16XAF - constrained by...?

nathanddrews

Graphics Cards, CPU Moderator
Aug 9, 2016
965
534
136
www.youtube.com
Resolution? Bandwidth? Lack of a better alternative? Diminishing returns? For the last 15-20 years, 16XAF has been the standard maximum value in games and drivers with no real challengers or competitive functions. While it works well enough in most situations, there do seem to be instances where 16XAF is not sufficient as a maximum value. My understanding is that AF doesn't use the same filtering strength across an entire scene, but rather it applies the highest filtering level to "only distant highly oblique pixel fills" when it is needed. Perhaps different combinations of AA+AF accommodate this already. Just curious.
 

dogen1

Senior member
Oct 14, 2014
739
40
91
The multiplier for AF tells you the obliqueness of textures that it will cover.

You're saying there are some extremely oblique textures that don't have filtering that you actually notice while playing a game?

Maybe you have texture filtering set to a lower quality level in your driver. I would try messing with that first. If for some reason the quality is still not acceptable, you can always go for super sampling if the game supports it, or use something like dsr.