Don't think I don't know that my comments quite often put noses out. However, I don't see the point in not bringing this sort of stuff to the community just because it's might embarrass someone. I apologise to Bert for appearing overly assertive, but the technique I described and the reasons for it were not given fair appraisal. Bert was relying on Nicks document, yet intimated my setup was not worth consideration.

...it's a pity to close the thread I was hoping for an AMD owner to chime in.

...it's a pity to close the thread I was hoping for an AMD owner to chime in.

 

I don't think anyone will come in here, since the huge majority of FSX users own an NVIDIA GPU. If anti-aliasing is so much worse on NVIDIA, I honestly can't see why it's the recommended choice. I'm sure that this is the reason people think the internal anti-aliasing in Prepar3D 2.2 is horrible as well.

I apologise to Bert for appearing overly assertive, but the technique I described and the reasons for it were not given fair appraisal. Bert was relying on Nicks document, yet intimated my setup was not worth consideration.

Try it with just the first 8 words. When you follow an apology with "but" it's not an apology at all.

 

I think it's great that you are knowledgeable and willing to share your experiences, but it's even better if you do it with humility.

 

 

I don't think anyone will come in here, since the huge majority of FSX users own an NVIDIA GPU. If anti-aliasing is so much worse on NVIDIA, I honestly can't see why it's the recommended choice. I'm sure that this is the reason people think the internal anti-aliasing in Prepar3D 2.2 is horrible as well.

my experience...

 

Used to run with a GTX 580, AA was very good. I now run with a GTX770, have to admit, with the same settings it doesn't look quite as good. No idea why.

my experience...

 

Used to run with a GTX 580, AA was very good. I now run with a GTX770, have to admit, with the same settings it doesn't look quite as good. No idea why.

 

Interesting. With what anti-aliasing settings?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the newer NVIDIA GPUs have worse anti-aliasing than the older ones. I do know that they cut lots of stuff from Kepler to improve power efficiency, especially compute performance.

Try it with just the first 8 words. When you follow an apology with "but" it's not an apology at all.

 

 

'but' I am saying I have a reason for the assertiveness, that's not detracting. Now you've been unnecessarily rude.

Not rude, fact! If an apology is followed by "but" then excuses are being made for the behaviour. Basically it's saying I don't take full responsibility because it was caused by something you did.

A proper apology is an unreserved apology.
 
You said...

I apologise to Bert for appearing overly assertive, but the technique I described and the reasons for it were not given fair appraisal. Bert was relying on Nicks document, yet intimated my setup was not worth consideration.

 

Note the use of the word "appearing". Defined as appearing that way, but you don't really believe you were over assertive. Then you say how the catalyst for your response was others not giving you a fair appraisal and intimating your setup was not worth consideration.... thus blaming others for your behaviour.
 


 

Non-apology

At its best, an apology is an expression of sincere personal dislike for one's own actions, rather than a form of inflammatory rhetoric or empty emotional coercion. A "non-apology" on the other hand is seen as a way of qualifying, or even avoiding, a "real" apology in this sense of the word.

The classic "non-apology" is something like "I'm sorry you're upset, but if you're too stupid to understand, there's not much I can do!" – or a form of words that gives this kind of impression. "I'm sorry that you were upset" – or, worse, "I'm sorry that you took offense at my remarks" can have this effect, and can compound the problem further, or cause further offense. In effect one is expressing regret for the actions of the person we are "apologising" to – effectively turning the apology on its head!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Apology

I wouldn't be surprised if the newer NVIDIA GPUs have worse anti-aliasing than the older ones. I do know that they cut lots of stuff from Kepler to improve power efficiency, especially compute performance.

No idea why. I wondered if it were drivers, but no better with newer ones. Don't get me wrong, AA is good, but I do sincerely believe it was somewhat better with the 580GTX. To match the 580GTX higher AA is required I guess.

Great card though, with BP=0 and a 3770K overclokced the sim is fast.

Hehe Martin, very good. I'll continue posting about flight sim technique, while you continue with the patronising diatribe as Bert's minder.

Just trying to encourage people to be nice to each other. It's easy really. Makes it a nice environment for all of us.

 

Love and peace man!

P3D is more or less the same as FSX. Make sure to start a new profile with NVidia control panel. then in a new default NI profile for Prepar3D, make the same settings I showed for FSX above, in P3D set MSAA to 8 samples, anisotropic to 16x for example.

There a great deal of speculation there. P3D V2.2 being  DX11 requires quite a difference in the AA settings. NI never had much effect on DX11 or DX10 programs, P3D or any other titles.. Not saying you cant get some AA injection but nothing like DX9.

Yes, very true, although DX10 and DX11 have similarities. I've been using a very similar setup for P3Dv2.2. But DX9 has the converse AA configuration, in that to improve it we have to set AA=off in the sim, and we don't need to set Transparency AA since it does nothing.

Yes, very true, although DX10 and DX11 have similarities. I've been using a very similar setup for P3Dv2.2. But DX9 has the converse AA configuration, in that to improve it we have to set AA=off in the sim, and we don't need to set Transparency AA since it does nothing.

 

Hmm, since both the OP and I are running DX9... is that the cause of our mis-communication earlier?

hehe, well must be Bert because I was convinced this is a "DX10 AA does not work with AA=off" etc. discussion and never paid it a second thought. :smile: It's the other way round with DX9, any adjustment to transparency AA does not work, and AA must be off in the sim.

...I posted the transparency setup and Chaotic remarked on it clearing up the shimmers, so DX10 was a done deal and I never looked back.

Steve,

 

For your information, I needed AA switched on in FSX using DX9 mode. I also had Anisotropic filtering enabled.

Steve,

 

For your information, I needed AA switched on in FSX using DX9 mode. I also had Anisotropic filtering enabled.

 

Yes Chris, AA in FSX seems to create a great deal of confusion. FSX AA=on works in DX9 because the in sim AA is not bad in DX9 mode but also the 'override any app setting' works. I use '4x4 [4x4 Supersampling (D3D only)]' but some swear by 'AA_MODE_METHOD_SUPERVCAA_64X_4v12';

 

I think the reason for those reporting poor AA recently is that maybe they switched to DX10.

Steve,

 

This is why I get confused with comments from people that the graphics look better in DX10 mode than they do in DX9. Anti aliasing and anisotropic filtering in FSX are not as good in DX10 mode on my PC, and that makes a big difference to the quality of the graphics. Too much shimmering for my liking. Text may be slightly clearer in DX10 mode, but it's the graphics that matter, and that slightly "fuzzy" look in DX9 mode with high levels of AA and AF "smooths" out any imperfections. In fact, isn't that the point? Or is this partly because I run FSX at 1280x1024 resolution? I have seen comments that AA and AF are less important at really high resolutions, but I don't know if this is correct or not....

 

On a side note, this is exactly why I will always say that the textured graphics in FS5 looked absolutely awful when compared to the untextured vector graphics in FS4. They may have been using a more advanced display technique, but the horrible shimmering put me at risk of permanent eye damage. They were shockingly bad.