see anything impressive in that video, it´s quite dark and there is fog, bith thing make it pretty easy to conceal units.

[maturin 12]

what if a raycast between player and opposite body determines all the obstacles in line and then renders the body parts invisible which are covered by objects between?

What if 2 frames per second?

[De_little_Bubi 1]

raycasts are nothing uncommon in game engines - i would guess that in most of the games bullets hit location is determined like that. at least we did it like that. And then rendering ~2-3 objects more wouldnt destroy the performance at all.

[froggyluv 2130]

I wish I understood raycasting a little more but aren't/couldn't they be handled by GPU?

[maturin 12]

raycasts are nothing uncommon in game engines - i would guess that in most of the games bullets hit location is determined like that. at least we did it like that. And then rendering ~2-3 objects more wouldnt destroy the performance at all.

2-3 objects more?

You're talking about possibly thousands of blades of grass per unit, blades of grass which don't have any kind of geometry defined in the engine, seen by the player's GPU only. Constant raycasting checks through hundreds of individual blades of grass, for every unit on the battlefield. Games with raycasting hitscan guns don't fire thousands of bullets every second.

And we hear from the devs that LoS checks are already very expensive, leading to optimization situations were AI are slow to realize targets, or don't recognize legs as parts of enemy soldiers.

---------- Post added at 02:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

raycasts are nothing uncommon in game engines - i would guess that in most of the games bullets hit location is determined like that. at least we did it like that. And then rendering ~2-3 objects more wouldnt destroy the performance at all.

2-3 objects more?

You're talking about possibly thousands of blades of grass per unit, blades of grass which don't have any kind of geometry defined in the engine, seen by the player's GPU only. Constant raycasting checks through hundreds of individual blades of grass, for every unit on the battlefield. Grass that blows in the wind. Games with raycasting hitscan guns don't fire thousands of bullets every second.

And we hear from the devs that LoS checks are already very expensive, leading to optimization situations were AI are slow to realize targets, or don't recognize legs as parts of enemy soldiers.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

no im talking about one ray against boundig boxes to determine what objects are between the player and the other body - these objects then can be rendered to hide the other body or (with the right pipeline) hide the hidden parts (cause 1 random bush somewhere is kinda obvious too)

so 1 ray per body (which can be limited to bodys within viewdistance) + maybe doesnt even needs to be done every cycle. theres more processing when you shout an machinegun.

Edit: i will add some pictures displaying what i want to say.

Edit 2: Here it is: http://imgur.com/a/bYvw7#0 . You have to see the pictures in full size, my current computer can only run old days ofp so i had to demonstrate it there :/

Edited July 2, 2012 by De_little_Bubi

[jackrabbitslim7 10]

I don't know if the grass issue is that complex, the problem in Chernarus is either that the grass is too tall or the grass layer at distance is too low. So if i'm totally covered by grass in a place, at distance I stand out because the grass layer don't hide me, but only half of my body while I should be totally invisible. With the GDT Mod Grass the grass is at the same height than the grass layer and there is no difference between being at 500m or 10m (other than the ugly texture).

The grass layer is a good solution (maybe coupled with a more complex texture of the ground) but they should make it so it correspond to the height of the grass. Fighting in pvp with a MG is a real pain in this game, you can't see because you are prone but other can see you because the grass layer only partially hide you.

Edited July 3, 2012 by jackrabbitslim7

[maturin 12]

no im talking about one ray against boundig boxes to determine what objects are between the player and the other body - these objects then can be rendered to hide the other body or (with the right pipeline) hide the hidden parts (cause 1 random bush somewhere is kinda obvious too)

so 1 ray per body (which can be limited to bodys within viewdistance) + maybe doesnt even needs to be done every cycle. theres more processing when you shout an machinegun.

Edit: i will add some pictures displaying what i want to say.

Edit 2: Here it is: http://imgur.com/a/bYvw7#0 . You have to see the pictures in full size, my current computer can only run old days ofp so i had to demonstrate it there :/

I don't understand what good the system would do if it just checked for intervening models. The bushes already block your view realistically. It's grass that's the problem.

Unless you're talking about the draw distance of bushes. I play on low settings, and the draw distance for bushes is just as high as the draw distance for units.

And if the bushes aren't being drawn, the most common problem isn't the inability to hide behind one, but the lack of nearby clutter serving as camouflage at range. So I think the raycasting thing wouldn't solve the main problem, and be possibly as expensive as just drawing more low-res bush blobs.

[dmarkwick 261]

If the engine could composit the problem would easily go away :)

Standard composit:

Composite with faded edges:

Edited July 4, 2012 by DMarkwick

[De_little_Bubi 1]

I don't understand what good the system would do if it just checked for intervening models. The bushes already block your view realistically. It's grass that's the problem.

As i wrote in picture #1 that also grass could have such boxes for checking them. there has to be data of what kind of grass is where anyway.

[MavericK96 0]

So if i'm totally covered by grass in a place, at distance I stand out because the grass layer don't hide me, but only half of my body while I should be totally invisible.

That's not really true, you wouldn't be "totally invisible", even at distance...especially if you were moving.

The grass layer as it is now is a compromise, because having the grass disappear entirely at distance would leave you completely exposed and would be unrealistic, but covering up the entire player with the grass layer at distance would hide them entirely and would also be unrealistic.

The only real "solution" would be to have grass rendered farther out, but the performance hit would likely be tremendous.

[PuFu 4591]

That's not really true, you wouldn't be "totally invisible", even at distance...especially if you were moving.

The grass layer as it is now is a compromise, because having the grass disappear entirely at distance would leave you completely exposed and would be unrealistic, but covering up the entire player with the grass layer at distance would hide them entirely and would also be unrealistic.

The only real "solution" would be to have grass rendered farther out, but the performance hit would likely be tremendous.

one of the problems with grass in A2 is that there is no in-between grass and no grass. For most, a blending system would help a lot here.

on the other hand, the fact that the terrain texture is seen almost tangent at 99% of the time at the distance, doesn't help with the concealment, on the contrary, making units stand out.

one solution could be something along the lines DMarkwick described, by working with an oppacity layer. Another would be to actually render that grass at the distance, especially when looking through a scope (just like with switching LODs for vegetation), but the obvious result for that would be increased draw call.