ArmA 3 lighting Showcase!

[trotskygrad]

[QUOTE=Terminutter;36081115]Enemy MAN far TO our FRONT :v:[/QUOTE]

don't worry they started the voice acting work for arma 3 10 years ago :p

also if this game doesn't have those russian underwater assault rifles, :(

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;36080693]I believe that has been in since the original OFP.[/QUOTE]

I never noticed it in ARMA 2, although that could just be me.

[Kube]

Now is there a jump button? I've played so many fps I'm subconsciously press space to jump all the time.

[Nikota]

Definitely going to need a new pc to play this. Judging from its overall choppy performance in take on helicopters.

[Angelsaur]

I think I'll buy this, even my computer cannot run this well.

[LordApocca]

I'm not even joking, my graphics driver crashed simply trying to start the video. I think i can forget playing the game.

[n0cturni]

I hope they don't keep everything they have at E3 behind closed doors.

[DeandreT]

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;36081704]Now is there a jump button? I've played so many fps I'm subconsciously press space to jump all the time.[/QUOTE]

Who jumps in the military? The only reason you'd need to really get up and over something is probably with big rocks or fences. Jumping just wouldn't fit.

[JustExtreme]

I'll definitely be buying this despite the inevitability of it being in a beta-like state at release. ARMA I + II were more than worth it. I've spent many nights until the early hours of the morning playing co-op evolution...

[Pardalis]

My 9400GT assumed a fetal position and sobbed quietly for the duration of that video.

[Tinn]

YEAH! GET EXCITED FOR THE BRILLIANT LIGHTING!

And play with said lighting off because your computer couldn't handle it.

[The Vman]

I don't see why all you guys are saying this will kill your computers. This looks nice but from a tech standpoint it doesn't have much more than games like Far Cry 2. Hell, Stalker and GTAIV have it so that every light casts dynamic shadows, so they're already a step ahead of ArmA.

That's not to say it doesn't look nice, it's just that you guys are overblowing what looks to be fairly common tech.

Now if they had things like ambient reflective lighting, light coming off particle effects like those tracers, and dynamic shadows coming off those searchlights, that'd be really impressive.

[hl2poo]

[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;36079845]Are you implying they aren't already freaky as fuck?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC4avZBHNeE[/media][/QUOTE]

Nope, that's scary already. I'm implying it would be scarier. Especially with the new lighting system.

[ChestyMcGee]

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;36081063]Oh god please have good sounds, that was the biggest problem with Arma 2. So far I'm pleased.[/QUOTE]

there was a great soundmod released before ArmA2 even shipped anywhere outside of germany

[damnatus]

I hope the sound is improved

Gunfire was shit in ARMA II

[FalconKrunch]

[QUOTE=The Vman;36082430]I don't see why all you guys are saying this will kill your computers. This looks nice but from a tech standpoint it doesn't have much more than games like Far Cry 2. Hell, Stalker and GTAIV have it so that every light casts dynamic shadows, so they're already a step ahead of ArmA.

That's not to say it doesn't look nice, it's just that you guys are overblowing what looks to be fairly common tech.

Now if they had things like ambient reflective lighting, light coming off particle effects like those tracers, and dynamic shadows coming off those searchlights, that'd be really impressive.[/QUOTE]

That is not the point, the game has one of the biggest draw distances ever seen plus a really shitty optimization so it brings most computers down to a crawl even with fairly low settings.

[ChestyMcGee]

[QUOTE=The Vman;36082430]I don't see why all you guys are saying this will kill your computers. This looks nice but from a tech standpoint it doesn't have much more than games like Far Cry 2. Hell, Stalker and GTAIV have it so that every light casts dynamic shadows, so they're already a step ahead of ArmA.[/QUOTE]

far cry 2 is 50km square, STALKER is smaller than that, and gtaiv is only the same size as san andreas
arma2's main map is 225km square... arma 3's will be [B]900km[/B] square and with a 20km view distance (you can see further in arma3 than you can even travel in a straight line in the games you mentioned). there are no loading times on either of these maps

you have to take into account all the processing power it takes to deal with the sim stuff in ArmA too - stuff that the comparably tiny games you mentioned don't do. stuff like projectile physics, realistic weather cycles, environment destruction, more complex AI, etc
there's a reason that even really shit-looking simulators can make good PCs cry; you can see this especially with racing and flight simulators that take a big dump on processors because of the ridiculous number of physics calculations that are being made

[quote]Now if they had things like ambient reflective lighting, light coming off particle effects like those tracers, and dynamic shadows coming off those searchlights, that'd be really impressive.[/quote]

there's mods for that in ArmA2 that will probably, considering how mods have worked across the first two games, be quickly ported to the new engine (assuming BIS don't do it themselves)

[Party Boy]

Man that night time lighting is just beautiful it's so dark and the lights just make everything in the dark look so dope

[Vedicardi]

just optimize the fuckin engine

[ChestyMcGee]

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;36083591]just optimize the fuckin engine[/QUOTE]

if you read my post, it's clearly not an issue of "woah jus optimise it guys holy fuk ur dumb developers"

you can remove all high-end graphical options on most simulator games and barely see an improvement in fps. maybe BIS doesn't have the most well optimised sim engine on the market but there's not much they can do about 'optimisation'

don't have a hardcore rig? then either don't complain and/or don't play hardcore simulator titles

[Pardalis]

My rig might not be hardcore but it can run stuff that looks graphically better than lowest-settings Arma 2 better than it can run lowest-settings Arma 2. So it's pretty clearly an optimization problem.

[Kecske]

[QUOTE=The Vman;36082430]Now if they had things like ambient reflective lighting, light coming off particle effects like those tracers, and dynamic shadows coming off those searchlights, that'd be really impressive.[/QUOTE]

Tracer lighting was in ArmA 2, and I'm pretty sure the the above is supported by the engine, so we might see these later on in patches or mods.

[Face Melter]

THE MOVEMENT LOOKS GREAT

FINALLY

AND NO MORE SHITTY NIGHT VISION/LIGHTING

ARMA III HAS FINALLY FIXED THE SERIES

[Fire Kracker]

Is it really that unbelievable to run

it looks good but it really doesn't look THAT good honestly

[editline]24th May 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;36083151]far cry 2 is 50km square, STALKER is smaller than that, and gtaiv is only the same size as san andreas
arma2's main map is 225km square... arma 3's will be [B]900km[/B] square and with a 20km view distance (you can see further in arma3 than you can even travel in a straight line in the games you mentioned). there are no loading times on either of these maps

you have to take into account all the processing power it takes to deal with the sim stuff in ArmA too - stuff that the comparably tiny games you mentioned don't do. stuff like projectile physics, realistic weather cycles, environment destruction, more complex AI, etc
there's a reason that even really shit-looking simulators can make good PCs cry; you can see this especially with racing and flight simulators that take a big dump on processors because of the ridiculous number of physics calculations that are being made

there's mods for that in ArmA2 that will probably, considering how mods have worked across the first two games, be quickly ported to the new engine (assuming BIS don't do it themselves)[/QUOTE]

oic

[Deunan]

I loved the {"elite tier one operator"}

[Exxon]

I am so glad I upgraded my computer last month instead of wasting my money on stupid shit.
Having a 20km draw distance is going to be fucking awesome.

[ChestyMcGee]

[QUOTE=latin_geek;36083826]My rig might not be hardcore but it can run stuff that looks graphically better than lowest-settings Arma 2 better than it can run lowest-settings Arma 2. So it's pretty clearly an optimization problem.[/QUOTE]

you didn't read the post at all????

arma's intensive nature has nothing to do with its graphics. comparing graphics and then saying "OH well this game has worse graphics than x and it runs slower than x so therefore the game is poorly optimised" is not understanding the problem at all

[Vedicardi]

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;36083628]if you read my post, it's clearly not an issue of "woah jus optimise it guys holy fuk ur dumb developers"

you can remove all high-end graphical options on most simulator games and barely see an improvement in fps. maybe BIS doesn't have the most well optimised sim engine on the market but there's not much they can do about 'optimisation'

don't have a hardcore rig? then either don't complain and/or don't play hardcore simulator titles[/QUOTE]

well they could, you know, optimize it (see crysis to crysis 2 or any other game ever that has been optimized?)

[editline]24th May 2012[/editline]

you realize you can optimize a game for faster straight up processing, memory allocation, etc, and not just graphics processing, right

[ChestyMcGee]

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;36084348]well they could, you know, optimize it (see crysis to crysis 2 or any other game ever that has been optimized?)[/QUOTE]

there have been a shit tonne of optimisation patches released for ArmA2, both by BIS and by the community. the current build runs a lot smoother and a lot more safely than the original release of the game. there has been plenty of optimisation

but yes let's keep comparing linear arcade fps games to a simulator (seriously why are we still doing that?)

[editline]25th May 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Vedicardi;36084348]you realize you can optimize a game for faster straight up processing, memory allocation, etc, and not just graphics processing, right[/QUOTE]

i never implied that was the only type of optimisation. what i was implying is that the difficulty of optimising such a title is far more daunting than any of the AAA titles everyone is posting in comparison

[The Vman]

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;36083151]far cry 2 is 50km square, STALKER is smaller than that, and gtaiv is only the same size as san andreas
arma2's main map is 225km square... arma 3's will be [B]900km[/B] square and with a 20km view distance (you can see further in arma3 than you can even travel in a straight line in the games you mentioned). there are no loading times on either of these maps

you have to take into account all the processing power it takes to deal with the sim stuff in ArmA too - stuff that the comparably tiny games you mentioned don't do. stuff like projectile physics, realistic weather cycles, environment destruction, more complex AI, etc
there's a reason that even really shit-looking simulators can make good PCs cry; you can see this especially with racing and flight simulators that take a big dump on processors because of the ridiculous number of physics calculations that are being made

there's mods for that in ArmA2 that will probably, considering how mods have worked across the first two games, be quickly ported to the new engine (assuming BIS don't do it themselves)[/QUOTE]

I know ArmA runs like shit, but most of the people in this thread sounded like it was because the lighting was gonna be too amazing. Which it isn't. It's good, but nothing unheard of.