SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 35 of 41 « First 2531323334 35 36373839 Last »
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=202)
-   -   FSAA/Anti-aliasing/Major resolution problem (merged) (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=106588)

Boris 03-21-07 06:45 AM
What of the rumour that series 8 Geforces allow post processing with FSAA? Can anyone confirm this?

Father 03-21-07 06:49 AM
I"m getting ready to take this back to the shop as well, I won't get all my money back but they buy back games.

The lack of AA support is a joke, and by the screenshots that were released prior I feel completely cheated here.

Not only the lack of AA is crap but also vertical sync can't be enabled.

I can't force it via the gfx card either.

Even at my native res of 1920x1200 on a dell 24" which is supported as a resolution things look almost worse then at 1024, seems like the graphics themselves become inflated making it look even jaggier.

Running on an LCD vsync is pretty essential and the tearing I am getting is absolutely shocking.

A real shame as I really enjoyed SH3, I even had SH4 on pre-order but as good as the game might be the graphical quality of it is so bad that I simply cannot take the approach of "could be better but it will do" this time.
Sorry but looking like this I really can't play it.

I'll hang out a little bit in hope of a solution but it seems that the issues are fundamental to the graphics engine so :cry:

DragonRR1 03-21-07 07:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Father
I"m getting ready to take this back to the shop as well, I won't get all my money back but they buy back games.

The lack of AA support is a joke, and by the screenshots that were released prior I feel completely cheated here.

Not only the lack of AA is crap but also vertical sync can't be enabled.

I can't force it via the gfx card either.

Even at my native res of 1920x1200 on a dell 24" which is supported as a resolution things look almost worse then at 1024, seems like the graphics themselves become inflated making it look even jaggier.

Running on an LCD vsync is pretty essential and the tearing I am getting is absolutely shocking.

A real shame as I really enjoyed SH3, I even had SH4 on pre-order but as good as the game might be the graphical quality of it is so bad that I simply cannot take the approach of "could be better but it will do" this time.
Sorry but looking like this I really can't play it.

I'll hang out a little bit in hope of a solution but it seems that the issues are fundamental to the graphics engine so :cry:
I am 99% certain that the fix for the problem is doable and not that difficult. From my limited experience and discussions with industry friends it is actually more difficult in Direct X to produce a combination of resolutions on the same screen, that they are forcing the low resolution for frame rate or other reasons. The question for me is more... will they actually allow the fix to be done?

Judging by the number of complaints I would think that they have little choice!

DJSatane 03-21-07 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Father
I"m getting ready to take this back to the shop as well, I won't get all my money back but they buy back games.

The lack of AA support is a joke, and by the screenshots that were released prior I feel completely cheated here.

Not only the lack of AA is crap but also vertical sync can't be enabled.

I can't force it via the gfx card either.

Even at my native res of 1920x1200 on a dell 24" which is supported as a resolution things look almost worse then at 1024, seems like the graphics themselves become inflated making it look even jaggier.

Running on an LCD vsync is pretty essential and the tearing I am getting is absolutely shocking.

A real shame as I really enjoyed SH3, I even had SH4 on pre-order but as good as the game might be the graphical quality of it is so bad that I simply cannot take the approach of "could be better but it will do" this time.
Sorry but looking like this I really can't play it.

I'll hang out a little bit in hope of a solution but it seems that the issues are fundamental to the graphics engine so :cry:
Have you tried changing synchronized to yes under [video] in main.cfg (in your documents\sh4\cfg\ folder)? That did the trick for me as far as vsync.

Ark 03-21-07 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Immacolata
Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler
U CAN set any resolution what u want BUT 3d engine is fixed and upscaled from 1024x768 = u have still same big pixels like 1024x768 on all resolutions, still same jaggy graphics because is it still 1024x768.
Turn off post processing filters.
That doesn't do anything for the resolution.

sjw985 03-21-07 09:51 AM
What's the best way to take uncompressed screen grabs? When I get home from work I'll take comparative shots at 1024x768 and 1920x1080 so y'all can all see the difference (or lack therof) that 163% more pixels makes on SH4.

I don't buy the limited performance argument. I remember hearing the same thing about SH3 and it wasn't true then, either. Now we live in a world where quad CPUs and GPUs are available already. SH4 may be a few incremental steps forward but it's hardly a generational leap. And imagine what hardware will be like at the end of SH4's lifecycle?

Developing to the "lowest common denominator" without scaleability is a mistake. I haven't used 1024x768 since 1995. Oh wait, that's not true. I used it for SH3. until the DLL-fix came out.

Anyway, I'm patient enough to wait for a solution, assuming that there is one.

Paajtor 03-21-07 10:39 AM
I am really puzzled, why they made the GUI able to go at super high-res, while the 3D-world behind it is stuck at 1024x768, but simply stretched to fit the chosen resolution.

Why not have it the other way around?
Have the GUI fixed at 1024x768 and "stretchable", and the 3D-world at the resolution you choose.

But suppose they release a patch, that makes this possible...then the patch would also have to contain GUI-versions for every possible resolution, to prevent egg-shaped dials and stuff?

OneTinSoldier 03-21-07 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjw985
What's the best way to take uncompressed screen grabs? When I get home from work I'll take comparative shots at 1024x768 and 1920x1080 so y'all can all see the difference (or lack therof) that 163% more pixels makes on SH4.
The following may not work but you can try it. I'm not sure if SH's hardcoded binding of the PrtScrn key will interfere. Anyway...

Download FSScreen from here:

http://www.simradar.com/File/2791/FS...rsion_1_1.html


Run FSScreen before you fire up your game(it takes up very very little resources). Every time you press 'PrtScrn' on your keyboard it saves a .bmp screenshot of exactly what is on your screen. The screenshots are written to the folder where you ran FSScreen from. If it works ok, I wouldn't doubt if you get a little pause every time you press PrtScrn. You will probably be saving two large files... the .bmp and then a .tga in your SH4 root folder(if it's like sh3 which has a built-in prtscrn function that saves as .tga's). But anyway, a .bmp(bitmap) is as uncompressed as you can get!


And I don't buy the limited performance argument either. They already took out the ability to force AA, which can cause a performance hit, which means there should be no need to lock res to 1024x768 and upscale it... in the name of better performance.

Good Luck

DaMaGe007 03-21-07 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneTinSoldier
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjw985
What's the best way to take uncompressed screen grabs? When I get home from work I'll take comparative shots at 1024x768 and 1920x1080 so y'all can all see the difference (or lack therof) that 163% more pixels makes on SH4.
The following may not work but you can try it. I'm not sure if SH's hardcoded binding of the PrtScrn key will interfere. Anyway...

Download FSScreen from here:

http://www.simradar.com/File/2791/FS...rsion_1_1.html


Run FSScreen before you fire up your game(it takes up very very little resources). Every time you press 'PrtScrn' on your keyboard it saves a .bmp screenshot of exactly what is on your screen. The screenshots are written to the folder where you ran FSScreen from. If it works ok, I wouldn't dount if you get a little pause every time you press PrtScrn. You probably be saving two large files... the .bmp and then a .tga in your SHIV root folder(if it's like sh3). But a .bmp(bitmap) is as uncompressed as you can get!


And I don't buy the limited performance argument either. They already took out the ability to force AA, which can cause a performance hit, which means there should be no need to lock res to 1024x768 and upscale it... in the name of better performance.

Good Luck
I dont buy the performance argument either, older cards are simply not supported and the base system requirements are quite high, there should be no need to worry about performance on older systems because it simply doesnt work on them at all(well 5 fps is not working if you ask me).

Anachronous 03-21-07 11:00 AM
I've seen this problem with AA and HDR in most gaming boards, ATI users can do it, but Nvidia cant. I cant say about SH4 myself yet, because I havetn played around with AA.

Guido 03-21-07 11:00 AM
its certainly a case of 3 steps forward and 5 backwards ........again in terms of gaining greater/mass appeal - which is where silent hunter needs to be, I think it had many gamers salivating prior to the information thats being discussed here.

I dont think the performance is even very respectable either, I am testing it currently on a core 2 duo 3.2gig and an 8800...............

hmmmmm

OneTinSoldier 03-21-07 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paajtor
I am really puzzled, why they made the GUI able to go at super high-res, while the 3D-world behind it is stuck at 1024x768, but simply stretched to fit the chosen resolution.

Why not have it the other way around?
Have the GUI fixed at 1024x768 and "stretchable", and the 3D-world at the resolution you choose.

But suppose they release a patch, that makes this possible...then the patch would also have to contain GUI-versions for every possible resolution, to prevent egg-shaped dials and stuff?
Boy, I think you kind of lost me. Why would they need to do anything with the 2D GUI when it's already made for all those high resolutions? Seems to me the ONLY thing they have left to do is get out of the Neanderthal age(XGA 1024x768) for the 3D rendered world.

I'm sure I'm missing something though.

The General 03-21-07 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guido
its certainly a case of 3 steps forward and 5 backwards ........again in terms of gaining greater/mass appeal - which is where silent hunter needs to be, I think it had many gamers salivating prior to the information thats being discussed here.

I dont think the performance is even very respectable either, I am testing it currently on a core 2 duo 3.2gig and an 8800...............

hmmmmm
How can you be, you're in England and the game hasn't been released in the U.K. yet, has it?

The General 03-21-07 11:08 AM
Originally Posted by Paajtor
I am really puzzled, why they made the GUI able to go at super high-res, while the 3D-world behind it is stuck at 1024x768, but simply stretched to fit the chosen resolution.

Why not have it the other way around?
Have the GUI fixed at 1024x768 and "stretchable", and the 3D-world at the resolution you choose.

But suppose they release a patch, that makes this possible...then the patch would also have to contain GUI-versions for every possible resolution, to prevent egg-shaped dials etc.

I'm suprised that this puzzles you. The reality, I think, is this: The DEVS may or may not have had a gun put to their head by UBisoft and told to: make SH4 run on as many systems as possible. This of course means having a fixed resolution for the 3D world (1024x768). Ubisoft, like all other corporations are in the business of making money. Hence, they must sell as many copies as possible in order to help proliferate a successfull franchise. The Catch-22 is this; you all must buy SH4, such as it is, if you ever wanna see a High Res version. They need SH3 to be very successful before they'll commision a sequel.

One post earlier suggested we haven't heard from the DEVs because they don't wanna hurt sales. I suspect he maybe right. I'll go further and suggest that this maybe why we haven't had a review from Neal.

Personally, I don't have a problem with any of this because:

a) SH4 is still an awesome sim!

b) Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

tommyk 03-21-07 11:10 AM
> Maybe the SH engine can’t handle higher resolutions without suffering from an enormous performance loss.

It cannot be the core engine alone. SH3 runs fine when you force it 1600x1200 or such. Nearly no loss in FPS...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:44 AM.
Page 35 of 41 « First 2531323334 35 36373839 Last »
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.