AA

[Drag_Drift]

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

No no, Kevin Hoare does know about what he's saying. He's just cut up in his balls too tight he can't say it in a way humans can understand.

 

GTAIV uses a fairly new kind of rendering technology called Deferred Rendering. And it is different from recent game engines like the Source engine and the Unreal engine because those use Forward Rendering. AA can't be allowed in DX9 programs running Deferred Rendering technology, BUT DX10 Deferred Rendering programs can make use of AA.

[Vicetopia]

Well here's your problem.

 

 

I'm saying you get less aliasing on higher resolutions.

 

As you can see, as the pixels ("squares") get smaller, there is less aliasing and jaggies.

 

Higher resolution != smaller pixels.

You're talking about two different things.

 

Does higher resolution yield less aliasing? No.

Do smaller pixels yield "less" aliasing? Sort of.

 

So you're kind of right, but you're talking about two different things.

 

This image is only an example of how anti-aliasing works.

http://www.jcrgames.com/lines.png

Edited March 21, 2009 by Vicetopia

[livilaNic]

Alright fine.

 

I'll just go out and get a 10" 2560x1600 screen. Then everything will be sorted out.

 

 

[Subversion1337]

 

Alright fine.

 

I'll just go out and get a 10" 2560x1600 screen. Then everything will be sorted out.

no it won't, u'll get just as bad jaggies if you do.

[livilaNic]

Alright fine.

 

I'll just go out and get a 10" 2560x1600 screen. Then everything will be sorted out.

no it won't, u'll get just as bad jaggies if you do.

Well I'm confused on how it works then. If I have a 30" screen @2560x1600 wouldn't the pixels be bigger, less noticeable jaggies? But then if they were compacted into 10" wouldn't the jaggies be almost non-existent?

[Vicetopia]

Well I'm confused on how it works then. If I have a 30" screen @2560x1600 wouldn't the pixels be bigger, less noticeable jaggies? But then if they were compacted into 10" wouldn't the jaggies be almost non-existent?

Changing the physical size has no effect on how the image on your screen is rendered.

Making the pixels smaller only helps user error (Your eyes) since you're physically less likely to see the jaggies.

[livilaNic]

 

Well I'm confused on how it works then. If I have a 30" screen @2560x1600 wouldn't the pixels be bigger, less noticeable jaggies? But then if they were compacted into 10" wouldn't the jaggies be almost non-existent?

Changing the physical size has no effect on how the image on your screen is rendered.

Making the pixels smaller only helps user error (Your eyes) since you're physically less likely to see the jaggies.

Yeah I hear ya. Reading up on it now. Never cared to before lol.

 

Just flipped the AA on and forgot about it. With IV you can't really fogetta bout it. Just sucks there couldn't be that damn option. *cries self to sleep again*

[Jc84144]

 

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.

Huh? I take it English isn't your first language? It's if you completely misunderstand me.

 

Firstly, I said "if". You said no, and you see no aliasing. My example was lines at 45 degrees, which aliases less than other angles, that was to show a simplified example of what I'm talking about.

 

 

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.

Of course it has aliasing if you zoom in, because the edges aren't blurred (anti-aliased) and you're seeing it larger. I said zoom in to prove that it ISN'T anti-aliased. How it looks while zoom in isn't my point. You should compare it at 100% (actual size).

 

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of screens and pixels know that as you increase pixel density (and decreases the size of individual pixels) that the less jaggies are visible.

 

You can't just keep claiming I'm "plain wrong" with no evidence. Present some evidence... if you're correct there shall be some.

[Vicetopia]

 

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of screens and pixels know that as you increase pixel density (and decreases the size of individual pixels) that the less jaggies are visible.

Now you've changed your argument and you're trying to pretend you didn't.

 

"less jaggies are visible" and "there is less aliasing and jaggies" mean two completely different things.

[DexX]

It seems the comprehension level in this topic is low, but i'll try this nonetheless:

Deferred Lighting

Pay attention to the example image in the article. That is every 'pass' the game has to render to achieve the final image you see. In Directx 9, these passes are stored as offscreen textures. While rendering to a texture, Directx 9 does not support multisampling (anti aliasing). This is an api issue, and was addressed of in Directx 10, which supports multisampling when rendering to a texture. So in this regard, Kevin Hoare was correct during his interview.

 

SA VC, 3, and other older games support AA in DX9/8, because they do not use deferred lighting, or do any other offscreen rendering, where AA would not be enabled. Processing and rendering IV with the older techniques would be even slower than it is now, and it would probably kill your gpu if you tried putting AA on it. 16x AA @ 2560x1600 using the traditional rendering methods? Picture if you will, bacon being cooked. Hear that sizzling sound? Yea, now imagine thats your gfx card in this setup.

 

Maybe i'm just old, but i never thought the lack of AA was a big deal. I notice it, but it doesn't seem to bother me. Certainly not anywhere near as much as it bothers some of you

[Subversion1337]

stuff

If you draw a line at a higher resolution on a smaller screen you will see less aliasing, that is true. But for this to be effective in GTA IV we would be talking about running at 10000 resolution for a decent result on a 15" screen.

 

That's not future proofing, that's not addressing the issue of jaggies, that's not effective and efficient AA, that's bullsh*t.

[livilaNic]

 

Maybe i'm just old, but i never thought the lack of AA was a big deal. I notice it, but it doesn't seem to bother me. Certainly not anywhere near as much as it bothers some of you

 

 

I might not be educated on the subject of how it works and what it would take for it to work. But damn man. I'm old too. Not sure how you can't be bother by it. It consumes my eyes while playing. Especially after playing for so long that you look around more, then stay focused on near objects. Guess it's like sound. To each their own. Whatever the case my be. They should have used a different technique to allow for AA. Yeah they didn't, so what now? Deal with it.

Edited March 22, 2009 by livilaNic

[ThomasPL]

They should make DX10 support in next patch. This game looks good without AA, but they should make this for players who haves hi-end PCs. I hope they would give it to next patch.

[Jc84144]

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of screens and pixels know that as you increase pixel density (and decreases the size of individual pixels) that the less jaggies are visible.

Now you've changed your argument and you're trying to pretend you didn't.

 

"less jaggies are visible" and "there is less aliasing and jaggies" mean two completely different things.

It's the same thing... unless you play GTA zoomed in why would it matter if the aliasing was actually there or not? When you zoom in, you see things bigger. Which is why the smaller pixels get, the smaller it looks until it becomes invisible., and less you see it. That's what I've been saying all along.

 

I see no noticeable jaggies at 1920×1080 at around 1 meter from the screen, though I understand lots of people like to be closer.

 

I only stated my argument, because someone said no AA is going back in time, when in fact AA will become obsolete as resolutions get higher and higher. I didn't say it's obsolete yet, and it wont be for a while, I'm not suggesting this is why GTA doesn't have AA either.