Photorealism, thy name is ArmA 3.

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Why choose? I will be getting bothlawlessx

Apocalypse-sim? Gotta be prepared

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Crysis 1 had realistic lighting. It came the closest to photo-realism from all "action games" (simulations don't belong here):

As for consoles, it was either PGR 4 or GT 5:

BrunoBRS

Crysis had great lighting don't get me wrong but it wasn't realistic as such. In the real world we don't have sun shafts through tree leaves all the time unless there are particles in the air like dust or pollen and only in great amounts. It still has some of the best lighting though and it's far more realistic than cryengine 3's lighting. Not saying that's not good either but we are talking about actual photorealism and no games have that kind of lighting yet. this looks to be doing a great job though

Real life lighting is very washed out and very dull looking most of the time bathing everything in the same kind of light.

it applies lens flares to real life :P and since nomad (is that his name?) sees through a visor (just like 90% of the BF3 MP characters), i say that's fitting.

Just add a blue filter over your glasses then you got BF3 in real life buddy :P

my 6950 is crying already.. poor thing has been getting tortured by BF3.2scoopsofempty

My 560Ti will put up a good fight, it's the 955 phenom II I'm worried about :|

Jeez, if you love Arma 3 so much why don't youmarry it?

Also I'd be more excited but I still need to play Arma 2.

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Crysis had great lighting don't get me wrong but it wasn't realistic as such. In the real world we don't have sun shafts through tree leaves all the time unless there are particles in the air like dust or pollen and only in great amounts. It still has some of the best lighting though and it's far more realistic than cryengine 3's lighting. Not saying that's not good either but we are talking about actual photorealism and no games have that kind of lighting yet. this looks to be doing a great job though

Real life lighting is very washed out and very dull looking most of the time bathing everything in the same kind of light.

seanmcloughlin

it applies lens flares to real life :P and since nomad (is that his name?) sees through a visor (just like 90% of the BF3 MP characters), i say that's fitting.

Just add a blue filter over your glasses then you got BF3 in real life buddy :P

What's the required specs for this?SaltyMeatballs

I'll be even more impressed when Bohemia gives this game a decent interface and UI.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"]you should try wearing glasses.

it applies lens flares to real life :P and since nomad (is that his name?) sees through a visor (just like 90% of the BF3 MP characters), i say that's fitting.

BrunoBRS

Just add a blue filter over your glasses then you got BF3 in real life buddy :P

Ah ha, but here's the kicker -- is it fun???musicalmac

That doesn't look photoreal at all. It still looks like an Arma game.

Speaking of the terrain, the island itself looks great. The water could be less plasticky.

If the water can be like this plus have the haze effects, ARMA3 would be just about perfect.

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Just add a blue filter over your glasses then you got BF3 in real life buddy :P

wis3boi

You'll never be happy :evil:But I do love the lighting in this. Like you said it's the closest to actual real life and the lighting is what makes that. It's not overdone or overpowering, it's very well implementedOther so called "Realistic" looking games like BF3, Crysis 1 and 2 and the wicther 2 all have superb visuals but their lighting is very far from reality. It's more Hollywood lighting than realisticseanmcloughlin

I disagree about Crysis, especially if you mod it(theres a mod that makes the lighting as real as it can get, Dont remember the name though), but agree with the others especially Witcher 2, which opted for a more water painted feel than realistic(to me anyway)

------

on topic: Those pictures do look amazing, but i still think the vegetation needs some work.

Regardless, i've been playing ArmA 2 for about 1 or 2 weeks now, it's so much fun, should've played it years ago, this one is looking even better, AND a rig tester. Can't wait,i knew buying those GTX 680s was a good idea

[QUOTE="wis3boi"][QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] my sunglasses have a green tint. i am my own HD FPS.BrunoBRS

I like to wear normal sunglasses and just pretend I turned the brightness down really low irl.

Speaking of the terrain, the island itself looks great. The water could be less plasticky.

If the water can be like this plus have the haze effects, ARMA3 would be just about perfect.

jun_aka_pekto

You do know that water does indeed look plasticky when reflecting light ? Your second pic is also in the clouds...

quite the opposite, the one thing bohemia interactive can't do is to make graphic photorealistic in their game anymore

Photorealistic graphic is more of art direction than anything else, first, the game's setting got be right(a world that got be closest to our own) Arma3 has that, and then artists' attention to detail to all the objects or events within the game, and that never existed in any bohemia game, and lastly the engine's optimization, a perfect TOD toning, color adjustment etc. ArmaII did poorly and doesn't look half decent

to make it even worse, actully all Arma3's screenshots look less "photorealistic" than Arma2 and I guess it's due to the much better optimization.

but still for any trained eyes, you can easily tell an inferior lackluster graphic when you see a helicopter cross a grass field and there's no dust and winds and the wings failed to blow the grass to flat, not even any bit of blend touching effect.

photorealistic? where?

How about the animations? Arma 2 animations were like you playing with stick figures, and shooting looked piss poor. Also how is radio sounds, many voices in one command still?

ARMA 2 was the closest game that I played to a simulation style first person shooter. Battlefield 3 is great and all but its not a simulator like ARMA 2 was. ARMA 3 looks to up its game from the looks of it.

I hope those awesome graphics don't mean the voice acting budgeting was overlooked. Its like they hired bored college students to do the voices last time.

If they did, then hopefully they try using hobos instead this time. They can use alcohol as motivation, and I just know hobos can put some feeling into their words!

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Speaking of the terrain, the island itself looks great. The water could be less plasticky.

If the water can be like this plus have the haze effects, ARMA3 would be just about perfect.

Bebi_vegeta

You do know that water does indeed look plasticky when reflecting light ? Your second pic is also in the clouds...

Nope. I put in haze limiting visibility (as it should) to 20 miles and those are reflections of clouds on the water surface.

I always try to include haze since every time I've flown on a High pressure day, there's always haze stagnating from the surface to mid-levels like this (the haze layer extended to almost 20,000 ft MSL):

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Speaking of the terrain, the island itself looks great. The water could be less plasticky.

If the water can be like this plus have the haze effects, ARMA3 would be just about perfect.

jun_aka_pekto

You do know that water does indeed look plasticky when reflecting light ? Your second pic is also in the clouds...

Nope. I put in haze limiting visibility (as it should) to 20 miles and those are reflections of clouds on the water surface.

I always try to include haze since every time I've flown on a High pressure day, there's always haze stagnating from the surface to mid-levels like this (the haze layer extended to almost 20,000 ft MSL):

Well I seem to see haze aslways....

quite the opposite, the one thing bohemia interactive can't do is to make graphic photorealistic in their game anymore

Photorealistic graphic is more of art direction than anything else, first, the game's setting got be right(a world that got be closest to our own) Arma3 has that, and then artists' attention to detail to all the objects or events within the game, and that never existed in any bohemia game, and lastly the engine's optimization, a perfect TOD toning, color adjustment etc. ArmaII did poorly and doesn't look half decent

to make it even worse, actully all Arma3's screenshots look less "photorealistic" than Arma2 and I guess it's due to the much better optimization.

but still for any trained eyes, you can easily tell an inferior lackluster graphic when you see a helicopter cross a grass field and there's no dust and winds and the wings failed to blow the grass to flat, not even any bit of blend touching effect.

photorealistic? where?

GameFan1983

I know ARMA 2 throws up dust when a chopper comes in to land. I don't see any reason why BI would omit that in ARMA 3.

The GI article said currently 100 player matches are quite smooth at this point, though the engine code allows256!

Mag 2 people?

Yeah I'm going to need some 670s for this game...

mitu123

It looks good thats for sure, but the vegetation, and water definitely needs work

Not so sure about the trees in the 2nd shot.

Ah ha, but here's the kicker -- is it fun???musicalmac

ARMA2: Operation Arrowhead was tons of fun, im sure ARMA3 is just as good and probably better :)

The GI article said currently 100 player matches are quite smooth at this point, though the engine code allows256!

Mag 2 people?

OB-47

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Yeah I'm going to need some 670s for this game...

BloodyRaw

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

The GI article said currently 100 player matches are quite smooth at this point, though the engine code allows256!

Mag 2 people?

mitu123

Totally!

ARMA always had a great editing tool, but I does it allow squad control and commandor positions in multiplayer? Because then I could totally see MAG like warfare.

Nonetheless, looking foward to the multiplayer in this game.

:shock: WOW. WOW! That. Looks. Gorgeous. I have to get a PC that could play that! Too bad trying to run something like that right now would make my PC look like I'm watching a slideshow. Then yeah, it'd probably then erupt in a ball of space-time-fire or something...

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Yeah I'm going to need some 670s for this game...

BloodyRaw

Hopefully it'll run better than arma 2 and i'll have shadows more than 5m in front of me.

How about the animations? Arma 2 animations were like you playing with stick figures, and shooting looked piss poor. Also how is radio sounds, many voices in one command still?

Nohtnym

All animations got a big overhaul. There was a video on them a few weeks back.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

The GI article said currently 100 player matches are quite smooth at this point, though the engine code allows256!

Mag 2 people?

OB-47

Totally!

ARMA always had a great editing tool, but I does it allow squad control and commandor positions in multiplayer? Because then I could totally see MAG like warfare.

Nonetheless, looking foward to the multiplayer in this game.

Nah, it doesn't have that kind of squad control that mag has and it won't.

Intead it has built in vo-ip with a dozen different levels of communication. Squad leaders can talk to themselves, squads can talk within themselves, the entire side can chat. Pair that with the ability to mark up your map and leave yourself waypoints, and you have all you need for communication.

However most people use Teamspeak. There is even a mod that emulates 3D directional audio and local audio. If I'm close to you I could talk to you and you would hear me if I'm in range, if I'm further away you would not be able to hear me. I could talk to you on my in-game radio though. The radios all have different levels of power and can even be interfered with by the terrain. It's incredibly realistic and makes communication much more difficult.

Still it's a lot of fun. You have to use real-world radio protocols to effectively communicate.

That's how intense ArmA can be. Nothing sucks worse than losing radio communication with your squad on a die and your dead co-op mission of ArmA 2.

The main island BTW is 900 KM^2

cobrax55

lets not forget the 20km draw distance

http://games.ign.com/articles/122/1223073p1.htmlnext level Cryengine 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFqNh-hxme8Unreal Engine 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_fbvW0RNjwSquare Enix next generation luminous engine

all three of these will be on another level than Arma III, not to say it won't look good. wait for E3 when epic shows their pc exclusive they have been working on that runs on UE4.

GotNugz

Those are all tech demos, ARMA III is an actual game, scheduled to release this year.

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

How about the animations? Arma 2 animations were like you playing with stick figures, and shooting looked piss poor. Also how is radio sounds, many voices in one command still?

Wasdie

All animations got a big overhaul. There was a video on them a few weeks back.

I hope so. Since they are really really bad in arma 2, not very "realistic". Do you remember the name of the video?

Edit: Also any info on the voice acting?

[QUOTE="cobrax55"]

The main island BTW is 900 KM^2

ionusX

Daggerfall's is also dynamically generated. They didn't actually go and populate every square km of space like Bohemia does or any other developer who makes those massive worlds.

It's like a much earlier version of minecraft. All it does is piece together stuff on the fly.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

How about the animations? Arma 2 animations were like you playing with stick figures, and shooting looked piss poor. Also how is radio sounds, many voices in one command still?

Nohtnym

All animations got a big overhaul. There was a video on them a few weeks back.

I hope so. Since they are really really bad in arma 2, not very "realistic". Do you remember the name of the video?

Edit: Also any info on the voice acting?

I don't remember the video and I have no idea what they are doing on the voice acting. They have more money now so I would assume the scripted dialog is better acted than before but I don't think the robot voices will be gone. I just turn them off in-game. Most people do. They are pointless.

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

All animations got a big overhaul. There was a video on them a few weeks back.

Wasdie

I hope so. Since they are really really bad in arma 2, not very "realistic". Do you remember the name of the video?

Edit: Also any info on the voice acting?

I don't remember the video and I have no idea what they are doing on the voice acting. They have more money now so I would assume the scripted dialog is better acted than before but I don't think the robot voices will be gone. I just turn them off in-game. Most people do. They are pointless.

I watched a lot of videos on it a few days ago and I heard the voices in it and they are much better than Arma II's

trying to find the video again though would be a hard task :P

quite the opposite, the one thing bohemia interactive can't do is to make graphic photorealistic in their game anymore

Photorealistic graphic is more of art direction than anything else, first, the game's setting got be right(a world that got be closest to our own) Arma3 has that, and then artists' attention to detail to all the objects or events within the game, and that never existed in any bohemia game, and lastly the engine's optimization, a perfect TOD toning, color adjustment etc. ArmaII did poorly and doesn't look half decent

to make it even worse, actully all Arma3's screenshots look less "photorealistic" than Arma2 and I guess it's due to the much better optimization.

but still for any trained eyes, you can easily tell an inferior lackluster graphic when you see a helicopter cross a grass field and there's no dust and winds and the wings failed to blow the grass to flat, not even any bit of blend touching effect.

photorealistic? where?

GameFan1983

I have to agree with you. Arma 2 had that annoying blur filter and looked too "plastic" (bump-mapping everywhere) and glowy (heavy bloom/HDR). The color tonning was off too. TC burned himself when he mentioned Arma and photorealism in the same sentence imo. Even Arma 1 looked more realistic than Arma 2 did (despite less detail).

I'd personally like to see what they'll make out of the Outerra engine which I think would suit the Arma series better than BI's own engine (even if upgrading own tech makes more economical sense).