AA unimpressive?

[Racer^]

Over the years, whenever I get a new video card, I run various games and benchmarks to try to experience all the features that my new toy has. For the past few years, video cards have supported anti-aliasing and, as with the other features, I run my tests.

I turn 2X, 4X, and even 8X AA on in various programs to see what its like. However, each time I do this, I am disappointed by fuzzy edges, blurry text, and a general haze of the entire image. So, I turn off AA and go to the next higher resolution only to find out the the gameplay looks much better overall than even 8X AA at the lower resolution did.

Given this, I don't understand why many think that AA is worth anything if you can simply up the resolution a notch or two and have higher fidelity at the same performance level, without all the blur.

[Colossus]

I agree, I rarely use AA.. I dont find it beneficial.. But I am starting to play around with AF.. Which seems to mean more to me then AA

[Mr Cherry]

some people are running their games at the highest resolution their monitor can supports. It's then that you would use AA to make the screen look even better than what the original developers of the game intended.

AF rules, it makes a huge difference in a lot of games I play. I find it sad when I have to turn it off, because I know I'm losing something.

[Dondero]

Not a fan of AA either, but AF kicks ***. I think most games look better w/AA turned off.

And were talking good ATi AA not crappy nVidia AA

[THE SHADOW]

I completely agree. AA is overrated, granted it can smooth out some stuff but higher res is where it's at but hey I am still a happy gamer at 1024x768. For some reason it feels the best for me on my monitor. But as I have said before, just eye candy does not make a good game.

Give me just 1% of all the money made on marketing influenced binge buying and I'll retire quite happily

[PikachuMan]

I like AA, you don't seem to miss it until a game comes along with jaggies blaring right infront of your face (NFSHP2 in my case), then its plain hurtful.

Most games I leave it off though, since the action moves fast enough not to notice too much.

I love AF though, seeing blurry, sick, ugly thingys where textures are suppose to be is not acceptable.

[Terry]

It's stuff like Flight sims and racing games that needs AA because stuff car away are staying put and the plane/car is always in front of you.

But in other games it's just not necessary.

Ohhhh, look no jaggies when I am trying to frag someone :rolleyes:

[Isezumi]

16x12 = no AA

its starting to make no sense,

I mean for 10x7 or 8x6 AA is pretty damn useful cause that is where you are going to see a lot of jaggies. But now cards are either A)so insanely overpowered that you can kick the resolution up and not have to worry about it or B) So insanely under powered that even at low resolution, it doesn't have the hp to do some AA sampling.

[JustW]

There are still jaggies at 1600x1200, very noticeable jaggies at that. You'd have to run at a highly insane resolution (4096x3072) to get rid of aliasing without the use of AA.

Personally I can't stand playing games w/o AA, they look like garbage with those staircases everywhere. I'd rather run a game at 1280x960 w/ 4xAA then at 1600x1200 with no AA.

[Un4given]

Originally posted by Isezumi
16x12 = no AA

its starting to make no sense,

I mean for 10x7 or 8x6 AA is pretty damn useful cause that is where you are going to see a lot of jaggies. But now cards are either A)so insanely overpowered that you can kick the resolution up and not have to worry about it or B) So insanely under powered that even at low resolution, it doesn't have the hp to do some AA sampling.

While I see what you are saying, I just don't have a monitor capable of resolutions that high, and many others are the same. Either the monitor won't go that high, if it does it may not support a refresh rate that won't give you a headache in 2.3 seconds, or the screen size is simply not large enough to make the images at 16x12 a comfortable size. For me, my 19" looks best at 1280x1024, and anything larger makes object to small for my liking.

Since CS doesn't run 1280x1024, I run it at 1024x768 and I do definitely notice when AA is one and off. To each their own, but I do notice. However, I will agree that given one or the other, AF will always be my first option.

[Doomah]

Originally posted by Un4given
Since CS doesn't run 1280x1024

CS1.6/Steam will let you do 12x10.

I would rather have more AF power too though. With my GF4, any AF at or over 4x brings software to it's knees. I usually leave it off.

[Zoma]

I don't use AA in most games. But I've noticed a few places where it has helped:

1. GTA 3 - The game had some seams showing and looked a lot better after turning on 2x AA (which makes them much harder to notice, especially when driving fast). I can't play it without it.

2. With high AF and sharp textures, sometimes they look too sharp (kind of grainy). I know there was a trick with Max Payne to get really sharp textures that result in this effect. Turning on AA helps to eliminate it.

[russ_watters]

It depends a little on what games you play, like Terry said. Its not that noticeable in the heat of an fps battle, but in a racing game or flight sim, the horizon and objects will slither across the screen at any resolution if you don't use AA. Even still, when looking at screenshots, quality is noticeably worse without it and I won't run any games without it.

I tend to think people see the framerate drop and WANT to think it doesn't look any better. On older cards it may not be worth the tradeoff, but it is absolutely better quality with it.

Remember, you will never ever see a cgi movie that didn't use AA in the rendering - and they have a choice.