Uh.. First of all, hats off to all that information. Really.
Second.. Perhaps should I have said "individually different" types?
Anyway, I dunno if you recently edited the table, it seems golden now. Bravo.
I did recently edit the information in the Google Spreadsheet, I had totally forgotten that tab existed.
I am not the one who created the document, but I am the one who has maintained and kept it up to date for last 3 years or so. It was in a very very sorry state before I took over.
Well, the aim of the wiki would indeed be "having people not to bother with details" (for as much, if anyone want to deepen we shall have it covered too).
Also.. I'm confused. Aren't "special requirements" the bits themselves?
And do you even need different bits for each AA mode in the same game?
What does "importing the flags" means?
Not having to bother with the details would be great honestly. But it's not always that simple.
That's why the google document mentions any special instructions that any individual game needs.
For bits, yes different ones provide different functions. For example, if you wanted to force MSAA. It requires a different flag most of the time than say SGSSAA.
And with SGSSAA sometimes, different flags provide different results. Peoples choice might hinge on personal preference.
Like with many later UE3 games. They have FXAA forced on no matter what unless you disable Post Processing completely. Which means you lose Tone Mapping, Bloom , DoF and many other effects. So the user has to decide if they are ok with FXAA potentially getting in the way of SGSSAA working as well as it is supposed to. Which might be mitigatable with additional downsampling. Or lose all those effects
Another example is Dawn of War II series. One flag AA's everything fairly well. Including the UI. Another flag skips the UI and the resulting AA is slightly sharper, but has slightly worse aliasing. The game UI scales with resolution, so downsampling isn't very viable an alternative because the UI becomes too small.
So the person has to decide on the look that they like. Whether they'd rather use sharpening after the fact or are fine with it as is.
No AA https://abload.de/img/noaag6st4.png
8xSGSSAA with flag that gets everything. https://abload.de/img/12c18xsgssaaans5e.png
8xSGSSAA with flag that skips the UI/is sharper https://abload.de/img/12c48xsgssaa96s5j.png
Importing flags means, you can export profiles from Nvidia Profile Inspector for a given application and any settings changed by the user (As long as the option to ignore pre-defined values is set) will be put into a file. Then someone else could import that file and then they'd have a profile for say
Dead Rising 1 - With the AA flag set, and Enhance application setting and 4xSGSSAA set. Since forcing is impossible, the user would have to make sure 4xMSAA is enabled in game for this example.
The problem lies in, that you'd have to make multiple profiles to export per game with each different setting set (Example. 1 profile with 4xSGSSAA set. One with 8xSGSSAA set, and so on) . Or just ones with the different AA flags set on the profile. The user would still need to know what they can do with that flag once it's imported and any special instructions from the game side.
I mean I guess theoretically one could create a tabled page with profiles to import for different settings and any special instructions. Basically what the Google Spreadsheet already is, but with a lot of links to importable profiles for each different setting. Rather than just giving the user the information and letting them input and set it up themselves.
Going that method, given that there are 571 Game entries including duplicates in the spreadsheet, just for SGSSAA alone if possible (2x,4x,8x) that's 1713 .nip files i'd have to make one at a time. Even if I was just making profiles with the different AA flags on them so people could import them and then set the AA manually. That's 571 .nip files i'd have to generate and then hope the user knows what to do afterward.
That's just how the application works.
Why not simply Nvidia inspector page?
The NPI page I made was already flagged for being too long and too wordy. If I added a section at the bottom in a table format for all the AA flags, that'd increase the page length a significant amount.
I mean, I COULD do this. Whether the Site admins/owners agree with it. Is another thing.
Speaking of which, did anybody ever manage to have it working on Optimus laptops?
And besides, were you aware of this?
I am aware of this guy. Really shady character, unwilling to take criticism or skepticism. That we should just accept his word as fact. Rather than engaging in conversation and trying to help educate his point of view and ideas.
He has multiple times tried to create these registry changes that supposedly make games run way better and other stuff But really didn't seem to amount to anything when people actually took the risk and installed them. Similar situation.
I don't necessarily think everything was fake that he was talking about perhaps. But the whole situation could've gone a whole lot better.
Whether Nvidia makes the Hardware Module purely as source of profit for G-Sync, is a toss up. There have been multiple blind tests done that show that people often pick out G-sync as the better of the two. We don't know the cost of these modules and the licensing they charge. Will they be in a manner that makes sure Nvidia makes money off of it? Sure that's what any business does. But it would be nice to see the price and point of entry come way down.
I'd really kill for just a 60hz Gynsc basic 1080p monitor.
You are right it doesn't, because IdTech5 uses OpenGL. So you are at the mercy of the developer to support Anti Aliasing. Most modern OpenGL games dont' allow for any kind of AA to be forced from the Driver for Nvidia cards. IdTech4 games worked, but not IdTech5. There are no compatibilty bits for OGL.