What Is Fillrate Optimiser

[derfmeister 10]

What is this setting? It seems the be the most signifcant detriment to visual quality and performance. As I can tell from playing with it, when it slides all the way to the left, it makes everything blurry and generally makes the graphics crap. All the way to the right seems to make the game look like it should.

[Razorman 10]

You answered your own question, but to elaborate it makes it look pretty on the right & shit on the left, 100% is the optimal rate for best performance & visuals combined.

Search more on these forums & you'll find the detail.

[derfmeister 10]

Your post did not answer my question in any way.

The search function does not bring up any relevant results.

[Razorman 10]

Well when i type "fill rate" in the search function i see 80 results, i guess your pc is fubar then.

[derfmeister 10]

I challenge you to find relevant information.

[Razorman 10]

I challenge you to find relevant information.

Behave, find it yourself, sorry but i've been holding peoples hands all day & i've had enough. :rolleyes:

[Alex72 1]

It adds FSAA+Supersampling to edges of 3D objects and 2D object hence why its so performance sucking. It makes all the jagged edges smooth - but uses a lot of power from your PC. best is to leave it at 100% wich means no Fillrate. Going under 100% result in much better FPS but much worse image quailty.

And yes i know - Fillrate is not pure FSAA. Just that 200% is like having 8x or more FSAA + Supersampling wich is very performance sucking. If you got a good PC then test it.

Alex

[Razorman 10]

What he said.

Happy now?

You're too generous ;)

[derfmeister 10]

Behave, find it yourself, sorry but i've been holding peoples hands all day & i've had enough. :rolleyes:

Oh, you turn the challenge down?

Perhaps because you know the information is not really there.

[Maizel 10]

Oh, you turn the challenge down?

Perhaps because you know the information is not really there.

I think he just not wanted to be goaded into doing stuff you're too lazy to do yourself.

[derfmeister 10]

I think he just not wanted to be goaded into doing stuff you're too lazy to do yourself.

You're both making the mistake of assuming I didn't use the search function.

[Alex72 1]

Oh and we are waiting to get some official statement on getting pure FSAA in the options. Might (Should) come in a patch down the line.

EDIT: And please take personal dravel to PM's ;)

Alex

[karoshi 10]

What is this setting? It seems the be the most signifcant detriment to visual quality and performance. As I can tell from playing with it, when it slides all the way to the left, it makes everything blurry and generally makes the graphics crap. All the way to the right seems to make the game look like it should.

From what I've read around here it sets the size of the render target. If you set it to 50% it render 25% of you resolution pixels, if you set it to 200% it renders 400% of your resolution pixels.

Examples:

• screen resolution 640x480, fill rate 200%, the game is rendered at 1280x960 then displayed at lowered resolution. This is called OGSSAA, it's one of the least efficients forms of AA, specially since it's an Ordered Grid (worst quality sampling pattern for AA) and it's bypassing ALL the hardware in your GPU specialized in making AA fast.
  
• screen resolution 1920x1080, fill rate 50%, the game is rendered at 960x540, then it's upscaled to higher resolution. It looks like crap, of course, no AA and horrible rendering resolution.
  

[maruk 80]

We will change logic of this control in version 1.02 to be hopefully more clear to everyone.

Our engine can render user interface and game 3D rendering in different resolutions now which is very flexible and useful feature (in some games we noticed this but usually users are not able to change the settings on their own).

Main reason is to allow users with hi res displayes to enjoy hi res UI (with native resolution of their monitor as they have it in Windows applications) even when their graphics card can't handle 3D rendering of complex scene at acceptable frame rate.

It also allows image supersampling, e.g. if you have very powerful graphics card but not that big monitor, you can render to very high resolution which is interpolated to your monitor (basically equivalent of full FSAA).

Note that once we enable MSAA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisample_anti-aliasing for better explanation of these terms) in our game the game image will look very well even on lower resolutions upscaled to higher native resolution of your monitor and still is much more GPU speed friendly solution than full rendering (e.g. not many cards can cope with 1920x1200 resolution for 3D rendering).

[Maizel 10]

Alex,

Do you know what the added value of a pure FSAA option is, when fillrate does the same thing?

Or does Fillrate do something else as well?

Edit: karoshi answered that for me.

[karoshi 10]

72;1317003']It adds FSAA+Supersampling to edges of 3D objects and 2D object hence why its so performance sucking. It makes all the jagged edges smooth - but uses a lot of power from your PC. best is to leave it at 100% wich means no Fillrate. Going under 100% result in much better FPS but much worse image quailty.

And yes i know - Fillrate is not pure FSAA. Just that 200% is like having 8x or more FSAA + Supersampling wich is very performance sucking. If you got a good PC then test it.

Alex

It adds FS-SS-AA to everything' date=' not only the edges. 200% fillrate is [b']exactly [/b]4xOGSSAA but bypassing all the AA hardware in your GPU, and using a horrible OG pattern instead of the RG pattern used for all MSAA and SSAA by modern GPUs.

Nvidia did only OGSSAA a few generations ago (FX5800 era, IIRC), but they've been implementing (and accelerating) RGSSAA and RGMSAA for a few generations already.

[Alex72 1]

I dont think there is such a value tbh. But maybe 125% is like kinda 2X AA plus also some Supersampling. (i guess? correct me if im wrong anyone).

125 still looks bad IMO. Im playing ArmA1 on HIGH AA and no jagged lines and extremely small FPS drop.

But Maruk basically says (i think) that we will still have FILLRATE just with Multisampling instead of Supersampling? I think it will still be hard on PC's but better. But i might be wrong as well if that is what Maruk says or not.

[karoshi 10]

72;1317044']I dont think there is such a value tbh. But maybe 125% is like kinda 2X AA plus also some Supersampling. (i guess? correct me if im wrong anyone).

125% is supersampling' date=' by itself. There is no extra SS going on. Kinda like 125% squared, 1,5625xSSAA :rolleyes:

72;1317044']125 still looks bad IMO. Im playing ArmA1 on HIGH AA and no jagged lines and extremely small FPS drop.

For two reason: it's using MSAA, that has lower performance requirements compared to SSAA, and it's using the specialized hardware inside the GPU to accelerate MSAA rendering. Also, it's using RGAA, not OGAA. For the same AA level RG gives better quality compared to OG: 4xRGMSAA will look better than 4xOGMSAA. All modern GPU use only RGAA, no OGAA (maybe in some weird modes, like nvidia has for SLI), but not for the mainstream 2x,4x,8x MSAA modes you can select on the control panel.

72;1317044']But Maruk basically says (i think) that we will still have FILLRATE just with Multisampling instead of Supersampling? I think it will still be hard on PC's but better. But i might be wrong as well if that is what Maruk says or not.

I understand what he says as: hardware based MSAA rendering will be supported. You can select to undersample or supersample (SS) that MSAA rendering.

Examples:

• screen resolution 1280x1024' date=' fillrate 200% , MSAA 4x. You have quad SLI 295, you render the game at 2560x2048 with 4xMSAA, then display it at half that resolution because you run out of money and could only buy a 1280x1024 monitor. You are running a hybrid 4xSS+4xMS AA mode.
  [*'] what arma1 (and many other games do now), screen resolution 1600x1200, fill rate 100%, MSAA 8x. The game is rendered at 1600x1200 with GPU hardware accelerated 8xMSAA. Then it's displayed 1:1 on your screen. No SS (1xSSAA), 4xMSAA.
  
• what marek talks about: screen resolution 1920x1080, fillrate 75%, 2xMSAA. The game is rendered at 1440x810 with GPU-accelerated 2xMSAA. Then it's displayed at a higher resolution. You are running a mixed 2xMSAA + 0,5625xSSAA (well, USAA, lol). The point is: the text and UI is rendered 1:1 on your TFT, it doesnt look blurry. The added 2xMSAA doesnt look completely horrible when upscaling it, you only have to puke every 2 hours instead of every 15 minutes. Also it's much faster than equivalent 2xSSAA (square root of 2 fillrate: 141%), because it's MSAA vs. SSAA and because that AA is GPU accelerated.
  

[Alex72 1]

So a shorter answer that anyone can understand without going to wiki and read a lot of explanations: Will we have FSAA? Or something similar to FSAA that DONT take so much performance off and still remove jaggies?

Alex

[Maizel 10]

Why do they have to make it so complicated?

I'd wish they'd just use options I know what they do.

[Sam75 0]

To make it simpler, is it possible to include to arma2 engine the same AA filter used for arma1 ?

[Alex72 1]

Guess not seeing Maruk's answer. I know it is but BIS said it gave artifacts. And i understand fillrate is "better" making everything smoother - even 2D stuff. but its so hard on systems. Well see in 1.02 though. We need good guidelines how to set it up good. Like res=something and render=something to get best performance and best image quality. Its a bit messy for many to try and do this on their own now. Also you can only do it in the CFG. just imagine how many that are not on this forums reading. They have no clue.

Alex

[EricM 0]

Will we have FSAA? Or something similar to FSAA that DONT take so much performance off and still remove jaggies?

The answer is : You will have both standard FSAA and fillrate as 2 different "sliders/option".

So that you mix both for the optimum quality/resolution/speed you want.

Fillrate has 2 uses :

1) allow to have different resolutions for the 3D scene and the HUD/Interface : so you can have a clear text and hud at screen resolution and lower 3D resolution for crappy cards (fillrate under 100%).

2) allow antialiasing as a side-effect (if you push it over 100%)

Standard FSAA/MSAA just has the effect of making smooth edges = anti-aliasing, but it's GPU accelerated.

With both fillrate and MSAA you can play on all the levels to get the look you want.

Edited June 19, 2009 by EricM
Added quote for clarity

[Maizel 10]

72;1317099']Guess not seeing Maruk's answer. I know it is but BIS said it gave artifacts. And i understand fillrate is "better" making everything smoother - even 2D stuff. but its so hard on systems. Well see in 1.02 though. We need good guidelines how to set it up good. Like res=something and render=something to get best performance and best image quality. Its a bit messy for many to try and do this on their own now. Also you can only do it in the CFG. just imagine how many that are not on this forums reading. They have no clue.

Alex

Indeed' date=' not really user friendly.

The answer is : You will have both standar FSAA and fillrate as 2 different sliders.

So that you mix both for the optimum quality/resolution/speed you want.

Sorry, the answer to what?

[whisper 0]

"Will we have FSAA?"

Answer given by Maruk 1 page ago :

Note that once we enable MSAA [...] in our game the game image will look very well [...]

ie : they are working on implementing MSAA on future patch.

MSAA for which all the hardware acceleration exists in current graphic cards, meaning better performance with FSAA enabled