IMO, this footage looks much more atmospheric, than now:
So why not to add to the game these options?:
“Realistic filter” - corrects colors to more natural ones, now game looks like a bad trip
“Simplified lighting” - I appreciate dev’s efforts to make realistic lighting, but this blackhole generator not only creates dark areas where they shouldn’t be, but it also forces players to camp in the dark corners, turning game into a toxic hide-and-seek. This option should remove all dark areas from the map.
Tracers - make 3 option: arcade (current one), realistic (reduced traces as on footages), immersive (no tracers for firearms)
Backpacks - adds backpacks/bags for all soldiers who doesn’t have anything on the back
“Impact clouds” - adds highly visible blood/dust/water particles to the places of bullet impact
Oh I miss the dark, gritty tone of Red Orchestra 2 and Call of Duty World at War even the darker coloring of some bright maps. Even winter maps like the cold winter nights of Red October Factory and Mamayev Kurgan really feel the dark tone of the war.
Even Rising Storm 2 with the tropical atmosphere still managed to keep the grittiness not some tourist destination.
not really… this game runs even on 1050, so having DLSS isnt that much of a feature. people with 30 or 40 series (even 20) series have enough gpu power to run this on 100+fps on high/ultra 1080p if they want to.
use reshade for filter but you can’t really bring back that lighting and effects like fog which would help a lot to counter axis that can see everything clearly
considering that over 95% of people cant see difference between raytracing on and off, it is rather pointless gimmick that just increases overhead on development. in one or two gpu generations, when majority of people have raytracing capable hardware, you may see developers dropping traditional shadow mapping in favor of raytracing and that would probably mean faster development.
on other hand dx12 could bring more benefits to users with modern hardware (and for people with intel gpu). but problem is that dx12 requires high level of knowledge from developers to actually optimize everything. dx11 is rather easy in comparison cause it is high level API, while dx12 is low level API and it requires manual fine tuning to get good performance.
One point I do not quite agree with you is that RTX sometimes may even decrease development cost as well as improve graphics visibly. In my experience, there are some graphic bugs such as unstable shadows on machine gun nest when aiming, some objects do not show shadow, and strange bright squares under shadow of smoke of burning tank, they are likely to due to pre-rendered effect, which may have not been tested in some scenarios and bring inconsistency. RTX is a way to solve them and decrease need of pre-rendering. Most of these bugs are already solved by RTX option in game now (from editing config file), but just dx12 is extremely unstable and not as efficient as dx11 currently.
yes raytracing will decrease development cost, but not for another generation or two of gpu-s and consoles cause most of the people still dont have raytracing capable hardware. developers must do pre rendered shadows and raytracing that doubles the job. when most people have raytracing capable hardware and developers ditch pre rendered shadows only then they will be able to decrease development cost.
Then the problem is not on which technology they use, but like now if they do not carry out enough testing, take graphic bugs seriously and fix them quickly, the inconsistency and inaccuracy of graphic can never be solved on considerable amount of players. Hopefully the new alpha test team may solve this problem.
But considering RTX is already in game now and it had worked with acceptable efficiency in CRSED for years, only some optimisation is needed and it should also work in Enlisted without a lot of effort. It may be a shortcut if they are not able to do more testing and fixing on their pre-rendered effects, however this shortcut only works on limited number of players.
