What's better to have. AA or AF?

[Natoma]

Looking at the performance #'s for the 256MB Radeon 9800 Pro so I can get an idea what I'm getting with UT2K3 on my system, I'm wondering, which would be better in terms of overall image quality? 6xAA only at 1024 and 70-80fps, or 16xAF at 1024 and 70-80fps?

Or would it be better to reduce the resolution to 800x600 and play with 6xAA and 16xAF at 70-80fps? Yadda yadda yadda.

My system is comparable with the review system. P4-3.0C, 256MB 9800 pro, 1GB DDR400 memory.

 

[Althornin]

i find that high resolution doesnt mask the lack of AA.
I also cant stand to play without aniso (blurry textures, ARG).
So currently, my sweet spot is 16x aniso and 4xAA at 1024x768 on my 9700 pro. I get acceptable framerates and great visuals.

 

[Natoma]

i find that high resolution doesnt mask the lack of AA.
I also cant stand to play without aniso (blurry textures, ARG).
So currently, my sweet spot is 16x aniso and 4xAA at 1024x768 on my 9700 pro. I get acceptable framerates and great visuals.

Sweet. I'll try that. Thanks. Do you have to force that in the control panel or is there an in game setting for AA and AF for UT2K3?

 

[Silent_One]

I max out both settings in the control panel, playing @ 1024x768. I'm running with a 2.53MHz P4. Depending on the map I play I've had no problems with frame rates. You should have no problem natoma, with a 3.0C p4

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

I would have to agree with Althornin except for the fact that I only have a 9500 Pro. I go for 16AF then turn up as much AA until I get any form of stuttering, I then turn it down one notch.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Althornin]

Sweet. I'll try that. Thanks. Do you have to force that in the control panel or is there an in game setting for AA and AF for UT2K3?

For AA, no in gmae settings. Force in control panel.
For aniso, depends - do you want to edit the ini file or not?
And note, editing the ini file means trilinear aniso on all texture stages, whereas forced in control panel, only stage 0 is full trilinear, iirc.

Also, i use radlinker, which is (imo) the best tweaker out there for R3xx cards.
RadLinker

 

[Natoma]

Sweet. I'll try that. Thanks. Do you have to force that in the control panel or is there an in game setting for AA and AF for UT2K3?

For AA, no in gmae settings. Force in control panel.
For aniso, depends - do you want to edit the ini file or not?
And note, editing the ini file means trilinear aniso on all texture stages, whereas forced in control panel, only stage 0 is full trilinear, iirc.

Also, i use radlinker, which is (imo) the best tweaker out there for R3xx cards.
RadLinker

I'll edit the ini file. Dunno why I have to tell the app to force trilinear on all textures with my 9800 pro when the inferior GF2 I upgraded from did this when requested (afaik), but that's another discussion.

What's the setting?

Oh, I decided to wait until ATI comes out with official drivers for the trilinear stuff. Just don't want to deal with 3rd party plugins on top of 3rd party plugins (currently using ragetweak).

 

[Althornin]

Oh, I decided to wait until ATI comes out with official drivers for the trilinear stuff. Just don't want to deal with 3rd party plugins on top of 3rd party plugins (currently using ragetweak).

3rd party plugins?
huh?

 

[Natoma]

Oh, I decided to wait until ATI comes out with official drivers for the trilinear stuff. Just don't want to deal with 3rd party plugins on top of 3rd party plugins (currently using ragetweak).

3rd party plugins?
huh?

Isn't radlinker a plugin like ragetweak?

What're the ini settings for UT2K3 for trilinear?

 

[Ichneumon]

Oh, I decided to wait until ATI comes out with official drivers for the trilinear stuff. Just don't want to deal with 3rd party plugins on top of 3rd party plugins (currently using ragetweak).

3rd party plugins?
huh?

Isn't radlinker a plugin like ragetweak?

What're the ini settings for UT2K3 for trilinear?

Neither of them are "plugins"...
Rage3D Tweak is a seperate app that integrates into the control panel along with the other ATI tabs as well as having a seperate interface.

Radlinker accomplishes similar things through a shortcut setup.

 

[Slides]

In first person shooters I have AF more important.

In Flight simulations, I find AA more important.

 

[MikeC]

For aniso, depends - do you want to edit the ini file or not?

Here's an alternative to manually editing the ini file in UT2003. It allows you to set the level of anisotropic filtering in "real time".

The level of anisotopic filtering in UT2003 can be set by entering "preferences" in the console (~). The Advanced Options windows should appear.

Expand the Rendering option, then the Direct3D support option.

Type in the filtering level in the LevelOfAnisotrophy field. Don't press enter. Just close the Advanced Options window.

Control will return to UT2003, which will be running in a window. Press Alt-Enter to return to full screen.

Press ~ to exit the console.

 

[swaaye]

I think I prefer low res over high res. IMO, high res makes the world too crisp. A lower resolution with AA gives it a softer, more pleasing look (IMO of course) Usually 1280x960 or x1024 is my ideal resolution. Even 1024x768 can be nice. Depends on the game.

As for AF, I don't like high settings. You shouldn't be able to see a texture that is really far away as well as a texture up close. It's just not pleasing, or accurate. I usually go for 4x or 8x AA on my 9700.

 

[sonix666]

For CS I play at 1024x768x32 with 6xFSAA and 16xanisotropic filtering (performance mode). I use such a low resolution because the aiming cursor doesn't scale with resolution and becomes to small and not really good visible at higher resolutions.

I really do like anisotropic filtering, it makes the textures in the distance look crisp instead of the usual ugly blurring.

 

[MasterBaiter]

I would try to run as high a rez as possable with 2X AA and AF set anywhere from 8-16X I haven't messed with UT2K3 in the spell, but I was running my 9700Pro @ 1280X1024 with those settings fine with all of the game details set to high (except shadows).

 

[Reverend]

My personal preference is always AA. The perfect scenario would of course be to have max AA and AF settings but in all the games I regularly play (FPS, sports), I will always try to use the max AA possible without any AF and look at the performance. If max AA + no AF = satisfactory performance, I will try to add in some AF. Otherwise, AA alone is my preference.

Oh, and I am perfectly fine with nothing above 1024x768 since this (rez) is the main consideration.

 

[Natoma]

Sooo... In terms of overall image quality (qualitative assessment moreso than personal preference), AA is better than AF, or is AF better than AA? For instance, I guess this is along the lines of would it be better to have AA enabled, or 32bit color? I'm trying to get which one affects image quality moreso, along with the "price" for that quality.

I suppose that's the crux of my question.

 

[Slides]

Depends on the game.

 

[Heathen]

My preference is for a balanced mix of both, as I feel they affect IQ in different ways.

 

[Malo]

I guess it might depend on what you find more offensive to the eye. IMO jaggies look worse than blurred textures, but I always try to find a combination of both AA and AF, if not just AA.