Sign in to follow this  
Guest

High Res or FSAA - what is better? - Paul?

Recommended Posts

Hi y'all,hi Paul,I have been experimenting a lot lately, but the more I try the more confused I am getting.In your opinion what is better in terms of framerates and picture quality?1. Running at high res like 1600x1200x32?2. Running at a lower res like 1200x1024x32 with FSSA 2x.3. Running at 1200x1024x32 and quincux?Thx fr every opinion.Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

My opinion: What do you like?I like 16 X 12 X 32 with No AAThats me.Cheers,bt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same. 1600*1200*32 & no AAL.AdamsonAthlon1900XPGeforce3Ti50022" monitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi y'all, >hi Paul, >>I have been experimenting a lot lately, but the more I try >the more confused I am getting. >>In your opinion what is better in terms of framerates and >picture quality? >1. Running at high res like 1600x1200x32? >2. Running at a lower res like 1200x1024x32 with FSSA 2x. >3. Running at 1200x1024x32 and quincux? >>Thx fr every opinion. >>AlexHi Alex,I dunno! :)You bring up a good topic, but one that is highly subjective depending on the individual preference as well as what hardware one has, but here is mine: I would love to run at AA x4 at 1600x1200x32 with Aniso at 32tap/level4 But I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,it seems you have a very well tuned rig there. What I am also asking myself is what add-ons you are running in the background.Seems I cannot get the system performance you have. My 3dMark2001 score is just stuck below 10000. That seems low for a sys like mine but a least it is done with honest driver settings like aniso4. My usual setup at the moment is like this:Aircraft:DF Piper Archer II, orFSD Commander, orCessna Golden EaglePrograms in the backgound:FDC, AOL 7.0, FSMeteo, FSNAvigatorTwo monitor setup:Display 1: FS2002, FullscreenDisplay 2: FSNAvigator, FSD Commander or Cessna Golden Eagle Radiostack, GPSMy rig:MSI K7T266 Pro2Athon XP 2100+512 MB Apacer DDR-Ram (all BIOS settings for max perf., stable)MSI GF 4600Ti (no o/c except RAM (700MHz)OS: WinXPHomeI have FS2002 usually running at 16x12x32 with aniso level 4, no AA.When I enable AAx2 it is just enough load for my rig to give me blurries, stutters and other stuff.I had some stutters lately anyway, but I suspect that the dual monitor setup is responsible for this.Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,What if the maximum resolution that your flight simulator runs at is 1024*768 ? :-lolChris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lot of difference at all. Maybe one or two frames better. But I do not like the picture quality. When I enable FSAA I am back to the performance at 16x12x32. When I enable quincux I think I have performance even worse than at 16x12 without any FSAA.But I did not bench this. It is all very subjective in a sense.Ask me tomorrow and I will give you another statement. That is why I opened the thread in the first place.Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, the answer to yr post seems a little silly now. I misread yr post and thought you were asking for 1200x1024 (by the way Paul u r right about the relation). 1024x768 that was five years ago.Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx Cave,that is a very interesting link. Now I am experimenting with 4xS without any aniso and form the first look that seems like an interesting new approach.Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact for the moment it seems 16x12x32 with AA 4xs and AF2 seems to be choice. But wait until tomorrow :-).Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use 1024x768x32 and 2x FSAA and Level4 aniso on my Ti500.I would use 1152x864x32 but some text becomes blocky and unreadable on the panels. Anything above 1152x864x32 with FSAA/aniso is too slow.I dont use Quincunx, because it blurs the virtual cockpits.1024x768 with 2x FSAA is the sweet spot for me, and it looks better than 1600x1200x32 to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex,Why exactly do you consider 1024*768 resolution to be "five years ago" ? I currently run EVERYTHING at this resolution (desktop, flight simulators, games), and it looks great on my 17" monitor.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex,I discovered that 4xS anti-aliasing with my GeForce 3 Titanium 200 provides the best visuals for Flight Unlimited 3, since getting anisotropic filtering to work with this appears to be rather tricky. 4xS certainly looks better than standard 4x, and also Quincunx.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Chris that is surely o.k..The thing is the high end graphics cards (like GF3Ti or GF4Ti) almost take no frame rate hit when you run them on higher resolutions. I have a 19 inch monitor and since I bought a GF3 two years ago I basically run every game at a resolution higher than 1024x768 beacuse it simply looks far better. This only applies for games however. My desktop normally is still set to 1024x768.Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi y'all,after palying around for almost the whole afternoon, I would everybody having a GF4 urge to try AA4s. In the beginning of course you are afraid of the frame rate hit. However in article that was linked by Caveman it is made very clear that AA4s alraedy containy some kind of aniso (sorry for my bad technical description, if you want to have decent explanation follow Cave's link). So here is the result in MY opinion. As pointed out by Paul that is all pretty subjective. And I did no benchs or still compares.1. AA4s + AF 2 almost offer the same texture quality on the ground than AF4. In fact it was hard for me to see any difference.2. Frame rate with AA4s +AF2 is almost the same.3. Buildings, 3D Objects, autogen, clouds and the VC look a lot better than with AA4 only. Especially will you almost completely get rid of the shimmering autogen in the distance (LOD was at -0.3 when testing).4. Texture updates seem to be a lot faster with AA4s + AF2 than with AF4. Hardly could I ever see any blurred textures. However they might as well just fit in better.5. This might all change when Nvidia brings us drivers that have less performance issues with AF!To make a long story short: I will stick a while with:1600x1200x32, AA4s, AF2, LOD -0.3At least until tomorrow I will see something totally different :-).Cheers,Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My choice on this system ....P4 1.8gig, Intel D845BG motherboard, 512mb DDR ram,Windows XP (home),VisionTek Xtasy GeForce4 Ti 4600 video (29.80 drivers)1600x1200x32, Quincunx AA, Anisotropy level 4, Mipmap LOD -0.3Fastwrites and sideband on, no overclocking of anythingExcellent overall picture quality, smooth performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to figure out why I do not have the 1600x1200 x32 available in settings. I have 1600x1200 x16 but no x32. The highest 32 bit resolution I can select is 1600x1024. I can select up tp 85Mhz 1600x1200x32 for desktop in display properties. I should have the hardware and drivers to be able to use this rez and it is available in other games so I don't understand why it is not selectable in MSFS2002.Any advice would be appreciated1.4Mhz P4 O/C to 1.6Asus P4T MB384MB RambusWin XP ProfessionalVisiontek G4 4600Ti30.30 Nvidia DriversVision Master Pro 450 19" monitorThanks,Steve Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve - It's one of those FS2002 "thingies". If you set your desktop resolution to 1600x1200x32 then you'll also be able to select it as a fullscreen option in FS2002.TripNorthwood 2.2a at 2.72Ghz Abit TH7II-R512MB Samsung 40ns PC800Gainward GF4 64MB Ti4200 285/57029.42's DX8.1 WinXP ProInwin case / Enermax 431W PSU3DMark2001SE = 11868http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3981159

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,it is a bug within FS2002. Set your desktop to 1600x1200x32 before you start FS2002. If you do this 1600x1200x32 will appear in the FS2002 display settings.Another way is to directly edit the fs2002.cfg. There is an entry for the resolution. Edit it by hand. FS2002 must not run otherwise it will overwrite your entry.Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is infact another (seventh) resolution which conforms to the 1.333 ratio :-640x480800x600960x720 <-----1024x7681152x8641280x9601600x1200...but not all drivers/apps/hardware supports it. I can use FS98,2000 and 2002 using 960x720 using my Voodoo 5.Chris Ehttp://website.lineone.net/~flightsimukAvoid AGP texturing = Better Performance ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this