I’m not saying this doesn’t happen in other BFs or other games, but, to me, this is awful. Low settings should give you better FPS and maybe a somewhat simplified view. It shouldn’t give you hacks… Check out the wheat field (and some of the grasses on the river bank). If most trees and bushes are maintained at low settings, why not crops and grasses?
Undergrowth Quality Ultra (medium and high is similar)
Undergrowth Quality Low (foliage-hack)
I play on low because the game runs extemely badly on medium… and I could run game on ultra for BF1 (?) Pc player.
Visuals over gameplay.
Well, the crops don’t actually look very good, even on ultra. Nor do those river grasses. I guess I’ll set undergrowth to Low like some other obviously do.
The reason I did this check is I’d been shot when definitely hiding in foliage a few times.
The several slightly different camouflages in the customisation now seem even more worthless.
I’ve also been shot behind rocks (when both myself and the enemy are pretty stationery, so, no, not a lag thing). Makes me wonder what happens when you turn terrain quality to low…
Next test…
Well I suspected that, but I really think that it insane to let settings be so low that they start removing stuff. If it do it really should start to not draw enemy players a bit out to.
Yeah, stuff like this happens in every shooter. PUBG and Arma had the same issues, but it surely is very noticeable on Arras, not so much on other maps. The fields are just a visual gimmick. I am pretty sure that the vegetation quality also makes the actual flowers smaller so you can see enemies lying between them better. I have no clue what the option does for other plants and trees, but there was a thread here of someone who just edited the game via NVIDIA control center options and created a BF1942 lookalike.
I bet there is also an option that reduces environmental effects like fires, smoke from barrels or on the map, the snow blowing up on Narvik and Fjell etc.. which will all enhance your raw gameplay experience.
One more reason to play on consoles. 
It’s annoying I know. Even on consoles if you aren’t ADSing and are far away, you can still see people in that wheat field. Bushes and green grass seem to “work” fine though.
I don’t mean to come off all PC-Master-Race-Like, but I just hate shooters with controller. Without aim assist it feels awful and with aim assist it seems pointless.
I’m sure you get used to it. I don’t mean to cause offence, it’s just not for me.
But this whole graphics thing… I thought it was just about FPS. If low settings does things like removing foliage and smoke, then it should reduce the soldier viewing distance. It’s just ridiculous to make such a big deal over little tweaks in gunplay to supposedly give balance when the basic settings allow players to choose to ignore camouflage and cover and hand them a massive advantage!
“soldier viewing distance”, of course it should, but nooo, you should remove all eye candy to clearly see enemies with no side effects. I remember in BFBC 2 where it removed geometry but not the players…lol
Hmm didn’t know about that. There was a similar problem in bf2 as well, you were able to disable shadows completely and it was revealing the hiding spots. Imo low settings should replace them with low quality foliage.
Exactly. Low settings should mean worse graphics, not a graphical advantage. Just one more thing in BF5 handing advantage to the tryhards.
To be fair there have been a LOT of games doing it as long as I been playing games. You really should be stopping to draw players the moment you withdraw kind of important stuff, they need to handle it way better anyway, but its been like this for the last 20 years that I played games.
I really like the looks of Battlefield on ultra settings. Changed it to „auto: min. latency“ (everything on low with minimized input lag) once and never went back. It‘s basically like adding a small cheat code, everything is cleaner and better visible. Vanishing textures is just a joke in 2018. Good thing: The game still looks goodish on low preset.
