[The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

[« R²» HKS]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

Well, the first one still looks better, look at the unsharp lines on the top of the oil tank on the second one, and worse, look at the bridge on the second one!!!:shock:

Same here I was thinking maybe he got them mixed up because of the jagged lines on the oil tank or I need my eyes checked :hmm:

[imported_Wreck]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

You obviously edited something else externally to get those results. We are saying withing BF2 chaning things in video.con from 3 to 4 is there a difference? I would say no.

Looks to me like you got caught cheating in your own experiment.

This is what my comparisons look like in display.con:

High:
VideoSettings.setTerrainQuality 3
VideoSettings.setGeometryQuality 3
VideoSettings.setLightingQuality 3
VideoSettings.setDynamicLightingQuality 3
VideoSettings.setDynamicShadowsQuality 3
VideoSettings.setEffectsQuality 3
VideoSettings.setTextureQuality 3
VideoSettings.setTextureFilteringQuality 3
VideoSettings.setResolution 1280x1024@70Hz
VideoSettings.setAntialiasing 4Samples
VideoSettings.setViewDistanceScale 1
VideoSettings.setVideoOptionScheme 3

Ultra High:
VideoSettings.setTerrainQuality 4
VideoSettings.setGeometryQuality 4
VideoSettings.setLightingQuality 4
VideoSettings.setDynamicLightingQuality 4
VideoSettings.setDynamicShadowsQuality 4
VideoSettings.setEffectsQuality 4
VideoSettings.setTextureQuality 4
VideoSettings.setTextureFilteringQuality 4
VideoSettings.setResolution 1280x1024@70Hz
VideoSettings.setAntialiasing 4Samples
VideoSettings.setViewDistanceScale 1
VideoSettings.setVideoOptionScheme 3

[Breakthrough]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

Looks like all you did was boost AF.

[imported_Wreck]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

Looks like all you did was boost AF.

Exactly so it would be wiser just to leave you settings on high and set your AA to 6x and af to 16x.

[Hound_Dawg]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

You obviously edited something else externally to get those results. We are saying withing BF2 chaning things in video.con from 3 to 4 is there a difference? I would say no.

Looks to me like you got caught cheating in your own experiment.

This is what my comparisons look like in display.con:

High:
VideoSettings.setTerrainQuality 3
VideoSettings.setGeometryQuality 3
VideoSettings.setLightingQuality 3
VideoSettings.setDynamicLightingQuality 3
VideoSettings.setDynamicShadowsQuality 3
VideoSettings.setEffectsQuality 3
VideoSettings.setTextureQuality 3
VideoSettings.setTextureFilteringQuality 3
VideoSettings.setResolution 1280x1024@70Hz
VideoSettings.setAntialiasing 4Samples
VideoSettings.setViewDistanceScale 1
VideoSettings.setVideoOptionScheme 3

Ultra High:
VideoSettings.setTerrainQuality 4
VideoSettings.setGeometryQuality 4
VideoSettings.setLightingQuality 4
VideoSettings.setDynamicLightingQuality 4
VideoSettings.setDynamicShadowsQuality 4
VideoSettings.setEffectsQuality 4
VideoSettings.setTextureQuality 4
VideoSettings.setTextureFilteringQuality 4
VideoSettings.setResolution 1280x1024@70Hz
VideoSettings.setAntialiasing 4Samples
VideoSettings.setViewDistanceScale 1
VideoSettings.setVideoOptionScheme 3

haha i didn't cheat i can give you some more if you want. Also as i said before this is not technically "ultra" high, its just a way to pump up your graphics externally more than you could in the bf2 application. Ok? This is just for people who did not know you could increase settings above the normal high. Call it whatever you want. Also that terrain 4 stuff doesn't work, you're funny, all i did was change the graphics directly from the video card. Luckily i did take some more pictures if you want. Haha you think i edited the pictures? There is that much of an increase? I did take more than one comparison. I think a lot of people are taking this the wrong way. It is just a way put your graphics higher than the defaulted "high." Please chill, i guess i'll try to capture some more pictures. Do you realize how long it takes to load up pcitures on 56k haha. I have an uber comp with 56k. funny ain't it...Anyways more pics on the way.

[Hound_Dawg]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

Also as i said before this is not technically "ultra" high, its just a way to pump up your graphics externally more than you could in the bf2 application.

I just wanted to quote myself so it gets through your heads hahaha

[Saureco]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

Short of buying a NASA supercomputer for graphics,

1. Who bothers to look at leaves in the middle of combat, and
2. For those players not on a supercomputer, turning the graphics down is a way to alleviate resources and get better processing power.

[Hound_Dawg]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

yeah im just here to prove, not to shove. I dont recommend higher settings... i guess.
without super duper crap

with the frosting...


there ya go party people, now let me go under my rock and sleep.

[BirdKiller]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

For the love of BF2's graphics, you won't prove any of your claims unless if you set both pictures with the same AA and AF. You're trying to prove that Ultra settings is different from High setting. We can't compare if the AA and AF for each setting is different as it will distort the graphics, especially on textures and models. One example is the tree in each those pictures. The first picture has its "leaves" blurred and smoothed while the second picture has a "crispy" look to it. If you set the second picture with the same AA level as the first, the trees will look almost or will be identical.

The latter picture is at 0x AA while the former is somewhere between 4x - 8x AA. Change it to the same level. Also, use the .PNG format on those screenshots. Despite the fact that .png pictures have larger file size than .jpeg/jpg, it provides higher quality picture. Some objects and colors in .jpg pictures can easily be distorted under the right circumstances.

I can't believe that you made the same mistake again despite users pointing at it.

[colony]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

omg, dude what dont u understand?? The original poster is only saying that the graphics quality will be upped even more than the in game highest settings by using the Nview profile to UP his AF (textures look much clearer) and probably AA (makes stair effect go away), WHICH EQUALS BETTER IMAGE QUALITY.
DUH DUH DUH DUH. This isnt 5th grade here folks.

Omg, thanks to the original poster though

[BirdKiller]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

I know what he means, however, I cannot take his pictures seriously without removing other factors that can interfere with the results. Yes, his method has increased the AF, but has drastically lowered or cancelled the AA. However, what I am more concerned about is the level of quality in the graphics itself, but I cannot have a clear picture of it until both pictures do have AA and AF at the same level.

If you were indeed in the 5th grade, then you would've known about independent and control variables in scientific experiement/comparison.

[colony]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

Looks like both shots have the same AA to me. The 2nd shot just has much more AF in it, which is really all he is trying to show. The 2nd shot looks much more detailed because of the higher AF, which = better, crisper image quality. This is what he calls Ultra High, but its really not. Its just a setting to help in game graphics go beyond what DICE put in the menus

[BirdKiller]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

You could differientiate the level of AA by comparing the mountains and the sniper rifle, they are different.

It should also be pointed out that the topic creator should have picked a different topic name. When I first read it, I had an idea that was totally different from what he meant as shown in my first 1-2 post(s).

[rtgbs7k]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

looks like the m24s scope is squared at the front...
also the trees kinda reminds me of monet...

[Tenshi]

Re: [The Real Proof] Ultra-High Vs. Normal high...Corrected picture comparison

The point is he was trying to make (sorry if this has already been stated) is that you can force the graphics higher from outside of the game. The problem is that it, at least in some cases, turns of the AA.

Strange thing is that the original poster thought that the second image is better...its funny that turning the graphics to a higher level can improve the "percieved" quality even if it makes no difference. How many people actually look at what difference things make...or just max everything out.


For example I think 2x AA produces fewer artifacts than 4x AA.

Plus, something that really annoys me is that AA has almost no effect on maps with lots of trees since AA works at the polygon level not at the texture level. Trees use transparent textures that dont filter properly and appear VERY pixalated...even if you have 16x AA...same with the grass...look the above picture.