Native Implemendation of SMAA

[jnrfl]

Native Implemendation of SMAA

Good day(night if you live in the opposite side of the world ) to you RED Team,

I'm here to ask for direct support implemented in game for Enhanced Subpixel Morphological Antialiasing or otherwise known as SMAA. It delivers antialiasing superior to the conventional FXAA(TXAA too I think?) and comparable to MLAA 4x but provides better performance.

I know there is already an injector that could achieve this feat, but at its latest revision the creator was able to provide and enhance version which is SMAA 2x and 4x. The problem for me lies with this improvement being unable to be used due to the injector's deficiency upon the matter. Needing the developers to implement it themselves in their games. I am here to humbly ask its implementation within the Witcher 2 or rather the more plausible approach, which is including this Antialiasing in the Witcher 3. I know you guys listens to your fans and this request will make us fans further enjoy the enriched quality of aesthetics and graphics that the Witcher franchise holds.(I also used SMAA to play again Witcher 1 in all its glory )

For more information regarding SMAA please visit http://www.iryoku.com/smaa/

 

[M4xw0lf.978]

Why do you rape TW1 with SMAA when it has perfectly working in-game MSAA plus the option of using SGSSAA via the driver menu of every more or less up-to-date graphics card? THIS is all the glory TW1 has to offer.
All these post-filter AA methods are totally overrated - they cause blur and do NOT fix geometry- or texture-flickering in motion. What CDPR should in fact implement is MSAA, SGSSAA and OGSSAA (TW2's notorious Ubersampling).

 

[Sirnaq]

Why do you rape TW1 with SMAA when it has perfectly working in-game MSAA plus the option of using SGSSAA via the driver menu of every more or less up-to-date graphics card? THIS is all the glory TW1 has to offer.
All these post-filter AA methods are totally overrated - they cause blur and do NOT fix geometry- or texture-flickering in motion. What CDPR should in fact implement is MSAA, SGSSAA and OGSSAA (TW2's notorious Ubersampling).

I second this.

Spoiler

I actually tried to force msaa and sgssaa in witcher 2 with custom flags for fun

Spoiler

It worked worse than ubersampling

 

[jnrfl]

Why do you rape TW1 with SMAA when it has perfectly working in-game MSAA plus the option of using SGSSAA via the driver menu of every more or less up-to-date graphics card? THIS is all the glory TW1 has to offer.All these post-filter AA methods are totally overrated - they cause blur and do NOT fix geometry- or texture-flickering in motion. What CDPR should in fact implement is MSAA, SGSSAA and OGSSAA (TW2's notorious Ubersampling).

Well first of all I do not rape TW1 with SMAA, I simply like my own enhancement to the game's visuals via SweetFX. The SMAA is just a perk among the choices. Another fact that I use it is because I'm simply amazed at how it processes with minimal performance loss that I opt to use it at almost all games that it could be injected on TW1 included.

Secondly I'm not rich. I can't always buy a high-end graphics card every year. Please mind that SMAA also has its advantages. The minimal performance loss helps me down sample a game and simply use SMAA to smoothen the rough edges.

Lastly isn't more choices more viable? I mean FXAA is a joke with how it stupidly blurs out a game. SMAA is a much better alternative to it if you want a minimal performance loss antialiasing. SMAA is also better than the one used for The Witcher 2. I see nothing bad implementing it. It quite weird how many people use it and haven't requested its application to the game. I just simply want the game better without having to cut an arm for it to look better that's all.

 

[GuyNwah]

SMAA is a good implementation of the style of AA that FXAA, SMAA, and SweetFX all provide. And it can be run on setups that are less than top of the line, whereas brute-force AA like Ubersampling demands all the GPU power you can throw at it.

But all of these raise compatibility issues, for example with desirable tools like MSI Afterburner, and that alone is good enough reason not to build them into the game.

Since they work perfectly well as end-user add-ins, and anybody using them should be sophisticated enough to know what they are doing and why, rather than ending up as a tech support case when they enable the feature without understanding its implications, I submit the best course is to leave these in their current add-in status and not attempt to build them in.

 

[AsTheDeath]

Now, I'm definitely less knowledgeable than Guy, but I'd like to make a point for implemented SMAA as well. Of course, SMAA as an end-user plug-in works well enough (and contrary to FXAA or MLAA or other post-processing AA algorithms, it barely blurs the image). However, a significant improvement to the AA effect SMAA provides is possible with an in-engine implementation. Crysis 3 is the first game I know of to implement SMAA in this way, which you can check out in the currently running beta.

The combination of its low cost performance-wise and high efficiency (it doesn't blur the image nearly as much as alternative post-processing AA algorithms) make engine-implemented SMAA an ideal alternative for those that can't run Ubersampling (which is practically everyone). In addition, I think the compatibility issue Guy refers to is due to MSI Afterburner requiring a custom d3d9.dll? If so, that's an additional problem solved by an in-engine implementation.

Damn it, this really makes me sound like a SMAA salesman... I am not, actually : P though I use SMAA in almost any game currently simply because it really doesn't blur. Again, it looks very different from FXAA or MLAA so if you've only experience with those two you should really try SMAA once.

 

[jnrfl]

Now, I'm definitely less knowledgeable than Guy, but I'd like to make a point for implemented SMAA as well. Of course, SMAA as an end-user plug-in works well enough (and contrary to FXAA or MLAA or other post-processing AA algorithms, it barely blurs the image). However, a significant improvement to the AA effect SMAA provides is possible with an in-engine implementation. Crysis 3 is the first game I know of to implement SMAA in this way, which you can check out in the currently running beta.The combination of its low cost performance-wise and high efficiency (it doesn't blur the image nearly as much as alternative post-processing AA algorithms) make engine-implemented SMAA an ideal alternative for those that can't run Ubersampling (which is practically everyone). In addition, I think the compatibility issue Guy refers to is due to MSI Afterburner requiring a custom d3d9.dll? If so, that's an additional problem solved by an in-engine implementation.Damn it, this really makes me sound like a SMAA salesman... I am not, actually : P though I use SMAA in almost any game currently simply because it really doesn't blur. Again, it looks very different from FXAA or MLAA so if you've only experience with those two you should really try SMAA once.

Wow thats a much better info than what I got haha. I wanna ask if you had played Dead Space 3? The PC version has a built in SMAA. Sadly you can't change any settings into it, so I assume the game doesn't possess the x2 or x4 mode of the Antialiasing. Yet in my opinion it is still far better than the FXAA and MLAA choices of the game. The graphics is so crisp and visually appealing.(downsampling it from 2560x1440 to 1080p makes it even look better! XD)