UnDeaD77

I agree, HDR is beatiful, but it the weight of performance is to steep for me, AA is important, although a little jaggie doens't bother me. just like running 4x aa in bf2 looks fine, even know the other jaggies still exsist (for me with my res i run)

__________________

jex

Is it really that important whether there are jagged lines on models? Are you whincing each time you see them? Is it that much of a show stopper that you are prepared to miss out on the fun because of a few jagged lines? TG is about gaming with friends via teamplay and strategy - graphics has little to do with any of that.

__________________
Jex

John CANavar

You are missing the point Jex. Of course TG is about playing with like-minded gamers in a tactical way and even the ugliest looking game would become a fantastic experience when played with right people.

But why not play a visually impressive game together, if we can? What's wrong in asking questions about graphics and demanding Anti-Alias?

This topic is about:

a) What do we know about HDR implementation in AA,

b) Lack of Anti-Alias and its effect on visual quality and gameplay experience,

c) In case develepors didnt consider to include AA, can we change this decision by providing a strong community feedback? Remember that game will be released in Q3. Let them hear what we want. This is not an unrealistic demand.

I want OFP to go forward on all fronts. Gameplay is already excellent (large-scale, realistic and tactical battles). MP will be improved significantly in Armed Assault. Models (poly count, etc) and engine are improved, HDR implemented. Now if you take out anti-alias, it will be two steps forward, one step back in gfx department. Why?

Keep everything which made OFP great and add on top. Developers may think we dont care about anti-alias and this is the time and place to let them know WE DO CARE ! (maybe you are not but jaggies hurt eyes of many people)

I made a post on offical BI forums and I also emailed developers, pointing them to the topic over there, requesting an answer.

WhiskeySix

if you're looking at a still frame, the jaggies aren't a big deal - but in a dynamic frame, jaggies turn into "sparkles".. where all the lines in the game have a "twinkle" to them as the pixel's switch between full-scale bright and full-scale dark...

AA removes this visual artifact... after playing with it on (even only at 4x), it's ugly and initially distracting playing a game without it... it's not impossible, of course, but it's just nicer with it...

__________________

jaymind

In a word - yep. Things like this break immersion for me and ruin the gameplay experience. Now, I don't know how this game is going to look without AA - it may look fine (like Oblivion), but the developer has to keep this in mind when building textures and maps. Stay away from lots of vertical lines, contrasting colors and it could be fine.

But, what GRAW did was put everything into a map that would maximize aliasing and you screen just crawls with it, which for me makes it hard to play the game (start picking out pixels when everything is crawling) and breaks immersion.

Teamplay is all well and dandy,and that's the goal, but if you have a game that is frustrating and non-immersive because of the graphics your teamplay is going to suffer.

TychoCelchuuu

It's a personal preference thing, really. I'm running Ghost Recon at 800x600 with no Anti-aliasing on a 1280x1024 LCD: that means the image is interpolated which introduces even more jaggies. And you know what? I barely notice it at all. Maybe it's because I've had a Radeon 9600 for so long I've simply gotten used to playing next-gen games without AA, but BF2, Oblivion, GRAW, and Quake IV are all games that I'm running at a very low resoultion with no AA on an LCD which introduces as much jagginness (there has got to be a better way to spell) as is possible. It's not a deal breaker for me if a game's implementation of HDR breaks AA (which is by no means a given in a game with HDR), and developers make games accordingly.

__________________
|TG-Irr|TychoCelchuuu

jex

The point is you don't wish to play a game with what you define as poor graphics because it is an immersion breaker for you which is fair enough. I played GRAW on the lowest settings because I have to and find the graphics to be perfectly acceptable, the same with OFP. Sure I'd love to have the whole lot there but I'm not ruining my enjoyment of the game because of a few pixels. The point is whether or not you can put up with it and if not, are you going to miss out playing what is probably going to be the best game this year?

__________________
Jex

xTYBALTx

I'll take HDR over AA.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

=Sarc=

In this day and time, AA should be fully supported in a game. The first video cards that could handle AA without a serious performance hit was probably the GF4 and 9700 series of video cards. We've been spoiled by it and for good reason. It makes it much easier to spot enemies and identify objects. Some may need AA like you need a joystick to play a flight sim. Others may need AA like you need TrackIR to play a flight sim.

However, it all depends on the game. I don't think Armed Assault will be as bad without AA. I've played GR1 without AA because my GF1 just couldn't handle it. GRAW is horrible without AA because it's more of an urban environment. Armed Assault is like GR1 except 20 times larger environments. Jagged lines aren't going to be as distracting in an open environment compared to an urban environment. It'll be good if we could have it but I don't think it's going to be a big damper to enjoyment.

__________________
JO Guides & Tutorials
Team Element - It's who you game with.