bit-tech.net

Transparency & Adaptive AA Explained

Comments 1 to 21 of 21

Reply
Bladestorm 7th April 2006, 12:50 Quote
so for a Nvidia 7x user, enable transparency multisampling in the general config and then supersampling for every game where the frame rate is already pretty good, did I sum that up right ? :)
Tim S 7th April 2006, 13:02 Quote
Yes - you should be able to enable transparency multisampling in just about every situation where you're using anti-aliasing on a mid-to-high end card. Transparency supersampling is a little more taxing, though.
Kynes 7th April 2006, 13:04 Quote
"This means that when you're using 2xAA and performance adaptive anti-aliasing, you're unlikely to see any improvements in image quality over a conventional 2xAA setting."

I'm glad you have changed your mind.

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=1176578&postcount=7
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigz
I'm pretty sure that there's a difference in performance and quality between 2xAA and 2xPA AA. That's why we've labelled it that way. :)
RotoSequence 7th April 2006, 17:13 Quote
So when all's said and done, super sampling makes for the prettiest pictures and its only on ATI cards?
Tim S 7th April 2006, 17:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RotoSequence
So when all's said and done, super sampling makes for the prettiest pictures and its only on ATI cards?
No, supersampling is available on NVIDIA cards too... (hint: transparency supersampling).
kickarse 7th April 2006, 18:20 Quote
I simply can't tell the difference and when it comes to CS: Source it's if I can the enemy well not "ooh pretty trees"...
Tim S 8th April 2006, 19:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickarse
I simply can't tell the difference and when it comes to CS: Source it's if I can the enemy well not "ooh pretty trees"...
The foliage differences are mainly noticeable when you're moving around - it's similar to texture shimmering/crawling but on objects that aren't on the ground. If you've never seen texture shimmering, you're probably not going to be able to see aliased alpha tested textures either. ;)
Tim S 8th April 2006, 19:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kynes
"This means that when you're using 2xAA and performance adaptive anti-aliasing, you're unlikely to see any improvements in image quality over a conventional 2xAA setting."

I'm glad you have changed your mind.

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=1176578&postcount=7
I still need to spend some time evaluating the image quality, but there's definitely a reduction in sampling - it ultimately depends how much of a reduction there is and whether its possible to see, or not. :)
dragon-fly 9th April 2006, 04:45 Quote
thanks to the article i was able to enable Adaptive AA on my AIW 9600XT. Basically what i did was shove the AA to 6X Adaptive AA on top of 16X AF and... boy, what a quality difference versus no AA no AF. problem is... well.... from 40 fps to 9 and below isnt tooo fun. lol. but it was pretty pretty foliage. looked like a completely new game with a new graphics patch and what not.

and i thought the moire thingy was corrected by AF instead of AA?
Tim S 9th April 2006, 11:03 Quote
The screenshots are already using 16xAF, so I guess there's just not enough filtering going on. :)
yahooadam 10th April 2006, 02:26 Quote
im sorry, i dont know whether its me, my eyes, or just the way i feel

But
a) AA / AF seems to make very little difference from what i see, with the trees, i couldnt see the difference, with the fences, yes, but not huge

b) Who spends their time looks at fences while playing ? - you gotta be a n00b to do this, oooo how pretty is this fence its amaz - Boom Headshot

c) How is it worth it ? Cmon people, for this negligable difference in gamplay, were spending significant amounts of money, and dropping alot of FPS

d) ok so i understand what you mean with the edges of objects, but with 2x AA (whatever my 6800gt supports) it lowers it plenty enough to be quite nice, playable, maybe not the best possible, besides this, i can set all max settings on CSS / HL2 and get ~100 FPS (1280x1024, havent looked recently)

the only reason i want to upgrade my gfx card ATM is oblivion, every other game atm works fine with my 6800GT

the killer in oblivion is my resolution - 1680x1050

other then that, i still dont see this difference that is worth it

Maybe you lot have £100's to throw down the drain on hardware that will be out of date in no-time, but i certainly dont, and IMO the best purchase i made recently was my 2005FPW which is so much nicer then my 19" AG Neovo (the cheapest range) moniter i cant describe

I dont know how serious you lot are, but id rather have a quiet computer so that i can really focus on my game, then a loud one that can get all these "uber" settings
dragon-fly 10th April 2006, 02:33 Quote
you dont need your computer to be loud to support uber settings btw. my computer is alot quieter than my mom's internet browing pc, thanks to 7 volted 120mm and aftermarket cooling solutions like the zalman CNPS 7000B Al-Cu etc.

and the higher the resolution, the less noticeable the difference.

it does make the gameplay alot nicer and more enjoyable, you dont HAVE to spend the entire time looking at the scenery. it can also help you aim at people in some instances (you might see them clearer).

and this is just for those who dont want to be playing games that look horrible, where metal looks like plastic, etc.
ToiletGamer 10th April 2006, 02:38 Quote
Those are vaild points but if you really meant that then you would be playing your games at the lowest settings possible just so you could get a frame rate boost.

Everybody likes there games to look nice and the more options there are for people to make there games look nicer the better.
yahooadam 10th April 2006, 02:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToiletGamer
Those are vaild points but if you really meant that then you would be playing your games at the lowest settings possible just so you could get a frame rate boost.

Everybody likes there games to look nice and the more options there are for people to make there games look nicer the better.
but firstly, im not gonna spend ~£350 on a screen, only to let 2 massive black bars appear at the side, or generally unused pixels

if i wanted to do that, i would have bought a cheap 15" screen

streching images looks aweful, so im not going to do that

As it is, i still get ~60-100 FPS in source at max settings (though i max it out at 60 for generally gameplay)

I can understand in some instances why you want to, but not to stupid degress, not to the point i need to buy 2 GFX cards

i cant afford a single 7800 let alone 2 just to get "uber" AA settings, and IMO it doesnt provide a noticable difference

Ive played around alot with source settings, and between low and high AA/AF i see very very little difference, but as i can set it to the higher settings without performance issues, why not

Also, on the loud front, having 2 gfx cards, generally all the gfx cards except the ones that support the 7900GTX cooler, they use 60mm fans, and are very audible

the 1 thing i hate about my 6800GT is that simple fact, even though gigabyte used dual heatpipes, they still shoved on a 60mm fan, and its loud, and the card still runs hot

True silence doesnt bother me, but very quiet is where i want to be

But as i have said, i cannot afford somthing that can do it, so atm i have to live with a fairly loud GFX card

Anyway, getting away from teh point

i guess you can do what you want with your money, but why not buy a nice screen, decent speakers, etc etc

instead of going out and spending all this money on gfx cards that mean you can increase settings like AA / AF

Oh well, everyone is entitled to their opinion
Tim S 10th April 2006, 08:07 Quote
FWIW, the 6800 series coolers re load compared to the likes of 7800 GTX.

Also, if you don't notice any difference between standard AA and AF settings, you're not going to notice a difference between transparency/adaptive AA and conventional AA.

There was no point where we said 'you need to buy new hardware because these settings are soooo worth it'. If you've got the hardware, we think it's worth having a look at them in real-time, because the differences can't be shown fully without a moving picture.
Highland3r 10th April 2006, 11:41 Quote
Fast computers do NOT have to be loud. There must be a mis-conception somewhere that high end cooling sounds like a jet engine.
It might cost a little more, but there's not a huge difference between quiet cooling and loud cooling in terms of cost. If you do things right, performance is the same/better too...

The thing with maxing the detail settings (from my POV anyway) is that you don't really notice when your machine can't cope with them. However, as soon as you have a machine capable of maxing the details, you start to notice them a whole lot more!

Also, surely upgrading to a bigger screen (over upgrading a gfx card) can be a double edged sword? Ok you've got wtf massive!!111one screen + res. But on the other hand, you've got to drop the detail levels to get a decent framerate due to the uber res you're running... That kinda doesnt make sense :P

Anywho, back on topic! Been playing with Transpareny AA settings over the last few days, don't seem to have a massive performance hit at all. You can see the difference too, can't quite explain it but everything looks smoother with Supersampling TAA enabled...
Tim S 10th April 2006, 13:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highland3r
Anywho, back on topic! Been playing with Transpareny AA settings over the last few days, don't seem to have a massive performance hit at all. You can see the difference too, can't quite explain it but everything looks smoother with Supersampling TAA enabled...
Absolutely, it's very hard to explain without videos showing it - that's why I recommend having a look for yourself if you've got a card capable of doing such things. ;)
ArturNOW 10th April 2006, 16:14 Quote
"supersampling only clean the edges of the polygons that make up the scene." it's not true...
yahooadam 10th April 2006, 16:36 Quote
i can see the point in source maybe, beacause that game doesnt require a powerful PC

but BF2 or FEAR where to run high settings you need an expensive GFX card

i do have to say upgrading the screen and not the gfx card is a bit stupid, however atleast my GFX card can support it, just

Edit
Oh yeh and people who go SLI 7900's and run it at 800x640 (yes ive seen some people who do) WDH

thats just plain stupid ....
Tim S 10th April 2006, 16:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArturNOW
"supersampling only clean the edges of the polygons that make up the scene." it's not true...
:o One too many late nights last week - thanks for picking that up. I've corrected the mistake.
dragon-fly 10th April 2006, 22:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yahooadam
i can see the point in source maybe, beacause that game doesnt require a powerful PC

but BF2 or FEAR where to run high settings you need an expensive GFX card

i do have to say upgrading the screen and not the gfx card is a bit stupid, however atleast my GFX card can support it, just

Edit
Oh yeh and people who go SLI 7900's and run it at 800x640 (yes ive seen some people who do) WDH

thats just plain stupid ....

lmao...
i run a 9600XT and i run all the settings at max just for laughs and giggles in a Quake 2 engine based game. the differences were VERY noticeable, it made the max quality look crappy. it was pretty much like bringing fear's quality level from minimal to ultra, you could start to read stuff (like maps on the wall) where before it was just a simple blurr. but of course, on the maps where there were loads of foliage and rain, the fps did suffer quite a bit, i got it down to 6 fps at one point where there was heavy fire and in the area with the most foliage. but hey, i could see individual leaves pretty damn clearly. and im runing 1280x1024 mind you

and yeah, SLI for low resolutiuons is just plain stupid. i'd rather 1280x1024 no aa no af vs 800x600 4xAA 8xAF
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums