Archive Thread of Screenshots of Ridunkulous Quality and Size [2007-2015]

[Karoshi]

I just hope for improved animations/weapon animations. Atelast weapon animations and how the hands move and muzzle effect.

I've been reading the official forums. The animations are better. The muzzle effect is a single texture. They dont even rotate the muzzle flash between shots. It's BIS...
The engine sucks. No MSAA. Only option is a "fillrate optimizer" that changes the size of the rendertarget, can be moved down to 50% (bilinear upscale FTW) and up to 200% (4 times number of pixels). A developer called that "high quality SSAA", yeah right, the (bad) quality of OGSSAA with the performace hit of 4xSSAA (or worse, because it's evading the dedicated AA hardware, sigh).
Camera based motion blur, some people get sea sick, kegetys already posted a mod to disable that. Excessive amount of post processing that cant be disabled, only toned down, kegetys' mod can disable that, too.
AI has improved, not that it was difficult to improve (I own and sometimes play Arma1 online, with humans). The AI used to stand in formation and ignore the other 6 members of their squad getting bullets in the face. Push the AI up and they would snipe your left eye from 2km away, with a pistol, rusty, from 1940, on the first shot. They would get stuck and generally suck horribly.
Im waiting for amazon to ship me Arma2 soon. Also, the level of fanpersons in the official forums is unbearable.
The game is mostly compatible with all Arma1 mods, porting should be very easy. Some additions (modules) have been made to the editor/system, mod makers seem very happy.
As usual, wait for BIS to fix the engine (only took them literally 14 patches for Arma1 to not suck performance wise) and then wait for the community to fix the game (ACE2 is coming, fuck yes!).

 

[pjbliverpool]

Here are some benchmarks of ArmA 2:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...chmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

It makes Crysis look like an iphone game in terms of requirements. Even at 1280x1024 with no AA an overclocked i7 + GTX 285 system is a slide show.

And check out the CPU benchmarks. Even on "normal" detail levels, anything less than an i7 is unplayable and even the i7 920 is borderline too slow.

Seems like this game was intended to be released about 2 years from now!!

 

[Neb]

Yawn again at PCGH lack of info and sensationalist benches that try to lure in visitors with bold words. Fillrate 200% means 1280x1024 is 2560x2048 res and then downscaled to 1280x1024. Thats like 2.5x 1080 resolution. Thus no AA is needed at all and yet avg 21fps 4890, thats damn good perfomance for 5 mpixels!

A post at the message board that much sums it up and I concur.

Whoever did the article maybe doesn't understand the 'Fillrate Optimiser".

Basically, it makes the game render at a lower or higher resolution and then scales the image to the resolution of the monitor.
The problem with the benchmarks is that you are significantly lowering the performance with high fillrate settings.
The "low/normal" benchmark is running at 150%. It's ridiculous to use such a setting when you could get equivalent performance by reducing it to 100% and using high/very high settings for everything else.
A 150% setting there means the effective resolution is 1920x1536 (1280x1024 at 150%). Of course you need very powerful hardware for that.
The low FPS combined with the badly set fillrate optimiser is a major factor with the texture loading (streaming) problems that the article complains about.

And of course with a 200% fillrate setting, your high/very high benchmark is effectively running at 2560x2048.

You would get much better performance if you left the fillrate at 100% in both tests.

The lead programmer mentioned that anti-aliasing support will be added in a patch (somewhere on the forums, don't ask me to find it).

And it's ArmA 2, not "Armed assault". Nowhere on the box is it called Armed Assault (yea I know, nitpicking).

 

[Karoshi]

Here are some benchmarks of ArmA 2:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...chmarks-and-visual-quality-compared/Practice/

It makes Crysis look like an iphone game in terms of requirements. Even at 1280x1024 with no AA an overclocked i7 + GTX 285 system is a slide show.

And check out the CPU benchmarks. Even on "normal" detail levels, anything less than an i7 is unplayable and even the i7 920 is borderline too slow.

Seems like this game was intended to be released about 2 years from now!!

It's running at 150% fillrate -> 1900x1500 render target, 225% as many pixels.

I can write a program in 1 hour that runs as molasses on a 4GHz i7 and dual 295. This game was intended to be released in 2 years... after beta testing

The idea of declouping render resolution and presentation resolution is nice, you get clear menus/text. I believe this is often used on consoles.

Offering a slider to select 50%-200% render target size vs screen resolution ratio is a good idea, allowing inbetween values of 2x,4,x,8xAA, for example rendering at 2xAA with a 150% ratio, because your GPU cant handle 4xAA.

What's not so nice is not offering MSAA or driver supported RGSSAA. All those specialized hw units are siting idle (colour & Z compression for AA modes, what else?). The perfermance penalty is extreme, considering the relative performace drop for enabling higher MSAA modes has decreased in the last years of GPU development as they become more efficient *cough*R600*cough*.

 

[Neb]

Maybe they can add it later in with a patch. I am also interested to see what modders can come up with on the particle/effect side!

 

[Karoshi]

Maybe they can add it later in with a patch. I am also interested to see what modders can come up with on the particle/effect side!

Oh oh! The horrible horrible per vertex dynamic lighting (truck lights, or helicopter lights) from arma1/ofp is gone, it's per pixel now. Also the explosions are really HDR bright it seems or at least they look like that on the night videos.
Hope ACE2 is here ASAP.

 

[Neb]

That sure sounds like a good improvement.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Good point about the fill rate setting guys, I hadn't clicked on to that. Perhaps this game isn't as much of a performance hog as I had imagined.

Then again, the CPU benchmarks are still pretty alarming. They are using 100% fillrate and so a genuine 1280x1024 at only "normal settings". According to that you need an i7 950 + HD 4890 just to scrape over 30fps!!

 

[Neb]

With those settings that is even less than the GPU test on normal as in their previous bench the framerates dont line up. Different tests with no test info. Could aswell be custom massive AI fight or similar. But for such settings I've seen people with dual cores post higher framerates visible on their screenshots with more detail, go figure and in battle to.

Dont read to much into those benches, just wait for the professionals to surface and give numbers!

 

[Neb]

GRID. Need to clamp those whites and introduce mister blue but no realtime visual feedback editor no love. Replay 1:1 ingame racing graphics.

 

[homerdog]

Grid is a beautiful game, especially in motion at 60FPS. The cockpit view can fool even the picky graphics whore that is myself into thinking "real" at times, if only for brief moments on a select few tracks. It's probably the lighting that gets me.

 

[Neb]

Grid is a beautiful game, especially in motion at 60FPS. The cockpit view can fool even the picky graphics whore that is myself into thinking "real" at times, if only for brief moments on a select few tracks. It's probably the lighting that gets me.

It just needed some config tweaks to show it's true colors. IMO best looking ingame racing racing graphics I've seen. Really breathtaking with tweaked lighting for all levels though Le Mans looks like shit either way. Only thing standing out now is the bad driver hands and higher res indoor textures/enhanced detail would be nice, hahaha!

 

[Neb]

 

[Neb]

And the rest. Gotta love those highres antialiased reflections and mirrors. They dont present any shimmer nor jaggies and shouldn't being 1024x1024 reflections + 8xAA +16xAF for them and 1024x256 +4xAA +16xAF for mirror rendering (otherwise bilinear filtering + no AA is enforced for the mirror rendering and reflection rendering). main AA is 8xAA and of course solid 60fps.

 

[Davros]

The Big City

 

[Neb]

Some screenshots from Arma 2 demo. Got all settings on highest, AA disabled, 16xAF, vsync, 1920x1200 downscaled to 1440x900 by using fillrate option 133% and draw distance of 3800 meters. Very good game despite the bugs. My E8400 @ 3.6GHz and my single 4890 1GB!

 

[Neb]

Same settings as above except fillrate set to 200% thus true rendering resolution is 2880x1800!

HOMG sweet lord does it look delicious and it is almost playable. I hope Bohemia optimises it a bit more and the deal is sealed. Like playing bullshots so sweet I cant describe it with words.

I also noticed anisotropic filtering might not get applied everywhere due to parallax occlusion mapping being used quite a bit.

 

[Neb]

Homfg... I cant unsee it anymore.. ;(((

 

[PhilB]

Damn... Never even heard of this game before (until now). Looks really good - reminds me of STALKER for some reason.

 

[almighty]

I dont get it, ive played the demo completely maxxed out with SLI 260GTXs and i think it looks like complete ass compared to Crysis.

Its textures are laughable in most places and it just lacks the effects that Crysis has