Effects

Post your feedback on the current Project Reality release (including SinglePlayer).
tankninja1
Posts: 962
Joined: 2011-05-31 22:22

Effects

Post by tankninja1 »

Don't know what other people's experiences are but the effects post 1.0 cause terrible client side lag. When I use high rate of fire vehicles like a zpu or bmp-2 its hard to aim because FPS drops off to very nearly zero.

Also the effects are somewhat inaccurate, not in detail but in size. When you play with effects on low the explosions are deceptively small. If a mortar explodes and you can see the whole mortar effect you take a sizable amount of damage. I would expect a little from being 20-30m away from the center of the apparent blast but it take 1/2 your life away.
Image
Truism
Posts: 1189
Joined: 2008-07-27 13:52

Re: Effects

Post by Truism »

Dude, when you see a mortar or artillery round explode, you're seeing the blast effect (the explosion and shockwave). This is not the method by which most offensive support deals most of its damage, which is by shrapnel.

NATO 81mm mortars have a listed lethal range of 40m for troops in the open. That's using NATO standard methodology, meaning that:

The target is not in cover.
The target is wearing heavy winter clothing.
The target is prone.
The target has a 50% chance of receiving an incapacitating injury from shrapnel at a distance of 40m from each round.
The air temperature is 25 degrees C.

etc
SSGTSEAL <headshot M4> Osama

Counter-Terrorists Win!
tankninja1
Posts: 962
Joined: 2011-05-31 22:22

Re: Effects

Post by tankninja1 »

Truism wrote:Dude, when you see a mortar or artillery round explode, you're seeing the blast effect (the explosion and shockwave). This is not the method by which most offensive support deals most of its damage, which is by shrapnel.

NATO 81mm mortars have a listed lethal range of 40m for troops in the open. That's using NATO standard methodology, meaning that:

The target is not in cover.
The target is wearing heavy winter clothing.
The target is prone.
The target has a 50% chance of receiving an incapacitating injury from shrapnel at a distance of 40m from each round.
The air temperature is 25 degrees C.

etc
But with your effects on high as opposed to low the blast effect is much more massive. Not just for mortars but for smaller ordinance like grenades
Image
waldov
Posts: 753
Joined: 2012-06-26 04:01

Post by waldov »

Lots of new effects definitely cause more lag I must say, even on lowest settings. The main fps killer apart from lots of explosions is the smoke statics on Ramiel, Fallujah and a few others. For the Ambience it gives the map to the amount of lag I really don't think it is worth it.

Sent from my B1-710 using Tapatalk
Image
Truism
Posts: 1189
Joined: 2008-07-27 13:52

Re: Effects

Post by Truism »

tankninja1 wrote:But with your effects on high as opposed to low the blast effect is much more massive. Not just for mortars but for smaller ordinance like grenades
What do you expect?

Lowering your effects makes it easier for your computer by reducing the amount of effects displayed. There'd be no difference between high and low if there weren't something losing out, either size or resolution. Given how particle effects work in this game I don't think resolution is really a viable option (think CS 1.5 low graphics smoke grenades, the horrible sprite things).
SSGTSEAL <headshot M4> Osama

Counter-Terrorists Win!
Spook
Posts: 2458
Joined: 2011-07-12 14:08

Re: Effects

Post by Spook »

"oh man the new effects suck so bad, the FPS drop is unplayable, old ones were perfectly fine.."
"oh man, the new effects look so crappy on low settings, I want to them to be as awesome as on high!"

fuck logic!
Image
SANGUE-RUIM
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2009-04-26 12:37

Re: Effects

Post by SANGUE-RUIM »

I wish they'd bring back the new effects (the ones when 1.0 was released)

they were awesome!

I had problems too with lag, but after an upgrade on my rig I solved all of them!
Spook
Posts: 2458
Joined: 2011-07-12 14:08

Re: Effects

Post by Spook »

What exactly did they change on the effect since 1.0 release? Except minor fixes and tweaks?
Image
Inspektura43
Posts: 415
Joined: 2012-06-23 16:00

Re: Effects

Post by Inspektura43 »

If you mean the OPEN BETA effects.
They looked awesome.
Easiest way to talk behind someones back.
1.Join PR community
2.Get access to SA forums
3.Talk
SANGUE-RUIM
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2009-04-26 12:37

Re: Effects

Post by SANGUE-RUIM »

Spook wrote:What exactly did they change on the effect since 1.0 release? Except minor fixes and tweaks?
flames and smoke effects were changed, for instance

just compare burning vehicles smoke now with beta/1.0
User avatar
Mineral
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 8534
Joined: 2012-01-02 12:37
Location: Belgium

Re: Effects

Post by Mineral »

Quite a lot of smoke and fire effects were changed after 1.0 to get some better performance. Like the big oil fire smokes as an example. It's hard to improve performance with them and keep same quality I presume. But I doubt anders and bruno are done with the effects ;) You can expect updates and improvement in the future as well.
Image
tankninja1
Posts: 962
Joined: 2011-05-31 22:22

Re: Effects

Post by tankninja1 »

Spook wrote:What exactly did they change on the effect since 1.0 release? Except minor fixes and tweaks?
Back in the beta the effects were reminiscent of Battle LA. Most crashes had extra fire effects. There was more Hollywood like explosions.
Spook wrote:"oh man the new effects suck so bad, the FPS drop is unplayable, old ones were perfectly fine.."
"oh man, the new effects look so crappy on low settings, I want to them to be as awesome as on high!"

fuck logic!
I never had a problem with the old effects it is a nine year old game you expect things too be low quality. The new one are a bit pointless on low. They are like having a fancy sports car then taking a chainsaw and sledgehammer to it, that is turning the graphics from high to low not the changing from the old graphics to the new graphics.
Image
User avatar
Ason
PR:BF2 Developer
Posts: 1755
Joined: 2012-10-22 10:29

Re: Effects

Post by Ason »

tankninja1 wrote:Also the effects are somewhat inaccurate, not in detail but in size. When you play with effects on low the explosions are deceptively small.. I never had a problem with the old effects it is a nine year old game you expect things too be low quality. The new one are a bit pointless on low.
I'm not sure I understand, but I guess the ideal is to play the game on High(that's how it's meant to be played), everything under that will give you losses in visual effects and everything.

It feels like you are kinda saying this "when I put viewdistance to 50 % I only see 50 %, and that feels pointless"

But maybe I misunderstood it completly.
tankninja1
Posts: 962
Joined: 2011-05-31 22:22

Re: Effects

Post by tankninja1 »

Ason wrote: It feels like you are kinda saying this "when I put viewdistance to 50 % I only see 50 %, and that feels pointless"
Yes and no. What I'm trying to say is that nothing has really improved. The capability is there to make the game really awesome, and some or most people play at max settings. But the game has upgraded and my computer has not so I can really only play at the same level settings I was using prior to 1.0. Only difference between now and .98 is that rapidly exploding shells now cause lag, and changing settings is less proportional. In .98 only difference between high and low explosion effects is that you went from brown/gray explosions to just gray explosions. Now when you go between high and low settings you lose so much detail, explosions look smaller, you lose fire effects, you lose water vapor rings on very large explosions, sometimes effects won't render in odd circumstances.
Image
Death!
Posts: 318
Joined: 2013-04-03 00:21

Re: Effects

Post by Death! »

FN Mag is sounding too quiet on 1.2, it is a damn 7.62mm MG! It should hurt your ears like the FN Minimi does when firing.

The tracks on Leclerc are the only things you can hear, the engine is really low on volume now. Also, sometimes you won't hear the when it shots, it is bugged.
Raphavenger
Posts: 637
Joined: 2014-04-05 19:11

Re: Effects

Post by Raphavenger »

Death! wrote:FN Mag is sounding too quiet on 1.2, it is a damn 7.62mm MG! It should hurt your ears like the FN Minimi does when firing.

The tracks on Leclerc are the only things you can hear, the engine is really low on volume now. Also, sometimes you won't hear the when it shots, it is bugged.
You are off topic
Death!
Posts: 318
Joined: 2013-04-03 00:21

Re: Effects

Post by Death! »

There was no open sound effects thread so I took this one as general effects.
camo
PR:BF2 Developer
Posts: 3165
Joined: 2013-01-26 09:00

Re: Effects

Post by camo »

Could we get the old smoke back? The new smoke effects from smoke grenades looks really bad with all the black smudged through them.
Image
-=anders=-
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 1532
Joined: 2005-10-27 14:48

Re: Effects

Post by -=anders=- »

camo_jnr_jnr wrote:Could we get the old smoke back? The new smoke effects from smoke grenades looks really bad with all the black smudged through them.
To be honest I have no clue what has happened to the smoke grenades! Im with you, they look terrible. Strange thing is; noone has edited them. Not even pre 1.0... :-?
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11035283/anders_prsig.png[/img]
PR:BF2 Sound & VisualFX

camo
PR:BF2 Developer
Posts: 3165
Joined: 2013-01-26 09:00

Re: Effects

Post by camo »

[R-DEV]-=anders=- wrote:To be honest I have no clue what has happened to the smoke grenades! Im with you, they look terrible. Strange thing is; noone has edited them. Not even pre 1.0... :-?
haha oh **** that sucks, they don't even work properly you can see through them
Image
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 Feedback”