MonkeyMhz Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) I just don't understand why people wet themselves over AA, I have never used it. It is well known that AA is a frame rate killer, I personally would rather have the power of my graphics card giving me better frame rates or a higher resolution or better still more detail in the game. I have never used AA because I think it is a complete and utter waste of time. All AA does is improve the jaggies "slightly" it doesn't get rid of them and it is questionable whether it is worth the cost in power just to have slightly less jaggy jaggies. Okay, so if you had an older game you could run maxed out (e.g. san andreas), would you do it with aliased edges or go the smoother route? Of course with AA. I run FC2 with 8xaa because my system can handle it and still get 50+ fps. But how about GTAIV, were without AA there's already enough frame rate issues. It runs well, but not well enough to enable a substantial amount of AA and not loose much fps. I still fail too see how having no AA makes the game look "WORST THING EVER" or unplayable, its simply a luxury that unfortunately GTAIV doesn't have. Would you guys actually prefer AA over all the dynamic lights if you could?... I wouldn't... *And please can someone link me to this so called mod that runs GTAIV in DX10 ill check it out. And give a verdict. Edited June 22, 2009 by MonkeyMhz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 GTA IV would have barely any performance hit for most decent GPUs, as stated in my previous post, because the game performance relies moreso on CPU performance than GPU performance. Just like changing resolutions on the game doesn't have much of an effect on the performance in IV. The lack of AA doesn't make it unplayable, but if the game had AA it would make the game feel much more realistic. Also FYI the Xbox 360 version does indeed have 2xAA, but yes the PS3 version does not have AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Please show some proof that the xbox 360 has AA because it has been shown TIME AND TIME again it is impossible for the xbox 360 to do AA with deferred rendering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Feel free to prove me wrong. Because I have seen TIME AND TIME again people saying that the Xbox 360 version has 2xAA. I have the Xbox 360 version as well as the PC version, and it still seems slightly smoother on the Xbox even with the "Vaseline" filter on in the PC version. No it is not my HDTV upscaling either because I have both my Xbox and my PC set to 1360x768 when using the HDTV. Only thing I can think of is the fact that the Xbox 360 version's native resolution is 1280x720p and is being upscaled to 1360x768p via the Xbox's internal scaler, whereas the PC version outputs a raw 1360x768. In any case, I have the HDTV in 1:1 pixel mode at all times, at least with my Xbox 360 and PC, so it's definitely not HDTV scaling. PS3/Wii have to rely on the HDTV's scaler. Regardless. I still wish the PC version had AA, but it's not the end of the world. Even on my 1680x1050 monitor the jaggies are quite noticeable without the filter, and even with the filter, to a slightly lesser extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 It has been shown time and time again that the xbox 360 cannot do AA with Deferred rendering, not in a month of sundays. It doesn't matter what people say the technical facts speak for themselves. You would do well to read Lucian04's post here :- http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...st&p=1059281243 That isn't just him "saying it doesn't have AA" it is a demonstration of FACTS that the xbox 360 cannot do AA. If the Xbox 360 could do AA then so would the PC version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Okay, pretty good read, I can only see one flaw with that post. He says "Most any recent Nvidia GPU's can perform AA w/ Differed Rendering in DX9 with a performance hit.." so why is it that it does not work in GTA IV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Because there is no AA programmed into GTA 4 and since this is supposedly a direct port of the 360 version don't you find it the least bit curious that the 360 apparently could do 2 x AA but the PC couldn't ? after all it is apparently a "direct port". As for why Rockstar didn't implement it the key here is performance hit, it depends just how much of a performance hit we are talking about here. I am no expert on deferred renderng but I get the feeling we are talking a pretty hefty impact on frame rates. At the end of the day neither platform has AA, the PC platform COULD have had AA if we hadn't dug our heels into the ground and screamed that Vista is sh*t so we are sticking with win XP and Dx9. If more than 28% of PC gamers had access to Dx10 we would have a Dx10 GTA 4 . It is possible that by the time of the next GTA enough people may have migrated to Dx10/Dx11 to make it worth it for developers to support Dx10/11 however the way things are going I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 It did seem odd, I just thought it was because of the X360's "DX10-like" features or whatever, but I just looked that up and apparently it only has to do with memory management. Anyway, I agree about the whole "Vista is sh*t" thing I run Vista and Windows 7 every day and I'll never look back. I have another machine that dual-boots XP and Vista, Vista was and still is rock-solid whereas XP started giving me random-ass "0x0000007E" BSoD's which continued to persist until I reinstalled XP, which by the way takes AGES compared to the Vista install on the same machine. I got XP running well again on that machine so it's pretty good when it runs. Vista NEVER has ever given me a BSoD except one time when I installed some apparently sh*t NVIDIA SATA drivers, which I then proceeded to uninstall and used the default drivers, until I upgraded the motherboard to a P45, never had a problem since. Guess people will just run DX9 forever lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 At the end of the day Rockstar is in the business to make money, to do that they have to target the biggest PC crowd there is which is of course the Dx9 crowd. Now currently according to the steam survey only 28% of PC gamers have a Dx10 machine, ask yourself if you were in business would you funnel millions into making the game Dx10 with Dx10 specific features ? I know I wouldn't that's for sure. Once Dx10 take up gets to 60/70% there will be an incentive to move to Dx10/11 till that happens (and I am not going to hold my breath waiting) we will be stuck with Dx9 coded games with all the problems that come with Dx9 coded games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SyphonPayne Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Yes, that is one of many sh*tty facts of life . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKT70 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Isn't it about time this topic was put to rest ? RockStar chose the deferred method simply because of it's efficiency, having to deal with all that lighting and geometry complexity, running as best as possible on 360 and PS3. The PC was more-than-likely a second thought, at the time they wrote the RAGE engine. And as for AA, this isn't a conventional renderer, a deferred renderer does many things much later after depth hidden surface removal. And all those deferred calculations are done per pixel, or once per pixel, or something like that (it's nearly 3am and I'm knackered) . And I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) it's because of this once per pixel method, as opposed to the conventional z-buffer pass, as to why you cannot do AA in DX9. Wheras, In DX10, can do MSAA anti-aliasing, although I would hate to think of the hit, even on 4890/280+ cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKwegoharder Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 It has been shown time and time again that the xbox 360 cannot do AA with Deferred rendering, not in a month of sundays. It doesn't matter what people say the technical facts speak for themselves. You would do well to read Lucian04's post here :- http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtop...st&p=1059281243 That isn't just him "saying it doesn't have AA" it is a demonstration of FACTS that the xbox 360 cannot do AA. If the Xbox 360 could do AA then so would the PC version. I agree with you and all, but Lucian04 has been proven to make stuff up a lot even if he sounds as if he knows what he is talking about. Using him as your source isn't really credible. Otherwise I agree on the AA thing and how it isn't worth the performance hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Horror Is Alive Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I'm just stating the facts, and saying that if your gonna bitch and moan for the first month of the games release, go ahead. But when will this ever end? When Rockstar fixes the problems, and makes it playable on a half-decent system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oc student Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I'm just stating the facts, and saying that if your gonna bitch and moan for the first month of the games release, go ahead. But when will this ever end? When Rockstar fixes the problems, and makes it playable on a half-decent system. Playable on a half decent system? Like mine you mean? It's less than half decent. The slow 8500 GT can play this game and you're still complaining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Once Dx10 take up gets to 60/70% there will be an incentive to move to Dx10/11 till that happens (and I am not going to hold my breath waiting) we will be stuck with Dx9 coded games with all the problems that come with Dx9 coded games. It should be the other way around. Game developers should create the incentive for the costumers to move to a DX10 capable OS instead of just waiting. cause it's going to be a very long wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faro0485 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Does this method provide a solution for AA in dx9? http://null-ptr.blogspot.com/2009/01/defer...nding-demo.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyMhz Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Does this method provide a solution for AA in dx9? http://null-ptr.blogspot.com/2009/01/defer...nding-demo.html Again thats more of a hack/cheat than real AA. It does give a decent result but if you look at the performance for that scene it is somewhat questionable. If you were to have a much more complicated scene like in GTAIV with many many lights, shaders, transparent objects, and realtime shadows. Im sure the FPS would plummet like theres no tommorow. On a 9600GT they claim 10-200 fps and on a 4850 110-232. But really for a scene like that, im not impressed. Its a neat way of getting a decent result but I really couldent see this making it into a commercial game like GTAIV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnZS Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Does this method provide a solution for AA in dx9? http://null-ptr.blogspot.com/2009/01/defer...nding-demo.html I can't seem to get that demo to run fullscreen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Horror Is Alive Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I'm just stating the facts, and saying that if your gonna bitch and moan for the first month of the games release, go ahead. But when will this ever end? When Rockstar fixes the problems, and makes it playable on a half-decent system. Playable on a half decent system? Like mine you mean? It's less than half decent. The slow 8500 GT can play this game and you're still complaining? I'm talking about a minimum system requirements system that can at least play the game at 30FPS, all settings on low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKwegoharder Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I'm just stating the facts, and saying that if your gonna bitch and moan for the first month of the games release, go ahead. But when will this ever end? When Rockstar fixes the problems, and makes it playable on a half-decent system. Playable on a half decent system? Like mine you mean? It's less than half decent. The slow 8500 GT can play this game and you're still complaining? I'm talking about a minimum system requirements system that can at least play the game at 30FPS, all settings on low. I've seen old 7800 cards do that on youtube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikt Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 my pentium 4 with 2gb ram and a 8600gt could do that on low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insane_Liberty Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 im running this game with only 20-30 fps... i cant image how low the fps will be if the aa is turned on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikt Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 fps won't be that low if you use ati cards They handle AA better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Horror Is Alive Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I'm just stating the facts, and saying that if your gonna bitch and moan for the first month of the games release, go ahead. But when will this ever end? When Rockstar fixes the problems, and makes it playable on a half-decent system. Playable on a half decent system? Like mine you mean? It's less than half decent. The slow 8500 GT can play this game and you're still complaining? I'm talking about a minimum system requirements system that can at least play the game at 30FPS, all settings on low. I've seen old 7800 cards do that on youtube. Yeah, but for how long? And how many other problems will they face? Stuttering? Z-Fighting? Texture popping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgen Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 As far as I am concerned AA is a complete con job that PC gamers have totally fallen for. Nonsense. You seriously need your eyes (or monitor) checked if you can't see any worthwhile improvement with AA enabled, in pretty much any game. Even 4xAA, (which I tend to settle for in most games - a happy medium between smoother rendering and faster frame-rates) makes for far better, smoother image quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkangel Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 lol Kurgen that sig is hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Horror Is Alive Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I think of AA as pretty unnecessary for most games. There are a few which practically need AA (ProStreet springs to mind), but I avoid AA when I can because it has a blurry feeling to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Nonsense. You seriously need your eyes (or monitor) checked if you can't see any worthwhile improvement with AA enabled, <blah blah blah> No I am not blind, even with the highest AA you can have you can still clearly see jaggies. So there is precious little point to AA all it does is suck up power which could be used for better things like a higher res or better frame rates. At the end of the day if you want the comfort blanket of AA then that is your problem I would much rather use the power for increased res or better fps. Do I care that GTA 4 doesn't have AA ? ............. erm nope because I wouldn't have used it anyway. I would say the majority of people that are running GTA 4 barely have a PC capable enough of playing the game on medium let alone playing the damn game with AA. So I am not going to criticise Rockstar for leaving out a feature that me and in all likelihood most PC gamers would never use anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigglyass Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 What is the point of bitching anymore? Everyone knows well its not going to happen yet complain, and whine, whine, whine. So what that GTA has no AA? Ive learned to put up with it and just turn up the other detail which makes up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikt Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Seriously, don't you see the difference between these two pics?! http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/...zation/fo05.jpg http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/...zation/fo02.jpg You REALLY should get glasses then. I really don't care about AA or not, but i clearly see the difference between those two pics. Or, if your visoal part of your brain is hooked up on the gpu and you see straight lines (y=ax+b), then you won't see the difference. And i don't care about the AA in GTA IV. IV is a good game by itself. The worst thing about GTA IV is.. uhm... shadows. Especially the third patch. Does anyone know which files to get to get better shadows but leave the other new things intact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts