LOD distance
Posted: 2009-08-27 02:08
I have been saying for literally years that BF2 needs to have its draw distance and LOD distance increased drastically. I was playing on qwai river at the objective east of estate. I was on top of the silo next to the house watching the rice paddies. It was completely unfair for the enemy that after 150m the rice plants simply did not draw, so I was just seeing them as if they were trying to hide in a dirt field. Obviously, I was able to kill every enemy that approached, when I should not have been able to. Many other examples exist that you all know about such as a bush you are hiding in disappearing after a couple hundred meters. Again, same effect.
Also, the LOD distance really needs to be increased as well. I respect that you are going for realism, and therefore do not add any zoom to iron sights. However, this simply does not work because the detail drops so drastically at 100m. I have heard numerous complaints from all different players concerning this. small objects aren't even there anymore, and textures get really blurry. Trying to shoot at anything past 100m in game is like trying to do the same thing IRL, but everything is painted the same shade of gray. At a recent NRA shooting match, I got an 85/100 score with iron sights, in the prone position, with an AR-15, with targets at 300 yards. There is no possible way that an iron sights soldier in-game could even pick off one guy at that distance, However, if every texture, lighting effect, static mesh, and scenery was still at full detail at 200m, I have no doubt that iron sights would be just as effective at 200m as IRL.
I have never seen, even once IRL where a H&K 21 has a scope mounted on it, even though it would be as simple as putting on a claw mount. You increased it's zoom anyway because you wanted to simulate effective range. Effective range of any NATO iron sight weapon is 300m+.
BF2 has been around for 4 years now, plenty enough time for everyone to upgrade their video cards to out perform it. Even if they haven't, you can buy video cards that can max out Fallout 3, or Bioshock for under 100$ I would much rather play with a few settings like antialiasing or reduced particle count reduced, than have to play with such low detail and long distances.
Also, the LOD distance really needs to be increased as well. I respect that you are going for realism, and therefore do not add any zoom to iron sights. However, this simply does not work because the detail drops so drastically at 100m. I have heard numerous complaints from all different players concerning this. small objects aren't even there anymore, and textures get really blurry. Trying to shoot at anything past 100m in game is like trying to do the same thing IRL, but everything is painted the same shade of gray. At a recent NRA shooting match, I got an 85/100 score with iron sights, in the prone position, with an AR-15, with targets at 300 yards. There is no possible way that an iron sights soldier in-game could even pick off one guy at that distance, However, if every texture, lighting effect, static mesh, and scenery was still at full detail at 200m, I have no doubt that iron sights would be just as effective at 200m as IRL.
I have never seen, even once IRL where a H&K 21 has a scope mounted on it, even though it would be as simple as putting on a claw mount. You increased it's zoom anyway because you wanted to simulate effective range. Effective range of any NATO iron sight weapon is 300m+.
BF2 has been around for 4 years now, plenty enough time for everyone to upgrade their video cards to out perform it. Even if they haven't, you can buy video cards that can max out Fallout 3, or Bioshock for under 100$ I would much rather play with a few settings like antialiasing or reduced particle count reduced, than have to play with such low detail and long distances.