Discussion in 'Off Topic Discussion' started by Luminus, Nov 27, 2012.

  1. +1 Many Many more options please...
    We are not console player who don't even know the meaning of "options menu".
  2. It isn't FXAA causing the blurring as i mentioned in my posts, but people are "special" and like ingame all zerging toward the same target mindlessly without knowing why.

    It's almost like some sort of chroma shift/filter and if people actually check screenshots you'll see that in the middle of the screen there is no real blurring, but look towards the edges of the screen and i'll have this skewed blur effect look. It used to be really bad when you zoom in

    Or, which was more obvious during times in beta there is an obvious Depth of Field(Bokeh) style effect, DoF keeps focus ahead of you in PS2's case(works differently in photography) and all around is blurred. You can see this effect very easily, just go into game, then zoom in with any infantry weapon and you'll immediately notice this blurry effect, maybe this is what people are talking about.

    The blur can become more obvious at night, because of the bloom filter that runs. Bloom makes colours bleed into others to give that neon type effect, or the effect of bright lights. But it has no idea of what an object is, it just gets fed the screen and process it, it has no clue what is a light, so it can interact odly with some objects.

    It's a visual style they choose for the game, i doubt they'll change it. A combination of various post processing filters, the most minor of which is FXAA, all it does is adjust AN adjacent pixel, not create some blur effect which needs multiple. People just need a clue and actually bother to read up on the actual whitepapers to know what it does.
  3. This should have been an option through the graphics options in game from the start, we should not have to ask for these kind of things, it is simply logical.

    Lets not start with the whole DX9 fiasco (latest technologies used in ps2), there is not one legacy computer able to run this game, so why cater to it, sure it could run at barely 5 fps, but what's the point.
  4. I am looking for the article now, but one was in bad company, both lowered the game by 2 fps exactly.
    I have also seen countless articles saying SMAA has the exact same fps hit as FXAA.

    A quick test in metro 2033 by me showed FXAA up by 0.2 fps average. both set to as high as possible.
    Metro had AAA enabled, which is compatible with both forms of AA.
    I might try other games.

    It might also depend on wether its amd or nvidia.
    Nvidia has FXAA built into their drivers, so It might be more optimised then the injector that amd users like myself have to use.
    Thats the only thing I can think of that might be the cause of your better fps.

    Regardless, we both agree that SMAA is better and has next to 0 performance hit. Especially compared to other forms of AA like MSAA.
    Which is made more incredible by the fact that There is no reduction in picture quality.
  5. I made posts about this in every stage of beta and never a response. Ain't gonna ****** happen now either.

  6. Just Testing mate, from Experience.

    Well, the thing is, the many Games have higher fps drops using MSAA.
    FXAA is simple Faster, does not look that Good.(More fps)
    Belive it or not, we dont say such things out of the Blue :)

    I only run Nvidia Hardware and Again, using "real" AA results in even more FPS drops than using a filter like FXAA.

    and of course only for information.

    @all What about MSAA ?
  7. Yep have made multiple posts about this since tech test as well, disabling the AA used to be possible by editing the materials3.xml in beta but now that the file is gone and beta is over i would not dare to even do that. It's kinda sad really, AA makes in game performance worse, makes the game look blurry and on top of that disabling it would not give any unfair advantages. I just can not understand why there is no response about this.
    • Up x 1
  8. Turning off fxaa in nvidia does nothing, please let us disable it.. it would increase my performance so much.
  9. FXAA is bad and SoE should feel bad for forcing it on us.
    • Up x 2
  10. No it would not. FXAA had no performance hit.
    You would see at most, a 2 FPS increase.

    That's assuming your gpu bottlenecked and not CPU bottlenecked.
  11. 2 fps would give me a solid 30 in battle, not 28. :)
  12. What you may get from all this mess is that SOE offers a free to play game but it limits who can play based on hardware. WTF? I refuse to believe this, but if they don't put this right I'll start to think it's true.

    Moooooaaaaaar in-game graph options!!
  13. I'm pretty sure MSAA or any AA for that matter is more taxing than FXAA. I'm fine with FXAA as long as it's optional. It's pretty good for people who don't have GPU to support "proper" AA.
  14. It's really easily do-able, guys. I've had FXAA off since the day after the game got officially released.

    protip: assets_188.pack. You can figure out the rest.
  15. But people... the game uses TXAA, not FXAA.
  16. It's FXAA. If it was TXAA, it would have a massive performance hit like 4xMSAA and it wouldn't show up for users with ATI cards.
  17. *discreetly points to Mr. Cycle who repeatedly tells people it isn't FXAA*

    Me and what army? Why one of the lead programmers of course! Saddle up!
  18. Any truth to this?
    Actually it does use TXAA.
    SOE has been saying over and over that their AA is Edged based. Just look in my thread (called Possible solution to TXAA). there is a link to another thread about it.

    Also, TXAA has even worse texture blur then FXAA.
    I also gave a possible solution in my thread(hence the title) for high end cards, because it has a massive performance hit.
  19. Nonetheless, you can still disable it by getting rid of the mention of dirblur.fxo in materials_3.xml, like in beta. The only thing is the way of doing it is slightly different.

Share This Page