Anti Aliasing in ARMA 3

[mausAU 10]

Umm I stated FXAA blurs jaggies, and that's all it does. Wikipedia confirms this, theres your proof.

Because its a better alternative then FXAA, the above poster claims gaming for 10 years, which means jack shit, I been gaming for 15 years on PC and neither one of these AA techniques were available back then.

Exactly, and I have compared both a million times and Ill take SMAA over FXAA any day of the week. FXAA is like a cheap fix.

Orly.

Firstly, you're totally wrong and it pains me to say but Sneakson is totally right. Not only about your puerile attitude but also about the factual aspects of the argument.

But all that aside, let's look at it from another two different ways:

The first is that fidelity is always subjective. Just because you prefer a more homogenously blurry picture with fewer aliased vertices doesn't mean that other people don't prefer the inverse.

The second is that you're the only person in this thread who is arguing - one might say throwing a tanty - that SMAA > FXAA, so either every FXAA fan is utterly wrong... Or you are. Occam's.

Also, I have MMO subscriptions that are more than 15 years old. 15 years is nothing. You certainly haven't learned much.

mausAU out.

[P0ci 10]

Orly.

Firstly, you're totally wrong and it pains me to say but Sneakson is totally right. Not only about your puerile attitude but also about the factual aspects of the argument.

But all that aside, let's look at it from another two different ways:

The first is that fidelity is always subjective. Just because you prefer a more homogenously blurry picture with fewer aliased vertices doesn't mean that other people don't prefer the inverse.

The second is that you're the only person in this thread who is arguing - one might say throwing a tanty - that SMAA > FXAA, so either every FXAA fan is utterly wrong... Or you are. Occam's.

Also, I have MMO subscriptions that are more than 15 years old. 15 years is nothing. You certainly haven't learned much.

mausAU out.

You saying SMAA is more blurry then FXAA? Funny, I and everyone else on hardware forums that ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT would beg to differ

As far as me not learning much please, im light years ahead of you.

Btw to all the wiseguys that are clueless, here smoke this

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/12/crysis_3_video_card_performance_iq_review/8

I rest my case, straight from proffessionals at doing this.

Edited April 13, 2014 by P0ci

[dav 22]

You saying SMAA is more blurry then FXAA? Funny, I and everyone else on hardware forums that ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT would beg to differ

As far as me not learning much please, im light years ahead of you.

Btw to all the wiseguys that are clueless, here smoke this

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/12/crysis_3_video_card_performance_iq_review/8

I rest my case, straight from proffessionals at doing this.

I'm sorry but you are uneducated in the subject. FXAA = Super Sharp Crisp Image (End of school class)

[Sneakson 1]

AFAIK (!) the point with FXAA and SMAA is, that both blur textures.

In many other games SMAA yields more pleasing results than FXAA.

However, the additional sharpening step available in the A3 implementation of FXAA completely changes this. In A3 I definitely prefer FXAA with sharpening due to the crisp textures.

But I am a bit surpised that a very annoying bug related to AA has not yet been mentioned in this thread. This bug is causing a lot of flickering and aliased lines in sunny town scenes despite any selected AA options:

Issue 1353

I really hope to see that fixed soon... :(

Yeah, that bug. Doesn't bother me too much but definitely a bug.

Umm I stated FXAA blurs jaggies, and that's all it does. Wikipedia confirms this, theres your proof.

Because its a better alternative then FXAA, the above poster claims gaming for 10 years, which means jack shit, I been gaming for 15 years on PC and neither one of these AA techniques were available back then.

Exactly, and I have compared both a million times and Ill take SMAA over FXAA any day of the week. FXAA is like a cheap fix.

Well clearly you are too old to understand it then.

All anti-aliasing techniques blur jaggies. That's the very definition of anti aliasing.

You saying SMAA is more blurry then FXAA? Funny, I and everyone else on hardware forums that ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT would beg to differ

As far as me not learning much please, im light years ahead of you.

Btw to all the wiseguys that are clueless, here smoke this

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/12/crysis_3_video_card_performance_iq_review/8

I rest my case, straight from proffessionals at doing this.

Sorry, you've been proved wrong several times with screenshots from ARMA3 so trying to prove us wrong with screenshots from Crysis 3 and an article that DOESN'T SAY ANYWHERE that FXAA destroys image quality won't help.

[St. Jimmy 272]

FXAA has sharp filter included in it. Arma 2 has option for FXAA, FXAA with sharp filter and SMAA. There SMAA looks imo better than FXAA BUT the FXAA sharp filter wins the SMAA. I wonder if BIS could include some kind of sharp filter on SMAA but as long as FXAA has sharp filter, it wins in this game.

Edited April 13, 2014 by St. Jimmy

[KrazyBee 8]

Fxaa is sharper in arma where smaa is blurry.i prefer smaa over fxaa.i just get the depth of field with smaa

[Greenfist 1863]

In my opinion fxaa is much worse than just normal FSAA in some situations. It sharpens the image too much which makes those shadow/light border bugs screaming even louder and creates that horrible halo around high contrast edges. It generally negates some benefits of the AA.

SMAA seems "blurrier" but not so much that you lose detail, it just makes the image more natural.

Here's 3 comparisons of FSAA vs. SMAA vs. FXAA: https://googledrive.com/host/0B27DhuybeB4KX0NoX3VmVTQ4SzA/comp.htm (sorry about large pics, they're enlarged 200%)

[CaptainObvious 95]

You saying SMAA is more blurry then FXAA? Funny, I and everyone else on hardware forums that ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT would beg to differ

As far as me not learning much please, im light years ahead of you.

Btw to all the wiseguys that are clueless, here smoke this

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/12/crysis_3_video_card_performance_iq_review/8

I rest my case, straight from proffessionals at doing this.

http://i.imgur.com/OI0Z9jQ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/g65Ix5S.jpg

Smoke these screenshots St.Jimmy posted earlier, in case you missed them, what's there to debate?

[P0ci 10]

http://i.imgur.com/OI0Z9jQ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/g65Ix5S.jpg

Smoke these screenshots St.Jimmy posted earlier, in case you missed them, what's there to debate?

I think Ill take my own monitor and hardocps coverage of it over some imgur screenies, thank you.....

[CaptainObvious 95]

I think Ill take my own monitor and hardocps coverage of it over some imgur screenies, thank you.....

Please do, privately if possible :)

[P0ci 10]

Yeah, that bug. Doesn't bother me too much but definitely a bug.

Well clearly you are too old to understand it then.

All anti-aliasing techniques blur jaggies. That's the very definition of anti aliasing.

Sorry, you've been proved wrong several times with screenshots from ARMA3 so trying to prove us wrong with screenshots from Crysis 3 and an article that DOESN'T SAY ANYWHERE that FXAA destroys image quality won't help.

No you are wrong, not all AA techniques simply "blur jaggies" only FXAA does that. I said in my first post what each one does, you wanted proof and I posted it and you still claim I have been "proven wrong multiple times"

Every link I posted proved what I said as correct. Especially the hardocp one, just cause it doesn't necesarilly say FXAA destroys image quality doesn't mean you geniuses are right. Re read the article, it clearly states FXAA is like a free AA at virtually no performance cost, and that SMAA is a newer tech with similar performance benefits to FXAA but instead uses shader technology to remove the jaggies.

Its ok I see this forum is no different then any other internet forum, 4 less knowledgeable flamers ganging up on one guy that actually knows what hes talking about and you all having the false illusion that you have won the debate just cause a multitude of you are "proving me wrong". That does NOT mean your right, it just means you cant debate without support from your buddies.

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 17:02 ----------

Please do, privately if possible :)

Yes cause a bunch of forum dwelling trolls know more then Kyle at HardOCP. Congrats

As for me doing it privately, wtf is that supposed to mean? To get me not to post here? What gives you the right to post bs and I have too shut my mouth? ANd fyi I already did the comparison when the technologies were realeased. I used radeonpro with both FXAA and SMAA, did my homework investigating both of them and the general consensus went along like this SSAA>MSAA>SMAA>FXAA

And heres some more KNOWLEDGEABLE info for you geniuses:

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/01/fxaa-is-old-news-smaa-is-what-you-want/

MLAA works on the final image, detecting hard edges and smoothing them as required. It suffers from the same major issue as traditional AA, texture blurring, but it’s nowhere near as bad. SMAA addresses this, and provides even better anti-aliasing and less blurring than FXAA.

Now sit down, you just got pwned.

Edited April 13, 2014 by P0ci

[CaptainObvious 95]

Yarr, lots of knowledge 'n' stuff

You can paste anything you want from anywhere you want, the fact remains that Arma3's SMAA is blurrier than FXAA with its sharpening filter, arguing otherwise is stupid and serves no purpose.

Now sit down, you just got pwned.

Sure.

[jiltedjock 10]

I’ve been online gaming and communicating for 10 years never having heard of this and I urge you to give us a single source saying so.

I had a modem on my 48K ZX Spectrum in 1986. Do the math.

As for SMAA, it is superior to FXAA as it much it is much more closely aligned to what is achieved with traditional super sampling, giving better anti aliasing and far less texture blurring than FXAA. However, like all the post process techniques, it is configurable. And, somehow, BIS have configured it to look worse than FXAA in Arma 3. It was the same in Arma 2.

Anyway, there are any number of forum posts and associated screenshots supporting the position that it is a better technique, with fewer of the downsides associated with FXAA - when implemented properly.

Edited April 13, 2014 by jiltedjock

[oldy41 61]

It is as simple as that:

Generally: SMAA looks_better_than FXAA

ArmA3: (FXAA + sharpen filter) looks_better_than SMAA

(And all I say must be true, because _my_ first computer was a CBM 2001 in 78 or so... :rolleyes: )

(And finally, to step in with Cato: Ceterum censeo BIS should fix the bug in my signature!)

[Greenfist 1863]

Seriously guys, who can honestly say FXAA looks better than SMAA or normal FSAA in Arma? It makes all of those shining jaggies stand out horribly. Still pictures look fairly ok but on the move it's like looking at a disco ball. Is it just a matter of personal taste or does my game look different than most? :confused:

edit. my first was C64 around 1985 and I don't know shit about AA.

[Sneakson 1]

I think Ill take my own monitor and hardocps coverage of it over some imgur screenies, thank you.....

Hordocps cover is of the wrong game and nowhere does it say FXAA gives worse image quality by a big margin.

No you are wrong, not all AA techniques simply "blur jaggies" only FXAA does that. I said in my first post what each one does, you wanted proof and I posted it and you still claim I have been "proven wrong multiple times"

Every link I posted proved what I said as correct. Especially the hardocp one, just cause it doesn't necesarilly say FXAA destroys image quality doesn't mean you geniuses are right. Re read the article, it clearly states FXAA is like a free AA at virtually no performance cost, and that SMAA is a newer tech with similar performance benefits to FXAA but instead uses shader technology to remove the jaggies.

Its ok I see this forum is no different then any other internet forum, 4 less knowledgeable flamers ganging up on one guy that actually knows what hes talking about and you all having the false illusion that you have won the debate just cause a multitude of you are "proving me wrong". That does NOT mean your right, it just means you cant debate without support from your buddies.

You saying the same thing over and over while ignoring the screenshot evidence several users have already given you doesn't make you right either.

[P0ci 10]

You can paste anything you want from anywhere you want, the fact remains that Arma3's SMAA is blurrier than FXAA with its sharpening filter, arguing otherwise is stupid and serves no purpose.

Sure.

Is it any different then posting n00b screenies on imgur by an amateur. Ill repeat myself yet again, Ill take hardocps word and the kotaku link I posted and MY OWN EYES over your word any day of the week.

Hordocps cover is of the wrong game and nowhere does it say FXAA gives worse image quality by a big margin.

You saying the same thing over and over while ignoring the screenshot evidence several users have already given you doesn't make you right either.

Since when does it matter what game is being mentioned, the same AA technique can be used in any game. Don't give me that shit. What you are doing is trolling period.

And yes I ignore a screenshot done by an amateur you are correct.

Here since you said I can copy and paste all I want, and you are too dense to see the facts let me repaste this link

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/01/fxaa-is-old-news-smaa-is-what-you-want/

Is that the "wrong" game too? Troll

Edited April 14, 2014 by P0ci

[Sneakson 1]

Since when does it matter what game is being mentioned, the same AA technique can be used in any game. Don't give me that shit. What you are doing is trolling period.

And yes I ignore a screenshot done by an amateur you are correct.

Here since you said I can copy and paste all I want, and you are too dense to see the facts let me repaste this link

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/01/fxaa-is-old-news-smaa-is-what-you-want/

Is that the "wrong" game too? Troll

No, different engines different details.

Also don't you even trust an "amateur" with taking a screenshot? How difficult is it?

If you don't trust an amateur screenshot just enter the game and take some screenshots of your own. You'll see... well probably not actually.

[ophirb 13]

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/01/fxaa-is-old-news-smaa-is-what-you-want/

Is that the "wrong" game too? Troll

It literally is the wrong game... Discussion is about AA in ARMA. The point you keep ignoring ever so stubbornly is that FXAA in ARMA looks better than SMAA due to the way it's been implemented by BIS and not because of the technology itself.

[jiltedjock 10]

Since when does it matter what game is being mentioned, the same AA technique can be used in any game. Don't give me that shit. What you are doing is trolling period.

It matters, because both SMAA and FXAA are configurable when implemented by a developer.

SMAA is a better, more evolved technique than FXAA, that is a given.

However, in Arma 2 + 3, BIS have configured the SMAA in such a way that textures actually look worse than under FXAA.

Unfortunately, when you first contributed to this thread, you went off full tilt talking in generic terms about the different AA techniques, rather than referring to the implementation within Arma. So you have painted yourself into a corner where no-one with a pair of eyes in their head is going to join you, even those of us who agree than SMAA > FXAA. Wait for the paint to dry and move on.

Edited April 14, 2014 by jiltedjock

[St. Jimmy 272]

Here are some comparsion videos I made. AtoC was enabled when MSAA was used. I didn't do 4x or 2x MSAA or lower FXAA and SMAA. Just to show how the game looks like when you go max AA or disabled.

Ultra FXAA, no MSAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlWiOz3_yqU

Ultra SMAA, no MSAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znGCFvP2KhA

8xMSAA only

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVvT9XQiE4o

Ultra FXAA, 8xMSAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sfEz_I56v8

Ultra SMAA, 8xMSAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxpCC20xk70

No AA enabled

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D7CjkVlo8A

Edited April 14, 2014 by St. Jimmy

[MavericK96 0]

I actually stopped using AToC recently because of the weirdness with transparency on the edges of trees/grass in certain situations (like if you are looking up over a hill crest, the grass can be transparent).

[P0ci 10]

It matters, because both SMAA and FXAA are configurable when implemented by a developer.

SMAA is a better, more evolved technique than FXAA, that is a given.

However, in Arma 2 + 3, BIS have configured the SMAA in such a way that textures actually look worse than under FXAA.

Unfortunately, when you first contributed to this thread, you went off full tilt talking in generic terms about the different AA techniques, rather than referring to the implementation within Arma. So you have painted yourself into a corner where no-one with a pair of eyes in their head is going to join you, even those of us who agree than SMAA > FXAA. Wait for the paint to dry and move on.

SO its BIs fault? I refuse to believe that. Every game I have played since SMAA was made available begged to differ, your telling me ARMA is the ONLY one that's different?

Here are some comparsion videos I made. AtoC was enabled when MSAA was used. I didn't do 4x or 2x MSAA or lower FXAA and SMAA. Just to show how the game looks like when you go max AA or disabled.

Ultra FXAA, no MSAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlWiOz3_yqU

Ultra SMAA, no MSAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znGCFvP2KhA

8xMSAA only

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVvT9XQiE4o

Ultra FXAA, 8xMSAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sfEz_I56v8

Ultra SMAA, 8xMSAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxpCC20xk70

No AA enabled

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D7CjkVlo8A

Ohh I see so now FXAA is even superior to MSAA? ROFL

[jumpinghubert 48]

I actually stopped using AToC recently because of the weirdness with transparency on the edges of trees/grass in certain situations (like if you are looking up over a hill crest, the grass can be transparent).

I solved the mesh-effect atoc gives on hill crest with two things: maxed aa to 8x and downsampled @ 114% (1920x1200 down to my native res 1680x1050). It blurries the picture a little bit but with FXAA it fits my taste. Smaa is too blurry and fxaa too sharp :p

[St. Jimmy 272]

I actually stopped using AToC recently because of the weirdness with transparency on the edges of trees/grass in certain situations (like if you are looking up over a hill crest, the grass can be transparent).

I usually use trees only. In Arma 3 trees and bushes there isn't much difference but in Chernarus it's a must or it looks like there isn't much foliage.