Articles to write ? (Feedback)

[Galilee]

Doom:
You would be surpriced how great 1024*768*32 and 4X FSAA works in MOHAA :smile:
Omaha drops to the 20+ :smile: but it's not that high without FSAA either

http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~vidaralm/Img/omaha1.jpg
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~vidaralm/Img/omaha2.jpg
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~vidaralm/Img/omaha3.jpg

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Galilee on 2002-02-10 18:51 ]</font>

 

[Doomtrooper]

Galilee,

There is NO way your getting playable frame rates on OMAHA beach with the Geometry set to this:

Tested and confirmed on a Radeon 8500, GTS, Geforce 3 classic, Geforce Ti 500.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doomtrooper on 2002-02-10 18:54 ]</font>

 

[Galilee]

No I had bilinear and only High on model detail, and shadow standard. Same on the other settings. I'll try yours setting.

Are those screens with 4X? Looks playable (30+)

Edit: I tried your setting: min fps 17. About 5-6frames lower than my previous setting. But you should not use Complex on the shadows. Meaningless.

http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~vidaralm/Img/omaha_new_1.jpg
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~vidaralm/Img/omaha_new_2.jpg
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~vidaralm/Img/omaha_new_3.jpg

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Galilee on 2002-02-10 19:12 ]</font>

 

[Doomtrooper]

Those screens are without FSAA, I took a shot of your screen shots and I see no difference in the jaggies vs. mine, especially on the cover debris in the water..still lots of jaggies ?? You sure you got FSAA on ?

Example:

17 FPS is not realistic for playing online is it. I use eveything cranked for eyecandy, the shadows look great in the city levels.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doomtrooper on 2002-02-10 19:16 ]</font>

 

[tEd]

i'm playing mohaa right know with all to max except shadows on simple. I don't know the fps but it's very playable for me at 1024*768@32 with max anistropic and 2xFSAA.

i think anti-alisaing gets more and more important with higher polycount games.What i noticed in games lately (mohaa,rtcw,ss2) is that these games using a lot of trees created with alpha-textures and without proper anti-aliasing you get this annoying flickering what really bothers me.

 

[Galilee]

I think you are making the mistake to compare performance using 4X FSAA on a GF3, and 4X on a Radeon. 4X on GF3 is actually pretty playable.

Yes those pictures are with 4X FSAA, it's easy to see, but you had to find the only object on six screens that showed jaggies hehe. It's all about angles and stuff.

No 17fps online is not playable, but I didn't know Omaha was a online map.

but this is entirely off topic

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Galilee on 2002-02-10 19:28 ]</font>

 

[Doomtrooper]

Galilee,

Actually there is jaggies all over the place , just look at your photos. I just took the first one I saw. As for comparisons we tested on the same platform, 1.33 tbird on a Kt133 board..none of the cards gave playable framerates..so they all play with FSAA off. Try playing a city map like France with a 32 player server with as many as 20 models running around and watch FSAA enabled cards drop down to single digit frames.

Cards that were tested were:
Asus Geforce 2 GTS
Geforce 3 Classic
Geforce 3 Ti 500
Radeon 8500

None of these cards gave playable frame rates online with FSAA enabled plus Anistropic set to MAX.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doomtrooper on 2002-02-10 19:38 ]</font>

 

[Galilee]

On 2002-02-10 19:37, Doomtrooper wrote:
Galilee,

Actually there is jaggies all over the place , just look at your photos. I just took the first one I saw. As for comparisons we tested on the same platform, 1.33 tbird on a Kt133 board..none of the cards gave playable framerates..so they all play with FSAA off. Try playing a city map like France with a 32 player server with as many as 20 models running around and watch FSAA enabled cards drop down to single digit frames.

Cards that were tested were:
Asus Geforce 2 GTS
Geforce 3 Classic
Geforce 3 Ti 500
Radeon 8500

None of these cards gave playable frame rates online with FSAA enabled plus Anistropic set to MAX.

Aniso Max? When did this option get enabled? I used it off on my test. Max aniso on GF3 is killing the framerate, not so much together with FSAA, but it's definately lowering the framerate.

No there are not jaggies on my pictures (atleast not very visible). You used the third one I posted in the first post. It's the only place on all six pictures where jaggies are visible.

noFSAA:
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~vidaralm/Img/omaha_noFSAA.jpg
2X:
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~vidaralm/Img/omaha_2XFSAA.jpg
4X:
http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~vidaralm/Img/omaha_4XFSAA.jpg

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Galilee on 2002-02-10 19:57 ]</font>

 

[Doomtrooper]

Still jaggies on the walk off platform that falls down when landing on your 4X shot :smile:

Anyways try this, Anistropic MAX, set your 4X FSAA..join the France map and try and get a server with 30 players or more..take a screen shot then of your frames.
You can turn ANISTROPIC off if you wish, either way your looking at 8-20 fps.

This reason is why I'm on the FSAA kick is ' NOBODY I KNOW USES IT REALISTICALLY ' online.
Games like UT is a online game, so how realistic is it....

Race games etc...I see FSAA usefull as the games are not as demanding but advanced games and engines like Codegen shots are not realistic.


BTW Ted if you want to see your frames, enable the console in the advanced options-->tilde key--> type toggle fps

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doomtrooper on 2002-02-10 21:17 ]</font>

 

[Doomtrooper]

Aniso Max? When did this option get enabled?

My shots are with ansitropic on as its on by default with the 6018 drivers. I always have anistropic on.

 

[MikeC]

On 2002-02-10 16:10, Doomtrooper wrote:
No offence guys but whats the big deal about FSAA technology. With all the other neat features out there, pixel and vertex shaders, HSR , truform, vertex shaders, EBMM...etc... why is all this attention being placed on BLUR technology.

Hang out a the forums at SimHQ for a while. They will tell you why AA is an important feature. Download and play the demos of IL2-Sturmovik and Nascar Racing 2002. Try Microsoft's Flight Simulator and you'll see why AA is necessary.

 

[MikeC]

On 2002-02-10 16:20, Galilee wrote:
Even at 1600*1200 you have jaggies, and only FSAA can remove them.

Even at 2048x1536 I can see jagged edges in Quake 3...

http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/prolink_gf3_ti200/page_6.shtml

 

[Doomtrooper]

On 2002-02-10 21:37, MikeC wrote:

On 2002-02-10 16:10, Doomtrooper wrote:
No offence guys but whats the big deal about FSAA technology. With all the other neat features out there, pixel and vertex shaders, HSR , truform, vertex shaders, EBMM...etc... why is all this attention being placed on BLUR technology.

Hang out a the forums at SimHQ for a while. They will tell you why AA is an important feature. Download and play the demos of IL2-Sturmovik and Nascar Racing 2002. Try Microsoft's Flight Simulator and you'll see why AA is necessary.

Sorry Mike,

For FSAA I'd rather have games looking like the codecreatures shots than a few less jaggies..to each their own.
I have Nascar 4 with Opengl Anistropic on it almost looks real at 1280 x 1024....
I asked on Gamespy last night in the MOHAA game room where there was at least 2000 people online and only two people replied that were using FSAA, and even then they were running 800 x 600.

 

[Althornin]

Doom, you and Galilee have hijacked this thread! If you wish to debate the merits of FSAA in various games with various cards, please create your won thread.


Kristof: I like The ideas of an FSAA article, a Texture Filtering Article, and a Pixel Shader Article. Those three seem to me to be the most important.

As for the PDF thing, i would never buy one. I can deal with a few ad banners for this site :smile:
_________________
YHWH is here.....
Use Trillian! AOL Sucks.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Althornin on 2002-02-10 22:09 ]</font>

 

[Geeforcer]

Actually, in the future ultra high-poly games when the system is going to be limited by geometry rather then fillrate/bandwith FSAA could become "free".

 

[MikeC]

On 2002-02-10 21:56, Doomtrooper wrote:

For FSAA I'd rather have games looking like the codecreatures shots than a few less jaggies..to each their own.

Agreed, to each their own. However, one cannot discount that the future of 3D graphics is heading in the direction of making AA mainstream. There's really no cost effective alternative as it would take one hell of a resolution to completely eliminate jagged edges. We're still not there yet, but it's exciting to see the technology get closer to that level.

 

[bystander]

Kristof.

I agree with the first two articles.

On the third point however, I really don't like PDFs, so I don't think I'd be inclined to download one even if it were free. HTML pages with banners are perfectly fine with me. :smile:

 

[Dave Baumann]

Actually, in the future ultra high-poly games when the system is going to be limited by geometry rather then fillrate/bandwith FSAA could become "free"/

Actually, as Ghost of Envy said on the old forums, with increased usage of per pixel operations for 'high detail geometry emulation', and the increase programmability of future processors then its likely to be more of a 'computational' bottleneck in the short to medium term.

 

[Doomtrooper]

On 2002-02-10 22:15, MikeC wrote:

On 2002-02-10 21:56, Doomtrooper wrote:

For FSAA I'd rather have games looking like the codecreatures shots than a few less jaggies..to each their own.

Agreed, to each their own. However, one cannot discount that the future of 3D graphics is heading in the direction of making AA mainstream. There's really no cost effective alternative as it would take one hell of a resolution to completely eliminate jagged edges. We're still not there yet, but it's exciting to see the technology get closer to that level.

Actually Mike that is my arguement, I think FSAA is light years away from being mainstream when coupled with games like Aquanox, a very NICE looking game with lots of effects, FSAA becomes useless.
Is FSAA usefull..yes..is it reality with new games, IMO NO.
We have skipped a step here, we still haven't got the high polygon games running well before moving on to getting rid of jaggies.

 

[John Reynolds]

We have skipped a step here, we still haven't got the high polygon games running well before moving on to getting rid of jaggies.

Why must one come before the other? And I play quite a few recent and/or graphically demanding games with both AA and anisotropic filtering enabled (Max Payne, Sacrifice, etc.), so I'm not sure why you feel FSAA is years away from being a viable feature.

But perhaps we should return this thread to its intended topic and continue the discussion in nggalai's new one.