Antialiasing still has a ways to go.

[Executor]

Here's some data I got from running a homemade Return to Castle Wolfenstein Demo. The level was mp_village. This level makes use of a lot of brushes and is quite visually complex and stunning IMHO. RtCW was on high quality at 1024x768.

AA Off Aniso Off 102.8
AA Off Aniso 8tap 47.6
2x AA Aniso8tap 36.1
Quincunx AA Aniso8tap 33.7
4x AA Aniso8tap 27.7
4x AA + Filter Aniso8tap 12.2


Notice the huge drop just using anisotropic filtering. I figure I can use 2x AA and aniso when playing the game, but these numbers sure surprised me. Btw I'm running the Leadtek 21.83 dets on Win XP, and I used NVmax to change the video settings. Hopefully the NV25 will have enough processing power to make AA a viable solution in all gameplay situations.

 

[MrHelpful]

Did you fix your flickering problem?

 

[VBboy]

It's not antialiasing that's the problem, it's how much videocard performance it requires At least we have anti-aliasing now! Before it would have to be done purely in software, and your frame rates would probably fall down to a couple of fps.

P.S. Return to Castle tests the CPU more than the videocard. Try a different game, such as Quake3 or Max Payne.

 

[JellyBaby]

It does. AA doesn't really moisten me. I suspect at some point we'll get it for "free" but that's a few years off. I just don't care for the blurring, the performance hit and the artifacts it creates in some programs.

 

[Dug]

I miss the AA on my ol vodoo 5500. That was so sharp compared to an Nvidia card. It was just an underperformer with it on.

I personally like cranking up the resolution compared to AA now.

 

[BFG10K]

I never use FSAA of any form. High resolution is much better because it fixes everything FSAA does and more. Turn of FSAA and try cranking up the reoslution and you'll see that it looks much better.

 

[YBS1]

I'm with JellyBaby and BFG, FSAA is suck, crank the resolution up.

 

[HaVoC]

I hate the fact that AA eats up so much rendering power...just to eliminate the jaggies. It's a frustrating problem. I'd rather just crank up the resolution. 1024 is really great for me, though it's still easy to see the jaggies. They are just not so blatant as with lower resolutions. Of course, this is from someone who has played with a TNT2 the last 2 years!

Maybe they will figure out a computationally-cheap FSAA algorithm. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy some high-res gaming.

 

[ArchAngel777]

I'm with JellyBaby and BFG, FSAA is suck, crank the resolution up.

I dissagree. 1024X768 with 4x FSAA looks much better than 1600X1200 with no FSAA. I can still see Jaggies and pixel popping with 1600X1200. The performance with 4X FSAA @ 1024X768 is the same with no FSAA @ 1600X1200. I'd choose FSAA anyday.

 

[GoSharks]

<< The performance with 4X FSAA @ 1024X768 is the same with no FSAA @ 1600X1200. >>



well thats interesting as you would be rendering at a resolution of 4096x3072 @ 4x FSAA @1024x768...

 

[ArchAngel777]

well thats interesting as you would be rendering at a resolution of 4096x3072 @ 4x FSAA @1024x768...

Uhmmm... Sure it is... It is not 4 times the resolution by the dimensions.

Better read up or rework the math.

 

[YBS1]

I'll agree 1024x768 @ 4x FSAA looks on par with 1600x1200 without FSAA in the jaggy department. My issue with it is what it does to the texture quality. I hardly even notice jaggies while under playing conditions even as low as 1024x768 (no fsaa), however I certainly notice the reduction in texture quality under the same conditions. I notice a lot of things while looking at screenshots, but I don't spend my time playing screenshots.

 

[ElFenix]

4x is 2048x1536 @ 1024x768

 

[ArchAngel777]

4x is 2048x1536 @ 1024x768

That is correct

 

[BFG10K]

I can still see Jaggies and pixel popping with 1600X1200.

FSAA doesn't remove jaggies or pixel popping either, it just reduces them just like high resolution reduces them.

Also the rendering accuracy is much higher with high resolutions, you can see better at long distances and the whole scene is sharper and clearer. FSAA blurs the image too much and once you start playing with the LOD values you introduce other problems.

High resolution is the cleanest and best way to clean up the image in a wide variety of ways.

 

[bluemax]

But for those whose monitors only give GOOD output @ 1024, FSAA is a better option than crummy (or unavailable) higher resolutions.

I miss my V5 in action... that was FSAA at its best!

 

[GoSharks]

<< well thats interesting as you would be rendering at a resolution of 4096x3072 @ 4x FSAA @1024x768...

Uhmmm... Sure it is... It is not 4 times the resolution by the dimensions.

Better read up or rework the math. >>



whoops.. should have thought about that...

 

[sandorski]

It's not so much that FSAA has a way to go, as much as Nvidia has a way to go with their implementation of FSAA. They bought tech from 3dfx, they should probably use some of it. It would also be nice if CL would start using A3D instead of that crap called EAX.

 

[Innoka]

"I miss the AA on my ol vodoo 5500. That was so sharp compared to an Nvidia card. It was just an underperformer with it on."
Sharp? The V5 has been called many things but the FSAA wasn't very sharp. It was an offset blur filter really. True that the cards always had a wide LOD bias though.
The GF3 produces very good screenshots with Quincunx and anisotropic, but does it always take such a hit?

 

[bluemax]

<< Sharp? The V5 has been called many things but the FSAA wasn't very sharp. It was an offset blur filter really. True that the cards always had a wide LOD bias though.
The GF3 produces very good screenshots with Quincunx and anisotropic, but does it always take such a hit? >>


Try the other way around. Don't get me wrong - I'd LOVE to own a GF3, but Quincux has been widely publicised as fast, but the BLURRIEST image quality produced by AA ever.
3dfx's Voodoo5 4x was by far the sharpest of all AA routines out there. Moot point, really since it's defunct now. Still - come on nVidia! You bought the company and all its toys! Disassemble the drivers 3dfx used and put it to work on the Geforce!
Not only did 3dfx have the best looking AA in the biz', it also had the FASTEST AA routine! 4x FSAA was as much of a hit as the Geforce's 2x2 FSAA. GF 4x4 FSAA didn't look as good as V5's 4x mode and was also much slower.
3dfx sure did one thing right. Pity they couldn't follow through with their next part.

 

[ElFenix]

3dfx spent all their money r&ding a "shading tiler," something nvidia claims can't be done (once you get the shading in there the tiler becomes very inefficient, according to them). there is a little bit of 3dfx tech coming into a later nvidia part, but thats it. they're just going to sit on it all.

 

[Innoka]

The GF3 produces very good screenshots with Quincunx and anisotropic
now about these:
"3dfx's Voodoo5 4x was by far the sharpest of all AA routines out there"
The VSA-100 duplicates images rendered at displayed resolution and combines them on a rotated offset basis. You do not increase the detail this way. If you do not adjust LOD bias the image looks blurred.
"Disassemble the drivers 3dfx used and put it to work on the Geforce!"
The RGAA used what was called the T-buffer. Are you suggesting nvidia emulate that in software?
"Not only did 3dfx have the best looking AA in the biz', it also had the FASTEST AA routine! 4x FSAA was as much of a hit as the Geforce's 2x2 FSAA. GF 4x4 FSAA didn't look as good as V5's 4x mode and was also much slower"
Oh dear. The clues for the clueless are up the page.

 

[Innoka]

sorry duplicate post

 

[bluemax]

<< The clues for the clueless are up the page >>


This is what I get for saying anything bad about nVidia - even after the "I still wish I had a GF3" disclaimer.
You don't get many friends that way, pal.
And believe it or not, the GF3 does not produce the best-looking AA out there. Get over it.
Edit: thought I would add that I don't think the AA quality of the GF3 is *bad*, just not *the best*.

 

[sandorski]

Innoka: LOD Bias was created to fix the blurred textures problem and it works spendidly. Another usefull feature brought to you by the company that gave us what we needed, not what was needed for marketing purposes.