Professional StarCraft 2 WoL after beta GPU review

[GnaReffotsirk]

Who the heck cares that had 25 minutes you think most people can tell in under that time? First time had nothing to do with the arguement, and second I told you to prove yourself of the AA setting.

EDIT: I have attached 4 pictures can you see the difference? First no AA, second 2xAA, third 4xAA, and final 8xAA. Can anyone see the difference because I can and I have more to back up my point.

8xAA and no AA makes them jagged clearly distinguishable. Look at the rail thingy.

However, they're not as obvious, and personally I'm cool with the difference. Not paying twice for that. But this might make a huge difference when rendering stuff like max animations, etc.

I have zero knowledge regarding that though.

[spychi]

Tychus, I was reading those posts and I am like wtf, you took it like a life worth contest or somethin', there is a diffrence that you can see with no AA and x16AA and the diffrence is really easy to notice
don't fight over things that silly much

[TheEconomist]

I'm hostile towards mikill because he's been stalking me for months now. I'm trying to get rid of him.

Yes, you can tell a difference between no AA and 16xAA. The debate is here is 2xAA/4xAA vs 16xAA. My card can get 2xAA or 4xAA depending on the scene at 1920x1200 which is why I said his card was a waste of money. Then, he said that 16xAA is better than even 8xAA and is worth paying a price that is almost how much my entire computer cost.

Here's the undeniable facts: At 16xAA you're hitting the monitor's limits to display the image at that resolution. Only increasing the resolution would allow you to get any less jaggies. 2xAA, 4xAA are about as good as you can get. 8xAA just for the hell of it if you have the resources. 16xAA is ridiculous and makes no noticeable difference from 4xAA. Only going up to 2560x1600 would allow you to have a better image. This is simple fact. Try using 32xAA or 64xAA on a 640x480 image. Yes, it'll look better than 2xAA/4xAA but it's probably no different than 16xAA (I've never tried at that resolution). And, that's at a lower resolution where AA is most effective. At 1920x1200, AA has a very minimal effect.

Spychi, when will you learn not to debate with me? Remember when you argued with me about system requirements and I gave you my estimate yet you told me they were too low? Well, guess what. My estimates were within 200Mhz for the CPU and spot on for everything else.

[FoxSpirit]

Here is it... the perfect IQ Starcraft 2 screenshot file.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/eobpu0...eta-HiRes1.zip

Mind you this is not mine but from PCGames Hardware but they looks fantastic. They actually exceed FullHD res so there additional downsampling when watching them fullscreen. Buttery smooth, my next comp should sustain such a picture at 60fps. So there's some waiting involved

[TheEconomist]

Is there a point to your screenshots?

[FoxSpirit]

Yes, the IQ makes me drool <3

[TheEconomist]

I see

Why not just play the game?

[FoxSpirit]

I think I have already played almost 200 matches by now g.g
Still playing the very hard AI through the map editor, it's timings are really spot on. Fortunately it's late in expanding but the pressure is serious

Also getting a new monitor tomorrow, basically same as my old but 120Hz. Bye bye ghosting

[TheEconomist]

You should get some 3D to go with that 120Hz

[FoxSpirit]

ATI card, so it's a no go. Maybe later, watching replays with that will certainly give a great feel of "living chess". Seeing flying units fly, oh yeah. But I REALLY look forward to some FPS gaming where fast sweeps looks great again.
Oh, and scrolling the map while it remains sharp.

CRT days, here I come...