Visual difference between d3d9 and d3d11 backend
|
02-04-2013, 05:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2013, 05:44 AM by NaturalViolence.)
LordVador Wrote:Just a recent card, compatible with DX10. Nothing more Fixed that for you. AnyOldName3 Wrote:This assumes that semi-transparent objects are being rendered. If everything is opaque, no normal human will see a difference, and MSAA will take a lot less computing power to do. Wrong. SSAA improves texture clarity and reduces shader aliasing as well (the second is not a problem in dolphin but the texture quality is). It also noticeably reduces texture shimmering when moving. I simply can't play older games without SSAA anymore, the difference is night and day even at 1920 x 1200. Screenshots don't do it justice, in a moving image it looks much clearer than MSAA. In some games it even reduces shadow aliasing (depending on how shadows are rendered). Edit: Typo.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson "I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. " -Mark Antony 02-04-2013, 06:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2013, 06:27 AM by AnyOldName3.)
With low resolution Wii and GameCube textures, the extra Antialiasing on the textures isn't going to make a very noticeable difference at all. I suppose if you're using high resolution custom textures you'll see a difference, but most people don't (use the textures).
MSAA will still produce identical results in something with opaque, cell-shaded objects only. The point I was making was that 'better' isn't just a question of image quality, but performance cost. Many people will say that FXAA is better than SSAA, simply because of its minuscule performance hit, but people with quad-SLI GTX 680s will say that SSAA is 'the best', as few applications won't crumble before that kind of computing power (I'm aware that Dolphin doesn't support SLI/crossfire, but this paragraph has been talking about rendering in general).
OS: Windows 10 64 bit Professional
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5900X RAM: 48GB GPU: Radeon 7800 XT 02-04-2013, 07:06 AM
Hey....I'm really new here and I'm not even sure if this is the correct place to ask this, but.....there is something wrong with the textures on my skyward sword. It's not really a problem, but it would be nice to see characters and stuff looking like they're supposed to. You can see it more clearly on the headmaster guy.
http://s1136.beta.photobucket.com/user/r...5.png.html 02-04-2013, 07:12 AM
02-04-2013, 08:41 AM
AnyOldName3 Wrote:With low resolution Wii and GameCube textures, the extra Antialiasing on the textures isn't going to make a very noticeable difference at all. It does to me. And you said "no normal human will see a difference". So either I'm not normal, I'm not human, or you're wrong. AnyOldName3 Wrote:MSAA will still produce identical results in something with opaque, cell-shaded objects only. No it won't. That's just common sense. You would have to render an image without textures (or all of the textures would have to be the same color) and with vertex lighting (as opposed to per-pixel lighting) to produce truly identical results. AnyOldName3 Wrote:The point I was making was that 'better' isn't just a question of image quality, but performance cost. Better = image quality, regardless of performance. When someone uses the word better when talking about a graphics option they are referring to the fact that it produces better image quality, not that it has a better quality/performance balance. For example HBAO is better than SSAO. That statement is widely regarded as true despite SSAO delivering a better IQ/performance ratio. AnyOldName3 Wrote:Many people will say that FXAA is better than SSAA Nobody will say that because it's not true.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson "I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. " -Mark Antony 02-05-2013, 09:28 AM
Quote: You would have to render an image without textures (or all of the textures would have to be the same color) and with vertex lighting (as opposed to per-pixel lighting) to produce truly identical results.That's more or less what I meant. Quote: It does to me. And you said "no normal human will see a difference". So either I'm not normal, I'm not human, or you're wrong.We've already found out in multiple other threads that you have some pretty impressive eyes. Quote: Nobody will say that because it's not true.I could find something contradictory to that, but for the fact that I'm too lazy to look. It will be there somewhere, though. Quote: Better = image quality, regardless of performance.So if someone were to somehow create something 98% as effective as 64x SSAA, but with an undetectable performance hit, you'd still insist SSAA was 'better'? There're always multiple factors. The best phrase to use wouldn't be 'better', as for some people with weaker systems, 'better' may mean 'better for their situation', but instead, more effective.
OS: Windows 10 64 bit Professional
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5900X RAM: 48GB GPU: Radeon 7800 XT 02-05-2013, 10:38 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2013, 10:41 AM by NaturalViolence.)
AnyOldName3 Wrote:So if someone were to somehow create something 98% as effective as 64x SSAA, but with an undetectable performance hit, you'd still insist SSAA was 'better'? Yes. That's what the word means in this context. Better is not the same thing as "better for me" or "better for weaker systems". The word better by itself implies higher quality. AF is better than trilinear. SSAA is better than MSAA. HBAO is better than SSAO. Dynamic shadows are better than static shadows, and so on. Efficiency doesn't factor into this. AnyOldName3 Wrote:We've already found out in multiple other threads that you have some pretty impressive eyes. I doubt that this is why. All of the "normal people" that I have talked about AA with can't even tell the difference between no AA and 8xMSAA in screenshots loaded with aliasing. They are so used to it that they don't even notice it. But once you point it out to them the typical response is "oh wow". The same thing is true of SSAA. People don't notice the difference because they don't know what to look for and they're used to not having it, not because they can't physically see it. Play all of your games without MSAA for awhile and you stop noticing or caring about aliasing. Play all of your games with MSAA for awhile and you can't stand to be without it. It's the same with SSAA. The difference becomes more apparent when you are used to having it, and less apparent when you are used to not having it. Most people don't bother trying to get SSAA working with modern games so they don't notice the difference.
"Normally if given a choice between doing something and nothing, I’d choose to do nothing. But I would do something if it helps someone else do nothing. I’d work all night if it meant nothing got done."
-Ron Swanson "I shall be a good politician, even if it kills me. Or if it kills anyone else for that matter. " -Mark Antony 02-05-2013, 11:34 PM
(02-05-2013, 10:38 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote:I'll be as picky as you for a second and tell you that the word "better" doesn't mean anything without any context. You can say "better quality" and "better whatever" but "better" just says ... nothing, unless something is really better in each and every aspect than something else.AnyOldName3 Wrote:So if someone were to somehow create something 98% as effective as 64x SSAA, but with an undetectable performance hit, you'd still insist SSAA was 'better'?Yes. That's what the word means in this context. Better is not the same thing as "better for me" or "better for weaker systems". The word better by itself implies higher quality. AF is better than trilinear. SSAA is better than MSAA. HBAO is better than SSAO. Dynamic shadows are better than static shadows, and so on. Efficiency doesn't factor into this. The ridiculous discussion that you guys are having right now proves my point :p |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)