WHO NEEDS FSAA ???

[Surfwienix]

i don't understand the need for FSAA.

FSAA is when the graphic-chip renders a picture (internal) at a higher resolution (e.g. 1600x1200) and then it scales this down to e.g. 800x600 and smothes the edges. right? (correct me if i'm wrong)

so, the chip has to render 1600x1200, right?

i wonder why don't people play on 1600x1200 ??? would be the same speed and it doesn't look so blury as 800x600 FSAA does!!! and you do not see any edges at 1600x1200!!!

so tell me why ????

------------------
>> Surfwienix <<
(German)

My System:

AMD K6-2/400@450
Epox MVP3C-M Super7 (VIA 4.22 + AGP v4.03)
128MB SDRAM(PC100)
Matrox Millennium G400 MAX
(PD 6.0 BETA + TGL 1.3 + DX 7a) AGP2x/256MB @IRQ11(not sharing) non-o/c
Terratec DMX Sound-System
6,4GB Maxtor HDD (UDMA33)
ASUS 50x-CDROM (UDMA33)
Realtek 8019 Ethernet (ISA)
Creatix HAM V.90 Modem
19" Monitor CTX-VL950T (95khz)
Windows 98SE

[Buuri]

You got some point there Surfwienix, but not all monitors go to 1600x1200 with reasonable refresh rates. And I believe the rendering is actually faster than doing real 1600x1200. (spare me if I'm wrong for I'm too tired to check)

:
B

[ph0rk]

IMHO, everyone needs FSAA. I've spent some time with a GeForce 2 GTS, and even nVidia's inferrior method of FSAA makes most games look drastically better. It's least noticable in UT and Q3, etc., but there are so many other games, such as Homeworld, Rogue Spear, Armada, Need for Speed [insert flavour here] that benefit so much from FSAA.

Also, as for how FSAA works, and how the nVidia and 3dfx methods differ, take a gander at this whitepaper by Kristof of Beyond3d:
http://www.3dfx.com/3dfxTechnology/SSAA-Analyzed.PDF

Basically, the nVidia method is somewhat like rendering in 2x the resolution and downscaling, with the 3dfx method being more like rendering in 2x the resolution multiple times, with the image rotated to various angles, then blending those images together and downsampling the resulting blended image. Well, it's sort of like that, anyways. Read the whitepaper if you're interested in understanding how it really works.

[Stringy]

FSAA is when the graphic-chip renders a picture (internal) at a higher resolution (e.g. 1600x1200) and then it scales this down to e.g. 800x600 and smothes the edges. right? (correct me if i'm wrong)
so, the chip has to render 1600x1200, right?

You've just described how nVidia does it, 3Dfx Does do it this way, they Sample the Image 2x or 4x and then Average those samples to get their FSAA....

And the FSAA is amazing, if you are into Flight Sims or Racing Sims FSAA is great, even at Higher Resolutions because there isn't as a Demand for fps, while making the entire world looking that much more real, as there are Jaggies even at 1600x1200


Craig



[This message has been edited by Stringy (edited 17 June 2000).]

[Drizzt]

You are totally wrong.

Computer generated graphics (I mean graphic viewed from a computer, this apply also to scanned graphic) has the limit that has to be seen on a "raster" display.
Raster display are made up of little dot (the pixels, how you already know); to show something, the video card has to set the dot at the right color.

This gives the problem. The reality is view by your eyes in a continuos mode. This mean that your eyes doesn't have the little dots, which in turtn are a "descreet" rappresentation of the reality.

To draw a line the computer has, as we told (or "said"? sorry, don't remember), to light up a group of point for show it to you. The problem is that a group of point is always a group of point (a discreet rappresentation of a line), so that the line will be never a single entities. This bring up the edges that you see in the line.
This apply not only at line, but at whatever graphic you see on a computer. Even at a digitalized photo, 'cause your computer has to approximate it to show in discreet mode.

Antialiasing (not necessarly fullscreen, and this is an important point) use mathematical calculations to reduce the imprecision of the final view, for example doing a media of the pixel around the line.
You can see this by yoursel in a graphic prog. First, draw a line without AA. Then, try with AA and see the difference using the zoom option.

Aliasing is a way in which this problem is solved. The other is raising the resolution. At 640*400 the line is a lot more unprecise then at 1600*1200, but the graphic card has to do a lot of work more to render in higher resolution, cause it has to calculate a lot of pixel more.

So, no fool wold have it graphic card render at 1600*1200, reduce at 800*600 and then apply AA. This take up three passages, and it would be a lot more convenient to render directly in 800*600 without AA.


(however, eyes has dots himself, but this was a simplier explanation)

------------------
Italian Guy, Bad English

D'ya want an Italian version?

[ph0rk]

Diablo II is not a 3d game in the normal sense of the word. The environments are pre-rendered 2d art, and the characters are 2d animations. The only thing 3d hardware is used for is some lighting effects.

FSAA cleans up images that are rendered entirely with polys (like Q3, ec), which is completely different than how Diablo II is done.

I am in the Diablo II stress test, and run a 22" ViewSonic PF815. Diablo II looks rather grainy and lacking in detail. However, I'm playing it for the gameplay, not the graphics, which are good enough to not detract from the experience, at least.

Try and remember that next time some company starts showing off nothing but screen shots of their "revolutionary" new FPS. (read: Wolf 3d clone with prettier graphics)

Oh and if you want Diablo II to look better, play on a 15" monitor

[The Rock]

Well, crap. I thought D2 was majority-accelerated now. Ah well, I'll probably still buy it anyway.

The Rock
www.3dforce.com

[The Rock]

Consider this: when Diablo 2 comes out, the highest resolution it will support is 640x480. Imagine THAT on a 19" monitor. Yuck!! FSAA (at least the 3dfx one) would help that a helluva lot.

The Rock
www.3dforce.com

[Dyre]

Its a CPU hog from hell...
But its still fun. i cant stop playing!!!!

Muahah

FSAA on the V5 5500 looks sooo good on Racing and Sim games... You really cant understand till you start playing. It is needed. In 2 years this question will sound so dumb. FSAA is here to stay.

[Himself]

Surfwiener,

I play a few games at 1600 and you DO still see aliasing, I'd much rather play at 800 and get rid of them. You don't NEED FSAA, but you don't NEED a lot of things, it's on the table for adding to video cards as a standard feature, I think it's a good thing, it's still first generation though.

[Himself]

Pork,

OGSS is simply rendering to a larger frame buffer and scaling it down, RGSS is rendering several frame buffers with different sub pixel offsets and later combining them, these sub pixel origins are defined using a random pattern, giving an overall enhanced form of FSAA than OFSS. Of course hardware capable of RGSS by definition can do OGSS.

[Surfwienix]

but i think FSAA is not worth as long as it takes a 50% (or above) performance-hit !!!

[impact]

I remember people saying that about the EMBM.

[Meek]

Well, with FSAA you get rid of quite a few nasty rendering anomalies, especially visible in driving and Flight simulation games. In a flight simulator, a nearly horisontal edge "swims" in an ugly way if you do not have FSAA. Also, in games like F1 2000 from EA sports there are so small details drawn from such a distance that they tend to appear and disappear without FSAA. Like lighting poles not being continuous etc. Increasing resolution does not help here, but FSAA does.

Also, when textures start to have more resolution than the screen there are these sampling effects, but there may be other ways to overcome those.

Anyway. FSAA is a killer.

M.

[Mindjammer]

I don't know why graphics chipset makers mess with FSAA at all. Why don't they just use Edge AA? After all edges are all that needs AA anyway, and edge AA shouldn't have even a small performance hit - plus you can get higher quality than FSAA.