Why does AMS have fewer jaggies than rF2?

[Marc Collins]

AMS should look worse, since it's based on rF1...

Do these lines in the PLAYER file, not found in rF2, make the difference?:

Mipmap Adjust Mode="1" // 0 = Disabled, 1 = Clamp, 2 = Bias
Mipmap Bias="-0.25000"

If not, what explains fewer jaggies and better in-motion look when all video card settings, resolution, etc., are identical?

 

[Chris]

I've noticed this as well.
No clue if those settings change anything, I doubt they do as they have nothing to do with AA. For some reason I just can't get rF2 to look good. I've even tried DSR and sweetFX and it still looks worse than AMS.

 

[xnorb]

AMS doesn't have any antialiasing, it's all done by your graphic card (if you set it up according the manual). Maybe you didn't apply any AA for rF2 in your graphic card software?

 

[Marc Collins]

AMS doesn't have any antialiasing, it's all done by your graphic card (if you set it up according the manual). Maybe you didn't apply any AA for rF2 in your graphic card software?

I am using identical settings on both sims. rF2 has great AA, except for certain textures or situations that result in shimmering and texture crawling and jaggies. AMS seems "locked-down" using the same settings. Looks like Chris has the same experience as me

 

[xnorb]

Okay, seems it's just down to "jiggies" which is mainly used for "no AA". So i just jumped to conclusion that's what we're talking about

 

[Will Mazeo]

I've noticed this as well.
No clue if those settings change anything, I doubt they do as they have nothing to do with AA. For some reason I just can't get rF2 to look good. I've even tried DSR and sweetFX and it still looks worse than AMS.

On my PC rF2 looks like a GTR2 with lighting adjustments but it takes a lot more power to run

 

[Andy_J]

RF2 takes more CPU power due to the complexity of it's physics, hence the slower frame rates. No excuse as to why it doesn't look as good as AMS though.

 

[Will Mazeo]

RF2 takes more CPU power due to the complexity of it's physics, hence the slower frame rates. No excuse as to why it doesn't look as good as AMS though.

tbh GTA V takes a ton more CPU to run than rF2, still looks way better and runs very smooth despite my weak PC

 

[Andy_J]

tbh GTA V takes a ton more CPU to run than rF2, still looks way better and runs very smooth despite my weak PC

GTA V does not have the detailed physics engine that RF2 has. So I doubt it is as CPU intensive at all in my opinion.

 

[Will Mazeo]

It's not about being "detailed" at all.... but nevermind, it does use 10% more CPU than rF2 so yeah....

 

[Andy_J]

It's not about being "detailed" at all.... but nevermind, it does use 10% more CPU than rF2 so yeah....

I don't think you quite grasp it. Nevermind. All the best.

 

[Dethrone1427]

It's not about being "detailed" at all.... but nevermind, it does use 10% more CPU than rF2 so yeah....

I would say rf2 is more intensive physics calculating wise, with mathematical equations being made over and over, where as gta is more likely graphics heavy. Heavy in different ways.

 

[P*Funk]

Lets not underestimate the amount of stuff that has to be calculated by GTA. Traffic both vehicular and pedestrian is pretty intense too and its all still only semi scripted and reacts randomly to itself.

 

[Avo77]

Please stop the nonsense about physics calculations. Even a mainstream i5 can easily manage all the cpu load of rf2.

I had an old AMD Phenom and upgrading to an i5 @ 4Ghz gave me 2-3 fps on a 770 Gtx OC.

The graphic engine is just ugly both in terms of optimization and appearance.

 

[Dethrone1427]

Please stop the nonsense about physics calculations. Even a mainstream i5 can easily manage all the cpu load of rf2.

I had an old AMD Phenom and upgrading to an i5 @ 4Ghz gave me 2-3 fps on a 770 Gtx OC.

The graphic engine is just ugly both in terms of optimization and appearance.

Ok cool, lets dismiss that nonsense. Done.

 

[xnorb]

Rockstar is just a horrible PC developer, all their PC ports suck.
High CPU load / weak performance is only to some extent connected to what's going on in the world

rF2's minimum requirements (and we can assume that they don't simplify physics on slower machines) state: 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo or 3.0 GHz AMD Athlon II x2 or better.
So with any somewhat recent CPU physics calculation will not be an issue.

 

[Will Mazeo]

Rockstar is just a horrible PC developer, all their PC ports suck.

really? I wish rF2 would run and look like GTA V lol

 

[Lily Starfox]

...

 

[Marc Collins]

Can we get back to any solid info about what and why and how? I read people complaining about the same issues I have with rF2 in AMS. It's unfortunately not so straightforward to set-up either of these titles to look their best.

 

[Marc Collins]

A new piece of info that could be useful. I noticed that some of the same texture edge issues I get in the front view of rF2 show up in the rear view mirror of AMS. We know there is less processing happening in the mirror (in both rF2 and AMS), so does anyone know exactly what is not being done in the mirror?