Regarding the whining about anti aliasing not working....

[mazex]

Originally Posted by icarus

SWTOR has it CoD does not. Proves the op is wrong.

Well, I played SWTOR a lot in December when it was released and then it did not have it, even though it had an option in the settings it did not work, just like CloD. I haven't played it since early January and it didn't have it then but I realize from other posters here that it got it in version 1.1? Anyway, I played to level 28 without it and really enjoyed it anyway.

My point was that at release, SWOTR did not have it as using a lot of fancy Dx10 effects makes AA a lot harder than in the Dx9 days as aliantd and others have explained in detail in this thread. I just wanted to point out that fact as many remember that all games ten years ago had AA, and say stuff like "come on, it's not 2001 - how can a game get released in 2011 without it! ". That's the point, games with 100 times the budget of CloD do get released without it today, but not in 2001...

Mazex

[icarus]

Originally Posted by mazex

That's the point, games with 100 times the budget of CloD do get released without it today,

Mazex

Some don't have it in GUI, but not many get release with no video card able to force it, even in 2012.

[ParaB]

Originally Posted by mazex

Well, I played SWTOR a lot in December when it was released and then it did not have it, even though it had an option in the settings it did not work, just like CloD.

Sorry, but you're wrong. SWTOR didn't offer an in-game FSAA option, but you could implement FSAA through the drivers without problems. At least for NVIDIA cards.

CloD still doesn't work with FSAA unless you use the FXAA injector, which is still just a workaround and no real substitute for workign FSAA.

But the apologizers will, as usually, continue their "it's fine, be sure" song. Nothing new here.

[Kankkis]

Originally Posted by ParaB

Sorry, but you're wrong. SWTOR didn't offer an in-game FSAA option, but you could implement FSAA through the drivers without problems. At least for NVIDIA cards.

worked with Ati too from launch.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by ParaB

But the apologizers will, as usually, continue their "it's fine, be sure" song. Nothing new here.

And the glass half empty horde will stand in the bar arguing with the bartender while the rest get drunk and try have a good time even though the new chairs are a bit wickety

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by icarus

Your horizontal is high in pixel count

Agreed 100%

My horizontal pixel count is higher than your horizontal pixel count

Put another way, you only have 69% of the horizontal pixel that I have

Where

69% = 100*(2650/3840)

Originally Posted by icarus

1024 on a monitor is very low res

Agreed 50%

My vertical pixel count is is lower than your vertical pixel count

Put another way, I only have 64% of the vertical pixels that you have

Where

64% = 100*(1024/1600)

Originally Posted by icarus

or very small image.

Disagree 100%

And note you are switching between talking about the resolution to talking about the image size

And in that regard my setup puts yours to shame!

I have a much lager view (image size) than yours!

Size wise I 'choose' horizontal (perihelial) over vertical..

Why you ask?

Well it should be apparent, but allow me to explain just encase it is not

A larger vertical view means you can see more of your cockpit floor and top of your canopy (your case)
A larger horizontal view means you can see more of the useful sky, what is left and right of you (my case)

Of the two

I think we can all agree that seeing a plane to your left or right (horizontal), at any time, is more useful information

More useful than the context of your cockpit floor, like the visual position of your rudder pedals.

Originally Posted by icarus

Both inferior to mine.

Sorry, but that is incorrect

As you can see above, your horizontal pixel count is only 69% of mine, thus your horizontal pixel count is inferior to mine

Originally Posted by icarus

Wrong again dude,

Really?

I noticed you didn't provide a quote of something I said that was wrong

Do you know why you didn't quote me?

Because I didn't say anything that was wrong.

Originally Posted by icarus

even the total pixels are much smaller than 2650 x 1600.

Agreed 100%

My total pixel count is lower than your total pixel count

But not by much..

Put another way, I only have 93% of the total number

3932160 = 3840 x 1024
4240000 = 2650 x 1600

93% = 100*(3932160/4240000)

Originally Posted by icarus

Wrong again, not missing the point. SWTOR was always able to force it with the video card drivers with a config hack. Unlike CoD.

Nope your still missing it.. And the fact that it was a hack and not part of the GUI proves it

Originally Posted by icarus

Wrong again,

Really?

I noticed you didn't provide a quote of something I said that was wrong

Do you know why you didn't quote me?

Because I didn't say anything that was wrong.

Originally Posted by icarus

I was not talking about you I was referring to post #30, that is why I did not quote you.

Did not a could not

Originally Posted by icarus

Although you did say I might have shimmering due to a hardware problem which is also completely wrong.

Maybe, but all we know for sure is that there are people with settings and setups like yours that are not having the issues you are having.

Originally Posted by icarus

You are wrong a lot.

Just to be clear

For those who may be reading this..

Note that icarus has yet to quote anything I said that would qualify as being wrong

As for what he 'thinks' I said or saying.. Well I can not be held responsible for that

[icarus]

3840 x 1024 is 3 x lower res screens at 1260 x 1024 each. Lots of low res pixels spread over three screens. So quality-wise, not pixel amount size, it is 1260 x 1024 vs 2650 x 1600. 2650 x 1600 30" monitors are by far higher quality and actually is the highest quality monitor res at this time. There is one 3840 res monitors which is $18,000 and are only 22" diagonal for medical purposes. For those who may be reading this. The resident know-it-all-spammer-obsessive quoter/arguer cannot admit when he is wrong on all counts.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by icarus

For those who may be reading this. The resident know-it-all-spammer-obsessive quoter cannot admit when he is wrong on all counts.

I would be more than willing to admit to something I 'said' was wrong, if it truly was wrong. But I can not admit to it yet because you have yet to provided (quote) what I said that you consdier to be wrong.

[icarus]

LOL Big surprise another quote.

[fruitbat]

This is pure gold

so far its a definite points victory to Ace, lol.