. But unfortunately this results such bad aliasing that it looks worse than no tessellation.
Why would that be? I thought it was wasted tessellation?
It is wasteful in Crysis 2 on concrete barriers and water, however, it is used very well on building walls and certain sections of the ground (tiles, rocks, etc.). The pics you linked show increased detail level ONLY at the top part of the concrete barrier. The barrier itself has 6 faces (although we can't physically see the bottom of the barrier). They could have only tessellated the top face. Instead, the Tessellation was applied to the entire concrete barrier, yet none of the textures for the remaining 5 faces of the barrier show any new detail whatsoever. And Tessellated water in Crysis 2, well that's just a complete waste. It doesn't hold a candle to Just Cause 2's water.
Taken directly from NV's website:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tessellation.html
"In its most basic form, tessellation is a method of breaking down polygons into finer pieces. For example, if you take a square and cut it across its diagonal, you’ve “tessellated” this square into two triangles. By itself, tessellation does little to improve realism. For example, in a game, it doesn’t really matter if a square is rendered as two triangles or two thousand triangles—tessellation only improves realism if the new triangles are put to use in depicting new information."
No new information is depicted in the 4 faces of the concrete barriers. In other words, Tessellation is used inefficiently. Why would you break up 1000 triangles and reassemble almost the exact same object with 1 million triangles? They could have "disassembled" the top face only and applied tessellation to that small section.
The math simply doesn't drive. I saw the result, but are challenging the cause of such result, and I don't believe the amount of tessellation is the cause. If it hurts 68xx and older gen more than 69xx, and 69xx hurts 30% less on some scales, then it make sense. Adding 2x the amount of tessellation unit only to find 0 performance increase when tessellation is heavy just doesn't make sense.Someone posted a link to a pcgh article sonewhere in this thread. Basically the 2x tessellation throughput of 6900 goes down the drain when tessellation factor is increased beyond a certain point. Crysis 2 uses extremely high tessellation factors. AMD users can manually clamp the tessellation factor in drivers to gain back some performance. But unfortunately this results such bad aliasing that it looks worse than no tessellation.
You didnt read the artical that this thread is about did you?
AMD users can manually clamp the tessellation factor in drivers to gain back some performance. But unfortunately this results such bad aliasing that it looks worse than no tessellation.
You can't be serious.Is it possible the reason why nVidia felt the need to invest into a robust tessellation ability was to bring tessellation and a lot of it -- with quality, without artifacts, to the gamer?
The math simply doesn't drive. I saw the result, but are challenging the cause of such result, and I don't believe the amount of tessellation is the cause. If it hurts 68xx and older gen more than 69xx, and 69xx hurts 30% less on some scales, then it make sense. Adding 2x the amount of tessellation unit only to find 0 performance increase when tessellation is heavy just doesn't make sense.
To make sense of this result, it seems somehow there exists a bottleneck within the card when tessellation increases. In fact, it may not have to be tessellation, simply heavy load. This can be a result of driver bugs or hardware limitation, but if it doesn't hurt Nvidia as much, then it is not the code (to be specific, the usage of Dx11 api).
The increase of performance by decreasing tessellation can also be seen as "increase in performance as load decreases." One of such cause is AMD's parallel processing utilization is limited after X number of processes is reached, where X is no way near the number of processing units. Again, there are many more possabilities, and this is actually open ended without detail data on what goes in, what comes out, and what happens in between. To get to the bottom of this, test cases must be build and executed on multiple platforms. Yes, pointing fingers save the work.
And please, if anyone wants to be a loyal fan of AMD, then stop saying Nvidia is better by saying it maintain FPS on heavy tessellation where AMD can't. It is really an advantage to Nvidia.
One of the biggest benefits from tessellation is the increased details on geometry silhouettes without visible under-sampling artifacts
Got any science to back all of this up? Or, are you just saying it's like this because it's the best explanation you can think of?
... Again, there are many more possabilities, and this is actually open ended without detail data on what goes in, what comes out, and what happens in between. To get to the bottom of this, test cases must be build and executed on multiple platforms...
From CryTech.
Curious to know if these artifacts shown when reducing the tessellation are under-sampling artifacts?
Did I miss anything?
If you back track 6970 review, it was clear that the double throughput rocks when tessellation factor is under 12. Try to manually force the factor to 12x and see if that is acceptable quality to you. Beyond 12, the extra throughput does nothing. The question is what answer do you want from me?What I meant is all of the "reasons" you gave for the performance hit. Do you actually have any knowledge of these operations? Or, are you just saying it because it makes sense to you? Do any of these reasons have any real science behind them so there's any possibility at all they are true?
Here is the multi-fold. A) If AMD suck at tessellation, then don't blame on others and should really work on better tessellation performance. B)Over and over again TWIMTBP and GE ain't ninja training camp. These programs offer aid to game devs in terms of utilization of latest and greatest tecjs like PhysX, Eyefinity and 3D. If you fail to see that there are 20 pages full of conspiracy theories and not science, then you are a fan. C)There are lots of people happy about it. Long time ago Mr. President posted 4 screenshots, focusing the differences between 64x cap vs default. Simply by looking at the wall and you can easily tell which one is not tessellated properly. D) The idea of tessellation on the fly is to reduce memory footprint, bandwidth, and the occurrence of clipping between pre-tessellated skin. While a game can build around AMD's current generation cards and tessellate on top of wired frame that requires highly detailed, pre-tessellated skins, a game can also utilize tessellation to its max, just like crysis 2. Don't like it? Turn it off.Also, I haven't heard anyone say nVidia doesn't have a performance advantage in tessellation. Of course they do or this thread wouldn't exist. Just because someone has a problem with the way this patch was done doesn't automatically make them an AMD fan. I can't find any reason for anyone to be happy with the way tessellation was added to this title.
I thought you said you can't find any reason for anyone to be happy with the way tessellation was added to this title.It seems a lot of IQ improvements people are crediting to tessellation is actually POM. The walls, etc.
If it is simple, then it would have been done. Check out the tessellation on Dirt 2 and see if they partially tessellate one object. What game devs do is to tessellate some objects in the scene, like a rock, but not part of a rock or when to tessellate the rock. If it is simple than Dx9 games can add Dx11 tessellated arts on top of existing toons. Really, Dx9 body, Dx11 armors, oh yeah. I am looking forward to it.Someone mentioned only tessellating part of a model, the road barriers, to add tessellation only to the lifting rings because that's the only IQ enhancement there is. That's likely not possible. Although we'd only be talking a few hundred polies at most to just have modeled them like that in the first place.
Seero, is English your first language? You seem to have once again not understood a thing I said.
It would help if you just came out and say point blank what you mean. Instead of asking question after question trying to get others to admit something, even accidentally, why don't you just come out and say what you want everyone to know? It may help your position on things, or utterly destroy it. I dunno.
"Also, I haven't heard anyone say nVidia doesn't have a performance advantage in tessellation. Of course they do or this thread wouldn't exist."
You mean, if Nvidia didn't have a performance advantage in tesselation, this thread wouldn't exist, correct? Just clarifying in case someone decides to go all semantical. <-- word? :|
Well, wouldn't the shoddy implementation I keep hearing about make this thread exist? Or is it only shoddy because Nvidia performs better? It's a can I have my cake and eat it too situation for you.
Wasns't there a link/post in this thread where it was stated that going below x16 tessellation factor on AMD hardware introduced visibile lower I.Q.
It's possible that in certaion locations/cases it not only introduces lower I.Q but also artifacting.
But as far as I remember that post/link only touched on building/objects...not eg. water borders.
Besides we really need video comparions,stills don't really do tessellation (and other effects) justice.
behardware said:There is a slight difference in quality when you set the MaxTessFactor at 32. Its invisible on most elements of the image but noticeable on the walls. As of 16, quality drops more significantly on the walls but remains pretty much equivalent on other objects. Beyond 16, while some elements are still displayed with a decent level of quality, this isn't the case for the walls at all theyre probably the objects that benefit most from tessellation.
CryTech said:The mesh geometry is now dynamically tessellated based on the distance to the camera. This allows a high amount of geometry details close to the camera and eliminates geometry aliasing
It seems a lot of IQ improvements people are crediting to tessellation is actually POM. The walls, etc.
Maybe the time and resources? Maybe it was just easier?