How Important Is FSAA

[Murklor 10]

x2 to all, don't understand the "new way" of no AA in games

Its not a "new way"... Its often just a way of rendering that makes FSAA incompatible.

But I really hope BIS should put some effort into it. A game with lots of vegetation is a typical example where jaggies make your eyes bleed.

[Alex72 1]

Yep FSAA should get activated. My friends pc is pretty good but he has to play without and seeing AI in the vegetation is most of the times impossible. Also it looks horrible ofcourse with all jagginess. My pc will also be without fillrate for sure and also lower resolution i presume where it will be extremely hard to see whats going on.

I really hope BIS gets AA working.

Alex

[OmNomGiggity 10]

How high of a priority is having Full Scene Anti Aliasing to you?

Umm, very high.

Best example would be GTA IV if you set the priority too low .. :confused_o:

[Surtr52 10]

I'd have to say this is of dire importance.

[DFA_Graywo1f 0]

I mean going back to ArmA 1 with AA the vegetation you can actually make out the leaves at distance and now they just look like blobs of green until you get like 5 meters away. really annoyed.... i'm going to shut up about it now :p the game right now looks absolutely incredibly beautiful and with FSAA it would take it up many more notches :bounce3:

[Baff1 0]

I prefer to run in higher resolution than use FSAA.

[simio7331 10]

I want the first option + a cookie.

[twisted 128]

FSAA doesn't matter to me. It drained to much resources in Arma and i wouldn't activate it in arma2 for the same reason. i prefer more fps as jaggies don't really worry me.

[Depleted 10]

Just registered to post in this thread.

ArmA 2 NEEDS FSAA, this "fillrate" is bollucks and it's killing my immersion. I'm using a 8800GT and the recommended spec graphics say "8800 GT", Yet im getting pathetic framerates with fillrate.

1500 VD; 100% FR; Low textures; Low memory; Very High AF(it has no effect on weapons, just on some ground textures..) Very low object quality, Normal shadows (doesnt affect the FPS at all really and makes frying in a chopper much more pleasing to the eye) Low terrain quality, Low post processing in a 16:9 1920 x 1080.

i'm getting 45 fps tops and when i enter a rural area my fps drops to about 25 and if there is any heavy action, it goes to a unplayable 20fps.

FSAA please, and give us more texture quality options. I want my soldiers clothing and weapons to be really high quality, and my vehicle's. But i dont care for building texture quality or ground quality.

[Wynthorpe 10]

FSAA doesn't matter to me. It drained to much resources in Arma and i wouldn't activate it in arma2 for the same reason. i prefer more fps as jaggies don't really worry me.

It shouldnt drain any resources really if you have a decent GPU.

[galzohar 31]

While higher resolution is nicer to have than AA, the fact is AA takes a LOT less resources than AA. Plus, once you have 1920X1200, it's extra expensive to go any higher due to monitor cost on top of needing a much stronger system. In terms of FPS cost VS visibility benefit, it seems AA wins over higher resolution. Though don't take my word for it, as I'm not 100% sure of the performance cost of AA.

[Blackbird_CaD_ 10]

While higher resolution is nicer to have than AA

In my opinion AA is nicer than higher resolution.

I prefer a bit smaller resolution and no ugly jaggies instead of a bit higher resolution but lots of ugly jaggies everywhere which makes you wanna throw up.

[twisted 128]

It shouldnt drain any resources really if you have a decent GPU.

ati 4870 is an ok GPU and i certainly felt the AA impact in arma - to the point i always kept it off. not saying that it shouldn't be an option - just adding a voice of optional dissent.

[8ball_ 10]

Well not everyone has an enormous display, and/or a GPU that requires a power supply that can double as a welder.

:butbut:

lol, u crack me up Hoak

[POTS 0]

ati 4870 is an ok GPU and i certainly felt the AA impact in arma - to the point i always kept it off. not saying that it shouldn't be an option - just adding a voice of optional dissent.

My 4870 didn't have much problems in arma1. Did you set memory clock to 1100? You can do that without any problems. ATI graphics memory is best of the best.

With AA at max I only lost 5-10 frames depending on situation. In ArmA2 you lose like the exact precent you set it t0o. That is, you literaly are processing that much more. 125% = 25% more to process.

[hoak 0]

My 4870 didn't have much problems in arma1. Did you set memory clock to 1100? You can do that without any problems. ATI graphics memory is best of the best.

With AA at max I only lost 5-10 frames depending on situation. In ArmA2 you lose like the exact precent you set it t0o. That is, you literaly are processing that much more. 125% = 25% more to process.

And a 200% 'Fillrate' which doubles the load, doesn't even look as good as 2x FSAA which is typically a single diget performanc hit.

:rolleyes:

[An-225 0]

Another supporter of FSAA here. Performance is important in a military simulator. As is being able to discern one object from another.

[Surtr52 10]

One question, is FSAA forceable through drivers?

[DFA_Graywo1f 0]

wont work.

[hoak 0]

One question, is FSAA forceable through drivers?

Technically it should be, as ArmA II is only a DirectX 9 game, but Surtr52 is correct currently it does not work... Apparently BI is using some indirect shadow or proprietary shader system and have disabled FSAA completely (see topic post) but apparently they can re-enable it.

Hopefully they will do so in time for the demo; considering the strong negative reaction to so many new games not supporting FSAA on DirectX 9, the bad publicity on that account, commensurately disappointing PC sales, the response to this poll, and the number of Gamers still on DirectX 9 Operating Systems -- it doesn't seem prudent, or that BI will let this slide...

:butbut:

[Helmut_AUT 0]

ati 4870 is an ok GPU and i certainly felt the AA impact in arma - to the point i always kept it off. not saying that it shouldn't be an option - just adding a voice of optional dissent.

My 9600GT in A1, for 2xFSAA at 1920x1200 (don't need more at that res) lost about one or two frames. Empty Island, so no CPU overhead.

There had been driver problems with the 4870 - friend of mine experienced those - where FSAA in A1 became extremely costly.

[hoak 0]

Yes anything over a 3% hit for 2x FSAA at those resolutions there'd have to be something wrong on such modern hardware. What I can't reconcile is there are 37 people on these forums that claim FSAA doesn't matter to them, are willing to miss the additional detail and ability to resolve ranged targets, are in essence saying all the writhing alias artifacts don't look that bad to them, but oddest of all are willing to let substantial render capacity of their hardware go fallow...

Weird...

:j:

[DFA_Graywo1f 0]

Clearly Hoak they are retarded......... :D

[Alex72 1]

Maybe those 37 have monster mega PC's? However i hear friends with such machines also say FPS drops more than with FSAA so... Yeah i dont know. Maybe they like lower FPS?

FSAA is very important and BIS needs to check that hard (wich i know they do). For me as well in ArmA1 having FSAA set to HIGH doesnt make a difference in FPS (maybe 5FPS drop max) and it makes all the difference in the world detecting enemies and not get a headache.

But everyone knows that. Even BIS. But they said they had some graphical artifacts with FSAA when they tested so they need some more work before activating it.

Alex

[maddogx 13]

I personally voted for FSAA, but I can play the game at 1080p with 125% fillrate and the jaggies are hardly noticable. Maybe it's because I play on a 23" 1080p TV, so the pixels are just smaller than on other screens. :)