Adaptive - Anti-Alising in cat 5.9 ?

It depends upon how the supersampling is done, and where the performance bottleneck is. If the supersampling is done by sending geometry multiple times, then either the vertex traffic or the vertex processing can possibly be a performance bottleneck instead of the pixel processing.

Not so important that it's a small part of the screen, but rather that it's a small portion of the total pixel processing that is done on the screen. It's rare that all surfaces need an alpha test.

 

I guess I get a bit upset when I see Nvidia and ATI spending time on making these kinds of workarounds, while they could also work together with Microsoft in making a proper solution.

As Chalnoth said, it is rare that all surfaces need an alpha test, but even so, there are too many games (imho) where people get a huge performance hit with these solutions.

A while ago people thought that alpha tests wouldn't be used anymore in the future. But it seems that there isn't really any alternative?

 

At least with the supersampling solution. There are many games which produces huge performance hits with transparency SuperSampling. ((IE WoW) That do fine with transparency multisampling. And transparency multisampling provides a pretty healthy benefit to these games. And its performance hit is negligable at best.

*Edit* I apologise for bringing this up again. But IMO its an often overlooked alternative to transparency Super Sampling and its significantly more usable than people give it credit for. The only game I've really encountered issues with it working all the time was Half Life 2.

 

It's odd, nothing I do can get it to work on my x850, however, my server with my old 9700 pro enables it first go without a problem. I've tried reinstalling drivers on mine along with ATT and such, no go. (And i'm definitely using the 5.9's on my system, same as my server).

Anyway, while it does work quite nicely, the performance hit is pretty damn big, especially in Vietcong, which uses excessive amounts of foliage Went from 62fps to 15fps in one area.

I tried it on Far Cry at 6xAA (what does it equal in Adaptive AA numbers? ) And it looks absolutely stunning. I can seriously say that the overall quality of the game looked better. That does sound strange but i've always ran Far Cry with just normal 6xAA, and with Adaptive on, everything looks so much crisper and vibrant, albeit at 17fps most of the time

It also has this wierd glow on the side of my screen which is always present, but of which i've only noticed in Far Cry :

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/6900/farcry00108uz.jpg

 

hmmm

I concur on your Farcry observation, including the weird "glow" on the left/top of my 930B LCD.

Most of the veggy's scene's in FCry wasnt getting AA'd with normal 6xAA, now it is and WOW wicked cool looking, but a healthy performance hit.

On multiplayer maps its a huge improvement too...they were always artificially "de-cooled" and alot of the maps were not AA'd... until this tweak. Now the veggy's etf look incredible but it does take a hit.

So I compromised, went with 2xAA, A-AA enabled, and T-AA enabled. This combo gives a great improvement in multiplayer, since normal AA wasn't even applied to most of the maps content ingame, I assume over concerns about feedback lag due to client low performance if they had AA running completely. Somehow this A-AA setting overrides FCry's forced NO-AA in multiplayer mode, and the results are quite awesome.

 

Can anyone corroborate these results?



I get a 8fps increase to the average by enabling adaptive AA. X850XTPE, Catalyst 5.9.

 

And explain how that could be?

 

Well, me and wireframe both get an increase in framerate (by 5fps) by enabling dynamic shadows in this game too. This may or maynot be related but if so I can think of two things:

1) The Timedemo output report is completely flawed (which would somewhat surprise me considering the devs are probably using it to profile bottlenecks).
2) There's something very wrong going on with the game's renderer (again, this would surprise me considering there are no rendering problems that I can spot).

Hopefully, none of these are correct but that's why I'm asking for corroboration.

 

Did you confirm that this is not the case if you go by the in-engine console average? That is, using the log output in Excel shows an increase in fps when shadows are enabled, but a decrease is reported in the console summary average. (They seem almost exactly reversed for me, which is very peculiar).

I wrote about this is one of the two threads concerning COD 2 demo, but I never saw any reaction to it.

 

Screenshot was taken form CS:S de_port
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y162/XOBOT/Snap211.png

But it's quite invisible from huge distance

 

Is that a zoomed image?

 

Nope
Just try to crouch on top of tanks when you close to it. . .

 

Yes I can confirm this for AAA too. I get ~2fps drop in the average reported in the console by enabling adaptive AA.

 

It looks great when it works but it doesn't seem to work in all games yet, for instance it doesn't work in Gothic 2...

 

you need to activate ASBT too for Gothic 2. then it should work also.

 

Thanks for the info, how do I do that?

 

there is a thread on B3D regarding the extra settings.
please take a look here: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24116