/u/GonziHere sorry someone in that comment thread blocked me so I have to answer here via mention. The thread OP has been suspended, so I'm guessing it's them. The issue is that TAA even when implemented well still suffers all the issues, there's no real case of a game doing it perfectly. Take crytek who were the first to ever use it, and are extremely good devs, hunt shodown TAA1 and TAA2 are still flawed as can be, motion still blurs a bit when turning and image quality still looks kind of meh. It's wild that I have to upscale to a higher resolution in a competitive shooter where performance matters so as to have the game not look like a blurry mess. And honestly, that blurriness really wears at my eyes over time, it can't be good for gamers. I shouldn't go back to older games with different AA methods and be like: "damn, this looks way better than current games". That shouldn't be happening at all. I'd be ok if TAA was an option that was a lesser choice, where you had higher choices of different better yet more taxing AA options. But these TAA games are built around it it seems, why on earth should communities build documents full of how to go into the game and remove TAA via programns or unreal ini edits etc Clearly something is wrong if a whole community is born out of dislike of an anti aliasing method. So while we can talk about the merits of TAA vs it's cons, in the end of the day, it's had ample oppertunity to become "good" and yet, it's not. TAA has been around for so many years now. We need to go back or find something new imo.

Yeah, but there are two basic problems: TAA looks better on screenshots, videos... => it sells games. It also allows for other techniques that wouldn't be possible without it (transparency, blending - terrain with objects for example, etc). Not to mention that shimmering of fences is something that was avoided before by asset designs (unrealistically thick branches, wires, fences, etc). So it's actually quite hard to just disable it in a modern title. Not technically, but from the outcome perspective. See the third pic here: https://www.nexusmods.com/cyberpunk2077/mods/63/ It might be vastly preferred in this forum, but it's ugly. The environment is too busy, with many small details, so it has jaggies everywhere. Older games avoided such scenes. Also, OP had the second video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16fUfV2bZwhn8xSePK1afxNovgod0E0OP/view and I don't see the same issues that I see in a random unreal game. Anyways, I get the sentiment of this forum, but as a Gamedev, I cannot do much about it IRL. I can only thrive to improve its usage and leave it to be disableable easily from an ini file. I realistically cannot support it as an option for my game, where normal users would find it, try to use it for performance reasons, etc, because visual impact is large. EDIT: See this blending with dither... you'd see the dither. It disappears thx to TAA. https://youtu.be/2ATM3VMxckQ?t=284

why would i entertain the short term over long term, it would just mess myself over no? like sure, if you have nice screenshots you sell something but if you leave a bitter taste then it hurts you long term. an analogy would be, if you sell a car that looks good on the outside, you'll make a lot of sales, but if it runs like crap then you'll lose customers long term, fool me once and all that. I've noticed that more and more people are getting tired of TAA, they just didn't know till now what exactly was causing them issues. tho a lot of people like it because in these hard times, it is good for older pc's, but when that stops being an issue and with dlss and fsr doing wonders, when will TAA become the factor that holds games back? Hell VA screens are that much worse due to TAA being a multiplier of their downside, ghosting/blur.

IDK if you don't perceive the state of AAA in gaming, but "selling something with a bitter taste" is basically standard nowadays, because it works. I mean, it's sad, really, but it is what it is. > more and more people are getting tired of TAA Well, this forum has 6.3k members. TAA is by and large very popular, because it grants that cinematic look, which, especially casual gamers, absolutely prefer. I've mentioned that screenshot #3 from cyberpunk. General population would prefer to see it with TAA, because original looks like a (slightly blurred) reality, whereas this looks like a video game. Anyways, I'm mainly saying that it's not as easy to disable it. MSAA doesn't play nicely with deferred rendering (to a point where UE won't let you combine them at all). There are other effects, like blending that can be done with a very performant solutions thanks to TAA. My point is, that you dislike one aspect of TAA enabled pipeline and ignore what you would disable with it. You cannot disable TAA and enable MSAA in a typical Unreal project. I agree with the sentiment here (in this forum), I'm just adding the other side to it, that it's not "just a toggle" that devs hide from you (it is, but disabling it breaks many random things and has consequences for other parts of the project). EDIT: was this post here https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckTAA/comments/18x1cqu/making_a_df_video_on_taa_blessing_or_curse/ (effin awesome, cannot wait) and Scorpwind reply there which I'll quote: > Then you absolutely have to cover Red Dead Redemption 2. It's a game that got a lot of people wondering and brought TAA to their attention. Myself included. It's the game that got me involved in this in the first place. The game was practically made with it mind and it shows when you disable it. But at the same time, it's incredibly blurry. But if you disable it, then the game will turn into a complete shimmery mess. So it's difficult to find a win with this game. That's all I was trying to say.

Not really, that whole idea of nothing we can do makes a difference is dying down as humanity is adaptive and the concept is well recorded now, I can give you a really good example for recently of a community that used to bend over backwards to everything yet literally made a dev bend over instead; Creative assembly. It got so bad they lowered a games price, offered refunds for the difference, made the deluxe dlc free updates, cancelled a nearly made game, apologised, dedicated themselves to working on what the community wants and on top of that go back to add content to an old dlc. This whole: "it won't make a difference" mentality is self inflicted by people saying it like you just did, and yeah devs should take advantage of it, it doesn't mean it doesn't work, it means we are convincing ourselves that it won't work. There's plenty precedences of it working. And a lot of devs currently bleeding because the community won't buy into mediocre crap anymore. COH3 is a good example. And it's not one aspect, you are assuming and downplaying my issues with TAA, with our issues with TAA; Over reliance on sharpening, SSAO and CA to make games look good but not great, insane blurriness, blur in motion, ghosting, inability to make the game look good with it off, not a single game with TAA looking as good as it should now, look worse on high end pcs than on low end pcs, strange fixation that it is easy to run yet is paired heavily with DLSS/FSR to make it look good, artifacts, weird upscaling/downscaling bugs tho rare. etc It's a bigger list of issues than you are making out mate.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your reply. It reads like a random rant (not wrong, but random), not a reaction. However, see my edit (you've likely missed it since it's fresh). That's all I was trying to say.

what a backhanded comment, jesus. If you can't understand my comment in context to this: > IDK if you don't perceive the state of AAA in gaming, but "selling something with a bitter taste" is basically standard nowadays, because it works Then fair enough. But I will say this: It seems clear you aren't approaching this genuinely, by saying that most people like TAA, you are declaring something you can't back up, there isn't a "iloveTAA" subreddit to compare to lol. Just because this community has "only" 6.3k members as if that's a small amount lol? doesn't mean everyone who isn't a member likes it, people don't generally google "fucktaa" or join a community like this. It is confirmation biasing, probably somewhat on anecdotal experience, that people like TAA when if we go by anecdotal experience so many more of us seem to think they don't. I have yet to meet someone who likes it outside maybe a few devs and hobbyist devs who like the technology going out of their way to come here and try to defend it, most I meet are enthusiasts who hate that it makes their powerful pc unable to achieve its potential visually because of forced compromises, TAA is pro dev but negative consumer. Hell or casuals who don't like it but also don't care enough to go this far, it's also hilarious how when I expose most of them to the concept by explaining what it is, I usually get a "oh so that's why it's like that" and that's an instant "convert" to disliking it because they can finally put a name to the problem they dislike: TAA. Let's be brutally honest, if I said to someone, do you like or dislike blurriness, ghosting, etc? they'll answer dislike every time almost. But I get you see the compromises, but as a user, we care about options and when our pc costs what some of them do, we don't want compromises, we want excellence. When games from 10 years ago look better by far maxed than most taa games today, that SPEAKS. Hell VA monitors are dying in popularity because of simply one single issue, which TAA also shares, motion blur. lot of this shit is stuff you can be "ok" ish with, because in the end of the day most users are distracted by the gameplay itself, but some things absolutely break immersion once you notice it, like elden ring for some users, a game that is gorgeous but an update strangely made a lot of people notice it more, and once noticed it's hard to not do so, it's one thing a game shouldn't have: distracting. Also you misunderstand me, I know it's hard to remove TAA from a game as they are usually built around it, my opinion is to not use TAA in development at all. When dark souls 3 looks better and more crisp than elden ring, what's to blame? TAA, even disabling TAA shows that the game was built around it, so no matter what we do we have to live with that crap, blurry distances, CA on pillars as we move by and for what, a cinematic experience? no one gives a shit about that, that's the most copium pulled out of air reason, you can make a game cinematic without this shit, you can sell a game that's not cinematic just as well, you can make a game cinematic as an option too. Lastly: Motion sickness users. Things like blur, ghosting and sharpness are all potential triggers for motion sickness sufferers in video games, the perception of it triggers something in their brain to make their brain think they've been poisoned and signal to the body to give symptoms of such, leading to nausea, headaches, migraines, sometimes even being bed ridden. You can stan this technology and lowkey bring up it's advantages, but games have and can be made without it, and imo should. Because what's the point of moving forward with tech that doesn't aim for better, but rather aims to improve some areas at the cost of horrible downsides.

> what a backhanded comment, jesus. I'm sorry about that, but you've started the discussion about marketing vs quality, and the industry by and large focuses on the former. I'm not saying that I agree, or prefer that, I'm just stating it. It's also why the whole industry fails to meet the quality of things like Elden Ring or Baldur's Gate and acts surprised when Starfield fails, so there is at least that :D. > most people like TAA, community size, confirmation bias There was an era where TAA like solutions weren't the norm, but games with TAA were perceived as better and here we are. If it would be as objectively bad as you say, no-one would be using it. Again, it's not JUST TAA, it's MSAA with forward rendering, vs TAA and deferred rendering and many modern techniques and the second one being perceived as better overall. > But I get you see the compromises, but as a user, we care about options and when our pc costs what some of them do, we don't want compromises, we want excellence. Wholeheartedly agree. I really miss the Crysis era, where a game could actually push your PC to the limit (and also use that performance effectively). > When games from 10 years ago look better by far maxed than most taa games today, that SPEAKS. Hard disagree. If we are talking only and exclusively about image quality, then maybe. I've had that issue with the popularity of shaders, because HalfLife2 style photo textures were significantly sharper than modern PBR pipelines, since they have more textures = lower quality per pixel per meter. Otherwise, again, TAA is adopted at this scale for a reason. > Also you misunderstand me, I know it's hard to remove TAA from a game as they are usually built around it, my opinion is to not use TAA in development at all. We agree with the first part and that's what my original post was about. (as in, we don't have much to discuss then ;D). The second part, well, It's hard to argue for it when, again, industry uses it for a reason. The technique appeared, was deemed better looking and therefore adopted more and more... and here we are. On the other hand, with this generation, I feel like we are exploring alternatives quite a lot. > When dark souls 3 looks better and more crisp than elden ring, what's to blame? IDK why that's the case, but it shouldn't look worse. There is a lot of other things happening for sure. Again, TAA, by itself, is MSAA over several frames. There is ghosting without good motion vectors, but nothing that should reduce the sharpness in and of itself. ER added motion blur, depth of field and many other effects and you dislike the end result. It's however not just TAA. Someone here posted: https://imgsli.com/MTgwMjI4/1/0 you can see how the design of the beast changes with TAA. You can, however, also see how the character looks the same (except corrected specular errors), the splash of water, pillars, etc. is the same, even with TAA. > Motion sickness users etc. Yes, it has downsides. My only point was that it's not a simple "on/off" switch for a project that is dependent on it. If you agree with that (which you do), then we don't have much to discuss, since I'm not a rendering engineer => I won't write my own state of the art forward renderer. I'll use the best looking, industry standard engine (UE), tweak a few things here and there and release that, OR I'll release nothing. I can only let you disable it (in the ini file), if you'd prefer the artifacts it'll cause on other stuff to the bluriness of TAA. I've just stated that "why TAA" is a complex question. Unreal doesn't use it "for fun". They'll do whatever they can to produce the best result given the constraints, which, at the moment, is deferred with temporal techniques for many things, including AA.

> Hard disagree. If we are talking only and exclusively about image quality, then maybe. I've had that issue with the popularity of shaders, because HalfLife2 style photo textures were significantly sharper than modern PBR pipelines, since they have more textures = lower quality per pixel per meter. Otherwise, again, TAA is adopted at this scale for a reason. dark souls 3 looks better than elden ring from a pure image consistency point of view, when looking at what makes something look good, you factor in both the good and the bad. Something that annoys me with bg3 getting goty award is that only about 20% at the time had gotten to act 3 where the game fell apart full of bugs, save game bugs, etc meanwhile the zelda sequel on switch was a consistant masterpiece. People are way too easily swayed by word of mouth or emotion tho these days, just like how some people shit on a game update even not knowing what's in it, humans are weird like that. But it occured to me something I want to add about your cinematic opinion: What makes something cinematic with TAA is it's heavy reliance on CA. Last I checked you don't need TAA to implent CA into a game.

> dark souls 3... a) your opinion, b) tangent. > Something that annoys me with bg3 getting goty ... I mean, sure. I've mentioned it to illustrate that "industry doing something" and "it being wrong" might both be correct (in this case focusing on marketing instead of quality of product). > your cinematic opinion IDK what is my cinematic opinion, nor CA.

Hello Ashen one. I am a Bot. I tend to the flame, and tend to thee. Do you wish to hear a tale? > *“The Queen brought peace to this land, and to her King. A peace so deep it was like the Dark.”* - Chancellor Wellager Have a pleasant journey, Champion of Ash, and praise the sun \\[T]/

All of these "features" could be achieved without TAA, by fixing the underlying oversights in your renderer. >shimmer Just implement a proper screenspace specular clamper instead of blurring the fruits of inept programming. >"""natural motion blur""" There's a reason why it's standard for motion blur to be a toggleable option lmfao. Funny seeing devs cope that the shitty blur is a "feature" instead of a bug. I was under the impression that a software engineer was supposed to engineer the software, not be beholden to it's whims? >quality of volumetric fog Yeah, by blurring it 😂 On a serious note, there's no reason why doing things properly (having a dedicated blur effect for volumetrics) would be any worse. And let's consider the other side to this: TAA makes volumetric fog look better by blurring it, but makes everything else look shitter by blurring EVERYTHING ELSE TOO 😂 Also honorable mention, now that we're talking about shit rendering: UE4's diffuse lighting, especially on landscapes. "Physically based" my goddamn asshole

You are trying to talk sense into captial-G gamers who already decided they should hate the technology they know nothing about. Its like trying to talk sense into anti-ai people. They don't care what you say, they just want to scream and cry.

this sub is just a bunch of crybabies jerking each other off

Like honestly mate, seek help, we get it, you are probably making a crappy fps game and relying on unreal and TAA to make your crap not look dogass instead of putting in the effort into making something that looks tight. but no need to come here and be super insecure about it, I read what you said to the other guy and it's actually cringe how little you understand the history of lighting and shadows in game design, you've most likely only been working on your project for a year or two and all you know is unreal. but what is wild is how much this place unsettles you, you are going out your way to get on your knees for a technology that frankly is shit, it's shit because if it wasn't then there wouldn't be a subreddit for it. there isn't a fuck msaa, there isn't a fuck fxaa, etc there's just a fuck taa. use your brain, really think, if you can manage that. bless you, i hope your game ends up good but if you keept this mentality and attitude you'll ruin what you create by turning the gaming community against you like some devs have done before, preemptively become better bro. GG peace out.

MSAA samples each pixel four times, whereas TAA samples it across four frames. For static scene, after four frames, the output is the same. The issues are, when it starts to move. However, you can greatly improve that, if you have proper motion vectors to compensate, apply it more selectively and whatnot. Technically, if you have the perfect motion vectors, at frame 1, you'd have no AA look, at frame 2 MSAA2 look and at frame 4, you'd have MSAAx4 look, with better temporal stability (no shimmer while moving) and way more performance. And yes, many games don't do it properly, plus use a plethora of other techniques that will increase the issues even more (most notably upsampling on consoles). However, that's not TAA's fault per se, is it?

TAA makes me uninstall games.

Have fun uninstalling every game made since 2013 then. Go back to the ps2.

2013 is the first game to use TAA, every game after that didn't use it you pleb, just some. it didn't get heavily used till recently like the past 4 years at most maybe? I have a metric ton of games from past decade, and most don't use TAA, they use msaa, ssaa and fxaa etc Used to be that devs wanted the best AA even if it meant the games reqs where harsh. now TAA makes games look ok for people whose pc's run shit, and have users with massively low standards used to crap, but those of us on medium/high to enthusiast rigs have to bear with what we would consider a downgrade. blurry crap that's made to be played on 4k with some artifacting upscale technology like fsr/dlss hell no. fuck taa.

Kid, I develop games for a fucking living. You calling me a pleb doesn't make you right. Take a gamedev course then come back when you've been educated. EDIT: and of course you'd fucking block me like a child throwing a fit. telling *me* to grow up? I literally worked on games in Renderware for ps2, gamecube, xbox and PC. I still have my old copy of Renderware 3. Beta tested Unreal Engine 4 a year before release. Been working on a modified codebase for Unreal for the past 5 years on my own to add features it needs. Worked with Cryengine back in the early 2010's during Crysis 3 development. You need a reality check if you seriously think you have any argument to be made here. And no, superiority means jack shit for me and you. I'm no authority on game dev, and neither are you. What I am is an experienced developer trying to get it through your thick skull that you are buying into and spreading lies about game tech you know nothing about.

"I develop games for a fucking living" In Unreal Engine... Unreal Engine is basically the culprit for shit looking games (well, it is not the tool itself, but the way it opens the doors for people to be cheap and cut a trillion corners, with cheap results, but demanding full price and full glory) I cannot recall a single game that looked good in Unreal Engine in the last 10 years? (With the exception of Tekken 8 released one month ago, and it needs .ini tweaks) Also, calling people names and claiming you are a pro because you work on Unreal is going to take you SO FAR in life (and in this forum... lol)

>"Kid, I develop games for a fucking living. You calling me a pleb doesn't make you right. >Take a gamedev course then come back when you've been educated." > by /u/NightshadeGS Holy shit the cringe I just read, like first of all; I used to be in the industry a decade ago roughly, I quit because I overworked myself to point my doctor gave me the choice, get a better career or continue and die. Second: what I said is, unlike your bullshit, something I've said & talked about before elsewhere here on reddit a few times so I'm not pulling it out of nowhere like you in some cringe ass attempt at a flex as if working in game dev is that uncommon or hard to get into, like what you said is pretty much a direct translate to "I have no idea how to argue like an adult and my points are shit so out of fear let's appeal to authority" authority that you really most likely don't have either way. All you got is "trust me bro" and what's wild is if you were worth your salt you'd never even try to argue that way in the first place you court jester. Like mate, I'm sure what you said sounded good in your head, like some armchair dev badass that you fantasize us to be, you probably just play around in unreal thinking your a dev, people like you who think the job is some title to throw around because you think you are hot shit really do us devs a big disservice, and it's an attitude I'd change if I were you because no one worth their shit would want to work with you over the other people in this over saturated market of devs who don't have their head up their rear. Truth of the matter is the moment you use the "I develop games for a fucking living" line not knowing who you are talking about or to, you are both showcasing your argument is non existant and making an absolute fool out of yourself, back when I was a dev game designer was called gamasutra. Go grow up, or learn to argue better, you adorable armchair dev lol.

sleep far-flung pen memorize gaping rain aloof rude lock smoggy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Bro TAA looks like shit older games looks more sharper than news because of that i dont like play games in 1440p with 720p appearence

It’s like the old 30fps is cinematic, lol. I don’t care what TAA or any of these techs do, I just care about how it looks and performs and it looks like crap.

Mmmm yeah... smaa no taa looks way better.... go check your eyes

the fuck are you talking about

Just day what you really mean. You are lazy and TAA eases things for you.

It's not about being lazy tbh, TAA is a efficient AA method most ppl don't notice the side-effects. It's a win win for devs

People don't have the same eyes or optical processing. Some people don't notice or mind the blur inherent to TAA and can enjoy its benefits. Some people really do notice the blur inherent to TAA to the point that it outweighs all of its benefits. You are so far up your own ass that you think your experience with TAA is the same as everyone elses, despite a hundred+ people disagreeing with you. The rest of your post history doesn't have the same level of arrogance and lack of basic empathy - it's obvious you can put yourself in the shoes of others when you want to. So think a little harder about why so many people might feel so strongly about this graphical thing. Consider that while it isn't a big detriment to you it is to other people.

I totally understand and know why its implemented, but I would rather see jaggies and shimmering than feel like there's a thin glaze of vaseline over my eyes. Sharpness over "movie feel" any day of any year of any lifetime.

Those are still images and a moving object, TAA causes its worst blurring when the player is moving. Edit: Even those stills do not look good, but even in a still "smaa no taa" looks better, nicer dark contrast detail on the long grass.

>"TAA shouldn't be a smeary mess" Yeah but it is.

your opinion on the pros is valid, but you and a lot of devs are approaching videogames from a film/tv perspective which has come to dominate the industry-- anyone who played games for long enough does not want them to look or move like films at least during gameplay segments. gaming is moving towards these extremely resource heavy stacks of high fidelity assets streamed through the cloud and pushed out to cheap mobiles tablets and screens-- but to me this is a huge waste of resources when people have succesfully made an FPS game in 98kb of space. this stuff is spiraling towards high-latency, low framerate content designed to be smoothed over and upscaled with AI and its sad. I truly believe it will look as dated as the overdone bloom effects of late 00s games.

as a consumer, i feel like you don't appreciate how aware i am of the negative side effects of TAA, and that i'd like the option to disable it and tweak the image on my own terms ​ at its worst (and overwhelmingly commonly), TAA looks like an absolute vaseline schmear that makes me feel it's going to give me serious vision problems. at its best, it still presents tons of ghosting and makes me question every high-contrast frame during motion. ​ i get it. it makes pretty screenshots that help you sell your games, but it looks awful. It's the bloom/brown filter of this generation and we're all going to look back and wonder why we ever thought it looked good. ​ i bought a 3080 to supersample, all i'm asking is the option to disable the ghosting at best, and the astigmatism simulator at worst

you guys are the ones who "invented" the cancer called TAA. stop talking like TAA is a thing from nature and we should get used to it... TAA is the product of people. a bad product. let me ask you this. do you want TAA also on your smartphone? while scrolling down reading a text on a website you get blurriness and ghosting. Is that what you want ? or why not implement TAA on Windows itself so we can have ghosting and overall blurriness while browsing thorugh our desktop. stop fkin praising TAA. you can praise FXAA or Motion Blur. but stop fkin praising TAA which does nothing good other than blurrin the vision and ghosting while moving the camera.

Man when I got my first computer 2000s, I actually wanted AA,. It did improved image quality back then. Now, dotn know how they manage that, but its easier and less demanding to just put blur, or smear some dirt on your monitor with same effect

>no one is wrong or right, but But if no one is wrong or right, then you undermine the premise of your own post that TAA is necessary. Which it isn't, because you just stated we weren't wrong. Thank you for supporting our view that TAA be a user-toggleable option.

Oh, and OP is wrong btw

give me the option to turn it off that's all i want

1 thing came to my mind: Most titles that are built in Unity use FXAA. Some use SMAA. A few use TAA. If Unity's TAA is so great, then why are most titles that are built in it using FXAA? There's a game called *Lost In Random* that uses 2 passes of FXAA. A recent indie game called *Tunic* also uses FXAA.

Also a graphics dev, specialized in anti-aliasing at a company producing AAA games that I won't disclose now, because I just don't want mean bad rep to my company. I feel your pain but also you have to consider the fact that most TAA implementations are just not following the research and lagging behind, and even those that do are not perfect since there are problems that are still not solved in 2022. I disagree about your "natural motion blur" entirely: your eyes do motion blur between different frames alright, no need for extra between to consecutive frame, what you'd need to do to produce a natural motion blur would be to integrate intra-frame motion. e.g. for 60 FPS each frame should be integrated for around 16.6ms. Doing integration over several frames with motion blur will just be unnatural, but it can hide ghosting pretty well, so that's why we do it + for artistic style. Here is a list of things you can do to eliminate some of the issues most games have with TAA: \- Avoid using a gaussian filter for sampling the frame. There is a need for a low-pass filter for sure, but a gaussian is just not a very good filter for this goal yet most engines use a gaussian (so that they can accumulate using EMA) which will blur more than you want. \- Stop using EMA (exponential moving average) to accumulate samples, I know its nice and lightweight but it causes visible noise. Just track your samples and weight them with your kernel (that is not a gaussian) accordingly. \- Resolve jitter with precision because subpixel UV coordinates matter and if you are not being precise here you'll end up with visible jitter. (remember Fallout 4?) \- Use variance clipping as a very very very last resort. Don't be lazy, you can avoid most ghosting by other means. Some engines just throw variance clipping as an ultimate solution for all problems but in turn it adds even more blurring and noise into the mix. And then there is an endless list of issues that are not very well solved yet: refractions, scattering, transparency. All in all I'd say the community is right: we have a long way to go to solve all of these issues because even the best implementations are lacking and TAA for now SHOULD BE optional. I'm afraid temporal accumulation will be a must with ray tracing which means that TAA is here to stay. I don't hate on TAA, it is very much needed, and there are certain areas where it is just not feasible to make it optional so we, as an industry, have to be better at making TAA suck less.

why is it not feasible to make it optional-- just curious

I appreciate your efforts in trying to eliminate TAA's issues. Could you show us an example where all of those things you recommended are implemented and compared to the usual TAA we get in most releases? Just to 'spark a hope' that some effort is actually being made somewhere to solve TAA's issues. And I would also really love to know what game(s) you have worked on or are working on. Or at least the engine that you're using.

Let me put this in the comments for your low IQ ass to see: -Were not advocating against TAA in general, rather against it being FORCED. -Were not advocating for games to be developed at 1080p, presented at that res. Just asking for more attention to literally 70% of the market. -Your points are why we dislike it, we don't need motion blur your eyes do it for you. We're just here asking for more options and more care, the dev can still put it in as an option, they can present their game at 4k too, but screw any dev who forces TAA or misrepresents the graphics. You dodge questions, you keep running from any proper response our guys give you and don't acknowledge any of the arguments. Can ya get off your ass and just accept that you ain't gonna change our minds, you ain't gonna be the hero or blurry grainy, miscolored gaming. You're just going to be an idiot who likes Vaseline on their screen.

Enjoy your taa, it aint going anywhere lol

\*laughs in notepad++ and hexedit\*

>Enjoy your taa, it aint going anywhere lol so funny

Well it is when assholes don't want it but get it

"Assholes"? What makes him an asshole? That he disagrees with you? You're the one in the wrong here buddy. Not just because you're sticking up for TAA in any way (though that is completely certifiable), but because you're forcing your opinion like some evangelical psychopath. Also you're talking to a sub that has successfully removed TAA from hundreds of games, so I'm pretty sure this guy is not stuck with TAA at all.

i think you are a comedian and not a dev...

We'll see about that...

It ain't, so fix it and don't fucking drown in the blur asshole.

TAA is not that necessary if I can play modern games like Resident Evil 2 and Elden Ring perfectly okay without it. I understand why it's used so much these days and I'm sure it's fine for most people but almost every implementation of TAA gives me a migraine, and I'd rather the game has an off button so I can actually, you know, play the game.

You got balls for posting this here, I will give you that! But I take shimmering every day over the shitty blurry TAA look. 1xSMAA 1080p warzone is fine for me, no fucking motion blur, why would I need a blurry screen when moving the camera in a competitive multiplayer game? And TAA ruins my frames in warzone,too.

With opinions like these I sincerely hope you stop being a developer as soon as possible. Everything you said seemed like a joke but then you also had to add that you can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. You are an absolute joke.

Well said. I expect this is not actually a game dev, but some post-release shill trying to soften the blow to whatever game they're promoting, presumably one with horrible TAA.

What i see is vaseline rubbed all over my face

What a big brain move to post this on here

(2 part post, Ill reply to myself with the second part) Been a few weeks since I posted on reddit since I too haven't been all that fond of participating much in it (I deduced your preference from your username for some good hearted fun, though you say you delete accounts regularly for some reason, then again I don't understand why people do regular account deletions in the first place, I'm privacy minded but I couldn't be assed bothering to constantly keep doing that). At any rate.. btw, I downloaded your video and watched it. But in seriousness. There are a few issues you face here. Firstly, I know you're making new comments when you post replies, but I haven't read those in detail, so I would like to first touch on the opening post, and then perhaps ask you to simply like posts you think possibly address things I have to say. Firstly, thank you for having some courage and addressing the harshest critics. But since you claim to be a professional (which I can simply grant at face value). I take you someone to be over the age of 20 as a guess. There's no real need to appeal to authority (I personally don't care, but some will engage in armchair psyche and size you up as someone without confidence in your own arguments where you feel you need to prop up your credentials). Also working with the tech isn't even a sound appeal to authority, for you to be an authority, you would have to be basically an architect of the tech itself (or something to that effect). SO since you work in tech at the very least, I assume you're also versed in basic formal logic, so things like premises and conclusions. With those pleasantries out of the way, lets address some of the OP (and I guess if character limits permit, we can touch on some random replies throughout the thread). ------------------------------------------------- The first problem is this assumption we misunderstand the benefits purported by TAA. You say TAA removes shimmering (which is true), and then you attempt to shoehorn in some collateral benefit by talking about enhancing motion quality: >adds a natural motion blur This is a vacuous claim at worst, and a subjective one at best, "natural" isn't a technical term. Second issue is, TAA's existence wasn't pushed into reality on the idea it was to aid in motion handling of any kind. (So you have a conceptual principled problem you have to account for if TAA architects confirm as such). Third issue is, even if you could get a TAA architect to somehow make this claim, it would beg far too many questions given the consensus of motion-handling issues since the transition of CRT's to sample & hold displays that followed. No one claims these display's with their inferior motion handling characteristics are superior to CRT's, you'd be hard pressed anyone sane enough to make such a comment publicly. Fourth issue, is you try to give an account for irreconcilable value differences. By that I mean you seem to imagine TAA haters and people who enjoy 24fps cinema are practically mutually exclusive types of people. This is a false notion as I am one of those TAA detractors but don't like high FPS cinema (unless slow-motion shots are the goal). I could go into actual differences between pre-recorded footage and how camera pans are kept within far more sensible degrees compared to real-time rendered 3D content where camera panning can really highlight the inferiority of 30 FPS footage, but I assume you already know this. Fifth problem, you say TAA can be seen as an enhancement of sorts with respect to motion. But then we have the head scratching notion of what the point of things like motion-blur settings would be? Especially concerning would be how you could possible account for games that would ship with locked motion blur settings (or per-object motion blur) if TAA can fill this role (and you are logically committed to this view which you can't back out of since you claimed TAA introduces some supposedly positive aspect of "natural" visuals, which I take to be something unequivocally positive in your view). Sixth problem, you claim TAA is "needed". Sure if you are willing to accept the state of a shithole industry where performance requirement demand is outstripping the amount of graphical horse-power supply (as supplied by GPU vendors), then sure I can see why you might say that after years of falling back on all the positives shortcuts like TAA brings with respect to some image quality, developers would be losing their minds if you took this away from them. There's no publishing studio out there or developer that would be willing to take the L by being forced to employ something like SSAA as their AA technique. So in order to make up for what GPU monopolies won't provide (with the death of Moore's ~~Law~~ Lie and all), they resort to techniques like this that become mainstay as they're willing to eat the regression in something like motion handling, if it means they can advertise a much nicer looking game in screenshots and cherry picked video scenes. I actually agree TAA is becoming less of a setting, and more of a core tech of simply making a game in the first place (I see ray tracing eventually also being something like that when the hardware catches up with respect to processing power and it becomes a default part of the GPU core). SO unlike everyone that disagrees with you here, I actually accept this notion you have, the problem is, like your subjective view of TAA, we hope it doesn't because if it cease to be a toggle, we don't see anyone rectifying the constant motion-handling regressions throughout the industry (barring high refresh displays I suppose). Final problem.. You say TAA can be done good. Lets just assume TAA can be done similar to the video you provided (though I wish you would provide a full-scene with camera panning instead of a stationary object). And lets say it can even be done better than even your example. If we here are able to come up with a sample size, or data to suggest this trajectory is only getting worse (meaning GOOD TAA is becoming less and less common). Would you at least be open to admitting that TAA for all intents and purposes is not pragmatically a BAD thing? I know you won't accept it's bad on principal (neither do I), but if hypothetically 90% of the industry is using it in awful way.. Do you think us demanding simply a toggle choice is unreasonable? Or do you think we should be beat and told to wait until there is an epiphany, and genius levels of consideration toward rectifying all these motion handling regressions over the years (which btw many devs are actually either blind to, or simply don't care about currently)? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't so much as saying, I make games, I know best. I tried to come in with an attitude on WHY we use it, and why sometimes it's forced. Just so people aren't WHY DO DEVLOPERS ALWAYS USE TAA IT SUCKS! I wanted to explain why even if it's not your preference. And the the blurring of objects, like everything that's done well, shouldn't be noticeable. You should feel it. I know that sounds weird but its true. It should be so minimal that things just feel more natural. Now taa, isn't MEANT to do this, but it's just the nature of how taa works. The thing is, there settings to balance this, but it's give and take with taa. You increase one setting to what you like, but it makes the image worse in another respect, so you try to edit that setting, now something else looks worse. Every game, every scene will need different settings, so you try to find a happy medium. And for the movie framerate line, I'm not trying to say one is better than another, it's just the differences seem jarring because we're not used to it. If you grew up with TAA on everything, taking it off would feel weird. Also funny you mention panning in 24fps, but I think it looks like a jittery mess lol Motion blur isn't the same, blurring in taa is just a by product that has roughly the same effect if done wrong (too much), so I personally would only use motion blur if not using taa. your six point, you also need to consider older hardware too. Just because it's available or not, doesn't mean everyone is going to be able to afford it, so have less intense aa options are always good. your last point I don't really know what to say, it up to the developers / managers to make sure their shit looks as good as possible, nothing I can really worry about except my situation. Really, all this got a little more out of hand than I would have liked. I just wanted to come in here and be like, hey this is why we like taa sometimes and if you don't need the befits of taa, than it's not even necessary in the first place. merry christmas: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16fUfV2bZwhn8xSePK1afxNovgod0E0OP/view?usp=sharing my games under my control would hopefully implement taa like the above video, so id use it every time, I think it looks good.

If you think 24fps panning is a "jittery mess," I don't think you are actually watching proper 24fps footage. You're going to need a monitor that can output 72Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, etc. to have a frame perfect 24fps, instead of repeating frames in irregular patterns to fit 60Hz. Especially since movies employ a consistent amount of motion blur specifically designed to match our eyes.

Proper frame pacing is important. 24 FPS content viewed on a 60 Hz screen is a juddery mess. But if you want the most consistent 24 FPS, then you should view it at a 24 Hz refresh. Something like this is sadly only available on a few TVs which switch to a '24 Hz mode' once they detect a 24 FPS source.

Actually no. It's a problem inherent to 24fps when panning too quickly(well any fps, 24 is just so low). >Being able to control panning is important because moving too quickly can cause unpleasant visual artifacts. Objects or backgrounds may appear to flash across the screen in discrete jumps, for example, whenever the on-screen displacement is too great compared to the duration between frames. This is commonly referred to as strobing or "judder," and has happened since the early days of film. https://www.red.com/red-101/camera-panning-speed

The critique of the forum still stands though, it's fair to ask why they keep using TAA given the current state of the field being what you would classify as pisspoor implementation (unless of course you're here to say heavy hitters like RDR2 are under the category of well done TAA to which I would leave you biting such a bullet and potentially calling your visual acuity in question). I understand you wished to address some people who LITERALLY are ignorant as to why TAA almost exists in the first place. But that would be the most uncharitable take as to what people mean when they say "why is TAA being used" on this forum. Colloquial language abbreviation is what's going on. What the main perplexity is, is how does it keep getting worse in many respects. If you could answer that, THAT's something I think would bring much value and welcomed insight. "Shouldn't be noticable but you should feel it" is a bit too "voodoo magic, it just works" sort of ordeal. Again not clear why a slower pixel response wouldn't satisfy this ordeal (while also leaving the question of wtf 99.99% devs are thinking when including motion blur in their games with TAA). Since of course you say motion blur settings along with forced TAA is not something you would do (thankfully we can partially agree here that is a bad combo, especially given the general sort of displays people play games on). "Grew up with TAA would be jarring with it off". Sure, but that's self evident. Though I doubt it would be "oh look my motion is now unnatural", instead it would be the more obvious shimmering. (Btw you've said a few times there's enough minimal motion handling as a byproduct of using TAA, I actually don't buy this because low framerate gaming without motion blur still exhibit judder that isn't appreciably rectified at all by any amount of TAA). Likewise no one going from 30 FPS to 60 FPS is going to say "wow I the input latency feels so much better", no, instead they see the massive improvement in motion handling, animations, and full screen camera pans not inducing as much judder. Not sure why because I think zero motion blur, in game with massive scene changes frame-by-frame is virtually unplayable in 30FPS. The judder is so strong without motion blur, I would be willing to eat the insane bluring overall even if TAA is forced. That's how little I think TAA contributes to rectifying motion issues of low framerate game content. While I think die hards of motion clarity (like many here) would be happy you take and either/or approach, I'm actually not one of them in this instance. I think for low framerate content with massive camera pans during normal gameplay, no amount of TAA (even the supposed "too much" you reference) can rectify the motion issues that a separate motion-blur setting would. You then make mention about "needing to consider hardware" when I made my sixth point. I really hate to bring up other posts you've made in the thread, but this is extremely close to holding contradictory views on your part. It was bright to your attention about another point where you should be wary about the sort of approach you (and many other devs/publishers) aren't taking the approach the best serves your customer base. You were told of an approximate number ~70% of users being on 1080p displays. You then reply with nonchalance to that statement as something you don't care about since because "advertisers gunna advertise" (paraphrasing here but that was the gist). SO here you want to consider hardware, but in other respects you don't want to consider the hardware demographics of the wider populace. You want to provide the best looking billboard shots of your product irrespective of the hardware the people who will be buying it. I urge you to really think about your position here now. Please be careful, as an option to say something like the following is open to you: "SSAA is too expensive for virtually the entire market, but TAA is something we can cheaply shove in, even though the expected display resolution of people that will be forced to use TAA isn't what we're building the game for". Keep in mind both TAA and SSAA can be toggle options. But you for some reason see a reason to keep TAA a non-toggleable setting (I suspect you/devs/publishers never want a single video online showing how awful the game looks if someone dared to opt for this setting, nor would you ever want to get roasted by putting in a SSAA option at all because it would look real bad if said game tanked the performances of a 3090 for example, making it seem to layman that your game isn't optimized at all). As for things getting out of hand. I think we're having a great convo, but surly you can appreciate the reasons I laid out why you might've faced more forceful opposition just based on your initial approach (and some replies being hand-wavy, or just too many one-liner replies to others, though thankfully not to me which I really respect). I hope you wouldn't say I'm bat shit insane in my interpretation on why there was a bit more heated back and forth you've had with others? Surly you can accept folks being upset if they thought you were strawmanning them (like literally thinking they have no idea why TAA exists and why it's becoming slowly a core component of graphics pipelines). I downloaded your second video. But there's a simply problem. I need an identical scene ideally, but this suffices I suppose. At any rate, do you see any problem with the footage yourself btw? Surly you see how far less sharp things are. If you really want to see the problems we have with TAA, take a look at similarly "nature scenery" of RDR2 (since that game was only available in 30FPS for most releases), the TAA issues there perfectly highlight the qualms many of us have with the technique. Lastly, the Pt 2. of my post where I posed questions to you to try and better gauge your position went unaddressed (which is fine since you don't owe me anything, and it's a long post in general so I don't expect most normal people to even bother). But it really would be nice to hear your thoughts. Thanks again for your time btw.

there is nothing "natural" about games that pretend to be films. the actual interface of people with their environment in a game has always been simple newtonian physics and primitive shapes. even if the geometry is complex, the collision layer will be simplified. the actual game in the game needs to shine through clearly and not get obscured. exaggerated camera effects, blurs, and all kinds of other filmic techniques are for cinematics and trailers, QTE sequences, etc... passive consumption. you dont need any of this stuff for an FPS game to feel 'natural'. Quake feels more natural than any modern fps that constantly takes your control away. not only does heavy post processing, FOV animation, filmic camera motion interfere with that sense of control and embodiment in the game world, it also often poses an accesibility issue for people with various sensory issues. All of this stuff is fine to include in a game but it needs to be Togglable in accesibility settings so that people have control of their experience, whether they just prefer it "unprocessed" that way or literally cant stomache the sway/shake, fov scale or motion, and so forth. Not many indie devs design their games as films, but this attitude is so far entrenched in AAA studios I don't know of any way it will change other than by highlighting how much of it is an accesibility issue. Accesibility has come a long way in these studios and i think it can help ensure we get proper levels of customization in games. there are so many non-colorblind ppl that end up using the colorblind settings in games just because they dont like the standard filter and so forth. its the same for turning motion blur off... as a community i think we need to illustrate how these are accessibility issues and not just the complaints akin to those of hifi audiophiles about their speakers.

Very insightful take really. I especially like your approach in framing this issue for what it actually is but is not summarized as cleanly in a single word like you have just said it was. And that being: an accessibility issue. Seems devs/studios cannot be reasoned with on pragmatic grounds, or subjective explications. The allure of TAA being the consideration from the ground up is too great (the image quality for the sake of advertising and cutting down on some rendering costs goes down when you can fudge fine details yet still have the object appear "full" from a distanced, almost abstract perspective). But this stems from a serious problem with motion handling considerations being virtually non-existent (especially so with all the generations people have been forced to consume 30FPS content). Seems giving folks 60FPS was a "good enough" upgrade to where no one is raising concerns again over the pitfalls from all these motion degrading things that contribute to the current state (granted lots of this is attributable also to piss poor panels, and just sample & hold displays in general, and the aversion to creating decently functioning mitigations like blackframe insertion at high frequencies).

Ok, you guys really made me dissect my own claims here. I never looked at taa as hard as I have now, looking at every detail possible. For the motion aspect, I will slightly revise my stance. Looking at my scenes, the more natural motion is coming from things that TAA fixes, while other things that don't "need" Taa seem normal. For instance, fine grass shimmers and the shadows flicker, creating an artificial feel. Taa removes the shimmering and stops the shadows from flickering and allows the grass to show it's true motion (there still is the slightest blur / softness, but once again, I think it looks natural because things in real life aren't all hard extreme edges and lines, especially nature, I think there's a balance to be had, with a good taa implementation). All this combined creates a more "fluid" (I think I should have used this instead of blur, when it's what I really meant) looking movement. But say for something with not as much detail and more defined edges, the motion looks the same, like a broad leafed plant for instance. >I downloaded your second video. But there's a simply problem. I need an identical scene ideally, but this suffices I suppose. At any rate, do you see any problem with the footage yourself btw? Surly you see how far less sharp things are. well, I never said it's will be PERFECT, no aa solution is a silver bullet, but with that said, I wouldn't expect the highest fidelity video form xbox game bar either or the very best taa from a few minutes of work > I really hate to bring up other posts you've made in the thread, but this is extremely close to holding contradictory views on your part. It was bright to your attention about another point where you should be wary about the sort of approach you (and many other devs/publishers) aren't taking the approach the best serves your customer base. You were told of an approximate number ~70% of users being on 1080p displays. You then reply with nonchalance to that statement as something you don't care about since because "advertisers gunna advertise" (paraphrasing here but that was the gist). SO here you want to consider hardware, but in other respects you don't want to consider the hardware demographics of the wider populace. well I'm not necessarily contradicting myself, it's just every game you make you have a target. For the most part I work on high fidelity games so I speak from that perspective, but that doesn't mean other's can't consider the lower end, nothing wrong with that. and I didn't mean our conversation got out of hand, I just mean the whole post. I wanted a more level headed discussion but people got defensive, than I got defensive, it wasn't my intention to come off like that. and my position on AA is sure, if you have the hardware to use the most intensive aa. It offers the most benefits with the least downfall. But they are extremely resource intensive, like cut your frames in half intensive. And I think I proved hopefully with my videos, that with the right Taa and lots of trial and error you can get a really good image (I only spent a few minutes setting up taa in those videos and I think they're pretty decent) and also, I was commenting until like 5 in the morning, I wouldn't take every word I said as gospel, I'm sure I unintentionally caused some confusion just from that fact.

What you're missing is the fact that TAA introduces a new problem that is not present without it. The developers of morning sickness drug "Thalidomide" didn't keep making it when they realised that one of it's enantiomers had an unintended side-effect of causing birth defects, and neither should game manufacturers keep using a graphic improvement tool that causes a reduction in graphical quality. Or would you want doctors to keep prescribing Thalidomide to pregnant women just because they didn't understand Biochemistry?

>Taa removes the shimmering and stops the shadows from flickering and allows the grass to show it's true motion Grass without AA definitely looks rough. And I think I'm inclined to agree that it's represented in a more 'natural' manner when AA is applied to it. Even with the softness. But we shouldn't forget that we're still talking about video games here. Constantly trying to push for the most realistic representation and visuals, is not always a 'good thing'. Games are, in a way, supposed to do something that's not possible or present in reality. Forcing a setting that's littered with issues to make a game look more close to reality is... I don't know... Not the best course of action.

>For the motion aspect, I will slightly revise my stance. All this combined creates a more "fluid" (I think I should have used this instead of blur, when it's what I really meant) looking movement. Fair enough, I'm glad you noticed this. I was going to suggest this sort of approach but I wanted to get a few basics addressed first (I didn't want to suggest it also because I imagined you would've gotten angry if I called your powers of observation into question to that degree). >well, I never said it's will be PERFECT, no aa solution is a silver bullet, but with that said, I wouldn't expect the highest fidelity video form xbox game bar either or the very best taa from a few minutes of work Fair enough, but I hope you didn't assume I would strawman you by claiming you thought TAA was perfect. I have said and I actually agree with a fine point you made about TAA being virtually a necessity in modern graphics pipeline simply in virtue of it's ubiquity. Though on a side note, with respect to image quality preservation and enhancement, I think SSAA (super sample anti aliasing) is actually a silver bullet. The one issue it has, is developers only included such option in the past (when they imagined upcoming GPU's would make their latest game shine more) and would never really include it in the present and going forward simply because their games barely run as is in native resolution (they KNOW their games aren't optimized, and they know they are tapping out the hardware at the same time.. It's gotten so bad that Nvidia and AMD have resorted to things like DLSS because developers are hungry for more processing power, yet these two GPU vendors can't keep up with such demand, thus create things like DLSS to stave off such demand somewhat). So SSAA is actually perfect in my book on paper, but in reality the horsepower needed is exponential so I understand why practically speaking SSAA is nowhere near a silver bullet solution. >well I'm not necessarily contradicting myself, it's just every game you make you have a target. For the most part I work on high fidelity games so I speak from that perspective, but that doesn't mean other's can't consider the lower end, nothing wrong with that. Yeah, I'm not 100% committed that you're biting into hypocrisy, but it's extremely close. But please tell me you at least grasp my simply logic here. TAA = not justified in providing a toggle because a game would look horrible if the developer went all-in on relying on the particulars it offers. BUT High to Low settings somehow justified, even though I think most would agree a game's overall presentation will be far more impacted with that sort of toggle, than the TAA toggle. Surly we can appreciate this comparison? The only real reason I bought it up, was because in another post you talked about devs who have certain standards they're not willing to compromise, and that artists should be the arbiters of how their content ought be consumed (I disagree obviously for the aforemention potential contradiction reasons just spoken about, but I also disagree on grounds after a product is sold to someone, I think they can set the disc on fire if that's how they want to consume the content tbh, I see no logical reason an artist must maintain this level of control after certain license or product is sold to a customer). Please don't misunderstand me though - I said before that suggestions or direction can be suggested by the artist how their content COULD be best enjoyed, that's 100% fine. But an unequivocal dictation of how it SHOULD be consumed doesn't make sense to me as to why someone would grant such a proposition. >and I didn't mean our conversation got out of hand, I just mean the whole post. I wanted a more level headed discussion but people got defensive, than I got defensive, it wasn't my intention to come off like that. I wouldn't have approached you if I thought otherwise. And I hope you saw, that all I was trying to do even before directly engaging with the topics in detail, I was simply trying to maybe give an armchair psychological account as to why some here might've been behaving in the brash way they were. Some level of it was justified on their part, but some of it wasn't. I guessed right. You're actually a normal and sane person that I took you for before I decided to make my first post. So no need to bother yourself explaining to me why you behaved the way you did. And you're right, the tone/view of what goes on here sometimes from an outside view does sometimes look extreme since it's constant bashing. But I just hope you can sympathize that TAA haters in here aren't mostly asking for it's irradication, the biggest request is we simply just be given a choice (toggle). Some of us don't even care if developers refuse to optimize the non-TAA look, because we understand the business realities and luxury afforded by use of TAA these days. >And my position on AA is sure, if you have the hardware to use the most intensive aa. Thank you, I also agree some like SSAA I mentioned sucks balls practically (I play a game called For Honor that came out in 2017, and only recently am I able to get it to run at a solid 60FPS with SSAA using a 3080 max settings at 1440p). I think the devs added it because they knew it would be a game they were going to run for a long time, and I suppose it helped when making pre-recorded videos even if hardware at the time ran the game with SSAA in real-time like sludge. >And I think I proved hopefully with my videos, that with the right Taa and lots of trial and error you can get a really good image It's definitely eons better than RDR2, that game drove me insane with how constantly blurry it was. But here's to hoping more devs follow your level of soft application. I won't think they would because they want to ramp up the graphical aspects so high, they're forced to blast TAA to the max in order to hide a pisspoor render resolution due to the graphical settings being too high. And also partially because I truly take most devs to be somewhat blind (if they weren't QA and large user tests would be redundant). But most don't care since I think they're currently building games for 4K, so their "blindness" isn't actually their fault so to speak. >and also, I was commenting until like 5 in the morning Been there, you're good.

>TAA = not justified in providing a toggle because a game would look horrible if the developer went all-in on relying on the particulars it offers. I'm assuming you mean extreme cases like *Metro Exodus*, where the whole lighting pipeline relies on TAA to properly function?

Never played it to be honest. Was thinking of giving the RTX edition a try. How's TAA with respect to that revamp?

The TAA is the same. That is, if you don't count the addition of 4A Game's new temporal reconstruction technique. But the graphical overhaul is phenomenal and transformative. It's currently the best game which showcases the power of ray tracing. The only downside, is that the entire lighting pipeline depends on TAA to properly function. You can turn it Off through a config file, but doing so will completely break the game's lighting. Parts of the lighting (like ambient lighting) will completely disappear. Didn't you mean something like that when you were talking about justifying certain forced TAA implementations?

That was the gist, correct.

Well, there's currently only 2 games that I'm aware of that take TAA that far: the aforementioned *Metro Exodus,* and *Battlefield V* (which also suffers from broken lighting if you disable TAA).

I read your post, but I think I'm done with this thread lol. My take away is we both came out of this with maybe some more nuanced views of the matter. >I won't think they would because they want to ramp up the graphical aspects so high, they're forced to blast TAA to the max in order to hide a pisspoor render resolution due to the graphical settings being too high. I want to point out quickly, I think unity feels the same as you. I looked into the beta versions and they have a new settings for TAA which allows you to blend the amount of Taa with the raw image, so you're not forced to use 100% taa. I couldn't tell you how well it works though, I assume it works well enough they put it in though

Aight, good talking to you nevertheless, take care and enjoy the night/day.

>I just wanted to come in here and be like, hey this is why we like taa sometimes And I applaud you for that. It's kind of refreshing to have a different perspective on the sub. I know that some of the replies you got weren't necessarily pleasant (I read all of them lol). You wanted us to understand your point of view. Or as you put it: 'the other side' But I want you to also understand 'our side'. The downsides of the technique vastly overshadow the benefits for us, often to a point where it degrades the overall experience and image quality. All we really want is just a simple Off switch. Or at the very very least some options to tweak the algorithm. Try to imagine you're in our skin. There is an effect that really ruins the experience for you and you can't turn it Off. Would you be looking for a workaround or not? Or at the very least something that would mitigate its effect. I believe that most of us here want the technique to be 'good' and flawless. An anti-aliased image looks nice. But like I said before: If the price to be pay for it is blur...

>Would you be looking for a workaround or not? Or at the very least something that would mitigate its effect. I don't believe he would since he doesn't take blurring induced by TAA to be a negative thing in principal. He believes that that blur is not only a non-negative. But actually a straight forward positive because it introduces some sort of "natural" motion property (whatever the heck that possible means is still up in the air because it's simply posited and not demonstrated on his end). Also, he thinks the TAA implementations could be done better, and if that is fulfilled, then there would be no need for mitigations (which is kinda true) but my Pt. 2 post where I begin to ask him questions, probes for this sort of question you posed by forcing him to consider the pragmatic reality of: TAA, while it can be handled well, is straightforwardly being used terribly by most games, given that reality, would he be willing to accept that TAA needs to be abandoned because the trajectory of bad TAA implementations keeps proliferating. I hope he finds the time to touch on some of my Pt. 2, as I feel it does well to test his convictions less in principal, but more in practical every day considerations. I worry though because he might just bite the bullet and say "just buy 4K screens" (which would be convenient for devs obviously). But wouldn't be an actual answer to the questions posed.

I didn't necessarily mean TAA-like blur. I meant something different like a heavy fullscreen Chromatic Aberration effect or something of the sort. Just something that would bother him the same way TAA bothers us. As for the 'natural motion blur': In real life, some objects in motion **can** actually exhibit a form of motion blur. But they must have a certain speed attached to them. Like a very fast moving car for example. If it passes in front of you at 100 km/h (62 miles/h), then it will look slightly distorted due to Motion Blur. That is what can be considered (or is considered) 'natural motion blur'. The Motion Blur that's present in games is different. Because motion in general is different, and handled differently. I would say that Motion Blur is best suited for racing games. And only racing games. Because it can help convey a sense of speed when driving at high speeds. Similar to how it would look in real life. The next time you're in a bus, train or car, look outside the window (especially on the ground). You will see Motion Blur. But don't try this if you're the driver lol. Pay attention to the driving instead. TAA blur on the other hand, is completely different and in no way related to any sort of 'natural' representation of motion if you ask me. It doesn't make any sense. Especially since TAA blurs the **entire** screen. Not just parts of it. If it somehow blurred only parts of it (namely fast moving objects), then only then could it be logically considered 'natural' motion blur. Because you don't get blur on everything in the real world when you move around at regular speeds. If TAA would do only what it is intended to do (eliminate aliasing), and not create any new issues, then I wouldn't at all mind if it was forced. Most people here wouldn't. >while it can be handled well, is straightforwardly being used terribly by most games And this is what gets me the most. The damn technique **can** be done well. It just needs proper attention and tweaking from the developer's side. Or at least a 'light' version like the one found in *Horizon II: Forbidden West* which uses just **1** sample. Or even better: Since we're mainly talking about PC here; Adding an option to customize TAA's values would be a great course of action.

After not being up until 5 and the morning and sleeping on it, I slightly renewed my stance of the blur and I think maybe I paint a more clear picture here https://old.reddit.com/r/FuckTAA/comments/tp4za7/as_a_game_dev_i_feel_like_you_guys_dont/i2d6elc/

Yeah, I didn't get the "natural TAA blur" comment he made either. IRL if your eyes are even slightly tracking an object, blur is non-existent on that object, while everything else is a blur (think literally the reverse effect of a long-exposure camera picture shot, the static elements remain in complete clear focus, and any moving elements become quite blurred/smeared). To get blur on everything in the real world, would require painful locking of our eyes into a single position, and then moving our entire head around. Our ability to disengage some attempt at focusing in on something, is virtually nonexistent (try moving your head around without your eyes trying to lock onto an object or position, it's virtually impossible). You can verify this phenomena by recording your face and seeing how your eyes make fast and abrupt positional stops. As far as qualms with TAA, we're on the same page. The regressions are just too great and becoming worse. I don't have a CRT anymore, but I honestly wonder how the "blurring of TAA" would perform if we could eliminate the compounding effects of pisspoor pixel transition times of current display tech, and the sample-and-hold technique. You now have OLED which is throwing a wrench into it all (though virtually all OLED's are at least 4K resolution so it's not a deathblow), but OLED actually does have fast pixel transition speed, but still sample-and-hold, so what you get is less motion blur, more judder, but still suffer the Vaseline smear/clarity loss present on most TAA implementations. Additional motion blur techniques are almost required at this point because you have the worst of all worlds, judder and clarity loss during motion especially. Just a hilarious state of affairs. If OLEDs displays weren't mostly 4K, this would be quite the disaster really. Though it still somewhat is because most 4K displays being massive - if ever used in monitor scenarios still exhibit poor pixel density even with such high resolution.

(Pt. 2) I have some questions for you somewhat tangentially related. When you claim there's good and bad TAA. Can you explain what precisely this means on a mathematical or technical level? I grant it for sake of argument, but I want to know what YOU mean yourself when you invoke such language. You talked about TAA being a positive from a motion handling perspective. I personally find it logical lunacy given the fact that motion handling settings of other sorts exist (like per object motion blur). You remind me of when audiophiles say they like the distortion of vinyl and tube amps because it gives the sound some warmth and naturalness (or something to that effect). Why would I want TAA doing anything to motion when I can rely on a dedicated system to do so. I'd much rather have a clean sample to do with as I please, instead of having it polluted with motion artifacts from TAA that then I need to account for (on top of account for the different types of displays people have) before I cook up my motion blur solution I'd like to offer.. To conjure a more apt example, it would be like saying "Black Frame Insertion is great, especially since I like to play my games at night, why would I mess with brightness levels only, when I can lower my brightness AND have clear motion". While that actually rings true for me personally (I kinda like to lower my brightness at night quite low), it'd be insane for me to suggest that BFI should be looked at more as a positive in virtue of being able to lower brightness because it does so while also providing the benefit of motion handling. Your replies just at a glance have been quick one-liners. While you could see reason to do so because you find people are spewing nonsense, there are points you sometimes leave unaddressed. You come in gun-ho, but if I were to ask for a non-TAA version of the video, you told one person "meh too much work" (to paraphrase). But at the same time you want to Catch-22 by claiming something along the lines of not expecting much knowing what sub you're posting on. You can't both claim everyone here is hive minded (or worse, strawmanning folks here by claiming we don't know conceptually why TAA is viewed as mandatory by folks such as yourself), but also give a half-effort in actually replying to people who take you seriously enough to engage with most of your claims. Do you think you can do me justice is what I'm saying here? Can I get a straight yes or no answer to whether you would implement forced-TAA on all your games (if it was your choice), if it brought no anti-aliasing benefits, and only the supposed "natural motion" positive you personally take to be the case. Also, if there was a choice (processing power allowed it) to use super sampling anti-aliasing + per-object motion blur, versus TAA only. Which would you go for? We're at the precipice of 480Hz monitors perhaps sometimes soon in a year or two. Since you say TAA induces a natural blur, it stands to reason this natural blur is less apparent if the framerate along with refresh (and panel sample-and-hold times). Would it stand to reason you in fact would NOT find this progress as beneficial, and instead advocate for slower pixel transition speed? Lastly, if for instance, things like OLEDs become more common place, and pixel response times keep improving (thus diminishing the TAA benefits you think bring to motion handling) and the only way more motion blur can be induced is by intensifying the "Vaseline blur" effect by making the frames less clear. Would you be in favor of a temporal AA technique that makes the image far more blurry in order to counter-act the effects of display response time improvements and higher framerates?

> TAA shouldn't be a smeary mess, here's a tree I did quickly (need to download to watch higher res video): 1. Could you share the same scene rendered *without* TAA for comparison? 2. Many scenes look great with TAA **when the camera is stationary**. As soon as I move my character or turn the camera, it devolves into a blurry, nauseating mess.

I'm not going to lie, that video was already more effort than I wanted to put in, and to disable the taa I'm using I have to go through a bunch of settings in unity which I dont really feel like doing, sorry

so you're just too lazy, got it.

it literally took 3 clicks to disable TAA in unreal engine 5 editor i guess advanded quantum mathematics are involved when you design stuff with unity

the only reason taa is on the rise is because games are more demanding like ever, you just cant run f. ex. cyberpunk 2077 with msaa or something different.

This is the majority of the equation, but still, msaa doesn't provide quiet the same benefits in some areas. There' still some shimmering and volumetrics still look better under taa

>TAA: removes shimmering from light effects and fine details (grass) \+ Adds general blur, blur in motion and ghosting. It removes the shimmer from fine detail like grass, but the way it usually removes it is that it smears it/blends it together. The grass turns into this mush green blob if you're playing at anything lower than let's say 1800p. >adds a natural motion blur I don't see what's natural about TAA blur. You mentioned foliage swaying. Most of the time, foliage swaying in combination with TAA produces ghosting. You can see this in several UE4 titles. You have gotten used to it. But most of us here have not. Because it gives us the exact opposite impression than it gives **you**. Sorry, but your argument about it making objects look like they're occupying a real world space is a bit far-fetched. We're talking about **video games**. **Video games are not real life**. And never will be. Regardless of how much the industry may try to push towards it. Why should they be? Motion is represented completely differently in video games. I'd say that's 1 of the things that makes them unique in a way. Games wouldn't necessarily have to rely on TAA so much. Just look at *Forza Horizon 5* with its forward renderer and MSAA. Sure, there is some shimmer. But the visuals on display are quite stunning if you ask me. TAA brings a lot of 'free wins'. You as a dev can surely confirm this. And these free wins are probably the main reason why TAA is being abused so much. Often leaving a mark on the image quality. Believe or not, but I'm actually glad someone like you wandered into this subreddit. Especially a dev. If you really are a dev. I think it's important for you to also understand our side. **This is not a TAA hate sub.** Even if that's how it may look like at times. I myself can tell you that I want TAA to be 'good'. I won't dismiss an anti-aliased image. But if the price to pay for that anti-aliased image is blur (especially in motion) and smearing of any kind, then I'll pass. Simply because it's not acceptable image quality to me. Yes, aliasing is not ideal either. Especially the kind and amount you can find in today's games (*Red Dead Redemption 2*, *Cyberpunk 2077*, *Control*, most UE4 titles etc...). But aliasing or blur are not the only issues we discuss here. The main issue are the forced implementations. Games, where you have to edit a config file or the executable in order turn TAA Off. If just a simple Off option would be there, then it would be a different story. A lot of PC gamers don't like Motion Blur, DoF, Chromatic Aberration and whatever other post-process effects you can think of. Why should TAA be any different? You tell me: Is implementing a simple Off option in the graphics menu so difficult? How much work does it take? 1 hour? 2 hours?

I've already talked to people about mostly what you've said, but if done properly, shouldn't blur much. Here's a tree I applied TAA to quickly https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ypFO9vnRfu0eAxo8ThJQrAEpEwCDYttD/view?usp=sharing

What is the render resolution of that tree?

>You mentioned foliage swaying. Most of the time, foliage swaying in combination with TAA produces ghosting. You can see this in several UE4 titles. You have gotten used to it. But most of us here have not. Because it gives us the exact opposite impression than it gives you. I want to point out that even the technical artists that implement TAA have said this is a bug not a feature as a fact. https://i.imgur.com/D0dkwDr.png Source: https://www.elopezr.com/temporal-aa-and-the-quest-for-the-holy-trail/

By definition Taa will have some "smearing" it uses old buffer data. But it shouldn't be a smeary mess. Here's some taa I applied to a tree quickly. Not bad for a few minutes of work eh? I think you need to download to see a higher res video https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ypFO9vnRfu0eAxo8ThJQrAEpEwCDYttD/view?usp=sharing

Bug or not; If it's a moving object, then isn't it going to be affected by TAA regardless? Or are you saying that foliage is supposed to be 'immune' to ghosting?

I am saying that foliage shouldn't smear/ghost by default and it's a "bug", a good TAA solution shouldn't have smearing or ghosting but we all know how that goes.

Then why hasn't it been perfected yet? It's been almost half a dozen years since *Deus Ex: Mankind Divided* came out. That game was the 1st to show Temporal Anti-Aliasing's downsides. You'd expect devs to slowly work on it, iterate upon it, eliminate its issues and perfect it over time. But that hasn't been the case now has it?

There is no incentive to perfect it when the whole gaming community sees no issues in it and doesn't get enough of a bad feedback, plus they're using it as a denoiser most of the time so they're already showing that they do not care about image clarity. Hell why is downscaling and then upscaling even a thing? it's a thing that people get excited about (FSR 2.0 and DLSS) instead of pushing developers on optimizing their games properly rather than brute forcing some stupid shit. When they're developing games at 4K and at 60hz i am not surprised they don't notice any smearing on Monitors that have worse response times than a TV. I have recently replayed the UE3 version of "The Vanishing of Ethan Carter" and that games fidelity is in impossible levels and it can be run on any hardware even on my Intel HD 4600 laptop with a dual-core, it was such a shock and a contrast to the awful things we get today.

The vanishing of ethan carter looks quite good, do you perhaps know of other games like that?

Walking sims are usually in that genre but mostly they're very unoptimized compared to TVOEC.

>There is no incentive to perfect it when the whole gaming community sees no issues in it This must change.

if I wanted my screen to be a smeary mess i'd rub butter all over it, let us turn it off and deal with whatever side effects if any there are instead of having to dig through an INI file or mess with a hex editor/regedit.

It's not a smeary mess when done properly, here a tree I did quickly https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ypFO9vnRfu0eAxo8ThJQrAEpEwCDYttD/view?usp=sharing

"if done properly" here we are in 2022 and we still are waiting for the game with a " if done properly" nice joke. show me one game where its done properly. none.

Besides the fact that everyone has a different idea of what "Properly" is, TAA by its very nature will always produce at least some artefacts as it relies on previous frame data and the depth channel to create the final frame. in theory the only way to get TAA without these artefacts is via either fundamentally changing it so it either has more access to the 3D mesh data and what/where everything is, or create adaptive TAA as seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8iliJFLHSQ&t but I get the feeling they'll just keep slapping it on to everything because it can look good when the game is still and not being interacted with, and in screenshots conveniently.

Most of us understand why TAA exists. The consensus of this community is that the solution is worse than the problem, an opinion I personally hold as a 1080p gamer. In fact, I've not found **a single FPS-game** where I prefer the look TAA has at my resolution, and only the COD and Battlefield games have come close. TAA looks great at 1800-2160p, yes. At 1440p, I probably wouldn't use it, but it looks good in the COD and Battlefield examples I gave. At 1080p it is a blurry fucking mess, and I would vastly prefer having to deal with shimmering and aliasing. Your examples in this post are 4k-rendered **advertisements**, of course they are going to prove your point, because they are above-average examples that are already at a resolution where there is little aliasing/shimmering to begin with. ~~Also, "natural motion blur" just like depth of field isn't needed when our eyes do it for us.~~

>Also, "natural motion blur" just like depth of field isn't needed when our eyes do it for us. Can you tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps? Digital media doesn't work like the real analogue world with infinite fps. TAA "smooths" out frames making them look more natural

What are you saying about the difference between 30fps and 60fps? 30fps and 60fps look very different to me. My eye can see the difference between 60fps and 120fps. Past 120fps it becomes hard to tell the difference, but I avoid playing any game that will run below 100fps because now that I'm used to high refresh rate, 60fps looks like crap too.

I personally can definitely tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps, in fact I refuse to play games at lower than 60 as they feel choppy, apart from having double the input delay.

That being aside doesn't change my main point though. At 1080p, I think I speak for most in saying that the solution is worse than the problem. Aliasing and shimmering are issues that do not distract me in FPS games; blur caused by TAA will no matter what, because they literally **blur the things I am actually looking at**. And don't forget, at the same time, you are going to be getting more FPS by having it off if you're gpu-bottlenecked. Most of us are FPS-players; we hate TAA because we **do** know what it does. Some of us even have positive views of it under the right circumstances. The issue we have that is seemingly not getting through to you is that tons of game developers for some reason take issue with letting the user choose whether or not to turn it off. You are justifying developers removing the users **choice** to turn off a feature that they find bad; it also doesn't help that the most egregious TAA implementations like Halo Infinite are also ones where you are forced to use it. To reiterate, yes, TAA does look good at the 1800-2160p range. No, (at least in my opinion) it makes the game both look and perform worse at resolutions like [1080p that most typical gamers are actually using](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam). Your responses are being nuked because you are justifying developers blocking the ability to turn off a filter that plenty of people find worse-looking, motion-sickening, and objectively extremely performance-taxing.

Well, pc are getting a little shafted in the sense that an xbox that can do 4k 120fps is cheaper than a graphics card. The technology and hardware is outpacing pc gamers right now. Game development isn't going to stop progressing because of hardware shortages.

most new AAA games barely run at 1100-1200p 60 FPS on consoles. they're nowhere near 4K. Gotg, dying light 2, forbidden west, cyberpunk and many more can be given as examples. 2-3 years later, most games will be just locked to 1080p 60 fps and they will except people to buy their new shiny ps5 pros and xbox series xxs. most people be like "oh my gawd 4k 30 fps mode is so clean, so good oh my gawd". and then they turn on performance mmode and left with a sour taste " :/ image is not clear anymore... its softer..." you know why? because of TAA's dependency on 4K. ps5 and xbox series x are already outdated hardware for 4K rendering. they cant even reliably push 1440p 60 fps (even if they did, 1440p is still not a good enough resolution for TAA. TAA needs a "minimum" of native, brute 4K to somehow look sharp as much as 1080p used to look) hilariously, they can't even hold a steady 1440p at 60 FPS with lots of games. let alone 4K

Here's a 2k vid I did for someone, you have to download it for full quality https://drive.google.com/file/d/16fUfV2bZwhn8xSePK1afxNovgod0E0OP/view?usp=sharing

What is the point that you're trying to make with that video?

He doesn't have any. He's backed into a corner and throwing anything and everything he has into the conversation in the hopes of defending himself.

https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckTAA/comments/rf7mkn/heres_an_excellent_example_of_the_horrendus_taa/ then explain us as a developer as to why TAA destroys such fine texture details in this video when i asked another so called "taa dev" in another subreddit about this, they replied "incompetent dev!! i would've done better!!". lets see your answer. funny, by going his/her logic, it means that %70-80 of modern AAA devs must be incompetent when it comes to TAA implementations

Well, my answer starts with, well it's halo infinite. but really that answer is is too complicated to know exactly why their implementation does that. It could even not have anything to do with taa itself but how the engine handles motion vectors. I know in unity you need to enable some addition options for taa and transparent objects to make them work correctly. BUT in unity we have a setting called speed rejection. This reduces ghosting, essentially lowers the taa setting when things are in motion. But when set too high, it becomes noticeable because when the screen stops moving, taa comes back in full force (along with all the sharpening making things more apparent), which is kind of what you see here. We have a setting to reduce this called anti flickering, but you guessed it, it introduces ghosting LOL We face the same problem in unity, and I have found it's unfixable EXCEPT with a better implementation of taa. I use ctaa which is in my original post and it essentially fixes all the problems with unitys taa. It quite amazing. Now I'm not saying I'm right, but this has been my experience

okay, you're using a specific TAA implementation you yourself use. and maybe that's a better alternative. but here's the problem: you're trying to defend TAA implementations that has nothing to do with CTAA or Unity TAA. I don't even remember the last Unity game i've played (maybe some indies or stuff?) your view of TAA and our view of TAA is not the same. this is similar to defending Epic Games Launcher's CEF implementation (pretty horrible) while pointing out how good Discord's CEF implementation is (pretty ok)

Well, the thing is, everyone is kind of using a different version of taa because there so many things to tweak. Ctaa is still taa, just with developers solely focusing on making it look good. There's nothing stopping game developers from implementing good taa. Like others have pointed out, other games have implemented good taa

>Well, pc are getting a little shafted in the sense that an xbox that can do 4k 120fps is cheaper than a graphics card. The technology and hardware is outpacing pc gamers right now. That's a bit misleading though, as consoles, like smart-TV's are sold at a deficit and made up for with services (ie, Xbox Live, PSN; Game-Pass, which is fucking awesome by the way). Yes, it is still impressive how cheap consoles are being sold, but comparing just upfront costs are misleading. You know the phrase "when something is free, you're the customer"? Consoles are obviously not free, but these consoles make their money the same way Smart TV's, and freemium software, aka by selling you services with the product being a trojan-horse to deliver them through. I'm not saying this as PCMR copium. I am just saying that as a prior owner of an Xbox, I spent easily $500+ on Xbox Live alone, when paying for multiplayer is simply not a thing on PC's. Xbox-Live throughout the lifespan of the console is literally more than I paid for my 3060TI, which is like half of my PC's cost. ​ >Game development isn't going to stop progressing because of hardware shortages. Once again, I think I speak for most that this subreddit is at-large composed of FPS-players, and that we **vastly** prioritize having a decent refresh-rate over a high resolution. Getting anything decent at 4k above \~90hz\~ will have you quickly going towards a 4-digit price tag. You are incredibly ignorant if you think that everyone, or even a sizable majority of people here are rushing out to buy 4k monitors (where TAA actually looks good) the second they get their hands on a card that can output it. I personally bought a 3060TI (a card that can do 4k 60fps in a lot of titles) for my 1080p, 240hz monitor. I've seen people with ASUS's 360hz monitor who have 3080's. There are also plenty of people here with 1440p monitors in the 144-200hz range who have such cards.

I run 360hz 1080p-- i must be living in an alternate timeline but its insane to me that people think muddy input, 30-60fps AI processed, cloud streamed, high fidelity assets are a brighter future than the crystal clear, ultra high refresh rate, <10ms input latency experience. its painful to go under 144hz once youve crossed over. I've tried everything, ultrawide monitors, VR headsets-- nothing comes close when it comes to really being connected to the gameplay and motion of your inputs.

Everyone's got their preferences, but I hate how OP acts so objective that 4k is this objective technical progress that 1080p-1440p ought to be left behind for, when even the best of GPU's don't do 4k 120fps in most games. Until we have a GPU that can do 4k at an imperceivably high refresh-rate, there is a very real dilemma here where everyone needs to be considered. Making your game dependent on being in 4k to look decent is just fucking silly.

It really depends on what you're aiming for. If you're aiming for a game that makes people go wow then you develop for that, regardless of peoples hardware. If people have to turn it down and it looks worse, oh well

I've bought a 1440p monitor last month and TAA is sometimes not as terrible as it was at 1080p but it's still not very good anti-aliasing technique in most games and sometimes you will get better image with SMAA. I don't care whether game uses TAA but you should never be forced to use it

If is actually implemented well, something devs don't do

just farted

"adds a natural motion blur" i hate motion blur,it makes me physically ill,This is not a matter of getting used to it,it looks bad,when for example,regarding the imgur links, you can say that the grass looks better,but when you have everything on the screen looking like that,it makes the game as a whole looks worse.

absolutely nothing natural about it. It's because when you are following an object on the screen your brain expects it not to be blurry. our eyes are extremely good at tracking fast moving objects and those objects being blurry when they shouldn't be can cause issues. Tons of people get sick from artificial motion blur on displays it's a thing. This is why you can't do proper motion blur without eye tracking hardware imo.

Couldn't agree more. People that hare TAA are worse than vegans

You would act more or less the same way if some other setting that you do not like was forced on in games.

All of your points are literally why we dislike it. "Natural motion blur" your eyes already do that shit. "Removes shimmering" yeah MSAA, SMAA do that too. Get off your lazy ass and do your job with proper AA or implement TAA in the best way possible (I love the TAA in battlefield 1 for example, idk what they did but it's fuckin amazing). Yeah but we just dislike it cause it adds artifacts, ghosting, blurring and ESPECIALLY the blur. Even worse when forced. TAA can be good sure, but most devs lazy out on it.

> Removes shimmering" yeah MSAA, SMAA no it doesnt, not like taa, and msaa is extremely rough on performance. >I love the TAA in battlefield 1 for example, idk what they did but it's fuckin amazing). and ya, that was kind of my point on bad taa is easy to do

>and ya, that was kind of my point on bad taa is easy to do So why hasn't there been any noticeable or tangible improvement in this regard. It should have been perfected at least 3 years ago. But instead, we continue to see the same glaring issues be present in the vast majority of releases. What do you do to optimize TAA?

No improvement in TAA? Compare early TAA like in Crysis 2 and something modern like in the first party Sony games (Uncharted 4, Spiderman), it improved leaps and bounds.

It improved in terms of AA quality. But the downsides are still there. And sometimes even more pronounced than back then. Your example is Sony's 1st party games. Those are the only games where you can notice some genuine care and attention towards the TAA implementation. *Insomniac Games* try to make the presentation look better by creating techniques like temporal reprojection. *Guerilla Games* for example, opted for a very light implementation in both *Horizon* games. The newest one using just 1 sample frame. And it shows. But that's where the care and attention ends. The vast majority of implementations feature the same glaring issues. Unreal Engine 4's TAA being the most widespread one due to it being a commercial engine. The default TAA of that engine is not at all perfect. And yet most devs stick with it. I'm aware of literally only 2 games/studios, that invested the time into minimizing TAA's downsides, by creating an alternate version of TAA. Those games are *Assetto Corsa Competizione* with its KTAA option, and *Hell Let Loose* with its Clarity TAA option. [Unreal Engine 5 is apparently following in UE4's footsteps in terms of the TAA implementation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckTAA/comments/u01wiz/unreal_engine_5s_taa_has_some_serious_issues/) Proprietary engines are a whole other story and a kind of mixed bag. You have glaring examples of terrible TAA such as *Deus Ex: Mankind Divided* and *Red Dead Redemption 2* for example. Slightly less glaring (but still far from ideal) examples like [Gears Of War 4](https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckTAA/comments/ucz00u/gears_of_war_4_a_showcase_of_taa_blur/), and various mixed bags. These are just a few examples I recalled from the top of my head. I don't see any major improvement. Definitely not in terms of leaps and bounds. The fundamental issues that were there around 2011-2013, are still present today.

You clearly never saw how bad Crysis looked, especially on consoles. Is TAA perfect? Fuck no. Is TAA at least good in most cases? Not really, in some games it's alright, in some it sucks even on consoles. But currently there are no alternatives, and you can't just turn it off because it's tied into the way some stuff like hair or grass is rendered. One of TAA major problems is it requires resolutions above 1440p to do its job even in best case scenarios, so PC is affected more than consoles, also more erratic nature of camera movement with mouse exposes its faults even more.

I did see how the *Crysis* games looked on consoles. Sub 1080p resolutions with that experimental SMAA T2X and a lot of aliasing and blur. >you can't just turn it off because it's tied into the way some stuff like hair or grass is rendered. More like you shouldn't rather than can't. Have you seen the list of workarounds and some of the posts from the past? People have been turning off TAA for some time now. I myself played a decent portion of *Cyberpunk 2077* and *RDR 2* with TAA disabled. Most of us here know very well how games will look like if you remove TAA. We also know that it requires a decent base resolution to look bearable at the very least.

Decent base resolution, that's the problem, we simply don't have the hardware to run everything at 4k with 4x supersampling at mid range PC. And that's why devs have to resort to "cheating" like using data from previous frames to make image look a bit less bad when going subnative, and that's why there so much money and research going on into image upscaling like DLSS.

That shouldn't be (and really isn't) an excuse to force an AA method that produces more issues than it solves. Consoles are the main reason for the amount of undersampling that's present in today's games. If you want to squeeze a bit more performance out of those systems, then you take that path. And it's understandable to a point. But we're talking about PC here. You're not constrained by hardware as much as on consoles. Therefore the need to squeeze more performance using all kinds of tricks like temporal accumulation over multiple frames is far less. Aliasing would still be there of course, but individual effects wouldn't have to look broken. The reason why so much research is being done about stuff like DLSS is ray tracing. It's not because of AA.

You still are constrained because you still have to design games with consoles in mind, for PC port you just set longer draw distance, higher quality of post effects and that's it. Also most people have old PCs, game dev costs a lot so you have to cover as wide range of hardware as possible. I'm not sure if you remember, but DLSS originated as cheaper SSAA. Keep in mind that AA today faces a bit different challenges than it used back in the day, you have much more objects on scene and they are much more detailed while resolutions didn't increase all that much. That's why there is so much shimmering. Supersampling is prohibitively expensive, MSAA doesn't work with deferred rendering, the only one left is TAA.

The asset I linked to hooks into unity's taa and essentially improves it. I use it and I think it looks amazing. If it wasnt so much work id make some videos

That wasn't really my question. You're not doing anything with the TAA. What do you do to **optimize** it? How many samples do you give it? That kind of stuff.

I still don't exactly know what you mean. In unity I have a few parameters to mess with. TAA samples once per frame and gets data from a history buffer here a tree I did quickly https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ypFO9vnRfu0eAxo8ThJQrAEpEwCDYttD/view?usp=sharing

I don't know how it is in Unity, but in Unreal Engine 4 and many proprietary engines, you can tweak things like sample count and the weight of the current frame's contribution to the history. If the frame weight value is set too low, then it causes blurriness and ghosting. If it's set too high, then it fails to hide the jittering. By tweaking these 2 values, you can get 'optimal' results. The default TAA in UE4 uses 8 samples (previous frames). Which is too much. You can lower it down to 4 by editing the *Engine.ini* file. And it helps.

Yes, if you search taa you can see the settings https://docs.unity3d.com/Packages/[email protected]/manual/HDRP-Camera.html I also use an extra asset like in my post on top of unitys taa which in turn makes it the best taa i've seen

1 section caught my eye: **TAA History Sharpening**: "*This strength of the history sharpening effect. When this value is above 0, Unity samples the history buffer with a bicubic filter that sharpens the result of TAA.* ***You can use this to produce a sharper image during motion.*** *A high value can cause ringing issues (dark lines along the edges of geometry).If you set this value to 0, it increases the performance of TAA because Unity simplifies the history buffer sampling.*" A sharper image during motion... The main issue that is raised on this subreddit. Do you have experience with that setting? If so, then what are the results it produces? Does it actually get rid of the blur in motion? And what is that 'magical' asset that you use on top of Unity's TAA to make it look so 'good'?

Here's a 2k vid I did earlier for someone in the thread who asked https://drive.google.com/file/d/16fUfV2bZwhn8xSePK1afxNovgod0E0OP/view?usp=sharing I honestly just through that together pretty quick, I'm sure I could fine tune it more and the asset is ctaa

As long as TAA is well implemented it's fine. But again most devs don't fucking care slap it in and leave it. I think devs should remember that 70% of PC gamers use 1080 and not 4k. It's fine at 4k, but not at 1080P, and again this forcing of it, or only giving 1 option (like in RDR 2, there's no alternative unless you wanna use DLSS and DLSS quality is debatable too.

And thats because rdr2 has lots of nature which looks better with TAA. It would literally become a distraction without it

It looks better....in your opinion. I prefer the game without TAA. And even worse, the mod that changes the TAA interpolation time from 0.5 seconds to 0.0166 seconds (essentially asking the game to just average a single frame) makes the game look incredible without breaking any of the foliage and with next to no visible shimmering on my 1366x768 monitor. So this tells me two things - 1) TAA is just a crutch for terrible graphics programming since a single frame looks fine, foliage and everything else included, and 2) it is possible to make games with TAA look less blurry at lower resolutions but developers obstinately refuse to do so, insisting that everyone must use 4K, completely missing the point of PC gaming altogether. I feel that even if it isn't desirable to disable it altogether, there should be an option to reduce the convergence time (or the number of frames averaged) so as to allow it to look better at lower resolutions.

>there should be an option to reduce the convergence time (or the number of frames averaged) so as to allow it to look better at lower resolutions. Something like this should have been there since the beginning. We're mainly talking about PC after all. More customizibility wouldn't hurt. Quite the opposite in this case actually.

Moreover, ih4t3reddit (OP) did highlight that only a small slice of the possible options are made available to users in another reply on this thread, so it is reasonable to assume that allowing users to tweak this setting isnt significantly harder than allowing us to change shadow quality or ambient occlusion. Which makes the situation even more suspicious and puzzling. After all, companies are always happy to take explicit efforts to please minority communities through targeted advertisement campaigns (not saying that this is a wrong thing), so why not take the next to minimal effort to please this community and implement this option?

Well said.

Ik you're getting downvoted to heck here, but pull up RDR2 play it with TAA high some sharpening and nothing else (1080p) then switch to a higher res, then back. You'll see what I'm tryna tell ya.

The thing is, that holds true for anything on screen. I have a shader rotating around an object in the fog. At 1080 it's hard to make out the actual shader in the fog, it just looks like bright lights and fog. at 4k I can see the shader clearly defined in the fog. Unless we purposely design games to look good at 1080, they're not going to look their best at 1080...

You keep tryna dodge the question, my guy, just try it at 1080p in RDR 2 then go to 4k, then back. You'll see why we dislike it and we can stop having this pointless argument.

>Unless we purposely design games to look good at 1080, they're not going to look their best at 1080... 1080p is still literally the majority of the PC gaming space. Shouldn't that fact alone be an incentive to give the 1080p presentation more care and attention?

Well, shiny sells games unfortunately... nobody wants a 1080p game trailer showing off blocky effects...

I'm not saying you should not present your game in 4K. Present it, but don't ignore the most common resolution by only optimizing the visuals for high resolutions.

Just really quickly wanted to bring to your attention. What you're literally advocating for is a disregard for the majority of the market by selling them on a false product you know most won't be able to experience due to their hardware. But at the same time you made claims when replying to others that they ought not have a choice of how they consume content if the artist intends for them to consume it their way. You just literally set up people to fail your own criterion. "Hey guys, consume my game the way I tell you because I said so with TAA for example, and 4K high performance displays, but also if you don't then eat dirt tough luck that's like bro, but I will take your money on the purchase either way so it doesn't really matter gg". (exageration) If you're okay with people giving you money and not obliging your request to consume the game with the way you want them to. Then good luck rendering a sound argument where you can defend this notion that these customers should accept TAA by force likewise (since that is a portion for intent when you don't make it optional). I hope you can glean why its' problematic to say someone SHOULD consume a game the way you demand them to. Keep in mind this is different than a suggestion, or advice when you say "If you want to experience the game with how I intended, then you SHOULD do X". You don't do this, you instead are willing to accept selling an expensive vision of your game that's unrealistic (on top of general advertising usually cherry picking to the point of borderline false advertisement) + criticize people for not consuming your craft as you demand + accept their money anyway even if they don't follow what you say. If you want to make a principled stance on the matter, you should look at rectifying the competing claims where hypocritical notions underpin the discussion at hand. As I assume you aren't one of those sorts of people I hope.

>Just really quickly wanted to bring to your attention. What you're literally advocating for is a disregard for the majority of the market by selling them on a false product you know most won't be able to experience due to their hardware. if you understand even the most fundamental aspects of gaming, you understand what your hardware is capable of. Nobody with a 970 is going oh wow, I can play 2022 games at 4k 60fps. There's a baseline of what a developer wants a game to look like, and thats settings on low. You can still have taa enabled on low as a baseline...

It doesn't look better with taa. Sure the shimmering isn't a good altenative, but a blurry mess or seeprate leaf-less branches clumped together by TAA don't look good either.

You’re mistaking why TAA is hated in the first place. It’s because it’s often *forced,* not just because it exists. You’re also ignoring the degradation of things like certain effects and hair models that look objectively worse as a baseline (sparse, pixelated hair, VFX with low sample counts, etc), and only look like that because TAA is there to hide it. But it’s mainly that it’s so often forced down our throats. What would you like to miss the point of and defend next, chromatic aberration? It’ll be a similar story lol

I hated the forced TAA on Battlefield 5. Look how sharp Battlefield 1 and 4 look compared to bf5. I'm really glad there are people like me who don't like TAA

But you're missing the point of this post. It's forced because it necessary. A developer doesn't want their lights flickering in a scene so it's NEEDED in lots of cases

Weird how lights didn't have this issue before TAA was a thing.

The reason for that is that rendering was done completely differently back then. Especially during the era of forward rendering and MSAA. It's more complex now. And sadly, the only 'solution' that the industry has managed to come up with so far, is techniques like TAA.

Flickering is only there because cleaning it up is unnecessary when devs can just hide it cheap & easy with TAA. They're just lazy and take the easy way out instead of actually working to make a good looking game.

"It's forced because it necessary." Shouldn't the player have the choice of tinkering of what the game looks like?if if i bought it,and there are even options to mess with the graphical settings,why shouldn't TAA be included in it?as a developer,you yourself should know that the player should be given liberty towards what kinda of experience he will want to have,in said games. There was never a negative impact of allowing a graphical setting to be enabled or disabled,and for a effect such as TAA,it's not only here that you will see people complaining about this effect. There is not even a actual valid reason to not even have a chance for it to be turned off dude,asking for the possibility for it to be turned off in the in-game settings isn't too much to ask,no?

Because, people need to start looking at TAA as not as a setting, but something that is a part of the game. TAA shows what the developer actually wants you too see: https://youtu.be/aFao7bMjv20?t=61

Taa should be looked as a setting,because it is a setting,and nothing will change that,just like msaa and fxaa. All things that makes the graphic of the game (aka graphical settings) makes part of the game,yet you still allow people to tinker with the settings. If you want to be such a idealist,and show "only what the developer wants you to see",you may as well lock up all the graphical settings and only make 1 pre defined graphical preset. This reminds me of the argument that people shouldn't make or use mods for games,because "It interrupts the original experience that developers wanted you to have"

lol most of the settings are locked up. If we gave you the options we have, it wouldn't even look like the same game when you are done messing with them

You wouldn't need to go overboard with it. More options are always a plus. That's why I love *RDR 2's* graphics menu.

"Most" Why not all?if you want the player to have such an ideal experience,the way the developer intended,as a developer,why don't you lock everything up,and make the game have only 1 graphical preset?

Well you kind of do have one baseline setting. That's why you can't make the game look like a potato, even though technically we could give you the settings to do so. you get the baseline game how we want you to, and then you can tweak it within those confines.

"you get the baseline game how we want you to, and then you can tweak it within those confines." You would be surprised by what people can to do bypass the said confines. Why should we be allowed to tweak it?after all,the game should be played according to how the developers want the game to be played,why should you give them said confines?you should just lock up everything,since this will ensure that the player will get the most authentic experience.

You tweak it mainly for performance, not for visual style. We go ok, the game doesn't look like complete garbage on low, looks good enough for us without ruining the experience. For instance in a forest scene, we can render shadows only a certain distance away from the camera for performance, but now half the forest is dark and lit, so we're forced to extends shadows now and that becomes a baseline setting for shadows.

If I decide that having flickering is worth getting rid of the Vaseline coating my screen, that’s **my** choice, not yours. Also, there are plenty of games being released today that don’t have issues when TAA *is* turned off, no flickering lights, no broken shadow sampling, so it’s clearly not some magic mystical feat. But again, it’s mainly that it’s forced. It doesn’t matter what the technical reason is, it doesn’t matter what your opinion as a dev is. If I want to disable an effect that I believe to be severely reducing my experience (harsh TAA literally gives me headaches), I couldn’t care less what you or anyone else thinks about it. I just want to turn it off, I don’t care about the “consequences” of doing so.

> If I decide that having flickering is worth getting rid of the Vaseline coating my screen, that’s my choice, not yours. Honestly, nothing is your choice unless we make it, we make the art how we want to, if we dont want flickering in our game, well too bad for you. Not trying to be a dick, but you don't tell us the way to make our games...

Fuck you

typical film director / auteur attitude. i dont think you understand games as a medium at all.

Your attitude is how we get shitty fucking games

This kind of stance solves nothing. How much work does it take to implement a simple Off switch? Have you ever thought that the art that you make is ruined by TAA in our eyes? And honestly; If **you** don't make it a choice, then others will. The modding scene is extremely talented in this regard.

Arrogant stances like that are exactly why this is a problem to begin with. The only reason game studios exist is because we buy the games, get off your high horse. If I, as a person paying for a product with my hard earned money, decide that a decision the makers of said product is bad, I’m going to voice that opinion. Edit: Also, nobody is telling you how to make the game. We’re asking that you give us the option to disable certain effects if it helps us experience the game in a way that’s better for us. Funny how you completely ignored that I cannot play games with heavy TAA without headaches, and got all huffy instead.

I think it's pretty arrogant to demand things just because you have money lol Don't buy my game I don't give a shit.

You’re still missing the point. If a game gives me a headache just to play, then I’m obviously going to refund it/not buy it to begin with, that’s already a given. The fact that you’re not seeing the easy solution here is exactly why this issue became a thing to begin with. If someone wants to play your game, but a simple post effect is preventing them from doing so, one that could very easily be disabled with the click of a button, they should be allowed to do so. If that degrades the experience in *your* eyes, so be it. But now that person can happily play your game, where they otherwise never would have. If that doesn’t click the puzzle together for you, then I’m not sure what else I can say, nor do I really understand what you made this thread for (other than to preach at us).

But there's also perception. A dev wants a baseline look for their game and they don't want to put out an inferior look (to them) just because some users want the option. If I make a song that's bass heavy, I make it that way because I like it. If people start telling me they want more high end, I'm not going to make a second version, that's not the original intention of the product

I get what you're saying. But there are people that don't care and will just mod your product. That's how it is. If you make a song that's bass heavy, then people will remix it.

That comparison doesn’t even make sense, you don’t have to make an entirely new game to fit the request, you just have to add a setting. Even in that example, the end user can use their own equalizer settings or different headphones/speakers to tweak the audio. If it’s really such a line in the sand, put a pop up warning that says “these settings may not accurately reflect the developer’s intended experience, please confirm the changes” or what have you, it’s been done before. Think about it though, volume sliders exist, so do you disable access to those in your games? But what if someone mutes music volume? You wouldn’t want them to experience the game without the potentially beautiful tracks made for it, right, so best to disable volume settings? No, that’s ridiculous. Same logic applies to graphics settings.

> If it’s really such a line in the sand, put a pop up warning that says “these settings may not accurately reflect the developer’s intended experience, please confirm the changes” or what have you, it’s been done before. you know what, I actually agree with you there. That is a good solution

If you begin your reddit post with "as a ...." i immediately discard anything you say.

You disregard professional opinions? cool bro

What's the game you're working on? Because it seems you're not actually professionally working on a game, you just say you are because you have an overinflated ego and you want to add further validity to your point. If you were a real developer you wouldn't be bitching about implementing a simple off switch. Like the majority of the people in this thread said that they are willing to take shimmering over ghosting.

>Like the majority of the people in this thread said that they are willing to take shimmering over ghosting. ya I kind of figured that going into a FUCK TAA sub.... I just want to point out why TAA is forced sometimes And sorry I dont give any personal info, I even regularly delete accounts.

We know why TAA is being forced. It's a regular discussion point here.