800x600/AA or 1600x1200?

[DaJuice]

The HardOCP article said some interesting things regarding resolution and anti-aliasing (basically: "you don't need AA"). Personally I don't really agree with that, having played the alpha I think AA significantly improved the appearance of the visuals, just like with any other game. But any ways, what do you plan to run doom3 at? Modest resolution with anti-aliasing, or no AA with the resolution cranked up?

Myself, I go for AA every time, I cannot stand jaggies. 800x600 with 4XAA looks creamy smooth, which I prefer to the razor-sharp look of 1600x1200. Too bad I'll need a new system to play the game with any AA or in high-res. :/

[Tyockell]

well when i get a 256meg video card or highend 128 im going to run it at 800/600 with AA.

[Epistax]

Well real life has jagged edges. Sure they're smaller than pixels, but to me simply blurring the screen isn't the answer. I have a card powerful enough to play older games in AA but it just doesn't look right.

Anyway if your graphics card isn't powerful enough to blur the screen you can do the same thing by mauling your monitor cable with a screwdriver. I'm seriously not kidding at all. You'll just have to flip cords between game and non-game, or else feel sick in your OS UI.

[Scabbed Angel]

I wish that article would have mixed and matched low end sys with higher graphics cards as I have the Athalon 1500+ sys 512 and a 6800. *crosses fingers* Although I'm not too worried as in the EDIT: "E3 2002 Build" on my Geforce 3 I was only able to run it on 640x480comfortably, whereas 1280x1024 now seems to work just as well, being unoptimized even, on the new card. : )

[boris]

Epistax said:

Well real life has jagged edges. Sure they're smaller than pixels, but to me simply blurring the screen isn't the answer. I have a card powerful enough to play older games in AA but it just doesn't look right.

You fail it. That's complete bullshit. Heh.

[Epyo]

I think he meant atoms and molecules make the edges of things jagged.

[Deathmatcher]

Deathmatcher said:

I´ll go for 1280x1024 / High Detail, most likely. Maybe I will turn on 2x AA as well.

[Amaster]

I prefer the sharp look as opposed to "creamy smooth". To each his own.

Just for kicks, I once ran UT2K4 at 640x480 with 8x (I think) anti-aliasing. The effect was pretty interesting, and sorta comparable to running at high resolution, except that distamt objects looked like jelly.

[TwiNCannoN]

Well real life has jagged edges.

Uh, stop playing video games.

Anyway. The only time I'll ever... EVER... EVER use AA (which is basically, until they code it so it's not as fps harming, useless), is if there's a game that has bad HUD coding and if you play in 1600x1200 or something you can't see text or such. And even then I probably will just put it at 1024 and not care, because FSAA is stupid, if you're playing in 640x480-800x600 it's obvious you're in it for the frames anyway, which FSAA kills the point of. If you're in 1024 or above it's fine.

[DaJuice]

Epistax said:

Well real life has jagged edges. Sure they're smaller than pixels, but to me simply blurring the screen isn't the answer. I have a card powerful enough to play older games in AA but it just doesn't look right.

Anyway if your graphics card isn't powerful enough to blur the screen you can do the same thing by mauling your monitor cable with a screwdriver. I'm seriously not kidding at all. You'll just have to flip cords between game and non-game, or else feel sick in your OS UI.

O_o
You definitly fail it. And anti-aliasing does not have the same effect as just indiscriminantly blurring the screen.

[Relica Religia]

Yes! Blur is a static effect. AA is uses blurring dynamically to wrap around and help shape an object.

[Ricki]

i play all of my games on highest graphic settings @ 1280x1024 with AA x8 and AF x16.. sexiest graphics ever. I also play the doom 3 alpha like that although i think i'm gonna have to tone it down a little for the full game.

[highlander]

DaJuice said:

The HardOCP article said some interesting things regarding resolution and anti-aliasing (basically: "you don't need AA"). Personally I don't really agree with that, having played the alpha I think AA significantly improved the appearance of the visuals, just like with any other game....

I wish people would stop referring to the leaked E3 demo as an alpha. It wasn't an alpha. It was a build specifically for E3 2002. It was NOT an alpha. It is also over 2 years old. A lot can happen to code and optimizations in 2 years and that is obvious from the HardOCP's guide to doom3 and their amazement at how good the game looks without AA.

Highlander

[Jomero]

highlander said:

I wish people would stop referring to the leaked E3 demo as an alpha. It wasn't an alpha. It was a build specifically for E3 2002. It was NOT an alpha. It is also over 2 years old. A lot can happen to code and optimizations in 2 years and that is obvious from the HardOCP's guide to doom3 and their amazement at how good the game looks without AA.

Highlander

<- Agrees with Highlander.

I'm sick of people saying they know how the game looks and runs based on a leaked piece of game that was never intended for anyone to ever even try to use.

[Lord FlatHead]

I'm on a Radeon 9800 Pro, which everyone seems to be convinced will run the game "well", whatever that means. Since the game is not actually released yet I might as well be talking out of my ass, but I think for me 800x600 with 2xAA should play the game well and look satisfyingly good. It's not like you still squint at the soft edges or feel your heart break with every little framerate hitch after you've played the game for ten minutes. Not for me anyway.

[Endureth]

I will try the game at 1280x1024 first with no AA or AF.

If it runs ultra smooth, I will bump to 1600x1200 with no A or AF.

Resolution is everything.

-E

[DaJuice]

highlander said:

I wish people would stop referring to the leaked E3 demo as an alpha. It wasn't an alpha. It was a build specifically for E3 2002. It was NOT an alpha. It is also over 2 years old. A lot can happen to code and optimizations in 2 years and that is obvious from the HardOCP's guide to doom3 and their amazement at how good the game looks without AA.

Highlander

The engine is still the same. The type of content that was in the alpha (we've been calling it that since it was leaked, I ain't gonna call it something else now) is perfectly indicative of what we'll see in the final game. You honestly think that the alpha and the final thing will look significantly different? Why would they? The engine still draws everything the same way, optmizations just make it run faster. Of course Doom3 looks "great" even without AA or high resolution; having the best gfx ever in a game will do that for you.

[Goliath]

Who cares about the alpha the game is out right now !!!!!!

[AndrewB]

Epistax said:

Well real life has jagged edges. Sure they're smaller than pixels, but to me simply blurring the screen isn't the answer.

That is incredibly stupid. I just don't even know how to correct you since you seem to have wandered so deep into the realm of fantasy, it would be a incomprehensible drain on my energy to lead you back to the land of truth.

[Laguna]

DaJuice said:

The engine is still the same.

That's not one hundred percent true.

That leak had a really odd threading configuration because I guess everything was amalgamated into one sub-tasking serial output thread, which in turn made things get choppy when a lot of things happened at once. Good example: Bathroom scene.

In that, the demon is making noise and the lights are nutty, and the perspective switches. The sound goes goofy and the framerate goes down like a lead brick.

So it is a lot different. They also seem to have fixed the bumpmapping to make it a little more smooth since the demo, which at the time made it look like even stucco-ish and rusty surfaces had brass polish on the edges.

Is the technology the same? Yes.

Are the dependencies 100% consistent? No. If you don't believe me, try comparing the dependencies (run depends.exe on Microsoft Visual C++ 6 or .NET) from the E3 Leak build to the retail... A lot of things will have changed by then.

Not to mention, I don't think it had support for 6.1 surround then even!

[Laguna]

AndrewB said:

That is incredibly stupid. I just don't even know how to correct you since you seem to have wandered so deep into the realm of fantasy, it would be a incomprehensible drain on my energy to lead you back to the land of truth.

Yeah, we couldn't risk bumping you off of your pedestal.

[sandmanfvr]

AA isn't something I use cause it isn't a solution, just a band aid. I play with no AA and I think if the engine is good enough, you really won't notice it. I have:

Athlon XP 3000+ 400 mhz FSB
512 DDR 400
BFG 5900 XT Overclocked 128 meg (coming in TODAY)

I plan to run at 1024x768 at high or medium. I have read over at planetdoom that going up in resolution doens't hurt that much. I will just see how much it hurts. But from what I have seen, the Doom 3 engine is so good that high and ultra high are nice, but not all that needed. BUT, I will not use AA at all, just takes fps and not worth it in my opinion.