drakedaeron 13 Posted May 22, 2013 Helloooooo ! I have a little question. What is the better graphical setting enter : -FXAA -SMAA -AA I have a little lost with all this settings, rather uneven performances with these graphics, but I do not know which one is best to fight against the effect staircase! Thanks ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
byku 13 Posted May 22, 2013 AA with FXAA the best, unfortunately very hardware heavy. I'm personally using FXAA(i like it sharp). I don't thing there is difference in demand for hardware between SMAA and FXAA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted May 22, 2013 SMAA is more hardware expensive than FXAA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisb 196 Posted May 22, 2013 AA with FXAA the best, unfortunately very hardware heavy. I'm personally using FXAA(i like it sharp). I don't thing there is difference in demand for hardware between SMAA and FXAA. Snap.. FXAA = Ultra, 4xAA, all nice and sharp..:) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Covert_Death 11 Posted May 22, 2013 FXAA makes sharper (sometimes bolder) lines but is MUCH LESS hardware intensive than SMAA.... i personally prefer the look of SMAA but its too much of a drain... always use AA if you can though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xendance 3 Posted May 24, 2013 AA with FXAA the best, unfortunately very hardware heavy. I'm personally using FXAA(i like it sharp). I don't thing there is difference in demand for hardware between SMAA and FXAA. The cost of any post processing AA, such as FXAA, is tiny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeuroFunker 11 Posted May 25, 2013 with current game optimization, with my 670gtx, there is no difference if i have 8xAA or 0xAA, because it's to CPU limited. Just try yourself, check you FPS with fraps, with and without. 8xAA should be a quite big performance hit. I used fxaa sharpen, it makes the image look lot sharper, but kills the AA effect. Using SMAA along with 8xAA now, the image looks smooth and aliased now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
froggyluv 2136 Posted May 25, 2013 Just curious what the difference is between using arma aa or the card's both performance and qualitywise? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MavericK96 0 Posted May 26, 2013 with current game optimization, with my 670gtx, there is no difference if i have 8xAA or 0xAA, because it's to CPU limited. Pretty much. Same in ArmA 2 as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sqb-sma 66 Posted May 26, 2013 Just curious what the difference is between using arma aa or the card's both performance and qualitywise? Arma's AA (not the post process AA (PPAA), the real AA) will always be better than card AA or injected AA. If you can force the game to run SSAA then that will be the best, but also kill your computer. In terms of injected AA, injected SMAA will always give better results than injected FXAA (which is only marginally better than a gaussian blur). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalcraze 290 Posted May 26, 2013 FXAA is more hardware expensive for me And that's both on 260 and 660 So I use 2x MSAA and SMAA Ultra Also the fake sharpening of FXAA is very hard on the eyes. FXAA eliminates a lot more micro detail than SMAA so the sharpening is there to hide this issue. But instead the sharpening is overdone. It should be subtle. Also for some weird reason SMAA (not tried with FXAA yet) doesn't work in NVGs. Perhaps because of a monotonous colour? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tortuosit 486 Posted May 26, 2013 Just curious what the difference is between using arma aa or the card's both performance and qualitywise? Quality, as I understand the system: Your card only sees the whole picture and would make AA over every screen element - bad, you use it only if an application has no internal AA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Koukotsu 2 Posted May 27, 2013 It all comes down to personal preference I guess. I prefer a somewhat softer look than FXAA's heavy sharpening filter provides. Normally I use 4x MSAA + SweetFX SMAA but now all of the sudden SweetFX refuses to work alongside Fraps?!! :mad: The strangest thing about Arma's anti-aliasing is that it has absolutely no performance impact whatsoever on my particular system, no AA, 8x MSAA, it doesn't seem to matter, the frame rate stays the same regardless of whatever method I chose, lol :) (Maybe from a severe CPU bottleneck?) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeuroFunker 11 Posted May 27, 2013 Pretty much. Same in ArmA 2 as well. not for me. On Cherno for example, with AA more then high, my performance degrades quite a lot. On taki i can use higher values, but not as high as on stratis in arma 3. 8xAA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpinghubert 49 Posted May 27, 2013 I can´t see any fxaa and smaa antialiasing-effect at all since the beginning in the alpha in addition to the normal aa. In arma2/arrowhead and toh it works and gives additional antialiasing to the normal AA. My theory is that it works nowhere but no one take notice of it....lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
liquidpinky 11 Posted May 28, 2013 SMAA Ultra and AA only needs 4 or 8 for pretty decent quality. SMAA is better than FXAA and is one of the few good things to come out of the cinsoles (was developed for the PS3 as it has no AA capablility). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigpickle 0 Posted May 28, 2013 For me AA makes the game jerky when looking at the grass in scope view, so i have to use SMAA on high with AA off. Random thing is my system shouldn't have any issues with it. :confused: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gossamersolid 155 Posted May 28, 2013 AA x4 + SMAA Ultra here. FXAA's sharpening filter looks like crap to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MavericK96 0 Posted May 28, 2013 not for me. On Cherno for example, with AA more then high, my performance degrades quite a lot. On taki i can use higher values, but not as high as on stratis in arma 3. 8xAA Huh. I don't know what your rig is like but for me it has never made a difference with Low/off AA versus Very High, framerate-wise. Only reason I could see it hitting performance is if you are running out of VRAM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kklownboy 43 Posted May 28, 2013 Huh. I don't know what your rig is like but for me it has never made a difference with Low/off AA versus Very High, framerate-wise.Only reason I could see it hitting performance is if you are running out of VRAM. Well you use a Nvdia card and veryhigh is the same as high and normal 4x, in A2. You would have to use 6x or 8x to get real IQ AA. Tho you can use the 5,and 7 for Q filter added. But you are right about VRAM. 2GB is to low for 1200p+ and 6X+ AA. Now with Nvidia on the ball with 3Gb cards like AND's 79XX cards (680 4GBs too) this shouldn't be a issue for the 1080p to 1440p crowd. My opinion on PPAA is it is poor excuse for AA. I prefer the FXAA over the SMAA, and like sharpfilter when i do use it. But ingame MSAA is better than any PPAA you could hack up. I see 20fps dif between 4X and 8X @ 1440p while zooming. At that setting my VRAM hits 2.7+ GB. SSAA (ATI,CCC setting) is over that amount and low frames hit hard. Vsync is always on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EuroSlave 1 Posted May 29, 2013 I'll either use SMAA or use no AA at all. Other AA methods make the game look odd to my eyes. FXAA from memory seems like it overly sharpens the textures to make it look unnatural. At the moment on 1920x1200 the game looks fairly decent. Only some textures like houses and the horrible mid range ground seem that a little bit of tessellation could maybe solve the problem??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites