view distance

[Maverick]

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 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 a very rare case.

Say that to my rig, I can't handle PR:BF2 or PR:Arma2, but yet I can handle MoH, BC2, Crysis, Splinter Cell Conviction, maxed out, hell even Arma2(not OA) great, no issues, but when it comes to PR(BF2, Arma2), I can't run it at all, 15-20 frames, never goes above 30.

[40mmrain]

peculiar.

I admit nothing in building PCs is absolute, stuff like that can happen. Make sure you have proper, updated drivers installed. My graphics card was 170 dollars and I run arma 2 on very high settings.

An 80 dollar 6670 can run BF2 R no problem, on high settings with a a high render distance.

[Dev1200]

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.

Ever wonder why everyone cried about how **** DragonFly was? They scaled it down a bit visually, and most people stopped complaining. It was a very good map, even from when it was first released. Yes, sometimes people would crash on mapload. But that was a separate issue.

You are right, bullets do not go straight like lasers, like how I said in my post. However, Armor rounds go 100% straight, without any visual drop. This includes the .50 cal MG's. I also didn't mention anything about rocket projectiles. Yes, they are perfect the way they are.

Also

Say that to my rig, I can't handle PR:BF2 or PR:Arma2, but yet I can handle MoH, BC2, Crysis, Splinter Cell Conviction, maxed out, hell even Arma2(not OA) great, no issues, but when it comes to PR(BF2, Arma2), I can't run it at all, 15-20 frames, never goes above 30.

You realize that PR:Arma2 and Arma 2 are the exact same thing, yea? The only thing visually that has been updated is some effects, which don't seem to hinder performance.

I have a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @2.83ghz, ATI HD 4850 and 6 Gigs of ram. Very rarely do I ever get below 60 frames while playing PR. Certainly not the best system, but still owns PR. However if you are running Crysis, BC2, etc on max settings, yet only getting 15-20 frames a second in BF2, then it's either a cool story bro, or there's something wrong with your PC.

[Lordbaldur]

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. So not only performance, you have a lot of gameplay issues to consider.

Bigger is not always better.

It's only a reality mod, why would you want to make it more realistic? It might upset gameplay.

[saXoni]

It's only a reality mod, why would you want to make it more realistic?

It's still a game, which is supposed to be fair for both teams.
Take insurgency for an example. If it's supposed to be 100% realistic, there would be A10s and Apaches blowing the shit out of the whole map. But we can't do that, as it would ruin the gameplay.

[40mmrain]

So essentially the argument against higher draw distance are the two following points (no, saying "DRAW DISTANCE WILL RUIN MAP X!!!!!" is not a legitimate argument, saying that literally means nothing)

1. Some weapons behave unrealistically at long range such as the 'laser' .50 cal or 30mm/105mm/120mm/whatever cannon.

2. Performance issues with low end PCs.

Those are both issues, I agree. However, unless someone convinces me that both of those are impossible to change or fix allowing for possible extended draw distance I still believe it should be a lot longer. Creating unrealistic situations, and rendering certain weapons within the game underpowered is the opposite of what PR is about.

Until playtesting is done on high draw distance settings (if it ever is) then please dont give me "it would ruin map x", or "x weapon would be OP!!!", because there is no way to know, and even if logic and reason point to a conclusion, that mean it is necessarily correct. Experimentation is always needed.

[Mikemonster]

If you increase the view distance, all you really do is make the map smaller.

Everything in the BF2 engine is relative. If you make a gun more accurate, it makes the map smaller as well. Same with if you make a tank/heli travel faster, even bullet speed will affect how big a map is.

The distances in BF2 are shockingly represented. Place a marker 50m away in game, then go outside your house and do the same on a football pitch/running track. It is a LOT further in real life. The game mis-represents distance.

Hence increasing the view distance looks incredible (and I love it), however with a larger view distance you'll find that the map is now tiny (TOW and HAT/.50 can see the other side easily), and hence you will need a BIGGER map still. And then proportionately the view distance is the SAME as before!

[Maverick]

It's still a game, which is supposed to be fair for both teams.
Take insurgency for an example. If it's supposed to be 100% realistic, there would be A10s and Apaches blowing the shit out of the whole map. But we can't do that, as it would ruin the gameplay.

Actually there was, Al Basrah .5, the map was bigger, but it had EVERYTHING, Blackhawks, Littlebirds, A10's, Cobras, the works, all facing off against the Insurgents

[40mmrain]

.50cal and tow would cover the whole map, etc

stop giving me this. Its 100% hypothetical strawman. Ive said myself leaving all the present weapons systems EXACTLY like they are right now would not be optimal for an increased view distance. What can be changed to make more fair and realistic can be changed and should be.

[Dev1200]

stop giving me this. Its 100% hypothetical strawman. Ive said myself leaving all the present weapons systems EXACTLY like they are right now would not be optimal for an increased view distance. What can be changed to make more fair and realistic can be changed and should be.

Indeed.

Distance in BF2 isn't relative, it's just wrong numbers wise. As in 1m in game =/= 1m IRL

However, maxing view distance so you can see over the entire map won't work. It's fine the way it is, tbh.

[Mikemonster]

It did occur to me if it was possible to make everything 50% size and just double the DPI of the textures to match, then everything would be twice as big, lol.

[Arnoldio]

CPU and GPU need to be equal, there is the catch, if you upgrade one, you havent done anything. But nowadays, you need to buy new MOBO aswell, and everything isnt so cheap.

[TeRR0R]

It's not like that VD will never be tweaked.

See Al Basrah (alternate layer with helo's). It got a raised VD by about 100m to see how it plays for everyone. If it screws up, everybody could go back to the standard layer.

I've not yet heard any complaints about the alternate layer. So in this case, it seems to work.
But the same tweak might fail on another map.

[KingKong.CCCP]

It would be nice if the view distance can be more than 1.5km, and if we would can gather 200p, all on mumble...

... oh, wait... that actually already happened.




this guy has better vids of Karez Offensive event (May 1st, 2011), but has an old annoying problem with render lag when zooming in/out.
I was there, and even with 200 people, it ran as smooth as any other PR game.

[40mmrain]

Above video has convinced me performance issues are being blown out of proportion.

Ive yet to hear a good arugment against view distance. The idea of "making the map smaller" can be true however it doesnt take into account simply how far things are, how many obstructions of view there are, and how many weapons simply cant hit anything at such ranges.

If the view distance of fallujah becomes 10km it doesnt change much, outside of very specific spots where an LAV or sniper rifle can be used at longer ranges. But weve already talked about how certain weapons need adjusting.

[Mikemonster]

It'd certainly be fun to get a few more 'Alternate' maps and set the view distances larger accordingly. Interesting to see the effect on all of the regular maps. Nobody plays alternate setups anyway.

[killonsight95]

The only reason you can play that map with 1.5KM VD is because it has very few static objects, kashan would be another map like thta even though the terrian isn't really suitable.