Anti Aliasing....

[MonkeyMhz]

 

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

 

http://www.idfun.de/qwrt/screenshots/qwrt_0009.png

 

Spot the jagglies?

 

So maybe in the future GTA IV won't look so bad

John

FYI, the raytracing has to be programmed in the game for the graphic card to do so. Larrabee has the ability to do ray tracing as for current cards today are rasterization. So unless if they incorporated a ray tracing mode into GTAIV, it won't happen. Intel did the port from QW: ET to use Ray Tracing.

 

And yes its exciting but its not too soon, we will probably have at least another 4-6 years of rasterization. You may see more of a mix of more shaders and a small start to step away from rasterization but I don't think anything so drastic as real time raytracing taking over until at least another 5 years or more.

 

Also I don't think the future will be only "this" or only "that" it will probably end up being a mix of rasterization, raytracing, shaders, and the majority will be non API specific and more programmable GPU type stuff. However OpenGL and DirectX will still remain a player as a base of rendering but we will no longer rely on just triangles and polygons but whatever will look the best that we can pull off with voxels, and more.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the truth.

But this does mean we can expect nice things from GTAV.

Edited June 17, 2009 by CharmingCharlie

[JohnZS]

Thanks for your clarification MonkeyMhz

The thing is, Intel are really pushing this technology and with this being Intel pushing it there will be plenty of developer resources and SDK's it would not surprise me if come 2010 the ultimate gaming rigs would be entirely Intel powered.

(Only nVidia and ATi could stop this if they have a super card up their sleeves which also supports Raytracing etc) , from what I have heard nVidia are pushing the CUDA and DirectXCompute features of DirectX11 and ATi are banging on about DirectX11 features too.

 

You are right Intel did alter ET:QW somewhat to perform Raytrace rendering instead of rasterisation on their GPU, but it's the fact that it is possible, which can only mean good things for GTA:IV

What IF (and yes this is a big IF) Larrabee drivers support something like nVidia's AO filter, but instead it was RayTrace mode...with GTA IV being one of the game supported?

 

 

OutOfTimer

Glad you appreciated the image, it is pure speculation whether Intel's Larrabee GPU will support this RayTracing in many games or just a handful, but IF GTA IV got supported....wow, just WOW imagine Liberty City Ray Traced!!!

 

On a more down to earth note, a slider option for the definition is our most realistic "hope" of reducing jagglie mess without compromising image quality.

 

BTW not meaning to rant, but I game @ 1920*1200 and in games which support FSAA I use 4X or even 8xCSAA... why? Because FSAA adds that lovely finishing touch and polish to a game.

 

John

[DKT70]

FSAA isn't just about eliminating jagged edges, it can also eliminate texture shimmering and texture crawling, and you will still get both of those at any res especially if you move or drive towards detailed distant objects.

You can help against the shimmering and crawling by using a higher DOF than normal, something like the cut-scenes use when the engine focuses on the main characters and blurs the background to achieve a more focused view of your player. This looks great in broad daylight on a hot day as it looks a bit like heat haze, only without the shimmering effect.

[cep]

German Link ,someone should translate it.

http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/sh...ad.php?t=454129

 

Don´t works @me cause of VGA ..

[JohnZS]

German Link ,someone should translate it.

http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/sh...ad.php?t=454129

 

Don´t works @me cause of VGA ..

That is downsampling Cap

A very inefficient and GPU render hungry method of acheiving something similar to what we want. Basically using downsampling you are rendering GTA IV at a much higher resolution than you are playing at.

There is a thread on the forums here about this

John

[MonkeyMhz]

Tbh, I don't care what Intel is pushing. Intel has become a bit aggressive and, out of line. Yes they can do amazing things, but I still think ATI and Nvidia will hold firm ground on gaming graphics. There's alot of things being looked over with Larrabee, I'm not saying its bad. But graphics technology has pushed farther than we need right now, we havent even started exploring DX10 much in games yet already DX11 is being supported. I know its not a big change or update but there's plenty out there that people haven't seen. APIs don't determine the quality of games, or the graphics, but they help the programmer/artists achieve their desired results.

 

There's alot of nifty new things with these upcoming API's but I have yet to see proper use of them in a game. Pretty much what I'm saying, Intels Larrabee is a good thing, but don't expect it soon. The next technology shift is 2011-2012ish, we should start seeing a real jump in new technology by then. You must also realize that Larrabee isnt some amazing god. Its simply another way of doing things, Nvidia/ATI can very much well support raytracing as well with ease. Larrabees idea of having a bunch of powerful cores is just a different way of doing things. Much like:

 

ATI has huge amounts of stream processors but they are kinda shared.

Nvidia has less stream processors but they have a shader clock speed.

Intel has its Larrabee with powerful multiple cores.

 

However, normal GPUs kinda work as tons of little cores working away to get a job done. Larrabees idea is to take a less amount of uber powerful cores and then they can get the job done, as well as having full program-ability on the GPU. Which is good, but a big problem with Larrabee is its relying on the x86 architecture which has some pretty big drawbacks. I think Larrabee is more than its hyped up to-bee. Intel is big, and powerful, but lacking in many departments.

 

I think Nvidia is headed a good route, as well as ATI. As for Larrabee, its status is unkown. But Intel has done alot of whistle blowing making them less than credible now days.

Edited June 16, 2009 by MonkeyMhz

[JohnZS]

Very true, although I don't understand what you mean about Intel being aggressive and whistle blowing, however Larrabee could very well be the next S3 or the next R300,. so who knows..

 

FYI ATi have many stream processors, but their processors are weak compared to nVidia's, that is why ATi cards have a higher clock rate than competing nVidia cars where they have less stream processors, but "stronger ones".

Ati on the other hand though, have the edge with DirectX 10.1 support (nVidia do not have this), and 40nm HD4890, keep your eyes pealed for a HD4890X2 4GB card

Although come September ATi's R8xx series DirectX11 GPU's will be ready to launch and come November nVidia's DirectX 11 lineup will be ready for launch

Intel will follow in Jan/Feb 2010

 

What this means for GTA is, more graphical horsepower, hopefully more VRAM to play with too

 

John

[MonkeyMhz]

Very true, although I don't understand what you mean about Intel being aggressive and whistle blowing, however Larrabee could very well be the next S3 or the next R300,. so who knows..

 

FYI ATi have many stream processors, but their processors are weak compared to nVidia's, that is why ATi cards have a higher clock rate than competing nVidia cars where they have less stream processors, but "stronger ones".

Ati on the other hand though, have the edge with DirectX 10.1 support (nVidia do not have this), and 40nm HD4890, keep your eyes pealed for a HD4890X2 4GB card

Although come September ATi's R8xx series DirectX11 GPU's will be ready to launch and come November nVidia's DirectX 11 lineup will be ready for launch

Intel will follow in Jan/Feb 2010

 

What this means for GTA is, more graphical horsepower, hopefully more VRAM to play with too

 

John

Well what I mean by Intel getting agressive is some of the things they've been trying to get away with. Trying to pull x86 support from AMD, but they got a anti-trust punishment for that. Then Intel claiming i7 increases gaming performance by 30% regardless the GPU which is not true since the GPU determines gaming performance and a high end Intel Quad/Duo will get the same performance in games as a i7. As well as Intel lil brawls with Nvidia, and their excuses of using the x86 on Larrabee because its easier to develop on.

 

Its all a big soap opera and its pathetic. I think Carmack has the most sense in whats going on, and im currently living by his word. I just find it pathetic now days how much people are wound up by names of things and just hype rather than whats actually going on. Just take a look at ID Softwares RAGE for example, its using DX9 and last/current gen methods yet its quality is superior to anything we have out right now.

 

Intel seems to be almost biting off more than they can chew. I think in the end everyone's gonna end up having their strong points, but I could be wrong.

 

ATI = Impressive Shader Power and large datasets.

Nvidia = Phenomenal Number Crunching as well as good Shader Power.

Intel = Good Physics, and superior number processing.

 

Eventually with the move to newer things in 2012 almost all GPUs will be using the simular features, I find it hard to believe that one or the other will be the best at everything. Intel seems like they are on to something, but they are just stepping into the 3D market and with exploration comes mistakes and with mistakes come knowledge. I wouldn't bet on Larrabee to be the best of the best (but it will be interesting and new).

 

Nvidia + ATI have much more experience in graphics rendering. And think, Intels letting us know about Larrabee in advance, who knows what ATI or Nvidia could be cooking behind the scenes. They aren't just gonna sit there.

[Jigglyass]

1) 4890 is still 55nm HD 4770 is 40 nm

2) So what that they have DX10.1 most developers dont even bother taking advantage of it.

3) 4890X2 will be the most power consuming card to date thats around 300watts+ per card alone, no thanks i don't want to see my electric bill in the hundreds...

4) Intels GPU will be the bitch of the GPU market, or the low grade crap, youl see Nvidia and ATI will team up and dominate the GPU market.

[JohnZS]

Thanks JigglyAss

My mistake, since the HD4770 and the HD4890 were launched at the same time I wrongly assumed they were both 40nm.

A few developers are taking advantage of DX 10.1, Tom Clancy's Hawx is one game were a single HD4890 can nearly keep up with a GTX 285 (literally just a frame or two behind). Assassins Creed also had a DirectX 10.1 path, but it was very buggy and was pulled until it has been fixed.

 

I think it would be nice if Rockstar would embrace some of the new emerging technologies and implement them either into GTA IV or future titles. IMHO a 64Bit GTA IV exe is long overdude.

 

FSAA support would be nice, but after all of this reading around I have come to the conclusion that unless DirectX 10 support was being worked on with the premise of coming in a patch, it's just NOT going to happen. A slider for definition seems the most feasible image quality enhancement (for the time being)

 

MonkeyMhz

What you forget is that Carmack from ID is a master and making great Engine's, just look at Doom 3 Engine and what it achieved with ET:QW

 

John

 

[OutOfTimer]

I've been playing around with the graphics settings a little. At some point I said to myself... let's put everything to minimum and see what happens. The only things I left intact were 1920x1200 resolution and textures on high. Everything else went down as much as the game would let me. This means "0," "low" or "off" settings. And now guess what? It doesn't really make that much difference. I'm not joking - that's what I think and I encourage you to try this for yourself. Now I'm thinking to myself... I remember this famous qoute from R* that this game is "future proof" in terms of graphics. You know what, R*? It's not "future proof" - it's "sh*t proof." I'm wasting a 3.0 GHz Quad Core, a 1 GB Video RAM Graphics Card and 4 GB of system RAM on this piece of sh*t and it doesn't even have Anti-Aliasing. So this is what you call "future proof" ? You mean those edges, shadows and flashing textures are the future of the gaming industry? I pray to God that Elctronic Arts buys this company. I can run Crisis on max settings - and it's real eye candy. Now, I play your game on max settings and it's not that much different from the lowest settings - which is sh*t. Thanks.

[MonkeyMhz]

I've been playing around with the graphics settings a little. At some point I said to myself... let's put everything to minimum and see what happens. The only things I left intact were 1920x1200 resolution and textures on high. Everything else went down as much as the game would let me. This means "0," "low" or "off" settings. And now guess what? It doesn't really make that much difference. I'm not joking - that's what I think and I encourage you to try this for yourself. Now I'm thinking to myself... I remember this famous qoute from R* that this game is "future proof" in terms of graphics. You know what, R*? It's not "future proof" - it's "sh*t proof." I'm wasting a 3.0 GHz Quad Core, a 1 GB Video RAM Graphics Card and 4 GB of system RAM on this piece of sh*t and it doesn't even have Anti-Aliasing. So this is what you call "future proof" ? You mean those edges, shadows and flashing textures are the future of the gaming industry? I pray to God that Elctronic Arts buys this company. I can run Crisis on max settings - and it's real eye candy. Now, I play your game on max settings and it's not that much different from the lowest settings - which is sh*t. Thanks.

Hmm, well you should be running the game with no problem with a 1GB GPU and a Quad Core. I don't really have any problems with performance in it now. Its not the best it could be, but oh well.

 

As for the problems with the game, yea it has problems, but making such a vast and large city isnt necisarily something easy to do. Everything has to be UV mapped and textured and modeled its alot of work. They were probably running out of time making that game orignally and then even worse making it for PC was a big task. Really game companies got to start heading the route of building to seperate platforms in one go. Aside from that, oh well enjoy gtaiv for now.

 

As for EA taking over, thats the stupidest thing Ive heard. EA would do a much worse job if you ask me. And you say oh! Crysis you can run max settings yea, Crysis is good, but Crysis wasnt made by EA!. It was published by them, Crysis original makers are CryTek/gmbh.

 

Also if you can run Crysis in Very High, you should be playing GTAIV no problem. Because I run Crysis Very High and im experiancing decent frames in GTAIV.

 

They should have had AA in GTAIV, but they dont, and if they did we would be all on here saying. Oh whats the point of putting AA in when the game lags so much with it. To make us 100% happy was just not possible, and also a company is a company they are out to make money not loose it. Lets just see how Max Payne 3 is, same engine, im curious to see the result.

 

 

 

[Murcchachosa]

Didnt have Intel really bad GPU/chipsets?

Intel GPU's are just suck when startup heavy games with shaders.

Games with shaders has to be played on res 640x480.

I have an Intel and can barely play GTA SA, only on lowest possible.

Now I have 9600M GT and runs all games on medium/highest.

 

But I hope Intel will powerfull up their GPU's since

they didnt get overheated.

Games like GTA4 causes more heat.

[OutOfTimer]

 

I've been playing around with the graphics settings a little. At some point I said to myself... let's put everything to minimum and see what happens. The only things I left intact were 1920x1200 resolution and textures on high. Everything else went down as much as the game would let me. This means "0," "low" or "off" settings. And now guess what? It doesn't really make that much difference. I'm not joking - that's what I think and I encourage you to try this for yourself. Now I'm thinking to myself... I remember this famous qoute from R* that this game is "future proof" in terms of graphics. You know what, R*? It's not "future proof" - it's "sh*t proof." I'm wasting a 3.0 GHz Quad Core, a 1 GB Video RAM Graphics Card and 4 GB of system RAM on this piece of sh*t and it doesn't even have Anti-Aliasing. So this is what you call "future proof" ? You mean those edges, shadows and flashing textures are the future of the gaming industry? I pray to God that Elctronic Arts buys this company. I can run Crisis on max settings - and it's real eye candy. Now, I play your game on max settings and it's not that much different from the lowest settings - which is sh*t. Thanks.

Hmm, well you should be running the game with no problem with a 1GB GPU and a Quad Core. I don't really have any problems with performance in it now. Its not the best it could be, but oh well.

 

As for the problems with the game, yea it has problems, but making such a vast and large city isnt necisarily something easy to do. Everything has to be UV mapped and textured and modeled its alot of work. They were probably running out of time making that game orignally and then even worse making it for PC was a big task. Really game companies got to start heading the route of building to seperate platforms in one go. Aside from that, oh well enjoy gtaiv for now.

 

As for EA taking over, thats the stupidest thing Ive heard. EA would do a much worse job if you ask me. And you say oh! Crysis you can run max settings yea, Crysis is good, but Crysis wasnt made by EA!. It was published by them, Crysis original makers are CryTek/gmbh.

 

Also if you can run Crysis in Very High, you should be playing GTAIV no problem. Because I run Crysis Very High and im experiancing decent frames in GTAIV.

 

They should have had AA in GTAIV, but they dont, and if they did we would be all on here saying. Oh whats the point of putting AA in when the game lags so much with it. To make us 100% happy was just not possible, and also a company is a company they are out to make money not loose it. Lets just see how Max Payne 3 is, same engine, im curious to see the result.

LOL Of course I'm playing GTA IV on max settings. That's not the point of my post. I'm not satisfied with their max settings 'cause they're sh*t. Not even AA... the only thing we have is grainy shadows.

Edited June 17, 2009 by OutOfTimer

[MonkeyMhz]

I've been playing around with the graphics settings a little. At some point I said to myself... let's put everything to minimum and see what happens. The only things I left intact were 1920x1200 resolution and textures on high. Everything else went down as much as the game would let me. This means "0," "low" or "off" settings. And now guess what? It doesn't really make that much difference. I'm not joking - that's what I think and I encourage you to try this for yourself. Now I'm thinking to myself... I remember this famous qoute from R* that this game is "future proof" in terms of graphics. You know what, R*? It's not "future proof" - it's "sh*t proof." I'm wasting a 3.0 GHz Quad Core, a 1 GB Video RAM Graphics Card and 4 GB of system RAM on this piece of sh*t and it doesn't even have Anti-Aliasing. So this is what you call "future proof" ? You mean those edges, shadows and flashing textures are the future of the gaming industry? I pray to God that Elctronic Arts buys this company. I can run Crisis on max settings - and it's real eye candy. Now, I play your game on max settings and it's not that much different from the lowest settings - which is sh*t. Thanks.

Hmm, well you should be running the game with no problem with a 1GB GPU and a Quad Core. I don't really have any problems with performance in it now. Its not the best it could be, but oh well.

 

As for the problems with the game, yea it has problems, but making such a vast and large city isnt necisarily something easy to do. Everything has to be UV mapped and textured and modeled its alot of work. They were probably running out of time making that game orignally and then even worse making it for PC was a big task. Really game companies got to start heading the route of building to seperate platforms in one go. Aside from that, oh well enjoy gtaiv for now.

 

As for EA taking over, thats the stupidest thing Ive heard. EA would do a much worse job if you ask me. And you say oh! Crysis you can run max settings yea, Crysis is good, but Crysis wasnt made by EA!. It was published by them, Crysis original makers are CryTek/gmbh.

 

Also if you can run Crysis in Very High, you should be playing GTAIV no problem. Because I run Crysis Very High and im experiancing decent frames in GTAIV.

 

They should have had AA in GTAIV, but they dont, and if they did we would be all on here saying. Oh whats the point of putting AA in when the game lags so much with it. To make us 100% happy was just not possible, and also a company is a company they are out to make money not loose it. Lets just see how Max Payne 3 is, same engine, im curious to see the result.

LOL Of course I'm playing GTA IV on max settings. That's not the point of my post. I'm not satisfied with their max settings 'cause they're sh*t. Not even AA... the only thing we have is grainy shadows.

Tbh, i think the game looks awsome in highest. Im very pleased with it, with the proper blur from the ultimate graphics tweak im enjoying the game very much so.

 

The shadows are due to the type of shadowing they used, Cascaded Shadow Maps with Defered lighting. I'm still not sure 100% why they made those shadows all stipley. But CSM lighting does a good job overall.

 

As for buildings with the same stipple effect, not sure again. But I think that cold have something to do with being able to avoid sorting polygons.

 

Overall I'm impressed with the game, but there's many things that could have been better. But seriously tell me one other 3rd person game with such a open world with the same quality of graphics. Theres none, at least none that I have heard of.

 

So they deserve some credit.

 

 

 

[OutOfTimer]

 

I've been playing around with the graphics settings a little. At some point I said to myself... let's put everything to minimum and see what happens. The only things I left intact were 1920x1200 resolution and textures on high. Everything else went down as much as the game would let me. This means "0," "low" or "off" settings. And now guess what? It doesn't really make that much difference. I'm not joking - that's what I think and I encourage you to try this for yourself. Now I'm thinking to myself... I remember this famous qoute from R* that this game is "future proof" in terms of graphics. You know what, R*? It's not "future proof" - it's "sh*t proof." I'm wasting a 3.0 GHz Quad Core, a 1 GB Video RAM Graphics Card and 4 GB of system RAM on this piece of sh*t and it doesn't even have Anti-Aliasing. So this is what you call "future proof" ? You mean those edges, shadows and flashing textures are the future of the gaming industry? I pray to God that Elctronic Arts buys this company. I can run Crisis on max settings - and it's real eye candy. Now, I play your game on max settings and it's not that much different from the lowest settings - which is sh*t. Thanks.

Hmm, well you should be running the game with no problem with a 1GB GPU and a Quad Core. I don't really have any problems with performance in it now. Its not the best it could be, but oh well.

 

As for the problems with the game, yea it has problems, but making such a vast and large city isnt necisarily something easy to do. Everything has to be UV mapped and textured and modeled its alot of work. They were probably running out of time making that game orignally and then even worse making it for PC was a big task. Really game companies got to start heading the route of building to seperate platforms in one go. Aside from that, oh well enjoy gtaiv for now.

 

As for EA taking over, thats the stupidest thing Ive heard. EA would do a much worse job if you ask me. And you say oh! Crysis you can run max settings yea, Crysis is good, but Crysis wasnt made by EA!. It was published by them, Crysis original makers are CryTek/gmbh.

 

Also if you can run Crysis in Very High, you should be playing GTAIV no problem. Because I run Crysis Very High and im experiancing decent frames in GTAIV.

 

They should have had AA in GTAIV, but they dont, and if they did we would be all on here saying. Oh whats the point of putting AA in when the game lags so much with it. To make us 100% happy was just not possible, and also a company is a company they are out to make money not loose it. Lets just see how Max Payne 3 is, same engine, im curious to see the result.

LOL Of course I'm playing GTA IV on max settings. That's not the point of my post. I'm not satisfied with their max settings 'cause they're sh*t. Not even AA... the only thing we have is grainy shadows.

Tbh, i think the game looks awsome in highest. Im very pleased with it, with the proper blur from the ultimate graphics tweak im enjoying the game very much so.

 

The shadows are due to the type of shadowing they used, Cascaded Shadow Maps with Defered lighting. I'm still not sure 100% why they made those shadows all stipley. But CSM lighting does a good job overall.

 

As for buildings with the same stipple effect, not sure again. But I think that cold have something to do with being able to avoid sorting polygons.

 

Overall I'm impressed with the game, but there's many things that could have been better. But seriously tell me one other 3rd person game with such a open world with the same quality of graphics. Theres none, at least none that I have heard of.

 

So they deserve some credit.

Dude, dude, dude... you enjoy this game with blur? In order to hide how mych they f*cked up their job, you apply blur? Congrats! No, seriously, R* must be proud of you. And by the way, Crysis is a 2007 game, so I would expect kinda more from GTA IV but unfortunately it's a lame XBox 360 port.

 

Now feast your eyes on this:

 

 

Edited June 17, 2009 by OutOfTimer

[KingBulleT 8747]

For Nvidia graphic cards you can put anti aliasing onto GTA IV with the program called 'nHancer' (yes nHancer) but for me it only works 20% of starting IV

[MonkeyMhz]

Those picks you posted were just WIPs from the cryengine, next time post the actually ingame crysis instead of just some messing around.

 

Maybe if you read my post you would see that I'm talking about the ultimate graphics tweak which has a modified blur thats nowhere as near as powerful as the stock GTAIV blur.

 

Also CRYSIS isn't GTAIV, I don't care when you say you don't like GTAIV from this or that, thats fine, GTAIV DOES have problems. But when you start dragging stupid comparisons of completely different games like that then that ticks me off.

 

Dummys Guide To Why Crysis Isn't GTAIV:

 

Crysis is a Single player FPS, GTAIV is a 3rd Person Sand Box game. A Crysis map is sprawled out with most the detail in the areas were the player is playing as for the islands and cliffs in the distance are less/more bare in detail. GTAIV has a full city where the detail is spread out.

 

Crysis uses a voxel system to cull terrain to reduce polygons, GTAIV does not have much natural terrain forms therefore that type of voxel culling cannot be used or really wouldn't have much benefit. Both GTAIV and Crysis use CSM (Cascaded Shadow Maps) however GTAIV is obviously made a tad different and seem to have a stipple effect. GTAIV uses a shadow map for the whole world, as for Crysis has a shadow map per object.

 

GTAIV has to have interactions with many civilians and cars driving around at the same time, Crysis has a couple enemies that load and cull in the distance.

 

You cannot compare the two, also CryTek probably spent way more money and way more time on the CryEngine 2 than R* did. And GTAIV was made for console then ported, as for CryEngine was made for PC then stripped down (The Next CryEngine) for consoles.

 

GTAIV isn't trying to be photorealistic, as for Crysis is.

 

GTAIV uses deferred shading/lighting, Crysis doesn't.

 

Crysis drastically culls/LODs terrain in the distance, you cannot simply LOD/Cull the terrain like that in GTAIV or everything would look like crap. LODing landscape is far different than LOD'ing buildings/objects.

 

Crysis had the PC in mind first, GTAIV had the consoles in mind first.

 

People need to start examining whats different in the game instead of randomly compairing screenshots, GTAIV and Crysis are completely different. With my game engine I could make a scene that makes Crysis look crappy but it would only be a single room or area and thats it. And thats what your pretty much doing, your compairing a game that doesent have much freedom and has loading screens to a open streaming world in GTAIV. Which is just bluntly stupid.

 

Smarten up please.

 

You have your right to complain but don't do stupid comparisons like that, like i said before,

 

is there currently another 3rd person game with that amount of open freedom that looks better? No. I don't think so, so GTAIV gets some credit, yes they should have had DX10 and AA but they didn't. Get over it.

Edited June 17, 2009 by MonkeyMhz

[Jigglyass]

Im R* going to implements FSAA they going to need to remake RAGE from scratch to support DX10, id rather see them do that using DX11.

Sadly its not going to happen unlit consoles stop using DX9c.

Seriously which one of you idiots picked crysis as the comparison for IV?

Whoever did it has a brain span of a squirrel.

[YoungGun]

 

For Nvidia graphic cards you can put anti aliasing onto GTA IV with the program called 'nHancer' (yes nHancer) but for me it only works 20% of starting IV

I have tried messing around with that.. no difference yet..

 

Is does say:

 

 

"Anti-Aliasing Feature Bits.

 

For some games, the driver has to work around certain problems to make Anti-Aliasing possible.

 

For example, some games can't use AA because they're using HDR (high dynamic range) rendering. If the game doesn't follow certain rules, the driver can't apply AA unless it's 'bending' some rules.

 

Using this option, such 'bending' can be applied. Some valid values are already defined by nVidia, and you can select them from the drop down box. There might be other values, though, but their meaning hasn't been determined yet.

 

You can try to enter any hexadecimal value into the box if you want to experiment or if nVidia starts to use new values, nHancer isn't aware of yet."

 

 

So what settings are you using??

Edited June 18, 2009 by YoungGun

[OutOfTimer]

 

Those picks you posted were just WIPs from the cryengine, next time post the actually ingame crysis instead of just some messing around.

 

Maybe if you read my post you would see that I'm talking about the ultimate graphics tweak which has a modified blur thats nowhere as near as powerful as the stock GTAIV blur.

 

Also CRYSIS isn't GTAIV, I don't care when you say you don't like GTAIV from this or that, thats fine, GTAIV DOES have problems. But when you start dragging stupid comparisons of completely different games like that then that ticks me off.

 

Dummys Guide To Why Crysis Isn't GTAIV:

 

Crysis is a Single player FPS, GTAIV is a 3rd Person Sand Box game. A Crysis map is sprawled out with most the detail in the areas were the player is playing as for the islands and cliffs in the distance are less/more bare in detail. GTAIV has a full city where the detail is spread out.

 

Crysis uses a voxel system to cull terrain to reduce polygons, GTAIV does not have much natural terrain forms therefore that type of voxel culling cannot be used or really wouldn't have much benefit. Both GTAIV and Crysis use CSM (Cascaded Shadow Maps) however GTAIV is obviously made a tad different and seem to have a stipple effect. GTAIV uses a shadow map for the whole world, as for Crysis has a shadow map per object.

 

GTAIV has to have interactions with many civilians and cars driving around at the same time, Crysis has a couple enemies that load and cull in the distance.

 

You cannot compare the two, also CryTek probably spent way more money and way more time on the CryEngine 2 than R* did. And GTAIV was made for console then ported, as for CryEngine was made for PC then stripped down (The Next CryEngine) for consoles.

 

GTAIV isn't trying to be photorealistic, as for Crysis is.

 

GTAIV uses deferred shading/lighting, Crysis doesn't.

 

Crysis drastically culls/LODs terrain in the distance, you cannot simply LOD/Cull the terrain like that in GTAIV or everything would look like crap. LODing landscape is far different than LOD'ing buildings/objects.

 

Crysis had the PC in mind first, GTAIV had the consoles in mind first.

 

People need to start examining whats different in the game instead of randomly compairing screenshots, GTAIV and Crysis are completely different. With my game engine I could make a scene that makes Crysis look crappy but it would only be a single room or area and thats it. And thats what your pretty much doing, your compairing a game that doesent have much freedom and has loading screens to a open streaming world in GTAIV. Which is just bluntly stupid.

 

Smarten up please.

 

You have your right to complain but don't do stupid comparisons like that, like i said before,

 

is there currently another 3rd person game with that amount of open freedom that looks better? No. I don't think so, so GTAIV gets some credit, yes they should have had DX10 and AA but they didn't. Get over it.

I'm fully aware of what those pictures are. I'm also aware how the blur from the Ultimate Tweak looks like 'cause I've tried it. And yes, I've read your post.

 

You are making comparisons of how the in-game world is designed, comparisons of pixel density, etc. Taking a squirrel example here - you are telling me that squirrels are faster than raccoons 'cause they are red. What the f*ck does it have to do with anything? Save your details for later and ask yourself a question - why doesn't GTA IV's graphics look as good as it should? And now answer yourself - 'cause R* f*cked up and made a lame console port. That's it. Now, if you wanna know how much they f*cked up - look at my pictures. End of stroy.

 

Another good example were the problem is:

 

 

 

Im R* going to implements FSAA they going to need to remake RAGE from scratch to support DX10, id rather see them do that using DX11.

Sadly its not going to happen unlit consoles stop using DX9c.

Seriously which one of you idiots picked crysis as the comparison for IV?

Whoever did it has a brain span of a squirrel.

I am the one responsible for the Crysis comparison. Thank you for bringing down my superior intelligence to the aforementioned level.

Edited June 18, 2009 by OutOfTimer

[oc student]

Man! You posted a another pre release hype shot. Have you ever played the game at all? If you have then you'd know these are shots from Microsoft to hype up their Direct X 10.

[weaveribm]

You posted a another pre release hype shot. Have you ever played the game at all? If you have then you'd know these are shots from Microsoft to hype up their Direct X 10.

 

From years ago too and it's still DX9-graphics in all but name in FSX

[ikt]

*wait for edit that kills dx10*

Edited June 18, 2009 by ikt

[GamerShotgun]

@OutOfTimer: If you were intelligent enough, you'd see and already know that the second comparison picture is just a painting which've been done by an artist hired by Microsoft...

[Graven]

It is very complicated. You see, if You go the AA way, You can´t go drinking with Roman.

On the other hand, when You go drinking with Roman, You wont see jaggies.

 

Q: "Does GTA IV utilize AA?"

R*: "Yes it does. But You have to be old enough to buy booze"

 

 

[ikt]

It is very complicated. You see, if You go the AA way, You can´t go drinking with Roman.

On the other hand, when You go drinking with Roman, You wont see jaggies.

 

Q: "Does GTA IV utilize AA?"

R*: "Yes it does. But You have to be old enough to buy booze"

^This^

[Murcchachosa]

Those picks you posted were just WIPs from the cryengine, next time post the actually ingame crysis instead of just some messing around.

 

Maybe if you read my post you would see that I'm talking about the ultimate graphics tweak which has a modified blur thats nowhere as near as powerful as the stock GTAIV blur.

 

Also CRYSIS isn't GTAIV, I don't care when you say you don't like GTAIV from this or that, thats fine, GTAIV DOES have problems. But when you start dragging stupid comparisons of completely different games like that then that ticks me off.

 

Dummys Guide To Why Crysis Isn't GTAIV:

 

Crysis is a Single player FPS, GTAIV is a 3rd Person Sand Box game. A Crysis map is sprawled out with most the detail in the areas were the player is playing as for the islands and cliffs in the distance are less/more bare in detail. GTAIV has a full city where the detail is spread out.

 

Crysis uses a voxel system to cull terrain to reduce polygons, GTAIV does not have much natural terrain forms therefore that type of voxel culling cannot be used or really wouldn't have much benefit. Both GTAIV and Crysis use CSM (Cascaded Shadow Maps) however GTAIV is obviously made a tad different and seem to have a stipple effect. GTAIV uses a shadow map for the whole world, as for Crysis has a shadow map per object.

 

GTAIV has to have interactions with many civilians and cars driving around at the same time, Crysis has a couple enemies that load and cull in the distance.

 

You cannot compare the two, also CryTek probably spent way more money and way more time on the CryEngine 2 than R* did. And GTAIV was made for console then ported, as for CryEngine was made for PC then stripped down (The Next CryEngine) for consoles.

 

GTAIV isn't trying to be photorealistic, as for Crysis is.

 

GTAIV uses deferred shading/lighting, Crysis doesn't.

 

Crysis drastically culls/LODs terrain in the distance, you cannot simply LOD/Cull the terrain like that in GTAIV or everything would look like crap. LODing landscape is far different than LOD'ing buildings/objects.

 

Crysis had the PC in mind first, GTAIV had the consoles in mind first.

 

People need to start examining whats different in the game instead of randomly compairing screenshots, GTAIV and Crysis are completely different. With my game engine I could make a scene that makes Crysis look crappy but it would only be a single room or area and thats it. And thats what your pretty much doing, your compairing a game that doesent have much freedom and has loading screens to a open streaming world in GTAIV. Which is just bluntly stupid.

 

Smarten up please.

 

You have your right to complain but don't do stupid comparisons like that, like i said before,

 

is there currently another 3rd person game with that amount of open freedom that looks better? No. I don't think so, so GTAIV gets some credit, yes they should have had DX10 and AA but they didn't. Get over it.

This guy has spoken!

Now f*ck off to people who thinks GTA4 is Crysis or Crysis is GTA4.

Just f*ck off.

CharmingCharlie is right, you see only big stinking jungle.

Some gorrila's to rape here and there, some enemies to shoot

and you finished the game.

GTA4 is a 24/7 game.

I never finished GTA4 game because of the huge gameplay.

Everyday I found something, since medio January.

People who still think GTA4 is Crysis are the dumbest chimpandickheads

on the planet.

[MonkeyMhz]

 

Those picks you posted were just WIPs from the cryengine, next time post the actually ingame crysis instead of just some messing around.

 

Maybe if you read my post you would see that I'm talking about the ultimate graphics tweak which has a modified blur thats nowhere as near as powerful as the stock GTAIV blur.

 

Also CRYSIS isn't GTAIV, I don't care when you say you don't like GTAIV from this or that, thats fine, GTAIV DOES have problems. But when you start dragging stupid comparisons of completely different games like that then that ticks me off.

 

Dummys Guide To Why Crysis Isn't GTAIV:

 

Crysis is a Single player FPS, GTAIV is a 3rd Person Sand Box game. A Crysis map is sprawled out with most the detail in the areas were the player is playing as for the islands and cliffs in the distance are less/more bare in detail. GTAIV has a full city where the detail is spread out.

 

Crysis uses a voxel system to cull terrain to reduce polygons, GTAIV does not have much natural terrain forms therefore that type of voxel culling cannot be used or really wouldn't have much benefit. Both GTAIV and Crysis use CSM (Cascaded Shadow Maps) however GTAIV is obviously made a tad different and seem to have a stipple effect. GTAIV uses a shadow map for the whole world, as for Crysis has a shadow map per object.

 

GTAIV has to have interactions with many civilians and cars driving around at the same time, Crysis has a couple enemies that load and cull in the distance.

 

You cannot compare the two, also CryTek probably spent way more money and way more time on the CryEngine 2 than R* did. And GTAIV was made for console then ported, as for CryEngine was made for PC then stripped down (The Next CryEngine) for consoles.

 

GTAIV isn't trying to be photorealistic, as for Crysis is.

 

GTAIV uses deferred shading/lighting, Crysis doesn't.

 

Crysis drastically culls/LODs terrain in the distance, you cannot simply LOD/Cull the terrain like that in GTAIV or everything would look like crap. LODing landscape is far different than LOD'ing buildings/objects.

 

Crysis had the PC in mind first, GTAIV had the consoles in mind first.

 

People need to start examining whats different in the game instead of randomly compairing screenshots, GTAIV and Crysis are completely different. With my game engine I could make a scene that makes Crysis look crappy but it would only be a single room or area and thats it. And thats what your pretty much doing, your compairing a game that doesent have much freedom and has loading screens to a open streaming world in GTAIV. Which is just bluntly stupid.

 

Smarten up please.

 

You have your right to complain but don't do stupid comparisons like that, like i said before,

 

is there currently another 3rd person game with that amount of open freedom that looks better? No. I don't think so, so GTAIV gets some credit, yes they should have had DX10 and AA but they didn't. Get over it.

I'm fully aware of what those pictures are. I'm also aware how the blur from the Ultimate Tweak looks like 'cause I've tried it. And yes, I've read your post.

 

You are making comparisons of how the in-game world is designed, comparisons of pixel density, etc. Taking a squirrel example here - you are telling me that squirrels are faster than raccoons 'cause they are red. What the f*ck does it have to do with anything? Save your details for later and ask yourself a question - why doesn't GTA IV's graphics look as good as it should? And now answer yourself - 'cause R* f*cked up and made a lame console port. That's it. Now, if you wanna know how much they f*cked up - look at my pictures. End of stroy.

 

Another good example were the problem is:

 

 

 

Im R* going to implements FSAA they going to need to remake RAGE from scratch to support DX10, id rather see them do that using DX11.

Sadly its not going to happen unlit consoles stop using DX9c.

Seriously which one of you idiots picked crysis as the comparison for IV?

Whoever did it has a brain span of a squirrel.

I am the one responsible for the Crysis comparison. Thank you for bringing down my superior intelligence to the aforementioned level.

 

Another noob about to get his face slapped.

 

Seriously. Example of how the game world is designed is why the game runs how it runs and why Crysis runs better. FFS you have no right to be talking anything about the technical field.

 

Eg. Landscape in Crysis uses a voxel method where anything you dont see doesent get rendered. If you go in the editor and make a flat plane you can see parts disapear on it when u move farther away. And moron can realise that if you have a cliff far away and you LOD it to a lower polygon resolution you can make the front almost non existant and poor detailed but as long as it keeps the silohette in the distance it looks good. As for GTAIV what are you gonna do, reduce a hirise to a couple polygons. NO! It would look like a fking triangle.

 

Also, yea any game can run better. But their interest is to get it done, anyone can spend multiple years perfecting a engine to run faster but their interest was to get the job done, on budget. And thats what they did, we all know there are problems and we all know what they could have done better. But clearly that didn't happen. GTA went out and was experimental with its player interactions and bringing that graphical density and quality to that type of genre. Im more than happy with the GTAIV graphics in maxed out. Only thing I can beef on is that there should have been DX10 support hand in hand with AA, and a better release (that had more options than rather waiting for the patches) and a better online game play. If they did those 3 things, I would be more than happy to consider GTAIV a good/decent release, instead its just ok. But the game is good.

 

And btw that screen shot you posted is bogus, this is the fking things im always talking about how they make DX10 look like god in magazines and stuff when turds like you dont realize wtf DX10 is. Its a FKING API, It does not determine the quality of graphics. Here are why that posting that picture made you look extreamly unknowledgeable and stupid:

 

1. Thats not how ingame FSX looks, that was a more hyped image that they made to show off the game.

 

2. DX10 does not make the water look better, all they did is use DX10 features in the shader they programmed for that DX10 image. That water could still be achieved in DX9 since it doesent need to use a DX10 specific feature. Eg, just like in Crysis when you used to only be able to get GodRays in DX10, then magically you could use it too in DX9. Same thing going on here.

 

3. Again the clouds are the same thing above ^, as for I do see some color grading on that image that might be a DX10 feature but it probably could also be achived in DX9.

 

4. DX10 is good, but if they did add DX10 onto GTAIV the only thing we would gain is AA, they woulden't bother changing all the shaders to DX10 specific crap and remaking them insanely. The performance would get even worse if they did so. You really have no idea in what it is like making a game and how much work there is.

 

GTAIV does a pretty damn good job of culling and keeping everything running smoothly. It runs pretty good on high end systems, I do admit its pretty crappy performance on more midrange/low end. But its mainly because it hogs CPU power for the animation/physics engine and because its not the best port. However Ive seen alot worse and im glad we didn't get something like Bully.

 

And No I dont think the game could have looked much better aside from AA. It looks pretty spectacular, and if you can't see that then go look at a fking magazine and flip the pages fast because clearly all you were expecting was Crysis quality models and textures in a game like GTAIV which would turn your PC into a weeping sack of ... Ill stop now.

Edited June 18, 2009 by MonkeyMhz

[OutOfTimer]

I'm speaking from my own experience and my own experience only. As a customer who bought the game and on that basis alone has the right to talk about what they think. I don't care about pixel count, technical details, etc. I not only played Crysis but made side by side comparisons of how it looks under different settings - also compared it to GTA IV. In my opinion, the pictures I posted - and again I don't care if you consider them hype or not - represent the exact difference between Crysis and GTA IV. Just look at the water on both pictures. This is what I personally think and of course you may insult me like you do, bring on more numbers, defend R* - up to you. But that doesn't change anything... you got ripped off by R* and that's how this game will be remembered. When somebody mentions the PC version in 10 years time, they'll say "oh yeah, it's that console port nobody wanted to buy." And the only thing you'll do will be nodding your head in shame.

 

 

Only thing I can beef on is that there should have been DX10 support hand in hand with AA, and a better release (that had more options than rather waiting for the patches) and a better online game play. If they did those 3 things, I would be more than happy to consider GTAIV a good/decent release, instead its just ok. But the game is good.

So it seems you agree with me. Great... then why do you insult? Is insulting the way you handle all conversations?

 

 

1. Thats not how ingame FSX looks, that was a more hyped image that they made to show off the game.

 

2. DX10 does not make the water look better, all they did is use DX10 features in the shader they programmed for that DX10 image. That water could still be achieved in DX9 since it doesent need to use a DX10 specific feature. Eg, just like in Crysis when you used to only be able to get GodRays in DX10, then magically you could use it too in DX9. Same thing going on here.

 

3. Again the clouds are the same thing above ^, as for I do see some color grading on that image that might be a DX10 feature but it probably could also be achived in DX9.

 

4. DX10 is good, but if they did add DX10 onto GTAIV the only thing we would gain is AA, they woulden't bother changing all the shaders to DX10 specific crap and remaking them insanely. The performance would get even worse if they did so. You really have no idea in what it is like making a game and how much work there is.

 

GTAIV does a pretty damn good job of culling and keeping everything running smoothly. It runs pretty good on high end systems, I do admit its pretty crappy performance on more midrange/low end. But its mainly because it hogs CPU power for the animation/physics engine and because its not the best port. However Ive seen alot worse and im glad we didn't get something like Bully.

 

And No I dont think the game could have looked much better aside from AA. It looks pretty spectacular, and if you can't see that then go look at a fking magazine and flip the pages fast because clearly all you were expecting was Crysis quality models and textures in a game like GTAIV which would turn your PC into a weeping sack of ... Ill stop now.

1-4: Untrue in my opinion and I conducted my own testing. You flooded us with technical details again - they don't change a thing.

 

GTA IV does NOT run well on high end systems. I have a high end system and it runs like sh*t. It is also a crash central with memory leaks and stuttering. Are you going to bring on even more technical details to prove me wrong? 'Cause again - this corporate hype talk is good for 13-y-o who play on XBox 360. I know what I see and that's it. Thank you.

Edited June 18, 2009 by OutOfTimer