Nvidia CP: 16x Anisotropic --See a improvement?

[ratszo 17]

Tweaking another game, Cliffs of Dover, i jacked nvidia settings to 16x Anisotropic, and tried it in Arma 3.

Seemed to really smooth out Lod detail and calm the visual, more 'fixed' surrounding.

Purely subjective, can anyone else give it a try and comment?

Didn't see a fps drag either.

[robbert 1]

Could you post some comparison screenshots?

I currently can't look for my self and won't be able to any time soon :P

[Alabatross 1]

id love to see some screens

[ratszo 17]

id love to see some screens

Don't think a screeny would show the effect. Like when panning or moving thru grass. It effects shimmer or jaggyness in movement, not fixed view.

Crank it up and tell me if you notice a change.

[-=seany=- 5]

A screen shot would show quite a big comparison difference next to Arma's max in-game AF. I have been using 16x AF for a long time. It makes a big difference to texture sharpness in the distance.

[Sneakson 1]

Can anyone tell a difference between x2 and x8 anisotropic even?

[mordeaniischaos 3]

Can anyone tell a difference between x2 and x8 anisotropic even?

I can tell the difference between x8 and x16. Not at a glance but it doesn't take that long to notice it. It's different from game to game. In ArmA, it impacts the grass and other transparency textures a lot so it's noticeable there. A good way to see if you can tell the difference is to go to a road in a game and look straight down it. With low AF settings (x4 or lower I'd say) you'll notice what is wrong with the picture, and above that it'll get much better.

With a good machine that can run ArmA well, you should probably just use 16x forced at the driver level globally. It has virtually no impact on framerate on a decent PC and has a huge impact on viduals. Except when shitty developers make games that ignore even forced AF. But that is unusual.

AF is awesome and will especially help in ArmA with stuff like vegetation, especially grass, and again things like roads. Plus if you're stacked up against a wall, you'll notice it on the wall if it has any detail or texture to it.

If not for the silly limits to picture sizes, I'd post some comparisons. Just try it out in game, even just setting it ingame to max if you don't have it there already makes a big difference.

[xendance 3]

Can anyone tell a difference between x2 and x8 anisotropic even?

Easily, with 2x the textures start to get blurry not that far away.

[Artyom 10]

Doesn't the resolution also factor in? At higher resolutions I'd assume you need less AF, it's certainly true for Anti-Aliasing.

Downsampling is a pretty cool guy.

I once played Crysis 1 at 5760x3240 on a 1080p single display, it looked incredible but ran at around 0.25FPS.

[Tyl3r99 41]

and setting your control panel setting to maximum performance also helps alot.

[xendance 3]

Doesn't the resolution also factor in? At higher resolutions I'd assume you need less AF, it's certainly true for Anti-Aliasing.

Downsampling is a pretty cool guy.

I once played Crysis 1 at 5760x3240 on a 1080p single display, it looked incredible but ran at around 0.25FPS.

Relative texel density compared to the pixel density of the screen probably is a factor. But the biggest factor is the angle of the surface in the game. The more oblique the angle is, the more blurry it is.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Xendance

[jumpinghubert 49]

A screen shot would show quite a big comparison difference next to Arma's max in-game AF. I have been using 16x AF for a long time. It makes a big difference to texture sharpness in the distance.

can confirm it. makes a big difference since operation flashpoint 1.0....without performance hit....since nvidia Geforce 3 Ultra.