Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Anti Aliasing....

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

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2008

#211

Posted 25 June 2009 - 08:36 AM

QUOTE (livilaNic @ Jun 25 2009, 05:59)
I'd take AA over higher graphics settings any day of the week. It's all good though, to each their own.

Well said, good graphics looses it's importance after you dive deep into the game, the only thing that remains critical for the immersion is that the game will look smooth and clean, something GTAIV will never be without AA.

oc student
  • oc student

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2008

#212

Posted 25 June 2009 - 11:13 AM

QUOTE (High @ Jun 25 2009, 08:36)
QUOTE (livilaNic @ Jun 25 2009, 05:59)
I'd take AA over higher graphics settings any day of the week. It's all good though, to each their own.

Well said, good graphics looses it's importance after you dive deep into the game, the only thing that remains critical for the immersion is that the game will look smooth and clean, something GTAIV will never be without AA.

Just had to say this after your stupid comment in my modding thread but your grammar fails. You never make sense anyway so I'm not expecting much from you. Anyway back on topic. GTA IV doesn't need AA. PERIOD. FULL STOP. It might be better but it's not happening in the near future if ever.

The Horror Is Alive
  • The Horror Is Alive

    Monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008

#213

Posted 25 June 2009 - 12:04 PM

This topic is an interesting, albeit long read. It would have been at least five pages shorter if Charlie wasn't so stubborn.

davetheshrew
  • davetheshrew

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2009

#214

Posted 25 June 2009 - 12:30 PM

QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 25 2009, 12:04)
This topic is an interesting, albeit long read. It would have been at least five pages shorter if Charlie wasn't so stubborn.

+1 lol

CharmingCharlie
  • CharmingCharlie

    Proud PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 May 2006

#215

Posted 25 June 2009 - 12:39 PM

QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 25 2009, 13:04)
This topic is an interesting, albeit long read. It would have been at least five pages shorter if Charlie wasn't so stubborn.

Yes I am the one being stubborn sarcasm.gif I am not the one demanding AA in a game that uses deferred rendering thus is NEXT TO impossible to have AA in it. It has been shown conclusively that GTA cannot have AA yet there are still certain people still banging on about it. I don't care about AA I have never used AA TO ME AA is a waste of resources, I would much rather have a higher resolution, better frame rate or enhanced graphics.

Now if I was able to run GTA 4 at max settings, 1680 x 1050 and at 60fps then I might bitch and moan there is no AA. Just like if I could play Crysis at max settings, 1680 x 1050 and at 60fps I would use the AA. However as it stands we are years away from a computer that will do that for either Crysis or GTA 4. By the time we have PC's capable of actually playing GTA 4 max settings at 60fps I will have probably stopped playing the damn game anyway. So it is really a non-bloody issue but certain STUBBORN people on here just won't let the damn thing drop because it's another excuse for them to bitch and whine.

JohnZS
  • JohnZS

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2009

#216

Posted 25 June 2009 - 04:11 PM

We all have an opinion.
I'm a fan of FSAA. But likewise I can see how other people could conclude that FSAA is marketing hype.
It's horses for courses.

I remember back in the day I used to own a 3dfx Voodoo5 Graphics card...purely for the FSAA, it wasn't as fast as the Geforce 2 Ultra, but man, the image quality was far superior, just a shame it didn't have DDR memory and T&L

Anyway back on topic, I think if anything for "future proofness", GTA IV would benefit from an FSAA option, FYI the upcoming nVidia DirectX 11 GPU due out in October/November this Year (code name GT300) has 3 Terraflops of processing power now, that is a lot of power considering the current card GTX 280 has just under 1 terraflop and the GTX 285 has ~1 Terraflop.

Now surely that has enough rampant stallion power to do FSAA in GTA IV!

John

ikt
  • ikt

    Toot!

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2006
  • None

#217

Posted 25 June 2009 - 06:20 PM

Playing IV with the FPS mod and without AA just sucks suicidal.gif

supermortalhuman
  • supermortalhuman

    522A4EA9

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009

#218

Posted 26 June 2009 - 05:27 AM Edited by supermortalhuman, 26 June 2009 - 05:44 AM.

QUOTE (High @ Jun 24 2009, 20:54)
1600x1200 on a 19" screen and draw dis' 0

but then again, why do i bother with trolls.

Ouch. I was just playin. That's why I made the face. Fair enough, though. Sorry for being snippy with it tounge.gif

I play at 1680x1050. I've got a slight bit more horizonatally, but you've got 200 more pixels there vertically. I am quite pleased by it (but am aware of pixels, I admit) Have you seen it run on 2560? Or monitor-sized shots of 2560? Or whatever the max was. I'm tellin ya, it's going to be awesome when thats the standard resolution for games!

@MonkeyMhz: Your post here: http://www.gtaforums...st&p=1059312964 was spot on as well, also an excellent read - very plain-english explanation, there should be no dispute at this point, you nailed it, images and all biggrin.gif

@syphonpayne: tell us, which resolution do you play crysis on, and if it is a substantial resolution, can you agree the aa is not missed? I'm not calling you out or getting involved in this, it's just, you play that 0xAA, and it's all made of pixels.

He knows IV is not Crysis, but IV doesnt have AA to compare with. It's really not a battle of opinions, imo (lol). If you refer to monkeymhz post linked here, you'll see basically the truth: lowres+aa means smooth junky looking sh*t, highres+aa means good looking and fine, high res plus aa, cant go wrong there!

But games that are coming to support high resolutions don't need it - it looks clearer than any amount of AA you can add to a smaller screen full of washed out horizons.

crackdawg
  • crackdawg

    supreme ruler

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

#219

Posted 26 June 2009 - 08:12 AM

A big thread about a game's anti-aliasing when the game uses deferred shading. I have AA cut off in nvidia control panel for the gta iv profile. I get about 32FPS with medium settings with a x2 5400 and 512MB 8800.

Deferred Shading = No external AA

The Horror Is Alive
  • The Horror Is Alive

    Monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008

#220

Posted 26 June 2009 - 09:04 AM

Charlie, it ain't a question of what YOU think is best, it's what the majority thinks would have been best.

Deferred rendering and AA would have been possible somehow, and it just goes to show how much of a lie Rockstar's claim of "future-proofing" is. If it really would have caused massive slowdown, well, there's always the future GPUs and CPUs that coulda handled it, right? And a future-proofed game would have undoubtedly had DX10 and graphics adjustable to something far better than Crysis.

Please, stop sucking up to R* and thinking we'll follow you. It just won't happen.

JohnZS
  • JohnZS

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2009

#221

Posted 26 June 2009 - 12:41 PM

Anyone know how to take a screenshot ingame?
Print Screen comes out "Black" with no screen capture.
Thanks
John

Kurgen
  • Kurgen

    Old Git

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2002

#222

Posted 26 June 2009 - 01:06 PM

Tried FRAPS?

FRAPS homepage

The Horror Is Alive
  • The Horror Is Alive

    Monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008

#223

Posted 26 June 2009 - 01:17 PM

Dunno what that had to do with AA, but yeah... dozingoff.gif

Drunk Russian 9
  • Drunk Russian 9

    Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2007

#224

Posted 26 June 2009 - 01:20 PM

QUOTE (supermortalhuman @ Jun 26 2009, 05:27)
Have you seen it run on 2560? Or monitor-sized shots of 2560? Or whatever the max was. I'm tellin ya, it's going to be awesome when thats the standard resolution for games!

Yea, especially when we can start getting a res like that on a 20-inch monitor. No AA needed smile.gif

CharmingCharlie
  • CharmingCharlie

    Proud PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 May 2006

#225

Posted 26 June 2009 - 01:30 PM

QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 26 2009, 10:04)
Charlie, it ain't a question of what YOU think is best, it's what the majority thinks would have been best.

What you mean the majority like you that play the game on 1024 x 768 and can barely play it on low settings. Yeah I am sure the lack of AA is a pressing issue to them, it will only take them 10 years to get a PC cheap enough that could do AA anyway. I think you might find the majory actually sides with me and they couldn't give a toss about AA. The minority like you are only using the lack of AA as yet another excuse to bitch and moan.

QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 26 2009, 10:04)
Deferred rendering and AA would have been possible somehow, and it just goes to show how much of a lie Rockstar's claim of "future-proofing" is. If it really would have caused massive slowdown, well, there's always the future GPUs and CPUs that coulda handled it, right? And a future-proofed game would have undoubtedly had DX10 and graphics adjustable to something far better than Crysis.


You obviously haven't read the posts on why it isn't possible so I am not going to go through it all again. It is possible but there would be a massive frame rate hit. Now guess what YOU would say if they had done it ......... oh yeah you would have bitched "Rockstar cocksuckers their game is so unoptimised". They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 26 2009, 10:04)
Please, stop sucking up to R* and thinking we'll follow you. It just won't happen.

Oh trust me I don't want "gamers" like you following me, "gamers" like you embarrass the hell out of me I want you as far away from me as possible. The majority think GTA 4 is a great game and runs fine, they are not stressing themselves over AA. Yet people like you find every opportunity to bitch and whine. As I have said you don't like the way GTA 4 is on the PC then buy a f*cking console and see what you have to complain about.

JohnZS
  • JohnZS

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2009

#226

Posted 26 June 2009 - 01:45 PM

QUOTE (Kurgen @ Jun 26 2009, 13:06)
Tried FRAPS?

FRAPS homepage

Thanks
I think I might be onto some sort of clumsy, partial Anti-Ailising for nVidia cards on Vista/7 ONLY
I'll do some more testing...just hope FRAPS doesn't do what it did with my Voodoo5 back in the day (ignore FSAA)
John

Murcchachosa
  • Murcchachosa

    Foot Soldier

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2009

#227

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:12 PM

Funny topic, and Im amazed its still alive.
These people doesnt understand.
This game is poor optimized and if they add AA, you'll get 1 frame per 10 seconds.
Its sad, but what you can do?
They dont care about PC, they care only about "cukzoleszor"
Just forget about it, they dont add AA in the next patch or
the "gold master sh*t"
Learn to life with it.

JohnZS
  • JohnZS

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2009

#228

Posted 26 June 2009 - 02:54 PM

I don't think my idea worked sad.gif
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
Oh well....

crackdawg
  • crackdawg

    supreme ruler

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2007

#229

Posted 26 June 2009 - 03:28 PM

QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 26 2009, 09:04)
Charlie, it ain't a question of what YOU think is best, it's what the majority thinks would have been best.

Deferred rendering and AA would have been possible somehow, and it just goes to show how much of a lie Rockstar's claim of "future-proofing" is. If it really would have caused massive slowdown, well, there's always the future GPUs and CPUs that coulda handled it, right? And a future-proofed game would have undoubtedly had DX10 and graphics adjustable to something far better than Crysis.

Please, stop sucking up to R* and thinking we'll follow you. It just won't happen.

You do know deferred shading engines use very little of the SIMD acceleration from the GPU right? They don't dump to a frame buffer and use the native interface to do operations much either compared to direct rendering. Why this matters is AA is done with SIMD acceleration in algorithms implemented in kernel mode drivers and abstracted by dynamic linked libraries from both Nvidia and ATI.

All AA algorithms multiply and sample pixel by pixel on each frame, it's usually done by a driver using DMAd calls to the GPU and frame buffer.

Also even for large scale studios deferred shading is very difficult to implement in a rendering engine.

faro0485
  • faro0485

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2008

#230

Posted 26 June 2009 - 10:38 PM

QUOTE (MonkeyMhz @ Jun 23 2009, 15:06)
QUOTE (faro0485 @ Jun 23 2009, 11:20)
Does this method provide a solution for AA in dx9?

http://null-ptr.blog...nding-demo.html

Again thats more of a hack/cheat than real AA. It does give a decent result but if you look at the performance for that scene it is somewhat questionable. If you were to have a much more complicated scene like in GTAIV with many many lights, shaders, transparent objects, and realtime shadows. Im sure the FPS would plummet like theres no tommorow.

On a 9600GT they claim 10-200 fps and on a 4850 110-232. But really for a scene like that, im not impressed. Its a neat way of getting a decent result but I really couldent see this making it into a commercial game like GTAIV.

It's better than nothing, and can be optimized.

The Horror Is Alive
  • The Horror Is Alive

    Monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008

#231

Posted 27 June 2009 - 05:37 AM

QUOTE (CharmingCharlie @ Jun 26 2009, 13:30)
QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 26 2009, 10:04)
Charlie, it ain't a question of what YOU think is best, it's what the majority thinks would have been best.

What you mean the majority like you that play the game on 1024 x 768 and can barely play it on low settings. Yeah I am sure the lack of AA is a pressing issue to them, it will only take them 10 years to get a PC cheap enough that could do AA anyway. I think you might find the majory actually sides with me and they couldn't give a toss about AA. The minority like you are only using the lack of AA as yet another excuse to bitch and moan.

QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 26 2009, 10:04)
Deferred rendering and AA would have been possible somehow, and it just goes to show how much of a lie Rockstar's claim of "future-proofing" is. If it really would have caused massive slowdown, well, there's always the future GPUs and CPUs that coulda handled it, right? And a future-proofed game would have undoubtedly had DX10 and graphics adjustable to something far better than Crysis.


You obviously haven't read the posts on why it isn't possible so I am not going to go through it all again. It is possible but there would be a massive frame rate hit. Now guess what YOU would say if they had done it ......... oh yeah you would have bitched "Rockstar cocksuckers their game is so unoptimised". They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 26 2009, 10:04)
Please, stop sucking up to R* and thinking we'll follow you. It just won't happen.

Oh trust me I don't want "gamers" like you following me, "gamers" like you embarrass the hell out of me I want you as far away from me as possible. The majority think GTA 4 is a great game and runs fine, they are not stressing themselves over AA. Yet people like you find every opportunity to bitch and whine. As I have said you don't like the way GTA 4 is on the PC then buy a f*cking console and see what you have to complain about.

Man, you really don't know when to quit, do you? Of course I don't give a f*ck about AA. Never have, never will.

You said it yourself: it would be possible, but there would have been a massive frame-rate hit. That's exactly what I said in my post above, and I really don't think it's too hard for R* to give a big red warning message when you turn on AA, maybe even with a link to a simple technical webpage explaining why the massive FPS-loss is present. At least they tried. But it was stupid for them to use DX9 in the first place. DX9 is last-gen now.

The majority don't side with you about AA. The majority can't run GTAIV well on high settings. Get off your high-horse and open your eyes.

JohnZS
  • JohnZS

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2009

#232

Posted 27 June 2009 - 10:04 AM

What system have you got there Horror?
As far as I am aware, "high" settings require to at least meet the recommended specifications for GTA IV (Quad Core and a decent graphics card). If you want Maximum settings then you would have to exceed this specification. (Very fast Quad Core or Core i7 + 2GB Graphics Card)
John

ikt
  • ikt

    Toot!

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2006
  • None

#233

Posted 27 June 2009 - 10:48 AM

You can get a machine that plays IV on high for half the price you buy a michine that plays IV on max.

AntiFart
  • AntiFart

    (n)ORTHEN (m)ONKEY

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2008

#234

Posted 27 June 2009 - 12:08 PM

QUOTE (ikt @ Jun 27 2009, 10:48)
You can get a machine that plays IV on high for half the price you buy a michine that plays IV on max.

eh?

ikt
  • ikt

    Toot!

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2006
  • None

#235

Posted 27 June 2009 - 12:23 PM

700 euro's. I can play IV on medium/high with this

CharmingCharlie
  • CharmingCharlie

    Proud PC Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 May 2006

#236

Posted 27 June 2009 - 01:19 PM

One could say you don't give up to The Horror Is Alive, here you are irrationally screaming about a feature you cannot use and probably never will be able to either, but here you are still screaming and stamping your feet. Rockstar didn't implement AA because A) no one would have a computer powerful enough to use it and b) adding AA to the game would probably have taken months of extra work. Now to any RATIONAL sane person it would seem quite retarded to spend months of additional work on a feature that no f*cker would be able to use for at least 5 - 6 bloody years. But then we aren't dealing with rational people here are we sarcasm.gif

As for your little jibe that Dx9 is just like sooooooooooooo last gen you better tell the 72% that still use Dx9 then. That's right only 28% of PC gamers even have access to Dx10. The MAJORITY (since you like them so much) are still using Dx9 and it will remain the case for a good few years yet. In reality it is still the case that MOST games are Dx9 only because the majority of PC gamers are still using Dx9 only machines. This may come as a shock to you but that is how business works, you try to target as many users as you can with your product, you don't waste months of work on features that only 28% of your audience can use.

I am running windows 7 here do I give a f*ck there is no Dx10 features ............... no I don't because in my experience the Dx10 modes have always been slower than the Dx9 modes with precious little difference graphically. But then this is all rational thinking isn't it something you seem to be unable to do.

Spider-Vice
  • Spider-Vice

    ...I will very carefully explain to you why it cannot be.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006
  • Portugal
  • Contribution Award [GTA V]

#237

Posted 27 June 2009 - 01:31 PM

^ Ditto.
Even when DX11 is released, along with Windows 7 and new graphics cards, you'll see little difference and a lot more of lag.

JohnZS
  • JohnZS

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2009

#238

Posted 27 June 2009 - 01:49 PM Edited by JohnZS, 27 June 2009 - 02:06 PM.

QUOTE (Spider-Vice @ Jun 27 2009, 13:31)
^ Ditto.
Even when DX11 is released, along with Windows 7 and new graphics cards, you'll see little difference and a lot more of lag.

A DirectX11 GPU over twice the power of current generation GPU's such as the GTX 285 GPU would not have more lag in GTA IV (unless it has less VRAM than the current crop of GPU's or is partnered with a Dual core processor)
FSAA will come to GTA IV, just not from R*, I am already aware of someone working on something which MIGHT bring this capability, a Russian programmer called Boris Vorontsov who has already done successful graphical/shader related "ports" of DirectX8 engined games to DirectX9 (using his own mini Direct3d9.dll you place into the game's folder) is now working on GTA IV.
He does not have the most powerul system and GPU in the world, but just look at what he has done to the vehicle reflections.
user posted image
(Texture is in low BTW)
Give him time... and we shall see if FSAA is possible.

EDIT
If you want a giggle and to lighten the mood of the thread, look at my failed attempt of FSAA here
user posted image
Poor Trees and cars... yet STILL the jagglies remain :-(
John

hetment
  • hetment

    GTA 4 and gta san andreas. the best gta games ever!

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 May 2009

#239

Posted 27 June 2009 - 02:53 PM

Its the dream of all to get aA i know but atleast live with what you have or throw the game waway! Yes you can upgrade your pc for more performance but AA which is nearly not possible if you still cry like baby for it, It won't magiccally comes so its better to bash your head but still you AA will not come! So please don't argue for it!

Even i play in low seettings with nearly 20 fps but i love it! because right now getting more is difficult for me so i gotta live with what i have so learn to live this way!

derdante
  • derdante

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2008

#240

Posted 27 June 2009 - 03:07 PM

I think Rockstar should implement a way to render the game at a higher res and then scale it down to your native resolution.
ArmA 2 has this option. You're able to set a 2D resolution for the menu and a 3D resolution for the in-game graphics. For example you set the 2D resolution to 1920x1200 and the 3D resolution to 2880x1800. This would give you a 50% higher resolution, making the game look tons better and it should be easy enough to implement too.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users