Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Anti Aliasing....

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
325 replies to this topic
kimr120
  • kimr120

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 May 2008

#241

Posted 27 June 2009 - 03:23 PM

QUOTE (JohnZS @ Jun 27 2009, 13:49)
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

WTF happened to the car in the picture

JohnZS
  • JohnZS

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2009

#242

Posted 27 June 2009 - 03:35 PM Edited by JohnZS, 27 June 2009 - 04:05 PM.

QUOTE (kimr120 @ Jun 27 2009, 15:23)
WTF happened to the car in the picture

Attempting to force Multisampling FSAA screwed up render targets, check out the trees too.
Poor Taxi eh?
user posted image

Hah, driving has never looked so erm... odd
user posted image

Jigglyass
  • Jigglyass

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008
  • None

#243

Posted 27 June 2009 - 05:09 PM

One day some amature programmer will implement DX10 counterparts into the RAGE. One day.

ikt
  • ikt

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2006
  • None

#244

Posted 27 June 2009 - 07:36 PM

QUOTE (CharmingCharlie @ Jun 27 2009, 13:19)
[..]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.

[..]

Uhm, i have a crap pc that is powerful enough to run IV with AA, if it was inplented. I'd just had to turn some settings from high to medium.
And people would use it. Not from day one, at that point IV was for mid 2009 pc's, but you get the point.

I agree at the DirectX10 vs 9 part. No visual difference, also didn't notice performance difference. (Crysis did run better when i turned SSAO on with Dx10, but why should we use that.. Moar shadows = more realsitic.)


And how do i force msaa? tounge.gif

faro0485
  • faro0485

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2008

#245

Posted 27 June 2009 - 07:45 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.

dx 11 is what gta iv needs desperately (physics that is).

Jigglyass
  • Jigglyass

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008
  • None

#246

Posted 27 June 2009 - 10:21 PM

QUOTE (faro0485 @ Jun 28 2009, 02:45)
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.

dx 11 is what gta iv needs desperately (physics that is).

DX11 has nothing to do with physics.

oc student
  • oc student

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2008

#247

Posted 28 June 2009 - 05:01 AM

QUOTE (JigglyAss @ Jun 27 2009, 22:21)
QUOTE (faro0485 @ Jun 28 2009, 02:45)
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.

dx 11 is what gta iv needs desperately (physics that is).

DX11 has nothing to do with physics.

That p=faro guy needs to play SA and then learn what no physics is...

zBobG
  • zBobG

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2008

#248

Posted 28 June 2009 - 05:50 AM

QUOTE (JigglyAss @ Jun 27 2009, 22:21)
DX11 has nothing to do with physics.

Well, actually it does, ...sort of, particularly with the new to be released nVidia 300 series cards. At least that's what I've read about.

DX11 hardware is much different than DX9/DX10 hardware. DX9/DX10 hardware uses dedicated cores that provide very specific functions (like shader cores, vertex cores, etc.). DX11 hardware provides an array of general purpose cores that are programmed to provide a required function. Programmable cores WILL allow some of the cores to be used for physics processing much like PhysX is implemented on current nVidia cards. This feature will be much more advanced than PhysX however. NVidia's Cuda v2.2 is one of the early steps in that direction.

Having said all that, I don't think that DX11 is the answer to everyone's complaints. More complicated hardware and software does not necessarily mean better performance. And, I expect that DX11 will be adopted only slowly by most game developers. How long has DX10 hardware been available and how many games actually use DX10 to its full potential? I can name only one game that really benefits from DX10, FarCry 2, and even then it's not significantly visually different from the DX9 version. FarCry 2 in DX10 does however run faster and smoother, in a perceptible way, than the DX9 version. Other games that can use DX10 usually run slower or worse or show no visible differences from the DX9 version.

The very reason that nVidia has chosen not to support DX10.1 is because it adds very little to increasing the performance of a typical game. I believe nVidia only provides DX10 support because MS had decided that it's a requirement for full Vista certification.

OutOfTimer
  • OutOfTimer

    PC Enthusiast

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2009

#249

Posted 28 June 2009 - 08:10 AM

QUOTE (zBobG @ Jun 28 2009, 05:50)
QUOTE (JigglyAss @ Jun 27 2009, 22:21)
DX11 has nothing to do with physics.

Well, actually it does, ...sort of, particularly with the new to be released nVidia 300 series cards. At least that's what I've read about.

DX11 hardware is much different than DX9/DX10 hardware. DX9/DX10 hardware uses dedicated cores that provide very specific functions (like shader cores, vertex cores, etc.). DX11 hardware provides an array of general purpose cores that are programmed to provide a required function. Programmable cores WILL allow some of the cores to be used for physics processing much like PhysX is implemented on current nVidia cards. This feature will be much more advanced than PhysX however. NVidia's Cuda v2.2 is one of the early steps in that direction.

Having said all that, I don't think that DX11 is the answer to everyone's complaints. More complicated hardware and software does not necessarily mean better performance. And, I expect that DX11 will be adopted only slowly by most game developers. How long has DX10 hardware been available and how many games actually use DX10 to its full potential? I can name only one game that really benefits from DX10, FarCry 2, and even then it's not significantly visually different from the DX9 version. FarCry 2 in DX10 does however run faster and smoother, in a perceptible way, than the DX9 version. Other games that can use DX10 usually run slower or worse or show no visible differences from the DX9 version.

The very reason that nVidia has chosen not to support DX10.1 is because it adds very little to increasing the performance of a typical game. I believe nVidia only provides DX10 support because MS had decided that it's a requirement for full Vista certification.

...Crysis ?

Crysis ! Crysis ! Crysis !

Yes, the game you most likely had in mind was... Crysis !

Crysis ! Crysis ! Crysis !

How about Crysis ?

Crysis ! Crysis ! Crysis !

Well, I'm not sure... but Crysis sounds good to me !

Crysis ! Crysis ! Crysis !

the hubster
  • the hubster

    Sup Homies

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 May 2005

#250

Posted 28 June 2009 - 08:33 AM

QUOTE (JohnZS @ Jun 27 2009, 13:49)
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

I thought Boris stopped work on GTA IV, his website says "Development Stopped" and he has stopped posting news items, his GTA SA hook was great btw.

The Horror Is Alive
  • The Horror Is Alive

    Monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008

#251

Posted 28 June 2009 - 09:35 AM

QUOTE (CharmingCharlie @ Jun 27 2009, 13:19)
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.

But, then again Charlie, the game IS made for future hardware, no? I've got it right here in my GTAIV readme file smile.gif

I use DX9 over DX10 too, because DX10 takes too much of a toll on my performances. However, if Rockstar had done a DX9 and DX10 version of the game (like Assassin's Creed and FarCry 2), we could have had AA in the DX10 version, and no AA in the DX9 version. Therefore, if people wanted AA, they could run the DX10 executable.

There's always a solution to every problem. Except maybe lazy programmers and money hounding developers.

OutOfTimer
  • OutOfTimer

    PC Enthusiast

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2009

#252

Posted 28 June 2009 - 11:27 AM

QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 28 2009, 09:35)
There's always a solution to every problem. Except maybe lazy programmers and money hounding developers.

So sad... so true... cryani.gif

Jigglyass
  • Jigglyass

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008
  • None

#253

Posted 28 June 2009 - 03:22 PM

They could of given x64 executable wait nah
They could of implemented DX10 support wait... nah
Its all about money, more money, and more money on the top.
Money?

JohnZS
  • JohnZS

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2009

#254

Posted 28 June 2009 - 03:50 PM

x64 executable is surely on the way soon, as the BOX does specify 64-Bit enhancements and I can tell you it certainly is not using any of those at the moment as GTA IV only uses 36% of my system RAM (according to the ingame benchmark)

Whether we like it or not, I can see why OutofTimer and zBobG mention likes of Crysis and Farcry, but I am going to be extra controversial and mention.. BIOSHOCK.

Why?

Well Bioshock uses a deferred rendering engine (which does not support FSAA), however for those with DirectX10 GPU's you CAN have upto 4x MSAA FSAA using DirectX10 on Vista. apparently (according to the developers), it was quite easy to implement as the core of the game still uses DirectX9 just for those who have Vista and DX10 GPU's they can use some other smoke effects and shadows + FSAA using the DirectX10 effect path.

Why R* didn't implement this into a game designed for future hardware baffles me as surely it would make more sense to assume that although only 28% of gamers have DirectX10 now.. in the future that will grow significantly as more and more people will migrate to Windows 7 and beyond.

Anyway, as Charlie said it's not going to happen and we are just talking like a bunch of old women. Perhaps it's time we looked at alternatives like my "Slider option for definition" idea?
John


Dungeoncrawler
  • Dungeoncrawler

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2009

#255

Posted 29 June 2009 - 05:19 AM

Rumor has it that if you can shell-out 600 bucks for the 3d vision setup it gives the illusion of AA in gtaIV. Personally
I don't own the rig but do know others that have purchased it and they do tell of AA-like results. However, I'll
admit its an expensive alternative but then again some people have spent large sums of money on gpu's just to play
a specific game right? smile.gif

MorlockGod
  • MorlockGod

    Creator

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2007

#256

Posted 29 June 2009 - 05:11 PM

"Whatever you do, DON'T push the red button!"

We always want the things we cannot have. Charlie may be correct and running GTAIV with DX10 AA could be like wading through treacle, but I think most of would prefer the "option" to turn down other settings for AA, even if we end up deciding for ourselves that it is a waste of resources.

I personally think AA makes a huge difference to the visuals of a game, but it seems we'll have to wait until the next GTA (Red Dead Redemption?) for any hope of smooth edges.

Kurgen
  • Kurgen

    Old Git

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2002

#257

Posted 29 June 2009 - 05:22 PM

QUOTE (MorlockGod @ Jun 29 2009, 17:11)
I personally think AA makes a huge difference to the visuals of a game


This is the only issue I had in this entire thread - being told that it didn't improve the image was a bit of a proverbial red-rag. I really don't care if it doesn't make it into GTAIV, as I'll probably have played the game to death by then anyway. smile.gif

JohnZS
  • JohnZS

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2009

#258

Posted 29 June 2009 - 05:45 PM

QUOTE (MorlockGod @ Jun 29 2009, 17:11)
"Whatever you do, DON'T push the red button!"

We always want the things we cannot have. Charlie may be correct and running GTAIV with DX10 AA could be like wading through treacle, but I think most of would prefer the "option" to turn down other settings for AA, even if we end up deciding for ourselves that it is a waste of resources.

I personally think AA makes a huge difference to the visuals of a game, but it seems we'll have to wait until the next GTA (Red Dead Redemption?) for any hope of smooth edges.

Fantastic post MorlockGod
and not only that but if GTA IV did support DirectX 10 with FSAA it would give us the option to enjoy these effects when we upgrade/buy new PC's The GPU's coming later this year from nVidia and ATi will blow all current GPU's out of the water. We are talking about GPU's with ~3Terraflops of processing power, that is roughly 3xGTX280 graphics cards on ONE GPU!

When R* talk so much about "future proofing" the least you would expect is DirectX 10 IMHO

John

MonkeyMhz
  • MonkeyMhz

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2008

#259

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:47 AM Edited by MonkeyMhz, 30 June 2009 - 02:18 AM.

AA XJA Algorithm in progress:

Tell me if I should release it. No jaggies, AA is finally here!.

user posted image
user posted image
user posted image

Looks good eh?

It takes the Zbuffer and sorts it in a inverse equation figuring out the approximate angle of the colors based on the polygons density of verticies. Then it just simply does a scanline trace making a checker board and mirroring the average in a lower opacity while reducing the opacity further until the falloff color is matched with the resulting vertex resolve.

The fps drop is minimal at about 3-6 fps drop on my system outside and about 1-3 fps drop inside. It really looks a whole lot better as u can see from the screens, there is no blur filter or any of that crap but AA faked with DX9 using a new method. However it requires a DX10 graphic card to use the extensions needed to support some of the shader operations. You must also make sure your running vista or a system that will allow those operations to be accessed.



HA! it was a trick! Everything above this is complete BS, except those screens are real!. See the game isn't that bad, with a good screen and high resolution. The jaggies aren't much of a issue, yes they are there. But really it doesn't bother me much at all. And its the best we can ask for with GTAIV. If GTAV doesn't have aa then you can moan all you want and Ill 100% agree, but for GTAIV it was more than I expected a new engine takes time to polish and work out the kinks. Look at the difference from GTA III to Vice city and San Andreas.

Get over the AA, they aren't gonna implement dx10 for a bunch of whiners on PC who still would have complained if AA was in there, and their sales wouldn't have been increased enough by adding AA to cover the cost of implementing AA. Its that just simple!

The Horror Is Alive
  • The Horror Is Alive

    Monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008

#260

Posted 30 June 2009 - 01:49 AM

They were plain lazy. It's that simple.

supermortalhuman
  • supermortalhuman

    522A4EA9

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009

#261

Posted 30 June 2009 - 02:13 AM Edited by supermortalhuman, 30 June 2009 - 02:18 AM.

QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 26 2009, 09:04)
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.

No. It would not have been wise at all to try and anti alias deferred per pixel light. All the lighting you see is done post process, I'm sorry. Rockstar didn't lie. GTA IV is going to be a big source of I Told You So's for people online - it's one of those rare games that separate who knows what.

QUOTE
Another rather important disadvantage is, that due to separating the lighting stage from the geometric stage, hardware anti alias does not produce correct results any more: although the first pass used when rendering the basic properties (diffuse, normal etc.) can use anti alias, it's not until full lighting has been applied that anti alias is needed. One of the usual techniques to overcome this limitation is using edge detection on the final image and then applying blur over the edges.


Good luck doing that to a world like Liberty City (and having it look good, and perform well - you people really don't realize how different GTA is from other games. The peds are not different from the player. Cars on the road are not different from the ones the player drives - these things mean A Lot).

http://en.wikipedia....eferred_shading

As you can see, the issue is not something that would be easily overcome in such a vast environment as GTA IV.

The Horror Is Alive
  • The Horror Is Alive

    Monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008

#262

Posted 30 June 2009 - 08:31 AM

QUOTE (supermortalhuman @ Jun 30 2009, 02:13)
QUOTE (The Horror Is Alive @ Jun 26 2009, 09:04)
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.

No. It would not have been wise at all to try and anti alias deferred per pixel light. All the lighting you see is done post process, I'm sorry. Rockstar didn't lie. GTA IV is going to be a big source of I Told You So's for people online - it's one of those rare games that separate who knows what.

Jesus, you don't seem to understand that it WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE, no matter how much of a performance drainer it would be, and then Rockstar's claim of a future-proofed game would have been correct in a way.

They're liars, and really lazy too.

supermortalhuman
  • supermortalhuman

    522A4EA9

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2009

#263

Posted 30 June 2009 - 09:31 AM Edited by supermortalhuman, 30 June 2009 - 09:33 AM.

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.

The Horror Is Alive
  • The Horror Is Alive

    Monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008

#264

Posted 30 June 2009 - 10:56 AM

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.

Damn man, of course, I'll always crank up the resolution to the highest my PC could handle over using AA. Resolution makes the biggest difference out of all the graphics options available in any game ever, and you're right, it's only a matter of time before there's so many displayed pixels that AA practically exists itself everywhere.

MorlockGod
  • MorlockGod

    Creator

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2007

#265

Posted 30 June 2009 - 11:30 AM

QUOTE (supermortalhuman @ Jun 30 2009, 09:31)
... 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 ...


Actually it is an insult. You make it harder for other people to listen to your point when your are insulting them with the same breath.

This topic has now divided into three separate arguments:
1) The argument that some form of AA should have been in GTAIV
2) The argument that DX9 AA is possible/impossible with deferred lighting
3) The argument that AA makes little to no difference for the visuals of a game.


Sticking with point three, I do partly agree with you about AA being ultimately replaced by higher resolutions SuperMortalHuman. However you don't make a game for the future, you make it for now... and future-proofing is simply a bonus. I'm not sure that even 2560x1600 is enough resolution to banish the pixels for those who can't help but see them - and it's an unfortunate truth that as the illusion of virtual reality increases, so does our ability to perceive its imperfections (just look at games made only a few years ago).

What AA does for the player is to give the illusion that we are looking "through" our monitor screen into a world that is larger and more complex than we can see, rather than the mechanical process of pixels and polygons rendered on a flat liquid crystal matrix. Gamers want the magic, not the process. For those people that find the magic is broken by pixels, then AA will be essential until FAR higher resolutions are the industry standard.

I use the heavy blur filter; it's a compromise, but for me it's better than the crunchy alternative. [i7, gtx275, 1680x1050]

OutOfTimer
  • OutOfTimer

    PC Enthusiast

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2009

#266

Posted 30 June 2009 - 11:36 AM

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.

Blackhand
  • Blackhand

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2009

#267

Posted 30 June 2009 - 11:53 AM

Anti-aliasing is still going to be here for a looooong time. 3D games running at a resolution of 2560 x 1600 with 0xAA still have severe jaggies and I'm sure well above that jaggies will still be very prevalent.

GTA IV is hardly a "futureproof" game, since its entirely possible to max it out at present and its graphically nothing breathtaking, ESPECIALLY without AA. Its purely their rendering method choice (deferred vs. forward). Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, deferred rendering's primary strength being that it scales well with lots of lights. It has some very serious weaknesses though which is why its never used (aside from GTA):

1. No hardware anti-aliasing
2. High memory cost, especially at higher resolutions
3. Very bandwidth intense
4. High initial cost of G-Buffer generation
5. NO HARDWARE ANTI-ALIASING! (This is the major deciding factor)

Now I'm sure we will without a doubt see more games using a deferred renderer once DX10 and DX11 are supported by the next generation of consoles and people start upgrading from XP, but that's a long way off. Until that time, many game developers are going to stick with forward renderers, purely for AA, because jaggies are HORRENDOUS. Really, GTA IV is a great game with lots of attention to detail, so you try hard to ignore it, but the fact remains, the game is a jagged cluster. It ruins most of their other graphics efforts, because anything well detailed, even close up with a high res texture is going to have very jagged edges with 0xAA.

So, would DX10 support be nice, yes, it would really help GTA IV visually. I really really doubt R* would dedicate dev time to it though so far after release. GTA IV remains a superb game, even though jaggies mar it visually quite badly, but you can learn to accept it.

I suppose 5 years from now, if you keep your hardware cutting edge, you can try 4 x Super Sampling AA, that should fix it up mostly.

Ronnyboy
  • Ronnyboy

    Blind leading the deaf, leading the socially inept.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#268

Posted 30 June 2009 - 11:55 AM

QUOTE (OutOfTimer @ Jun 30 2009, 05:36)
QUOTE (supermortalhuman @ Jun 30 2009, 09:31)
*snip*

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.

So you spammed really?

I believe that GTA IV should just be left the way it is, because your PC can't make it look good isn't R*'s fault. It was the fault of the consumer and not understanding that it takes time for a game like this to match to everyone's system specifications and run as beautifully as it can in a massive area with no load times.

Standart
  • Standart

    GTA IV Received :)

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2009

#269

Posted 30 June 2009 - 12:13 PM

wtf, you locked gta iv love thread and why not this?

AntiFart
  • AntiFart

    (n)ORTHEN (m)ONKEY

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2008

#270

Posted 30 June 2009 - 12:30 PM

QUOTE (Blackhand @ Jun 30 2009, 11:53)
Anti-aliasing is still going to be here for a looooong time. 3D games running at a resolution of 2560 x 1600 with 0xAA still have severe jaggies and I'm sure well above that jaggies will still be very prevalent.

GTA IV is hardly a "futureproof" game, since its entirely possible to max it out at present and its graphically nothing breathtaking, ESPECIALLY without AA. Its purely their rendering method choice (deferred vs. forward). Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, deferred rendering's primary strength being that it scales well with lots of lights. It has some very serious weaknesses though which is why its never used (aside from GTA):

1. No hardware anti-aliasing
2. High memory cost, especially at higher resolutions
3. Very bandwidth intense
4. High initial cost of G-Buffer generation
5. NO HARDWARE ANTI-ALIASING! (This is the major deciding factor)

Now I'm sure we will without a doubt see more games using a deferred renderer once DX10 and DX11 are supported by the next generation of consoles and people start upgrading from XP, but that's a long way off. Until that time, many game developers are going to stick with forward renderers, purely for AA, because jaggies are HORRENDOUS. Really, GTA IV is a great game with lots of attention to detail, so you try hard to ignore it, but the fact remains, the game is a jagged cluster. It ruins most of their other graphics efforts, because anything well detailed, even close up with a high res texture is going to have very jagged edges with 0xAA.

So, would DX10 support be nice, yes, it would really help GTA IV visually. I really really doubt R* would dedicate dev time to it though so far after release. GTA IV remains a superb game, even though jaggies mar it visually quite badly, but you can learn to accept it.

I suppose 5 years from now, if you keep your hardware cutting edge, you can try 4 x Super Sampling AA, that should fix it up mostly.

+1 !!!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users