• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Jaggies....

S

SentToSchool

Gawd
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
997
Are jaggies the most underrated part of graphics? Everyone's talking about shaders, effects, lighting, and all that stuff but I believe jaggies must be eliminated completely from any video games.

Imagine playing Crysis with everything turn up except the AA. Not smooth lines completely take any realism away from the graphics and totally ruins the presentation of any scene.

Any game with good graphics should not have any jaggies period. I believe developers should develop games in mind with smooth lines even at low resolutions with no AA.

The worst part is, I hear some graphics junkies say that they don't care if there are jaggies which boggles my mind.

Am I the only one here who can't play a game without smooth lines?
 
jaggies are eliminated by the use of Anti-Aliasing. Thats what the AA option in game is there for...:confused:

Also I think that AF is far more important than AA, but at least 2xAA is still a must for me.
 
Yeah, that's why the AA option is there. It's also why resolution options are there. If you want less jaggies, push more pixels. Either AA or higher resolution will make them go away, they achieve similar goals(that's why at high resolutions you can turn down the AA without much difference in graphics). The options are already there in the game, you just need to pay for the hardware that can handle it.

The game developers can't give less jaggies at lower resolutions without AA. Try building a smooth diagonal line with 2 squares. It's not possible. These squares are the pixels that your computer is using to build the visuals for your eyes. If you want it to appear smooth you have to pump more of these squares into the same space until it appears smooth, via higher resolutions or AA.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2136956,00.asp

Anti-aliasing and Antisotropic filtering explained, with pictures.
 
Games no longer make an issue over AA because it's practically free these days. Gone are the days where you can only choose between playing a 640x480 game at 4xAA, or 1024x768 with no AA.
 
SentToSchool said:
Are jaggies the most underrated part of graphics? Everyone's talking about shaders, effects, lighting, and all that stuff but I believe jaggies must be eliminated completely from any video games.

Imagine playing Crysis with everything turn up except the AA. Not smooth lines completely take any realism away from the graphics and totally ruins the presentation of any scene.

Any game with good graphics should not have any jaggies period. I believe developers should develop games in mind with smooth lines even at low resolutions with no AA.

The worst part is, I hear some graphics junkies say that they don't care if there are jaggies which boggles my mind.

Am I the only one here who can't play a game without smooth lines?
Click to expand...

Buy a Vectrex!
 
Sly said:
Games no longer make an issue over AA because it's practically free these days. Gone are the days where you can only choose between playing a 640x480 game at 4xAA, or 1024x768 with no AA.
Click to expand...

AA has never been "practically free" and never will be. There is always a statistically significant performance detriment.

If you mean that high end GPUs of today can play most modern games with AA enabled at acceptable performance levels, then I would agree.
 
I think I know what the OP is getting at. Some game engines are HORRID with the jaggies, and others not as much so. I remember playing Doom 3 without any AA at 12x10 and the jaggies weren't in your face at all. HL2 at the same res was a different story.
 
J-Mag said:
AA has never been "practically free" and never will be. There is always a statistically significant performance detriment.

If you mean that high end GPUs of today can play most modern games with AA enabled at acceptable performance levels, then I would agree.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure that modern video cards have a certain amount of dedicated hardware towards applying AntiAliasing techniques on the frames, there's also lots of optimisations that decrease the overhead for AntiAliasing, for example Nvidias new CSAA.
 
Since I switched to 1920x1200, I don't notice jaggies any more unless I stop to look at power lines or chain link fences in-game. But since I don't game to stop & gawk at the scenery, I don't care anymore. I do notice textures more now. AF has become more important than AA to me now. In some games, the texture transitions are so painfully obvious as to be completely distracting.
 
Frosteh said:
I'm fairly sure that modern video cards have a certain amount of dedicated hardware towards applying AntiAliasing techniques on the frames, there's also lots of optimisations that decrease the overhead for AntiAliasing, for example Nvidias new CSAA.
Click to expand...

doesnt change the fact that processing like this does have some overhead. turn of AA in a game and it will always run faster.
 
Frosteh said:
I'm fairly sure that modern video cards have a certain amount of dedicated hardware towards applying AntiAliasing techniques on the frames, there's also lots of optimisations that decrease the overhead for AntiAliasing, for example Nvidias new CSAA.
Click to expand...

ROPs usually fill that role, while doing other things as well. There is no dedicated AA "processor" or pipeline, as far as I have ever read. There have been rumors about it in the past, but they never panned out.
 
jester1176 said:
doesnt change the fact that processing like this does have some overhead. turn of AA in a game and it will always run faster.
Click to expand...

Unless it's CPU limited...sorry being pedantic now but yes I agree there's always a measureable difference.

ROPs usually fill that role, while doing other things as well. There is no dedicated AA "processor" or pipeline, as far as I have ever read. There have been rumors about it in the past, but they never panned out.
Click to expand...

Hmm well I was reading about the early days of AA to get a better idea of how MSAA and SSAA methods differ and read about chips on the voodoo cards which did addition of sub samples or something.

I don't honestly know how it works down to the last detail.

However if games are either CPU limited or the game has a forced maximum frame rate of which your video card can run and have power to spare, then certain levels of AA will be "free"
 
So how did you ever play games back before AA was realistically achievable on PCs? (Or were you still swimming in your dad's pants back then or something ;) )

Far as I'm concerned, "jaggies" are a product of the 3D rendering system, it's always been there in modern PC-based 3D games. Only when hardware got powerful enough did AA make a greater contribution to the quality of the graphics.

I notice you have a C2D rig @ 3.6GHz, that's sweet, but you mated it to a 7900GS, which makes me a sad panda. Sooner you can spring for a sweet 8800 card the sooner you can kiss your "juggies" goodbye.

Oh yeah, another thing, sounds kinda contradictory to say there are graphics "junkies" who don't care about jaggies - are they really graphics junkies then? Maybe all they care about is color gamut, or fps, or refresh rates? Just what is a graphics junkie anyways? ;) I don't have a system powerful enough to do AA, and it's not lessened my gaming enjoyment at any point in time. If I wreally want to play a game, I'll play it as best as it'll run on the rig that I have. Yeah, so I'm different. Shoot me ;)
 
there are people...most of whom i hear play CS, who *need* the higher frames per second. AA, VSync and other effects be damned...they *need* that 200fps or they feel like they're missing something.

*shrug*
 
Jaggies are pretty much inevitable, as Backwash said. I don't think you can ever really get rid of them in gaming. Even the most popular and best game engines suffer from it so that means it is something that the hardware is going to have to compensate for.

Depending on the game, jaggies don't necessarily bother me. Though, even with some of the more graphics-intensive games I turn on some level of AA just to get rid of the bulk of the jagged edges.
 
AF is MUCH more important than AA.

AA is a huge necessity for good screenshots, but for gameplay, not so much, especially since the average shooter game these days is so fast paced, the background is always in motion and hopefully you are concentrating on enemies rather than pixel edges.
 
I never play a game with AA on. I'm a more accurate shot when I can see them "jaggies"... I don't want anything smoothed out graphics wise.
 
i almost never play with AA enabled, its not worth it with the performance hit especially when your res is 1680x1050 or more, the need for AA is seriously questionable.
 
miskari said:
i almost never play with AA enabled, its not worth it with the performance hit especially when your res is 1680x1050 or more, the need for AA is seriously questionable.
Click to expand...


Seriously? I've got a 7900gs and a 16:10 monitor also. I cringe whenever I can't use at least 2xAA. Stalker just pisses me off all over the place because you can't use AA with HDR on :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top