It's strange how supersampling doesn't do much to straight lines/edges, even at 200% you can see msaa4x is a lil better, which makes me wonder about the magic behind this. There must be some complex and demanding scaling algorithms involved.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
BF4 and Resolution Scale...needs [H] testing!
- Thread starter Brackle
- Start date
Blue_Scholar
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2011
- Messages
- 752
What is your monitor's native res?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,952
yah supersampling (125%) at 1440P with 2xMSAA (no post-aa) and I cant see any aliasing at all.
I figured I'd create a test using Photoshop to see how much down-sampling can improve AA. Obviously Photoshop and battlefield don't use exactly the same down-sampling method, but it gives you some what of an idea.
I put the percentage of "resolution scale" in the sphere, so 125 is 125% resolution scaling. The last image is a sphere created at 100% with Photoshop's AA (which is going to be better than most AA in video games).
Obviously there's more benefits to resolution-scaling besides pure AA. You get AA on vegetation, there's less noise related visual artifacts, you don't get overly sharp details.
I put the percentage of "resolution scale" in the sphere, so 125 is 125% resolution scaling. The last image is a sphere created at 100% with Photoshop's AA (which is going to be better than most AA in video games).
Obviously there's more benefits to resolution-scaling besides pure AA. You get AA on vegetation, there's less noise related visual artifacts, you don't get overly sharp details.
1080p, but I was mostly referring to the pictures the guy posted. Although I have tried it on my rig too, even did another test early this morning. I'm actually running at 110% with no other AA atm, I do like what it does to foliage and stuff. 110% seems to have a small impact on my GTX 670 but I need to do more testing with 64 player maps and stuff.
You may be getting aliasing depending on you PPI, what size screen do you have?
21.5" so aliasing wise it's actually pretty good. In fact I frequently play games without any AA at all, unless I can use SMAA without issues (or when my performance is so good that MSAA feels free).
I was really just focusing on the straight lines in the screenshots from the previous page.
200% + 0x msaa has a little bit more aliasing on edges than 100%+4x msaa, but the performance is vastly different and supersampling doesn't just smooth edges. But I'm thinking that 4x msaa might be equivalent to 300-400% supersampling as far as edges go, I'm not sure but I remember reading a good article explaining the different forms of AA very clearly.
I was really just focusing on the straight lines in the screenshots from the previous page.
200% + 0x msaa has a little bit more aliasing on edges than 100%+4x msaa, but the performance is vastly different and supersampling doesn't just smooth edges. But I'm thinking that 4x msaa might be equivalent to 300-400% supersampling as far as edges go, I'm not sure but I remember reading a good article explaining the different forms of AA very clearly.
This was best settings for BF3, if we exclude SMAA, does SMAA still works for BF4?
SMAA on high + 2XMSAA + 130% res scale? omg omg
