Spoudazo Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 If you want "anti-aliasing" just turn the resolution up to 1600x1200 or more, if you don't see an option, you can edit the xml and set whatever resolution you would like. I'm currently playing at 1600x1200 and am about to try 2048x1536 just for fun I guess you can set some other settings lower to turn the resolution up if that's a problem. If your video card can't play hardly any games at 1600x1200, then don't blame the developers of this nice game, rather blame yourself for not (1) upgrading your PC (2) just buy a 360 and the 360 version if option 1 isn't viable for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tech Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I don't think a 1600x1200 resolution makes FSAA and AF completely useless. Also not everyone around is equipped to play at such resolution. I would also add that such a resolution eats up ressources for absolutely nothing since there is almost no visual difference with 1280x1024... Finally, I currently have a 19" monitor wich doesn't support 1600x1200, although my hardware could probably handle that resolution. That's where FSAA and AF would be appreciated... Just my 2 cents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoudazo Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 I don't think a 1600x1200 resolution makes FSAA and AF completely useless. Also not everyone around is equipped to play at such resolution. I would also add that such a resolution eats up ressources for absolutely nothing since there is almost no visual difference with 1280x1024... Finally, I currently have a 19" monitor wich doesn't support 1600x1200, although my hardware could probably handle that resolution. That's where FSAA and AF would be appreciated... Just my 2 cents... ← Have you ever asked your self why you bought two 7800gtx for SLI and yet you only play at 1280x1024, playing high resolutions is one of the main points for having a SLI system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Medic+~SPARTA~ Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Dude dont even bother posting threads like this, its a start of an argument. Everyone's hardware is different. If someone has a problem with their machine they should post in a tech support thread. This should be locked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoudazo Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 (edited) Dude dont even bother posting threads like this, its a start of an argument. Everyone's hardware is different. If someone has a problem with their machine they should post in a tech support thread. This should be locked. ← I'm just saying anti aliasing is going to be useless in a few years. Aliasing occurs when the video card doesn't have enough pixel real estate to properly draw the picture onscreen, so aliasing occurs. By having higher resolutions, the video card has more room and aliasing becomes almost non-existent. Your opinion on the helpfulness of a thread doesn't belond in this thread, as you are posting off-topic matter. Edited April 29, 2006 by Spoudazo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost9 Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 he's posting to brag about his rig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tech Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I don't think a 1600x1200 resolution makes FSAA and AF completely useless. Also not everyone around is equipped to play at such resolution. I would also add that such a resolution eats up ressources for absolutely nothing since there is almost no visual difference with 1280x1024... Finally, I currently have a 19" monitor wich doesn't support 1600x1200, although my hardware could probably handle that resolution. That's where FSAA and AF would be appreciated... Just my 2 cents... ← Have you ever asked your self why you bought two 7800gtx for SLI and yet you only play at 1280x1024, playing high resolutions is one of the main points for having a SLI system. ← Don't you worry for me pal, I'm shopping But lemme explain: I'd rather play at a lower resolution like 1280 but with FSAA and AF maxed out. Any day... Once you get used to this eye candy it's very hard to go without afterwards... But as I said earlier, it's just me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uk.Cobra Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 If you want "anti-aliasing" just turn the resolution up to 1600x1200 or more, if you don't see an option, you can edit the xml and set whatever resolution you would like. I'm currently playing at 1600x1200 and am about to try 2048x1536 just for fun I guess you can set some other settings lower to turn the resolution up if that's a problem. If your video card can't play hardly any games at 1600x1200, then don't blame the developers of this nice game, rather blame yourself for not (1) upgrading your PC (2) just buy a 360 and the 360 version if option 1 isn't viable for you ← sorry some of us cant afford a 24" monitor and SLI so we cant turn the res up that high stop braging about your comp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoudazo Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 I would say if you disabled one of your GPUs you would either (1) lost a few (3-5) fps or actually gain a few FPS at that resolution. SLI sometimes makes a game slower, and when playing at 1280x1024, you're putting more burden on the CPU and less on the GPUs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoudazo Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 I am not bragging about my PC, several people on these forums have the same performance or better than mine. This is a new game, and if you're going to get the experience the developers meant you to experience, it's going to require a newer PC. My old PC was a 900mhz AMD/1gb 62pin RAM/9100, so I needed a new PC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DisgruntledArchitect Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Actually, your description of aliasing is not really correct, nor is your assertion that it will be useless in a few years; even at higher resolutions, high-curvature lines still must be anti-aliased to maintain a smooth appearance, and similarly, smaller details will continue to require AA for the sake of appearance as they'll never be taking up the entire screen. In fact, AA will probably remain, as at higher resolution, it will allow for a finer grain of detail. Given the continually improving state of graphics and perpetually increasing demand for photorealism, AA will simply be applied to smaller screen objects that nobody would ever consider paying attention to in this day and age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoudazo Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 (edited) How is my understanding of anti-aliasing/aliasing incorrect then? Edited April 30, 2006 by Spoudazo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_werewolf_ Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 If your video card can't play hardly any games at 1600x1200, then don't blame the developers of this nice game, rather blame yourself for not (1) upgrading your PC I have a 7800GT, 2GB of RAM and an Athlon 64 3500+. I still don't get good frames at that resolution. Don't go preaching complete rubbish like this, you just don't have a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoudazo Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 (edited) If your video card can't play hardly any games at 1600x1200, then don't blame the developers of this nice game, rather blame yourself for not (1) upgrading your PC I have a 7800GT, 2GB of RAM and an Athlon 64 3500+. I still don't get good frames at that resolution. Don't go preaching complete rubbish like this, you just don't have a clue. ← You should be able to. Try turnning off shadows, and tweaking the xml file. A 7800gt is't far behind a 7800gtx. What do you consider playable? I always prefer 60+ fps, but I don't want to spend more money right now to get there Edit: One day, oh yes one day, I'll shall make a post without typos Edited April 30, 2006 by Spoudazo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYR_32 Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Let me think this out. You are saying don't blame the dev's for the lack of AA? Well it was their choice to choose the lighting model they did, which does not work with AA. I have run the game at 1680 x 1050. Guess what? Jaggies are still there. This game does not look nearly as good as the screenshots released. Now look at another game, lets say Rainbow Six: Lockdown, I'll admit its not the best game out there but IMO the engine is much more mature. RSE's engine supports AA, and numerous whiz-bang graphical features, just like GRIN's. The Red Storm engine is far more scaleable, allowing more people to play the game *cough5xxxseriescardscoughcough*, it doesn't cripple people's high end machines, and the game looks just as good, if not better (the R6 team character models blow GRIN's away). Don't tell people to go buy a new rig, and not to feel let down by what the engine is demanding. When you look at GR:AW 360 MP (thats the Red Storm engine as well), they have a reason to be disappointed. And don't even bother trying to tell me to buy new hardware, or tweak this and that. Ubi should have let RSE finish GR2, at least then people would have had something newer to play, without having to spend $1200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiznoes Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 The game is great but yea like most people say... the engine is crap. GRIN should have used a third-party engine IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuchillo* Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 (edited) LMAO well said. Edited April 30, 2006 by Cuchillo* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agentkay Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Sorry, but the RSE Lockdown engine is JUNK! Not only it ran worse maxed out on my computer than the GRAW demo does, at the same resolution, but it has NOT tech that the diesel engine offers. It has junk fake ass HDR, and the lighting super DX8 cheap and the levels could fit under a freaking microscope. This is the reason why its so "scalable", because its an old outdated engine. And btw, the characters, model and animations looks like ###### too. Grins engine is way more advanced and future-oriented than anything what the Lockdown engine has. I´m not a know-it-all when it comes to tech and engines, but I know my fair share and I´ve been playing PC games since the late 80s and I can tell when an engine is using new tech and when its outdated crap. AA will be supported once video cards will support AA with Deferred Lighting. This day has not come yet, and once it will, GRAW will have AA. I do admit that Grin should have done a PS2.0 path with static lighting and with AA support but then you had people complaining about bad visuals. You really can´t make it perfect for everyone. BTW, I do think that Grins engine has room for improvement and more optimizations, but everyone would have whined if there were another delay and even if it was just a month. Anyway, thats my 2 cent regarding Grins engine and the Lockdown engine. I´m tired and going to bed now, its past 3am here. Hope I didn´t sound too annoyed, I respect everyones opintion, I´m just too tired. Happy weekend everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetforce Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Well Agent Kay, to each his own. But when it comes to likes and dislikes, rather than strict matters of fact, you have to look at numbers. Of over 50 long time GR players to whom I have spoken, all agree with NYR_32. The Lockdown engine, though difficult to work with, has beautiful effects, phenominal detail and is quite forgiving on hardware. I can run it on a 64MB GeForce 4200 Go in my laptop. The particle effects are not top notch but the instant you see lights or any smoke you understand the amount of silent work that went into the game engine. As one review said, the fires look like they came straight out of Half-Life 2. They have incredible game physics as well. And RSE has no current equal for military models by a prominent studio. But as I said, to each his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoSoft Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I love how we can call the egine crap, like we know how to make one, or view theirs in detail =) By the way, I also love how we call it crap, rather than "not the best". Crap means ######, the lowest thing possible, meaning your saying this engine is the ######ties thing to ever come into exsistance. It's like their is no good sides to the engine, its puree ######. That is why some of you guys will never be listen to, because you don't know how to talk to other people. Are you going to call Davinchies art crap because its not as good as michle angelo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dekela Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 whilst i had no problem running the demo, from what i saw there really should be no need for such high system specs. with proper model/texture limitiations and optimisation, GRAW should be able to run on lower end machines. by leaving it as is they have now slammed the door shut on people who cant or wont upgrade, which is effectivly killing their market share. settings for resolution and so on should be included in the product, an end user should not have to edit .xml files and stuff to enjoy the game cheers...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacksaww Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I don't think a 1600x1200 resolution makes FSAA and AF completely useless. Also not everyone around is equipped to play at such resolution. I would also add that such a resolution eats up ressources for absolutely nothing since there is almost no visual difference with 1280x1024... Finally, I currently have a 19" monitor wich doesn't support 1600x1200, although my hardware could probably handle that resolution. That's where FSAA and AF would be appreciated... ← Ditto. My monitor doesn't support the ultra-high resolution, I need that anti-aliasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brettzies Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 The Lockdown engine, though difficult to work with, has beautiful effects, phenominal detail and is quite forgiving on hardware. I can run it on a 64MB GeForce 4200 Go in my laptop. The particle effects are not top notch but the instant you see lights or any smoke you understand the amount of silent work that went into the game engine. As one review said, the fires look like they came straight out of Half-Life 2. They have incredible game physics as well. And RSE has no current equal for military models by a prominent studio. But as I said, to each his own. ← Because people have such strong feeling about LD, I've been kind of afraid to say the same thing. Honestly I think the graphics in LD at mid levels are eqaul to or blow the graphics of GRAW away. Your weapon view to your characters to the environments. It all looks great to me. I played it at 1280x960 with 2aa and 4af, HRD and shadows off without a hitch. GRAW on the other hand, struggles to play at 800x600 with everything set to low or off. It doesn't look very good at these settings either, but I'd expect it would at least play pretty nice. Granted, its a different game with different things going on. I think it's more cpu intensive then graphics card intensive actually and the levels seem bigger. The thing is though, I played all the big graphics card killers over the past 2 years with my current setup, FarCry, Doom3, HL2, BF2, Quake4, FEAR at a minimum of 1024x768 they all look and play great. GRAW really doesn't look much better, if at all, then any of those. I think that's why many of us are kind of scratching are heads. Don't get me wrong, at nice settings it does look good and I do like the game play, just very surprised at how it brings computers to their knees with no real visual indication of "why?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornToKill Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 (edited) GRAW on low settings looks better than GR1 on High settings. The textures are more detailed, it uses Normal mapping, dynamic lighing ........ Problem is people expect too much. You want [modedit] hot graphics, well you gonna have to pay for it. Simple really. GRAW plays fine on Low settings, I have a low spec card. Do not bypass the swear filter Wooooooooops damn dollar signs Edited April 30, 2006 by BornToKill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacksaww Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Oh, I wouldn't diss LD in terms of graphics, that's the only thing that was relatively nice in it (the demo at least). Made for indoor environments for sure though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.