Graphic's in the standalone dayZ

[Scotty232 1]

Using the so called '2.5 arma engine', from what pictures i have seen arma 3 looks like a big step up from arma 2. What are people's thoughts on how graphically intense this game will be? Already many people are struggling to get dayZ mod running at a good fps. (would like to add that not everyone has a 'gaming rig'.)

[manta-avoid 36]

I think it'll look great. But graphics don't mean shit to me.

[Delta Smoke 01 765]

Im expecting the exact same graphics tbh. That with some ragdoll effects and better animations to begin with.

[Menny 116]

I hope grass will render at least as far as the view distance. I also hope they fix the god-awfull LOD switching. As of now, I can literally see the gras and trees load in as I walk towards them.

[grezvany13 56]

To be honest; I rather have a good game with shitty graphics then some eye-candy on a terrible game... (aka Minecraft-Model ;))

The ArmA3 devs already said the minimum specs are almost the same as ArmA2 (low-grade hardware should be able to run it).

But the only thing you have to keep in mind is that DayZ is a lot heavier (CPU wise), so having better graphics won't make it better in any way (no matter which engine).

So I'm with Delta Smoke; the same graphics as the current game, but with better animations.

[Scotty232 1]

Ye that's what I'm hoping for

[kannibalkiwi 7]

this game isn't graphically intense though, it's cpu intensive

[rome 58]

I hope grass will render at least as far as the view distance.

You have no idea how demanding it would be for your machine, do you? In the same idea, i could ask for a 100000000 zombies horde runing in cherno. That would be cool also.

But not doable in our decade.

[br00mmmm 50]

I'm running a 580 and I get around 40fps in cities, the devs were running ArmA 3 on a single 580 at E3 and were getting 50 - 60fps everywhere on pretty much the highest settings.

In other words, you'll be fine.

[myskaal 50]

Yep. Same graphics you'er looking at now with better animations, a simple ragdoll, and better lighting.

[Menny 116]

You have no idea how demanding it would be for your machine, do you? In the same idea, i could ask for a 100000000 zombies horde runing in cherno. That would be cool also.

But not doable in our decade.

That's bullshit. Trees render all the way up to what your view distance is set at, granted at a lower resolution, but they're still being rendered. If it can render trees like that, it can render grass.

Especially when you figure that the view distance in DayZ is set to what? 1000 meters?

It's just stupid, you can lay there in the grass, thinking you're camouflaged(and rightly so) while some guy standing 150 meters further doesn't see a single sprite. You might aswell be wearing a high visibility jacket at that point. If it's not possible to render grass al the way to the maximum view distance, than at the very least double it.

[Dr Cheese 100]

They can now strip out a lot of redundant code and optimise the engine so it should run better than the mod.

[Puffy 64]

Arma 2 is one of the most graphically intense games out there (with it up all the way), so I'm thinking that they can't improve on the actual graphics much. Animations are being worked on though.

[Lupin-III 44]

Arma 2 is one of the most graphically intense games out there (with it up all the way), so I'm thinking that they can't improve on the actual graphics much. Animations are being worked on though.

Yet it still manages to look dated... and it manages to look dated because it IS dated. The engine has barely been improved since it began life in Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis over a decade ago. It's an aged, inefficient engine.

Life would be good if DayZ had been developed on the EGO engine that Codemaster uses in the new Operation Flashpoint games. It's quite similar, has its merits and flaws, but it's an overall better gaming experience than the Real Virtuality engine.

[- Valkyrie - 89]

That's bullshit. Trees render all the way up to what your view distance is set at, granted at a lower resolution, but they're still being rendered. If it can render trees like that, it can render grass.

Especially when you figure that the view distance in DayZ is set to what? 1000 meters?

It's just stupid, you can lay there in the grass, thinking you're camouflaged(and rightly so) while some guy standing 150 meters further doesn't see a single sprite. You might aswell be wearing a high visibility jacket at that point. If it's not possible to render grass al the way to the maximum view distance, than at the very least double it.

This would not help you out at all. Because all you have to do is to set the video settings to low or very low and there is almost no grass. I have a shitty PC and I play at low settings. Everything is set to low or very low except "video memory", its set to high. And I see grass only 30m around me, the rest is a flat, blank green/yellow texture on the terrain. So I can see anything clearly that is not a tree or a bush. You see, I guess the same will be possible to do in the new engine. So yeah.. Worst thing is, people use shitty graphic settings to have an advantage over others even if they got a 10k gaming rig. Only a few of us use low settings actually because we can't run it on high.

I managed to figure out what mostly makes the grass disappear or makes it way sparsely rather then dense. Its the "Object Detail" setting. If you put it to very low, together with the terrain quality set to very low, you have no grass at all, while the other settings can stay maxed out. That's hilarious.

[Lupin-III 44]

This would not help you out at all. Because all you have to do is to set the video settings to low or very low and there is almost no grass. I have a shitty PC and I play at low settings. Everything is set to low or very low except "video memory", its set to high. And I see grass only 30m around me, the rest is a flat, blank green/yellow texture on the terrain. So I can see anything clearly that is not a tree or a bush. You see, I guess the same will be possible to do in the new engine. So yeah.. Worst thing is, people use shitty graphic settings to have an advantage over others even if they got a 10k gaming rig. Only a few of us use low settings actually because we can't run it on high.

I managed to figure out what mostly makes the grass disappear or makes it way sparsely rather then dense. Its the "Object Detail" setting. If you put it to very low, together with the terrain quality set to very low, you have no grass at all, while the other settings can stay maxed out. That's hilarious.

According to the tweakguides I've read for ARMA 2, setting your video memory to high is a mistake as it actually causes a bottleneck. Keep it at default, which allows it to use as much as needed.

Take a look at this tweak guide and you could probably increase your graphics quality and your framerate at the same time.

http://www.rockpaper...ull=1#post76042