How Important Is FSAA

[galzohar 31]

My calcs simply show what resolution is "enough" and what resolution is "not enough", it's not at all system specific, as it calculates what system you NEED to have in order to see to a certain distance with certain FOV setting.

If your resolution is small, the only way you're going to see far (other than getting some very nice help from AA, which does need to exist) is to reduce FOV. It's more realistic than not being able to see far at all, and it at least leaves the choice to the low resolution player whether to have low FOV or low view distance, rather than force him into a fixed FOV with low view distance.

[Wynthorpe 10]

I cant believe AA has been left out of Arma2! totally amazed infact, we have these fancy GPU's to take care of this and we cant use it, thanks BI!

[Richieb0y 0]

It's funny, though.

yea did change that but it did nothing:D

[f2k sel 164]

A bad shadow I can live with but bad frame rate it terminal.

[hoak 0]

My calcs simply show what resolution is "enough" and what resolution is "not enough", it's not at all system specific, as it calculates what system you NEED to have in order to see to a certain distance with certain FOV setting.

galzohar, I am sorry no, for illustration lets say your 10 pixel JND example is only just visible on a 96 DPI display, this same 10 pixel man/object will be invisible on some 72 DPI displays...

If your resolution is small, the only way you're going to see far (other than getting some very nice help from AA, which does need to exist) is to reduce FOV. It's more realistic than not being able to see far at all, and it at least leaves the choice to the low resolution player whether to have low FOV or low view distance, rather than force him into a fixed FOV with low view distance.

Well there are other one can use to make distant obects appear larger, but no games use or do this yet.

:)

Edited June 10, 2009 by Hoak

[galzohar 31]

What does DPI has to do with it, at least without also considering monitor size? If 60 FOV on 1680 pixel wide monitor will have a 45cm-wide target take up 10 pixels at a range of 64 meters, what does it matter what DPI my screen has? As long as it has 1680 pixels along its width, and as long each pixel isn't "invisibly tiny" (and I've yet to see monitors with such tiny pixels that you can't see). The link only supports my claims.

[hoak 0]

What does DPI has to do with it, at least without also considering monitor size?

DPI will tell you the actual physical size of an object on your screen of a specific pixel resolution. There are same resolution displays of different DPI. For illustration: a player model of 'x' pixels that is just barely visible on a 96 DPI display, even though the object will have the same pixel resolution and render detail it will be physically smaller on a 72 DPI, and as it was at the threshold of visibility at 96, 72 will put it past that threshold -- and you have one player that can not see the other.

:rolleyes:

Edited June 11, 2009 by Hoak

[aus_twisted 0]

In fact 'Fillrate' at it's maximum setting is not even technically as good as 2xAA. I think a lot of people if they understood what 'Fillrate' was would find they like it even less... Esentially Fillrate is using your video card (in the case of 200% setting as an example) to double the resolution your system has to calculate and render, but then descales that to your screen resolution. Very few people have the render overhead to essentially double the resolution output of their GPU on an already resource heavy game, and even worse; the output at this maximum setting will still have alias artifacts, and descale artifacts that are similar to alias artifacts.

I know exactly what Fillrate is, I never compared AA with Fillrate in my post (I said ArmA1 with 4xAA vs ArmA2 with no AA makes a big difference in quality) I also mentioned Fillrate is only good for screenshots in ArmA2 otherwise it kills FPS under normal gameplay and it's the only option we have for now to make better looking screenshots.

[galzohar 31]

DPI will tell you the actual physical size of an object on your screen of a specific pixel resolution. There are same resolution displays of different DPI. For illustration: a player model of 'x' pixels that is just barely visible on a 96 DPI display, even though the object will have the same pixel resolution and render detail it will be physically smaller on a 72 DPI, and as it was at the threshold of visibility at 96, 72 will put it past that threshold -- and you have one player that can not see the other.

:rolleyes:

Yes, but I'm assuming nobody is playing on a monitor so small (aka low DPI) that you won't be able to notice a single pixel. Let's face it, most monitors are big enough for their max resolution that you can easily see a pixel. The reason you can't see a target at 300m isn't because it's too small in physical size for you to see - it's because it takes up so few pixels that it's just not identifiable, and at long enough ranges (where it is <1 pixel) becomes completely invisible, even though you might have been able to see it if your monitor's resolution was better, again assuming you don't have so tiny pixels that you can't see them. That's why DPI is generally irrelevant, although yes, if you have an incredibly small monitor with very high res it can become relevant.

I mean, scroll a bit back to the GRAW1 screenshot. Is the target too small to be seen? HELL NO! It's just "camouflaged" in the pixel mess.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Played some hours CRCTI and the missing AA is the pure horror.

The arma typical bad mp performance + no AA + the blur after running 10meters is the absolute PAIN!

Whatever BIS is doing right now, I think adding AA is the most important thing that needs to be done to the engine.

MfG Lee

[Wynthorpe 10]

^^^^ I agree!

[hoak 0]

Yes, but I'm assuming nobody is playing on a monitor so small (aka low DPI) that you won't be able to notice a single pixel.

Not a very reasonable assumption... Some of the first really fast LCD displays 1024 and 1280 H are only 14" diagonally...

Let's face it, most monitors are big enough for their max resolution that you can easily see a pixel..

A statement with a qualifier like 'most' trivializes a lot of people; if one million people are playing and only three percent have what you consider small displays that's still thirty thousand people.

The reason you can't see a target at 300m isn't because it's too small in physical size for you to see - it's because it takes up so few pixels that it's just not identifiable...

Wrong! I don't know how many times and ways I have to explain this the reason a particular player can't see a same size distant object in games is a concatenation of things you are not accounting for that work together, on some peoples systems some will have a larger effect:

· physical size on the display

· DPI

· resolution

· alias atifacting

· color depth (if someone is actually running 16bit)

· age and type of matrix or CRT

· distance from screen

The empirical specifications for objective scientific comparison of the visibility of a distant object include:

· physical size on the display

· DPI

· resolution

· color depth

· AA type and setting

You can, for fact keep all these parameters constant, and change just one with settings or using a different display and make an object at the threshold of visibility, no longer visible or distinguishable...

I mean, scroll a bit back to the GRAW1 screenshot. Is the target too small to be seen? HELL NO! It's just "camouflaged" in the pixel mess.

It's very easy to make an empirical demonstration that shows that an object on two different displays is not just resolution dependent for visibility, relative size is important too.

It is the people that game on a budget that I'm vetting here, these people will have the oldest smallest displays, the least powerful GPU's and CPU's... Apparently you're not very keen regarding what has been on the market with regard LCD display technology in the preceding eight years that is still on many people's desktops, and god forbid some people do play on laptops which brings other genus of LCD matrixes into the comparison -- and there are CRTs, old and new still being used which is yet another animal into the barn...

Valve has added display size to its survey, so in a year or so there will be some meaningful data points on not only resolution but size of display people game on... Currently they show over twenty percent playing at 1024*768 which indicates a lot of people do in fact play on very old displays, as this size matrix is no longer in manufacture...

:rolleyes:

Edited June 12, 2009 by Hoak

[galzohar 31]

Even my ancient 17" CRT has big enough pixels at 1600X1200. Lower resolutions only increase pixel size. Heck even a 14" at that low resolution (1280X1024) should have big enough pixels. People with lower specs usually have BIGGER pixels, not smaller pixels. Bigger, more expensive monitors generally don't come with proportionally bigger resolutions, so the pixel size actually goes up with monitor size. The pixel density actually goes down as the GPU/CPU go weaker (since you reduce the resolution but keep your monitor).

Unless you're playing on a 10" monitor at 1600X1200 or higher, pixels are big enough for the size of target in pixels to be by far the main reason for you to not be able to see a target. It only makes sense to not even produce monitors that have tiny pixels, because why bother making something nobody will ever see in the firstplace? That's why you don't find 10" monitors at 1600X1200. And even those with such small monitors (like laptops) generally also sit closer to the monitor to negate that issue.

If a target is only 3 pixels big, do you seriously think increasing the size of those 3 pixels is going to do you much good in spotting it? I mean seriously, take the GRAW screenshot posted earlier and zoom up on it like crazy using MS-paint or whatever, and tell me if it helps you ID the target any better.

[hoak 0]

Even my ancient 17" CRT has big enough pixels at 1600X1200. Lower resolutions only increase pixel size.

Heck even a 14" at that low resolution (1280X1024) should have big enough pixels. People with lower specs usually have BIGGER pixels, not smaller pixels.

Incorrect, I didn't say they were bigger or smaller you did, in fact many displays of different size and same resolution have identical pixel size, the difference is in pixel spacing.

The consequence of the differences can be illustrated empirically and is easy to corroborate: I have two displays of identical 1280*1024 resolution that I use to show this; a 19" NEC 90GX2, and a Hitachi 17" CML174SXW -- both can be hooked up at the same time to display the same image, and have their colors, gamma and contrast matched. Yet man targets are clearly visible at greater distance on the larger display irrespective of viewer distance from either display. This difference is even more dramatic with different size same resolution comparisons between CRT and LCD... It's also interesting to note that changes in FSAA settings can have counterintuitive results.

It's not a simple ten pixels are ten pixels irrespective of display; the pixels on the Hitachi are closer together which is clearly visible with a magnifier.

If a target is only 3 pixels big, do you seriously think increasing the size of those 3 pixels is going to do you much good in spotting it?

No, neither "seriously" or comically, neither have I said anything to suggest or imply that I do; the ridiculous assumption is all yours...

:cool:

Edited June 12, 2009 by Hoak

[galzohar 31]

Note I wasn't saying how hard/easy would it be to spot but rather if it would be at all possible to spot. Of course better systems will always have it easier to spot, but the whether spotting is at all possible or not depends on pretty much only on resolution and aliasing. Simply a question of "does your monitor display enough information to allow you to separate the target from the surroundings", not how hard would it be to do so.

In other words, at a given resolution, if it's possible to spot on one monitor, it's possible on the other as well. It may be harder/easier, but possible. If it's impossible on one, it's impossible on the other as well.

[hoak 0]

In other words, at a given resolution, if it's possible to spot on one monitor, it's possible on the other as well. It may be harder/easier, but possible. If it's impossible on one, it's impossible on the other as well.

I'm sorry that's simply not an objective fact, it may seem like a common sense hypothesis, and may even apply in many cases -- but even if did it's not germane to the discussion which is the effective range visibility of IFF.

The bottom line is irrespective of differences and issue, AA settings will help any system not just aesthetically, but functionally add to the visible (and unrealistically limited) range at which a man/target is identifiable.

:butbut:

[B-oodThorn 10]

I can live with the bugs but not the lack of AA,why ruin a beautiful backdrop for war with horrible jaggies!

[POTS 0]

We simply need the AA option bad.

[Wynthorpe 10]

I can live with the bugs but not the lack of AA,why ruin a beautiful backdrop for war with horrible jaggies!

^^^^^ Exactly!

[hoak 0]

Yes! I apologize for getting sidetracked on technical minutia; it is hard to understand how render artifacts as ugly and game effecting as alias distortion that will be a problem on most systems should be tolerated considering the well documented render path, and hardware acceleration available to remove it that we all paid for. It's quite surprising BI have gone down this path when so many other Developers and Publishers have taken this rout got such a strong and negative response from their Audience...

:(

[galzohar 31]

You're missing my point. My point was that it doesn't matter how amazing your system is, you're still going to have issues seeing at long distances, and AA will definitely be of some kind of help on that aspect, on top of making everything simply look that much better.

[hoak 0]

You're missing my point. My point was that it doesn't matter how amazing your system is, you're still going to have issues seeing at long distances, and AA will definitely be of some kind of help on that aspect, on top of making everything simply look that much better.

No galzohar, I agreed with you, three times...

:)

[Blackbird_CaD_ 10]

We really need AA, and i personally want it sooo much.

It would make the graphics look much nicer.

PLEASE don't do the same mistake as they did with GTAIV, GTAIV looks like horsesh*t without AA (sorry for the language but i really hate jagged edges.)

[DFA_Graywo1f 0]

Oh for the love of PETE!!! what happened to AA? what is this Fillrate bogusness that requires 500 of the best machines in the world to run???? please bring back AA for the little guys! I cant STAND these Jaggies and the creator of the fillrate needs to be slapped :P

[hoak 0]

...and the creator of the fillrate needs to be slapped :P

LOL, harsh words, but true... I don't get why not just offer SSAA, what the heck does the awful Fillrate filter do besides incur an awful render penalty and move the alias artifacts up one notch...

:confused: