Project Reality Forums

YankeeSamurai wrote:I love the source engine; it's one of my favorites. It's clear and detailed, HDR lighting effects, physics... and relatively low system requirements.

I don't know why people hate Frostbite 2 so much. It's a spectacular looking engine to the vast majority of players, and to me as well. The colors are vivid, the lighting and shadows are life-like. Of course, as everybody here knows, graphics don't equal gameplay. I believe that PR's gameplay more than makes up for it's dated graphics engine.

The frostbite engine has some beautiful shadow and light renderings but some of the maps are sooooo bloom overloaded you can barely play an hour without the need of a break for your eyes (exaggerated but you get my point).

I think modern games spend too much time making the game look good and kind of push gameplay to the back seat.

illidur wrote:these 2 are comparison shots. first one has SSAA and 16 AF enabled in driver, second has just bf2's max video setting.

[ATTACH]6650[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]6651[/ATTACH]

I didn't realize there would be such a difference with the repair tent's transparency, I never even bothered to compare that part myself.

whatshisname55 wrote:I didn't realize there would be such a difference with the repair tent's transparency, I never even bothered to compare that part myself.

on low gfx, textures are 1/4 the size they are on high up close. So basically, every 4 pixels becomes 1 pixel which means a whole in a camo netting which on high gfx, might be 8 pixels wide, suddenly becomes only 2 pixels wide, over the same area of a 3D mesh.

The only real thing (apart from improved textures) I would improve in the BF2 graphics engine is the ridiculously easy-to-spot enemies. I can scan an entire forest and instantly see a hidden enemy, purely because they just stick out so much. Maybe some sort of blending is needed to make them harder to spot.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:on low gfx, textures are 1/4 the size they are on high up close. So basically, every 4 pixels becomes 1 pixel which means a whole in a camo netting which on high gfx, might be 8 pixels wide, suddenly becomes only 2 pixels wide, over the same area of a 3D mesh.

I'm talking about the difference between driver forced AA and no driver forced AA. The game's settings are at max the whole time.

illidur wrote: these 2 are comparison shots. first one has SSAA and 16 AF enabled in driver, second has just bf2's max video setting.

[ATTACH]6650[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]6651[/ATTACH]

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:on low gfx, textures are 1/4 the size they are on high up close. So basically, every 4 pixels becomes 1 pixel which means a whole in a camo netting which on high gfx, might be 8 pixels wide, suddenly becomes only 2 pixels wide, over the same area of a 3D mesh.

i should have said it, but all pics are max bf2 settings. im running at 1366x768 resolution. probably why im able to run ssaa. as it renders the image at a higher resolution before downsampling to display.

declan54321 wrote:The only real thing (apart from improved textures) I would improve in the BF2 graphics engine is the ridiculously easy-to-spot enemies. I can scan an entire forest and instantly see a hidden enemy, purely because they just stick out so much. Maybe some sort of blending is needed to make them harder to spot.

well the camos on the soldiers need to be adjusted to the maps, for example the russian desert camo works really well in Beirut if your looking down on them they are pretty hard to spot unless they are moving and when they stop they sometimes blend in so well with the background its hard to see where their head is, and the chinese camo isnt half bad either, but the US camos are the worst, you can spot them anywhere no matter the range.

BF2 graphics not so much, but 2142 has IMO some amazing graphics (art style wise) that slight bloom they have added makes metal objects and windows look so beautiful

karambaitos wrote:but the US camos are the worst, you can spot them anywhere no matter the range.

That is more of an issue in real life.

So it is very realistic.

I think spotting enemies depends on the maps lightmapping. Like on barracude sometimes i just cant see any enemies at all.

Wicca wrote:I think spotting enemies depends on the maps lightmapping. Like on barracude sometimes i just cant see any enemies at all.

Tis! Sadly most people dont really love the maps where its harder to spot people.. shiny muttrah hurrdurr ftw.
Less thinking and sneaking, and more careless sprinting!

On Wanda Shan for example it was really hard to spot people lying under the trees cuz every tree had like a shadow beneath itself, whereas most PR maps dont (FH maps have shadows/lightmapped bushes).

new games seem to have to much going on in regards to lighting, seemed like to many objects look randomly shiny even though they shouldnt be. everything looks like its wet some times. I think PR on the far cry 2 engine would be great, that game kinda sucked but they way it looked was just amazing, lighting and graphics in general were done well without being over done like it seems alot of todays games are.
Far Cry 2 - "Money, Diamonds, and Blood" (Game Trailer) - YouTube

Wicca wrote:I think spotting enemies depends on the maps lightmapping. Like on barracude sometimes i just cant see any enemies at all.

Agreed. Barracuda is the only map in PR where I've not enjoyed the BF2 engine, just because everything looks shiney but dull, (if that makes sence) to the point where I find it hard to play (would love to see a mid-day version of the map, for comparison).

It's all about photorealism these days. Today it seems like the games that look the best sell the most.

Graphically the engine is certainly not bad. Especially with some shader trickery you can get a lot out of it, as seen in Fh2. It is also certainly possible to do stuff like "paper blowing over streets" or "snow falling from roofs" in it. However, especially when it comes to lighting or stuff like view distance it starts to show its age compared to arma or BF3.

Forgotten Hope 2 - Eppeldorf 1944 - YouTube

....>-> I don't actually understand why everyone is bitching about graphics here.

I enjoy gameplay. I enjoy graphics.

You guys are butthurt your computers can't handle it.

Personally, I would love to see a PR:BF3. (with proper settings, of course)


But I think the gameplay on BF3 plays fantastic. I even played it on my friends PC, super low, at half his monitors native resolution. Still had a blast....


Seriously think there's some butthurt up in here.


Edit: The only thing i absolutely enjoy about Nilla' BF2 is the jets. BF3 is so much better in infantry than any stock-vanilla FPS game that isn't a mod (or a mil-sim)

Sorry if you don't agree.

Shooting in BF3 felt like call of dooty. Also, all those disgusting paintjobs on AK...

That killed it for me.

Ts4EVER wrote:Graphically the engine is certainly not bad. Especially with some shader trickery you can get a lot out of it, as seen in Fh2. It is also certainly possible to do stuff like "paper blowing over streets" or "snow falling from roofs" in it. However, especially when it comes to lighting or stuff like view distance it starts to show its age compared to arma or BF3.

Forgotten Hope 2 - Eppeldorf 1944 - YouTube

Yarr, FH looks nothing like BF2 if u turn the hud off <3.. PR is more of a quantity > quality in terms of maps imo. Big maps but w/o epic lightmapping and too much details put in buildings and interiors.

Bigger isnt always better, especially w/o 128 players to make it feel like something more than an airsoft skirmish. This goes for ARMA2, how I hate those huge ***, detail-less maps w/ naked terrain and some randomly spammed houses here and there w/o any sidewalks or anything to make it look better...

Oh i Love seeing the Sniper in the mountain about 12 feet in the Air with no scope, then when you zoom in he is hiding, its so much fun!

[R-DEV]Dr Rank wrote:Agreed, its really stood the test of time well, and with a bit of clever manipulation i.e. new shaders, 3D scopes, plus new models, maps, sounds etc, it can do a pretty good job of keeping up in many respects. There are of course some aspects of BF3 I would love to see in PR, and I would of course love to get my hands on a BF3 editor XD, but for the most part BF2 still holds up pretty well

Agreed on that. All the small updates make the engine look pretty good. And to be honest. Looks is also defined by the "feel" kinda... I mean, the 3D scopes are SO MUCH WIN. I cant imagine playing any FPS game with lame texture 2D scopes anymore. And this alone gives PR/BF2 a very nice modern GFX feel.