AA

[Subversion1337]

 

it would have been better not to use deffered lighting. Why did they use deferred lighting? Why are the shadows so sh*t?

Because, this shading technique is divided into smaller parts and written to a buffer and then combined to render the result which allows it to be much more efficient that more traditional lighting/shading methods. Because this way it only shades the parts of the scene that you can see, so it can avoid some vertex arranging/flippin, thus saving memory bandwidth and raw power.

 

In idiot terms:

Pretty much in GTAIV, its quicker to use deffered lighting for multiple lights rather than having them each have their own pass which would drastically slow the performance. Remember this is the first GTA with dynamic lighting.

 

Other games such as STALKER, also use the deffered algorithm.

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

So in clear terms: because they implemented this deferred buisness badly.

[thales100]

Other games such as STALKER, also use the deffered algorithm.

 

And yes DX10 support probably could be added through a patch. This might happen depending how far they go with updates. But only time can tell. For now just think of the jaggies as a cornea eye problem that the main character must live with. God glad im not him.

Cool, and Clear Sky has DX 10.1 support + outstanding shadows and AA.

[CharmingCharlie]

It is at least 2 years before we see another GTA on the PC (if we do at all) a lot can happen in those two years. We have windows 7 coming out this year which has Dx11 as standard. Now Dx11 is compatible with vista so there isn't likely to be a repeat of the Dx10 fiasco. So Dx11 will have nearly 2 years to become adopted by a large enough market to make it worthwhile for Rockstar to develop for.

 

Now I don' know much about Dx11 but I understand it does allow Deferred lighting with AA so if enough people are using a Dx11 capable machine then you will get a Dx11 GTA, if there aren't enough people using a Dx11 capable machine by then ..... well you can expect a Dx9 game again.

 

In my mind no GTA game has ever been "pretty" even during the GTA 3 era there were games with far better graphics than GTA. You just have to look a Mafia which shat all over GTA graphically. However the thing that Rockstar does right is the gameplay and the environment. I think Liberty City is one of the most beautiful gaming environments I have ever seen in a game, the amount of detail is absolutely astonishing. It is the first game EVER to have me just "walking" around to take in the sights.

 

I myself really couldn't give a stuff about AA, I don't have a PC powerful enough to do AA and like most people probably never will and to be honest I would rather have the power that gets wasted on AA going towards giving me an extra 5 - 6 fps.

[okei]

In idiot terms:

Not everybody is a nerd...

[Subversion1337]

And yes DX10 support probably could be added through a patch. This might happen depending how far they go with updates. But only time can tell. For now just think of the jaggies as a cornea eye problem that the main character must live with. God glad im not him.

(Missed your edit.)

 

That's awesome news! Hope lives!

[Vicetopia]

 

However the thing that Rockstar does right is the gameplay

You have got to be kidding.

Was it the "right" thing for them to remove gameplay elements from SA in GTA4?

 

Oh, and to the others, there's no way they're going to add DX10 support via patch.

[CharmingCharlie]

I am not getting into an argument on here about the gameplay, I am still playing this game daily 4 months later, the great giant Crysis lasted me a f*cking day and warhead lasted me 5 hours and never touched the damn game again. Yet GTA 4 for the past 4 months has kept me playing daily both on line and off line.

[thales100]

Oh, and to the others, there's no way they're going to add DX10 support via patch.

Why not ? Can you elaborate this a bit.

[Subversion1337]

 

It is at least 2 years before we see another GTA on the PC (if we do at all) a lot can happen in those two years.  We have windows 7 coming out this year which has Dx11 as standard.  Now Dx11 is compatible with vista so there isn't likely to be a repeat of the Dx10 fiasco.  So Dx11 will have nearly 2 years to become adopted by a large enough market to make it worthwhile for Rockstar to develop for.

 

Now I don' know much about Dx11 but I understand it does allow Deferred lighting with AA so if enough people are using a Dx11 capable machine then you will get a Dx11 GTA, if there aren't enough people using a Dx11 capable machine by then ..... well you can expect a Dx9 game again.

 

That's a mixed bag of news too.

 

 

In my mind no GTA game has ever been "pretty" even during the GTA 3 era there were games with far better graphics than GTA.  You just have to look a Mafia which shat all over GTA graphically.  However the thing that Rockstar does right is the gameplay and the environment.  I think Liberty City is one of the most beautiful gaming environments I have ever seen in a game, the amount of detail is absolutely astonishing.  It is the first game EVER to have me just "walking" around to take in the sights.

 

theres a difference between emphasising gameplay (which I love) and not having AA. AA is a basic. not having it is going far back in time... way too far back. big fail.

 

 

I myself really couldn't give a stuff about AA, I don't have a PC powerful enough to do AA and like most people probably never will and to be honest I would rather have the power that gets wasted on AA going towards giving me an extra 5 - 6 fps.

 

Are you serious?! Show of hands please: 6 fps or AA?

 

 

EDIT: and yes vice, please do elaborate on the dx10 patch buisness. too much work? unrealistic? one thing that's cool is that its at least *possible*

Edited March 20, 2009 by Subversion1337

[Vicetopia]

Are you serious?! Show of hands please: 6 fps or AA?

Haha, yeah, plus the 4800's get 8x of FREE AA!

amirite?

[CharmingCharlie]

Subversion1337 I have never played games with AA because even with an 8800gts it takes too much of a hit in the frame rate. I could barely play Crysis on medium settings let along turn AA on. In my experience it is usually those in the top 10% of PC hardware that care about AA and the vast majority barely have equipment to run the game on standard settings let along settings WITH AA.

[thales100]

Other games such as STALKER, also use the deffered algorithm.

 

And yes DX10 support probably could be added through a patch. This might happen depending how far they go with updates. But only time can tell.

Stalker SoC has only DX9 support - the same engine was used in Stalker CS, only updated to support DX10.

This game got DX10.1 support after the patch 1.5.06.

[Dcrysis02]

I am not getting into an argument on here about the gameplay, I am still playing this game daily 4 months later, the great giant Crysis lasted me a f*cking day and warhead lasted me 5 hours and never touched the damn game again. Yet GTA 4 for the past 4 months has kept me playing.

Pff,Still,you can roam freely in GTAIV but Crysis is divided into levels.I tend to call Crysis a miniature sandbox game while GTAIV is a normal sandbox game.It's unfair to compare the two.If you could go to where ever you want on the island i'd say you're right,but in this case Crysis is really more linear than GTAIV(no s**t)

The other thing.I love Crysis because of it's interactivity.You really need to adapt to some situations.How much you play with the game is entirely up to you.You have a large and detailed enviroment,your suit,a very good physics system,and enemies.If you are not creative you can screw all of this.If you want to say that Crysis has bad gameplay,think for a second and tell me what does Crysis's gameplay lack,that other FPS shooters have?Before you go all "i didn't say stuff like this..." this was not directed at you Charlie(not entirely anyway)

[Vicetopia]

I am still playing this game daily 4 months later

Doing what (in-game)?

I'm asking seriously, because I want to play GTA4 but there's just nothing to do in the game.

I've already beaten it 3 times.

[Subversion1337]

I am still playing this game daily 4 months later

Doing what (in-game)?

I'm asking seriously, because I want to play GTA4 but there's just nothing to do in the game.

I've already beaten it 3 times.

Going off-topic, but multiplayer is very engaging, and sometimes you just want to roam a city and cause mayhem, especially when its so well executed as in gTA IV. No other game offers that.

[CharmingCharlie]

I do daily ranked races and spend up to 2 - 3 hours at a time increasing rank. At night when I switch to my core2duo I am busy doing the single player game all over again. When I am playing the game even 4 months later I am seeing stuff I have never seen before. If you are finding it hard to justify playing GTA 4 there isn't much I can say to you that will change your mind.

 

I am the first to admit that GTA 4 is no where near as extensive as GTA SA and yes I will admit it has it's faults. However so far it is the best game I have played SINCE GTA SA. However compared to absolute sh*t like Fallout 3 and pathetic flashy crap like Crysis then GTA 4 is leagues ahead of them.

[Vicetopia]

 

compared to absolute sh*t like Fallout 3

Now you've just gone too far.

I suppose people have different tastes. My FO3 saved game right now shows about 80 hours of playtime, while my GTA4 time certainly isn't that high.

It took me those 80 hours to finish every quest in the game and explore all the map markers. What new things can possibly be done in GTA4 for 80 hours? Hunting birds?

 

Like I said I'd keep playing the game if there was new stuff to do.

Blowing up cars and killing peds is fun for a while, especially with cool mods, but it's all the same thing over and over.

 

If MP is the only option, then count me out of that...

 

edit;

I forgot to note, a game like GTA4 is even less enjoyable when it runs like ass.

Which it does.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Vicetopia

[Subversion1337]

 

compared to absolute sh*t like Fallout 3

Now you've just gone too far.

I suppose people have different tastes. My FO3 saved game right now shows about 80 hours of playtime, while my GTA4 time certainly isn't that high.

It took me those 80 hours to finish every quest in the game and explore all the map markers. What new things can possibly be done in GTA4 for 80 hours? Hunting birds?

 

Like I said I'd keep playing the game if there was new stuff to do.

Blowing up cars and killing peds is fun for a while, especially with cool mods, but it's all the same thing over and over.

 

If MP is the only option, then count me out of that...

[Trying to get this back on topic...]

 

Vice: today I was in a multiplayer game and I headshotted a mofo yeah, but wait, when he dropped I noticed how the pipes behind him (charge island map) were leaking water when I shot them! Not just that but they were gushing water at first, then they slowly fizzled out. So realistic! I wondered "man, they must have obscured his vision in the fight". I spent the next 10 seconds shooting at the pipes, watching the water gush out and squealing with glee at the reflections on the wet pipes. Then I was pulled back to the business of headshots by a dude MP5ing my ass. No other game offers that level of immersion and fun! If you "get it" you can never get tired of that. Not for longer than the pc screen induced headache lasts anyway lol. And you become more immune to that with time It would be like getting bored of a real life where you had licence to do pretty much anything!

 

I remember the sa-mp public alpha tests, original LVDM mode. Every time they ended, or a new version was due to come out, the joke was cracked: "RL 0.1 a has ended " or "RL 0.12 a is out soon! :>". Never since early childhood had I felt such a gaming rush, if even then, and GTA IV is that gaming experience refreshed!

Edited March 20, 2009 by Subversion1337

[OverTheBelow]

I am not getting into an argument on here about the gameplay, I am still playing this game daily 4 months later, the great giant Crysis lasted me a f*cking day and warhead lasted me 5 hours and never touched the damn game again. Yet GTA 4 for the past 4 months has kept me playing daily both on line and off line.

lol agreed, crysis just didn't get to me.

[CptPusheen]

pathetic flashy crap like Crysis

You are wrong here... What's wrong with Crysis? Damn,people have things coded in their brains... Situation: You see a girl on the street...and she is f*cking prettiest chick you've ever seen... you think "She must be stupid"... It's the same with Crysis... It's so stunning that people say "It's idiotic, nothing more than a benchmark"... What a paradox... Crytek gave people quality which their couldn't handle... You know what I see in Crysis? Great predator-like action... Yup, it's just awesome to roam through the jungle and kill people while in stealth mode. Not to mention great fun with mass physics in editor.

[OverTheBelow]

 

pathetic flashy crap like Crysis

You are wrong here... What's wrong with Crysis? Damn,people have things coded in their brains... Situation: You see a girl on the street...and she is f*cking prettiest chick you've ever seen... you think "She must be stupid"... It's the same with Crysis... It's so stunning that people say "It's idiotic, nothing more than a benchmark"... What a paradox... Crytek gave people quality which their couldn't handle... You know what I see in Crysis? Great predator-like action... Yup, it's just awesome to roam through the jungle and kill people while in stealth mode. Not to mention great fun with mass physics in editor.

[Maximum Armor] You're pretty right when you see an insanely pretty girl on the street they usually tend to be a dumbarse. [Maximum Stealth]

[Vicetopia]

Cloak engaged.

[CharmingCharlie]

Well trying to steer this back on topic, what ever you thought of crysis I didn't play that either with AA just like I haven't played any game with AA. I don't think AA is a major issue, if you have the power to use AA then you have the power to play GTA 4 at pretty heavy resolutions. At high resolutions the jaggies become less and less noticable.

 

If you don't have a PC capable of playing GTA 4 at high resolutions then chances are it wouldn't cope with AA either. So to be honest I don't see the point of debating all this, there is no AA for the reason the GTA 4 uses deferred lighting, there may be AA if GTA ever switches to Dx10 and that won't happen till the majority of gamers switch to Dx10/11 which isn't going to happen at least till win7 takes off.

[Subversion1337]

 

I don't think AA is a major issue, if you have the power to use AA then you have the power to play GTA 4 at pretty heavy resolutions.  At high resolutions the jaggies become less and less noticable.

Lies:

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...st&p=1059075865

 

 

With AA I could have straight lines at my monitor max resolution of 1240. The game would look almost perfect then. Only thing I could ask for is more detailed resolutions (which granted could be got by higher resolution on the same size screen) and higher polygon count for more detailed models (would require a game remake and an enourmously powerful pc). With maxed out resolution you STILL get heavy aliasing.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Subversion1337

[Murcchachosa]

This is very interesting topic.

Really helpfull and must-read.

[livilaNic]

The ol' AA topic. Good stuff.

 

It need's it.

 

Won't get it.

 

I can run it.

 

Even with this sh*t rig I got. If I can run it @1920x1080 (non-patched) med, high, 30, 42, 0. I think I'd be able to down the res a bit and ride with AA just fine. sh*t I can play comfortably @25fps so not much would bother me. It should be an option regardless. A bunch of games have the option for DX10. There's no reason this should be an exception. Meh...

[chngdman]

- why is there no AA in GTA IV?

 

GTA IV uses some advanced rendering techniques with DX9 that don't play nice with anti aliasing. GTA IV has a built in blur and dof that makes up for this and adds other visual niceties. AA is slowly becoming a thing of the past that will remain only for legacy gaming while higher resolutions are made possible as hardware continues to mature, a big leap in the near future.

 

- would it be possible to implement AA with a patch?

 

No, because of the effects used, unfortunately the chances of that happening are slim.

[Vicetopia]

GTA IV has a built in blur and dof that makes up for this

Wrong.

 

 

AA is slowly becoming a thing of the past

Wrong.

[CharmingCharlie]

Vicetopia will you please stop doing that, it is little more than spam, if you don't have a counter argument then don't say anything. Just quoting someone and going "wrong" is unacceptable.

[Subversion1337]

Vicetopia, do you agree with chngdman that using a resolution of 2600 will eliminate the need for AA in games?

 

I don't, and looking at screens at that resolution of which there are many in this forum, I can still see massive aliasing, as can you. His own screenshots prove him wrong. I don't see the logic behind him believing that high resoultions will phase out antialiasing.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Subversion1337