sigh... crysis...
polycounter lvl 19
has anyone popped open the editor yet? omfg... 1.5 mil tris on average... the whole entire level runs directly in the editor, real time AO... n stuff... sad day...
the snow effect... is INSANE!!!! it updates in real time ... also real time froth on water and rocks?! WTF?!
and their heads use 256x256 normal maps...
the snow effect... is INSANE!!!! it updates in real time ... also real time froth on water and rocks?! WTF?!
and their heads use 256x256 normal maps...
Replies
-caseyjones
Someone get them a Jurassic Park license already.
Someone get them a Jurassic Park license already.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah that would rock... at least it would be more interesting than shooting north koreans
I dunno if I'll pick this up since my computer didn't run the demo very well, plus I didn't enjoy Far Cry very much and found the demo quite boring
Might get it for the editor though (like I did with GoW PC, heh), and generally for admiring the fancy tech.
the demo runs perfectly fine on my computer at highest DX9 settings which made me happy, but like MoP, I found the demo quite boring (same thing for CoD4 demo btw, I found it really dull and boring). I don't know how the final game is though, but reading some posts here it seems to be good.(same for CoD4)
so looks like more geometry + good lighting wins over having fancy highres normal maps ... mmm sad day
nothing!
for ugly-monster-aliens, a normalmap will still win with nice normalmap, i think.. so rawkstar.. make ugly-monster-aliens
Assassin's Creed lighting really makes their normalmaps look great too. They didn't throw polygons at everything like Crytek did (although to be fair in Assassin's Creed you never really get up close to stuff like you do in an FPS).
supporting the jurassic park idea, just recently looked at some youtube videos of "trespasser" if anyone remembers that revolutionary game (bumpmaps,spec,physics... just the most ugly controls ever
[/ QUOTE ]Probably the only game ever to allow the player to beat themselves to death with a baseball bat or dangle helplessly in a pit suspended only by their rifle. The game was severely broken, but that wound up adding a lot of interest. You could never be quite sure what was going to happen next.
and teaspasser was sooooo coool.. "hello, if have a rubber arm and want to use this security-card.. oh wait.. no ah.. oh.. one moment.. i have it .. ja .. no .. shit.. ihh.. oh.. ah ..."
Well, what's the point of using normal maps to fake high res geometry when you can just actually use high res stuff. I'm not sure why this makes for a sad occasion?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would imagine just to give the object a more detailed and dynamic surface.
Well, what's the point of using normal maps to fake high res geometry when you can just actually use high res stuff. I'm not sure why this makes for a sad occasion?
[/ QUOTE ]
faster shadow calculation and transform
C:\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis SP Demo\Game\Config
Open up the file named "highspec.cfg" in notepad
And simply change the 3 to a 4.
step 2:
C:\Program\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis SP Demo\Game\Config\CVarGroups
It should have files for every settings. What you should do is copy the text at the top under "4" and then put it where "3" is.
step 3:
EXPLODE!
I gotta say i'm much more impressed with Crysis than UE3. Though the level art in UT3 is phenominally better.
Ged, you could play it on Low Settings around 1024x768 with your setup, and get about 22 FPS average.
[/ QUOTE ]
I really dont want to play it on low if low is like the demo's low. On low It looks much worse than farcry on my computer. I dont actually know anyone in my town or university who has a good enough computer to run this game, its actually ridiculous. Im all for next-gen technology and software but I thought there was alot more that could be done without sacrificing performance so very much. Do you think that there is any chance of further optimisation?
It wont be optimized to the point your 6800 can run on high decently. I doubt that very much.
As great as the game is and all that it handles i'm surprised how well it runs on lower end machines. It's faster than UE3 on the same machine, and I know crysis pushes much more data/distance visuals.
It's faster than UE3 on the same machine, and I know crysis pushes much more data/distance visuals.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats strange cause I can run the UE3 demo on high settings and it still gets around 24fps average but if I put crysis demo on high I dont get over 10fps. my computer is slightly overclocked
[ QUOTE ]
I have a old P4 3.2 ghz single core, 1 gig of ram, and an 8800gts. You could put that together these days for around 600-700 bucks.
[/ QUOTE ]
I could put together that sort of machine for about 800 bucks but I would be stupid because I already have a computer that can run every other game on the market on medium-high settings at about 30fps. most young gamers dont have that kind of money to waste. I could understand people telling me to upgrade if I was in the minority and geniunely had a computer incapable of running the latest games or applications but that is simply not the case.
Out of 20 classmates only one guy has an 8800GTS and can play this properly and we are the "interactive design class" = the elite gamer geeks of the university. If most of us cant run this game as it was meant to be played then I doubt many others can.
Im not saying its a bad game, its just way ahead of its time and does not compete well with other games on the market in terms of technical requirements.
And your class really is a moot point. If you are in school I doubt you have a normal 9-5 job, but an 800$ computer is pretty cheap for real life expense. Also developing art for games doesn't really mean you need the ability to play the thing at full speed. You'll be looking at single models most of the time. It's not way ahead of it's time at all, you just cant cope with playing it on low...on a 2 gen old low end card from 2 years ago... The game is current gen/time, your spec is what is falling behind. You don't need a massive machine to run this happily, as a game artist you should really try to cope with it instead of bashing progress because you can't play it.
motionblur will rape the fps, but keep the textures and shader quality on VERY HIGH.
You don't need a massive machine to run this happily, as a game artist you should really try to cope with it instead of bashing progress because you can't play it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Im not bashing progress, it just seems to me that it would be more reasonable for a person like me to save my money for that graphics card or upgrade rather than buying crysis. Im not in the minority with an old graphics card, alot of people have computers which are around 2 years old. Im on steam and they did a recent servey I got the results today.
"DirectX10 Systems (Vista with DirectX10 GPU) - 7.33% of users"
thats 7.33% of users of steam who did the servey. Thats not alot of people who can run crysis on good quality directx10 settings. Even if you read through the 3D card results there is only +- 20% of people on steam who have a current generation 3D card. I wouldnt mind so much if low quality was more coherent but it really just falls apart at the seams at low quality and looks really nasty. I want the game I see on the box, I dont see whats so wrong about that.
I work 9-6pm doing 3D design work 3 days a week and this pays for university the rest of the week and accomodation etc. So Im gonna skip crysis and save until I can get the kind of 3D card these new games require.
directx10 is not required to run the game on very high quality, it does/might improve performance a bit, or make them slightly/minorly better, but it's NOT required.
crytek just scored some deal with microsoft and locked a few settings out of xp, but are easily changeable in the settings inis.
and that survey on steam is accurate but inaccurate, nobody is really wanting to move on to vista yet, since there's no performancegain, so everyone I know (including me) who's on a dx10 card, is on XP, so even though only that few are on vista vid a dx10card, I can assure you that quite a few more have one of those, but are on XP.
crytek just scored some deal with microsoft and locked a few settings out of xp, but are easily changeable in the settings inis.
and that survey on steam is accurate but inaccurate, nobody is really wanting to move on to vista yet, since there's no performancegain, so everyone I know (including me) who's on a dx10 card, is on XP, so even though only that few are on vista vid a dx10card, I can assure you that quite a few more have one of those, but are on XP.
[/ QUOTE ]
yeah it isnt accurate to say everyone is gonna want to use dx10 with their dx10 graphics card. I think its safe to say that there really isnt any significant reason to use dx10 or vista yet.
thats why I included this: "Even if you read through the 3D card results there is only +- 20% of people on steam who have a current generation 3D card." because thats what I could see by looking at the chart of cards used. around 70-80% of people have older than current generation graphics cards.
Nice screenshot eld. an improvement over what most current gen games are doing for bumps.
20% of people can play it on high with current gen cards. The rest or a very large chunk could EASILY just be happy playing on medium, then another large chunk can play on low. You just seem unhappy about your inability to play a current gen game on high with ancient hardware, which is fine but not a bad choice on cryteks part. It's a very simple economic system where if you build something bland and dull, interest will be low and it wont drive the continuation of improving the product or the hardware behind the product. The happens every year or 2 as i've said before. Being in a game development class you sincerely should be accepting or knowledgeable about this. Crytek deserve more respect for making a phenominal engine which is extremely scalable in performance.
I installed my old 6800, and it runs fine on low at 1024x768, on QUALITY settings, and I was able to push it to a tolerable 18fps on medium textures with low shadows, when i set image settings to high performance in nVidias Control Panel. There were mip artifacts, but it ran just fine.
You have an incredibly cheap 80$ card that is able to run the game, just not to your personal likes: http://www.pricewatch.com/video_cards/geforce_6800_pci.htm
Dfacto: Playing a game on high is not 'intended', thats why it scales. Intended is your definition of what you want to get out of it. The game does'nt change just because you dont get to see shadows as crisp as you want, or bloom beams. Be grateful they built in scaling, for you, personally so that YOU and others with low end hardware could play it. They also released a demo before the game shipped, something very rare these days. If you did'nt personally like the performance, then just don't buy it.
Snowfly: All the lighting is realtime. Realtime AO, parralax, realtime HDR, Shadows, Bloom and volumetric lighting. Shadows actually cast from trees and you can see the air or particles in the air darken as the shadow is draped down to the ground. It's really freaking amazing sometimes. The clouds are also volumetric and physics enabled.
that said yes crysis does look quite nice.
G
Just to test your garbage, I installed my old 6800, and it runs fine on low at 1024x768, on QUALITY settings, and I was able to push it to a tolerable 18fps on medium textures with low shadows, when i set image settings to high performance in nVidias Control Panel. There were mip artifacts, but it ran just fine.
You have an incredibly cheap 80$ card that is able to run the game, just not to your personal likes: http://www.pricewatch.com/video_cards/geforce_6800_pci.htm
Quit crying.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow why so defensive motz? Im not crying about anything Im being pro-active, I told you I just came to the conclusion that its not worth buying crysis if I could use that money to save for an upgrade(my computer is 2 years old and yes I have been expecting this coming). The reason I mentioned my situation is that I just expected the low quality in crysis to retain its cinematic quality in some form but it doesnt, it really looks like a different game. It doesnt just scale down the quality, it removes it entirely. I think its because of all the dynamic effects and shadows that are removed on low and leave the game a flat diffuse experience with loads of pop up and to me that kind of experience seems easily 2 gens old. I guess they could have found some way to have baked in shadows/effects for low users or something? but this probably would have meant way more work for crytec. I dont mean to upset you motz but not everyone is going to have the same expectations in a new game like crysis. I still think its a great game, I will still get it, just not right now.
Ged, People can play this on dx9 with decent speed on 7900's and up.
[/ QUOTE ]
Personally I think that statement is a load of old bollocks.
I highly doubt many people are getting good performance out of a 7900, and if you are its a fluke. PC's are finicky machines. I ran the demo on a core duo 2 with a 7900 and it runs like ass. Everyone in our office was playing multiplayer on 7950 GT's for a bit, until it got too frustrating trying to fricking hit anybody with a dogjizz framerate. And yes, that was on lower settings on dual core machines.
I also think that a) 18 fps actually isn't acceptable for a fun fps experience and b) crysis on lower settings looks like complete and UTTER FULLBRIGHT ASS. Why? Cos nothings fucking baked! So the instant you turn off the realtime AO and shadows, the game looks hideously fullbright, and not a patch on other games that have that stuff baked in! Have you walked into an interior with that stuff turned off? It looks like an *extremely* dated game. Comprende? Not rocket science.
"Crytek deserve more respect for making a phenomenal engine which is extremely scalable in performance"? Yes, its an amazing looking game on the right machine.
But it's sure as shit not a phenomenally *performing* engine, and that's absolutely integral to labelling an engine as phenomenal. And again, any talk about it being extremely scalable is fucking bollocks, because of my previous paragraph.
All Ged is really saying here is as far as I can tell, is that Crytek and EA made a little too big a leap in terms of the hardware demand on the consumer for an experience with acceptable performance, and I'm definitely inclined to agree. Far Cry looked amazing in its day, BUT also was a highly optimized engine that most people could run just fine. That simply is not the case this time around, and any suggestion that it is is just fucking nonsense.