I tried playing with bilinear and 16x AF on my R300 and I noticed mipmaps pretty damn well, mipmaps aren't the worst part.
When you move around you will notice parts become blured while others become sharp and sometimes too sharp causing texture aliasing?
On my brothers NV20 it is far more noticeable. Screenshots don't show that part because you have to be moving around to notice it.
On my R300 it's far less noticeable compared to the NV20, that would probably be because I'm using 16x AF and a negative LOD.
With quality selected this doesn't seems to be a problem anymore.
So how do people (especially some review sites) come to a conclusion that there isn't a noticeable difference between trilinear and bilinear?
Even 1 stage trilinear makes a very large difference on both pieces of hardware.
Is it because others are partially colourblind? Sorry for bringing colour blindness into this but there is simply no other explanation that I can think of.
I have seen screens here at Beyond3D as well as [H] and other sites and people claiming ones better than the other but it looks to me that everyone is either trying to show the worst case scenario on screenshots or best case scenario.
It's so easy to do that when standing still. I paused Postal 2 in the bank area and the picture looked perfect while paused but when I move around, oh that's a completely different case alltogether. You start to notice some places become blured while others too sharp and some just right.
If you increase the LOD bias you will find that the blur becomes far more noticeable in some areas.
Of course it's still better than playing with no AF, nonetheless bilinear looks horrible regardless of which way you view it.
I thouht the entire point of buying a high end card was to play with max IQ and no compromises (unless the user wants to create some)?
When you move around you will notice parts become blured while others become sharp and sometimes too sharp causing texture aliasing?
On my brothers NV20 it is far more noticeable. Screenshots don't show that part because you have to be moving around to notice it.
On my R300 it's far less noticeable compared to the NV20, that would probably be because I'm using 16x AF and a negative LOD.
With quality selected this doesn't seems to be a problem anymore.
So how do people (especially some review sites) come to a conclusion that there isn't a noticeable difference between trilinear and bilinear?
Even 1 stage trilinear makes a very large difference on both pieces of hardware.
Is it because others are partially colourblind? Sorry for bringing colour blindness into this but there is simply no other explanation that I can think of.
I have seen screens here at Beyond3D as well as [H] and other sites and people claiming ones better than the other but it looks to me that everyone is either trying to show the worst case scenario on screenshots or best case scenario.
It's so easy to do that when standing still. I paused Postal 2 in the bank area and the picture looked perfect while paused but when I move around, oh that's a completely different case alltogether. You start to notice some places become blured while others too sharp and some just right.
If you increase the LOD bias you will find that the blur becomes far more noticeable in some areas.
Of course it's still better than playing with no AF, nonetheless bilinear looks horrible regardless of which way you view it.
I thouht the entire point of buying a high end card was to play with max IQ and no compromises (unless the user wants to create some)?
