Anti-aliasing: my gripe
- Thread starter KNiVES
- Start date
#
dirtydog said:
Not directed at you moaning just a point in general, its already been confirmed the game will use 2x and 4x in replays. We cant comment on the retail release until its been discussed if it improves on the demo. It might not.
What i do know is FM2 is a big step up from PGR3 and not only graphically but with the extra framerate and physics, so technically its a much superior game. Yet it still wont get credit because it shows jaggies. Remember i said your welcome to show us a better looking racing game...
DIRT maybe?
Cant think of any on PC, can you?
Last edited:
i think at the heart of the problem lies the HD res that we now require.
Part of the reason the visuals dont match the tech specs is because the exact same visuals on PS2 would require much more horsepower from the PS2 to display them at 720p. Now add in the fact that the textures need to be higher, as does the poly count all due to the increased resolution and i (personally) can see why a lot of the 360/PS3 power is "wasted" (by wasted i mean not producing massively improved scenes - the power is being used to bring it to HD resolution).
Once the processing for HD is used, the remaining power in the consoles is then used for shading/lighting, with physics thrown in ofr good measure.
because these consoles are so powerful they can display in HD, and improve (slightly) on the graphics - but the difference isnt jaw dropping - but it is impressive in parts.
Should we have 60fps as standard? yep
Should we have 4x AA standard? yep
Am i surprised we dont always have both of these? nah, not really... Multiplatform porting on the majority of the games leaves them unoptimised.
Part of the reason the visuals dont match the tech specs is because the exact same visuals on PS2 would require much more horsepower from the PS2 to display them at 720p. Now add in the fact that the textures need to be higher, as does the poly count all due to the increased resolution and i (personally) can see why a lot of the 360/PS3 power is "wasted" (by wasted i mean not producing massively improved scenes - the power is being used to bring it to HD resolution).
Once the processing for HD is used, the remaining power in the consoles is then used for shading/lighting, with physics thrown in ofr good measure.
because these consoles are so powerful they can display in HD, and improve (slightly) on the graphics - but the difference isnt jaw dropping - but it is impressive in parts.
Should we have 60fps as standard? yep
Should we have 4x AA standard? yep
Am i surprised we dont always have both of these? nah, not really... Multiplatform porting on the majority of the games leaves them unoptimised.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Mr Latte said:
well im not all that bothered by it either, as long as it isnt too bad. but it depends on what peopel want from graphics. people see it as 'the ps2 had jaggies, my £400 ps3 shouldnt'.which i guess is far point. i'm more realistic and i realise that runnning at 1920x1080 require a substantially more powerful console and that jaggies wont be eliminated in this generation. But at the end of the day what we say is opinion, not necessarily correct.
Don't forget that even the Xbox managed to run at 720p in some games - Soul Calibur 2 for example and that hardly had to compromise on graphics. I don't get why the 360 and PS3 are struggling so much. Is it a case of the CPUs in these new consoles not being all they're cracked up to be, compared to good old x86?
dirtydog said:
It could do, its that long since i played it. Many Xbox games used 2x AA.
Thats not the problem, the problem arises moving to HD. Their's a major difference going from SD to HD. All the progammers have said this and tbh i think the X360 and PS3 are still both very restricted by their hardware. Some studios are developing fantastic looking games but adding AA is too cost effective so maybe some studios make a decision or try and find a balance.
People expect too much including yourself, as mentioned earlier in the thread consider what type of spec PC is required for the majority of games running 60 frames and with 4xAA. Yet some of you think a 2007 game on a modern console should do this feat no problem just becaused its classed next gen.
Im finished making my point, keep moaning or try and enjoy the games but jaggies aint for going away anytime soon on a console and Sony with thier developing partners are further evidence of this. GTHD, Motorstorm, F1, VF5 al top games with the same problem.
Get over it or just decide that you wont buy any games that have jaggies because they annoy you and spoil a game, its such a pointless debate.
When have I said that AA bothers me? It doesn't. It doesn't stop me from taking part in a discussion enquiring as to why it isn't present on today's powerful (supposedly) consoles, bearing in mind that a) lots of people DO care about it and b) Microsoft in particular made a big thing out of it, saying that the days of jaggies were over etc.Mr Latte said:
dirtydog said:
That's fair enough, I aren't too fussed about AA on my PC games either. I use it if I can, but otherwise looks ok on my 22" (1680x1050)
When you see the jaggies staring you in the face on a 40" display however, they're a lot more obvious!
V1N.
EDIT: Not trying to pick a fight, just posting my experience. I played PC stuff fine, but when I saw the jaggies on my PS3 on my Bravia 40" they really stand out a lot more.