Dcrysis02 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I don't know if R* has learned it's lesson.Anyway, we will face our next challange this winter if i heard right.Max Payne 3,(developed by R* Vancouver) uses RAGE and Euphoria too.So we will see just how much R* has learned from it's past mistakes.Hopefully, that game will be more optimized.Although that is not a sandbox game as far as i know, so maybe we can't expect big progress because of that reason.We will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikoCarlTommyFidoJohnson Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Hey Proof that consoles rule. Name one PC exclusive that requires Quad Core CPU and SLI/CrossFireX setup besides Crysis. Name one PC exclusive period. The only PC exclusive that we've seen since 2007 was Crysis. GTA IV, Fallout 3, The Witcher, Mirror's Edge, Left for Dead, FarCry 2 - all games released on console, or will be released on console <The Witcher will be released this winter>. PC just does not have enough games that utilize the hardware. No console port will ever do that because developers are lazy. Why should developers spend money making games for 100 people when they can spend that money making games for 1000 people. It's about cash, and where is the cash right now? It's in these next-gen consoles. The PC may have better hardware, but it will not sell, because not enough people play games on it. P.S. Don't get me wrong. Not all developers are lazy to PC. Id Software is progressively working on the next installment of Doom and Alan Wake from Remedy, available for PC and the xbox360 should deliver DirectX 10 graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 OK before ANY ONE thinks about replying NikoCarlTommyFidoJohnson then don't. His post was so far off topic it wasn't even funny, he has been dealt with and the best thing everyone else can do is ignore him and carry on discussing AA or I could just close this if you like ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrysis02 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 OK before ANY ONE thinks about replying NikoCarlTommyFidoJohnson then don't. His post was so far off topic it wasn't even funny, he has been dealt with and the best thing everyone else can do is ignore him and carry on discussing AA or I could just close this if you like ? Do we even need this topic on AA?Firstly, normal AA is not possible without DX10, and we have other topics discussing other methods, like downsapling.I really don't see a reason why this thread should 'survive'.Just like the new DLC topic, we got the old one, why want another?(search function*wink, wink*) Bah, i'll just shut my cakehole..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorbachev Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I was so ready to jump into a consoles vs pc debate.. Edit: I like AA. Who wants AA? I want AA. AA. On a serious note I HATE post processing. These cheap AA alternatives are ugly blurry chunks of horse fecal excrement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyMhz Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I don't know why everyone complains about the AA issue so much. Hell id almost be happier to see the moon ingame that I would AA about now. And to confirm AA is not on consoles at all. Its the blur wanna be aa on the consoles. If you really think the consoles look better, go play it on your HDTV and you will see it looks much better than the consoles. Its a fun game, put up with it, they aren't gonna add AA. Just put it behind you, enjoy the game, or go start complaining about Max Payne 3 or tell them to put AA in that. And for the last time, AA can only be done in DX10 with defered shading, other wise it will just be emulated. *And if they did add AA performance would do nothing but decrease. Remember up to 16 iterations for every pixel to achieve it. And that's the truth, and there's nothing you can say to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viperelite Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 I just really hope they fix the Rage and Euphoria engines. They have like 98% room for improvement in all aspects. RAGE (Rockstar Advanced Game Engine) So far every game that uses this Advanced ( If You think it deserves such a title ) has had horrible graphics errors appearing without warning. Even playing this on my friends xbox it tears and there's shader errors everywhere. Although i would really rather not have to fumble around with noob sticks to have to play a game. If they considerably fixed these engines for the upcoming games they would see what an Untapped source of revenue PC gaming is. Look at Battlefield. They were one of the best and there 1942, vietnam, BF2, and 2142 are still played fanatically today with hundred if not thousands of servers. They use to deny any idea of moving to a console game. They sold out and now there games suck. Modern Warfare for console, Bad company, etc.... Personally i cant stand "Match Making" I would rather choose my server not get stuck with any old piece of sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnZS Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Well said Lucian04 That was a most informative post, I never even realised that the X-Box360GPU was so advanced, thanks Anyway, back on topic, yes I would love to see FSAA introduced into GTA IV, but reading around this could only happen if: 1) Rockstar did a DirectX10 render path which would allow for the 16bit Multisample FSAA 2) nVidia drivers "forced" the game to run in DirectX10 mode, (drifting slightly off topic here, nVidia 185+ series drivers introduced a new Ambient Occlusion feature which added realistic shadows and lighting to "old" DirectX9 games such as Half-Life 2, this is achieved only on Vista by running the game in DirectX10 mode (forced) and then applying the shadow shader program, IF nVidia did the same thing for GTA IV to add FSAA support via the driver control panel then there could be hope? 3) Rockstar program in some soft of software based line/edge Anti-Aliasing I am not sure if any of the above will happen, obviously number 1 would be the best choice as this well suit both ATi and nVidia people running Vista/Windows 7, on a more realistic note it would be a good idea for Rockstar to perhaps introduce a "slider" setting for the definition, as I am sure that a slight amount of tiny blur which just takes the edge of the jagglies would be better than what we have now... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 PC gaming is such and expensive and time consuming platform. Yes, especially time consuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oc student Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I just really hope they fix the Rage and Euphoria engines. They have like 98% room for improvement in all aspects. RAGE (Rockstar Advanced Game Engine) So far every game that uses this Advanced ( If You think it deserves such a title ) has had horrible graphics errors appearing without warning. Even playing this on my friends xbox it tears and there's shader errors everywhere. Although i would really rather not have to fumble around with noob sticks to have to play a game. If they considerably fixed these engines for the upcoming games they would see what an Untapped source of revenue PC gaming is. Look at Battlefield. They were one of the best and there 1942, vietnam, BF2, and 2142 are still played fanatically today with hundred if not thousands of servers. They use to deny any idea of moving to a console game. They sold out and now there games suck. Modern Warfare for console, Bad company, etc.... Personally i cant stand "Match Making" I would rather choose my server not get stuck with any old piece of sh*t. I don't see what your rant is about. First you talk about graphical errors on the console *cough bullsh*t!*. And then you rant about how crap Battlefield and COD 4 is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Horror Is Alive Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Hey you all are dreaming. The Rage engine was designed for the Xbox360 considering Table Tennis was a Xbox360 exclusive. The euphoria engine is a xbox360 motion 's engine. Let's face it, this game was never in any way made for PC. If you want to play a game with AA that is optimised right, you will have to play Mafia II. GTA IV will not be getting a new patch, and frankly Rockstar will not watse it's money on it. They are coding the DLC's for the xbox360 and you will have to buy a xbox360 if you want AA, point blank No AA No DX10 No DLC No new patches! Let's face it The PC platform is dead and no one gives a hoot! How do you know all this? R* Said in an interview over at IGB that PC gamers will be getting some form of DLC and that they intend to support the game They also said it ran great on PC, and was built from the ground up. Come on. Use your head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucian04 Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Lulz at the PC platform is dead.... - PC Gaming made over half of the 18 billion dollars in entertainment software revenue in 2007.. One Platform vs PS3, 360, PSP, DS, PS2, Wii. Do the math. - Hardware adoption rates are at an all time high with PC's. Millions of mid-range and high end GPU's, CPU's, memory, etc are being bought every year. Hell, when the 8800GT debuted it sold over 2 million units in it's short time available in 2007. - Steam w/ it's 15 million users likes to say "Hello" - Digital Distribution has become a staple on PC's that consoles are just now trying to emulate. EA Store, Direct 2 Drive, Gamersgate, Steam, Impulse, etc are all methods of purchasing games and downloading them straight to your PC. Just because you don't see any sizable amount of PC Games in Gamestop, who was never PC Centric to begin with, doesn't mean PC games don't sell. - If PC gaming is so bad, then why are most of the major jap developers adopting western game direction styles and are planning to support the PC more? Hell, Capcom is just the tip of the iceberg and every single recent "Capcom" produced/ported PC game has run near flawlessly. Just forget about the outsourced games and you'll see that Capcom is a very competent PC developer as well as a console developer. Tell me all you naysayers... If PC sucks so bad, then why are Sony and Microsoft trying to emulate it? And NikoCarlTommyFidoJohnson, you're just one mis-informed son of a gun aren't you? What part about the 360 can't do AA w/ deferred rendering didn't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris1508 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Why do you cry so much? Im playing with 20 FPS with low settings, texture flickering/tearing, low res and I still enjoy the game. -.- ofcourse its a great game, alot of people like to buy games to be impressed with amazing graphics but it looks like sh*t... no offense, its like playing far cry 2 on directx 9 mode. By the way Press "P" thats what rockstar calls anti aliasing... kind of pathetic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigglyass Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Bottom line, they did not make their RAGE to support DX10, they could of easily made GTA 4 still work on XP and have DX 10, the only problem for XP users would be forced to either use HDR lighting and have no AA or take AA but there would be no HDR lighting. Like Lost Planet, and Farcry 2, they have 2 modes, DX 9 and 10, 9 can only be used on XP while 10 on vista... Rockstar just felt lazy and did not feel like making RAGE support DX10, and eventually they will have to make it support DX10 because no one wants to put up with DX 9 restrictions anymore, not in this age where hardware is insanely powerful and they do not take full advantage of it. Or even better skip DX 10 and make RAGE use DX11 which has SDK available already, DX11 has some new insane toys... Bottom line, it would take some heavy modifications to implement AA into a DX9c game, they would have to do allot of sh*t to implement it at this stage, and it would cause more bugs and performance issues. So all of you forget about AA in GTA 4, it will never happen. There is too much risk involved in it, they know better not to do it. Oh and on the box of my GTA 4 it says the game is optimized for a x64 OS... Oh a load of sh*t, where is that x64 executable... Where is it? Game like this could EASILY take advantage of all the RAM i have. Edited June 13, 2009 by JigglyAss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnZS Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 JigglyAss I'm confident R* are working on a x64.exe, remember x64 support for FarCry and Unreal Tournament 2004 did not come "out of box", but came in later patches, I am sure that R* are working on this, purely because it was mentioned on the box. As for FSAA, your argument makes sense, if it is "too dangerous" to port GTA IV to DX10/DX11 then I think they should add a slider option for the definition, at least that way we can minimise the unsightly blur, yet still take the edge of jagglies John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigglyass Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 JigglyAssI'm confident R* are working on a x64.exe, remember x64 support for FarCry and Unreal Tournament 2004 did not come "out of box", but came in later patches, I am sure that R* are working on this, purely because it was mentioned on the box. As for FSAA, your argument makes sense, if it is "too dangerous" to port GTA IV to DX10/DX11 then I think they should add a slider option for the definition, at least that way we can minimise the unsightly blur, yet still take the edge of jagglies John I know they are working on that x64 executable but as far for AA, people need to learn that R* is into making money not risking it for another loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermortalhuman Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) I guess it is to be expected when it's one of the first games to finally be getting away from anti aliasing and into high resolution gaming... Get a faster PC with a bigger resolution supported on your monitor - problem solved. Save AA for your legacy games in 1024 mode because turning them up only makes them look washed out. AA isn't the end all be all and was only something to cope with the low resolutions you used to have. GTA IV was in development for years prior to Direct X10 and the bullcrap - yes bullcrap - Microsoft does with it to force you into an operating system that is already being replaced is not worth it to any developer out there - they make more money from gamers as a whole than the group of unsupported DX10 enthusiasts out there. A game of GTA's scale cant be expected to undertake the kind of support much much smaller games offer for the latest thing. Per pixel lighting is a good trade off based on research I had to do recently to understand it. If it's pixelated for you, then there you understand why it was built for "future PCs". You won't miss that anti aliasing on the next... emachines... you buy that comes with a decent monitor these days. I joke. But you get the idea - think back to GTA III anyone who has played that long. Think of how that looks compared to San Andreas. Now think how IV looks compared to San Andreas - looks - let alone how it looks next to GTA III. This is early on. You are lucky to even be playing GTA right now with some of the expectations I read on gametrailers, G4tv, Steam forums, and this the official forum for GTA fans. Let the platform evolve, I realize the people who are complaining in endless websites are used to things a certain way, and the newer ways don't really compliment the old ways much, but it's better in the long run. I see people mention how the textures were too small in GTA. How many pixels does your monitor even support? Think about it - it's all got to work together. I bet the only people who can really complain about GTA textures are those running it on absolute maximum resolution. They probably still look really good though, considering they are stuck in a little 2kx15k pixel area. It was a long read! Entertaining, but the pixelation you complain about is your tiny resolutions not able to handle per pixel lighting. Bump up the resolution, or hold out for the future PC. The consoles can get you that slick look on a sharp TV screen until then. I'm just glad it came to PC and I'm really impressed by the way it looks so far, let alone the next games, considering how cool max payne and red dead look (even if I don't like the rumors about Payne and Red Dead makes me envision SA). Edited June 13, 2009 by supermortalhuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofpeace Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Hey you all are dreaming. The Rage engine was designed for the Xbox360 considering Table Tennis was a Xbox360 exclusive. The euphoria engine is a xbox360 motion 's engine. Let's face it, this game was never in any way made for PC. If you want to play a game with AA that is optimised right, you will have to play Mafia II. GTA IV will not be getting a new patch, and frankly Rockstar will not watse it's money on it. They are coding the DLC's for the xbox360 and you will have to buy a xbox360 if you want AA, point blank No AA No DX10 No DLC No new patches! Let's face it The PC platform is dead and no one gives a hoot! What? Euphoria is a physics engine that has been used in commercials and many other games, and even has its own program for creating scenes on the PC. It is nothing more than a physics engine that happened to get into a partnership with Rockstar Games. Here's some proof to satisfy those who are curious: NaturalMotion's Site Personally, Anti Aliasing is just a resource hog to me and the game can look fine if you aren't staring 2 inches from your screen at some minuscule detail. I tested the different levels of AA in Crysis, and I only noticed a marginal change in appearance from no AA to 8xAA. I tested the difference in Oblivion, again, very little difference in what I saw. Hell, even FSX had very little change. My conclusion is that AA is just a selling point for games to graphics whores that think having a slightly smoother edge on something makes that much difference in how fun the game is. All it does it increase demand on my PC and makes the game run worse. Edit- Thanks supermortalhuman, glad you did your homework on the subject unlike most people. Edited June 14, 2009 by manofpeace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorbachev Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Are you using a CRT monitor? AA makes a huge difference in all the games I play. I don't NEED antialiasing but I sure do like it. It's usually one of the first things I disable to gain FPS for that reason. I'm not going to get upset if a game doesn't have it built in either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Russian 9 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I agree with Gorbachev. AA perfects the gaming experience for me. I enable it in every game I am able to. Using a semi-high resolution monitor(1680x1050), I still notice all the jaggies and it's an eyesore that's comparable to the blur R* used. In total, GTA IV just looks like sh*t. Crappy shadows, flickering textures & trees, etc. IMO if differed lighting could have actually been put to use rather than slapped on, I wouldn't have minded at all that AA isn't there. But we all forget the fact that no matter how much we complain about AA, it's the last thing to worry about when you have a port like this. There are heaps of problems bigger than this. So just go download the ultimate graphics tweak, and forget about AA. We can't do much now but hope for the best in the next GTA(for PC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofpeace Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Are you using a CRT monitor? AA makes a huge difference in all the games I play. I don't NEED antialiasing but I sure do like it. It's usually one of the first things I disable to gain FPS for that reason. I'm not going to get upset if a game doesn't have it built in either. I have a 23" 1680x1050 LCD Gateway Monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutOfTimer Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Lack of Anti-Aliasing is my personal number one issue with this game along with the lack of NoDVD patch. It's such a huge shame that I really can't stand it. It really destroys the whole experience. If anyone doesn't understand that, you will in a few years when you buy better hardware. Then you'll think - this game looks great and the graphics is fine even though so many years have passed... but what's wrong with those edges? It looks like the game was done in the '90s. Edited June 14, 2009 by OutOfTimer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungGun Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Remember how cool it was when R* first showed screen shots of the PC version? What a load of crap that was.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikt Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 There were jaggies visible and they applied ther same filter as you have now. Stop bitching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnZS Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Lack of Anti-Aliasing is my personal number one issue with this game along with the lack of NoDVD patch. It's such a huge shame that I really can't stand it. It really destroys the whole experience. If anyone doesn't understand that, you will in a few years when you buy better hardware. Then you'll think - this game looks great and the graphics is fine even though so many years have past. But what's wrong with those edges? It looks like the game was done in the '90s. Not meaning to argue with you OutOfTimer As I agree whole heartedly and I myself have been championing for FSAA support, but after reading quite a few knowledgeable posts from the likes of JigglyAss etc, it does seem very risky to "port" GTA IV to DirectX10 in order to allow FSAA. The amount of time taken to implement code changes and then testing would be huge, especially for a profit making organisation, this would ONLY happen if they had started to implement DirectX10 support early on, but "held it back due to problems" What would be nice (and yes I am repeating myself here), is if the Definition Option was a slider, as I am pretty certain that there is a compromise somewhere between ugly blury mess and nice graphics with the edge taken off the jagglies On a lighter note, Intel's Larrabee graphics chipset comes out at the end of this year/Q1 2010 and that is supposed to render everything via a hardware RayTrace Render Path, this would eliminate ANY need for FSAA as Ray Tracing is a different method of rendering compared to what we have now. This is Enemy Territory Quake Wars @ 1280x720 on an early alpha revision of the Intel Larrabee Graphics Chipset Spot the jagglies? So maybe in the future GTA IV won't look so bad John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nietzsche's God Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Lack of Anti-Aliasing is my personal number one issue with this game along with the lack of NoDVD patch. It's such a huge shame that I really can't stand it. It really destroys the whole experience. If anyone doesn't understand that, you will in a few years when you buy better hardware. Then you'll think - this game looks great and the graphics is fine even though so many years have past. But what's wrong with those edges? It looks like the game was done in the '90s. Not meaning to argue with you OutOfTimer As I agree whole heartedly and I myself have been championing for FSAA support, but after reading quite a few knowledgeable posts from the likes of JigglyAss etc, it does seem very risky to "port" GTA IV to DirectX10 in order to allow FSAA. The amount of time taken to implement code changes and then testing would be huge, especially for a profit making organisation, this would ONLY happen if they had started to implement DirectX10 support early on, but "held it back due to problems" What would be nice (and yes I am repeating myself here), is if the Definition Option was a slider, as I am pretty certain that there is a compromise somewhere between ugly blury mess and nice graphics with the edge taken off the jagglies On a lighter note, Intel's Larrabee graphics chipset comes out at the end of this year/Q1 2010 and that is supposed to render everything via a hardware RayTrace Render Path, this would eliminate ANY need for FSAA as Ray Tracing is a different method of rendering compared to what we have now. This is Enemy Territory Quake Wars @ 1280x720 on an early alpha revision of the Intel Larrabee Graphics Chipset Spot the jagglies? So maybe in the future GTA IV won't look so bad John I haven't played that game. Is that a 1st person shooter on a sandbox mode? If not, then the comparison of this game to GTA IV is in fact not similiar, nor can be measured as which one is ought to be raised to the expectation of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnZS Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I haven't played that game. Is that a 1st person shooter on a sandbox mode? If not, then the comparison of this game to GTA IV is in fact not similiar, nor can be measured as which one is ought to be raised to the expectation of the other. It's a FPS futuristic war game like Battlefield 2 but set in the "Quake Universe", battles take place over sprawling landscapes and players are able to use vehicles etc. I was not comparing Quake Wars to GTA IV, just mearly comparing the rendering technqie that the upcoming Intel Larrabee GPU uses, Larrabee RayTraces everything (in realtime), therefore GTA IV would be Raytraced with no Jagglies Mind you, we will have to wait until Q3 2009 or Q1 2010 before the Larrabee is out, by then nVidia and maybe ATi might have a GPU solution which does the same? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nietzsche's God Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I haven't played that game. Is that a 1st person shooter on a sandbox mode? If not, then the comparison of this game to GTA IV is in fact not similiar, nor can be measured as which one is ought to be raised to the expectation of the other. It's a FPS futuristic war game like Battlefield 2 but set in the "Quake Universe", battles take place over sprawling landscapes and players are able to use vehicles etc. I was not comparing Quake Wars to GTA IV, just mearly comparing the rendering technqie that the upcoming Intel Larrabee GPU uses, Larrabee RayTraces everything (in realtime), therefore GTA IV would be Raytraced with no Jagglies Mind you, we will have to wait until Q3 2009 or Q1 2010 before the Larrabee is out, by then nVidia and maybe ATi might have a GPU solution which does the same? John I was under the impression that the GPU is not at fault here about the "jagglies" issue, but more of the design of the game itself by R*. I suppose a new GPU in the market can correct the problem, or not. Sorry... I am not a video game designer, nor am I an engineer for designing GPUs . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutOfTimer Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 @ JohnZS: Thank you for this picture 'cause it's absolutely awesome. I've heard about this technology for the first time. Is it going to help us with GTA IV or it's rather for the future games that will support it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truehighroller Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I just read through this whole posting and wow. There are some silly redundent people out there. I play at 1920 X 1200 with high settings and must say that when you are playing this game at a higher resolution it is not that bad. The shaders now that is a whole different story all by it self. I have the graphics tweak implemented on my install as well I will add. Maybe that is what helped but, I don't really remember it being that bad jaggy wise before that TBH but, again at 1920 x 1200. Any way, consoles suck and PCs rule. Fanboys get over it, we are supperior to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts