Sign in to follow this  
Old_As_Dirt

Using 8xSSAA+FXAA rendering

Recommended Posts

Maybe someone has done and posted this before, but I read a lot of this and haven't seen it mentioned.

 

Last night I was playing around with renderings, and went into the basic Nvidia Control Panel/Manage 3D Settings area, and decided to turn on (It is off by default) Antialiasing - FXAA.

 

When I went back to flying, I found higher FRs and tried turning on the 8xSSAA+FXAA setting.

 

Normally, this would kill my FRs, but this time it had almost no effect, but gave me a shimmer-free environment.

 

I have since tried it with several aircraft and it seems to hold up with all of them.

 

So simple, and so helpful.

 

Again, I apologize if this is a known visual aid, but I hadn't seen it mentioned before, and it is working for me, so I wanted to pass it on and see if it would help anyone else as this has been a regular complaint.

 

Thanks,

 

John

Share this post


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

turned my FPS in 1/2! :-( 

8xxx is a killer..has always been, even on beefy systems.  I use 4xxx for that reason, and don't go past it.

 

I'm certainly going to give this tip, a try...but if it doesn't pan out on my system...still 4xxx is no dog show ! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

turned my FPS in 1/2! :-( 

No guarantees, but if it doesn't work, just go back and click on NO.  My i7-4700 (note - not overclockable) with 16 GB DRAM and a 770 4 GB video card is turning 39-40 in heavies, except on the tarmac watching the ground handling equipment.  I went to my D1900 Carenado, which is the hardest I have on FRs and it is holding about the same.  What works for one obviously doesn't work for all, but it did for me and I'm trying to share my experience.  Other than trees, traffic, and water, my settings are relatively high.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No guarantees, but if it doesn't work, just go back and click on NO.  My i7-4700 (note - not overclockable) with 16 GB DRAM and a 770 4 GB video card is turning 39-40 in heavies, except on the tarmac watching the ground handling equipment.  I went to my D1900 Carenado, which is the hardest I have on FRs and it is holding about the same.  What works for one obviously doesn't work for all, but it did for me and I'm trying to share my experience.  Other than trees, traffic, and water, my settings are relatively high.

 

John

 

do you use vsync or 1/2 refresh rate? I have to use that otherwise its not smooth for me, but I know I can achieve greater FPS! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the only other thing I have changed is Threaded Optimization, which is OFF.

 

Runs smoothly on my machine even with NOAA weather updates.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, but I can get up to 40-50 even 60 FPS easy, problem is its not smooth, screen tears or its jittery. on a 27" 60HZ Monitor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think screen tearing can be worse / more noticeable depending on the monitor.  I'm not sure if that's purely subjective, but I do know that I sure can notice even the slightest bit of tearing on my 32" 60Hz monitor.   So, yes, I absolutely need to run some sort of VSync, and adaptive 1/2 is generally the best. 

 

(Interestingly enough, and I have no idea why, I can also run standard 1/2, and I can still smoothly go down to 27 or 28 without any major jumps downward in the fps.  I didn't think that should be, but ??)

 

I've been running 8xSSAA + FXAA with FXAA turned on via NI.  About 95% of the time, it's really smooth, and I get great fps.  However, if I try to fly with that setting into anything but light clouds, my framerates tank.  As noted above, 4xSSAA + FXAA does a fairly good job, without the possible performance penalty.

 

I just had a thought - is the current SSAA level settable via a dataref??  I'm thinking it could be, since nothing reloads when you change the setting.  I'm then thinking that it could be dynamically adjusted to keep a certain FPS, the same way that the LOD can be, with a Lua script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would use 4xSSAA+FXAA as it maintains my 30FPS except when I look out of the left window of the Carenado PC12! So I have to put up with shimmering and 2x setting :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of monitors, I, last week, bought and replaced my 24" monitor with a 32" Vizio TV.  I knew and worried that I would have to reduce my 1920x1080 (I think) resolution and found that I, in fact did.  The highest it would allow, even on its "computer" setting with HDMI, was 13 something x 7 something.  Surprisingly, it did not appreciably change the clarity of the display - just made everything bigger.  That alone raised the FRs maybe 10%.  But the improvement discussed earlier was from the setting and FR on that monitor and maybe the lower resolution is the factor, but it is still very clear, readable, and no shimmers and no tearing (which I had on the smaller monitor).  I had wanted to buy a 4K set, but they were only available in sizes that I could not use (space limitation), not to mention that they were really expensive.  I really don't think it would have served any better than what I was able to buy for $189.  

 

So, maybe THAT is the difference, but whatever it is, my experience is great.  Maybe ..... less is better!

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of monitors, I, last week, bought and replaced my 24" monitor with a 32" Vizio TV.  I knew and worried that I would have to reduce my 1920x1080 (I think) resolution and found that I, in fact did.  The highest it would allow, even on its "computer" setting with HDMI, was 13 something x 7 something.  Surprisingly, it did not appreciably change the clarity of the display - just made everything bigger.  That alone raised the FRs maybe 10%.  But the improvement discussed earlier was from the setting and FR on that monitor and maybe the lower resolution is the factor, but it is still very clear, readable, and no shimmers and no tearing (which I had on the smaller monitor).  I had wanted to buy a 4K set, but they were only available in sizes that I could not use (space limitation), not to mention that they were really expensive.  I really don't think it would have served any better than what I was able to buy for $189.  

 

So, maybe THAT is the difference, but whatever it is, my experience is great.  Maybe ..... less is better!

 

John

 

If you enjoy your experience, that's what really matters in the end!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update...

 

I took my Vizio back this morning and upgraded for the 1920 x 1080 format.  No change in FRs and sharper picture.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The physical size of a monitor is not relevant to performance, it's the resolution setting/number of pixels.  At 1920 x 1080, that's 2,073,600 the video card has to drive.  Getting a physically larger monitor with the same resolution (1920 x 1080) looks exactly the same to the video card and work load is identical, so no changes to settings would be needed.  Reducing the resolution to 1366 x 768, that's only 1,049,088 pixels, or half the resolution.  So it's like doubling the power of your video card or halving it's workload.  So it's no wonder you can drive the setting up higher.  A 4K monitor has a resolution of 3840 × 2160 which is 8,294,400 pixels which equates to 4 times the resolution of your prior 1920 x 1080 settings.  That would put quite the load on the video card.  So when quoting settings, it's important to also point out what resolution you're running at to keep things in context.  I run 2560 x 1440 (3.6M pixels)...no way can I run 8xSSAA+FXAA.  So keep in mind that if you're shopping for a 4K monitor, it's probably going to require a new video card or reduced settings (maybe substantially) from a 1366 x 768 setting.

 

Also a monitor looks best at its native resolution, which is always the number of physical pixels the monitor contains.  Using a lower resolution will create artifacts because a 1366 x 768 (as an example) just doesn't fit exactly into a physical 1920 x 1080 matrix...so the video drivers will interpolate as best they can.  Artifacts are particularly noticeable when looking at text in windows.  In many cases it can look awful...and that's the reason.  And with lower resolution on a large monitor, fonts will tend to look less smooth overall.  But like Jiimmy said, if it works, enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The physical size of a monitor is not relevant to performance, it's the resolution setting/number of pixels.  At 1920 x 1080, that's 2,073,600 the video card has to drive.  Getting a physically larger monitor with the same resolution (1920 x 1080) looks exactly the same to the video card and work load is identical, so no changes to settings would be needed.  Reducing the resolution to 1366 x 768, that's only 1,049,088 pixels, or half the resolution.  So it's like doubling the power of your video card or halving it's workload.  So it's no wonder you can drive the setting up higher.  A 4K monitor has a resolution of 3840 × 2160 which is 8,294,400 pixels which equates to 4 times the resolution of your prior 1920 x 1080 settings.  That would put quite the load on the video card.  So when quoting settings, it's important to also point out what resolution you're running at to keep things in context.  I run 2560 x 1440 (3.6M pixels)...no way can I run 8xSSAA+FXAA.  So keep in mind that if you're shopping for a 4K monitor, it's probably going to require a new video card or reduced settings (maybe substantially) from a 1366 x 768 setting.

 

Also a monitor looks best at its native resolution, which is always the number of physical pixels the monitor contains.  Using a lower resolution will create artifacts because a 1366 x 768 (as an example) just doesn't fit exactly into a physical 1920 x 1080 matrix...so the video drivers will interpolate as best they can.  Artifacts are particularly noticeable when looking at text in windows.  In many cases it can look awful...and that's the reason.  And with lower resolution on a large monitor, fonts will tend to look less smooth overall.  But like Jiimmy said, if it works, enjoy!

In my last post, I said that I had switched TV/Monitors.  This one is 32" at 1920 x 1080 and is the same resolution as my previous monitor.  I am still running at 8xSSAA+FXAA and still getting the numbers.  Yes, I agree with your analysis above, but what I am saying is that it didn't change FRs with the higher resolution.  I still stick by the Nvidia panel setting, and offered it for no reason other than for others to try and see if it helps.  If it doesn't, just go back.  Nothing lost except a few minutes.  As you and Jimmy have said - it works, and I am enjoying.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, my mistake.  I thought you were saying you thought you would have to reduce your resolution because you bought a larger display, but you actually said the new display (TV) had a lower resolution.  Yep...it's clear now.  By the way, are you saying you're running the 8xSSAA setting on the nVidia setting directly?  If so, then what do you set it to inside XP?  Thanks!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - In my original post I said that I had only changed the Nvidia/Manage 3D Settings to Antialiasing - FXAA to ON (Default is OFF)

 

Inside XP, it is set to 8 x SSAA + FXAA.

 

They were the only changes.

 

Just finished a A350 flight and the lowest FR I saw was at landing 28 - 29.  I can live with that.  GPU-Z reports 4060GB usage, which means my card is maxed out, but it works!

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run 2560 x 1440 (3.6M pixels)...no way can I run 8xSSAA+FXAA.

 

It's worth noting that 2560 x 1440 on a 32" monitor is very much a sweet spot... looks wonderful and doesn't have the super fine pixel pitch associated with a smaller high resolution screen.

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