AA high res use, who would really do it

Would you use AA at high res(1600x1200 and up) if you got playable frame rates

  • No, resolutions at and above 1600x1200, it really isn't noticable

    Votes: 15 19.5%

  • Yes, just because I can

    Votes: 55 71.4%

  • It depends on the game as some have fixed FPS and are slow, not fast paced like FPS

    Votes: 12 15.6%
  • Total voters
    77
X

XMAN245

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
441
AF is not added as it is a given it will be enabled to one degree or another.
High res is defined as 1600x1200 and up
 
yes, because even at hi res the jaggies in a non-AA rendering are pretty noticeable. For example, one of my friends has a dell XPS laptop with one of those ridiculous 1920x1200 15.1" widescreen (talk about small pixel pitch...) and if he runs a game at native res with no AA the jaggies and the "staircasing" is just as obvious as ever. Raising the resolution does not eliminate jaggies as much as people think it does.

It's not the SIZE of the pixels that makes aliasing stand out, it's the MOTION of the pixels "walking" along the edges of objects that makes it noticeable. And even at insane resolutions the walking still stands out. In fact, my friend typically runs his lappy at 1280 x 800 with AA enabled because it looks better.
 
Your poll is missing, "Yes, because you still need it."

Most screens with insane resolutions are big. 1920*1200+ is still jagged. As is 1600*1200 on CRTs etc. I've not seen the high res on a 15" screen like he has but apparently still a problem.
 
I would if I could. If I couldn't, I'd probably drop the resolution down but keep the AA.
 
texuspete00 said:
Your poll is missing, "Yes, because you still need it."

Most screens with insane resolutions are big. 1920*1200+ is still jagged. As is 1600*1200 on CRTs etc. I've not seen the high res on a 15" screen like he has but apparently still a problem.
Click to expand...


Because I dont buy the, even at high res you need BS. Who the hell walks in a fast paced FPS game?
 
LCD users always need AA, the res dont matter since the pixels are at a fixed size.

If i cant have AA at my native res, I bump down the res and play with black bars around
 
You need AA even at high resolutions especially with larger monitors, if your on a crappy 15" then no maybe you don't it but most 15" wont do 1600*1200 anyway. :p
 
XMAN245 said:
Because I dont buy the, even at high res you need BS. Who the hell walks in a fast paced FPS game?
Click to expand...

I mean what's high res? The best you can do to get rid of jaggies with res would be like in eva's example of an uber res on a small screen, and as he pointed out there would still be a like pixel walking effect.

That's neither here nor there anyway. I gather you are missing the boat entirely. In almost all gaming rig scenarios, there will be a ton of jaggies without AA period. I don't think you are understanding that without AA, say a screen like Dell's 30", is no less jagged than Dell's 24" @ 1920*1200. I see it all the time. Oh there must be no jaggies at 1920*1200. Bzzzt. It's bigger and the pixels are the same size. The stair case is still there. Your best bet to get rid of jaggies without AA would have to be some sick res on a small screen. Resolution isn't performance free either. Maybe I should set my CRT to 2560*1600, that ought to get rid of the jaggies. :rolleyes:

AA works, there is no suitable replacement. If you don't care to play BF2 jagged... fine. The idea that you must be sitting around smelling the roses to notice is ludicrous.
 
Unless pixel dimensions get into the tens of thousands I think I'll need at least 2x AA.
 
XMAN245 said:
AF is not added as it is a given it will be enabled to one degree or another.
High res is defined as 1600x1200 and up
Click to expand...

You must have an nvidia card.

With my current card, I use 4x or 6x FSAA at 16x12 almost always, while using very little to no AF. When I was using nvidia cards, I used little FSAA because of shimmering, but I used lots of AF because the nvidia level of detail sucks in comparison to ATi.
 
XMAN245 said:
Because I dont buy the, even at high res you need BS. Who the hell walks in a fast paced FPS game?
Click to expand...

Who says all FPS are fast paced?

I walk/crouch quite a bit in GR:AW as well as Splinter Cell.

Just because it is a FPS doesn't mean that its always going to be run around, wham bam thank you maam game play.
 
texuspete00 said:
I mean what's high res? The best you can do to get rid of jaggies with res would be like in eva's example of an uber res on a small screen, and as he pointed out there would still be a like pixel walking effect.

That's neither here nor there anyway. I gather you are missing the boat entirely. In almost all gaming rig scenarios, there will be a ton of jaggies without AA period. I don't think you are understanding that without AA, say a screen like Dell's 30", is no less jagged than Dell's 24" @ 1920*1200. I see it all the time. Oh there must be no jaggies at 1920*1200. Bzzzt. It's bigger and the pixels are the same size. The stair case is still there. Your best bet to get rid of jaggies without AA would have to be some sick res on a small screen. Resolution isn't performance free either. Maybe I should set my CRT to 2560*1600, that ought to get rid of the jaggies. :rolleyes:

AA works, there is no suitable replacement. If you don't care to play BF2 jagged... fine. The idea that you must be sitting around smelling the roses to notice is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

If you see jaggies, you aint running around blowin shit up, you are walkin, crawlin, campin, sittin still, anything and everything but actually playing the game.
 
BBA said:
You must have an nvidia card.

With my current card, I use 4x or 6x FSAA at 16x12 almost always, while using very little to no AF. When I was using nvidia cards, I used little FSAA because of shimmering, but I used lots of AF because the nvidia level of detail sucks in comparison to ATi.
Click to expand...

1. Yes I do
2. I find Nvidias AF better than ATIs
3. I dont play walk crawl hide and seek FPS games, I play fast paced games like Q3A and the such.
 
AA is completely different for every person. I have a friend that goes bonkers over jaggies, me well I am like what Jaggies :D
 
If I have to play without AA I will but it doesn't matter the resolution as I prefer 1280x960 in all my games although I've tried at 1600x1200 I didn't notice any IQ improvements, AA on the other hand makes quite a bit of difference at 1280x960 with 4xAA I don't notice any jaggies at all, although that could be cause my screen is only 19''.
 
texuspete00 said:
Your poll is missing, "Yes, because you still need it."
Click to expand...
+1, and this is why:


Spank said:
LCD users always need AA, the res dont matter since the pixels are at a fixed size.
Click to expand...
I have a Dell 3007WFP (2560x1600 res) and jaggies are very noticable even at the native resolution. Not that it looks terrible without AA but AA definitely makes a big difference.
 
I wear special glasses that add aliasing to my world. Why? Because I live such a fast-faced lifestyle that the aliasing doesn't bother me. </sarcasm>
 
weemies said:
+1, and this is why:



I have a Dell 3007WFP (2560x1600 res) and jaggies are very noticable even at the native resolution. Not that it looks terrible without AA but AA definitely makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

Again I dont buy that BS, if you see them, it is because you aren't enjoying the game you are playing.
 
As I said, most people would still use AA no matter what res if they got playable frames.

Perhaps now you can finally admit it. You can see jaggies very easily at a high res, depending on the game. You are proven wrong, again.
 
XMAN245 said:
1. Yes I do
2. I find Nvidias AF better than ATIs
3. I dont play walk crawl hide and seek FPS games, I play fast paced games like Q3A and the such.
Click to expand...

Thought so.

Meanwhile, those of us with more than one brand of card, know IQ is better with ATi and have realized AF is a band aid to make up for the LOD bias in nvidia's cards (which is preset in the drivers to reduce shimmering)
 
XMAN245 said:
Again I dont buy that BS, if you see them, it is because you aren't enjoying the game you are playing.
Click to expand...

You know, one of the games I play a LOT, at high res with AA cranked up, is fairly fast paced.

In that game, a jaggy can mask the pixel that is my target (or is targetting me) half a map away. Running 5 or 10 frames faster when I'm already at 70+ won't help there, but being able to see exactly what I'm shooting at will. I'm talking iron sights at sniper ranges, or sniper shots at 500m+.

And in that game, even at 1920x1080 resolution, there are a lot of things that alias and stand out as eyesores, no matter if I'm flying at 700kph or running down an alley dodging bullets.

Of course, it's not a very popular or relevant game, it's published by a little company called EA, but maybe you've heard of it? Battlefield 2.

Not all FPS games are tunnels and ladders, ya know. And not all shooter players are willing to settle for craptacular jagged graphics in favor of good gameplay, when they can have BOTH at nearly no cost simply by buying the right hardware and moving a slider. Nor are all shooter players shooter-only players.

Your oft-repeated factoid that one must be autistic and/or hyperactive when playing a shooter or one is not "enjoying the game" is pretty fucking flawed, by the way. I guess that's your spin on TWIMTBP, eh?
 
I couldn't have said it better myself.

I was thinking BF/BF2 exactly.
 
i notice a slight difference with the AA on in bf2, however I notice a signifigant frame drop when a shit ton of stuff is going on and im flying. Then again AA in that game works differently depending on what videocard you have.

NVIDIA renders bf2 better hands down. I currently own a x1900xt and even with aax6 id prefer an nvidia at AAx2
 
Yeah, this is great, another "AA is stoopid, AA is only 4 l@m3rs" thread disguised as a poll.

I didn't realize there was this whole anti-anti-aliasing subculture out there until I started seeing these threads last year.

I guess we don't want hi-res textures or shaders either. If we were really "enjoying the game," we'd be steering a white flashing rectangle through a maze of flat gray walls, turning other rectangles into sprays of little tiny white squares. Of course, we'd save a fortune on hardware too, because we could play the game on Commodore 64s that we bought off eBay.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
I guess we don't want hi-res textures or shaders either. If we were really "enjoying the game," we'd be steering a white flashing rectangle through a maze of flat gray walls, turning other rectangles into sprays of little tiny white squares. Of course, we'd save a fortune on hardware too, because we could play the game on Commodore 64s that we bought off eBay.
Click to expand...


just.. lol. hahaha i love forum fights!
 
XMAN245 said:
1. Yes I do
2. I find Nvidias AF better than ATIs
3. I dont play walk crawl hide and seek FPS games, I play fast paced games like Q3A and the such.
Click to expand...

How can you find NVIDIA's AF better than ATI's?

If you had the GPU power, why on earth would you not use AA? Do you like knowing your picture could be much more crisp, which is one reason people buy expensive video cards - to use AA/AF at high resolution
 
XMAN245 said:
Because I dont buy the, even at high res you need BS. Who the hell walks in a fast paced FPS game?
Click to expand...

Well, when you cram 1600x1200 into a 17" monitor the screen is so compressed it looks like you don't need it. When you blow that up onto a 20"+ monitor the results are much different.
 
I don't use AA in Oblivion because I can't use it and HDR at the same time and the HDR is prettier then the AA. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top