Are you talking about 4xS, or 4x Multisampling? 4xS is actually a seriously heavy-duty setting with far lower performance than most anyone would want. 4x Multisampling alone is a low quality setting that is too ugly for the majority of people. And the whole point of this exploration as Carlo just said is to get the best IQ WITHOUT compromising control. If we didn't care about control, we'd just crank it up to the highest settings, which always look better.
Yeah 4S with nuttin' else Marc. Take into account I do not run full shadows or 16xAF or HDR nor do I like Silverstone or other framerate sucking leeches of tracks. Too Ugly ? If you say so, I rather have 120fps+ any day of the week Like I said what has ugly got to do with smooth fast lapping I have no idea......... ! http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/9036-ATI-and-NVIDIA-updates?p=321729&viewfull=1#post321729
Like I stress put into context !! . If you have a more powerful tower then I do........................ well debating it is pointless and argumentative, why would you use these settings ? I would be a idjit GTX670 is a 2GB card. When you start to throw maximum settings in rF2 at them imho they get big bursts of data. Now even though it is still good fps you will see the framerate drop and rise more significantly then before , from that I feel a latency. If I run lower quality settings the framerate remains consistently steadier and my car is smoother. ======== Look it is pretty easy to work out you can run set quality on a given system to get 100+ fps okay. Maybe you have to drop everything to low no AA ..... Maybe you can run high settings. Point being it is irrelevant in this exercise. Okay so now on the same PC configure graphics to run 50-60fps Tell me what will be smoother. Keep in mind there is a point a PC gets fast enough to overcome this in most situations but mine ain't one of them. edit http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/9036-ATI-and-NVIDIA-updates?p=321729&viewfull=1#post321729
Durge, how the ***** are you getting a clean picture like that with just basic 4xMSAA, no full-screen supersampling, no transparency supersampling. Has that image been downscaled? I'd like to see a native 1920x1080 pic with your GFX settings. Are you using DSR? By the way (mentioned in my first post), if you're using 4xMSAA, you might as well use 8xCSAA as it does an even better job of antialiasing (in rF2 not sure about other game engines) + has the same framerates if not higher (same with 16xCSAA VS 8xMSAA [8xMSAA is also known as 8xQ]). You should try it out, see if it works for you like it does with me
No mate Here is my inspector settings and rF2. I in W8.1 online atm using same windowed mode working well too .......... waiting for company ( hint hint ) loool Look when I run those settings for that benchtest here it absolutely killed my PC for smoothness. Looked better but not a great deal. I get pretty fixed on the road in front when I lap online not much else. At Brianza there those settings I get 100-150 fps online ( that shot is online but closed room testing Ai ...as if you cant tell by grouping hehehe ) Remember high shadows only, no HDR , only 8xAF ........ edit: doh you right of course, that is a cropped 4K but using my settings { below is 1920 online ) But like I said while running at 140mph does it make much difference.
As we have discussed ad nauseum, static screen shots don't reveal IQ. You have to see a moving image and yes, YouTube compression will destroy any ability to compare. Static screen shots of high res scenes look quite acceptable even at very low levels of AA (rF2 built-in levels).
I know Marc I brought that point up myself remember. I further contend that baseline tests just get people running those settings which shouldn't imho Too high for anything but high end machines. But because it is a baseline test newbies think that what they must run and any less is somehow inferior. I tell you that G6 there at 217mph you dont see jags trust me...........
Well that's why your image looks much better than everyone else's at only 4xMSAA, because you're using 4K DSR. Most people aren't using it.
Yes true stuff like the brake lines stick out in that one lool Still that G6 or F3 at Stavelot they do not look bad by any stretch ? Using 4aAA I get no shimmers or sparkys that make Eau Rouge haybales like they are alive Sure 8xAF dumbs the textures down but so what a bessa block wall or Spa garage door is a bit blurry big deal ? lmao On track at 140mph you just do not see it. I can do settings the "nice looking way" and I get 80 fps add HDR and 16xAF it be more like 60fps Why would I do that when I can run 120fps + smooth and screenshot one handed around Stavelot. lool 60fps would create funnels in data transfers , ie: on heavy part of course, like mini bottlenecks , this in turn can lead to micro stutter and crap which is what will make you understeer. What just for best looking gfx ? No thanks Like I said it all comes back to you and what you like, your specific system, cars and tracks and numbers and what you feel I guess ................... not some static tests or pre-set replays suit all.
DD--are you using DSR or not? If so, your entire rant about others using high quality settings is nullified. You can use DSR and then use "lower-quality" settings for AA, or, not use DSR and use "higher-quality" settings for AA. Six of one, half of dozen of the other.
Rant ? If ranting gets only one person to turns their settings down to find they get smoother laps so be it. I never implied everyone will do better lap ( roll eyes ) or that all you need for rF2 are my system specs and settings ....... "Ari" ( roll eyes ) No and yes I used DSR for about 6 shots I posted some full res 2 or 3 I cropped I forgot and picked it from thumbnails It was a pure accident honestly, I always said I ran lower settings with less quality more blur so it would be stupid to try and pull that off, I not going to BS for a thread. The next 2 I posted ( POST #185) are 1920 after Spin pointed that out, actually I never even really looked at the pic I posted , my glasses are terrible over due for new ones and as Ari says I use a blurry ugly 60Hz monitor. lool Anyway point is you told me people wouldn't want to run that sort of quality. are you telling me my 2 pics above I corrected with non DSR and the same NV profile I posted with no full shadows no HDR and no 16xAF ........are poor or ugly. What a snob ! loool I mean remember this is what started this to begin with you saying......... Well if mine is UGLY and others that run too high a settings have smoothness and latency issues what am I to say. ?
Well, It doesn't matter what your frame rate is, it will be limited to the refresh rate of the monitor. FPS = Frames per second Hz = Cycles per second. FPS and Hz are basically the same thing, In this case they both mean screen updates per second. The optimum ratio is 1:1, The graphics card sends one frame and that get displayed on screen, then sends a another frame etc. If you have a 120fps and a refresh rate of 60hz, it simply can't display all 120fps. It either drops 60 frames, or combines 1 and half frames and displays it as one frame. Both will result in screen tearing which is pretty annoying. This is the naked truth and you not change it, dream on baby dream on.........
4x Multisampling alone is uglier than most would want. Unless you combine it with DSR, in which case it's equivalent (IQ and performance) to a much higher setting. The kind of higher setting you are telling people not to waste their time using.
Well like I said here is my 4x again I can't see what is that ugly. I can make out skins of drivers on the 5th and 6th row, I don't see any jags no shimmer or sparkles. Does it look less realistic ambiance ? Yes a tad. But can I race a grid of F3 skins and do my best tow laps without any slow up .......Yes You think the DSR shot is that much better overall, really ? I mean I can see the difference Marc sure but ugly does not come to mind
Far from ugly DD, and that stay fine even on my FullHD TV 40". Good FPS and fine for racing, what else?
When I get a GTX970 I will be able to run the extra settings I would like and attain same fps , but to do so now would just degrade my overall online lapping. Plus the thing is I am not a ENB / HDR lover, never have been. But ......... the early builds of F3 I was using HDR with a GTX460 and getting these sort of fps ( see pic ) Used to look lovely and was smooth with GTX460s and GTX570 * Check the marbles on road in Pic 1
680 is fine card there is nothing wrong with it, I have 3 other PC`s also 480gtx, 580gtx and 680gtx they all run rFactor2 fine.
How many times does static screen shot means nothing in this debate have to be repeated? If it looks good to you and performs as well in motion as static, congratulations. It's not good enough for me on my rig at my resolution. Could be because I am using a larger screen; could be because my eyesight is better; could be because I have higher expectations and standards when it comes to IQ; could be because my rig is screwed-up; could be something random. Who cares? If you are thrilled with your settings and see no need to explore other settings, why are you here interrupting the rest of our conversation?
?? DD is participating, giving his opinion, providing interesting information, etc., not interrupting, Sorry, no offence, but I don't agree Marc. BTW DD, I just ordered a GTX970 to replace my GTX670, so I'll be able to see what's new NV drivers and new AA options can give on my config. Now patience, deliver not before mid december (out of stock, too many success)... Does people updated drivers with the last 3 shots Drivers versions from NVidia? It seems they are made only for last available games (AC, etc. ) so i'm not sure it will improve something for us...
Sorry, I am sure it seems like I am over-reacting and maybe I am. DD is railing against the fact that there are multiple similar discussions about graphics tweaking and doing it in every one of those other threads. And making the same point in each one about his settings.
