Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Anti Aliasing....

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
325 replies to this topic
crackdawg
  • crackdawg

    supreme ruler

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

#271

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:10 PM

I think trying to explain why FSAA isn't on the RAGE engine is like trying to explain why the hook sdk wasn't made for cheating on multi-player. R* and Aru both have the slander coming at them every day.

The Horror Is Alive
  • The Horror Is Alive

    Monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008

#272

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:28 PM

QUOTE (Standart @ Jun 30 2009, 12:13)
wtf, you locked gta iv love thread and why not this?

Cos that thread was sh*t.

supermortalhuman
  • supermortalhuman

    522A4EA9

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009

#273

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:03 PM Edited by supermortalhuman, 30 June 2009 - 03:17 PM.

QUOTE (OutOfTimer @ Jun 30 2009, 11:36)
QUOTE (supermortalhuman @ Jun 30 2009, 09:31)
Next you'll tell me they "only made Liberty because they didn't like the first one" and that they are not doing VC and SA next, right?

The things they said, including that last little bit, are forward thinking and marketing minded statements. This company is one of the most innovative and revolutionary interactive entertainment companies of all time. The need for a future PC is correct without AA because you will complain about pixels until you can't see them anymore - on monitors that are worth a damn today, and on the monitors they will package with consumer PCs in the near future.

The game leaves the past behind - old lighting is dead, anti aliasing is dead, only legacy games have any use for it, and AA'ing a deferred renderer on the cusp of resolution standards increase would be absurd. I realize that not everyone spends all of their time analyzing the games industry, but I do, and I don't and won't miss AA one bit - I prefer real visual definition in large resolutions, not faking it just so that only the closest objects look any better and the horizon looks like mush and having it hit performance in other areas. I prefer more pixels in the horizon, and a truly defined picture - not a trick or smoke screen for crap. If this game did have aa, you'd notice why it was left out, too.

You guys will argue to make AA+per pixel lighting make sense forever, or harp on Rockstar for ages, they still made the most advanced game, in a global perspective, that you can currently buy, and they made it in a way that can only improve over time by not leaning on the crutches and short cuts of the past.

Most of the slack R* catches for GTA IV is ass-backwards quite literally, and it is pretty sad to say the least. I can't speak for the whole world, but PC gamers used to be smarter. They used to know the technology. Now they are, apparently or seemingly, just the bunch who couldn't afford the replacement for their PS2 or something. Like no one remembers how badly San Andreas ran on the Crap you had when it came out on PC. Months later, what happened? New cards. New CPUs.

The industry makes games like this to sell future hardware, the majority of those who speak, which are the vocal minority, tend to overlook the actual cycle of things. I do not bitch and complain when I see crappy excuses for low resolutions fade into the past - I get excited and am very happy that new hardware Standards are coming...

If you are not pleased with GTA, you should be happy, because that means it's time to upgrade to something that does run it nicely. No one is interested in supporting the old crap, nor the old methods. We want more juice in every box out there, so that games can be better, not continue to use old tricks to make up for people who are unwilling to move on from their 15" dell LCD supporting a maximum of 1024x768. I'm sorry, but it's absolutely true, regardless of how colorfully I dressed up the point. It was a blast reading some of the stuff on this topic - some people actually assume that AA is a snap of the fingers. Others don't even understand how it works, and why it is a waste to do it to a deferred rendering system, especially when a lot of us have been waiting for AA to die and better resolutions to be born in their place.

I am sure the only reason this topic remains open is because it's an easy way to keep all the people who only know the joypad side of things contained, and that's not an insult. Still, you should be happy AA is finally dying. Clinging to AA is like saying you prefer dirty water in a water crises when the clean stuff is just a mile up the road, on the way in a relief package. You don't realize the clean is there, so you'll fight to get that dirty water, but if you knew that clean water is around the corner, maybe you wouldn't kill each other for it. Maybe you'd just relax and watch everyone fight over dirty water.

At first I really wanted to make a constructive comment regarding your post but I realised there's no sense in wasting my precious time and talking to you. Go play your XBox 360 and LOL to you.

You're a funny one considering I received a verbal commendation for that post as it was on-point and correct. I don't play consoles, I'd say you're out of time on that one. I think what you meant to say was "Wow, this guy seems to know what he's talking about and I can not counter a single thing he said, so I better just insult him". I'm sure everyone else sees through it as well. Thanks for your input. suicidal.gif

@GTA is not breathtaking and the rest of the stuff that other guy said

"which is why its never used (aside from GTA)"

Never used? I think you better check your sources. Little Big Planet, Fallout 3, Stalker. All deferred shading, and not the only ones either. The difference between GTA and all other deferred shading games is that nothing else is nearly the size and scope of GTA that uses it. GTA has beautiful, high amount of dynamic lights for a reason - it's called Deferred Shading. I'm sorry, I'm not getting on your case, but you're wrong. The game doesn't have AA for a reason, and it doesn't need it because it was made for proper resolutions. You say it has enormous jaggies on the maximum resolution, but, I'm inclined to say you've never even seen a game at that resolution after that statement. I spoke it the way it is, why it is, and why I find it completely ill-informed of people to be crying about this when the only people who ever liked AA were the people who started gaming after it became a term used to sell graphics cards. I predate Anti Aliasing, sh*t, I predate 3D games... and quite simply, a lot of you do not. That's not a bad thing, but just realize that some things are the way they are for good reason. Good day smile.gif

MonkeyMhz
  • MonkeyMhz

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2008

#274

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:19 PM

QUOTE (supermortalhuman @ Everything)
  Snip*

Supermortalhuman, don't even bother. They are too stupid and too ignorant to listen. We have tried explaining to them but they are to brainwashed into their own ways.

GTAIV was done the way it was because it was the most viable for them. AA would have been a waste of time for them and so would doing half the other stuff you people mention. It would be great if games could have all the features and things we want, but theres something called, time, money, and a dead line. DX10 is just not worth it for them nor is AA. At this current time, maybe in the future, maybe not.

When games are made for the console and ported, you should expect nothing more than the console version, and in this case we got much more. We got better graphics, no AA unfortunitly (but no consoles had aa). And tbh Im happy with that, the performance is more poor on lower end PCs. But even with the near minimum requirements your still able to run it at the settings that the consoles play it on.

Lets wait for Max Payne 3, that will be using the same engine. We will see if they improved it at all.

OutOfTimer
  • OutOfTimer

    PC Enthusiast

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2009
  • None

#275

Posted 30 June 2009 - 03:27 PM Edited by OutOfTimer, 30 June 2009 - 03:44 PM.

QUOTE (supermortalhuman @ Jun 30 2009, 15:03)
QUOTE (OutOfTimer @ Jun 30 2009, 11:36)
At first I really wanted to make a constructive comment regarding your post but I realised there's no sense in wasting my precious time and talking to you. Go play your XBox 360 and LOL to you.

You're a funny one considering I received a verbal commendation for that post as it was on-point and correct. I don't play consoles, I'd say you're out of time on that one. I think what you meant to say was "Wow, this guy seems to know what he's talking about and I can not counter a single thing he said, so I better just insult him". I'm sure everyone else sees through it as well. Thanks for your input. suicidal.gif

Good to know you received a verbal commendation for your post. If it's true, then I'm indeed a funny little person. And also this forum has a grim future ahead... A few years and several verbal commendations from now, you might even become a moderator and ban funny little people like me. wink.gif

Care to tell us who gave the commendation to you?

In the meantime, I recommend you try XBox 360 because you may like it. It is quite around your intellectual level.

For those who don't understand what meaning my previous post had, let me explain:

It was a statement of dissaproval that did not include the reasons for dissaproval. I did not mention the reasons because discussion with supermortalhuman is not worth more than 1 minute of my time.

supermortalhuman
  • supermortalhuman

    522A4EA9

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009

#276

Posted 30 June 2009 - 04:09 PM

All of the time you spent saying that could have went into a meaningful addition to this conversation. The person who commended me is not relevant to this conversation. The commendation was not just for the post content but also for the way I respected everyone who I was speaking to, irregardless of what I think of them on any of the given points in this topic and arguments presented with them.

You can run your mouth all you want, I suppose, until you get quieted considering that attitude, but might I suggest you spend a little bit of time in private with me on chat so that you will understand exactly what kind of a 'waste of time' you are attempting to speak down to, or attempting to drag into an argument?

I offer this because I am quite sure your problem with me arises from something unrelated to this particular topic, and related to another topic in another area of this forum, and so I again offer you a private chat with me - it really is a once in a lifetime experience for you, and I greatly enjoy watching people melt down after they realize that their ego did not stand up to a certain human in touch with his mortality. Please, I implore you, come have a chat with me. I want to tell you some things about yourself.

In the mean time, slightly back on topic: Why didn't anyone complain about MipMaps/Antistopic Filtering back in the day like they talk about DS/AA today? Unless, we were still a clear headed bunch online in those days or something? I can't find any old stuff about it. lol. tounge.gif

MorlockGod
  • MorlockGod

    Creator

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2007

#277

Posted 30 June 2009 - 05:58 PM

Aaaaaaaaand, end scene.

Thank you everybody, that was a fabulous rehearsal. Now if you'd all like to collect a knife or axe from the props table we can film the final bloodbath scene.

Murderous looks in your eyes... Action!

MonkeyMhz
  • MonkeyMhz

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2008

#278

Posted 30 June 2009 - 06:44 PM

QUOTE (MorlockGod @ Jun 30 2009, 17:58)
Aaaaaaaaand, end scene.

Thank you everybody, that was a fabulous rehearsal. Now if you'd all like to collect a knife or axe from the props table we can film the final bloodbath scene.

Murderous looks in your eyes... Action!

Make sure the camera guys use deferred lighting/rendering.

JohnZS
  • JohnZS

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2009

#279

Posted 30 June 2009 - 07:47 PM

QUOTE (MonkeyMhz @ Jun 30 2009, 18:44)
Make sure the camera guys use deferred lighting/rendering.

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

Joking aside MonkeyMhz you used the downscaling for your pseudo FSAA shot didn't you?
What resolution did you scale down to 1920*1200 from?

MonkeyMhz
  • MonkeyMhz

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2008

#280

Posted 30 June 2009 - 08:44 PM

QUOTE (JohnZS @ Jun 30 2009, 19:47)
QUOTE (MonkeyMhz @ Jun 30 2009, 18:44)
Make sure the camera guys use deferred lighting/rendering.

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

Joking aside MonkeyMhz you used the downscaling for your pseudo FSAA shot didn't you?
What resolution did you scale down to 1920*1200 from?

No Downscaling, No Blur Filter.

That is GTAIV Just Running Maxxed @ 1920x1080 on a Samsung P2250 21.5", 2ms response, 50,000:1 Contrast Ratio.

MorlockGod
  • MorlockGod

    Creator

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2007

#281

Posted 30 June 2009 - 09:14 PM

QUOTE (MonkeyMhz @ Jun 30 2009, 20:44)
QUOTE (JohnZS @ Jun 30 2009, 19:47)
QUOTE (MonkeyMhz @ Jun 30 2009, 18:44)
Make sure the camera guys use deferred lighting/rendering.

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

Joking aside MonkeyMhz you used the downscaling for your pseudo FSAA shot didn't you?
What resolution did you scale down to 1920*1200 from?

No Downscaling, No Blur Filter.

That is GTAIV Just Running Maxxed @ 1920x1080 on a Samsung P2250 21.5", 2ms response, 50,000:1 Contrast Ratio.

Digitally photographing a monitor screen and posting the pictures in a lower resolution IS downscaling and FSAA. Not that I'm complaining because the pictures look fantastic and show just how beautiful GTAIV can be.

Blackhand
  • Blackhand

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2009

#282

Posted 30 June 2009 - 09:32 PM

Those screenshots do look fantastic. No jaggies that I could see.

If you were genuinely able to implement AA, I could name a few people who would probably give their left nut to get a hold of it.

Of course taking photos of your screen does make one think that you used downsampling to achieve those results, but its not beyond believable at all.

MonkeyMhz
  • MonkeyMhz

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2008

#283

Posted 30 June 2009 - 09:33 PM

QUOTE (MorlockGod @ Jun 30 2009, 21:14)
QUOTE (MonkeyMhz @ Jun 30 2009, 20:44)
QUOTE (JohnZS @ Jun 30 2009, 19:47)
QUOTE (MonkeyMhz @ Jun 30 2009, 18:44)
Make sure the camera guys use deferred lighting/rendering.

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

Joking aside MonkeyMhz you used the downscaling for your pseudo FSAA shot didn't you?
What resolution did you scale down to 1920*1200 from?

No Downscaling, No Blur Filter.

That is GTAIV Just Running Maxxed @ 1920x1080 on a Samsung P2250 21.5", 2ms response, 50,000:1 Contrast Ratio.

Digitally photographing a monitor screen and posting the pictures in a lower resolution IS downscaling and FSAA. Not that I'm complaining because the pictures look fantastic and show just how beautiful GTAIV can be.

Ah yes, you have a point there, but really in RL. Its not much worse, the jaggies you can see but they are small and not really anything to be bothered about.

biggrin.gif

derdante
  • derdante

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2008

#284

Posted 01 July 2009 - 09:26 AM

QUOTE (MonkeyMhz @ Jun 30 2009, 20:44)
QUOTE (JohnZS @ Jun 30 2009, 19:47)
QUOTE (MonkeyMhz @ Jun 30 2009, 18:44)
Make sure the camera guys use deferred lighting/rendering.

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

Joking aside MonkeyMhz you used the downscaling for your pseudo FSAA shot didn't you?
What resolution did you scale down to 1920*1200 from?

No Downscaling, No Blur Filter.

That is GTAIV Just Running Maxxed @ 1920x1080 on a Samsung P2250 21.5", 2ms response, 50,000:1 Contrast Ratio.

Lol, 1080p on a 21.5" screen. Of course it'll have sort of a downscaling effect. Normally, you'd have a 24" screen for 1080p/1200p.

crackdawg
  • crackdawg

    supreme ruler

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

#285

Posted 01 July 2009 - 12:22 PM

Oh yes, the stat whoring that is infamous for keeping dead horses beaten on gtaforums.com.

No FSAA on GTA IV: THE END!

ooVamPirEoo
  • ooVamPirEoo

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2009

#286

Posted 01 July 2009 - 08:08 PM

QUOTE (Exhonour @ Jun 11 2009, 15:06)
Why do you cry so much?

Im playing with 20 FPS with low settings, texture flickering/tearing, low res and I still enjoy the game.

-.-


Same here

Kudos!! cool.gif

MorlockGod
  • MorlockGod

    Creator

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2007

#287

Posted 02 July 2009 - 08:53 AM

QUOTE (ooVamPirEoo @ Jul 1 2009, 20:08)
QUOTE (Exhonour @ Jun 11 2009, 15:06)
Why do you cry so much?

Im playing with 20 FPS with low settings, texture flickering/tearing, low res and I still enjoy the game.

-.-


Same here

Kudos!! cool.gif

Not Kudos really, because this thread isn't about "the game", it is about an extremely specific aspect of its graphics. Having crunchy pixels in GTAIV doesn't affect its fantastic gameplay anymore than tattooing a picture of giant cock onto someone's face would affect how well they can do their job (well maybe if they were a priest), but it's still something people want to talk about.

Don't confuse one thing with another; we aren't discussing important issues like world hunger or the download speed of pornography, we are merely mulling over AA or no AA in GTAIV. Admittedly the thread is mostly mush now, but it was good while it lasted.

DKT70
  • DKT70

    RealityIV Author

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2009

#288

Posted 02 July 2009 - 11:21 AM

QUOTE
but it was good while it lasted.


There were good bits ?
Are you sure ?
I'm amazed this stupid thread has been allowed to continue this long.

supermortalhuman
  • supermortalhuman

    522A4EA9

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009

#289

Posted 02 July 2009 - 02:20 PM

It's all about containment, my dear watson.

MonkeyMhz
  • MonkeyMhz

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2008

#290

Posted 02 July 2009 - 10:22 PM

Call Of Juarez: Bound In Blood is also using the deferred rendering technique, no AA in that game either, no DX10 in it either. And no ones crapping all over that title. Mind you its a fantastic game. But so is GTAIV.

But this shows that the GTAIV players seem to be a hell of alot more whinier than any other game group.

derdante
  • derdante

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2008

#291

Posted 03 July 2009 - 10:29 AM

QUOTE (MonkeyMhz @ Jul 2 2009, 22:22)
Call Of Juarez: Bound In Blood is also using the deferred rendering technique, no AA in that game either, no DX10 in it either. And no ones crapping all over that title. Mind you its a fantastic game. But so is GTAIV.

But this shows that the GTAIV players seem to be a hell of alot more whinier than any other game group.

It uses edge detection for AA.

http://filesmelt.com...e5c123f13ca.png

This is a brilliant way of getting AA in a game that uses deferred rendering, since there is almost no performance drop at all.

Kurgen
  • Kurgen

    Old Git

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2002

#292

Posted 03 July 2009 - 10:36 AM

Looks excellent too. I may pop down to me local software outlet later today...

icon14.gif

Standart
  • Standart

    GTA IV Received :)

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#293

Posted 03 July 2009 - 11:08 AM

come on lock this thread, there isn't AA [big dot] sly.gif

DKT70
  • DKT70

    RealityIV Author

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2009

#294

Posted 03 July 2009 - 11:37 AM

Other games using deferred rendering that also now have AA, include

Unreal Tournament 3 - Didn't have AA at release, was promised in a DX10 patch, but now can be done by forcing AA in videocard's CP.

Bioshock - Same engine as above, can be done in-game, or via your CP.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - no AA at release, but now can be forced in your CP.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. CS - Updated v1.5 of the X-Ray engine, can use MSAA using patch 1.5.03.

Lastly, Fallout 3 does NOT use a deferred renderer, it uses a slightly updated Oblivion Gamebryo engine, and AA not only works perfectly fine, it's a must as it looks soo much better, regardless of resolution.


supermortalhuman
  • supermortalhuman

    522A4EA9

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009

#295

Posted 03 July 2009 - 05:01 PM Edited by supermortalhuman, 03 July 2009 - 05:44 PM.

QUOTE (derdante @ Jul 3 2009, 06:29)
QUOTE (MonkeyMhz @ Jul 2 2009, 22:22)
Call Of Juarez: Bound In Blood is also using the deferred rendering technique, no AA in that game either, no DX10 in it either. And no ones crapping all over that title. Mind you its a fantastic game. But so is GTAIV.

But this shows that the GTAIV players seem to be a hell of alot more whinier than any other game group.

It uses edge detection for AA.

http://filesmelt.com...e5c123f13ca.png

This is a brilliant way of getting AA in a game that uses deferred rendering, since there is almost no performance drop at all.

Yea, but it doesn't do nearly what GTA IV does in any given frame. It's not a valid comparison because the resources put to that edge detection is not possible with how much GTA IV does, which is more than any game anyone can name (honestly, I'm not sure, but I will tell you this, if you can name any one single game that does as much as GTA IV per frame, I want to play it. Deferred shading or not. tounge.gif ).

It's not brilliant so much as it's a post process workaround. It would be pretty difficult to do that with GTA IV and not be even more of a game for future PC's. I personally can't explain why in a way that would be informative, but I'm sure someone will if they happen in here.

All of those examples of games with DS and AA are jokes compared to GTA IV on a frame-by-frame basis, basically. Great games, but you can not compare old school game develiopment given pretty graphics to something like GTA IV. An FPS is already "way dumber" than a third person game which takes a much more robust set of calculations to display correctly from the camera alone, let alone how much doesn't go on in any of those games - at all - that is going on in every frame of GTA IV.

None of those mentioned games uses real time deformation, none of them uses natural motion, NONE of them do even 1/4 of the things GTA IV is doing at all times. And no one has ever made a better piece of interactivity. lol. Seriously. I am happy to not be able to temporarily anti alias my game since it does so much more than any other game that I can.

They don't make AA for AI, damage, and real time procedural physics. You can make those other games look pretty, but you can't make them play like GTA IV, they can't do all of that at one time. wink.gif

Those engines are way different than the kind of streaming you find in GTA IV, as well. But all I really need to say is that None of them draw as far, none of them do as much in each frames, none of them can compare to GTA IV, and it's understandable why they can't do post edge detection since it probably would not look that great at a distance anyway.

You guys would turn down your resolutions so you could anti alias it, see how much it slows it down, then complain that the distance looks like ass. And ignore that it's your own fault for anti aliasing a tiny 1280x1024 image (yes, that's tiny today and cramped, let alone in the near future) and making GTA have to draw alllllll of that geometry and textures far away in a tiny amount of pixels. Unique geometry. Unique textures. Not repeated cabins. Or canned animation.

I do admit, GTA IV feels sometimes like it was software-upscaled. Pixels feel at some time 4x the size they should be. Feels like a small screen stretched larger. But it is a limitation of the day, something that you won't care about when you have a 20" to 24" monitor with native 2650 resolution, and something that shows how advanced the game
actually is, and ahead of the times that every other game is in. Be glad your favorite game is too new and cutting edge and future-proofed to do old tricks, that's all I'm saying.

Because all those named games? They will look like ass as your GTA IV stops looking like ass, if you understand. If you don't understand, go load up GTA III at 1680x1050. Notice anything that makes you understand the reason why it used 8bit textures that were 64x64 and 128x128 since it was made for resolutions of 1024 and below? This game was made for higher resolutions, so low resolutions are going to look like ass. No AA can help that. At all. Because it draws too far, too complicated, and too unique. SA looked good with AA because buildings had like 6 faces.

You're not experiencing the same kind of aliasing that AA makes up for. You are experiencing aliasing from your monitors not being the kind of monitors this game was made to support. I am glad GTA IV will still look better in 10 years, since I am so disappointed GTA III does not scale well. They probably feel the same way about high resolution settings in GTA III, and didn't want that to happen again. Because it isn't like that in SA. And I doubt it will be all ugly like that in IV either.

Rockstar has called this a limitation and not said much more about it. Limitations become overcome, patches seem to be continuing. Perhaps when a large enough percentage of their users will actually benefit from it, you will get it. For now, it would literally cause more trouble than it solves anyway, because only like 5% of people would even be able to do it at any resolution that doesn't make GTA IV look crummy with or without AA.

Arski
  • Arski

    monkey driver

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2009

#296

Posted 03 July 2009 - 05:39 PM

Someone were crying at topic 1 or 2 that: PC VER. doesnt have:

AA
NO DX10
NO GOOD PATCHES

@ HIM.

Wtf? you talking about, have you tried GTA IV Xbox360 Version, ITS sh*t compared to PC! Xbox is too blurry and it got really dark colors, check youtube ''PC vs Xbox 360 GTA IV'' PC pwns 100-0. i would never buy xbox 360, maybe next Xbox is better...

DKT70
  • DKT70

    RealityIV Author

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2009

#297

Posted 03 July 2009 - 05:52 PM

I'm sorry, but nobody here will ever know what kind of hit GTA4 would take, until we ever get a chance to try it out for ourselves.
And ONLY Rockstar are the ones who know this. Nobody, on this forum can speak for Rockstar, so don't post ridiculous claims that make out like you have some sort of insider info with Rockstar, you do NOT, and never will have.

And stop going on about people bitching and whining, the ONLY bitching and whining (lately) are from the ones against any sort of AA. The rest of us are actually having a conversation, on a forum, of all things. sarcasm.gif

Secondly, as most of us know by now, GTA4 is primarily a CPU bound game, NOT GPU. And today's GTX 280s + 4890s, are not working as hard as they would in Crysis, or Far Cry 2, so any sort of added/forced AA on today's PCs isn't really going to take such a major hit. Yeah, on a PC like my own, maybe

Personally, I'm not too bothered, as I've completed the game twice taking both paths. But, it would be nice, if sometime in the near future, to have the option to try it out, either forced via the CP, or in-game via a DX10-only patch. But, sadly, only Rockstar will ever know if this, and looking at these forums lately I doubt Rockstar still have any motivation left in PC gaming.

QUOTE
You guys would turn down your resolutions so you could anti alias it, see how much it slows it down, then bitch and complain that the distance looks like ass. And still ignore that it's your own fault for anti aliasing a tiny 1280x1024 image (yes, that's tiny today and cramped) and making GTA have to draw alllllll of that geometry and textures far away in a tiny amount of pixels.


Why would anybody even do this ?
I don't know a single person who would do this, we all run in our LCD's native resolution, anything else and you would have horrible interpolation.
Lastly, and lets ignore GTA4 for a second, if you honestly believe that 1900x1200 with No AA looks better than say 1440x900 or 1680x1050
with 8xQ or 16xQ AA, then you seriously need some new glasses tounge2.gif
Don't just look for jagged edges, you will get texture crawling and shimmering, even at something like 1920x1440, without AA.

Here's something I read recently on Beyond3D, and agreed with it entirely.

QUOTE
Higher resolutions on their own do absolutely nothing to reduce jaggies.

2560x1600 on a 30" display will have pretty much the exact same sized jaggies as 1600x1200 on a 20" display.

Shifty was refering to higher DPI. For example if we could get a 2560x1600 resolution on a 20" display that would reduce the size of jaggies, but wouldn't help much with crawling/shimmering jaggies. At least until each pixel was far smaller than the eye could resolve.

So yes, if someday we could have a 24" display with something greater than 5120x3200 resolution then I may be happy with no AA.

I don't see that happening within the next decade however.


That pretty much sums it up for me. If I owned some of the hardware that some users on here own, I would never turn off AA, leaving it at 16xQ permanently, only using profiles to turn off AA on individual games where it's not working.

supermortalhuman
  • supermortalhuman

    522A4EA9

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009

#298

Posted 03 July 2009 - 06:07 PM Edited by supermortalhuman, 03 July 2009 - 06:23 PM.

You completely misunderstand what you are talking about and your explanations undermine a whole slew of things that are not at all related to "cpu or gpu bound". It's ok. Everyone has opinions.

This is a topic about complaints for no AA, so defending AA whiners is weak imo, and I'm not saying everyone who wants it is whining either. I am only even in here to shed a little bit of light, while I hear horrible comparisons to the like of Crysis which does a whole HELL of a lot less on the CPU before then passing that information to the GPU. I realize you have assumptions, everyone does, but you fail to realize just how much of that CPU that GTA IV uses is graphical, like any other game. Again, none of those games come even close to doing what GTA IV does on screen at one time, and none of those games have as much detail that you see as far.

A lot of the aliasing is just because your resolution can not draw the model, it is not aliasing so much as the resolution of your screen is too small for the high detail models. A close model is 100sx100s of pixels. That same model just ten feet away drops to 50x50 pixels. GTA draws models a vast distance YOU CANT ANTI ALIAS MUSH! smile.gif

If you AA GTA IV you will just get mush. Trust me, you can't do it effectively unless you are running a very high resolution, because the pixels do not even otherwise offer any detail to models 40 or 50 units away that are not even MADE of enough pixels to even display properly. By then, you don't even need it at all.

You will end up with just as much definition loss, and just as much crud in the view. This is not an aliasing issue so much as it is the grand-daddy of aliasing issues because you can't fix it with SMOKE SCREENS you can ONLY fix it with higher amount of pixels on the source image, then anti alias that. Again, there will be no need. Just like there was no need when games were on old resolutions with old detail levels. The detail needs higher resolution, not to be hidden and destroyed by blurring some lines.

I see people make "High Res Mod!" all the time and put 2048x textures into games that look like sh*t because it's too many pixels for the resolution the game supports. Real time flash engines show this perfectly because they try to show 256x256 textures in your browser rendering on an upscaled 340x resolution, for example.

The models have TOO MUCH DETAIL for screen resolutions of today and NOTHING you do will fix it, not even AA, until you have a larger resolution on your monitor. I'm sorry that this upsets you or makes you search for more excuses for old monitors instead of just being happy we are finally seeing another step forward in technology... but it's true. You CANT antialias something that doesn't even have enough room to display itself, you just end up smoothing mush that flashes even more (traffic light poles are a perfect example).

A lot of the reasons GTA is CPU bound is GRAPHICAL. It's not all just the damage and the animation and physics. It is HIGHLY graphical on the CPU as well - because it is built to last - and because every other game is as well, even if not doing the amount GTA does - and that is the coming future of games. That is why the PS3 has a cell processor and doesn't mind having an old 7950gt (which is also the reason sony are some sneaky peeps for pretending they'd ever have an edge when no one will even use it until Xbox and PC is using it too). It is the same reason Nintendo did NOT care about their graphics power, and it is the same reason you already hear rumours of a new xbox or an updated xbox. It is the exact meaning of "Built for future PCs" "Built to last" and "Highly CPU bound".

" tounge2.gif "

And just so you know, Rockstar was careful about how much they send to the GPU and prepared more before sending it so that they can send more later. AA is a waste of resources. Get a better monitor. smile.gif

DKT70
  • DKT70

    RealityIV Author

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2009

#299

Posted 03 July 2009 - 06:29 PM

I didn't misunderstand anything, so quit with the patronizing tone, I've been around long enough to know what I'm talking about.

QUOTE
This is a topic about complaints for no AA, so defending AA whiners is weak imo, and I'm not saying everyone who wants it is whining either. I am only even in here to shed a little bit of light, while I hear horrible comparisons to the like of Crysis which does a whole HELL of a lot less on the CPU before then passing that information to the GPU. I realize you have assumptions, everyone does, but you fail to realize just how much of that CPU that GTA IV uses is graphical, like any other game. Again, none of those games come even close to doing what GTA IV does on screen at one time, and none of those games have as much detail that you see as far.


No, it's a conversation about AA, nothing more. Crysis, was simply a distraction, a poor comparison that added nothing to the topic.

QUOTE
A lot of the aliasing is just because your resolution can not draw the model, it is not aliasing so much as the resolution of your screen is too small for the high detail models.

If you AA GTA IV you will just get mush. Trust me. I don't care what dream you have, you can't do it effectively unless you are running a very high resolution, because the pixels do not even otherwise offer any detail to models 40 or 50 units away that are not even MADE of enough pixels to even display properly.

You will end up with just as much definition loss, and just as much crud in the view. You do not understand what you are talking about. This is not an aliasing issue so much as it is the grand-daddy of aliasing issue.

I see people make "High Res Mod!" all the time and put 2048x textures into games that look like sh*t because it's too many pixels for the resolution the game supports. Real time flash engines show this perfectly because they try to show 256x256 textures in your browser rendering on an upscaled 340x resolution, for example.

The models have TOO MUCH DETAIL for screen resolutions of today and NOTHING you do will fix it, not even AA, until you have a larger resolution on your monitor. I'm sorry that this upsets you or makes you search for more excuses for old monitors instead of just being happy we are finally seeing another step forward in technology... but it's true. You CANT antialias something that doesn't even have enough room to display itself, you just end up smoothing mush that flashes even more (traffic light poles are a perfect example)..


I'm sorry, but thats a load of f*cking horsesh*t, right there, and I'm not in the mood to even bother to tell you where you've gone completely wrong.


QUOTE
A lot of the reasons GTA is CPU bound is GRAPHICAL. It's not all just the damage and the animation and physics. It is HIGHLY graphical on the CPU as well - because it is built to last - and that is the coming future of games. That is why the PS3 has a cell processor and doesn't mind having an old 7950gt (which is also the reason sony are some sneaky peeps for pretending they'd ever have an edge when no one will even use it until Xbox and PC is using it too). It is the same reason Nintendo did NOT care about their graphics power, and it is the same reason you already hear rumours of a new xbox or an updated xbox. It is the exact meaning of "Built for future PCs" "Built to last" and "Highly CPU bound".


Again sorry but what ? lol.gif
Sony doesn't MIND having a 90nm 256Mb 7xxx series GPU, thats a generation behind the 360's Xenos ?
lol.gif
And the RSX is based on the 7800 G70.

supermortalhuman
  • supermortalhuman

    522A4EA9

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009

#300

Posted 03 July 2009 - 06:40 PM Edited by supermortalhuman, 03 July 2009 - 06:56 PM.

QUOTE (DKT70 @ Jul 3 2009, 14:29)
blah blah blah

#1 how old are you? Honestly. Because I doubt you remember the birth of AA in real time applications. Chances are, it remembers yours. I'm not insulting you, but you speak as if you've only seen so much.

#2 your inability to counter argue with an excuse "I don't have time" is proof enough that you do not understand what you are talking about, or what I wrote.

#3 You brought up crisis, and far cry 2, and then you admit it was a useless mark on the topic.

#4 Does your CPU or GPU get the brunt of GTA IV? Exactly. That's why the old video cards in BOTH the consoles do not matter at all. I explained the exact reason and even told you the buzzwords they use to describe it to consumers - go on and be too bored to explain any kind of counter argument. But stop derailing informative posts with "I disagree" - because all you are going to do is appeal to those equally out of touch.

I guess I got commended for my activity in this thread for nothing, then. I guess the moderation staff on this forum appreciated my addition to this thread because I was wrong. Sorry, you're right, we need to anti alias objects that don't even have enough room on screen to fully draw themselves. lol.

edit: I see you came to read my reply and went. You must be a bit insecure about me asking about your age, or you must feel inclined to stick to your word and be too above me to correct me, but I digress, still the point is clear. The issue is not aliasing As Much as it is small resolutions not able to cope with high detail models and a lot of edges on them. That's all there is to it, and it's ok not to know that, not everyone does much more than play the games. I don't expect you to understand pixel ratios, but I expect you to respect solid information. You're not stupid. And you're not misinformed. You are uninformed, and that's ok. It's not a bad thing. Not everyone knows everything about everything, and sometimes things need to be explained. It's why we have forums. However, getting valid explanations, then clinging to an incorrect view of an explained situation is not helpful to anyone. Especially not your woes. The world is round, and this issue is similar to the one the flat-landers faced.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users