How much AA do you need?

[Mussels]

I find AF doesn't affect performance quite as much. That I can max out all the time, so I wouldn't even know what 2x or 4x AF looks like

4xaf is my minimum... but i pretty much always max it out.

 

[imperialreign]

No matter what resolution you run, a cluster of trees in the distance will always look like ass. So will chain link fences and those sorts of things.

Kinda depends - some of the more advanced AA techniques (which, for ATI cards, are accesible with ATI Tray Tools) were put into effect to address some issues . . . even some of the newer AA styles (like "edge detect") make a major difference. But, the more advanced AA techniques can throw a major, major performance hit - even at minimal settings.

4xaf is my minimum... but i pretty much always max it out.

I max out AF as well . . . doesn't seem to affect my rig too much

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I use 2x AA i see no diff any higher with a few exceptions then I'll use 4x..But that's rare

 

[zithe]

Yeah, I find AF is more difficult to live without than AA. Sometimes I'll put a couple settings from high to medium so I can turn on one more level of AA.

 

[Lionheart]

I figured everyone maxes out AF, I have it on 24/7

 

[audiotranceable]

Honestly playing with 2048x1152. I use 2x just to clean up the edges little bit. But honestly I do not have enough time to even notice the edges with fast motion games like FPS or racing

 

[entropy13]

4x at least

 

[Lionheart]

Seems to me 4x is the way to go!

 

[LifeOnMars]

I'm only at 1280x1024 and obviously with the gtx275 i'm finding i can heap it on and vsync pretty much every game bar crysis. Obviously when i get a better monitor (soon i hope) i expect my 16xAA to all but vanish down to 2xAA

 

[99vw]

I like to use atleast 4xaa. However, the more the better.

 

[Joe Public]

4x has always been satisfactory for me.

 

[richjordan255]

4x has always been satisfactory for me.

+1 seems to be the sweetspot for performance

 

[wolf]

4xMSAA is pretty much what I always use, unless the performance hit goes COMPLETELY unnoticed, otherwise I prefer the extra FPS over 8x or higher.

 

[Lazzer408]

Question... If you run your games on an LCD and use native panel resolution... Where will the AA pixles go?

 

[Mussels]

Question... If you run your games on an LCD and use native panel resolution... Where will the AA pixles go?

silly question. you arent modifying the pixels at all. Think of it as looking at a picture through a wire mesh - the finer the mesh the clearer the image, but you still need a good image in the first place.

 

[Lazzer408]

silly question. you arent modifying the pixels at all. Think of it as looking at a picture through a wire mesh - the finer the mesh the clearer the image, but you still need a good image in the first place.

Ok that made no sense. Doesn't AA interpolate to make a pixle in an image that would otherwise not be there without AA?

Wiki.
"In digital signal processing, anti-aliasing is the technique of minimizing the distortion artifacts known as aliasing when representing a high-resolution signal at a lower resolution. Anti-aliasing is used in digital photography, computer graphics, digital audio, and many other applications."

But if the game is rendered at native resolution, where will the interpolated pixles go?

EDIT - Here's an eample. Lets say this line is a wire on a telephone pole in some game. The game is running in the LCDs native resolution and produced this image. If you were to turn on AA, where would the AA pixles go? There's no room for them between the stair-step of pixles that make the wire. How could it smooth it?

EDIT - Example 2. If the game is rendered in 1/2 native LCD resolution, then AA would have room to do it's job. AA pixles shown in gray.

 

[Mussels]

i meant pixels on the SCREEN, not pixels as in the rendered image.

 

[Lazzer408]

i meant pixels on the SCREEN, not pixels as in the rendered image.

The screen doesn't perform AA so why would I care what the screen does? I'm talking about the pixles used to fill in the steps of a jagged image. If there's no pixles left on the screen to fill in the steps then where will AA draw those pixles? It can't as far as I can tell.

 

[Mussels]

it was asked about native resolution. thus, the screens pixels came into play.


I took your original post at its simplest meaning: if a screen is at its native resolution, where does the AA go?

Native resolution is mentioned, which would only apply if NON native resolution was applicable in any way - and its not, therefore i made the logical assumption you were referring to physical pixels on the screen and not 'software' pixels in the rendered image.

if this is a misunderstanding, oh well... the last few posts will just serve to confuse the hell out of people.

 

[Lazzer408]

it was asked about native resolution. thus, the screens pixels came into play.

The screen pixles are always in play. I guess your on a different page then I am. Anyone else understand what I'm saying?

 

[Lazzer408]

it was asked about native resolution. thus, the screens pixels came into play.


I took your original post at its simplest meaning: if a screen is at its native resolution, where does the AA go?

Native resolution is mentioned, which would only apply if NON native resolution was applicable in any way - and its not, therefore i made the logical assumption you were referring to physical pixels on the screen and not 'software' pixels in the rendered image.

if this is a misunderstanding, oh well... the last few posts will just serve to confuse the hell out of people.

The OP didn't mention if they were running native or not. So my question was. If someone IS running native resolution, will AA even work?

 

[Mussels]

The OP didn't mention if they were running native or not. So my question was. If someone IS running native resolution, will AA even work?

yes. because its altering the image prior to it being rendered on the screen - this making native res/physical pixels irrelevant.

 

[yogurt_21]

yes. because its altering the image prior to it being rendered on the screen - this making native res/physical pixels irrelevant.

no kidding, game programmers don't program for a set resolution unless it's for consoles. On pc's they have no way of knowing what that native resoltion is and thus programm for all fo them.

That wiki article is referencing photogrophy in which case the camera DOES have a native resoltion. We are not capturing live images like digital cameras do when we game so that article is completely irrelevant.

 

[Lazzer408]

no kidding, game programmers don't program for a set resolution unless it's for consoles. On pc's they have no way of knowing what that native resoltion is and thus programm for all fo them.

That wiki article is referencing photogrophy in which case the camera DOES have a native resoltion. We are not capturing live images like digital cameras do when we game so that article is completely irrelevant.

It's totally relevant if you read it. I still haven't heard anyone explain how it works yet when you run a game at your LCD's native resolution.

HL2 1920x1200

 

[zithe]

It's totally relevant if you read it. I still haven't heard anyone explain how it works yet when you run a game at your LCD's native resolution.

HL2 1920x1200

http://i48.tinypic.com/10ftdmq.jpg

At lower resolutions, AA is less effective. It looks like ass if you run anything non native on an LCD anyways lol.