6497 réponses à ce sujet

[Dead_Meat357]

I'm using the same resolutions as Smartek does. The Reaper destroyer is only that large because it is physically that large. Wadres is the one who did the work on that one, but as I understand it, the thing is made up of a ton of textures. It isn't like most things in the game that use one to three texture sets. It was something like 11 different textures as I recall. That's why its so big. It isn't that it's not optimized, just that the thing is huge anyway.

(Which BTW I played that mission last night and saw that for the first time up close on my monitors. Looked fantastic.) 

Like I said, I know that I'm pretty much doing the same thing Smartek does. I'm flattening the files and removing extra empty alpha channels and I'm using the same 2048x2048 and 4096x4096 resolutions he's using. I'm also using the .DDS format as he does which impacts VRAM and not system RAM. And if you are running on 6GB of RAM, you may physically be running out of RAM. I know you said you tried using 12GB of RAM, and maybe that's not your only issue, but 6GB would barely get it done. Case in point. My system is idle right now. I've got Steam and Origin both loaded, Texmod is running along with two Firefox browser windows. My memory usage is 2.78GB and steady right now. I've seen Mass Effect 3 take 3.5GB-4.0GB even with the bulk of the mods being in the .DDS format. 6GB just won't get it done. You'll be swapping to disk like crazy.

I'm not saying that's your problem, but it certainly couldn't hurt to have more than 6GB.

And you may have missed my post concerning VRAM and dual GPU cards so I'll reiterate here. The GTX 590 actually has less usable physical RAM per GPU than your GTX 680 does. The GTX 680 has 2.0GB of RAM, the GTX 580 has 1.5GB and the GTX 590 has 2GB as well. However it has dual GPUs and each has to have their own frame buffer (VRAM) as those are essentialy dual GPUs on one board communicating with an internal SLI protocol. So all objects and frames rendered must be rendered in both frame buffers. Thus the GTX 590 only has an anemic 1GB of VRAM per GPU.

At 1920x1080 you shouldn't be running into VRAM issues with a GTX 680 or even a GTX 580 unless you are running 2xMSAA or more in addition to the games settings all being on high with the mods. MSAA quickly eats of VRAM. At 2560x1600 using 8xMSAA+FXAA w/16xAF my system was hitting 3GB of VRAM with about 50 or so optimized mods. At 7680x1600 no MSAA with FXAA w/16xAFwith close to 80 optimized mods I'm hitting around 2.2GB or 2.4GB of VRAM usage. Monitored via GPU-Z.

Modifié par Dead_Meat357, 30 juin 2012 - 04:46 .

[neilthecellist]

Dead_Meat357 wrote...

And you may have missed my post concerning VRAM and dual GPU cards so I'll reiterate here. The GTX 590 actually has less usable physical RAM per GPU than your GTX 680 does. The GTX 680 has 2.0GB of RAM, the GTX 580 has 1.5GB and the GTX 590 has 2GB as well. However it has dual GPUs and each has to have their own frame buffer (VRAM) as those are essentialy dual GPUs on one board communicating with an internal SLI protocol. So all objects and frames rendered must be rendered in both frame buffers. Thus the GTX 590 only has an anemic 1GB of VRAM per GPU.

This. I've seen too many customers at my old job who came in complaining about why their ultra-high-resolution texture mods for demanding games like Grand Theft Auto IV don't work well on their GTX 590 but works great on a friend's GTX 480. I've also seen customers complain back in the day about the 9800GTX+ versus like a single GTX 285. Dual GPU's suck, don't ever touch that crap. If you bought the right GTX 680 (are there any dual 680's? I haven't even checked), then you're good to go as far as VRAM is concerned. 2xMSAA on 1920x1080 resolution shouldn't kill you, but check GPU-Z or another GPU monitor program of your choice to make sure you're not going overboard.

Modifié par neilthecellist, 30 juin 2012 - 04:59 .

[neilthecellist]

Fabulist961 wrote...



Also, I had no idea I can also force texture sizes via coelesced - that is some nice information which I will benefit from, maybe it will resolve my issues. Can it be conviniently added in GamerSettings?

No.

Just use ME3Coalesced (
http://wenchy.net/me...lesced-utility/ ) and search up the "maxtexturesize" parameter and change that to 4096. If you keep it anything lower and get strange texture problems with Texmod, it's because you set the parameter to less than 4096.

Modifié par neilthecellist, 30 juin 2012 - 05:01 .

[Dead_Meat357]

neilthecellist wrote...

Dead_Meat357 wrote...

And you may have missed my post concerning VRAM and dual GPU cards so I'll reiterate here. The GTX 590 actually has less usable physical RAM per GPU than your GTX 680 does. The GTX 680 has 2.0GB of RAM, the GTX 580 has 1.5GB and the GTX 590 has 2GB as well. However it has dual GPUs and each has to have their own frame buffer (VRAM) as those are essentialy dual GPUs on one board communicating with an internal SLI protocol. So all objects and frames rendered must be rendered in both frame buffers. Thus the GTX 590 only has an anemic 1GB of VRAM per GPU.

This. I've seen too many customers at my old job who came in complaining about why their ultra-high-resolution texture mods for demanding games like Grand Theft Auto IV don't work well on their GTX 590 but works great on a friend's GTX 480. I've also seen customers complain back in the day about the 9800GTX+ versus like a single GTX 285. Dual GPU's suck, don't ever touch that crap. If you bought the right GTX 680 (are there any dual 680's? I haven't even checked), then you're good to go as far as VRAM is concerned. 2xMSAA on 1920x1080 resolution shouldn't kill you, but check GPU-Z or another GPU monitor program of your choice to make sure you're not going overboard.

The GTX 690 is a 4GB card (2GB per GPU) which has lower GPU and VRAM clocks than the GTX 680's do. So at least they didn't gimp the RAM compared to the stock GTX 680. There are 4GB GTX 680's starting to show up now. They are insanely expensive though. There are two reasons: 1.) Cost of GDDR5 DRAM. 2.) Non-reference boards must recoup additional R&D costs. ASUS also has the upcoming MARS III which will use GTX 680 GPUs with the proper clocks for both GPU and memory. But it's a completely different design than the GTX 680 and GTX 690 PCB's. It will also feature more power phases, etc. for overclocking. Sadly, it will not be reasonably priced much less cheap.

GPU-Z allows you to graph out average and maximum VRAM usage. And if GPU-Z shows an average that's too close to the limit, or a maximum that's the GPUs physical memory limit you know that you are running out of VRAM.

Modifié par Dead_Meat357, 30 juin 2012 - 05:30 .

[Dead_Meat357]

neilthecellist wrote...

Fabulist961 wrote...



Also, I had no idea I can also force texture sizes via coelesced - that is some nice information which I will benefit from, maybe it will resolve my issues. Can it be conviniently added in GamerSettings?

No.

Just use ME3Coalesced (
http://wenchy.net/me...lesced-utility/ ) and search up the "maxtexturesize" parameter and change that to 4096. If you keep it anything lower and get strange texture problems with Texmod, it's because you set the parameter to less than 4096.

This. I used this method and this resolved the problems I had with characters and textures appearing blacked out when I had too many mods running at once.

[Fabulist961]

Thanks for the information you provided Dead_Meat357 - I am still pretty sure that the loading issues and stuttering introduced is because of a TexMod memory leak or some random game issue I cannot figure out.

Also, 590 has 1.5GB of RAM per GPU, so we got a 3GB in total. However, in both 590 and 680 more than 1.1GB is never used.

Regarding RAM; since I see no more than 3.8GB used in all the 6GB, 8GB and 12GB modules that I tried, the 6GB are actually performing better because of their extremely low timings and lower CPU VTT needs. I also have many system services off and many system tweaks, therefore my idle system RAM used is about 738 - 750MB. I seriously doubt this is a hardware issue when I run Bugfield 3 fluently.

Thanks for the Texture Size note neilthecellist, I will make updates as necessary and hope it will resolve some issues.

Modifié par Fabulist961, 30 juin 2012 - 06:38 .

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

 Does anyone (or wadres) have Wadres' ardat sisters HD textures? The link is broken and he apparently worked very hard on them.

Aw, damn his banshee is gone too. 

Never mind, found the backups.

Modifié par PKchu, 30 juin 2012 - 06:56 .

[Didact2401]

Another request - can we get the high-res Phaeston and the sentry interface textures without the additional N7 logos?

[neilthecellist]

Glad we could help, Fabulist961, but a few things I want to clarify:

Fabulist961 wrote...

Also, 590 has 1.5GB of RAM per GPU, so we got a 3GB in total. However, in both 590 and 680 more than 1.1GB is never used.

Not necessarily. You may have the new card. I think Dead_Meat367 was referring to the older, more popular version of the card. A newer release of the GTX 590 was released later that does indeed have 1.5 GB / GPU x2, but isn't popular. (EDIT: Wow, I just checked sales for GTX 590, I haven't checked in months and it's picked up! I think I was thinking of the GTX 595, mistakenly) 

In fact, most places like my local Fry's doesn't even carry the newer release. My old workplace only carried one shipment of the new 590's, and when they sold out, EVGA and Gigabyte refused to ship us anymore because the older one had a higher sell rate.

Interestingly enough, NVIDIA.com now only shows the system specs for the 3 GB version available here: http://www.geforce.c.../specifications 

Fabulist961 wrote...

 I am still pretty sure that the loading issues and stuttering introduced is because of a TexMod memory leak or some random game issue I cannot figure out. 

I have worse system specs than yours on the computer I'm on now and I don't have any loading or stuttering issues using Texmod, and I've used Texmod for years since it started off as an Alpha release for private testers. The current build of Texmod runs stutter-free on all 7 of my current available machines. One of them is running on a GTX 285 and Mass Effect 3 loads up Texmods just fine, it just can't load all at once. 

You might have something else going on. I have a GTX 480 which has far less VRAM to play with, and I can load all textures fine with 2xMSAA +2xSGSAA (no FXAA, I hate having blurry textures, that's not real antialiasing, it's just smudging my whole screen!)

Modifié par neilthecellist, 30 juin 2012 - 08:19 .

[Fredy AG]

 ///

I am having some problems with the lights of the armors of Vega. I tried everything, but when the camera moves away the lights look bad, as by default, and when the camera is coming (as in the foreground) are perfect ... I tried to add Mipmaps, but nothing works. 
Does anyone know anything about it? 

//////

[Fredy AG]

 ///

Well, I try to compensate as much as possible the issue of lights. 


Added:

> ZONA A:  PARA PERSONAJES  //  FOR CHARACTERS

   



>>>
34. Vega Default Armor in High Resolution 4096x4096:  





>>>
35. Vega Armor from Deluxe an Collector edition in High Resolution 4096x4096:   





Salu2. 

//////

[PorcelynDoll]

smarteck , are you planing to do Vega's second outfit too? The one with the ponies on it. I always put him in that one lol

[Fredy AG]

PorcelynDoll wrote...

smarteck , are you planing to do Vega's second outfit too? The one with the ponies on it. I always put him in that one lol

Not sure for my part  ... the next will be the Quarians suit, the 2 remaining suits of Liara and the suit of Kasumi.

Maybe after I've mentioned above. 

Salu2.

//////

Modifié par smarteck, 01 juillet 2012 - 04:47 .

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

Cool, thanks for doing Quarians. They're my favorite.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

 Smarteck - I just used your FXAA setting. I cannot BELIEVE the improvement. I keep hitting pause over and over.

Huge, HUGE thanks to you and everyone who's worked on ME mods - I feel much happier and pleased with the game and how it looks.

[Fabulist961]

@ PKchu

wadres was kind enough to provide me with a fresh link a few days ago, here you go: 
http://www.mediafire...9biwaajc9ljoivw (Ardat Yakshi Sisters HD).

However, it would have been more convenient if smarteck packed those on his own files.

@ neilthecellist

I bought my 590 relatively early, so it is supposed to be the 'older version' I suppose - this is the first time I ever see someone mentioning a 2GB version, never saw any technical specifications with 1GB per GPU for 590 on Nvidia's website, forums or retailers. So I have no idea about that.

As for the 595, I have not heard this since 2010 I think, in which situation it was only a rumor; and in fact I have not seen a 595 mentioned in drivers or forums, so I do not know what this version you mention is this exactly.

Now regarding performance, as I said, I have very high standards. In numerous times I have discussed with people mentioning 'good performance' and 'no stuttering' while they had some minor issues which they either did not notice or could not notice, I witness that with my friends on a daily basis. 

In any case the issue is not TexMod's poor texture integration nor the game's poor optimization but rather the possible leaks TexMod is giving me when I load a heck load of mods.

Also, FXAA has far more clarity than MSAA if properly configured. Injecting FXAA by default or using Nvidia's panel FXAA will create some blur, like 4x MSAA does.

However, proper adjustments can make FXAA almost as good as 4x MSAA (on what FXAA is good at) and have less blur than 2x MSAA has.

In any case, FXAA is not really meant to replace MSAA. Many have that misconception, but FXAA is able to sharpen areas like fences, complex models and models with cuts and sharp lines,' MSAA is only able to do that on extremely high settings, which is actually doing it by adding more blur.

Plus FXAA is not degrading overall mouse responsiveness, regardless of your FPS, like MSAA does (even if your frames do not drop, you do lose responsiveness regardless of  how powerful your system is). Having MSAA on and playing competitively is like having VSync on. Which is bad.

Moreover, smarteck's FXAA is fairly optimized and blurring is almost not there. However you can make your own custom preferences and compare and contrast with this version: http://social.biowar...3/index/9346212 . Which is also including an SMAA version if I remember correct - also superior to MSAA and FXAA. 

Beyond that you can look for Battlefield 3 FXAA Injector by DANOC; that is as clear as it gets. It has a higher performance hit than other injectors, but still less than MSAA.

Modifié par Fabulist961, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:12 .

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

@Fab:

Thank you Fabulist. I appreciate that.

Would you happen to have a ME2 FXAA setting? All my tinkering looks really horrible in it.

@DF: Don't see Katana in your link.

Modifié par PKchu, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:52 .

[neilthecellist]

I am unfortunately going to have to call you out for posting misinformation on quite a few things here:

Fabulist961 wrote...



Now regarding performance, as I said, I have very
high standards. In numerous times I have discussed with people mentioning 'good
performance' and 'no stuttering' while they had some minor issues which they
either did not notice or could not notice, I witness that with my friends on a
daily basis. 

So do you, me, Smarteck, and
DeadMeat367. I don’t tolerate anything lower than 60 frames per second. I am
also running in NVIDIA 3D Vision which is a serious performance hit in Unreal
Engine 3 powered games, including all the Mass Effect titles. So I am taking an
even more serious performance hit than you, especially since I’m running
incredibly lower specs than you.

Fabulist961 wrote…



In any case the issue is not TexMod's poor texture
integration nor the game's poor optimization but rather the possible leaks
TexMod is giving me when I load a heck load of mods.

You should not be having any
leaks period, especially with your graphics card. Unless you screwed up
Coalesced.bin configuration, but that would be then your fault, not Texmod’s “leaks”.

Fabulist961 wrote…  

Also, FXAA has far more clarity than MSAA
if properly configured. Injecting FXAA by default or using Nvidia's panel FXAA
will create some blur, like 4x MSAA does.

Um... No. Just no. 4xMSAA
does not produce blur. I don’t know where you’re getting this information from.
I am a software engineer and you are spouting nonsense at this point. FXAA
blurs, MSAA should not. If you have MSAA set in the NVIDIA Control Panel and
Mass Effect 3’s default AA setting set to “on” in-game (the in-game AA setting
is FXAA x1) then that’s on you, not the rest of us modders here.

MSAA has higher clarity when
configured and implemented through NVIDIA Inspector. Newer algorithms for NVIDIA’s
MSAA should include SGSSAA (Sparse Grid method). As with any MSAA or SGSSAA
solution, negative LOD bias needs to be calculated out to compensate for any
shader/texture smoothing.

The formula for determining the correct lod
bias is "y = -0.5 * log, base 2, of (n)" where n is the number of
samples and y is the correct lod bias.

So whatever MSAA setting you
use, for instance 2xMSAA, should be paired with 2x SGSSAA. Then negative LOD
bias needs to be set to match up to the AA setting. More information is
available here (http://naturalviolen....com/sgssaa.htm)

You can configure FXAA
Injector for clarity, but nowhere can you get the clarity of MSAA without

Fabulist961 wrote… 

However, proper adjustments can make FXAA almost
as good as 4x MSAA (on what FXAA is good at) and have less blur than 2x MSAA
has.

Huh?

 Fabulist961 wrote… 

In any case, FXAA is not really meant to
replace MSAA. Many have that misconception, but FXAA is able to sharpen areas
like fences, complex models and models with cuts and sharp lines,' MSAA is only
able to do that on extremely high settings, which is actually doing it by
adding more blur.

 

What are you talking about? MSAA sharpens at
any texture setting. I have been using MSAA for many years now since 2003 when
I started beta testing for Unreal Tournament 2004.

MSAA does not blur textures. FXAA does. You are
horribly mistaken. You are probably getting crisper images from FXAA because
you might be tinkering with clarity options with the injector, (those are SHADERS, that is not FXAA itself!!!!)in which case
NVIDIA Inspector does that automatically with MSAA/SGSSAA/negative LOD bias
settings. Actually MSAA alone shouldn’t cause blurriness at all. 

In fact… Just to burst your bubble here, and
so people on this thread aren’t confused by the wrong facts you just wrote…

(from hardforum.com) Timothy Lottes (creator of FXAA) had an
interview somewhere where he basically stated that he regretted people getting
the impression that FXAA is better than MSAA. FXAA was created as a fast cheap
method of AA, it does not push IQ at all. If you like blurring everything on
the screen, maybe FXAA is your thing. In addition, all of the best IQ methods
still require native MSAA support (ie SSAA). In fact, this problem of FXAA not
really pushing IQ in the right direction is what spurred the development of
TXAA per this interview. I'll try to dig it up.



I like FXAA because its fast. However, all it does
is blur the entire screen - MSAA is still better, and is required for higher IQ
levels (ie CSAA , SSAA) - 16-32x CSAA and SGSSAA is not possible at all with
post process; they require native MSAA support. These AA methods are infinitely
better than FXAA. I look forward to the next step, TXAA.....I want an evolution
in image quality.

Fabulist961 wrote… 

Plus FXAA is not degrading overall mouse
responsiveness, regardless of your FPS, like MSAA does (even if your frames do
not drop, you do lose responsiveness regardless of  how powerful your
system is). Having MSAA on and playing competitively is like having VSync on.
Which is bad.

Not true. I am playing with
4xMSAA+4xSGSSAA, VSync on, on a GTX 480. AND I’ve got NVIDIA 3D Vision running
on. I am fine playing as it is. I was in the top 1000 players for Crysis 2 until
I stopped playing middle of last year. Back in the days of Unreal Tournament
2004, I won several BeyondUnreal in-house tournaments. I have also competed in
MLG for Counterstrike many years ago before MLG became mainstream. None of
these are “bad” things, necessarily. You are making your opinion sound like
fact.

Fabulist961 wrote… 

Moreover, smarteck's FXAA is fairly
optimized and blurring is almost not there. However you can make your own
custom preferences and compare and contrast with this
version: http://social.biowar...3/index/9346212 . Which
is also including an SMAA version if I remember correct - also superior to MSAA
and FXAA. 

If you read my posts in that
thread, I established that MSAA+SGSSAA with proper negative LOD bias
implementation produces a crisper image than SMAA/FXAA. ChowderClam, the
creator of the thread, even acknowledges this.

Fabulist961 wrote… 

Beyond that you can look for Battlefield 3
FXAA Injector by DANOC; that is as clear as it gets. It has a higher
performance hit than other injectors, but still less than MSAA.

Yes, I used the FXAA
Injector for Battlefield 3 too. It’s a piece of crap IMO. Again, it's FXAA, which has been established, BY TIMOTHY LOTTES HIMSELF (the creator of FXAA) that it's a blurring, cheap form of AA that isn't better than MSAA.

You’re right about the less
performance hit than MSAA, but that’s to be expected, and that's about the only thing you've said that's true in your entire previous post.


All in all, you sound like you don’t know what you’re
talking about. 

Modifié par neilthecellist, 01 juillet 2012 - 07:08 .

[Fabulist961]

[quote]neilthecellist wrote...

So do you, me, Smarteck, and
DeadMeat367. I don’t tolerate anything lower than 60 frames per second. I am
also running in NVIDIA 3D Vision which is a serious performance hit in Unreal
Engine 3 powered games, including all the Mass Effect titles. So I am taking an
even more serious performance hit than you, especially since I’m running
incredibly lower specs than you.

[/quote] 

That does not mean that you have the same demands as I do, nor notice the same things as I do - everyone has different preferences. And that is what I meant; what is fluent for me is not for you and vice versa.

And 60 frames per second are pretty low to actually speak about playing fluently. 

[quote]neilthecellist wrote... 

You should not be having any
leaks period, especially with your graphics card. Unless you screwed up
Coalesced.bin configuration, but that would be then your fault, not Texmod’s “leaks”.

[/quote]  

I pretty much used an original clean Coalesced, so I seriously doubt that. As I previously said, I did have memory leaks in previous ME titles & TexMod. Also, what graphics card I have is irrelevant to memory leaks, for a hardware to be responsible to a memory leak presents a serious problem that would be obvious everywhere.

I am still researching on that matter though.


[quote]neilthecellist wrote... 

Um... No. Just no. 4xMSAA
does not produce blur. I don’t know where you’re getting this information from.
I am a software engineer and you are spouting nonsense at this point. FXAA
blurs, MSAA should not. If you have MSAA set in the NVIDIA Control Panel and
Mass Effect 3’s default AA setting set to “on” in-game (the in-game AA setting
is FXAA x1) then that’s on you, not the rest of us modders here.

MSAA has higher clarity when
configured and implemented through NVIDIA Inspector. Newer algorithms for NVIDIA’s
MSAA should include SGSSAA (Sparse Grid method). As with any MSAA or SGSSAA
solution, negative LOD bias needs to be calculated out to compensate for any
shader/texture smoothing.

[/quote]  

Yes it does, we have tested this and researched it for years among competitive players, it destroys responsiveness and creates blur. It may create some or it may create a lot or it may depend on the resolution, but it does.

I have not tested the Sparse Grid Method, however, if it obliterates performance I do not even have to try it out. For most of the times MSAA is not an option for me, not just because of its responsiveness problems, but because of the 'lower than what I want FPS' issue. We recently tried Battlefield 3 with Tri-SLI GTX 680s; MSAA was still a joke under some situations because of the game's poor optimization.

[quote]neilthecellist wrote...  

The formula for determining the correct lod

bias is "y = -0.5 * log, base 2, of (n)" where n is the number of
samples and y is the correct lod bias.

So whatever MSAA setting you
use, for instance 2xMSAA, should be paired with 2x SGSSAA. Then negative LOD
bias needs to be set to match up to the AA setting. More information is
available here (http://naturalviolen....com/sgssaa.htm)

You can configure FXAA
Injector for clarity, but nowhere can you get the clarity of MSAA without

[/quote] 

I will investigate, but as I previously mentioned; if it destroys performance it is useless for me. When I talked about MSAA I was talking about default panel adjustments.

[quote]neilthecellist wrote...   
[quote]Fabulist961 wrote… 

However, proper adjustments can make FXAA almost
as good as 4x MSAA (on what FXAA is good at) and have less blur than 2x MSAA
has.[/quote]

Huh?
[/quote]  

FXAA has less blur than default MSAA from Nvidia's panel when properly configured, and it is better than 4x MSAA in certain situations as I mentioned. For example; fences.

[quote]neilthecellist wrote...    
What are you talking about? MSAA sharpens at
any texture setting. I have been using MSAA for many years now since 2003 when
I started beta testing for Unreal Tournament 2004.

MSAA does not blur textures. FXAA does. You are
horribly mistaken. You are probably getting crisper images from FXAA because
you might be tinkering with clarity options with the injector, in which case
NVIDIA Inspector does that automatically with MSAA/SGSSAA/negative LOD bias
settings. Actually MSAA alone shouldn’t cause blurriness.

In fact… Just to burst your bubble here, and
so people on this thread aren’t confused by the wrong facts you just wrote…
[/quote] 

"Burst my bubble" is a quick attack for a matter you are not properly informed. As I said, MSAA does sharpen all textures up to a limit. As you probably know, it goes up using more samples after a point and beyond, ending up to configurations like 32x or more. Only at settings as high as these MSAA can properly sharpen 'fence' like textures, and it starts to create a blur to do so.

FXAA can do that with a substantially lower performance hit on 'fence' like textures and it can be optimized to minimize blur. And that is why it is best that they are used combined, if you are aiming for a clear sharp image.

You should go make a research on FXAA vs MSAA vs MLAA vs SMAA vs TXAA and so on before starting to throw blames and accusations; I will not go and search for the best direct links regarding this, there is plenty information to find out there by yourself. Information that you can test.

[quote]neilthecellist wrote...    

(from hardforum.com) Timothy Lottes (creator of FXAA) had an
interview somewhere where he basically stated that he regretted people getting
the impression that FXAA is better than MSAA. FXAA was created as a fast cheap
method of AA, it does not push IQ at all. If you like blurring everything on
the screen, maybe FXAA is your thing. In addition, all of the best IQ methods
still require native MSAA support (ie SSAA). In fact, this problem of FXAA not
really pushing IQ in the right direction is what spurred the development of
TXAA per this interview. I'll try to dig it up.

[/quote] 

I pretty much do not care what anyone says, I can judge by myself:  http://www.iryoku.com/smaa/#movie .

FXAA is in fact a cheap sharpening method, which however has other advantages (like SMAA) and benefits MSAA does not have

Check out the link and test SMAA and FXAA on Crysis 2 by yourself, it would be an educated way to start.

[quote]neilthecellist wrote...  
I like FXAA because its fast. However, all it does
is blur the entire screen - MSAA is still better, and is required for higher IQ
levels (ie CSAA , SSAA) - 16-32x CSAA and SGSSAA is not possible at all with
post process; they require native MSAA support. These AA methods are infinitely
better than FXAA. I look forward to the next step, TXAA.....I want an evolution
in image quality.[/quote]

MSAA may be better with SGSSAA, however I do not understand where you are getting this: "blur the entire screen", you should further research in order to optimize your FXAA, you are doing it wrong.

[quote]neilthecellist wrote...   
Not true. I am playing with
4xMSAA+4xSGSSAA, VSync on, on a GTX 480. AND I’ve got NVIDIA 3D Vision running
on. I am fine playing as it is. I was in the top 1000 players for Crysis 2 until
I stopped playing middle of last year. Back in the days of Unreal Tournament
2004, I won several BeyondUnreal in-house tournaments. I have also competed in
MLG for Counterstrike many years ago before MLG became mainstream. None of
these are “bad” things, necessarily. You are making your opinion sound like
fact.
[/quote] 

Yes it is true and yes it is absolutely a fact; just because you do not understand it, it does not mean it does not exist. I have been a competitive player for years and I have done extensive research on the matter with many people, and besides the personal opinion of over 25 professional players, you will find relevant information in tech forums.

I seriously doubt you were a serious MLG player with MSAA on 1.6 & UT.

[quote]neilthecellist wrote...    

If you read my posts in that
thread, I established that MSAA+SGSSAA with proper negative LOD bias
implementation produces a crisper image than SMAA/FXAA. ChowderClam, the
creator of the thread, even acknowledges this.
[/quote]

I do not doubt that, I said smarteck's is good enough by itself, I did not say it cannot get better with different methods or additional improvements.

[quote]neilthecellist wrote...    

Yes, I used the FXAA
Injector for Battlefield 3 too. It’s a piece of crap IMO. Again, it's FXAA, which has been established, BY TIMOTHY LOTTES HIMSELF (the creator of FXAA) that it's a blurring, cheap form of AA that isn't better than MSAA.

You’re right about the less
performance hit than MSAA, but that’s to be expected, and that's about the only thing you've said that's true in your entire previous post.

All in all, you sound like you don’t know what you’re
talking about.[/quote]

What is a piece of crap is the implemented MSAA by DICE and Nvidia's MSAA in general; my performance was destroyed and only when I used up to 32x CSAA the fences started to look as sharp as when with FXAA.

The implemented FXAA from DICE is a blurring crap, but not the one from DANOC.

You pretty much do not know what you are talking about because you either not properly informed or a fanboy, and I will not continue this, you and everybody else who 'may read this' are more than welcome to do simple Google searches and proper tests to judge on their own.

Modifié par Fabulist961, 01 juillet 2012 - 07:50 .

[Fredy AG]

 ///


 These are a Post !!! 


Apparently you understand more than I on this subject ... I like very much FXAA TOOL by the great changes generated in the lighting, and sharpen applied on the screen, it is true that the texts are a bit fuzzy, but the gain in others, it does acceptable. Also I find great the panel that lets you adjust contrast, saturation, etc ...

You know another way to achieve these improvements without the text look blurry?

I clarified that I deal with AA using Nvidia Inspector. I have tried to improve the AA "Sparse Grid Method", and is amazing how saws disappear, but everything looks less defined. Also I tried with ENBs, but the lighting and sharpen still better via FXAA TOOL, at least on my PC. 

Does anyone know anything about it? Or the best option is still FXAA TOOL (for lighting and sharpen)?


I have tried the best I could understand what you just wrote (my English is regular). 
And thanks for the information you share here. 


//////

Modifié par smarteck, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:09 .

[neilthecellist]

@Fabulist: You don't get it, do you? You're using FXAA Injector, which uses FXAA, in addition to a bunch of shaders in the folder that's supplied with the injector. THAT'S what creates additional clarity, and all your fancy post process effects. 
This has been established PAGE AFTER PAGE in this thread. 

FXAA alone is crap, Timothy the creator of FXAA tech said so himself. If you want to just ignore what he wrote, fine, but don't act like you're the authority of FXAA. You've commented more on the shaders than the actual FXAA technology itself, but you refer to the shaders as "FXAA". That is NOT correct.

Every "configuration" you've spoken so far has been in reference to SHADER settings within the FXAA INJECTOR part of the program.

For someone who says that 80 frames per second is the bar, I'm shocked you're calling other people fanboys.

FXAA TOOL is NOT JUST a piece of software that implements FXAA. It supplies shaders too. 

FXAA does not promote better clarity than MSAA alone. This has been established by NVIDIA's FXAA devs over and over in countless interviews. The current solution Smarteck has formulated for his mods in addition to ChowderClam's is one that utilizes shader effects.

EDIT: If you think FXAA is so great, delete all the injFX shaders in your Mass Effect 3 folder, and just start the game up with FXAA alone. Then tell me which is better, FXAA or MSAA.

Modifié par neilthecellist, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:37 .

[Guiile_Sheppard]

just a tip about the in game AA... activing it does not make any difference in my graphics.. can any1 confirm it ? (while using ffa injector)

Modifié par Guiile_Sheppard, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:11 .

[Fredy AG]

Guiile_Sheppard wrote...

just a tip about the in game AA... activing it does not make any difference in my graphics.. can any1 confirm it ? (while using ffa injector)

Apparently it's the same .. recalls that FXAA Injector takes possession of DirectX (to put it in some way) and applies its own AA. But you can handle AA as you like with Nvidia inspector (above FXAA TOOL). I use it like this:




With these parameters I think looks pretty good, for my taste. 


PD: Under no circumstances disable AA in "FXAA TOOL", will look horrible.


Salu2.

//////

[PorcelynDoll]

smarteck wrote...

PorcelynDoll wrote...

smarteck , are you planing to do Vega's second outfit too? The one with the ponies on it. I always put him in that one lol

Not sure for my part  ... the next will be the Quarians suit, the 2 remaining suits of Liara and the suit of Kasumi.

Maybe after I've mentioned above. 

Salu2.

//////

oh so glad you are doing the Quarians. I've been wishing for them.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

Man, all of these texture mods are great. The game looks so much better now! I really hated the whole atmosphere and tone of the game and I just like it so much more now from a visual lighting perspective.

I love the menu replacement too. HATED the menu screens in this game. I hope it's possible to replace the ones that pop up between loading in games. That coffee cup is so boring and uninspired. Ugh.