globalisateur said:
You still don't understand. What's the point of using 10% better resolution on textures and 10% more polygons on the models if those are destroyed (yes destroyed) by the FXAA? Those GPU ressources are not seen by the gamers because those details are wrecked and transformed into a blur by the FXAA (or other blurring methods like motion blur or Qincunx or TXAA). By its nature, FXAA will blur any high constrasts between sub-pixels. The problem is that high resolution textures and high polygoned models mean high constrasts between pixels. in fact FXAA will barely touch the low resolution textures, kinda ironic. FXAA is a bad AA solution period. The more the game is detailed, the more FXAA will wreck/blur it. Anyway it's normal most people don't understand this reasoning. Most developers, which are working very hard, and are smarter than most people, still don't understand it. |
You seem to not understand what I said... I said I prefer they DON'T use AA and use that % available of computacional power to improve texture, models or even leave it there, don't touch, just don't use it for AA.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."