Anti Aliasing....

[MonkeyMhz]

 

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.

Listen buddy.

 

I have no problem with what you say, just don't dare compare Crysis to GTAIV. Thats like comparing Starcraft 2 to the Sims, why aren't the soldiers as detailed. Cuz its a completely different type of game.

 

And your own tests prove nothing, please give me a actual reason why 1-4 isn't true. Pretty much whats going on here is your denying facts on why the game can't look like Crysis, its almost as if I said "Fire will burn you" and then you say, "No it won't", well we all know what happens when you try to put your hand in the fire. You burn it, just like now.

 

And then maybe there's something wrong with your system, because you say it doesn't run well. Well I'm pretty happy with how its running on my PC. And Id take the PC version any day over the console version, console version is terrible looking and runs even worse.

 

There's not much more im going to bother explaining about because obviously you deny the facts and bend the truth and refuse to understand the simplest things and wont change your mind because your some stubborn child.

 

So what your saying to me, is that GTAIV should have had AA (I agree) and all the things we agree on, but you also are expecting GTAIV to have the character detail of Crysis, the Weapon detail of Crysis and more? Seriously can you not realize that displaying 30-60 people on screen at 10,000+ polygons in a game like GTAIV would completely lag the game.

 

Do you seriously think that our modern day GPUs can render trillions of polygons with no lag. I suggest you reach about the technical side of games so you can understand that there's limits and budgets. Using large texture maps like in Crysis all over GTAIV would push the game over 50gb easily.

 

I leave you with this one question, do you think that added DX10 to the game, would make all the graphics better (Besides AA) without redoing textures/shaders/models, do you think it would make the water look amazing all of a sudden?

 

And do you even know what shaders are?

(Oh look at him try google search).

 

And no, im not insulting you because that's how I handle my conversations, I insulted you because you fail to listen to the facts. If you were a expert at something I would listen to you about it and take your word for it. But you don't, you think you know everything.

 

All im saying is GTAIV should have had AA and the things I mentioned before, however the graphics overall look good and are the best for that type of sandbox/open end game. And clearly having the graphics of Crysis in GTAIV is just not feasible at this time, we would have to either A. Spend a long long time optimizing the hell out of something which would delay the game years. or B. Make the move to voxels and new datasets and next gen technology which wont really kick in till 2011-2012+.

 

Look at Alan Wake, that's the next open ended 3rd person eye-candy. Are you now gonna tell me oh Alan Wake is crap, it doesn't look as good as Crysis. Lets all see how Alan Wake will run, if im not mistaken it may need a Quad core to access high graphics. We will see.

 

All your doing is comparing screen shots which is retarded because in each case the game base and game-play is completely different which DOES effect what type of graphics you can use, and then your using that basis to say that DX10 is much better. Well if your gonna play stupid, so will I!

 

OH LOOK, OPENGL 2.1 LOOK SUPERIOR TO DX9 AND 10.

This screen shot below is complete BS since its comparing completely different cases, games vs tech demos vs stills. Its useless and cant be used to judge anything but in your stubborn ways you just use a API and screen shot to determine what does what.

 

 

From a proper standpoint, OpenGL3 and Directx10 offer the fundamentally same thing, just a different API. Same with OpenGL2.1 and DirectX9.

 

So it proves my point, screen shot to screen shot comparison is not a accurate thing to do. By adding DX10 GTAIV it would add AA which is good and why I would like them to do it, however you take this problem to a whole different level. To achieve Crysis like graphics in GTAIV you would have to overhaul the whole game, every texture and model, and even then it would just run worse than it does now. And it leads right back to my A and B post, to get GTAIV to work well with Crysis like graphics you would have to spend multiple years re-creating and optimizing to just get a somewhat playable game, or B. Jump into next gen methods which wont happen till 2012ish.

Edited June 18, 2009 by MonkeyMhz

[Jigglyass]

Graphically speaking GTA IV vs Crysis it the same thing as comparing a tricycle vs a sports bike.

But when comparing them both into a gameplay standard and the open endless and abilities, it goes the other way.

Bottom line there will be no AA in GTA 4, unless they give us an ability to pick HDR or FSAA but anyway.

Oh by the way coding in DX10 is easier than DX9c.

Edited June 18, 2009 by JigglyAss

[MonkeyMhz]

 

Oh by the way coding in DX10 is easier than DX9c.

That's pretty broad. I wouldn't say its easier, it has easier access to some things. Pretty much all DirectX10 does is remove fixed-function programming, alot of it becomes shader programming. Also DX10 is just a API you still need to understand the language your using to program to use it.

 

If you don't know shader code (HLSL) then DX10 is hell.

[Jigglyass]

Oh by the way coding in DX10 is easier than DX9c.

shader code (HLSL) then DX10 is hell.

True, but ive read somewhere SM5 solves that problem.

[MonkeyMhz]

 

Oh by the way coding in DX10 is easier than DX9c.

shader code (HLSL) then DX10 is hell.

True, but ive read somewhere SM5 solves that problem.

Shader Model 5 won't be out for a while and if im not mistaken its DX11, however it does make it a bit more flexible for programmers. Since with sm5 you can start using polymorphism, interface/objects and more as well as adding double precision. However shaders are shaders and it still work to code them and you will still need a good understanding of HLSL.

 

Nevertheless the future has some exciting things in store for us indeed.

Edited June 18, 2009 by MonkeyMhz

[OutOfTimer]

I'm really tired of this discussion. MonkeyMhz doesn't seem to get my point and doesn't listen to what I've got to say so let me ask a question. It seems that you are some IT Pro and that's great. Tell an Expert Player, who looks at this from a totally different perspective, why GTA IV PC sales are so low?

[CharmingCharlie]

 

why GTA IV PC sales are so low?

 

That has nothing to do with AA or anything else sales were so low on the PC cos pretty much everyone knicked the f*cker from torrent sites.

[Jigglyass]

Oh by the way coding in DX10 is easier than DX9c.

shader code (HLSL) then DX10 is hell.

True, but ive read somewhere SM5 solves that problem.

Shader Model 5 won't be out for a while and if im not mistaken its DX11, however it does make it a bit more flexible for programmers. Since with sm5 you can start using polymorphism, interface/objects and more as well as adding double precision. However shaders are shaders and it still work to code them and you will still need a good understanding of HLSL.

 

Nevertheless the future has some exciting things in store for us indeed.

Actually ATI claims that they are releasing a DX11 compatible GPU sometime in July, they already demonstrated their DX11 GPU at some meeting, i forgot which.

DX11 is coming sooner than you think.

[MonkeyMhz]

 

Oh by the way coding in DX10 is easier than DX9c.

shader code (HLSL) then DX10 is hell.

True, but ive read somewhere SM5 solves that problem.

Shader Model 5 won't be out for a while and if im not mistaken its DX11, however it does make it a bit more flexible for programmers. Since with sm5 you can start using polymorphism, interface/objects and more as well as adding double precision. However shaders are shaders and it still work to code them and you will still need a good understanding of HLSL.

 

Nevertheless the future has some exciting things in store for us indeed.

Actually ATI claims that they are releasing a DX11 compatible GPU sometime in July, they already demonstrated their DX11 GPU at some meeting, i forgot which.

DX11 is coming sooner than you think.

Yep! However using DX11 in games properly as a actual base is not something that's gonna happen for a while. At least a year or two. And closer that next big jump in gaming comes the less important and the less use APIs will have. But they still will ultimately be the base of a game.

 

@ OutofTimer:

 

I agree with CC on this one, alot of people just ripped this game. However I can give you other reasons why it didn't sell well, for one its far off release date from the console versions, its high requirements, multi-player is somewhat ruined, and its original PC release was terrible (1.0.3 should have been how it was at release). And I guess you can add, it was lacking AA.

 

I'm not saying this game is the best in anyway, we all know this game has problems, but the thing I just wanted to get across is a game like this with Crysis Graphics that runs better is a complete fantasy and just can't be accomplish without a monolith of a budget and multiple 24 hour sweat shops and a long production time. At least not in this point and time, you must remember they start making games ages before you even hear of it (most of the time). For the next GTA we can hope for much better, but IMO GTAIV was a great game, its PC version looks fantastic, its just the flaws above ^^ that I mentioned that really made this game a stinker in most peoples views. Which is why the console version is a more feasible choice for most people, but I still would take the fked up PC port that looks better rather than having the console graphics that run on lower reqs. But people can disagree with that and that's fine.

 

All I wanted to get across is, GTAIV with Crysis graphics, not possible on this release.

 

Everyone enjoy a cookie!

[Jigglyass]

Oh by the way coding in DX10 is easier than DX9c.

shader code (HLSL) then DX10 is hell.

True, but ive read somewhere SM5 solves that problem.

Shader Model 5 won't be out for a while and if im not mistaken its DX11, however it does make it a bit more flexible for programmers. Since with sm5 you can start using polymorphism, interface/objects and more as well as adding double precision. However shaders are shaders and it still work to code them and you will still need a good understanding of HLSL.

 

Nevertheless the future has some exciting things in store for us indeed.

Actually ATI claims that they are releasing a DX11 compatible GPU sometime in July, they already demonstrated their DX11 GPU at some meeting, i forgot which.

DX11 is coming sooner than you think.

Yep! However using DX11 in games properly as a actual base is not something that's gonna happen for a while. At least a year or two. And closer that next big jump in gaming comes the less important and the less use APIs will have. But they still will ultimately be the base of a game.

 

@ OutofTimer:

 

I agree with CC on this one, alot of people just ripped this game. However I can give you other reasons why it didn't sell well, for one its far off release date from the console versions, its high requirements, multi-player is somewhat ruined, and its original PC release was terrible (1.0.3 should have been how it was at release). And I guess you can add, it was lacking AA.

 

I'm not saying this game is the best in anyway, we all know this game has problems, but the thing I just wanted to get across is a game like this with Crysis Graphics that runs better is a complete fantasy and just can't be accomplish without a monolith of a budget and multiple 24 hour sweat shops and a long production time. At least not in this point and time, you must remember they start making games ages before you even hear of it (most of the time). For the next GTA we can hope for much better, but IMO GTAIV was a great game, its PC version looks fantastic, its just the flaws above ^^ that I mentioned that really made this game a stinker in most peoples views. Which is why the console version is a more feasible choice for most people, but I still would take the fked up PC port that looks better rather than having the console graphics that run on lower reqs. But people can disagree with that and that's fine.

 

All I wanted to get across is, GTAIV with Crysis graphics, not possible on this release.

 

Everyone enjoy a cookie!

Im not in it for the actual visuals, im there for the advantages DX11 gives to the GPU usage other than rendering graphics.

Ray tracing is nice though. Most likely will need a ton of computing power tho.

[Drunk Russian 9]

why GTA IV PC sales are so low?

 

That has nothing to do with AA or anything else sales were so low on the PC cos pretty much everyone knicked the f*cker from torrent sites.

Yea, then uninstalled the game 2 days later realizing what a worthless port it was.

 

As for graphics comparison, GTA IV can be compared to Mafia 2. Both are sandbox-based games.

 

However, we can't do a real comparison ATM because Mafia 2 didn't come out yet.

[CharmingCharlie]

If that is the way you feel I am a bit confused why you keep coming to a FAN forum then. I mean fine we get the idea YOU think it was a piece of sh*t port, you have said your piece yet you still keep coming to the GTA 4 PC section of a FAN forum to bitch and moan.

 

I don't like Crysis I think it's sh*tk, I think it is an unoptimised piece of crap, but I don't go to the Crysis forum and bitch and whine every day about it. I just accept I made a mistake and will think twice about buying any Crytek games in the future. It is a shame people like you can't give us the same courtesy and let those that ENJOY the game talk about it without the incessant whining.

 

Oh and they didn't install it 2 days later, they had to wait nearly 2 weeks to play it before it was cracked. Then naturally it wasn't cracked properly so they all came here going "wah wah this game is a piece of sh*t port the computers in the cafe don't even work" which as we all KNOW is an anti piracy measure. People stole the game because they are cheap arse pricks to pretend they were using it for "testing" is a pathetic excuse.

[Jigglyass]

If that is the way you feel I am a bit confused why you keep coming to a FAN forum then. I mean fine we get the idea YOU think it was a piece of sh*t port, you have said your piece yet you still keep coming to the GTA 4 PC section of a FAN forum to bitch and moan.

 

I don't like Crysis I think it's sh*tk, I think it is an unoptimised piece of crap, but I don't go to the Crysis forum and bitch and whine every day about it. I just accept I made a mistake and will think twice about buying any Crytek games in the future. It is a shame people like you can't give us the same courtesy and let those that ENJOY the game talk about it without the incessant whining.

 

Oh and they didn't install it 2 days later, they had to wait nearly 2 weeks to play it before it was cracked. Then naturally it wasn't cracked properly so they all came here going "wah wah this game is a piece of sh*t port the computers in the cafe don't even work" which as we all KNOW is an anti piracy measure. People stole the game because they are cheap arse pricks to pretend they were using it for "testing" is a pathetic excuse.

One of the best $50 ive ever spent.

[The Horror Is Alive]

 

If that is the way you feel I am a bit confused why you keep coming to a FAN forum then.  I mean fine we get the idea YOU think it was a piece of sh*t port, you have said your piece yet you still keep coming to the GTA 4 PC section of a FAN forum to bitch and moan. 

 

I don't like Crysis I think it's sh*tk, I think it is an unoptimised piece of crap, but I don't go to the Crysis forum and bitch and whine every day about it.  I just accept I made a mistake and will think twice about buying any Crytek games in the future.  It is a shame people like you can't give us the same courtesy and let those that ENJOY the game talk about it without the incessant whining.

 

Oh and they didn't install it 2 days later, they had to wait nearly 2 weeks to play it before it was cracked.  Then naturally it wasn't cracked properly so they all came here going "wah wah this game is a piece of sh*t port the computers in the cafe don't even work" which as we all KNOW is an anti piracy measure.  People stole the game because they are cheap arse pricks to pretend they were using it for "testing" is a pathetic excuse.

Jesus, that excuse about being on a FAN FORUM is getting pathetic. I know you really love being in Rockstar's pocket and having a nice big juicy moderator slogan to suck on, but the reason people complain is because IT'S WARRANTED. This IS a sh*t port. You CAN'T deny it. People come here to ask for help with their f*cked up graphics and performance, and when something goes wrong with something you don't usually say "oh well it's still f*ckING AWESOME MWAHAHAHAHA". You usually get pissed off. It comes with the deal.

 

I think Crysis and GTAIV PC are BOTH sh*t. I can't stand the hype behind Crysis, and I hate the way GTAIV doesn't f*cking work right on my PC. These are the only two deciding factors that lower the games down in my books considerably.I'll still play 'em, yeah, but it doesn't mean I'll think they're the games of the motherf*cking century like everyone else. I refuse to play Call Of Duty at all because of the rediculous amounts of hype behind what is essentially just another run and gun game, no better than the first Half-Life.

 

To get back on-topic: Crysis might be unoptimised, sure, but it least it has AA and runs better on my friend's 9600GT than GTAIV overall without AA.

[CharmingCharlie]

Well we are getting tired of people like you dredging the same sh*t over and over again. It has been over 6 MONTHS god shut up about, if you feel that hard done by then piss off and do a letter to Rockstar but stop spamming a FAN forum with the same old drivel over and over again.

 

I don't think it is a sh*t port myself I don't think it is any worse or better than the last GTA's port wise. I haven't had a problem with the game since DAY ONE, but then I wasn't expecting 2560 x 1600 all settings maxxed running on a bloody 8400gs. Now you have registered your protest we are all aware that you don't like the game and you are not a happy bunny so how about you leave the PC section then eh ?

[The Horror Is Alive]

Well we are getting tired of people like you dredging the same sh*t over and over again. It has been over 6 MONTHS god shut up about, if you feel that hard done by then piss off and do a letter to Rockstar but stop spamming a FAN forum with the same old drivel over and over again.

 

I don't think it is a sh*t port myself I don't think it is any worse or better than the last GTA's port wise. I haven't had a problem with the game since DAY ONE, but then I wasn't expecting 2560 x 1600 all settings maxxed running on a bloody 8400gs. Now you have registered your protest we are all aware that you don't like the game and you are not a happy bunny so how about you leave the PC section then eh ?

I like the GAME. I hate the PORT.

 

You're right, it has been over six months. And guess what? THE PROBLEMS ARE STILL NOT FIXED! I don't dredge the forums in my anti-Rockstar posts like some people do (with reason, I might add), but I am pissed off that I paid $80 for something that doesn't even work right out of the box.

 

But I guess I'll never change your point of view, Charlie. It's always gonna be "you're on a fan forum, so I expect to hear stuff like 'oh the game has low FPS and glitchy graphics, but that just adds to the overall experience. I love you Rockstar! I wanna make babies with you!'"

 

No thanks. I will continue to bitch about my GTAIV problems until they are fixed.

[OutOfTimer]

Why do you people think I want GTA IV to have graphics like Crysis? I'm only talking about AA. If you hate Crysis, I'll give another example of a game with AA. In addition, I want better water. Crysis has good water so it's a good example. I want DirectX 10 as well. Crysis has it, too.

 

I don't like Crysis and I think it's a stupid game but its graphics is top-notch. You start ranting over Crysis. My dear God.

Edited June 19, 2009 by OutOfTimer

[Murcchachosa]

Goddamned, this topic still alive?

@ ChamringCharlie, I think netter close than feeding the trolls and bitches.

Only this GTA section has load of negativy.

Thats all, only whine and bitch and much trolls.

Dickheads who's comparing Crysis between GTA4.

We all know R* Toronto did a lazy port.

But atleast, the game is for PC too.

On some pple'rigs does GTA4 work and plays smoothley.

But getting errors and all and then moaning is priceless.

Juts damn big pile and mile of sh*t.

Damned, and again damned, I think CharmingChalrie have to give up his

job and lock and let cry the bitches here 24/7

Ow dear.

[CharmingCharlie]

I will continue to rave about the game because it is a great game. It worked straight out of the box for me and hasn't caused me any problems in the 6 months I have been playing with it. I am playing GTA 4 on settings 3 - 4 times greater than the console version and it looks fantastic and runs well over 30fps.

 

I don't mind people criticising the game, I myself have been happy to comment on where Rockstar Toronto have gone wrong after all they are just human beings and not immune to mistakes. However people like you do NOTHING but f*cking moan, I have yet to see you or any of the other complainers say ONE single damn positive thing about the game and yes there is plenty to be positive about.

[MonkeyMhz]

 

Well we are getting tired of people like you dredging the same sh*t over and over again.  It has been over 6 MONTHS god shut up about, if you feel that hard done by then piss off and do a letter to Rockstar but stop spamming a FAN forum with the same old drivel over and over again.

 

I don't think it is a sh*t port myself I don't think it is any worse or better than the last GTA's port wise.  I haven't had a problem with the game since DAY ONE, but then I wasn't expecting 2560 x 1600 all settings maxxed running on a bloody 8400gs.  Now you have registered your protest we are all aware that you don't like the game and you are not a happy bunny so how about you leave the PC section then eh ?

I like the GAME. I hate the PORT.

 

You're right, it has been over six months. And guess what? THE PROBLEMS ARE STILL NOT FIXED! I don't dredge the forums in my anti-Rockstar posts like some people do (with reason, I might add), but I am pissed off that I paid $80 for something that doesn't even work right out of the box.

 

But I guess I'll never change your point of view, Charlie. It's always gonna be "you're on a fan forum, so I expect to hear stuff like 'oh the game has low FPS and glitchy graphics, but that just adds to the overall experience. I love you Rockstar! I wanna make babies with you!'"

 

No thanks. I will continue to bitch about my GTAIV problems until they are fixed.

Ok well if you dont feel you got your moneys worth ya should have taken the game back and got a refund and not had it at all. All you people who are complaining should be on consoles. Seriously, the game had problems ok, we bitch and moan for the first month about it and then after can't we just stop and put it behind us. R* isn't going to do anything else, its not worth it for them. Why would they waste money on a already failed game in your complainers opinions.

 

I felt like I got my moneys worth, 60$ and I get a game that had some problems. But now I got it working and it pretty good on my new PC and mediocre on my laptop. Not the best optimized or whatever, but its what I expected.

 

And I really dont think Mafia II or Alanwake will run much better than GTAIV. We will see, but suck it up and stop complaining.

 

Its been multiple months of non-stop blows against GTAIV, how long will this go on?

 

Oh well, all you guys and your stupid posts will keep CCs finger clicking busy. I dont think theres been a week go by were we havent seen a stupid thread thats been locked.

 

Also, AA is the last thing I would complain about, the online is probably the biggest problem. I find it really stupid when people say, "FFS EVEN THE CONSOLE HAD AA" really shows how informed the majority of the complainers are. It also shows that they never probably even played the console version.

Edited June 19, 2009 by MonkeyMhz

[Spider-Vice]

If the next patch is gonna be big like Rockstar says, there WILL be DX10 support. It takes a lot to put, believe me. so any whiners please try to wait.

[CharmingCharlie]

The next patch will NOT have Dx10, GTA 4 will never have Dx10 the sooner people ACCEPT that the sooner they will be able to move on and get on with their lives. There is a very good reason why most games do not have Dx10 and that is because only a minority of users have access to Dx10. If you check the steam survey it currently stands at 28% not enough to warrant the expense it is simple economics.

[Spider-Vice]

I didn't meant to say it would really have. I was speculating...

[Jigglyass]

In the current state of GTA4 with all the issues it has, R* would need some serious balls to risk it again with more problems by remaking the engine to support DX10.

Not gonna happen people.

[Lucian04]

Wow, there are quite a few whiners here, didn't expect to come back here and find this thread totally derailed..

 

[JohnZS]

The next patch will NOT have Dx10, GTA 4 will never have Dx10 the sooner people ACCEPT that the sooner they will be able to move on and get on with their lives. There is a very good reason why most games do not have Dx10 and that is because only a minority of users have access to Dx10. If you check the steam survey it currently stands at 28% not enough to warrant the expense it is simple economics.

You just broke my heart Charlie

Here is hoping that the next patch resolves the last few remaining flashing textures and also adds a SLIDER for definition (at least then we can take the edge off jagglies without too much blur).

FSAA would be nice in GTA IV, but... so would real money coming out of the CD-Rom drive...

Unless nVidia do some clever driver "hack" like they did with the AO feature it's NOT going to happen.

John

[Nietzsche's God]

Well we are getting tired of people like you dredging the same sh*t over and over again. It has been over 6 MONTHS god shut up about, if you feel that hard done by then piss off and do a letter to Rockstar but stop spamming a FAN forum with the same old drivel over and over again.

 

I don't think it is a sh*t port myself I don't think it is any worse or better than the last GTA's port wise. I haven't had a problem with the game since DAY ONE, but then I wasn't expecting 2560 x 1600 all settings maxxed running on a bloody 8400gs. Now you have registered your protest we are all aware that you don't like the game and you are not a happy bunny so how about you leave the PC section then eh ?

I think you really missed the whole point of being a hardcore gamer (pc gamer mind you). You see, the reason of all this excess whining is because hardcore gamers for the pc are never satisfied. Even if the future holds where the games get extremely photorealistic, there will still be hardcore gamers complaining about it being not realistic enough.

 

I am sure they all still agree this is the best game in the market right now. So let them whine for that maybe R* can read these posts and take these comments as a consideration for the next time they are developing another GTA game. And I can be sure that there are many reasons to feel optimistic here.

[Cornflake]

Unfortunately no one has figured out AA for GTA:IV yet. There isn't much point in posting another topic about it. But with that being said, I feel like I have to say a couple things regarding the topic:

 

 

Welcome to 2009. Games are starting the realise they need to use lots of geometry and lots of lights. For this, a deferred renderer is the fastest, and pretty much the only one which can have the amount of lights on screen GTA requires. However, in deferred rendering hardware AA is not possible. It's a small trade off  (yes, I said small, because personally it's not that important to me, especially when at high resolutions).

Yeah that's what they said about AA + HDR, too until they figured a solution to the very technical issue. And what's with people thinking that high resolutions makes it 'better' ? If you have an LCD / Plasma TV, the pixels are a lot larger so you can sit back and you don't notice the jaggies as much. But when you pack 1920x1200 into 24" computer monitor I find I have to be less than 3 feet to see a lot of the smaller details. A plasma with a 1080p resolution usually doesn't start until 37" or higher.

 

 

Deferred rendering can support FSAA if done "correctly" sadly this would require using a DirectX10/DirectX10.1 render path which would alienate the XP user base who are confined to DirectX9

I am not clever enough to know the full ins and outs as to why it works in Direct3D 10, but I believe you can use 16-bit-per-component frame buffer (64 bits total). MSAA anti-aliasing support is only on DirectX 10 as Direct3D 10 render path caters for this.

Unfortunately burned by the marketing again -- it was said DX10 will bring more details, more immersion (physics simulation, moving water, etc) and what happened? Games like Crysis locked DX9 users out from effects that worked perfect in DX9 on XP. God rays, particle collisions, etc were all doable in DX9. Look at GTA:IV thanks to the unified shaders and stream processors in newer cards like the 8800's and x1900's, we can get real-time on the fly damage modelling that to me looks very realistic. No DX10 needed.

 

The bottom line is people are just tired of there always being some complicated technical excuse for not being able to use a feature, and then DX 10 is thrown in as the savior and it's just a bunch of marketing crap. Do you think anyone cared why HDD's had the historical size limitations like 400mb, 1gb, etc? The important thing was it was very technical reasons that the scientests in the field overcame. We'll care about the reasons why deferred lighting throws a wrench in things, when we start developing the games ourselves or become scientists. It's all layers. I don't care what you're rendering, AA can be put in somwhere. I think someone just forgot to put the proper layer when developing the deffered lighting schema, and we're having to try and addend our rendering path (DX 9/10) to get it working after-the-fact.

 

Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter was one of thie "first" games to sport deferring lighting and the terrible performance [on 2005 hardware] plus lack of AA that comes with it. I bet you AA can be done in that game now -- without DX10. Well the new Ubisoft games are screwed anyway, that's a whole different subject.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Cornflake

[OutOfTimer]

In fact, I was talking about AA all this time and trying to share the results of my own testing with everybody. Unfortunately, I was flamed for comparing GTA IV's graphics to Crysis.

[MonkeyMhz]

 

Unfortunately no one has figured out AA for GTA:IV yet. There isn't much point in posting another topic about it. But with that being said, I feel like I have to say a couple things regarding the topic:

 

 

Welcome to 2009. Games are starting the realise they need to use lots of geometry and lots of lights. For this, a deferred renderer is the fastest, and pretty much the only one which can have the amount of lights on screen GTA requires. However, in deferred rendering hardware AA is not possible. It's a small trade off  (yes, I said small, because personally it's not that important to me, especially when at high resolutions).

Yeah that's what they said about AA + HDR, too until they figured a solution to the very technical issue. And what's with people thinking that high resolutions makes it 'better' ? If you have an LCD / Plasma TV, the pixels are a lot larger so you can sit back and you don't notice the jaggies as much. But when you pack 1920x1200 into 24" computer monitor I find I have to be less than 3 feet to see a lot of the smaller details. A plasma with a 1080p resolution usually doesn't start until 37" or higher.

 

 

Deferred rendering can support FSAA if done "correctly" sadly this would require using a DirectX10/DirectX10.1 render path which would alienate the XP user base who are confined to DirectX9

I am not clever enough to know the full ins and outs as to why it works in Direct3D 10, but I believe you can use 16-bit-per-component frame buffer (64 bits total). MSAA anti-aliasing support is only on DirectX 10 as Direct3D 10 render path caters for this.

Unfortunately burned by the marketing again -- it was said DX10 will bring more details, more immersion (physics simulation, moving water, etc) and what happened? Games like Crysis locked DX9 users out from effects that worked perfect in DX9 on XP. God rays, particle collisions, etc were all doable in DX9. Look at GTA:IV thanks to the unified shaders and stream processors in newer cards like the 8800's and x1900's, we can get real-time on the fly damage modelling that to me looks very realistic. No DX10 needed.

 

The bottom line is people are just tired of there always being some complicated technical excuse for not being able to use a feature, and then DX 10 is thrown in as the savior and it's just a bunch of marketing crap. Do you think anyone cared why HDD's had the historical size limitations like 400mb, 1gb, etc? The important thing was it was very technical reasons that the scientests in the field overcame. We'll care about the reasons why deferred lighting throws a wrench in things, when we start developing the games ourselves or become scientists. It's all layers. I don't care what you're rendering, AA can be put in somwhere. I think someone just forgot to put the proper layer when developing the deffered lighting schema, and we're having to try and addend our rendering path (DX 9/10) to get it working after-the-fact.

 

Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter was one of thie "first" games to sport deferring lighting and the terrible performance [on 2005 hardware] plus lack of AA that comes with it. I bet you AA can be done in that game now -- without DX10. Well the new Ubisoft games are screwed anyway, that's a whole different subject.

 

They mean when your in higher resolutions the pixels are smaller so you don't notice the jaggys as much, HDTVs aren't as noticeable because they do alot of scaling and interlacing. Go ahead try it, plug ur PC via HDMI into a HDTV. But yea I know what you meant the jaggys are nasty in the distance.

 

I agree with you on everything, except Hardware AA is not accomplish-able with deferred shading/lighting on DX9.

 

Simplified Technical Reason:

 

DX9: Application has no control over the AA sample and it views all the deferred operands as colors and really all you can achieve is a big overall blur like GTAIV has.

 

DX10: You can get the un-resolved Z sample which then will allow the application to know what pixel came from where (what polygon.etc) in the final shading pass which would allow looping over the edge pixels and smoothing them out rather than just applying a full on blur.

 

And to let you all know the CryEngine uses traditional render methods (No Deferred). I guess they could have done GTAIV without deferred lighting but then we would have to say bye bye to all the dynamic light sources at night like street lamps, traffic lights, car headlights, and more, and just replace it with a big light map.

 

Or they could have just added DX10. But they didn't.

 

However AA is with deferred lighting on DX9 has been somewhat achieved, but not to a proper extent. In Killzone 2 they kinda did it but it was using a software shader and its result would blur out many texture details just like the blur currently does in GTAIV.

 

I believe it was a pretty old method, originally patented by Geforce3? I think. ATI has their own version too.

 

But anyways deferred lighting is usually a bad idea for the consoles since the PS3 gpu in PC terms is about the power of a 7600GT (128 bit bus. simular bandwidth).

 

As for OutOfTimer, it seemed to me and mostly everyone else you were comparing the graphics of Crysis to GTAV not just the AA. You should have made it much more clear, when you started comparing GTAIV to those Tech Demo Crysis screens and FSX. It seemed as if your comparing the graphics quality and not the AA, since comparing AA on a FSX screen that's shrunken down really wouldn't prove the point.

 

If you were just comparing why GTAIV should have had AA, i agree.

Edited June 19, 2009 by MonkeyMhz