Any Plans to Bring Anti-Aliasing to PS3?

[krinkle]

As you guys know I am a huge blu-ray fan, I own about 150 movies on the format.

I agonized over whether to buy the Darkness for my 360 Elite or PS3. I picked the PS3 mainly because:

1) I want to support Sony.
2) I don't have as many games for PS3.
3) PS3 had more in game movie and video content on the Darkness Disc.

Don't get me wrong the game is great and a lot of fun. However the aliasing artifacts in the game are horrible, almost a deal breaker for me.

I play my games on a 160" diagonal movie screen and in some places the aliasing artifacts make the game almost unwatchable. There are so many thin chain link fences and bars in the games graphical environment that the lack of anti-aliasing is just awful, really ruins the realism and reminds you that you are playing a video game. I also noticed some minor slowdown in a few scenes.

Anyway my question is:

Does Sony have any plans to implement any kind of mandatory anti-aliasing on their games? Can the Cell be made to do this?

I really don't want to buy cross-platform titles on 360 but I may have to if they don't fix this.

Any thoughts?

[movies3]

Originally Posted by krinkle

As you guys know I am a huge blu-ray fan, I own about 150 movies on the format.

I agonized over whether to buy the Darkness for my 360 Elite or PS3. I picked the PS3 mainly because:

1) I want to support Sony.
2) I don't have as many games for PS3.
3) PS3 had more in game movie and video content on the Darkness Disc.

Don't get me wrong the game is great and a lot of fun. However the aliasing artifacts in the game are horrible, almost a deal breaker for me.

I play my games on a 160" diagonal movie screen and in some places the aliasing artifacts make the game almost unwatchable. There are so many thin chain link fences and bars in the games graphical environment that the lack of anti-aliasing is just awful, really ruins the realism and reminds you that you are playing a video game. I also noticed some minor slowdown in a few scenes.

Anyway my question is:

Does Sony have any plans to implement any kind of mandatory anti-aliasing on their games? Can the Cell be made to do this?

I really don't want to buy cross-platform titles on 360 but I may have to if they don't fix this.

Any thoughts?

i use to play my games on our 160'' screen aswell but never liked it. I would suggest you go to a smaller screen size. It looks alot better.

[Dadds]

I hate really large screens. I like 30" to 46" at the most. I also dont like sitting really far away.

[Blu-dock Saint]

Originally Posted by Dadds

I hate really large screens. I like 30" to 46" at the most. I also dont like sitting really far away.

Yea, on my 51" movies look fantastic, but games not so much, but I've learned to live with the aliasing.

[Blu-dock Saint]

Originally Posted by krinkle

As you guys know I am a huge blu-ray fan, I own about 150 movies on the format.

I agonized over whether to buy the Darkness for my 360 Elite or PS3. I picked the PS3 mainly because:

1) I want to support Sony.
2) I don't have as many games for PS3.
3) PS3 had more in game movie and video content on the Darkness Disc.

Don't get me wrong the game is great and a lot of fun. However the aliasing artifacts in the game are horrible, almost a deal breaker for me.

I play my games on a 160" diagonal movie screen and in some places the aliasing artifacts make the game almost unwatchable. There are so many thin chain link fences and bars in the games graphical environment that the lack of anti-aliasing is just awful, really ruins the realism and reminds you that you are playing a video game. I also noticed some minor slowdown in a few scenes.

Anyway my question is:

Does Sony have any plans to implement any kind of mandatory anti-aliasing on their games? Can the Cell be made to do this?

I really don't want to buy cross-platform titles on 360 but I may have to if they don't fix this.

Any thoughts?

I shouldve picked it up for the PS3 but they didnt have enough copies since they were all reserved, and I already had it reserved for my 360. I'm sure I'll be picking up a lot more games for my PS3 though, especially Stranglehold SE, can't pass up a free Blu-ray Hard Boiled Movie

[WeApOn]

I'm also looking for an answer to his question.. anyone know? Because this is very noticiable, and very discouraging in many games.

[Manco]

I'm a Software Engineer.

Sony did not somehow forget ( ) to do what you are calling "Anti-Aliasing" on the PS3 nor did any of the developers who write the games. There are a lot of very good minds programming this stuff and it did not just fall thru the cracks. The Cell chip in the PS3 handles all the "anti-aliasing" feats just fine.

The problem you are describing is trying to map what your eye detects in the real world as a smooth image to a grid made up of squares (called pixels) on a display screen. This grid of squares is what gives you the "jaggies" or "stair-step" effect. On your big display, the stair-stepping can be quite noticeable since the squares a simply bigger. You need to move way back from the screen to modulate down this effect so it is pleasing to your eye. A 1080 display, whether 32" or 60", still has 1080 lines. To accomplish this the squares get bigger on the bigger sets.

Alaiasing and Anti-Aliasing are programming techniques that apply color gradients to hard edges giving the eye what appears to be a smoother or softer edge and tricks the eye a little to minimize the "jaggies".

[NARMAK]

It's not sony's fault, it is up to the developers to implement it and make sure it is working very effectively.

As for the jaggies, maybe if you play on a 40"-60" screen, you won't notice it as much, you have to remember that the bigger the screen gets, the bigger the resolution has to be to give you clear definition.

For instance, a 52" X series Sony or M87 series Samsung works excellently with all their individual features at that size, but take those same features to a 100"+ screen, they won't seem as great.

It's mainly due to the resolution and features not being able to work as good on that size screen and back to jaggies, the PS3s graphics will be seen really jaggy at that size, like a PS2 looks terrible on a 50" screen but would be fine for a screen 32" and under.

As time goes by, perhaps in the next console generation, this may not be an issue with games as the anti-aliasing on the hardware is evolved to the next level and jaggies that were previously a problem no longer are.

[shido]

Originally Posted by krinkle

As you guys know I am a huge blu-ray fan, I own about 150 movies on the format.

I agonized over whether to buy the Darkness for my 360 Elite or PS3. I picked the PS3 mainly because:

1) I want to support Sony.
2) I don't have as many games for PS3.
3) PS3 had more in game movie and video content on the Darkness Disc.

Don't get me wrong the game is great and a lot of fun. However the aliasing artifacts in the game are horrible, almost a deal breaker for me.

I play my games on a 160" diagonal movie screen and in some places the aliasing artifacts make the game almost unwatchable. There are so many thin chain link fences and bars in the games graphical environment that the lack of anti-aliasing is just awful, really ruins the realism and reminds you that you are playing a video game. I also noticed some minor slowdown in a few scenes.

Anyway my question is:

Does Sony have any plans to implement any kind of mandatory anti-aliasing on their games? Can the Cell be made to do this?

I really don't want to buy cross-platform titles on 360 but I may have to if they don't fix this.

Any thoughts?

I think it's up to the devs to implement it. We'll probably start to see AA on in all PS3 titles once devs get up to speed. Also, like people have said, it could be your screen. I have an old 4:3 27 inch 1080i HDTV, and I don't notice much jaggies when I play either my 360 or my bro's PS3 on it. But on my bro's 27 inch lcd screen, jaggies are noticeable on both systems. It's probably because for one thing, the image is larger on my bro's tv (since mine is letterboxed when playing HD content), and the fact that lcds tend to expose flaws that are not noticeable on crts. At your screen size, it just makes things a lot worse. But hopefully when PS3 games start using AA consistently, it'll make things a little more easy on the eyes.

[krinkle]

Thanks for the feedback I am using a native 1080p projector so resolution should not be a huge issue even at 160".

Actually I was reading some on the web about this and I think the Darkness game is only rendered at 720p on the PS3.

They really need to do one of two things:

1) Make the game actually render at 1080P as this will make jaggies less noticeable.

2) Or if you have to render at 720P then please, please use some sort of anti-aliasing feature.

There is an older 2005 60" Sony SXRD XBR1 downstairs but I am just not willing to move my PS3 out of the theater room as I am currently using it as a primary Blu-ray player.

Let me also say that there is no problem with Blu-ray movies. Movies look sharp, almost perfect on my set-up. In fact I saw Transformers at the IMAX and really think our home theater looks better: sharper, clearer, better sound etc.

Also I have gone back and played Oblivion, Motorstorm,and VF3. None of these look nearly as bad as the Darkness even though aliasing artifacts are still slightly noticeable. Maybe its just an issue with this game, but the Darkness has some of the worst aliasing I have seen on anything other than a PS2.

[MrEastSide]

1) Make the game actually render at 1080P as this will make jaggies less noticeable.

Most games still won't be doing that for a while. SONY claimed most of their games would do it, but it does take quite the extra juice to pump out that higher resolution. And obviously most developers thus far have seemed too lazy to bother with it.

[WickyWoo]

1080p requires twice the work of 720p, as it's over double the pixels, and even more filtering to look good

You're going to find the vast majority of games will be 720, expecially "big" ones because with so few people (on average) having more than 720, the performance hit isn't worth it

[Manco]

Originally Posted by MrEastSide

And obviously most developers thus far have seemed too lazy to bother with it.

Hmmm... as a Software Engineer myself:

* Most Software Developers enjoy pushing technology as far as it can go given a certain level of constraints.

* Most Software Develpers work WAY beyond their paid hours to produce a quality product often in the face of Management's dictates.

* People employed in Electrical Engineering and Software Development are responsible for this forum, game consoles, the World Wide Web and everything else YOU seem to enjoy in the modern world.

Lazy??? That's quite an ad-hoc remark. I think you need to educate yourself on a particular dicipline before making extreme jugdement calls on an open forum.

[MrEastSide]

* Most Software Develpers work WAY beyond their paid hours to produce a quality product often in the face of Management's dictates.

Well, if that's the case then I wonder why we don't see nothing but A+ titles... I wasn't trying to knock your profession or knock all programmers. But, it's obvious that some could care less about the crap that gets released. Granted it's not always their call if they don't get enough time to design a game, but come on, there are about 10 million piece of crap games out there that look like a third grader designed them.

[Manco]

Originally Posted by MrEastSide

Well, if that's the case then I wonder why we don't see nothing but A+ titles... I wasn't trying to knock your profession or knock all programmers. But, it's obvious that some could care less about the crap that gets released. Granted it's not always their call if they don't get enough time to design a game, but come on, there are about 10 million piece of crap games out there that look like a third grader designed them.

I don't mind the debate.

If you like only A+ titles, then as a consumer...speak with your wallet.

But Software Developers are not the reason for LESS A+ titles. Write the CEO of a particular game studio and tell them what you think.

And of course, you can always start your own game company and put Microsoft, Sony, Electronics Arts, etc... all out of business!! RIGHT?!?!?

[BluManta]

Originally Posted by Dadds

I hate really large screens. I like 30" to 46" at the most. I also dont like sitting really far away.

Your right! I want the 42" 1080p Sony Bravia. And I love sitting close lol. Even wearing glasses lol (I dont wear glasses, only to watch TV or play games).

[Shin-Ra]

Resistance: Fall of Man already makes use of AA as far as I can tell and if you watch some Sony Gamers Day vids of the Ratchet & Clank Future demonstration where the debug menu is brought up you can see Insomniac had it activated for that too.

home is another app that uses AA.

[Sephex]

Originally Posted by BluManta

I want the 42" 1080p Sony Bravia. And I love sitting close..

I have owned a 40" Bravia and honestly if you sit an extra 2 feet away for every 6 inches of tv it just looks better and better. I went up to the 52" Bravia now, and I'm 12 feet away ( wearing glasses too lol) and in 1080p everything just looks gorgeous. But once the SXRD projectors come down a little more in price,.. the VW50 at 130" is by far the best looking "big" screen I've seen. I'm not entirely sure I could find the space to do 160" though, that's quite the room!

[Zaphod]

Specs for the PS3 RSX chip, and I believe what you are looking for is in red below. Based on that it seems it only supports 2x AA, so I wonder why Sony didn't require Nvidia build 4x AA into their chip?

• 550 MHz G70 based GPU on 90 nm process[1]
• 300.2 million transistors total
• Multi-way programmable parallel floating-point shader pipelines
• Independent pixel/vertex shader architecture
• 24 parallel pixel pipelines
• 5 shader ALU operations per pipeline per cycle ( 2 vector4 and 2 scalar (dual/co-issue) and fog ALU )
• 27 FLOPS per pipeline per cycle
• 8 parallel vertex pipelines
• 2 shader ALU operations per pipeline per cycle ( 1 vector4 and 1 scalar, dual issued )
• 10 FLOPS per pipeline per cycle
• Maximum vertex count: 1 billion vertices per second ( 8 vertex x 500 MHz / 4 )
• Minimum (worst case) polygon count: 333.3 million polygons per second ( 1 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per triangle)
• Maximum (optimistic case) polygon count: 750 million and more depending on how many triangle strips are used in a game.
• Maximum shader operations: 136 shader operations per second
• Announced: 1.8 TFLOPS (trillion floating point operations per second)
• 24 texture filtering units (TF) and 8 texture Addressing unit (TA)
• 24 filtered samples per clock
• Maximum texel fillrate: 12 gigatexel per second ( 24 textures x 500 MHz )
• 32 unfiltered texture samples per clock ( 8 TA x 4 texture samples )
• 8 Render Output units
• Maximum pixel fillrate: 4 gigapixel per second ( 8 ROPs x 500 MHz )
• Maximum Z sample rate: 8 gigasamples per second ( 2 Z samples x 8 ROPs x 500 MHz )
• Maximum anti-aliasing sample rate: 8 gigasamples per second ( 2 AA samples x 8 ROPs x 500 MHz )
• 68 billion shader operations per second (80 billion with Cell CPU)
• Maximum Dot product operations: 33 billion per second
• 128-bit pixel precision offers rendering of scenes with high dynamic range rendering ( HDR)
• 256 MiB GDDR3 RAM at 650 MHz [2]
• 128-bit memory bus width
• 20.8 GiB/s read and write bandwidth
• Cell FlexIO bus interface
• 20 GiB/s read to the Cell and XDR memory
• 15 GiB/s write to the Cell and XDR memory
• Support for OpenGL ES 2.0
• Support for S3TC texture compression [3]

[krinkle]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Specs for the PS3 RSX chip, and I believe what you are looking for is in red below. Based on that it seems it only supports 2x AA, so I wonder why Sony didn't require Nvidia build 4x AA into their chip?

• 550 MHz G70 based GPU on 90 nm process[1]
• 300.2 million transistors total
• Multi-way programmable parallel floating-point shader pipelines
• Independent pixel/vertex shader architecture
• 24 parallel pixel pipelines
• 5 shader ALU operations per pipeline per cycle ( 2 vector4 and 2 scalar (dual/co-issue) and fog ALU )
• 27 FLOPS per pipeline per cycle
• 8 parallel vertex pipelines
• 2 shader ALU operations per pipeline per cycle ( 1 vector4 and 1 scalar, dual issued )
• 10 FLOPS per pipeline per cycle
• Maximum vertex count: 1 billion vertices per second ( 8 vertex x 500 MHz / 4 )
• Minimum (worst case) polygon count: 333.3 million polygons per second ( 1 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per triangle)
• Maximum (optimistic case) polygon count: 750 million and more depending on how many triangle strips are used in a game.
• Maximum shader operations: 136 shader operations per second
• Announced: 1.8 TFLOPS (trillion floating point operations per second)
• 24 texture filtering units (TF) and 8 texture Addressing unit (TA)
• 24 filtered samples per clock
• Maximum texel fillrate: 12 gigatexel per second ( 24 textures x 500 MHz )
• 32 unfiltered texture samples per clock ( 8 TA x 4 texture samples )
• 8 Render Output units
• Maximum pixel fillrate: 4 gigapixel per second ( 8 ROPs x 500 MHz )
• Maximum Z sample rate: 8 gigasamples per second ( 2 Z samples x 8 ROPs x 500 MHz )
• Maximum anti-aliasing sample rate: 8 gigasamples per second ( 2 AA samples x 8 ROPs x 500 MHz )
• 68 billion shader operations per second (80 billion with Cell CPU)
• Maximum Dot product operations: 33 billion per second
• 128-bit pixel precision offers rendering of scenes with high dynamic range rendering ( HDR)
• 256 MiB GDDR3 RAM at 650 MHz [2]
• 128-bit memory bus width
• 20.8 GiB/s read and write bandwidth
• Cell FlexIO bus interface
• 20 GiB/s read to the Cell and XDR memory
• 15 GiB/s write to the Cell and XDR memory
• Support for OpenGL ES 2.0
• Support for S3TC texture compression [3]

Even 2xAA would have helped the Darkness dramatically. Do you think this developer was just lazy and din't take the extra time to properly implement it?

In the future I am going to wait to hear if a title has AA before purchase.