YARDofSTUF
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2001
- Messages
- 1,469
HQAF and AF shots there look the same to me.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's only because the trees aren't identical because they are swaying in the wind and the screenshot didn't capture them at the exact same moment. Additionally, all of the foliage is randomly generated and slightly different during each run. It isn't the HQAF causing the visual differences in the trees/flowers/grass in those shots, its just how the engine works.ryankenn said:That's what I first noticed when he posted those. You might want to choose a scene that better represents any improvments that HQ offers, because that one is worse with it on. Look at the top of the hill dead center, the jaggies are identical, but in the middle tree ( the three big ones in the middle left ish), the center one's lowest cluster of leaves is more defined in terms of shape of the leaves and detail in the "lower" quality setting.
NoDamage said:That's only because the trees aren't identical because they are swaying in the wind and the screenshot didn't capture them at the exact same moment. Additionally, all of the foliage is randomly generated and slightly different during each run. It isn't the HQAF causing the visual differences in the trees/flowers/grass in those shots, its just how the engine works.
The only difference you can see in those shots where HQAF is taking effect is in the grass texture near the bottom right of the cursor. The HQAF shot has a nicer grass texture in that spot.
5150Joker said:Wow guess the point of HQ AF vs Standard AF went right over your head. The game renders grass/rocks/tree branches randomly each time you load it, that wasn't what the picture was highlighting. Look at the angle in the hill where the cursor is and you'll see the difference between HQ AF vs AF right away. The entire purpose of those shots is to show Cainam/Maniac that he was wrong about assuming HQ AF not working in this game or making any visual impact.
AppaYipYip said:I call shinanigans on your claims. Prove it to me with a FRAPS benchmark.
CaiNaM said:this leads me to believe that in the review BT was not actually running HQAF, as the difference would have been easily noticeable - therefore in the benchmarks the XT was likely not doing "more work" as joker claims.
SPARTAN VI said:Sounds about right to me. Around 30 outdoors and 60-90fps indoors is the same for me at with a 7900GT and at the same exact settings (don't know if he has pretty water mods and reflections, though).
Bona Fide said:I went back and checked the settings, and it turns out I didn't max out the water reflections. I did that and my framerates well to the mid 20s outside. No real change for indoor though.
fallguy said:The XTX also had a higher in-game setting. Which does mean it is doing more work, no matter if the HQ AF was working right or not. FS's article backs up bi-tech in that, the XTX is faster. Heck, the X1800XT is faster than the 7900GTX at times.
CaiNaM said:that's not the point at all.
it's apparent there is something messed up with enabling/disabling it (the same thing happened to you, when originally you could not get haqf to work).
here is what i found:
1. set std AF in CCC
2. start oblivion - the game correctly renders std af
3. exit oblivion
4. enable HQAF in CCC
5. start oblivion - the game still renders std AF
if you reboot after enabling HQAF, oblivion will render in HQAF
i found that there is a workaround using ati traytools.
after changing the AF settings, click on att and go to display > reset display driver
oblvion will now render with the correct settings.
in the following shots the difference is easily seen:
this leads me to believe that in the review BT was not actually running HQAF, as the difference would have been easily noticeable - therefore in the benchmarks the XT was likely not doing "more work" as joker claims.
also notice the XT is able to render the scene with no impact in framerate (it actually is 1fps faster). this is certainly a fantastic feature, but shows that even if BT was running HQAF and didn't notice it (which is hard to believe) it had no impact on the benchmark numbers.
fallguy said:Yes he said that HQ AF would bring the frames down. How was he to know bi-tech screwed up? He also said that the in-game settings where higher, and that the XTX was doing more work. Turns out he was right, and wrong.
ATi is clearly the better card for Oblivion. For multi card, NV is, for now.
Lord_Exodia said:Now that is a difference. You can tell the better iq easily. It does work then. Just a bit of leg work to make it happen. Nothing a new driver can't fix.
also, in fairness grass shadows were discussed, however if you're benchmarking in first person (the default camera), it makes no difference as the player doesn't cast a shadow
phide said:It doesn't look as if the 16X angle dependent mode is doing any filtering at all. I've been playing with 8X AF, and I'm quite certain that, dealing with these sorts of angles, my filtering quality is much more acceptable.
Perhaps I'm living in a bizarro-world.
zzzVideocardzzz said:y did j00 kill that deer.......
CaiNaM said:here is what i found:
1. set std AF in CCC
2. start oblivion - the game correctly renders std af
3. exit oblivion
4. enable HQAF in CCC
5. start oblivion - the game still renders std AF
if you reboot after enabling HQAF, oblivion will render in HQAF
Apple740 said:Couldn't it be a "FRAPS" problem? Some time ago i noticed that if you have FRAPS running in the background you can't switch between ADAA performance vs quality. You'll have to turn off FRAPS first and then make the change in the CCC, else it won't work.
Maybe (haven't tried it) this is also related to switching on/off HQAF.
5150Joker said:Cainam/Maniac: You originally speculated the XTX was not doing more work than the OC'd GTX in bit-tech's review by having grass shadows + HQ AF enabled. I claimed the XTX was indeed doing more work and set out to prove that. Here are my results that prove you were wrong all along: http://clan786.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=1
Oh and here's what I wrote you at R3D in case you missed it:
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1334271642&postcount=145
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1334271656&postcount=146
5150 Joker said:My tests were done in the 3rd person and I put up my save files + methods in my review on how to reproduce exactly what I did. Can you say FS was nearly as thorough? You just need to admit it that you were wrong. First you claimed HQ AF was broken until I showed you that it wasn't so then you tried to save face by putting up HQ AF pictures and workarounds. That just shows that you jump to conclusions without fully testing your claims first. I promised I'd put up results that showed the XTX does more work with HQ AF + grass shadows thus proving you wrong yet again and your only retort is that you don't trust my results even though I offer the save files + methods on my page. :nag:
"Best playable" needs more quotes around it. Am I the only one who thinks that a minimum fps of 15 or 17 is hardly playable?? That's about 17 fps outside and 60 fps inside if you play 50/50 inside/outside on an average of 38 fps.ryankenn said:What are you talking about. They enabled all those options because its a "best playable" review.