Quincunx & FSAA: how is it changed between Geforces

John, I wont quote as i know Dave doenst like nested quotes

I don't mind sensible nested quotes, just indiscriminate nested quotes i.e.: huge nested quote in another huge quote wih a one line reply! Grrrr! Waste my database space will ya! Mumble, grumble, mumble....

I'm all right now... carry on! :)
 
you're welcome :)

Off-topic - where you watching the footie on Friday morning? I'm dead lucky I'm in an industry where corporate entertainment is still part & parcl of the job, so I have a nice breakfast lined up with a compnay I deal with.
 
Dave,

Although I sent off an email already asking about the issue above, I'm not sure if I receive an answer. Yours or Rev's chances are higher to get an answer, so could you ask as to why that occurs?
 
Sharkfood said:
Did you spend some time ensuring what your comparison is based upon is not missing the apparently post-filtered blend of Quincunx on the GF4? What capture/screenshot process did you use?

I don't doubt that there may be problems associated with taking Quincunx enabled screenshots as I've read a number of reports of the subject.

However, take a look at this comparison from IL-2 Sturmovik and examine the differences between Qunicunx under OpenGL and Direct3D - especially with the text.

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce4_ti_4200/images/il2_aa_comparison.shtml

All the screenshots were taken with the in-game screen capture feature using the official Detonator drivers (28.32) at that time.

Since I have Tribes and Tribes 2, I'll investigate Quincunx in those games as well as revisit Quake 3 and IL-2. I'll be sure to report back my findings.
 
Mike,

Maybe this one will help a bit more:

GF4Atrium1.jpg


Hud and framecounter reflect the bluring as seen in the game, much to the contrary of the statistics on the upper left side of the screen. In reality all numbers are as blured as the hud. By the way 29.42 WHQL.
 
Is the forum familiar first-hand with the Voodoo 5? I have seen a former Voodoo 5 user express disappointment with even the Geforce 4 4xs setting. Disappointing for me too as on nvnews posted a screenshot looking like the answer to image quality prayers. http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/Leadtek_ti4400/page_4_5.shtml
V5500 fsaa was effective on both edges and textures and blurred gently.
Plain ogss fsaa as on the Geforce was not quite as effective on either edges or texture shimmers, but a little sharper.
MSAA gained a poor reputation by doing no work on textures. Simulator fans were disappointed.
Hardly anyone has a good word to say on the blur filter of Quincunx.

Do I take it that 3dfx have been unmatched for these whole 2 years since the VSA100?
 
Above said:
Do I take it that 3dfx have been unmatched for these whole 2 years since the VSA100?

I guess if you like playing your games in 640x480/800x600 with details cranked down and low framerates, sure, they'd be unmatched.
 
Aww...that's OK Matt. Just because nVidia has not been able to meet the AA quality of some relatively ancient 3D chipset, no need to get all sarcasitc...
 
Well, anyone could surpass 3dfx's image quality, but to be able to do that in today's games in high resolution in a playable state? That's probably a different matter altogether. I think both NVIDIA and ATI like to keep what they offer playable, which is why they offer the FSAA implementations that they use, as opposed to what 3dfx offered. You can't exactly say that what 3dfx did in FSAA implementation was the right choice, because they're not around anymore to really say.
 
Depends on the viewpoint really. Nothing comes for free in 3D (Kristof(tm)).

The very same 3dfx was to replace it´s T-Buffer with a M-Buffer in it´s own roadmap, which was nothing else than rotated grid Multisampling to be combined with up to 128-tap adaptive anisotropic filtering.

There´s a reason why vendors try to find alternatives in antialiasing algorithms, first and foremost the performance penalty.
 
I'm sad to have found unintelligent comments that don't really belong here. I think we have all spotted it for ourselves, let us walk past it.
 
Well, anyone could surpass 3dfx's image quality, but to be able to do that in today's games in high resolution in a playable state? That's probably a different matter altogether. I think both NVIDIA and ATI like to keep what they offer playable

Of course they do, and so does 3dfx. Of course, Voodoo5 won't play today's most demanding games with FSAA, but for the games in it's day, it was acceptable.

You know, anyone could surpass 3dfx's method for performance, but to be able to do that and maintain quality is a different matter altogether.

I don't believe ATI's FSAA is any more efficient than 3dfx's, btw. It's just that ATI has the raw fill-rate to make it more playable.
 
Above said:
I'm sad to have found unintelligent comments that don't really belong here. I think we have all spotted it for ourselves, let us walk past it.

I don´t think any intelligence is needed to accept the fact that both unreleased Spectre and Fear had Multisampling, with the first claiming free MSAA under conditions on the high end dual chip board and the latter almost completely free since it was to be a high speced deferred renderer.

It's just that ATI has the raw fill-rate to make it more playable.

Performance hits in persentages are still extremely high. If it has to be Supersampling FSAA, then at least a high speced Tiler to escape the high performance hits. Not to be picky here, but I´d like to see at least rotated grid SSAA on the next batch of ATI cards this time around.
 
Joe said:
Of course they do, and so does 3dfx. Of course, Voodoo5 won't play today's most demanding games with FSAA, but for the games in it's day, it was acceptable.

That depends on what you define as acceptable. For me, acceptable is not playing games at 800x600 or 1024x768x16, I like to stick with the modern day and not have to play games under 1024x768 or in 16-bit if I can help it. 800x600 on a 19" monitor just looks horrid, IMO.

Don't get me wrong though, I think it would be nice if we get FSAA quality on par with 3dfx's V5 RGSS implementation. I've wondered why neither ATI nor NVIDIA has done it yet after all this time, but I'm pretty certain they have a good enough reason to want to stick to OGSS or RGMS and whatever the next-gen cards will use.
 
MikeC said:
While Quincunx is not the perfect antialiasing solution, it does allow one to play many games with it enabled at resolutions as high as 1280x1024 using the GeForce4 Ti. There are a number of discussions on game play with Quincunx in the nV News graphics card forum and many GeForce4 Ti owners agree that Quincunx is "playable" at high resolutions.

The irony being, of course, that Quincunx is so ugly that you'd be better off running without it. So the fact that it is "playable at high resolutions" is more or less a moot point.
 
WARNING - HI-RES (NOT SO UGLY & SO UGLY) IMAGES!

Nagorak said:
The irony being, of course, that Quincunx is so ugly that you'd be better off running without it. So the fact that it is "playable at high resolutions" is more or less a moot point.

Sorry Nagorak, but I couldn't resist. Nice try though.

Here's a screenshot comparison from a GeForce4 Ti 4200 using the NOT SO UGLY and SO UGLY image quality setting. I asked NVIDIA to furnish me with a set of Detonator drivers that contain these two special settings.


SPECIAL IMAGE QUALITY MODE: NOT SO UGLY


q3_gf4_noaa.png



SPECIAL IMAGE QUALITY MODE: SO UGLY


q3_gf4_qcaa.png
 
I thought Shark stated screen shots are not picking up what is actually being seen, like 3DFX's post filter. As I don't own a Geforce 4 but have had experience with a Geforce 3, I do know the blurring was VERY noticeable...
 
Here's a screenshot comparison from a GeForce4 Ti 4200 using the NOT SO UGLY and SO UGLY image quality setting. I asked NVIDIA to furnish me with a set of Detonator drivers that contain these two special settings.

Mike,

Albeit I can detect a pinch of sarcasm there, I'm still not sure how to interpret the above quote. Do I have access to those special settings or not? If not then it's a moot point.

---------------------------------------------------------

Personally I never liked Quincunx not in the past and not now. It has been undeniably improved since the NV20 launch, yet the bluring is still there. I'd take all the other alternatives available under AccuView anytime.

That said my personal opinion is that quality wise a 2xRGMS/16tap/bilinear combination lies somewhere in between garden variety 2xOGSS and LOD adjusted 2xRGSS; small difference quite a lot faster.

No need for dramatical exaggerations and Multisampling is nowhere near as useless or ugly everyone wants to believe as long as any level of aniso kicks in.

What I personally would like to see from vendors are more alternatives in terms of AA methods. I don't see why f.e. NVIDIA couldn't allow the user in it's upcoming products to have the choice between X MSAA algorithm that will get implemented, an option to use alternatively Supersampling too.
 
Neverwinter Nights settings allow for switching AA modes in-game and is therefore a nice way to easily discern differences. Unfortunately, since it's an OpenGL title there's no 4xs, just 4x with the 9-tap filter. Anyways, Quincunx is again very blurry and this is definitely quite apparent.
 
John Reynolds said:
Neverwinter Nights settings allow for switching AA modes in-game and is therefore a nice way to easily discern differences. Unfortunately, since it's an OpenGL title there's no 4xs, just 4x with the 9-tap filter. Anyways, Quincunx is again very blurry and this is definitely quite apparent.

Is NWN out already?
 
Back
Top