view distance

[Snazz]

Muttrah for example would suck with a huge VD as you can just tow/see anything coming into docks so easily in the pics you posted.

If vehicles even appear at that distance.

[A.Filikov]

If vehicles even appear at that distance.

it appears. I was able to see the helicopters from the castle.

[Snazz]

it appears. I was able to see the helicopters from the castle.

Interesting, I assumed they'd be optimized not to render beyond the usual view distance.

[splatters]

I would not completely ignore the possibility of increased view distance on some lighter maps like kashan (or new ones for that matter) It's just a matter of optimization. And even though I'm all for maximum view distance even something like 1,5 km would be a huge improvement.

Also on maps like fallujah those 63+ players and most vehicles & other networkables are usually within about 600m radius not to mention the vast amount of heavy static objects etc. in that area. And fallujah is notorious for bad performance yet it is one of the most popular maps out there. I don't see how Kashan could be that much worse with say 1,5 km view distance ( I think Kashan would still run better than fallujah )

[KP]

Reminder, everybody: images no larger than 1280x1024, otherwise use links or thumbnails!

[WhiskeyHotel]

My laptop lags so bad in combat, the only way to see alright without lag for me... is 50% view distance... which is what, 500 meters?

[Tzuridis]

I think when they release the Arma 2OA version of the PR mod they could increase the view distance for bf2 version, since everyone is probably gonna be upgrading to play the Arma 2OA version anyway.

[Maverick]

But there is also a few of us(myself included) that cannot afford to upgrade their computers, and can't even run PR)(me) so you have to take some of us low end users into account

[Gore]

Is there a way to make tress and stuff render at these longer view distances?

[Rhino]

Is there a way to make tress and stuff render at these longer view distances?

This really dosen't belong here but this tut will answer your question, which you should have tried looking for first...
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f189-m ... ances.html

[Dev1200]

Today I tried to change the view distance on some of the PR maps. Just to see how it looks.
Suprisingly I did not notice any decrease on the performance. Even up to 4 km.

With this, I started to wonder why do we stick with 600-1000m view distance.

It seems that some of the PR maps are designed to be playable when there is a view distance like 700 m, but it really feels good not to see that fog when you look at the horizon. It gives you that feeling of freedom. Especially when flying.

I mean think about it; Seeing the docks clealy from the castle, even seeing the US carrier in Muttrah.

Unfortunately, while seeing up to 2 km makes it possible to collect far more information about the enemy just by looking(makes the recon squads more realistic), it makes it possible to make accurate AT shots to the carrier. The battlefield looks smaller in a way that may affect the gameplay negatively.

So what do you guys think about it. Have you ever tried to change the view distance on singleplayer? Did you have any performance issues? And what would it feel like on multiplayer?

People QQ about frame rates when they have a < $20 gpu =\

[Sgt. Mahi]

It's not about GPU it's about CPU! Stop blaming the graphic cards. It's very misleading to say that the performance drop is about GPU power. Buying a newer graphic card is NOT the answer to overcome PR performance problems.

[Sneak Attack]

If the view distance goes up then insurgents are really gonna have a difficult time without having scopes, battlefield is bad for displaying long distances because the maps are flat, if you were standing on "flat" ground in real life and looked at a guy miles away you wouldn't be able to see his whole body because of curvature of the earth but in bf he would be clearly visable which isn't right.

[Mora]

With the "new" technique that wont draw objects that are not on your screen performance might get better significantly. Though i don't know if its possible to do on moving objects such as vehicles or infantry.

[whatshisname55]

It's not about GPU it's about CPU! Stop blaming the graphic cards. It's very misleading to say that the performance drop is about GPU power. Buying a newer graphic card is NOT the answer to overcome PR performance problems.

Say that to my old Geforce 9100.

It's actually misleading to say either one is more important. You will lose performance if you have a crappy CPU and you will lose performance if you have a crappy GPU.

[40mmrain]

The render distance needs to be dramatically lengthened.

1) many weapon systems in the game have to potential to be used over 600m. with poor draw distance, these weapons become unrealistic, or in some cases pointless (see: the a10's cannon)
2)spotting is a huge part of PR. If you have a clear line of sight to something, a draw distance shouldnt effect that. Simply not having powerful enough optics should be the limiting factor.
3)creates unrealistic situations where air vehicles have impunity over 600m

[Dev1200]

View distance is so low so that

1. People with **** computers don't cry more then they already do
2. .50 cal pixel sniping from across the map
3. Things like tank shells, apcs, etc will be able to fire completely straight still, showing how many of the PR vehicles and weapons just fire like lasers (not including small arms, of course.)

[40mmrain]

View distance is so low so that

1. People with **** computers don't cry more then they already do
2. .50 cal pixel sniping from across the map
3. Things like tank shells, apcs, etc will be able to fire completely straight still, showing how many of the PR vehicles and weapons just fire like lasers (not including small arms, of course.)

I dont believe reason 1 is a legitimate reason. Why the game should accommodate for people who cant spend 300 dollars (yes i could build you a computer for probably less than could run PR on max settings with a 3km draw distance for this much) is beyond me.

I see no problem with attacking at long range with a .50 cal. If the weapon system, in real life is accurate at the ranges you engage at, and the optics are sufficient, what is the problem? Currently the .50cal nest zoom is crazy. if it were to prove overpowered, with high draw distance then fine, tone it down. Its unrealistic as it is.

Bullets dont go straight like lasers, and rocket projectiles work just fine. There really is no problem with how accurate any of the weapons are, and if there is it can be changed. Some tanks, apcs, etc have smooth bore barrels for their weapons so accuracy could be changed, I suppose.

[goguapsy]

Why the game should accommodate for people who cant spend 300 dollars is beyond me.

I don't think a comment is needed here, just quoting is enough.

I see no problem with attacking at long range with a .50 cal. If the weapon system, in real life is accurate at the ranges you engage at, and the optics are sufficient, what is the problem?

Well, PR is made with a mindset: make the game as realistic as possible whilst still keeping the gameplayability.

[40mmrain]

I don't think a comment is needed here, just quoting is enough.

.

Im not asking suggesting someone go out and spend 300 bucks to buy a new computer just because PR was updated for a high draw distance, im simply stating that if you paid 300 dollars or more for your present computer then you SHOULD be able to easily run PR with max settings and a far greater draw distance.

Im aware that if something is realistic in PR and it ruins the game then it doesnt belong, however an MG nest, has to be built close to fobs, has to have a nice large flat area to be deployed on, has a very small range of motion, along with being more than vulnerable to any kind of explosive, and made useless by smoke.

for there to be cases where the MG nest is "OP" would be very rare due to how limited it is.