does size matter?

[Tigger29]

Ok.... So I turned AA down and the lag isn't that noticeable.... Its there but I can hardly notice it. ... meso stupid thanks for the help gents

Yeah and you probably don't even notice a decrease in video quality do you?

In the old days when lower VGA resolutions were more normal AA made a huge increase in video quality but these days with HD resolutions it's not such a big deal.  A notch or two can make a noticeable improvement but in my opinion any more than that really doesn't improve video quality enough to make it worth the decrease in performance.

[Skuzzy]

I see this a lot.  People running 1920x1200 resolutions cranking up the AA to 16x and wondering why they get stutters.  When I ask them why they are running such high AA settings, they simply say it looks better.

Sugar pills.  Mathematically you can only reduce aliasing by so much.  Some people actually believe AA adds more pixels to the monitor.

[Bizman]

I Some people actually believe AA adds more pixels to the monitor.

got to remember that!

Seriously speaking, there are monitors doing 1920x1080 in many different sizes, varying from 15.6 to over 60 inches. All of them can be used to play AH. Since the anount of pixels remains the same, naturally the size of them grows. Also, with the bigger TV sets used as monitors, the viewing distance increases. From the cockpit photos seen on this board indicates that the viewing distance for gaming is much shorter than that of normal TV watching.

If the monitor is viewed from the normal distance, i.e. about 70 cm/2 ft/an arm's length, what is the monitor size where the pixels start to show a significantly disturbing sawtooth effect on diagonal lines? I use a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and the sawteeth are hardly noticeable with no effect on gameplay, one notch of AA makes them disappear. Since doubling the diameter quadruplicates the surface area and thus also the pixel size, am I right to suggest that for the same experience a 48" screen should be watched from about 3 metres/10 ft?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

My monitor is 27" and 2560x1440, I usually don't bother with antialiasing. But I can see where someone playing full-hd with a 50" tv might want some

[sizzle22]

I noticed no difference when I moved it down one notch as far as smoothness goes but I notice a huge difference with the AA slider all the way  down.... Looks like I could cut down a tree with my wing! I play on a 22 inch monitor... 

[titanic3]

AA is evil. 

In almost all cases, it's better to use a higher resolution with no AA than having a lower resolution and using AA.
I run AH fine with hi-res, 1920x1080 with self shadowing and shadows at 2048 smooth shadows. Bumping shadows to 4096 can make the game choppy in furballs, 8192 turns the game into single digit FPSs.

Running AA with 2048 smooth shadows turn the game also into single digits. Yet there is almost zero improvement in image quality (at least none that I can see). I wonder if anyone here can actually run 8192 shadows, max resolution AND max AA smoothly.

My rig is a Core2Duo 2.9Ghz, Radeon 5570, 4GB RAM.

[SilverZ06]

I can until I find a horde with about 30 planes around it drops to about 35 fps iirc

[Skuzzy]

Just remember a single 8192 shadow takes 256MB of video RAM.

Doing real-time shadows almost always involves some type of trade-off.  The more natural the shadow looks, the higher the processing level for the video card.  HiTech's approach achieves good balance with the rest of the system.

[TequilaChaser]

Just remember a single 8192 shadow takes 256MB of video RAM.

Doing real-time shadows almost always involves some type of trade-off.  The more natural the shadow looks, the higher the processing level for the video card.  HiTech's approach achieves good balance with the rest of the system.

Good Morning Skuzzy,

so if one was to use the 4096  shadow setting , would that be equivalant to 1 single 4096 shadow = using 128 meg of video RAM ?  or is the difference not a exact difference of 1/2 the ram used per next lower setting?

just trying to understand how shadows work in regards to accessing/using  one's Videocard / Video RAM ......

I know my  HD6950 2 GIG  XFX card  takes a major frame rate hit ( major as in drops like 10 to 15 fps )  using the 8192 setting........ but using the 4096 setting, my frame rate stays pegged at 60 fps using 1920 x 1200 screen res ....


TC

[Skuzzy]

4096 uses 64MB of video RAM.

((X * Y) * 4) /(1024*1024) = video RAM used

X and Y are the value chosen in the shadow size.

[YamaRaja]

AA is evil.  

In almost all cases, it's better to use a higher resolution with no AA than having a lower resolution and using AA.
I run AH fine with hi-res, 1920x1080 with self shadowing and shadows at 2048 smooth shadows. Bumping shadows to 4096 can make the game choppy in furballs, 8192 turns the game into single digit FPSs.

Running AA with 2048 smooth shadows turn the game also into single digits. Yet there is almost zero improvement in image quality (at least none that I can see). I wonder if anyone here can actually run 8192 shadows, max resolution AND max AA smoothly.

My rig is a Core2Duo 2.9Ghz, Radeon 5570, 4GB RAM.

I run the game hi-res @ 2048, everything on maxed, override game and let Catalyst control it, 16xAA, Adaptive multi sample AA, Catalyst AI on high quality, Antistropic filtering and tessellation application controlled, vertical refresh on quality.
I run 120 fps almost everywhere, sometimes it dips to 100 very briefly, even in a very large fight over a base or around carriers. Never a stutter, people complaining about frame rates around me and I am rock solid.
Samsung 27in S27A750D 120Hz at 1920x1080.
I do see a big detail difference at lesser settings.
With the settings I run little things like details on planes I am fighting, completely smooth edges on everything, tags and lettering like ammo counters etc. The game looks really good, a difference you would have to see in person to believe.
A 120hz monitor makes a huge difference.

Here's the deal IMHO
To see the benefits you have to have a machine fast enough to do it, as well as a monitor good enough to show it to you.

$3000 plus to play AH maxed and smooth as silk.
But I can play almost any game maxed out as well. There are titles out there that make it work a bit. But never without smooth gameplay.
Yes Skuzzy the drivers are finally matured enough that it all works

Overkill perhaps, a bit of tweaking to get it smoking fast and stable? Yup, but its a tasty sugar pill. Sweet eye candy

Intel i7 SandyBridge 2600K 3.4 @ 4.8
Asus P8P67 Deluxe v.3 1702 bios
ThermalRight Silver Arrow Cooler
Corsair Vengence 8gb 1600 8-8-8-24-1
OCZ Vertex 3 Sata III SSD 120GB x2 Raid0 (C:drive)
1.5 TB WD Cavair Black x2 Raid1
640GB WD Cavair x2 Raid1
2x Sapphire HD6950 2gb Crossfire (4GB of video ram) HD6970 Bios Mod - Catalyst 11.10
E-MU E-DSP Audio Processor 1616m
LG Blu-ray Burner WH10LS30
LG Blu-ray Reader UH10LS20
Corsair AX1200 1200 watt PSU
Antec SX830 Modded
Windows 7 Pro 64bit
Samsung S27A750D 120hz Monitor


Yama

[titanic3]

You're making me jealous, I hope you have a lock on that rig because I'm stealing it. 

[guncrasher]

i spent about 3k on mine and plays the same as yours but with 3k I also have all the accessories (trakir, stick, pedals...) on 3 monitors.  main thing is you dont have to spend 3k all at one time unless of course you have it.  I didnt so it took me a couple of years to put it all together.  my first puter e8400 based only cost me 900 buck 2 years ago.  between then and now I added all the extra's one thing at a time.  i upgraded I believe last may to the 2500k and just last november to my 3rd monitor and 2nd evga 465 card which i bought as a remanu for about 1/3 that I paid for my first.   patience is golden, unless you have a rich gf and you are good in bed .


semp

[YamaRaja]

i spent about 3k on mine and plays the same as yours but with 3k I also have all the accessories (trakir, stick, pedals...) on 3 monitors.  main thing is you dont have to spend 3k all at one time unless of course you have it.  I didnt so it took me a couple of years to put it all together.  my first puter e8400 based only cost me 900 buck 2 years ago.  between then and now I added all the extra's one thing at a time.  i upgraded I believe last may to the 2500k and just last november to my 3rd monitor and 2nd evga 465 card which i bought as a remanu for about 1/3 that I paid for my first.   patience is golden, unless you have a rich gf and you are good in bed .


semp

My monitor is $500 semp x3 would be 1500 for those alone. 120Hz as I said makes a huge difference. I had 3x 22in Viewsonics before going to it. I could buy 2 more (my money) but she already hates AH enough.
Have trakir5, throttle, pedals, stick.
$500 for 2 SSD's in Raid0 and so on.
I usually buy stuff 1 year behind cutting edge. This time I went for it, next time perhaps wait.
Cutting edge is not without teething pain either. Drivers, bios etc. Until they get sorted out, which it is now.

BTW semp, I'm 56, shes 38 (and good looking) and makes over 100k a year so I could get her to buy it. But I do too, and I am