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
Kor said:
Isn't it you know... the opposite? The Xbox version is running at 1280x720 while the PS4 is running at 1600x900?
Click to expand...
Except that there's something about the Xbox One version that makes it look sharper. The Xbox One version definitely has more aliasing so maybe the PS4 version is using the anti-aliasing feature that is causing the blurriness.

Not sure if you've seen the videos. Sorry, don't have a link.
 
Just curious if you guys planned to do later down the road a performance test of BF4 with W7 vs W8.1.....I keep hearing how much faster bf4 runs in 8.1. I would REALLY like to see some concrete info on this.
 
DASHlT said:
Just curious if you guys planned to do later down the road a performance test of BF4 with W7 vs W8.1.....I keep hearing how much faster bf4 runs in 8.1. I would REALLY like to see some concrete info on this.
Click to expand...

Brent more or less already stated that a Win7 vs Win8 comparison is in the works.

Also...who cares about XB1 and PS4! Not applicable to this thread IMHO. ;)
 
I know there is no real value to this besides a 'poll' but my god wouldn't it be nice if DICE could see this type of feedback from PC users?
 
naticus said:
I know there is no real value to this besides a 'poll' but my god wouldn't it be nice if DICE could see this type of feedback from PC users?
Click to expand...

What'd they do wrong, though? They included both MSAA and FXAA. The thing is, I suspect they're using an old version of FXAA. I'm not really sure. The thing I hate is when a game has MSAA but not FXAA - or vice versa. I would really prefer it if all newer games had both options, you know? MSAA has uses at times, as does FXAA. It really depends on the game in question.

I'm really curious about which FXAA implementation they used, though. That said, they did the right thing by including options for both MSAA and FXAA.
 
FXAA is a step backwards. What games need are high quality textures. High quality textures take a lot of time and effort which is why it's easy to say screw it, We'll make some decent textures knowing that most will use FXAA anyways because our game is unplayable under real anti-aliasing.
 
MRAB54 said:
FXAA is a step backwards. What games need are high quality textures. High quality textures take a lot of time and effort which is why it's easy to say screw it, We'll make some decent textures knowing that most will use FXAA anyways because our game is unplayable under real anti-aliasing.
Click to expand...

To be fair, BF4 does use high resolution textures. I still feel like DICE is using an old FXAA implementation - if you use the FXAA injector there are TONS of options for sharpening filters which allows you to get some anti aliasing without being over-blurred. A lot of games use FXAA very well, others don't. Some games have "sharp" FXAA implementations with sharpening filters, others don't. Depends entirely on the game and which FXAA version is used. (there are 3 specifications IIRC all created by Lottes @ nvidia)

Oh well, i've said my piece ;) I think FXAA itself is fine. I like having the option for both that -and- MSAA in every game.
 
FXAA was supposed to give AA qualiy better than 4xMSAA with reduced performance hit.

Thing is quality varies a lot depending on the game, but for the most part it makes everything look blurry.

I think nvidia should handle the FXAA settings, as most developers are not doing a good job.

FXAA is a work in progress so newer versions should have better quality, but you can't upgrade it when its implemented in game.
 
DASHlT said:
Just curious if you guys planned to do later down the road a performance test of BF4 with W7 vs W8.1.....I keep hearing how much faster bf4 runs in 8.1. I would REALLY like to see some concrete info on this.
Click to expand...

It's my next project after [REDACTED]
 
Ski said:
Sooooooooo....... is the game any good?
Click to expand...

no and yes but mostly no

crashes all the time, certain maps rubber band really bad. sound cuts on on certain maps(not all sound, but ambients and footsteps)
 
I can't make up my mind either if I value crispness or smooth edges more.

I think I prefer Post AA on, maybe just on Low. I really hate the look of the foliage otherwise. The resolution scaling is great but @ 25x16 anything above 120% starts really pushing playability.
 
Joga said:
I'm really conflicted on the issue - I don't like that PostAA blurs textures, but (especially on tree-full levels) the vegetation is distractingly "speckled" with it disabled. See this comparison:

MSAA Only: http://i1.minus.com/iEawSz6FZIJJ3.png (trees' leaves look ugly and distracting)
FXAA Only: http://i1.minus.com/ibdbooD24xkn4P.png (vegetation is much nicer, but slightly blurrier ground/gun textures)

I've decided that I prefer the image quality (smooth transparency and shader aliasing) and performance boost (~70 FPS instead of ~55 on my 120Hz monitor) of PostAA. I was really hoping DICE would add native SMAA, Crysis 3 style, which seems to be the best of both worlds (good performance, great image quality, doesn't blur textures).
Click to expand...

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
 
MRAB54 said:
FXAA is a step backwards. What games need are high quality textures. High quality textures take a lot of time and effort which is why it's easy to say screw it, We'll make some decent textures knowing that most will use FXAA anyways because our game is unplayable under real anti-aliasing.
Click to expand...

This. I think this will work.
 
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...

Loss of overall scene detail is a much more noticeable to the majority of people, most users have been living with and have gotten used to Alpha and Transparency jaggies for years.
 
Kor said:
Loss of overall scene detail is a much more noticeable to the majority of people, most users have been living with and have gotten used to Alpha and Transparency jaggies for years.
Click to expand...

The "majority of people"?

Either way I'm glad we have a choice then.
 
Kor said:
Loss of overall scene detail is a much more noticeable to the majority of people in this thread, most users in this thread have possibly been living with and have gotten used to Alpha and Transparency jaggies for years.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
JayJapanB said:
Didn't they teach you stats in school?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you are going with this...

All I've stated is what has been represented in the poll, the majority of users prefer to live without the anti-aliasing provided by Post AA due to the impact to the over all image quality. Those who aren't bothered by the loss of texture detail and wish to retain the anti aliasing are in the minority group.
 
Kor said:
I'm not sure where you are going with this...

All I've stated is what has been represented in the poll, the majority of users prefer to live without the anti-aliasing provided by Post AA due to the impact to the over all image quality. Those who aren't bothered by the loss of texture detail and wish to retain the anti aliasing are in the minority group.
Click to expand...

Here I was thinking you were making some broader generalisations.
That's cool, man.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
Advil said:
I already discovered this during the beta.

The game looked WAY better by disabling the POSTAA / POSTFX and moving the oversample slider up to 150%. It produces a better result at AA without the annoying super blurry and soft appearance to the entire scene. It's like playing through a layer of gauze. You constantly feel like you need to clean your monitor or your glasses or something.
Click to expand...

That setting is basically like applying supersampling, its also tough to run above 100% if you have a high res monitor(ie. 2560x1600)
 
Brent, do you notice any difference in the low post AA setting compared to off? Is it still very blurry? I don't have time to test it today in BF4 but I've always used 4xMSAA and low post AA in BF3.
 
Blkout said:
Brent, do you notice any difference in the low post AA setting compared to off? Is it still very blurry? I don't have time to test it today in BF4 but I've always used 4xMSAA and low post AA in BF3.
Click to expand...

I used the same setting to smooth out fences in BF3 multi. I don't like having to use it, but using a low FXAA in combination with a medium AA is a fair compromise of quality/performance without as big of a impact as running 8x-16x AA.
 
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...

There may be a sample bias, but there is an argument to be made in this instance that it's really the only sample group that matters. Most regular people probably couldn't care one way or the other, let alone notice the difference.
 
I've been knocking FXAA (and similar techniques) as blur filters and quality killers for a while now...

For me, they look terrible. I'd rather jaggies than blur.
 
lilbabycat said:
I've been knocking FXAA (and similar techniques) as blur filters and quality killers for a while now...

For me, they look terrible. I'd rather jaggies than blur.
Click to expand...
Amen. I didn't buy a 2560x1600 monitor (and will soon buy 4K) to have it blurred to hell by some half-assed AA technique.
 
I find the blurring of the textures and the general lack of sharpness that FXAA causes to be far more distracting than some aliasing on alpha textures and trees/vegetation, etc. So I shut FXAA off in BF4.
 
I didn't vote; I can't decide. Leaning towards it off, but the foliage does looks wiggity whack.
 
bigdogchris said:
I wonder how TXAA would work in BF4...
Click to expand...
As well as it does in any other title. I'm disappointed but not particularly surprised by the lack of developer interest in TXAA. Something to help suppress temporal aliasing not even being an option in a game like BF4 is just crazy to me.

Looking at BF3 and BF4 specifically, I do get the impression that the games were designed to be played with FXAA enabled, as it does help flatten out some of the excessive areas of contrast between texels in many cases. The visuals shimmer excessively without post-process AA.
 
wonderfield said:
As well as it does in any other title. I'm disappointed but not particularly surprised by the lack of developer interest in TXAA. Something to help suppress temporal aliasing not even being an option in a game like BF4 is just crazy to me.

Looking at BF3 and BF4 specifically, I do get the impression that the games were designed to be played with FXAA enabled, as it does help flatten out some of the excessive areas of contrast between texels in many cases. The visuals shimmer excessively without post-process AA.
Click to expand...

Sad but true.
 
It's interesting how different people have different perceptions of visual quality.

After finally having a crack at the full released game I retain my liking of FXAA.
Sharpness just isn't worth the massive amount of aliasing. I'm also running 1440p which is only second to 4K in PPI.

I much prefer these issues:

http://www.abload.de/img/fxaalujex.png

to these:

http://www.abload.de/img/msaap0jdl.png

But with preference in the end, between these two there is no definitive "better" one.
 
JayJapanB said:
It's interesting how different people have different perceptions of visual quality.

After finally having a crack at the full released game I retain my liking of FXAA.
Sharpness just isn't worth the massive amount of aliasing. I'm also running 1440p which is only second to 4K in PPI.

I much prefer these issues:

http://www.abload.de/img/fxaalujex.png

to these:

http://www.abload.de/img/msaap0jdl.png

But with preference in the end, between these two there is no definitive "better" one.
Click to expand...

Exactly - to me, FXAA is the lesser of two evils. I can either have slightly blurrier textures, or much more distracting (to me) shader and transparency aliasing. MSAA-only is distracting enough to take me out of the game.

And BF4's FXAA implementation isn't terrible (like, say, Crysis 2). I mean, in JayJapanB's screenshots above, look at the billboard on the left side of the laughing guy with Chinese text. Does it really look that much worse with FXAA? There's a night and day difference in the trees, but the texture quality is largely pretty similar unless you have them side-by-side.
 
i played with the settings more last night and i must be blind because i had a hard time seeing the difference
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top