A thing I've noticed with antialiasing

[Zorg_DK 10]

When I turn antialiasing to normal the image quality is obviously nice and the framerate takes a little dip.

However when I in-game change AA down to disable, the image quality remains nice but the framerate goes up. It seems very much like AA remains, but the framerate is the same as with it disabled.

If I start the game with AA disabled it's clear to see it's disabled, so I guess you need to first enable it, and then disable it in-game.

Anyone else noticed this? BI: Can you make performance better with AA enabled - It seems to me to be possible from what I'm seeing.

Using 5870 latest drivers, latest beta patch.

[-=seany=- 5]

I'm on NV here, but AA behaves as it should, turning on and off correctly with the appropriate option.

However, I do agree that for some reason AA in Arma2 has a big hit on perf. I have been used to throwing 2x AA at every game I play for the past 5 years or so and never had to worry about perf loss because its nothing for a modern GFX card. But with Arma, AA set to low costs me about 6-8fps last time I checked. And I'm on a GTX295!

I must try again with forced AA from the nvidia CP to see if that gives AA without such a perf hit. Normally the game's own AA is supposed to be more optimized, that's the case with most games.

[Wolfstriked 11]

IMO the reason Arma2 does poorly with AA is that the grass and trees add so many edges to antialias.This is why the red trees drop FPS down hard.Those trees are like a huge bush while the pine type trees are much less dense with individual objects.

I think what happened with Arma2 is they added too much graphics wise since we still don't have the PC power to play at top settings with great fps all the time unless you are willing to shell out huge moola and still not fully.The red tree forests should be removed and just add in a red tree here and there in the pine forests....like the random red bush we have now.The grass should be cut in half...will still look good and remove alot of the slowdown.Also make the leaves bigger so the trees are still full at long range but up close the FPS will not drop down so hard.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Wolfstriked

[Flash Thunder 10]

I noticed this aswell.

But for awhile now I leave AA completely off

and just up the 3d fillrate, textures looks crisp, tree LODS draw farther and with the high amount of pixels you can really see any jaggies.

150% from 100% 3d is about 15fps loss, AA low to Very High is about 20fps

from what I have tested on my rig

Nvidia 9800gtx overclocked

amd phenom 9750 2.4ghz quad core processor

running on 1680x1050 @60hz with v-synch enabled.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

This is a very weird problem that I think is a symptom of another problem that has to do with rendering things that shouldn't be rendered. Hopefully they are working on a fix for it.

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

Maybe players really have little method to solve it.

[no use for a name 0]

I do the same as FlashThunder said. I use 133% 3d interface since it looks better than the AA ( you don't get the artifacts in shadows/smoke); and has about the same performance impact (maybe even less if you have a decent GPU)

[RogueBlade 0]

I don't understand what increasing the 3D % does?

[Flash Thunder 10]

I don't understand what increasing the 3D % does?

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

Myke sums it all nicely.

[WillaCHilla 10]

This is a known performance problem since the release. Using a higher 3d-resolution can give you roughly the same effect as Flash Thunder and No Use For A Name already mentioned.

Does anybody know if you´re able to edit the 3d-res in the arma.cfg and adjust the values to middle-steps between 133% and 150% e.g. .-Will this be applied by the game?

[TimRiceSE 10]

it also depends on what antialiasing method your graphics card is set to...