Do you use AA/AF? With poll.

Do you use AA/AF?

  • If you could get playable frames, would and do you use AA/AF no matter what res?

    Votes: 195 90.3%

  • No, you just do not like AA/AF.

    Votes: 21 9.7%
  • Total voters
    216
usually 4xAA with transparancy supersampling. if i can get away with pure 8Xsupersampled aa i will use it. i use supersampled aa in BF2, its a must really. cant stand jaggies at all. as for anisotropic filtering? 16xAF ALL THE TIME no matter what the cost.
 
AF is a must, AA not always. It really depends on the game. If I can pull off AA without sacrificing too much in the FPS department, I'll go for it. Otherwise, I won't be too scared to go without it. Textures look really gross without AF though.
 
I play with AA whenever possible, and always use AF. But I am reasonable. I can live with 2xAA if it makes more sense than going lower resolution. I can also live with low AF levels (for example, I play Oblivion with 2xAF. There's a reason why AF is not in the Oblivion options, it KILLS your performance).
 
I try to use AF all the time, either force it or set it in the in game options AA it depends on. Games are getting really good graphics and using alot more polygons, so not using AA that much anymore, still gives a great almost jaggy-less picture. If the game really needs it though, I would sacrifice any graphic setting for it. I just cant stand jaggies on my screen!!!
 
AA depends on the game. AF I always turn on as without it, the IQ difference is significant. AA though in some games doesn't make all THAT big of an IQ difference (i.e. Doom 3, Quake 4, Oblivion) especially with higher resolutions like 1600x1200.
 
Its really a nust to use AA, when i got GRAW and loaded it up and saw that the game doesnt support AA i took it back to the store and said it was defective just to get a sealed fresh copy to sell on Ebay. I mean how could a game not support AA, Cant even force AA.
 
you ask a question and have another question as one of your choices... :)

There's no doubt aa/af is worth using, makes a difference, is absolutely noticable, helps smooth out the graphics, etc. etc... no poll is needed
 
pandora's box said:
16xAF ALL THE TIME no matter what the cost.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't care if the games running at 10 fps I have to have 16 AF, I only ever use 2AA tho just to take the edge of the jaggies, If I had to choose between AA & AF it would be AF all the time :)
 
Marcdaddy said:
Its really a nust to use AA, when i got GRAW and loaded it up and saw that the game doesnt support AA i took it back to the store and said it was defective just to get a sealed fresh copy to sell on Ebay. I mean how could a game not support AA, Cant even force AA.
Click to expand...

Well, sometimes there is the thought that you should be focused on the GAMEPLAY of a game, not whether or not certain edges are jaggy. But since the PC version of GRAW lacks in the gameplay department as well, you made the right choice.
 
fallguy said:
Simple poll.
Click to expand...

Your poll is flawed, anyone who doesn't use AF is just nuts, you should be asking who would use AA at high res if they got good frame rates. AF is a given that it will be turned on. You should define high res. 1280x1024 and up or is it 1600x1200 and up?
 
I use AF all the time, no questions asked. AA goes as high as possible without dropping the frames too much. I'm a big eye candy guy, though. I'd rather have great visuals that 200FPS...

That's why we have the great video cards. Difference between 60FPS and 200FPS? Nothing, really. We have all that extra speed so we can push higher levels of AA and AF. Start at 200FPS, add 16XAF, and 8XAA that drops your frames to 50-60FPS. Fine by me.

Of course, if you start at 30FPS and add 8XAA, and it drops to 8FPS... No thank you. But, with the introduction of the 9700Pro, we can get AA at less of a FPS cost. That was a long time ago. They've gotten a lot more efficient since then!
 
AF is a neccessity, games look like blurry garbage without it... 4x FSAA w/ transparency multisampling is a must for me even at 1680x1050, just too many distracting, shimmering, jaggy edges otherwise for my tastes, though I can understand most getting along without it :).
 
GoldenTiger said:
AF is a neccessity, games look like blurry garbage without it... 4x FSAA w/ transparency multisampling is a must for me even at 1680x1050, just too many distracting, shimmering, jaggy edges otherwise for my tastes, though I can understand most getting along without it :).
Click to expand...

Yeah, back when all I had to play BF2 was my 6600 GT with no transparency AA, I thought the leaves in the trees "rustled". I assumed this because the branches in the trees in BF1942 swayed, and with the jaggies it really looked like motion.

Now that I have my 7900 GT, and can pimp the 4x TR SSAA, the trees look kinda dead. Turns out only certain small bushes sway with the "wind."

Don't get me wrong, it still looks awesome, just not what I was expecting :D
 
Since I have 19" LCD - 1280x1024, I'm pretty much always at 16AF 6AA all the time. The only thing that pisses me is that my x1900xt should do that easily, which isn't always the case.

So.... 16AF 6AA and HDR on.
 
4xAA/16xAF, thats what I run if I can do it with good performance although AA isn't a deal breaker to me if a game doesn't have it AF is a must and I personally don't see why anyone would chose to play without it.
 
defaultluser said:
Yeah, back when all I had to play BF2 was my 6600 GT with no transparency AA, I thought the leaves in the trees "rustled". I assumed this because the branches in the trees in BF1942 swayed, and with the jaggies it really looked like motion.

Now that I have my 7900 GT, and can pimp the 4x TR SSAA, the trees look kinda dead. Turns out only certain small bushes sway with the "wind."

Don't get me wrong, it still looks awesome, just not what I was expecting :D
Click to expand...

get a helo and hover beside some trees and you will see them sway ;)
 
i can play all games now at 2048x1536 or 1920x1440 all max high quality so its not an issue. but i have never had a problem playing without aa or af, eye candy never being primary . the fact that a chain link fence in hl2 doesnt look like a real chain link fence is not a prob with me
 
I will always try to use both, but if I have to choose one or the other, then AF is first priority.
 
Polls with only two ambiguous options make me sad. :(

Suggested options for this poll and future AA polls:

1: Yes, I will turn other graphical settings down before I turn off AA/AF
2: Yes, I will keep AA on in most games except for the most demanding (Oblivion, F.E.A.R., etc.)
3: Yes, I turn AA on in older games like Quake/BF1942, I can't stand the framerate hit on newer games.
4: No: I prefer to increase my resolution rather than turn on AA.
5: No: I just live without AA and the framerate hit that comes from it.
5: NO! I disagree with AA so much that I turned off smooth fonts in windows because it does Anti-Aliasing on my pure text!
 
Depends on the game.

AF is usualy a must now. AA usual makes my fast paced games feel slow... even with a beefy setup... I dunno why? Not slow as in low FPS, just more bulky...

Games like Counterstrike.. I play with Max AF and HDR....

Games like Warcraft III and RPG like games... Max AF and AA
 
So far I have used AA/AF in every game I have played.

Such as HL2 and Source based games. Usually run 1600x1200 with 6xAdaptive AA and 16xHQAF. Runs about 60-70fps unless there is intense action then it dips to about 50.

If the game does not have it listed under setup options I try to force it using ATI tray tools.
Opteron 148 @ 2.75ghz and an ATI 1800xt 512mb.
 
I voted yes of course but the poll itself is very flawed. You are asking if people would turn on IQ enhancing effects with NO NEGATIVE EFFECT. It is self evident. Not sure what conclusion the OP is trying to form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top