NVidia Anti-Aliasing Guide (updated)

Sorry about that.
But -force-d3d9 works in many Unity games such as Dead Effect 2, Verdun, Wasteland 2 and so on.
Since driver forced AA will only work with custom DX9 AA bits, then you are most likely out of luck.

 

Shame, since it's using Unity 5. I'd have to imagine that there are games shipping now with Unity's new Temporal AA (Which is pretty bad looking from what i've seen), does it use it?
If it did, you could probably at least try using 2.25x DSR + a low smoothness value (Less than<20%) alongside it.

 

The whole game is kind of a dumpster fire, I'm just trying to make the best of it!

 

I wouldn't necessarily blame the engine.
Several Unity 5 games have fully functional DX9 modes such as Dead Effect 2, Dreamfall Chapters, Verdun and The Forest to name a few.
These are all PC exclusives made and updated by proper developers through a period of several years.
BTW all of the above games also scale very well with SLI at 4K resolution

Honestly it is more likely this NASCAR game is just a poorly made console port, that was rushed out the door too early

 

Dreamfall is a horrible, disgusting mess from a technical standpoint. Don't know about SLI scaling but you've seen how demanding and inconsistent it is yourself.

 

Found that 0x080002C1 bit breaks motion blur effect in Dead Rising 2 (0x000000C0 works alright )

 

I strongly disagree, Dreamfall is a gorgeous game at 4K resolution.
Especially many of the cutscenes are really exceptional.
But it is very demanding in terms of both CPU and GPU power, and eats a single GTX 970/980 for breakfast.

Nothing wrong with that, not everything needs to run perfect on mid-level hardware IMO.
Some users today are just unrealistic in terms of what they expect from their hardware.

https://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=11108736&postcount=2287

 

So because a game looks good, that means it's well optimized. That's a non sequitur. The people designing art assets for a game are not necessarily the same people who do the programming work. And either way, I don't think that a 970, 980 or, even worse, a 1070 should struggle with a game like Dreamfall. It looks good, but not that good. The levels are tiny and pretty much all resources are static. There is absolutely nothing in Dreamfall that warrants it being such a hog. Not even proper AA is present.

 

The game doesn't look *that* good. The issue is it's made in Unity, the ****tiest engine on earth.

This game, like almost all Unity games, had trouble staying above 50FPS in 1080p on a 980 Ti in many places in the game.

Like, what the actual f***.

I posted about this on the Dreamfall forums, as I thought it's a bug. A dev replied to me with something like "a solid, smooth 30FPS is what we aim for and is our artistic vision. It doesn't matter if you have a monster PC with a $800 graphics card, if the game runs at 30FPS then take your complains elsewhere, because this game uses Unity which is an awesome engine and only you are complaining about such irrelevant things like framerates."

I uninstalled the game right there and made a note of who developed this game so that I'll never buy anything from them again. Or anything made with Unity, for that matter.

 

The best AA method i have ever seen and what not even taxing is the SSAA from Metro 2033 and Last Light and Shadow Warrior 2.

Super Sampling on its best, with no big performance hit on full HD with 4x SSAA.
Wish more game developers should use it.

The second best with no vaseline console effect is MSAA, also even less taxing and if correct implented it looks beautifull on most games.

All other AA method i drain down the toilet they ugly as it can be.

 

This is completely inaccurate.
I agree, Unity can be quite CPU limited in some games at lower resolutions with an older CPU.
But who wants to play at 1080P anyway these days?

I can assure you, there is no CPU limit at 4K resolution in Dreamfall Chapters with my 5930K, and SLI scales very nicely in this and most other Unity games.
Typically I get around 60-100 FPS in Dreamfall with 2-way 980 Ti at 4K using maximum settings.
And ingame FXAA is more than sufficient at higher resolutions anyway.

 

I can't confirm any of that. The game performs poorly in many areas (yes, some areas give 100FPS, but later in the game, you get to 40FPS areas) and on top of that it has severe frame pacing issues that are only fixable with RTSS. A hallmark of a bad engine.

Take a look at this, for example: http://redthreadgames.com/forum/topic/3168-the-game-stutters-and-the-screen-is-dirty/

Copy&paste that for pretty much every Unity game I ever played. Even freakin' Pillars of Eternity has FPS issues due to Unity, and that game has pre-rendered graphics! Like, seriously. PRE-RENDERED graphics with only some (VERY low-poly) NPCs being realtime 3D. You would expect 300FPS for these graphics. But nope, you get down to 80 in most places. Want 4K? Enjoy 40FPS for 2004-era visuals.

"Unity = crap" is now embedded into my brain. It is a ****ty engine, period. This engine is just not made for PC. It's usually a choice for mobile or console devs, but every time I see a new game announced and then see it uses Unity, I know beforehand it's gonna run like absolute crap on PC.

 

As I already said, I agree Unity is typically very demanding in terms of needed GPU and CPU power.
We can argue all day long, if the visuals in Dreamfall justify the needed system grunt.

 

If you're referring to downsampling with minimal FXAA contribution, then yes, it obviously can be sufficient- if you can run it. The FXAA implementation is one of the worst to ever grace the gaming world, period. The stereotypical "grease on screen" effect is in full demonstration with Dreamfall's FXAA. Anyway, if you really believe a Unity game or any game for that matter should require a pair of 980s to run at an acceptable framerate at 1080p, then I don't know what to say past this point.

 

fmfm....

 

Pretty bold assumption

 

I think you guys have misunderstood my point somewhat
What I meant was, that 1920x1080 can be a very CPU limited resolution in several Unity games when using fast GPU's.
And given the fact, that most developers don't offer decent AA solutions these days besides FXAA or similar, a higher native resolution makes more sense.

Why run at 1080P with 50% GPU usage, and only get the same FPS as when running at a higher resolution?
Expecting 200 FPS at 1080P in Unity games is just unrealistic, due to the way the CPU multi-threading works in that engine.

Ingame TXAA, MSAA or even temporal AA can be all over the place in terms of quality in many titles, so a higher native resolution with just basic FXAA is normally the simplest and best solution IMO.
How I miss DX9 SGSSAA

 

Because it's 100% GPU, not 50%. Unity isn't CPU-limited. It's everything-limited.

In other words, a crap engine nobody bothered optimizing for PC.

 

Unity is more about working on everything, than being brilliant on one platform.

 

Not to mention, Unity is usually consistently SLI friendly in most of the games I have tested so far, as long as you are not running into an obvious CPU limit of course.
Personally I like it, despite its shortcomings
It's certainly no CryEngine or Unreal Engine, but still decent if used correctly.
Here are some examples tested at native 3840x2160 resolution with 2-way 980 Ti:

Dead Effect

Dead Effect 2

Dreamfall Chapters