BF4 - Antialiasing Post - Yay or Nay - Vote and Discuss

Do you use Post AA (FXAA) in BF4?

  • I enable Post AA (any level) (or leave it enabled as the default setting)

    Votes: 62 30.1%

  • I disable Post AA

    Votes: 144 69.9%
  • Total voters
    206
As I did with BF3, I am injecting SMAA into my BF4 with SweetFX. It looks much better than the FXAA and has the same low performance hit. I think anyone using FXAA should give SMAA a try. If you have the power for MSAA then it should be fine to stick with that.

Or if you have tons of spare power you can increase the resolution scale which is just SSAA.

Here is a SweetFX config that works with BF4 64bit. Just put these files in your BF4 folder, they are already configured for just SMAA.
https://nicko88.com/misc/SweetFX_BF4.zip
 
Czech99 said:
i played with the settings more last night and i must be blind because i had a hard time seeing the difference
Click to expand...
I don't know what to tell you, it is very obvious between FXAA on and off for me at 2560x1440 Ultra settings. What resolution and settings are you playing at?
 
JayJapanB said:
This post needs more credit in discussion.
Games don't exactly look all well and fine with most current MSAA implementations.

People notice blur and not static? :S
Click to expand...

those screenshot does show the pros and cons of FXAA (in this game)
 
Rizen said:
I don't know what to tell you, it is very obvious between FXAA on and off for me at 2560x1440 Ultra settings. What resolution and settings are you playing at?
Click to expand...
That's the thing, lower resolutions tend to hide the blur because they're already more blurry at default (mostly due to PPI differences). It stands out more at 2560x1440/1600 than at 1080p.
 
FXAA does have positive impact in several games. BF4 is not one of them from what I've seen with my own eyes so far (played on a friend's rig which is similar to mine). Both he and I agree DICE's FXAA implementation is sub-standard and best left off.
 
no wonder my eyes were getting so tired because of the blurry graphics..

SirMaster said:
As I did with BF3, I am injecting SMAA into my BF4 with SweetFX. It looks much better than the FXAA and has the same low performance hit. I think anyone using FXAA should give SMAA a try. If you have the power for MSAA then it should be fine to stick with that.

Or if you have tons of spare power you can increase the resolution scale which is just SSAA.

Here is a SweetFX config that works with BF4 64bit. Just put these files in your BF4 folder, they are already configured for just SMAA.
https://nicko88.com/misc/SweetFX_BF4.zip
Click to expand...

what's the performance impact of using that ?
 
Mr. K6 said:
That's the thing, lower resolutions tend to hide the blur because they're already more blurry at default (mostly due to PPI differences). It stands out more at 2560x1440/1600 than at 1080p.
Click to expand...
That depends entirely on the size of the display. I have a 1080p display that has greater pixel density than a 30" 2560x1600 display.
 
Simplex said:
It is a sample bias, plain and simple. If you ask such a question on a forum where most participants are seasoned hardcore gamers, you will get a biased answer. This is not "wrong" per se, it just does not warrant making broad generalisations based on these data, like "all people hate blur, so noone uses FXAA".

Personally I can't stand shimmering, flickering and pixel crawling (especially on alpha textures) and I am willing to sacrifice image sharpness to get rid of them. That is why I love TXAA and use it whenever I can (or SGSSAA in older games).
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth. And personally, I'm with you.
 
wonderfield said:
That depends entirely on the size of the display. I have a 1080p display that has greater pixel density than a 30" 2560x1600 display.
Click to expand...
This is a possibility, hence why I qualified my statement with "mostly due to PPI differences." The assumption is that most 1080p screens have higher PPI then 1600p screens, but there are other factors such as panel technology and quality.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Quoted for truth. And personally, I'm with you.
Click to expand...
There is a bias, but as another person mentioned, I don't think it's all that important given the goal of the poll (which is to determine how things shake out among [H] users). The bias is kind of implicit in the goal.

One aspect to the results is that most of us here are simply accustomed to temporal artifacts and have, for the most part, just accepted them. In addition, high texel density is viewed as kind of a hallmark PC feature: trading off apparent texel density is simply something a lot of PC gamers are simply unwilling to do, which is possibly one reason why TXAA and other post-AA methods with a temporal component haven't been more widely-adopted.

Mr. K6 said:
The assumption is that most 1080p screens have higher PPI then 1600p screens, but there are other factors such as panel technology and quality.
Click to expand...
True enough.
 
Kaori said:
no wonder my eyes were getting so tired because of the blurry graphics..



what's the performance impact of using that ?
Click to expand...

If it's anything like any other SMAA injector then next to nothing.
 
SirMaster said:
As I did with BF3, I am injecting SMAA into my BF4 with SweetFX. It looks much better than the FXAA and has the same low performance hit. I think anyone using FXAA should give SMAA a try. If you have the power for MSAA then it should be fine to stick with that.

Or if you have tons of spare power you can increase the resolution scale which is just SSAA.

Here is a SweetFX config that works with BF4 64bit. Just put these files in your BF4 folder, they are already configured for just SMAA.
https://nicko88.com/misc/SweetFX_BF4.zip
Click to expand...

Also this doesn't work on 8.1
 
So after really looking at it I decided to try 2xMsaa instead of Medium Fxaa.
Oh my, huge difference. Not going back, much clearer, 4xaa seems too taxing for my rig but it'll be my target for when I upgrade in a few months.
Didn't really want to try SweetFx, is it really worth it?
 
runudownquick said:
So after really looking at it I decided to try 2xMsaa instead of Medium Fxaa.
Oh my, huge difference. Not going back, much clearer, 4xaa seems too taxing for my rig but it'll be my target for when I upgrade in a few months.
Didn't really want to try SweetFx, is it really worth it?
Click to expand...

SMAA as a post AA solution is as far as i'm concerned the best of both worlds. It offers good anti aliasing across the scene without taking a bottle of astro glide to your textures.
 
Rizen said:
Out of curiosity, what changed between 8 and 8.1 that would break the injector? That seems random.
Click to expand...

DX11.2. The updated DXGI library includes a new function for applications that load the debug version of the DXGI (rather than the debug library being loaded no matter what, it now has to be explicitly requested), presumably the SMAA injector was compiled to use the debug library for whatever reason. The new call goes down a different path to the old one, I think the injector expects the CreateDXGIFactory1 function to also load the debug library but under 11.2 it instead it uses the CreateDXGIFactory2 function.

I tried working around it by copying the dxgi.dll from syswow64 into the BF4 folder to replace the one they bundle with the injector. It clears the error but the shader doesn't work so something else needs to be done.

That being said I ain't no programmer so I could be completely off.
 
Kor said:
DX11.2. The updated DXGI library includes a new function for applications that load the debug version of the DXGI (rather than the debug library being loaded no matter what, it now has to be explicitly requested), presumably the SMAA injector was compiled to use the debug library for whatever reason. The new call goes down a different path to the old one, I think the injector expects the CreateDXGIFactory1 function to also load the debug library but under 11.2 it instead it uses the CreateDXGIFactory2 function.

I tried working around it by copying the dxgi.dll from syswow64 into the BF4 folder to replace the one they bundle with the injector. It clears the error but the shader doesn't work so something else needs to be done.

That being said I ain't no programmer so I could be completely off.
Click to expand...
Gotcha, I actually forgot about DX11.2. Does it still work for games that use an older version of DX, like DX9?
 
im wondering if someone will do a comparison between 8 and 7 to see if there any differences.
 
I recall that in the BF3 image quality article, AA Post was preferred. So, that's how I played it for 2 years, all Ultra + AA Deferred Off + AA Post High.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/02/battlefield_3_single_player_performance_iq_review/8

I wonder what has changed now to cause this big turnaround in opinion? Though I will note here that I also feel underwhelmed by BF4's graphics vs. BF3, at the same settings.

I will wait for the BF4 image quality review with baited breath.
 
Veritable said:
I recall that in the BF3 image quality article, AA Post was preferred. So, that's how I played it for 2 years, all Ultra + AA Deferred Off + AA Post High.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/02/battlefield_3_single_player_performance_iq_review/8

I wonder what has changed now to cause this big turnaround in opinion? Though I will note here that I also feel underwhelmed by BF4's graphics vs. BF3, at the same settings.

I will wait for the BF4 image quality review with baited breath.
Click to expand...

Nothing has changed, look at the screenshots it produces the same thing that BF4 produces.
 
Czech99 said:
im wondering if someone will do a comparison between 8 and 7 to see if there any differences.
Click to expand...

The difference between Win 7 and Win 8 seems to be related to AMD CPU's. Apparently WIn 8 handles 6 and 8 core AMD CPU's much better than WIn 7 did. I don't think there's any difference using Intel CPU's.
 
I run it only because I never realized it made a negative impact on visuals until I read this thread!
 
After some testing, I'm leaving Post AA off, it really does diminish the graphics in my opinion.

Ultra settings minus post AA, keeping 4x MSAA. Next I'll test out the resolution scaling to try and find the sweet spot.
 
i've settled on using as much MSAA as i can comfortably run (2xMSAA for me at the moment) and FXAA on Low. i see the blurring, i'm not blind. but overall i find Low FXAA more visually appealing and easier on the eyes. turning it completely off makes foliage in the game appear way over-sharpened (like cranking your monitor sharpness setting) and that's more distracting to me than a little texture blurring.
 
On a 2560x1600 monitor with a pair of 2GB GTX670's, I run FXAA on Medium as recommended here, with no MSAA.

But FXAA in BF4 is decidedly worse; the textures look like they came straight out of an N64 game! So it's 2xMSAA, no FXAA, till they fix the texture thing. Nice thing is that BF4 appears to produce a higher-fidelity experience using the same amount of resources as BF3, so I can actually afford the 2xMSAA.
 
Kor said:
DX11.2. The updated DXGI library includes a new function for applications that load the debug version of the DXGI (rather than the debug library being loaded no matter what, it now has to be explicitly requested), presumably the SMAA injector was compiled to use the debug library for whatever reason. The new call goes down a different path to the old one, I think the injector expects the CreateDXGIFactory1 function to also load the debug library but under 11.2 it instead it uses the CreateDXGIFactory2 function.

I tried working around it by copying the dxgi.dll from syswow64 into the BF4 folder to replace the one they bundle with the injector. It clears the error but the shader doesn't work so something else needs to be done.

That being said I ain't no programmer so I could be completely off.
Click to expand...


As I started reading through this thread, I wanted to try this- and then I got to the lack of support in Windows 8.1/DX11.2. That just sucks. Do we know what it'll take to bring SMAA up to speed?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
On a 2560x1600 monitor with a pair of 2GB GTX670's, I run FXAA on Medium as recommended here, with no MSAA.

But FXAA in BF4 is decidedly worse; the textures look like they came straight out of an N64 game!
Click to expand...

You mean the textures look like this?
mario64_3jpg.jpeg.jpg
 
Simplex said:
You mean the textures look like this?
Click to expand...

That's perfect :).


And yeah, it was as if the textures had been blurred nearly completely away with FXAA High, even with the texture detail set to Ultra. When I noticed it, I remembered that Brent had mentioned the issue in a different thread, and switched to MSAA 2x. At 2560x1600, it's a good balance, but I would definitely prefer some low-intensity shader-based AA like FXAA or SMAA as well.
 
Kor said:
I tried working around it by copying the dxgi.dll from syswow64 into the BF4 folder to replace the one they bundle with the injector.
Click to expand...

The dll supplied IS the injector :)

That is the library that loads the shaders, you would need a new dxgi version specifically made for dx11.2
 
Czech99 said:
i played with the settings more last night and i must be blind because i had a hard time seeing the difference
Click to expand...

While I didn't specifically look for the blur, I can't say I even noticed it. What I did notice however was that post A does a better job w/ those obnoxious "seesawing" lines on buildings and that there was zero performance penalty. You really need 4x MSAA to match the quality and that just kills my FPS. I will dip below 60 often w/ deferred and that drives me nuts. I will continue to remain ignorant and use post. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top