Who here prefers the look of non aa/af filtering?

[VIAN]

1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF, why run anything less?

16xAF is better.

 

[johnnqq]

aa makes warcraft blurred...

 

[SonicIce]

You gotta be nuts not to use AF
The lines on the road are completely gone in the distance without AF. It's less noticeable in some games than others, though.

 

[kurt454]

I typically don't use aa/af. Not that impotant to me. Guess that's why I use just a 6800nu. I do not need all that video horsepower.

 

[M0RPH]

Anyone who appreciates eye candy and image quality should be using AA/AF. Of course, you should also be using ATI's version of AA/AF since it gives you a shimmer-free image, unlike the other guys.

 

[BFG10K]

I max out AF and leave it there permanently. This is not up for negotiation.

However I only turn on AA if I've cranked the resolution up as high as possible and I've still got power to burn.

 

[AmberClad]

Depends. In most games, I think it tends to give things a nice smooth look without the jaggies. In some, it's way overdone and things start to look hazy or blurry. KOTOR1, KOTOR2, and SW-Battlefront come to mind.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I also leave AF maxed out at all times. AA I'll use whatever I can get away with, most often 4x, rarely 6x (for older games), and in a few cases 2x or none depending upon the game. The worst I've seen AA do is blur text making that somewhat harder to read and thus a downside, however I have also seen it get rid of painfully obvious jaggies and give that great illusion of a much higher resolution image.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Anyone who appreciates eye candy and image quality should be using AA/AF. Of course, you should also be using ATI's version of AA/AF since it gives you a shimmer-free image, unlike the other guys.

And... You are a troll.

 

[SonicIce]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I max out AF and leave it there permanently. This is not up for negotiation.

However I only turn on AA if I've cranked the resolution up as high as possible and I've still got power to burn.

what monitor?

 

[makken]

Just wonderin...

Is it better to run a game at high texture quality and without AF then use medium texture quality and say 2xAF? I have a 64MB X600MR, 256MB with hypermemory, and most newer games are unplayable at high texture quality and AF on.

 

[TGS]

4x/8x or 2x/8x for the new titles. In FPSs at least, AA can go down to 2x, but if you are looking for prone snipers on a hill side, those jaggies can hurt you big time. You have to differentiate between a jaggy and a player. Which is horrible, hence the 2xAA minimum. Doesn't overblur the edges, and sharpens up the edges to avoid the creeping effect you get on edges without AA.

If I had a choice, I would run AF over AA, if I could bump up the res to compensate. One of the drawbacks of an LCD monitor, the inability to run different resolutions that do not effect the image quality on screen.

I do agree I've been noticing some blurring in EQ2 and WoW, with AA on. I tend to prefer to turn off the AA when I play those. Though jaggies are teh debil.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: mindgam3
Hey, just wondering if there are more people out there that dont like the look that aa/af provides?.. i find it blurs everything a tad bit and i prefer a nice crisp image... Also the performance hit you get from it is not worth the results imo.
What do I know though im just a benchmark junkie!

I agree with you. I'm used to no AA/AF, so when its on, it looks weird to me. Plus i dont like the performance hit.

Now, for games like AOE3, that game is so jaggy that you almost need AA/AF.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

AF I'm quite fond of. AA just looks bad to me.

 

[BFG10K]

what monitor?

19" Sony CPD-G420.