You are confusing KZ:SF's Motion Blur, which is intentional, with their AA technique.
KZ:SF's AA is the best you will see on any next-gen game at launch.
What i don't get is why console games don't use SMAA. It doesn't cost much more, if at all.
-------------
Forza Horizon is 4xMSAA + FXAA on console, albeit @ a solid 30FPS.
FXAA is not good at showing off screenshots, but at 1080p at least, it looks better when playing the game than not having it. Keep in mind here they use it in combination with another AA technique, and the overall result is not typically fxaa-smudgy.Maybe, but 1080p + [some implementations of] FXAA still looks terrible and i say this as a PC gamer who has tried FXAA @ 1440p and i can't stand it.
I look forward to DF's grabs, though.
I also really enjoy how people who are most likely completely oblivious to the intricacies of game development are acting like they know better than seasoned developers like Guerrilla Games.
TMAA
Transparency Multi-sampling Anti-aliasing
A type of TrAA. It works by applying MSAA to flat pictures while leaving the real 3D models in the scene to be handled by other AA methods or by MSAA with a different number of samples.
they were right about that input lag though...
Nah, Cryteks is better. SMAA is much cleaner and more comprehensive than FXAA whilst also having a temporal component.
I am not sure why devs choose FXAA as their PPAA when SMAA is just that much better. It is not as if it is super expensive or anything...
This isn't about which game looks better. This is about which AA method is better. So far most users on this board who have experience with both would say SMAA is better. Crytek's T2x SMAA implementation also seemed particularly impressive in their demonstrations.No Crytek's is not better. I agree that Ryse has excellent AA, but KZ:SF is equally good.
Thank you sir.
Could be wrong, but I don't think this TMAA is the same thing as that.
No Crytek's is not better. I agree that Ryse has excellent AA, but KZ:SF is equally good.
.
The game is running at 900p and 30 fps. This seems to be a better compromise.This isn't about which game looks better. This is about which AA method is better. So far most users on this board who have experience with both would say SMAA is better. Crytek's T2x SMAA implementation also seemed particularly impressive in their demonstrations.
http://www.iryoku.com/smaa/
There's no input lag. Calling it that is also just plain trolling at this point.
Explains the soft look in the recently posted video. I hope it looks better played on my TV.
FXAA is not good at showing off screenshots, but at 1080p at least, it looks better when playing the game than not having it. Keep in mind here they use it in combination with another AA technique, and the overall result is not typically fxaa-smudgy.
TMAA+SMAA=Boss.
TMAA+SMAA=Boss.
I have, but even that footage is not high quality enough to judge AA coverage beyond transparency really. You need really high quality stills or footage... which we do not have yet.
I am saying SMAA is better (and Ryse has better AA as a result) because SMAA 1x by default has better coverage than FXAA. That is a fact many PC users can attest to.
That is not even including thetemporal stuff they are doing in ryse. which is better than the afformentioned SMAA T2x
These are direct frame buffer captures. AA seems to be highly effective without compromising on IQ.
Oh yeah that's true, but better that than the sight of any jaggies.The TMAA in that article is in all likelihood not the TMAA GG is using. He said they are not using multi-sampling.. so they are probably not multisampling their vegtation or something...
It is probably just a temporal AA.
This game on a technical level destroys every launch title on next-gen hardware. This is literally Sony putting their foot down and saying we have the better hardware, deal with it.
Those look MUCH better than the video.
I'd prefer SMAA, like several others said. I generally prefer no AA to FXAA. But I am unfamiliar with the combination of FXAA and TMAA so I'm not sure if this is good or bad. The KZ video / pics don't look horrible, but I still think no AA might be better.
Really, what I'd prefer is if 1080 games didn't use FXAA at all. 720, sure go for it.
Err, I'm confused. You don't evaluate AA with stills or screen shots. You evaluate AA in motion. The KZ:SF shows their AA in motion at 60fps and jaggies are practically nonexistent.
KZ:SF is doing FXAA plus TMAA. They haven't explained TMAA yet, but it likely has a Temporal component in it. And it is doing it at 60fps.
Ryse is running at half the speed (30fps) and at much lower resolution (900p). They have to implement a higher quality AA algorithm to achieve equivalent picture quality to KZ:SF.
Eh what?If BF4 was 1080p on PS4 you wouldn't be saying that. Good thing DICE values framerate over resolution.
Sorry sir think you need someone will much more knowledge on the subject to explain
This game on a technical level destroys every launch title on next-gen hardware. This is literally Sony putting their foot down and saying we have the better hardware, deal with it.
Well yes, as I said, FXAA is not so good for showing off screenshots, but in motion and at 1080p it looks better with it than without, at least IMO.I disagree. You only have to go into the HRSS thread and the FXAA posts stick out like a sore thumb. OTOH, it's being suggested we can't go off the videos because we may confuse (lol) motion blur for FXAA
I think this is why they unlocked singleplayer framerate. A locked 30fps isn't enough, they want to show you it can render five or ten additional frames on top of it, motherfuckers.This game on a technical level destroys every launch title on next-gen hardware. This is literally Sony putting their foot down and saying we have the better hardware, deal with it.
Probably temporal morphological AA. I always thought it was their take on SMAA (which stands for subpixel morphological AA, but also has temporal correction component) Btw, I told you those screens a week or so back can't be just FXAAThe TMAA in that article is in all likelihood not the TMAA GG is using. He said they are not using multi-sampling.. so they are probably not multisampling their vegtation or something...
It is probably just a temporal AA.
? Really?
Noooooo.. The High Res footage looked pretty clean actually. Not as blurry as the BF4 PS4 footage we've seen thus far.
Probably temporal morphological AA. I always thought it was their take on SMAA (which stands for subpixel morphological AA, but also has temporal correction component) Btw, I told you those screens a week or so back can't be just FXAA
SMAA sounds like the way to go for future titles.
Nah, Cryteks is better. SMAA is much cleaner and more comprehensive than FXAA whilst also having a temporal component.
I am not sure why devs choose FXAA as their PPAA when SMAA is just that much better. It is not as if it is super expensive or anything...
It's probably FXAA on top of TMAA, kind of like how some games let you apply FXAA on top of MSAA. I'm curious as well what tmaa is doing exactly, but I think it's the main reason why the things like the trees and fences don't look all shimmery and why the image doesn't look overall too soft like it tends to with just fxaa. It still has some of that look on textures though, I agree, but perhaps they count that most people have some level of sharpening enabled on their TVs so it won't look that way on TVs.Hah, that is true. ;D You did say that. I acquiesce to your superiority.
IMO, it still does just look like FXAA in a lot of ways. I would really like to see how much this TMAA (temporal) really does help (with direct comparisons: without and with).
Well yes, as I said, FXAA is not so good for showing off screenshots, but in motion and at 1080p it looks better with it than without, at least IMO.