Wow, they removed trees from chernarus.

[nurdseprem 38]

Just found this screen on DayzTv. Seems like they reduced many trees, maybe thats why chernarus+ doesn't feel as Vanilla Chernarus.

 

On this screen also the ground texture seems a bit blurry, whats the deal here?

 

Edited April 29, 2014 by nurdseprem

[zeroy 240]

We know that yes, Chernarus + is exactly that, Chernarus with modifications...In fairness, not many trees removed, nice building addition and yes you are right the ground texture is not the same either.

Edited April 29, 2014 by zeroy99

[tinroofer 23]

Pity they couldn't do more with the horrendous ground texture, add some LOD or whatever.... Though I'm sure this is a limitation of the engine and not lazy texturing work :)

[soulfirez 901]

OH wow they removed trees and added whole cities and countless buildings to towns and cities that where already there plus physics there moving towards 64 bit and dx10/11 which will make a huge difference.

 

But yes damn they removed a small amount of trees damn those developers what where they thinking... PS compare screen shots of the same pc that can run both games at max and tell me which looks nicer..

[JKS-Alex 79]

do you know the game is still in developing right? if they remove few trees but they add some cities and new buildings it will be fine for me, i think the texture are still working in progress.

BTW it seems that is a really low quality screen of SA. i've some high view capture from devil castel and from the rock between electro and cherno with the game at max graphic details that are really impressive 

[zeroy 240]

Pity they couldn't do more with the horrendous ground texture, add some LOD or whatever.... Though I'm sure this is a limitation of the engine and not lazy texturing work :)

 

A guy has touched on that very subject for Arma3 - something to do with the Medium range Map textures BI are using that is not very detailed ... Im not too push, the game looks good to me at distance (click for 1080p):

 

[Powell (DayZ) 734]

I miss the vast forests and personally do not support the addition of new towns or cities from this point onward

[creature 1189]

The Lorax will not be pleased.

[soulfirez 901]

A guy has touched on that very subject for Arma3 - something to do with the Medium range Map textures BI are using that is not very detailed ... Im not too push, the game looks good to me at distance (click for 1080p):

 

 

See how pretty that looks the game has um a few problems lol but how it looks visually compared to arma2 is not one of them lol..

I miss the vast forests and personally do not support the addition of new towns or cities from this point onward

yeah they are starting to get carried away rocket chose to use cherno as he said it was the heart of Dayz but they are turning it a little to suburban if they keep adding any more towns . Id say there is enough now just add more buildings ( and different ones) to what isalready there but that is just IMHO.

Edited April 29, 2014 by SoulFirez

[tinroofer 23]

A guy has touched on that very subject for Arma3 - something to do with the Medium range Map textures BI are using that is not very detailed ... Im not too push, the game looks good to me at distance (click for 1080p):

 

 

Yeah tbh, its not really going to bother me any, and as you say it looks pretty decent anyway.

 

I guess its just that from working with cryengine for a spell, I've gotten used to huge texture sizes on the far out LOD, and highly detailed patches on the close ups, which give a great seamless and high quality feel.

 

I think if they could optimize the foliage, and increase its density a fair bit - without melting GPU's - it would go a long way toward improving the overall look, as you'll have a lot of the texture/s that dont look great at short range being masked far more than they are now

[zeroy 240]

I miss the vast forests and personally do not support the addition of new towns or cities from this point onward

 

The only place they are adding cities/town is on the "plus" part which is North... totally ok with me!

[Deathlove 2286]

See how pretty that looks the game has um a few problems lol but how it looks visually compared to arma2 is not one of them lol..

yeah they are starting to get carried away rocket chose to use cherno as he said it was the heart of Dayz but they are turning it a little to suburban if they keep adding any more towns . Id say there is enough now just add more buildings ( and different ones) to what isalready there but that is just IMHO.

Cherno in Dayz Stand Alone does not seem as big as the mods Cherno.

[soulfirez 901]

Cherno in Dayz Stand Alone does not seem as big as the mods Cherno.

I think you will find it is because of the god like running ability you have in SA i added cherno plus to arma 3 and arma 2 cherno and did a run test from the coast of electro to nwaf and guess what it took the same time to run it in both maps....

[gibonez 3633]

Pity they couldn't do more with the horrendous ground texture, add some LOD or whatever.... Though I'm sure this is a limitation of the engine and not lazy texturing work :)

 

Then you would have people who try to run this on a overclocked potato complaining.

[Deathlove 2286]

I think you will find it is because of the god like running ability you have in SA i added cherno plus to arma 3 and arma 2 cherno and did a run test from the coast of electro to nwaf and guess what it took the same time to run it in both maps....

I think they need to expand from the middle and add way more skyscraper buildings besides clustering them all at the center of town like they are.

[gibonez 3633]

Cherno in Dayz Stand Alone does not seem as big as the mods Cherno.

 

That is because of 2 things.

 

1. The insanely stupid sprint speed of 15 mph.

 

2. Lack of Wilderness.

[gibonez 3633]

It is amazing how much better chenarus looks in the Arma 3 engine.

 

 

 

<snip Importing DAYZ into A3 is against T&C's>

 

The biggest improvement I think with the arma 3 engine is how it demonstrates distance.

 

You really get a sense of distance and scale in Arma 3 that you do not get in Stand alone .

 

That red house to the right is 600m away it looks so far away as it should.

 

Everything in stand alone appears squished and up close 100m looks like 30m, 600m looks like 200m. Stand alone does a real bad job at demonstrating distance the vastness of terrain.

 

Also take a look at that sweet m16 model , the arma modding community is amazing I love how they can just crank out high quality gun models . The model is beautiful but not only that the Irons on it are functional as they should be, Shooting 600m with irons is doable because of the weapon models excellent quality.

Edited August 1, 2014 by orlok

[rickyriot 1009]

It's a fair bit down the road, but for those of you who picked up on the dev blog comment about separating the game engine and rendering engine should make a huge difference if implemented properly.

[acdc_bag 32]

The only place they are adding cities/town is on the "plus" part which is North... totally ok with me!

 

There's literally no where else for them to add cities and areas to except inland, the coast is already heavy with cities and towns.  Without giving inland more content that's worth hitting, no one will ever get off of the coast because there won't be any other players venturing inland either.

 

Just found this screen on DayzTv. Seems like they reduced many trees, maybe thats why chernarus+ doesn't feel as Vanilla Chernarus.

 

On this screen also the ground texture seems a bit blurry, whats the deal here?

 

 

Maybe it's just me but I don't see the big, AHA! of where they seemed to have removed a bunch of trees, looks practicaly identical to me for before and after.

 

It is amazing how much better chenarus looks in the Arma 3 engine.

 

The biggest improvement I think with the arma 3 engine is how it demonstrates distance.  You really get a sense of distance and scale in Arma 3 that you do not get in Stand alone .  That red house to the right is 600m away it looks so far away as it should.

 

Everything in stand alone appears squished and up close 100m looks like 30m, 600m looks like 200m. Stand alone does a real bad job at demonstrating distance the vastness of terrain.

 

I completely disagree.  Maybe you're just used to Altis being so wide?  100m on Standalone looks like 100m on Arma 2 which looks like 100m on Arma 3.  Unless you have actual pixel evidence to show that at 100m away on ArmA 3, a guy standing is 10 pixels tall but yet on Standalone he's 30 pixels high; you're just citing general perspective as fact.

 

Also take a look at that sweet m16 model , the arma modding community is amazing I love how they can just crank out high quality gun models . The model is beautiful but not only that the Irons on it are functional as they should be, Shooting 600m with irons is doable because of the weapon models excellent quality.

 

I wonder if you can change barrels on that M16?  Stocks?  Add attachments?   If you're hitting anything at 600m with an M16 with ironsights, you're getting lucky, period.  I'm not saying people can't do it in real life, I'm sure they do all the time on a practice range without a moving target.  This isn't a range and most targets aren't sitting still while being shot at.

 

I disagree, Standalone has far better lighting IMO, looks like a much better game than ArmA 3 does.  And yes I own and play both.

 

Everything in stand alone appears squished and up close 100m looks like 30m, 600m looks like 200m. Stand alone does a real bad job at demonstrating distance the vastness of terrain.

 

I completely disagree.  Maybe you're just used to Altis being so wide?  100m on Standalone looks like 100m on Arma 2 which looks like 100m on Arma 3.  Unless you have actual pixel evidence to show that at 100m away on ArmA 3, a guy standing is 10 pixels tall but yet on Standalone he's 30 pixels high; you're just citing general perspective as fact.

 

Shooting 600m with irons is doable because of the weapon models excellent quality.

 

I wonder if you can change barrels on that M16?  Stocks?  Add attachments?  If you're hitting anything at 600m with an M16 with ironsights, you're getting lucky, period.  I'm not saying people can't do it in real life, I'm sure they do all the time on a practice range without a moving target.  This isn't a range and most targets aren't sitting still while being shot at.  Your ability to hit something based on a custom gun made by the community is based MUCH more on its configuration for ArmA 3, its dispersion, everything.  The model's iron sight being lined up properly is the least important thing for accuracy.  If the gun has a dispersion of 0 you'd better be hitting something at 600m.  Is that realistic for an M16?

 

Just because someone can make a "high resolution" model of a gun doesn't mean that has anything to do with this game. 

 

That is because of 2 things.

 

1. The insanely stupid sprint speed of 15 mph.

 

2. Lack of Wilderness.

 

I don't see how the lack of simple ArmA 2 animals such as cows, pigs, goats and chickens gave the game any "wildnerness".  Chernarus has never had a wilderness, there's never been any dangers in the "wild" except for other players.

 

 

 

 

I don't buy this whole "Chernarus is smaller in Standalone", sorry, it's just not.  If you even take just the buildings that are now enterable, or the enterable area of all buildings, the map almost doubled in size.  If you think about what was actual "playable area" in the original Chernarus map, we easily have double the area now.  We could enter a whopping 20 buildings in ArmA 2, and all these houses which we can now go inside, were before obstacles that removed playable area from the map.

 

The map certainly hasn't gotten any smaller, and it's certainly only going to get more playability and extra "area" as they continue to populate the map.

Edited April 29, 2014 by acdc_bag

[hombrecz 832]

I thought that what's a lot better in Arma 3 is mainly the lightning.

Using flashlight in Arma 3 night is 10x better then in standalone sadly.

 

But yeah, if Devs can replace renderer, we might get some pleasant suprises!

[gibonez 3633]

There's literally no where else for them to add cities and areas to except inland, the coast is already heavy with cities and towns.  Without giving inland more content that's worth hitting, no one will ever get off of the coast because there won't be any other players venturing inland either.

 

 

Maybe it's just me but I don't see the big, AHA! of where they seemed to have removed a bunch of trees, looks practicaly identical to me for before and after.

 

 

I disagree, Standalone has far better lighting IMO, looks like a much better game than ArmA 3 does.  And yes I own and play both.

 

Everything in stand alone appears squished and up close 100m looks like 30m, 600m looks like 200m. Stand alone does a real bad job at demonstrating distance the vastness of terrain.

 

I completely disagree.  Maybe you're just used to Altis being so wide?  100m on Standalone looks like 100m on Arma 2 which looks like 100m on Arma 3.  Unless you have actual pixel evidence to show that at 100m away on ArmA 3, a guy standing is 10 pixels tall but yet on Standalone he's 30 pixels high; you're just citing general perspective as fact.

 

Shooting 600m with irons is doable because of the weapon models excellent quality.

 

I wonder if you can change barrels on that M16?  Stocks?  Add attachments?  If you're hitting anything at 600m with an M16 with ironsights, you're getting lucky, period.  I'm not saying people can't do it in real life, I'm sure they do all the time on a practice range without a moving target.  This isn't a range and most targets aren't sitting still while being shot at.

 

Just because someone can make a "high resolution" model of a gun doesn't mean that has anything to do with this game. 

 

I don't see how the lack of simple ArmA 2 animals such as cows, pigs, goats and chickens gave the game any "wildnerness".  Chernarus has never had a wilderness, there's never been any dangers in the "wild" except for other players.

 

 

 

 

I don't buy this whole "Chernarus is smaller in Standalone", sorry, it's just not.  If you even take just the buildings that are now enterable, or the enterable area of all buildings, the map almost doubled in size.  If you think about what was actual "playable area" in the original Chernarus map, we easily have double the area now.  We could enter a whopping 20 buildings in ArmA 2, and all these houses which we can now go inside, were before obstacles that removed playable area from the map.

 

The map certainly hasn't gotten any smaller, and it's certainly only going to get more playability and extra "area" as they continue to populate the map.

 

Dude people have 1000m service rifle matches with 20 inch Iron sighted m16s. The goal is not simply to hit a paper target but to get a perfect score.

 

Iron sights can hit much further than people think it requires skill sure but there is nothing inherently wrong with iron sights so long as the shooter has skill and good vision.

 

Where optics help is in target identification they don't magically make a gun capable of long range shooting they merely help those with bad eyes identify targets.

 

Also what I meant by wilderness is the lack of expansive forrests in the north nothing to do with animals. Alot of the forrests has been removed for new cities this tends to make the map feel much smaller even if it is the same size.

 

Also that m16 does allow you to add accessories just like most of the weapon mods in arma 3 do.

 

 

 

People really do not give Iron Sights enough credit, people are obsessed with mounting tacticool optics on every daam thing.

 

 

I thought that what's a lot better in Arma 3 is mainly the lightning.

Using flashlight in Arma 3 night is 10x better then in standalone sadly.

 

But yeah, if Devs can replace renderer, we might get some pleasant suprises!

 

Everything in Arma 3 is better than stand alone.

 

Everything from the shooting and actual movement and stance system to the game engine.

Edited April 29, 2014 by gibonez

[acdc_bag 32]

Dude people have 1000m service rifle matches with 20 inch Iron sighted m16s. The goal is not simply to hit a paper target but to get a perfect score.

 

Iron sights can hit much further than people think it requires skill sure but there is nothing inherently wrong with iron sights so long as the shooter has skill and good vision.

 

Where optics help is in target identification they don't magically make a gun capable of long range shooting they merely help those with bad eyes identify targets.

 

Also what I meant by wilderness is the lack of expansive forrests in the north nothing to do with animals. Alot of the forrests has been removed for new cities this tends to make the map feel much smaller even if it is the same size.

 

Also that m16 does allow you to add accessories just like most of the weapon mods in arma 3 do.

 

People really do not give Iron Sights enough credit, people are obsessed with mounting tacticool optics on every daam thing.

It's a game, if you can identify a camo'd target without any magnification at 600m, in brush, you shouldn't be posting on a DayZ forum, you'd be one of the best marksman in the world.  Ironsights aren't intended for sniping in ArmA 1, 2, 3, or Standalone.  The fact that the designer of the m16 you posted was smart enough to set it up for ArmA 3 optics, is great, however, still completely moot when it comes to anything related to Standalone.  That m16 and the argument that the scale is off on this game and that iron sights should be so much more useful than they are now, is completely contradictory to this game, and all of Bohemia's games.

 

If Iron Sights are so awesome up to 600m why are there 1000 different types of optics for guns?  Easy answer, just about any quality optics will improve a shooter and a gun's accuracy.  Iron sights are as shit as they should be, anyone hitting a target more than 2-300m away in this game with iron sights, is getting lucky, with anything other than an SKS/Blaze right now.  Iron sights should be crap, as they are.

Edited April 29, 2014 by acdc_bag

[gibonez 3633]

It's a game, if you can identify a camo'd target without any magnification at 600m, in brush, you shouldn't be posting on a DayZ forum, you'd be one of the best marksman in the world.  Ironsights aren't intended for sniping in ArmA 1, 2, 3, or Standalone.  The fact that the designer of the m16 you posted was smart enough to set it up for ArmA 3 optics, is great, however, still completely moot when it comes to anything related to Standalone.  That m16 and the argument that the scale is off on this game and that iron sights should be so much more useful than they are now, is completely contradictory to this game, and all of Bohemia's games.

 

If Iron Sights are so awesome up to 600m why are there 1000 different types of optics for guns?  Easy answer, just about any quality optics will improve a shooter and a gun's accuracy.  Iron sights are as shit as they should be, anyone hitting a target more than 2-300m away in this game with iron sights, is getting lucky, with anything other than an SKS/Blaze right now.  Iron sights should be crap, as they are.

 

So you are saying that Iron sights should be useless past 300m within the context of Arma and standalone or within the context of real life ?

[joe_mcentire 2074]

I miss the vast forests and personally do not support the addition of new towns or cities from this point onward

more quality less quantity.., let's see what they can do but i don't really get why i would want to have let's say 6 more villages which all look the same instead of leaving more space, add certain props here and there and upgrade existing settlements with more "life" and signs of former life. unique objects etc...

[AlphaDogMeat . 493]

I'm sure they've added at least one new tree model recently and clustered the bushes into dense thickets in some areas, or I could have been tripping on bad kvass and wobbly potatoes...