Who uses AA and FSAA? Really?

What I like about AA is that it simulates infinity. No matter how high my resolution is, when I zoom out on a character (using WoW for this example), he WILL look jagged and "game-looking". Enabling 4x AA made it seem more photo-realistic as if the character was a part of the scenery, rather than pasted on. This is especially apparent when an object is moving. When you see an object move, you may immediately notice the jaggies shifting up and down, left and right etc. With AA on, all you see is the object moving. It just looks less digital.

Anyone with WoW, take a look at the log-on screen and look at the stone base of the portal with AA off. It sticks out and looks out of place. Turn AA on and it looks like it's a part of the whole picture. Everything just blends together better with AA on.
 
I have to run at 1280x1024, this old 19" can't do above 60hz otherwise.
It makes a huge dif in image quality for me.

1210noaaaf.jpg


and with AA/AF on :
1210fsaaaf.jpg


Look at the texture difference between the two, absolutely huge difference.
 
Generally for multiplayer, I play with everything turned down as far as possible with resolution at either 640x480 or 800x600 to ensure that I get a high framerate and that it stays that way. For single player games, I usually turn it up.
 
I play on an LCD now, so it's irrelevant. I play in a multiple of native resolution, and drop video settings until I never go below 30 fps. If I can reach a steady 60 fps, I will do it. This meant that I used to play CS:S in 800x600 on my 1600x1200 LCD.

However, if I were to switch back to CRT, here's a good example of my priorities.

Never dropping below 30 fps is my first priority. After that, 1280x1024 2xFSAA > 1024x768 at maximum IQ all things being equal. The lowest setting of FSAA helps a lot with shimmering, but anything higher and I'd rather have more resolution instead. AF seems to have little enough effect on frame rate that I leave it on unless desperate for more fps. In general though, I completely agree that fps > resolution > IQ.
 
Meh I still don't know what shimmering is, but I usually play with 2xAA/8xAF at 1280x1024 (LCD max res) in most games right now because thats a good mix between speed/performance.
 
You guys talking about shimmering... well I got your shimmering right here:

With nvidia cards, turning LOD bias to -1 where the mipmap detail is close to that of ATi cards will get you shimmering with FSAA turned on and it gets worse with the more FSAA you use. The shimmering is the reason why nvidia set the LOD bias up so high to decrease detail that would shimmer.

With ATi, the shimmering is less noticeable with higher FSAA as long as you use the quality setting, but it's still there. The only way to eliminate it is to set LOD bias by turning down the mipmap detail level down to equal the nvidia's. This is generally unacceptable to people used to the ATi level of detail.

Personally, when I went from ATi to nvidia it was a big shock in texture detail...which is why I had to figure out what they did. nvidia is washed out looking because of this to the point you have to set AF as high as you can handle without performance drops to make it look acceptable. With ATi you don't need to set AF very high at all for a quality picture.

To me, shimmering doesn't really matter but aliasing does. Now that I have switched back to ATi I am able to leave AF turned down and max out FSAA with good frame rates (plus having an X1900XTX helps a little too).
 
The Cobra said:
To answer your question: Yes I do use AA & AF all the time. When I first purchased my rig back in July of 05, I stuck with one 7800GTX. When I purchased F.E.A.R., COD2 & Quake 4, my framerates were getting around 30-35fps with all the goodies turned off while playing @ 1900x1200. I decided in December to add another 7800GTX on my machine. It increased my framerates by a factor of 2.5. Now I enjoy all the eye candy along with the maximum resolution. The difference is night and day.

Anthony
Click to expand...

So adding another card gave you a 2.5x perf increase huh? BS.
 
PSYKOMANTIS said:
You know I've never really understood the point of FSAA or AA.
Sure it smooths out the infamous "jaggies" and makes games look pretty at low resolution. Great... FINE! FSAA and AA have a place for their duty in LOW RESOLUTION gaming.

What I'm asking is why do people still care soo much about FSAA and AA what so ever?
Supposidly you have a good enough monitor that supports 2048 X 1536 @ 75+ HZ...
The point of buying a good video card is high frame rate and stability in high resolution gaming, that's pretty much a given.

What I don't get is once you push your PC to 1600 X 1200 and beyond you really don't notice the jaggies anymore because you pretty much compress everything onto your screen.
What I'm getting to is why stop and smell the roses and use FSAA and AA at high resolutions and hamper your FPS? I don't see FSAA or AA improving my CS:S scores or my K/D ratio in BF2...

I personally own a 21" Trinitron SGI RGBHV monitor I use for photo editing.
When I crank up the FSAA and AA I really don't notice anything but a slowing down of my FPS and more system chugging.

What's really pissing me off is when hardware websites (including hardOCP) do reviews with all the FSAA and AA on. What about pureists like me that don't turn that shit on? What ever happened to HARD FPS facts without all the magic BS?
Its too fucking confusing to see cards pitted against eachother on how well they perform Quality settings.

Honestly, am I missing something?
Click to expand...
If you have a monitor that nativaly supports 1600 X 1200 than you would notice a difference with AA on. If saw a true 1600 X 1200 monitor with full AA and playing quake 4 or something like you would notice the difference. Most people see that there monitor supports max resolution of 1600 X 1200 and they think there monitor actualy has 1600 pixels by 1200 pixels when it doesnt and it usaly scales the image. If your monitor starts to scale it than you wont see any difference at a certain point. You will notice the biggest difference on huge 32 inch screen that has a native resolution of 1600 X 1200*drools*.
 
If I wasnt too lazy, Id post some shots of BF2 with fences. The fences and such look reallt, really, horrible without AA. Perhaps this weekend.

sabrewolf732 said:
So adding another card gave you a 2.5% perf increase huh? BS.
Click to expand...

I think he is saying 2.5x, which is still wrong. There is no chance adding a second card, more than doubled the frames at the same settings. SLI generally adds about a 80-95% increase in frames. Some games less. F.E.A.R. is probably the game that benefits the most from it.
 
fallguy said:
If I wasnt too lazy, Id post some shots of BF2 with fences. The fences and such look reallt, really, horrible without AA. Perhaps this weekend.



I think he is saying 2.5x, which is still wrong. There is no chance adding a second card, more than doubled the frames at the same settings. SLI generally adds about a 80-95% increase in frames. Some games less. F.E.A.R. is probably the game that benefits the most from it.
Click to expand...

yeah meant 2.5x, but 2.5% is still more believable than 2.5x :p
 
I consider myself to be a skillful FPS, and that is because I can respond to changes in the gameplay rather quickly; I can see minute changes and act accordingly, and because I have a fairly high-end system.

To say: "Stopping to smell the [antialiasing] in a FPS," is silly, and this is why: Because I can notice minute changes in gameplay rapidly (such as enemy movement, hidden snipers, projectiles), aliasing
is just another thing to notice. I do not need to stop to see it, I am quick to discern.

To say: "High-end hardware is unnecessary for skillful gameplay," is also silly, and I do not need to explain why, because there is no hope for whoever chooses to believe that.

To say: "AA is useless," is the final silly. AA sometimes draws the line from what I can or cannot discern in the game. When I play a FPS, distant foes (without sniping) look as if they are made of blocks, and if there is a group, I cannot focus on a single enemy to take him down (without zooming in by sniping, which leaves me vulnerable on my sides). Sure I could zoom in, but because I have to? No thanks... I do not wish to be limited in my options simply because AA is "useless," or my computer will not let me make my own decisions. In addition, complex terrains with enemies within it are especially undecernable without AA (At a distance, mostly). It somewhat reminds me of the inside of a wood chipper at full speed... I cannot count the blades!!!! slow it down plz!!! (others probably have different analogies for that one, I kind of just made that one up. And yes, I have seen the inside of a chipper).

I had more good examples and comments, but I forgot the rest. lol.

AA4EVR
 
Well I guess it depends, however in IG in the ut series I was one of the best ig'ers, now, actually decreasing IQ improved my skill (talking about things looking like clay here) as I was able to differentiate bg from person much quicker. I guess it depends on person to person. For me, iq doesn't really matter. If it's decent (like 1280x1024 and 8x af) I'm good to go :p
 
sabrewolf732 said:
?? :confused: My sig is old as hell btw and I don't update it...
Click to expand...
OT?? My fault??

Just post your system specs, we can help... AA is your friend.
 
Its in his sig...that 6100 is holdin him back....

I just got a 6800, and now I cant live without at LEAST AF, and I need AA
 
eno-on said:
I have to run at 1280x1024, this old 19" can't do above 60hz otherwise.
It makes a huge dif in image quality for me.

http://www.submarinefleet.com/junk/1210noaaaf.jpg

and with AA/AF on :
[img]http://www.submarinefleet.com/junk/1210fsaaaf.jpg

Look at the texture difference between the two, absolutely huge difference.[/QUOTE]

you got some serious artifacting going on
Click to expand...
 
cyks said:
OT?? My fault??

Just post your system specs, we can help... AA is your friend.
Click to expand...


help what? What the hell are you guys talking about. I never asked for help. All I said was I do the same in games with high iq and low iq. Doesn't matter. As long as the game looks decent I don't really care as I don't stop to stare at the scenery. And AF> AA.
 
sabrewolf732 said:
help what?
Click to expand...
You...


sabrewolf732 said:
What the hell are you guys talking about.
Click to expand...
AA? and you?

sabrewolf732 said:
As long as the game looks decent I don't really care as I don't stop to stare at the scenery.
Click to expand...
Although I am quick enough to see A/AA without stopping, how can you claim to want "decent looks" (sic), without "stop[ping] to stare at the scenery"? The OP had similar inconsistencies, and while I agree that AF>AA, it does not mean AA=0.

You should upgrade to, at least, a 6800, take the AA challenge, and then try to diss AA.
 
cyks said:
You...



AA? and you?


Although I am quick enough to see A/AA without stopping, how can you claim to want "decent looks" (sic), without "stop[ping] to stare at the scenery"? The OP had similar inconsistencies, and while I agree that AF>AA, it does not mean AA=0.

You should upgrade to, at least, a 6800, take the AA challenge, and then try to diss AA.
Click to expand...

First of all, know what you're talking about. 2nd, get better comprehension skills. I stated that I don't udate my sig, so for all you know I could have a x1800xt right now. I have owned several high performance cards ranging from a 9800 pro when they first came out to a x800pro vmodded a few months after they came out. I have also had a 6800 unlocked to 16/6. As I said, I care about the quality as in how realistic/nice the game looks.polygons, textures etc. I don't stop to look at edges to see if they're aliased or not. AA is not worth it for me. You saying AA matters so much is like saying half life with 8x aa looks better than half life 2 no aa. Maybe it's cause I mainly play ut which is a fast paced game. idk.
 
bLaCktIGErs91 said:
He's referring to the purple-ish-ness gonin on....
Click to expand...

yeah, thats just heterosexual source, when you change settings without restarting it it does that sometimes
 
oh, never got that, I always get big black buildings and monsters of big blackness triangles
 
sabrewolf732 said:
oh, never got that, I always get big black buildings and monsters of big blackness triangles
Click to expand...
Despite the purple shit, and even if you DONT care about the jaggy edges, look at the texturing. There is no way I could play with the shitty textures caused by lack of AF. Looks like utter fking crap.
 
well, you really only need a certain number of FPS to make something playable and feel good. If you're scoring like 300FPS or 100-200 FPS on a game that really feels good at about 40 minimum, why play it and have it look like crap when you can have it still running smoothly at better graphics with slightly reduced graphics? =D
 
Its Odd that anyone capable of running AA and not using it. Every since the 9700pro and up, AA at the minimum level has been free. As for AF ,it too is basically free. Free being no penalty in performance loss at all. So why not turn it on?

I didnt think this thread would last so long. I was going to post earlier but my thought on this have posted many times over. One thing thought, confusing reading some post. Its AA and AF. Some of you have AA and AF mixed up.

One thing i will say is , I cant wait to upgrade my video card. What for? Adaptive AA.
 
sabrewolf732 said:
First of all, know what you're talking about. 2nd, get better comprehension skills. I stated that I don't udate my sig, so for all you know I could have a x1800xt right now. I have owned several high performance cards ranging from a 9800 pro when they first came out to a x800pro vmodded a few months after they came out. I have also had a 6800 unlocked to 16/6. As I said, I care about the quality as in how realistic/nice the game looks.polygons, textures etc. I don't stop to look at edges to see if they're aliased or not. AA is not worth it for me. You saying AA matters so much is like saying half life with 8x aa looks better than half life 2 no aa. Maybe it's cause I mainly play ut which is a fast paced game. idk.
Click to expand...

AA plays a big role on the realism of graphics IMO. When I looked at the high-def trailer of Gears of War, everything looked graphically stunning, but they didn't have AA on, so it looked "disappointing" at the same time. I mean, you have photorealistic textures, high-poly models, and fluent movement, but it still looked bad because of the jaggies. Go to gametrailers.com (i dunno if its there though), and see if you notice it. With AA on, the objects definitely would have looked as if they were a part of the scenery. Those jaggies took away a lot from realism, if you ask me.

I honestly never knew the significance if AA (in terms of quality) until I recently finished my computer last month. Since then, I noticed AA in the GameCube. I was always wondering what made its image quality seem so good compared to the other consoles. The lack of aliaising on the objects made seem really nice, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it at the time. Well, now I know.
 
XXXMixedNuts said:
Its Odd that anyone capable of running AA and not using it. Every since the 9700pro and up, AA at the minimum level has been free. As for AF ,it too is basically free. Free being no penalty in performance loss at all. So why not turn it on?

I didnt think this thread would last so long. I was going to post earlier but my thought on this have posted many times over. One thing thought, confusing reading some post. Its AA and AF. Some of you have AA and AF mixed up.

One thing i will say is , I cant wait to upgrade my video card. What for? Adaptive AA.
Click to expand...

lol. Yes, aa takes no performance hit :p
 
sabrewolf732 said:
lol. Yes, aa takes no performance hit :p
Click to expand...

lol
how can XXXMixedNuts think AA has no performance hit? There are a million reviews/articles to demonstrate its use.
Even worse he has owned up to it!
Maybe he only uses 640x480? :D

He's one MixedUpNut
 
To me it makes a big difference, I play at 1280*1024, and with my 7800gt I love it when I crank up all the settings!
 
ClearM4 said:
Agreed, I also lower res for atleast 2xAA. Although, it does depend on the game sometimes, but in most games I require atleast 1024x768, 2xAA, 4xAF settings. Ideal settings are 1280x1024 4xAA, 8xAF. 1600x1200 res is better, but only if it can play with AA and AF.
Click to expand...

qft :)
 
sabrewolf732 said:
First of all, know what you're talking about. 2nd, get better comprehension skills. I stated that I don't udate my sig, so for all you know I could have a x1800xt right now. I have owned several high performance cards ranging from a 9800 pro when they first came out to a x800pro vmodded a few months after they came out. I have also had a 6800 unlocked to 16/6. As I said, I care about the quality as in how realistic/nice the game looks.polygons, textures etc. I don't stop to look at edges to see if they're aliased or not. AA is not worth it for me. You saying AA matters so much is like saying half life with 8x aa looks better than half life 2 no aa. Maybe it's cause I mainly play ut which is a fast paced game. idk.
Click to expand...

Yea right buddy. My "comprehension skills" have nothing to do with your minority opinions, but I congratulate your knack for turning everything OT *applause* . I like the part where you "could have" a 1800xt, or "had" an unlocked 6800!!!

You do nothing more than hate what you cannot have, and that is high levels of AA with playable FPS. There is nothing wrong with that, you will finally get your 1800xt and undoubtedly turn that feature on because you finally can (and you will never turn back).
 
cyks said:
Yea right buddy. My "comprehension skills" have nothing to do with your minority opinions, but I congratulate your knack for turning everything OT *applause* . I like the part where you "could have" a 1800xt, or "had" an unlocked 6800!!!

You do nothing more than hate what you cannot have, and that is high levels of AA with playable FPS. There is nothing wrong with that, you will finally get your 1800xt and undoubtedly turn that feature on because you finally can (and you will never turn back).
Click to expand...

What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1385574
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4366866
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8635293
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8674313
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8773764

Obviously, this pretty much proves that I have owned the cards cards capable of AA, and obviously, I don't use AA because it doesn't enhance my gaming experiance. Have a nice day. :rolleyes: Btw I also commented you in the 05 compare url to show even FURTHER proof.
 
sabrewolf732 said:
What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1385574
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4366866
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8635293
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8674313
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8773764

Obviously, this pretty much proves that I have owned the cards cards capable of AA, and obviously, I don't use AA because it doesn't enhance my gaming experiance. Have a nice day. :rolleyes: Btw I also commented you in the 05 compare url to show even FURTHER proof.
Click to expand...


Actually...those scores are like old gen performance. Maybe you can do FSAA but not at high frame rates...so I understand why you dont use it.

I still think the cyks is right...you need a better card and you will love FSAA.
 
Chernobyl1 said:
lol
how can XXXMixedNuts think AA has no performance hit? There are a million reviews/articles to demonstrate its use.
Even worse he has owned up to it!
Maybe he only uses 640x480? :D

He's one MixedUpNut
Click to expand...

Bah , come on now. A x1800xt, x1900xt or a 7800gt can do x2 and x4 AA no problem
I said at the minimum level , so at least x2 AA should be used.
 
XXXMixedNuts said:
Bah , come on now. A x1800xt, x1900xt or a 7800gt can do x2 and x4 AA no problem
I said at the minimum level , so at least x2 AA should be used.
Click to expand...

You did, I didnt read it correctly as I was distracted by your insistence the thread should be closed :rolleyes:
I agree, a low level of AA with the newer cards (GF 6600 and equiv ATI upwards) gives a small performance hit and is worthwhile.
 
Chernobyl1 said:
lol
how can XXXMixedNuts think AA has no performance hit? There are a million reviews/articles to demonstrate its use.
Even worse he has owned up to it!
Maybe he only uses 640x480? :D

He's one MixedUpNut
Click to expand...
Eugh. Obviously, AA will always come with a performance hit. However, on fast modern cards, 2xAA is practically free in terms of performance, with the framerate hit being almost unnoticible in most games but with much improved IQ over 0xAA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top