PDA

View Full Version : about anisotropic filtering?

Aleksei (St)
March 27th, 2003, 02:23
in N64 emulation it use the anisotropic filtering?
Yeloazndevil
March 27th, 2003, 02:47
the N64 has a Z-buffer so it can use anisotropic filtering, the only plug-in IIRC that uses it is Jabo's D3D Plug-ins
Kane
March 27th, 2003, 03:13
Don't really think there's much point tho, considering how low rez all the N64 textures are.
Demigod
March 27th, 2003, 03:52
I tried using AF on PJ64 and it didn't really do anything, or at least I couldn't really see any difference. It's only in PC games with high-rez textures that I can actually see a big difference.
Monkeybrains
March 28th, 2003, 13:52
I can notice a big difference in Goldeneye.
Not in Mario though.
Guess it depends on the game.
DarkAurora
April 3rd, 2003, 14:35
Antialiasing runs faster than AF at high resolutions in N64 emulation anyways, so AF is kinda pointless.
james.miller
April 20th, 2003, 13:03
i use both, but only because i can get away with it lol
Aleksei (St)
April 23rd, 2003, 03:14
so if i want anisotropic filtering in n64 i need 800x600 and + resolution?
Yeloazndevil
April 23rd, 2003, 04:17
Originally posted by Aleksei (St)
so if i want anisotropic filtering in n64 i need 800x600 and + resolution? why would u want to use AF since N64 textures are low quality
james.miller
April 23rd, 2003, 19:19
because it still makes a difference. not exactly huge, but there IS a difference. if you can do it, then why not?
RPGWizard
April 24th, 2003, 17:56
Well, I usually don't notice a big difference, but why not? AF is slower than AA though, but oh well, my system can handle it.....:)
james.miller
April 24th, 2003, 18:21
AA is MUCH slower than AF. but anyway, what difference does it really make? mario64 still runs at 60fsb wether im running 800x600 and no fsaa or af, or 1600x1200 w/ 6xFSAA and 16xAF
Demigod
April 24th, 2003, 18:28
Originally posted by RPGWizard
AF is slower than AA though, but oh well, my system can handle it.....:)

Originally posted by james.miller
AA is MUCH slower than AFDepends on the card actually. For example GeForce 4 cards take a beating with 8xAF on (40% performace hit) while Radeon 9700 cards don't (10% performance hit). If you can afford AF then go for it but I don't think there's enough of a quality improvement to justify its use.
james.miller
April 24th, 2003, 18:32
yes but gf4's are take an even worse beating with AA. the radeons fair much better with af AND aa.

leaveing the difference in performance between the two cards aside, aa is still slower on either of them. its just the hit they take thats different
Demigod
April 24th, 2003, 19:57
Originally posted by james.miller
yes but gf4's are take an even worse beating with AA. the radeons fair much better with af AND aa.Not really. Both 4xFSAA and 8xAF have a similar performance hit on the GeForce 4. If you were to enable 16x (not available on Nvidia's control panel) it would completely kill frame rates.

And I'd rephase your second sentence to "the R300s fair much better with af AND aa". Previous Radeon cards (R/V100, R/V200, RV250) have very slow FSAA.