Is it worth the fps hit? I've had to turn AA off, wondering if I should turn this off too. Have a Geforce 3 200i btw. Thx!rgds,billg

Makes your textures appear sharper. A worthy option to make maximum use of if you can still get some performance.

It helps by turning the brown scenery "soup" in the distance into detail and getting rid of autogen shimmering.. Experiment with it on and off and decide if it is worth the fps hit on your system. On newer cards, you can run at least 2xAF without fps penalty..

Just for giggles, although I'm still not exactly positive how it works in graphics cards, here's Webster's take:AnisotropicPronunciation: "a-"nI-s&-'tr

You have to add all 3 previous answers to get the right answer.Bilinear / trilinear filtering works ok as long as you see a texture from straight ahead. If you see a texture from an angle you get artifacts. Anisotropic fitering corrects those artifacts, as it takes the direction from which you're looking at the texture into account.Honestly, I can mostly barely spot the difference, and since anisotropic filtering really eats framerates, it's not a bad idea to leave this off on low end systems (unless you're really concerended about the small quality loss).Cheers, Christian

>Honestly, I can mostly barely spot the difference, and since>anisotropic filtering really eats framerates, it's not a bad>idea to leave this off on low end systems (unless you're>really concerended about the small quality loss).>>Cheers, ChristianHehe, you haven't seen it on a high end system - it makes a HUGE difference if you can really crank it up. I was running FS2004 8XAA and 4XAF on my brother's new comp a few weeks back and the difference with the AF on was amazing.Ryan

>Is it worth the fps hit? I've had to turn AA off, wondering>if I should turn this off too. Have a Geforce 3 200i btw.>Thx!>>rgds,>billgHere is some good old info for you using the GF3 with pics included:http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce3/anisotropic.shtml(16 sample Aniso=2x 32 samples=4x and 64 samples=8x)And here are some FS2k2 benchmarks for you:http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/revie...%20vs%20GF4.htm

Here's AF in action.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/35473.gifI can't fly without it. On my Radeon 9500 Pro, I find 4x a good balance of looks and performance.

Nice work Jimmy!

Cool! Thx for the info. AA and AF are almost totally video card dependant are they not? Meaning that upgrading from a G3 Ti200 to an ATI 9800 pro should allow me to set both AA and AF at relatively high levels independant of CPU? Although I have a 2.6ghz with 1gb RAM, so that shouldn't be an issue I hope.Thx again!rgds,billg

That is exactly right! :)

Just upgraded from a GF3 Ti200 to an ATI Radeon non-pro myself. I have AA set to max (6x) and AF set to max (16x) and my frame rate sits pegged at 30fps (30fps frame rate lock) most times. Heck, I even watch TV on the secondary display during flight (gotta have inflight entertainment hey :) ) and it barely drops the FPS. In comparison, my GF3 Ti200 winced if I turned AA or AF up over 2x and TV was a nogo during takeoff and landing due to frame rate hit.Me happy Radeon 9800 camper :)Gary

Jimmy,Excellent pics to demo the filter use. I had mine turned off, can't believe the improvment turning it on makes.In fact running at 1024x768 6x AA and 16X AF, looks better than 1600x1200 did with the options off. And I get similar framerates.