Vicetopia Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Vicetopia, do you agree with chngdman that using a resolution of 2600 will eliminate the need for AA in games? Of course not, I rarely agree with him on anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subversion1337 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 Vicetopia, do you agree with chngdman that using a resolution of 2600 will eliminate the need for AA in games? Of course not, I rarely agree with him on anything. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jc84144 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 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. Not really. AA only exists because of low resolution screens, and how pixels work. The smaller pixels get (and the more of them there is) the less aliasing there will be. AA will become obsolete as hardware and screens get better. I'm assuming anyone moaning about no AA hasn't tried GTA at 1080p on a decent screen. AA is just to fill the gap between hardware being good enough to do AA, but not good enough to run at resolutions high enough that makes AA not required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subversion1337 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 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. Not really. AA only exists because of low resolution screens, and how pixels work. The smaller pixels get (and the more of them there is) the less aliasing there will be. AA will become obsolete as hardware and screens get better. I'm assuming anyone moaning about no AA hasn't tried GTA at 1080p on a decent screen. AA is just to fill the gap between hardware being good enough to do AA, but not good enough to run at resolutions high enough that makes AA not required. This isn't true. I've seen pics at 2600 res and they still have terrible jaggies. Just as bad as at 1280 Doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tantalus91 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 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. I'm actually finding it pretty amusing xD. Anywayy heres the wiki on AA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing READ IT PEOPLZ! if you can follow it And AA will be used alot in the near future it's not nearly a thing of the past, even if people don't use it anymore (not likely) it is a big factor in benchmarking and testing the raw power of new cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 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 If AA is part of the past and GTA 4' blur + DOF the future, im Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicetopia Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 If AA is part of the past and GTA 4' blur + DOF the future, im Oh man, if that definition blur becomes popular with other games I think I might go crazy. Although, I dig the DOF included in the Ultimate Tweak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jc84144 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 This isn't true. I've seen pics at 2600 res and they still have terrible jaggies. Just as bad as at 1280 Doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something? Yes... you're missing a 2600 res screen. Unless you have one? Image size isn't the issue. It's the density (and size) of pixels on your screen. This does mean if you have a very high resolution screen, but it's a very large screen, then you would still get very bad aliasing. The more pixels per square inch, the more aliasing starts to become invisible. You need to understand why aliasing happens. I suggest reading the wikipedia article that was just posted above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicetopia Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Image size isn't the issue. It's the density (and size) of pixels on your screen. Close, but no cigar. It's a higher resolution than you're currently rendering, downsized to your current resolution. Or, to quote the Wiki: Full-scene anti-aliasing by supersampling usually means that each full frame is rendered at double (2x) or quadruple (4x) the display resolution, and then down-sampled to match the display resolution. A higher native pixel density (For example, 1920x1200 on a 15" laptop screen) might hide aliasing better since the pixels are smaller and you're less likely to see it. Viewing a 2560x1600 on an appropriately sized screen, or viewing it while at 1280x1024 (or any other resolution) won't effect the amount of aliasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subversion1337 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) 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. I'm actually finding it pretty amusing xD. Anywayy heres the wiki on AA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing READ IT PEOPLZ! if you can follow it And AA will be used alot in the near future it's not nearly a thing of the past, even if people don't use it anymore (not likely) it is a big factor in benchmarking and testing the raw power of new cards. Thank you for that link. It answers my question beautifully. Those of you who think higher res screens, and higher res settings on the slider will remove aliasing are mistaken. The relevant bit: Full-scene anti-aliasing by supersampling usually means that each full frame is rendered at double (2x) or quadruple (4x) the display resolution, and then down-sampled to match the display resolution. So a 4x FSAA would render 16 supersampled pixels for each single pixel of each frame. In other words: In order to anti-alias an image you not only need to render it at a high resolution (4x or 8x or 16x etc for effective AA), you afterwards need to compress it to the desired output resolution. Even if my native 1280 monitor were to allow the card to render the scene at the 2600 resolution people are bandying about and then display the scene at the screen's max output resolution of 1280, that would not be enough for effective antialiasing. We would need to render at 5200 or 10400 for that. I call bullsh*t on that futureproof AA argument. Edited March 21, 2009 by Subversion1337 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicetopia Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Those of you who think higher res screens, and higher res settings on the slider will remove aliasing are mistaken. We already knew this, didn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subversion1337 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) Those of you who think higher res screens, and higher res settings on the slider will remove aliasing are mistaken. We already knew this, didn't we? We did, but many didn't. We not only needed to say that those who didn't know that were wrong, we needed to explain why, and well. Collectively I think we have now done that. EDIT: also I posted this before I got a chance to read replies after tantalus' wiki link cos I was reading the wikipedia article Edited March 21, 2009 by Subversion1337 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 No I never said that higher resolutions made AA obsolete, I said that higher resolutions make the jaggies less noticeable. A screen res of 1280 x 720 will look a hell of a lot more "jaggied" than a screen res of 1680 x 1050. That was my point, which seems to have got lost along the way. However your point highlights my point that AA is incredibly resource hungry in order for it to work it has to render a massive screen and re-scale it to remove the "jaggies". If you look at the hardware available that just does not exist, even the most powerful cards are struggling to run GTA 4 at 1920 x 1200 at a playable framerate. I don't think there is a card today that would be able to do 4 x FSAA on GTA 4 even if it was available. Oh and don't forget you would also demand it ran at 60fps as well This is all immaterial really GTA 4 doesn't have AA and it won't have AA, it may be possible the next GTA game will have AA it depends on what the user base is like for Dx10/Dx11 by then. However right now the majority of users still use Dx9 and that is who publishers and developers target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicetopia Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 No I never said that higher resolutions made AA obsolete, I said that higher resolutions make the jaggies less noticeable. A screen res of 1280 x 720 will look a hell of a lot more "jaggied" than a screen res of 1680 x 1050. Play GTA4 in windowed mode, first using a small resolution, then using a larger resolution (still in a window). The amount of aliasing you see will be the same. To make aliasing less "noticable", that's where the discussion about pixel density comes into play. Smaller pixels (Smaller screen, higher resolution) will make aliasing less noticable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Dear christ on a bike I cannot believe you are arguing with me that bumping up the res reduces jaggies. I give up I truly do give up with this board some time. You are quite right Vicetopia having a higher resolution does sweet f*ck all so we might as well all go back to gaming at 320 x 240 since there seems to be f*ck all point to having a higher resolution then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicetopia Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Dear christ on a bike I cannot believe you are arguing with me that bumping up the res reduces jaggies. I give up I truly do give up with this board some time. You are quite right Vicetopia having a higher resolution does sweet f*ck all so we might as well all go back to gaming at 320 x 240 since there seems to be f*ck all point to having a higher resolution then. What? I didn't say anything about higher resolutions being pointless. I only said higher resolutions don't improve aliasing. And yes, I do enjoy the tech posts on these forums, like I've said before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subversion1337 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) I cannot believe you are arguing with me that bumping up the res reduces jaggies. that's because it doesn't, that's what this whole past two pages have been arguing about, and what the last 10 or so posts have resolved. I hoped we had settled that point. I find it hard to argue with your point that there is probably not a reasonably available system that could run this with 4 x AA though. A good if demoralising argument. Edited March 21, 2009 by Subversion1337 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drag_Drift Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 it would have been better not to use deffered lighting. Why did they use deferred lighting? Why are the shadows so sh*t? Isn't this the new craze among developers?Doesn't Killzone 2's engine use deferred lightning or rendering,whatever? It makes games more beautiful in terms of graphics. Deferred Lighting/Rendering allows devs to allot an infinite number of lights and shader effects with little or no decrease in performance. Effects include dynamic lighting/shadowing, projected textures, parallax/normal mapping and ambient occlusion maps. Deferred Rendering processes all those effects in one single pass, unlike Forward Rendering engines where there is a single pass for lights, another one for ambient maps, another one for normals and so on. It has something to do with the 3D depth as to how AA is unable to be implemented in DX9 Deferred Engines. GTAIV would've looked and run worse if the devs used a Forward Rendering engine, seeing there's a lot going on under IV's hood if you look closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrysis02 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 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. Glad you liked it too. I love figthing in Delta,i actually used Maximum Speed to get the Hell out of tight situations But i love to use stealth through the whole game.It just makes me happy that i can complete objectives unnoticed Deferred Lighting/Rendering allows devs to allot an infinite number of lights and shader effects with little or no decrease in performance. Effects include dynamic lighting/shadowing, projected textures, parallax/normal mapping and ambient occlusion maps. Deferred Rendering processes all those effects in one single pass, unlike Forward Rendering engines where there is a single pass for lights, another one for ambient maps, another one for normals and so on. It has something to do with the 3D depth as to how AA is unable to be implemented in DX9 Deferred Engines. GTAIV would've looked and run worse if the devs used a Forward Rendering engine, seeing there's a lot going on under IV's hood if you look closely. Great.So?What does that mean for us PC gamers?Console gamers are used to seeing no AA in their games,just that awful blur.But we will get jaggies all over,or that eye cancer/motion sickness(Killzone 2) causing blur.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Horror Is Alive Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Christ, Rockstar is such a stupid company for sticking to old software. DX10 is the future, DX9 is nearly gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drag_Drift Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Great.So?What does that mean for us PC gamers?Console gamers are used to seeing no AA in their games,just that awful blur.But we will get jaggies all over,or that eye cancer/motion sickness(Killzone 2) causing blur.... Nope, it means it's time to let DX9 be and embrace DX10. Not sure about what will happen with GTAIV concerning DX10 support, but one thing is for sure right now. The next-gen games will either be hardcoded for DX10 and will just support DX9, or DX10 exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subversion1337 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 I cannot believe you are arguing with me that bumping up the res reduces jaggies. that's because it doesn't, that's what this whole past two pages have been arguing about, and what the last 10 or so posts have resolved. I hoped we had settled that point. I find it hard to argue with your point that there is probably not a reasonably available system that could run this with 4 x AA though. A good if demoralising argument. Actually I was thinking about this in bed and I found out an argument against that. I belive currently widespread machines could handle GTA IV with AA no problems, especially given that most people that run GTA IV have Vista or 7 anyway. Here's my proof: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/64-bit...ng,2250-10.html Only a small fps drop with 4x AA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasPL Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Can they make a DX10 support after the game is released? That would be great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jc84144 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) Image size isn't the issue. It's the density (and size) of pixels on your screen. Close, but no cigar. It's a higher resolution than you're currently rendering, downsized to your current resolution. Or, to quote the Wiki: Full-scene anti-aliasing by supersampling usually means that each full frame is rendered at double (2x) or quadruple (4x) the display resolution, and then down-sampled to match the display resolution. A higher native pixel density (For example, 1920x1200 on a 15" laptop screen) might hide aliasing better since the pixels are smaller and you're less likely to see it. Viewing a 2560x1600 on an appropriately sized screen, or viewing it while at 1280x1024 (or any other resolution) won't effect the amount of aliasing. Urm... you didn't read my posts properly. I'm not saying higher resolution causes anti-aliasing, I'm saying you get less aliasing on higher resolutions. Eventually, when you get to certain resolutions and certain pixel densities, where t he individual pixels are too small to see even close up, you wont have aliasing. The smaller pixels are the closer it is to real life (no pixels). Down sampling to get rid of aliasing is a "hack" or work around for getting AA on deferred rendering, but since it takes such a performance hit (rendering at a larger size and down sampling takes quite a bit of performance) it's not used. Another way is edge detection and blurr (screen space anti-aliasing) but once again, it takes a massive performance hit compared to hardware anti-aliasing. You seem to be talking about something totally different... I'm talking about higher resolutions cause less visable aliasing (which they do), you're talking about trying to reduce aliasing on a normal resolution screen. Edited March 21, 2009 by Jc84144 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subversion1337 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 I'm saying you get less aliasing on higher resolutions. And that's plain wrong. You need compression of a higher res scene to get rid of aliasing. --- TomasPL: patch support for dx10 is a possible thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jc84144 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I'm saying you get less aliasing on higher resolutions. And that's plain wrong. You need compression of a higher res scene to get rid of aliasing. --- TomasPL: patch support for dx10 is a possible thing. No... you're wrong. Here, let me teach you how pixels work. I made this image, imagine each square is 1 pixel. The larger pixels have horrible aliasing. (1, 2 & 3) yet 4 and 5 don't. Well, at least not on my screen. If you're running at a crappy resolution, then of course, it's going to have aliasing (further proves my point). 4 is the actual pixel size on your screen (so run at a high resolution like me if you can to see what I'm talking about) and 5 is just two lines like 4 put together so it's a little thicker. No blending (anti-alising) at all, you can zoom in if you don't believe me. As you can see, as the pixels ("squares") get smaller, there is less aliasing and jaggies. So now please prove how and why this is "plain wrong". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subversion1337 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 If you're running at a crappy resolution, then of course, it's going to have aliasing (further proves my point). Plain wrong. I run Windows at a crappy 1152 resolution and 4 and 5 do not have aliasing for me. At least at natural zoom. No blending (anti-alising) at all, you can zoom in if you don't believe me. Plain wrong. I saved a copy of the picture in order to zoom in, and when I zoom I do see aliasing on the last two lines, at the 1152 resolution. I then increased my screen's resolution to 1280 and I actually get worse aliasing when zooming in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainDingo Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 IGN: Before we get into that, a few questions about general graphics options. Why can't you actually through the graphics menu adjust AA (anti-aliasing), turn off shadows, and why is there a resource usage limitation? Kevin Hoare: Early on we decided we weren't going to support DirectX 10. We were just going to work on increasing the visual quality with what we had with DirectX 9. If we had DirectX 10 support we could have had the AA in there, but we don't have any. OK thanks. Now another question induced by that answer: Why does not having directx 10 mean we can't have AA? San Andreas doesn't support direct x 10 but that has AA. It doesn't, Kevin Hoare apparently just has no knowledge whatsoever of computers. You can enable AA in DirectX7 games from 1995. DX10 has nothing to do with the viability of AA, so his answer is bullsh*t. I'm not saying then that AA is possible in GTAIV, because if the engine isn't built to allow it, it won't do it. But his answer is ignorant and misleading. But in other news, I couldn't care less if GTAIV ever gets AA. You people saying it looks like an Atari game are being overly dramatic and looking at the game through tunnel vision. The game looks great. Yes, even at 1024x768 and no AA. I'm actually glad Jc brought up the point he did. I keep telling people the same exact thing, but they deny it. when I zoom You don't zoom when you're playing a game. /of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesley123 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 The game doesnt allow AA if we have to beleive it lol, it has to do with the capabilities of Directx9(if we have to beleive r*), gta4 makes use of some sort of blending, using this blending disables the possibility of AA, in Dx10 you dont have this problem. Still we dunno why the game dont support dx10 lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subversion1337 Posted March 21, 2009 Author Share Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) You don't zoom when you're playing a game. /of He's the one that asked me to zoom. He said I would not see aliasing if I did. He asked me to prove him plain wrong. I did. --- Running games at higher resolutions does not get rid of aliasing, even on a smaller screen. FACT. It makes the aliasing harder to see but still the aliasing is there. People running the game at 2800 (max reported resolution that GTA IV has been run at) will STILL get horrid aliasing even if they have tiny screens, (which they won't have). Your argument that R* somehow solved the aliasing problem by not having any anti-aliasing is TOTAL BULLsh*t! Edited March 21, 2009 by Subversion1337 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now