AA Comparison Old IL-2 to CoD

[EZ1]

Today I captured screen shots from CoD and IL-2 classic just to compare image quality. The images were captured at 1920 x 1600 then cropped for size. I then went into MS Paint and added a 1-pixel wide line parallel to the antenna wires on the aircraft in both images just show the difference between a raw (not processed for anti-aliasing) line to the anti-aliasing of lines in both games. I also added a circle just for comparison. Even without anti-aliasing the raw line looks better than the antenna wire in CoD. I wonder why?

[LoBiSoMeM]

Welcome to new graphics engines problems with FSAA!

[Tte. Costa]

I think are two diferent angles of the anntena to compare adequately

[Melbourne, FL]

Originally Posted by EZ1

I wonder why?

Because it is not that easy. In game the antenna is sampled for each pixel. If it is too narrow the center of no pixel will be on top of the antenna and therefore no pixel will have the color of the antenna. That is why there are "breaks" in the antenna. Anti-aliasing calculates several sub-pixels over which the final pixel is averaged. Therefore you have a higher chance that at least one subpixel is on top of the antenna. That is why anti-aliasing helps against such "breaks" and also smoothes out the edges.

The funny thing with CloD is that anti-aliasing is applied to many things like aircraft outlines but not to wires and antennas. I really hope this will be fixed with the revision of the graphics engine.

Alexander

[EZ1]

Yes, I think the cockpit interior and and frame look great (from inside). But, outside everything is far too grainy which is why it is so bloody hard to find other aircraft.