What is fillrate?

[Rayers12 19]

While the effect is easy to see when you move it down, under 100 %, I am unclear as to the effect of fillrate over 100 %. Can somebody enlighten me?

[Leon86 13]

It's the 3D render resolution compared to the 2D resolution you use for the orders menu/crosshairs, etc. It's confusing so they called it differently in patch 1.03 I believe. We're at 1.05 now, so download the patch, it has great performance and stability improvements. And the apache.

And using a higher 3D resolution does make your image sharper, much like anti-aliasing, only better.

[SnowSky 12]

As I Understood, there is one the Resolution for the 3D Rendering, and one for the real Output. This allows you, to play the game with a low rendering resolution while still having a high resolution.

So first it will render the image, and then it will change the size of the image. This can be used for lower systems.

The Fillrate is the relation between the 3D Rendering and the output resolution. If your Outputresolution is the same as the Rendering resolution - the step to change the size of the image is not needed.

mathematically:

RenderingResolution < OutputResolution = <100%

RenderingResolution == OutputResolution = 100%

RenderingResolution > OutputResolution = >100%

My Tipp: If your System has enough power, keep the fillrate on 100%.

A higher fillrate increases maybe the videoquality, but then the game needs a lot more power.

[Rayers12 19]

So, it does nothing past 100 %?

[NeMeSiS 11]

It looks nicer. I play on a relatively low resolution so i can afford to put it on 150%, and it looks alot better IMO.

[Rayers12 19]

I can't notice any difference between considerable lag, myself. Well, I do have 5/20 vision...

[Gera_CCT 12]

I notice increase in image quality, like a AA forced or something. The trees looks much better when i set 200%.

[Rayers12 19]

The trees look slightly better, but thats about it on my end. If somebody has some fillrate 100% v 200% pics it would be great.

[enad 11]

I play at 130% and it looks significantly better than at 100%.

200% looks amazing for me. It's just so crisp and clear. The trees look great also.

I'm running at 2048x1152.

[MavericK96 0]

I hear a lot of people talking about running at 150% or 200% fillrate. I don't know about anyone else, but that completely kills my framerate. 200% is unplayable, and even 150% most of the time. I've tried 125% or 133% but neither of those look any better than simply running AA at High or Very High, and with AA I get the same or even more framerate as with boosing the fillrate.

[Steakslim 1]

It still shows up as Fillrate for you? I thought they changed it to 3d Resolution a patch or two ago?

[enad 11]

Maybe he wasn't patched up properly. I recall when I bought it, the game came automatically at Patch 1.02 on Steam and I saw it as 3D Resolution. So I don't really know what this guy is seeing unless he has 1.00 or 1.01 patch. :/

[Rayers12 19]

I did patch to 1.05, just didn't notice the new name. I found fillrate a less confusing name than 3d Resolution..

[Flash Thunder 10]

Read my thread Walts

this pretty much sums it up

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=99874

I got two pictures in there showing 100% 3d compared to 200% 3d resolution.

basically its super Anti Aliasing and it lets the HIGH lods on the trees draw farther due to the way the engine handles Level of detail (LOD)

[dmarkwick 261]

A fillrate of less than 100 is rendered at a lower resolution then "stretched" to fit the screen/game.

A fillrate of greater than 100 is rendered at a higher resolution then "shrunk" to fit the screen/game.

A fillrate of exactly 100 is rendered at exactly the same resolution as the screen/game.

So, a fillrate < 100 results in blocky or blurry graphics.

A fillrate > 100 results in finely detailed, anti-aliased graphics.

A fillrate = 100 results in crisp, sharp graphics and is optimal for performance/quality.

[oktane 0]

A fillrate of less than 100 is rendered at a lower resolution then "stretched" to fit the screen/game.

A fillrate of greater than 100 is rendered at a higher resolution then "shrunk" to fit the screen/game.

A fillrate of exactly 100 is rendered at exactly the same resolution as the screen/game.

So, a fillrate < 100 results in blocky or blurry graphics.

A fillrate > 100 results in finely detailed, anti-aliased graphics.

A fillrate = 100 results in crisp, sharp graphics and is optimal for performance/quality.

This.

One other thing to add is the in-game GUI (ammo count, commander icons, menus) is always rendered native to the 'interface resolution', it is never stretched or shrunk by the game. (but it may be stretched by your monitor, if running non native on an LCD obviously)

And you don't have to use anti-aliasing with > 100% fillrate, it already does it by design! If you do turn it on, you'll suffer FPS loss for no visual gain.

Myself, I actually don't mind the jaggies @ 100% fillrate.. a lot easier to spot targets before everyone else, when the scene isn't 'smoothed' out.

I really hope people that have fillrate > 100% haven't complained about FPS. Some tooltips when hovering over the options menu items may help the confusion, since not many people read manuals/research with google apparently.

Edited June 8, 2010 by oktane

[Rayers12 19]

Ah, its just not so obvious past 100%. Wow, thanks guys. Im saving up for another GTX 260 this summer, just because of this thread!

[Pulverizer 1]

I don't think a second 260 would do much good.

For 200% fillrate, you actually need 400% the rendering power (the amount of pixels quadruples) and SLI does not even give you 200%, more like 100%-150% depending on CPU speed etc.

[Flash Thunder 10]

If the engine LOD was handled differently (not having to set fillrate to 200% to get nice looking trees for more than a few meters) then yeah theres no real point in having it so high, when you get to that many pixels being rendered its pretty wasteful seeing how none of the textures utilize that much also using AA is a waste when using 3d res of 150+ %

[no use for a name 0]

I use (and prefer) 125% 3D res since it makes everything sharper and "crisp" compared to regular AA. I don't even see a big performance impact either; maybe 3-5 FPS less than 2x AA (which it seems 125% is closest to). Also you don't get the artifacts with AA transparency (the white specs around the edges of objects) in shadows/smoke

[[frl]myke 14]

3D Resolution (or fillrate) can be seen as Full screen AA. As it needs a lot of GPU power due to the increased rendering size, some power can be saved by lowering or even disabling normal AA filter.

On my HD5870 i run at 200% 3D Resolution with AA on very low and it looks really good. Screen size is 1680x1050.

Personally, i prefer raising 3D resolution before raising AA as i think the output looks better this way.

[Erratic 10]

Ok Myke, I've always understood how this worked, but never considered disabling AA and trying the 3D resolution on it's own. Thanks.