Jump to content

Welcome to the upgraded PCGamingWiki forums and files page. The current Wiki and Forum bridge is not functioning at the moment, therefore your Forum account currently has no password set. Please reset your Forum password via email check to generate a new password. If you have any issues please message Andytizer on Discord.

Blackbird

Anti-Aliasing article revamp

Recommended Posts

LAUNCHED

 

 

I've been holding this on for some time adding stuff and keeping it up-to-date with wiki templates, but now I'm not sure what could be improved/added so I'd appreciate if someone has some FEEDBACK
AA Test article
 
Changes:

  • Listed all known AA methods
  • Used the info icons to make everything cleaner
  • Divided them into Traditional and Post-Processing
  • Added info about their developers and GPU support
  • Added several new references to everything I could. (More may be needed and maybe less "biased" ones)
  • Removed Nvidia Inspector flags and moved them to Nvidia Inspector article

Some things to note:

  • Comparision images still use the old-ass image template and ugly wiki tables. I am not sure if the new templates can reproduce them without being overly huge or aligned to right
  • Types of Anti-Aliasing isn't prettiest, but I think it should stay in some form
  • ATI/AMD specific stuff needs to be looked over by someone who owns either as I can't verify anything as Nvidia user

Post any suggestions here in this thread please and DON'T EDIT THE ARTICLE DIRECTLY ELSE IT'LL GET MESSY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than, less text, I don't really know yet, I like to keep everything in one row. So like the text at the top, I would shorten it so that it's one row long and I would also add a {{ii}} in front of it. So turn that into a keypoint I guess.

I like this format, more or less. Where any info outside the Fixboxes or whatever, is marked with an {{ii}}
http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Steam

That article isn't perfect but whatever now, just so you get an idea.

You could probably remove the Developed by stuff maybe? I don't think anyone cares about who made these things, most people woulod rather know how to force these AA modes.

3zD7yae.png

 

I think you should remove anything that's not really important or essential in the end. If it helps the user in any way then sure. I didn't read the article so it's up to you, I'm sure you can figure it out though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Other than, less text, I don't really know yet, I like to keep everything in one row. So like the text at the top, I would shorten it so that it's one row long and I would also add a {{ii}} in front of it. So turn that into a keypoint I guess.

You mean the info text being in one row? The really long ones used to be text. I could try shortening them if possible. Keep in mind however that most people will find the AAs through wikilinks ie. [[MSAA]]

 

You could probably remove the Developed by stuff maybe? I don't think anyone cares about who made these things, most people woulod rather know how to force these AA modes.

Fair enough.

 

I think you should remove anything that's not really important or essential in the end. If it helps the user in any way then sure. I didn't read the article so it's up to you, I'm sure you can figure it out though.

Heh. I hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell everything related to AMD is correct.

I think the Forcing Anti-Aliasing table should simply be merged with all the AA descriptions. It would put a bit more meat on their verbal bones, as well.

I also think that using {{ii}} for everything makes the text a bit "heavy" to read. I think I'd like a traditional bulleted list more.

The article could use more comparison pictures, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell everything related to AMD is correct.

Glad to hear that.

 

I think the Forcing Anti-Aliasing table should simply be merged with all the AA descriptions. It would but a bit more meat on their verbal bones, as well.

I was thinking about this. Just need to think of how to execute it

 

I also think that using {{ii}} for everything makes the text a bit "heavy" to read. I think I'd like a traditional bulleted list more.

Have to disagree there. This looks more closely to PCGW's aesthetic.

 

The article could use more comparison pictures, too.

Problem with that is AA implementation varies by game engines. Post-process ones in particular look different in all games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could probably remove the Developed by stuff maybe? I don't think anyone cares about who made these things, most people woulod rather know how to force these AA modes.

I'm still not a fan of removing information just because what majority would search for, but with this I must agree. I do not know what I do with information that crytek has developed certain type of AA, other than some bet on trivia. What matters more is that what types of AA can be used and you already have an table there. Of course it can still be in some collapsable table as other information, but not sure is that vital enough info even then. 

 

Problem with that is AA implementation varies by game engines. Post-process ones in particular look different in all games.

Ah, I was about to suggest this as well. I would still think that some level of comparisons just to give an idea of differences would be really good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay developers are gone now! :)

The images aren't bad idea but it'd only work for regular AAs. TAA/TXAA's improvement for example is only noticeable in motion and both are also not implemented same always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though AA has a varying implementation in games, the relative quality from one AA type to another should stay the same, no? If so we could put multiple forms of AA from the same game for comparison.

A good candidate for this would be ArmA 3 which has a three different forms of PPAA (FXAA, SMAA and CMAA), which themselves have different quality settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not a fan of removing information just because what majority would search for.

I told him to do as he wants to, seeing as I have no idea if there's anything else that really needs to be removed right now without at least reading the whole thing. The whole "By X" is just something I saw at a glance. But, otherwise, if the info is fine then cool, keep it, if he's able to shorten things up then he can do that, without removing stuff though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could probably remove the Developed by stuff maybe? I don't think anyone cares about who made these things, most people woulod rather know how to force these AA modes.

Fair enough.

Or, I dunno.. just point to actual technical details with reference tags.

 

Said this, I'm still skeptical on the forcing table.

Driver-specific stuff should probably be addressed in vendor pages.

 

And perhaps folks would be more interested to a table/graphics were quality and performance are plotted against.

Somehow including whether Alpha or blur are there.

 

Also, you should fix headers sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Added Quality comparision of several games and several methods done by @LDK in his PC reports. Each game uses different engine so this should balance it out. (Credited him accordingly on each image for his hard work)
  • Forcing AA removed
  • The cube AA example is slightly bigger

Images are currently biggest they can be since thumbnails would hide the differences. I could make them smaller obviously, but that would require user to click them which is annoyance. Right now they look perfectly on 1080p, but lower res suffers.

EDIT: Testing 500px. I want to hear which one is better or w/e value would be better. I am not putting them below each other though. The page is already long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparisons aren't too great, I don't really like the cube example, it's ugly and it's way too generic\broad and kinda redundant anyway, it's not a very good example either, is there any software where you can check what each type of AA looks like, so that you can later take screenshots of them?

 

Something like this.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/coverage-sampled-aa.html

http://developer.download.nvidia.com/SDK/10/Samples/CSAATutorial.zip

 

Also right now the page is kinda hard to read, it all feels kinda heavy, I can't come up with any ideas related to that right now though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand, but since AMD section only has one AA now it looks pointless. Maybe if more AAs are added. Also I'd rather not get rid of the distinction of the post process and regular AAs.

The exclusivity is on same row as supported GPUs anyway so it doesn't get in the way.

  • Removed Nvidia Inspector flags and moved them to Nvidia Inspector article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I'd rather not get rid of the distinction of the post process and regular AAs.

I wasn't trying to do that, the titles are just messed up right now as I didn't bother changing them. I forgot how titles with === have no lines under them, so the categories are kinda pointless. I'm sorry I'm really sleepy today, usually I would check this stuff before posting but whatever now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plz, no vendor specific thingy. It's fantastic now.

First of all that page should describe AA methods.

 

Ok, I have an even neater truth now. It should -in theory- but first of all: what else do we want to include in that page?

 

For starters, we should think that page is likely to "welcome" people when games have no built-in support.

Or people with no freaking idea what AA is at all, or in general any person in any page with the video template that clicks over it (improve already existing support for example)

After this single dogma, which I believe would be better to address for first, we may think to everything else.

 

Until "Impact on Graphical Quality" section, I think it's a quite ok-ish introduction. Then?

How should we present forcing? And how to talk about the heap of programs that do it? (don't bother much with gpu control panels, given that should go here or here)

 

Consider it should be as immediate as possible for your average noob (meaning cut the "you can try this or this or this or this or this or this or this"), yet comprehensive for somebody with "more time and knowledge"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "Impact on Graphical Quality" could be removed and its content integrated in the types of anti-aliasing (traditional and PP) by making the points relevant to it more detailed, since those points are kind of repeating what the "Impact on Graphical Quality" part already said.

For example in "Traditional methods" instead of having "Usually more taxing on resources" we could have something like "Usually more taxing on resources, should be prioritized if seeking a large performance improvement".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not bad! Working on it now. Also added note about deffered shading since it's lot more common in use now.

  • Impact on quality removed and merged into the categories
  • Minimal information on deferred shading added (if user wants to know more he should read the article/google it)
  • Removed some dubious stuff I noticed
  • AA wiki article is now reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Usually more taxing on resources, should be prioritized if seeking a large performance improvement

Should be prioritized.. what?

And.. I dunno, AA performance response greatly varies between games and hardware.

Albeit I agree there should be such a kind of "low FPS alert", it should just warn users that, if any lag, it might want to consider a post processing alternative.

 

On the other hand, in post processing AA, I'd like an alert stating that [rarely/sometimes/every-now-and-then/usually/often/almost-always] (choose the one you like) bad implemented algorithms causes more harm to the image (aka blur) than good.

 

. . . and now the big part.

 

 

You may be interested to know that amd driver features Adaptive AA (ADAA?), which I guess goes alongside Nvidia's TMS and TSS. (ok, only the later, perhaps)

And not to mention that (put aside MLAA which can be combined with any other mode) there are different filters: narrow-tent, wide-tent, edge-detect (together they make CFAA)

 

For as much as.. I guess at least their description/link should be there on the list, this is getting really big.

And moreover, for as much as I do like that table, it still does nothing to lead noobs.

I just realized a thing though: traditional AA is only hackable through drivers (let's forget about downsampling, at least for starters)

 

This in turn implies what I was saying before: it's always going to be a vendor specific process.

And for as much it might be good to have a list with supported modes for each one, that has nothing to do with "Forcing" in the main AA page.

You either want traditional AA hacked (regardless if it is SSAA or MSAA or SGSSAA) or for whatever reason you are condemned to post-processing one.

 

Make your own conclusions. seriously, I have fucked my mind in this last hour

Last, -still in noobs interest- there was still that idea about compatibility bits list pending.

 

Trivia: should we mention Fragment AA?

And would we have any use of this table?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    957
    Total Topics
    6137
    Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 81 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×