« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: (Im)practical CSAA?  (Read 12955 times)

Michael Lobko-Lobanovsky

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1481
(Im)practical CSAA?
« on: June 13, 2019, 03:09:05 pm »
Patrice, you know what?

I did CSAA all right! 8)

And frankly, 16xQ (a.k.a. quality) CSAA is the best AA I've ever seen on my monitors -- definitely better and smoother than 32x MSAA.

But only look at those horrific FPS and GPU usage readings!!! CSAA uses renderbuffer blitting similar to MSAA and is therefore far too heavy for animations. :'(

So, do we drop CSAA altogether or do we keep it for super-HQ renders of static meshes and backgrounds?
Logged
Mike
(3.6GHz Intel Core i5 Quad w/ 16GB RAM, nVidia GTX 1060Ti w/ 6GB VRAM, Windows 7 Ultimate Sp1)

Patrice Terrier

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
    • zapsolution
Re: (Im)practical CSAA?
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2019, 05:16:57 pm »
My first preference is to produce the best output for the core 3d meshes, animation is an extra bonus to enhance a specific model, and is less important.

Logged
Patrice
(Always working with the latest Windows version available...)

Michael Lobko-Lobanovsky

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1481
Re: (Im)practical CSAA?
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2019, 06:19:47 pm »
Logged
Mike
(3.6GHz Intel Core i5 Quad w/ 16GB RAM, nVidia GTX 1060Ti w/ 6GB VRAM, Windows 7 Ultimate Sp1)

Michael Lobko-Lobanovsky

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1481
Re: (Im)practical CSAA?
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2019, 06:24:53 pm »
In fact, CSAA is very, very neat and smooth but fantastically crisp at the same time. It's gonna be a perfect match to your best models. :)
Logged
Mike
(3.6GHz Intel Core i5 Quad w/ 16GB RAM, nVidia GTX 1060Ti w/ 6GB VRAM, Windows 7 Ultimate Sp1)
Pages: [1]
« previous next »