|
|
| Page 128 of 183 |
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 34994
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 10:01 Post subject: |
|
 |
Also The resolution in the game for the E3 and CES shows was set to 1024x768 from what i remember.
EDIT: Seems you already mentioned this in your initial post, funny as the resolution has a rather large effect on my framerate but this is the secondary computer and it's not that modern.
Last edited by JBeckman on Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:05; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 10:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| JBeckman wrote: | | Also The resolution in the game for the E3 and CES shows was set to 1024x768 from what i remember. |
Also I mentioned in my post the resolution doesn't make a damn difference in DX10, only in DX9... Sure maybe 2 FPS more in DX10 but compared to the 7 extra FPS I got in DX9 I think its safe to say this game is a marketing scheme.
Cervat Yerli said the game would be CPU bound, and quads would give a nice improvement over Dual, when in fact its a GPU bound game. Why would he say something like that, when its totally obvious that its GPU bound, unless of course he was trying to get you to run out and grab Intels latest and greatest. Intel's name is all over that game, just as much as EA is... and lets not forget Intel had its hand in a recent BF2 map which had nothing but advertisements for Intel Processors in it, also an EA game. I own an Intel processor, and I like it. It runs great but I do not like being lied to - good thing I didn't buy this junk...
To the guy above I have the betas had them since the Demo came out... Game still runs like crap, anyone has this game running full settings in DX10 with over 25 FPS is bullshitting, or else they've opened up the editor and did some major tweaking like the guy that made the jungle map.. Theres guys on other forums 8800 Ultras one step up from a GTX, and they run this game at 20-23 FPS, sometimes lower in areas... The full settings for this game are botched, because they look almost identical to the DX9 tweaked to Very High.
Would be insanely funny if Alan Wake came out, and looked better and performed better, guess its time to begin waiting for that game.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 10:35 Post subject: |
|
|
funny...got more FPS in 1440x900 than 1280
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 10:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| SpykeZ wrote: | | funny...got more FPS in 1440x900 than 1280 |
The game would be fun, if it weren't for the fact that you just feel so capped.. I mean as far as game play goes the glitches and things I could deal with but the performance is unacceptable... and the high 6800 GT card ran Far Cry at 75 FPS on up, and in later patches even the old 9800 runs far cry at much high settings, this though I mean it just seems so unpolished, unfinished, and sluggish... I mean the game play is nice, the fact it has at least a replay value of 3 is nice, thats 30 hours of game play... Just for the simple fact of how you can choose to do things... and I am sure this game can be modded easily, but I won't be buying this game until I see some performance increases....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 10:45 Post subject: |
|
|
There is no difference of perfomance compared to the demo and i have the same fps on 64bit and 32bit version...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 10:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| WalkerBoh wrote: | | There is no difference of perfomance compared to the demo and i have the same fps on 64bit and 32bit version... |
was wondering about that... weird how 64bit doesnt have any improvement.
To you guys running in XP with DX9 , how does it run on high settings and the "very high" setting that you could enable on the demo ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Racecar101
Posts: 258
Location: somewhere in miami
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:01 Post subject: |
|
|
The last few posts are pretty much conformation that people simply cannot accept that their rig cannot max this game and therefore are picking holes in the game and moaning.
This game is well known to anyone with a clue to be a game that will change when hardware gets faster just as farcry did.
OmFG they lied to me omfg my q6600 and 8800gtx cannot run it properly in dx10 !
Omfg welcome to reality the 8800gtx is old tech the 8800gt matches it at half cost wait for the true next gen of graphics cards and shut up whinging about a game your so called awesome pC ! which is probably not even overclocked cannot max out.
You are just pissed off because you think you have the bleeding edge of hardware and should be able to max this game.
Get over yourselves and wait like the rest of us for the 9800.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:04 Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately graphics doesnt make a game great automatically, sure, Crysis have the open enviroment and a high level of diversity in its gameplay, but it all comes down to a plain shooter which delivers a typical FPS singleplayer and a rather bad multiplayer...
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Racecar101
Posts: 258
Location: somewhere in miami
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:08 Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed these people don't even play games they just fire it up to check fps and look for bugs and instances of bad AI.
The multiplayer beta stopped me playing quite a few games i thought it was great fun.
Last edited by Racecar101 on Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:11; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| Racecar101 wrote: | The last few posts are pretty much conformation that people simply cannot accept that their rig cannot max this game and therefore are picking holes in the game and moaning.
This game is well known to anyone with a clue to be a game that will change when hardware gets faster just as farcry did.
OmFG they lied to me omfg my q6600 and 8800gtx cannot run it properly in dx10 !
Omfg welcome to reality the 8800gtx is old tech the 8800gt matches it at half cost wait for the true next gen of graphics cards and shut up whinging about a game your so called awesome pC ! which is probably not even overclocked cannot max out.
You are just pissed off because you think you have the bleeding edge of hardware and should be able to max this game.
Get over yourselves and wait like the rest of us for the 9800. |
There is a simple rule thing that a videogame developers should always follow. When a game is released it must playable on maximun settings on an high level pc.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| WalkerBoh wrote: | | Racecar101 wrote: | The last few posts are pretty much conformation that people simply cannot accept that their rig cannot max this game and therefore are picking holes in the game and moaning.
This game is well known to anyone with a clue to be a game that will change when hardware gets faster just as farcry did.
OmFG they lied to me omfg my q6600 and 8800gtx cannot run it properly in dx10 !
Omfg welcome to reality the 8800gtx is old tech the 8800gt matches it at half cost wait for the true next gen of graphics cards and shut up whinging about a game your so called awesome pC ! which is probably not even overclocked cannot max out.
You are just pissed off because you think you have the bleeding edge of hardware and should be able to max this game.
Get over yourselves and wait like the rest of us for the 9800. |
There is a simple rule thing that a videogame developers should always follow. When a game is released it must playable on maximun settings on an high level pc. |
It is. With a bunch of ultra quality and lighting cfg tweaks at that. And I'm not even running SLI.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| WalkerBoh wrote: | | Racecar101 wrote: | The last few posts are pretty much conformation that people simply cannot accept that their rig cannot max this game and therefore are picking holes in the game and moaning.
This game is well known to anyone with a clue to be a game that will change when hardware gets faster just as farcry did.
OmFG they lied to me omfg my q6600 and 8800gtx cannot run it properly in dx10 !
Omfg welcome to reality the 8800gtx is old tech the 8800gt matches it at half cost wait for the true next gen of graphics cards and shut up whinging about a game your so called awesome pC ! which is probably not even overclocked cannot max out.
You are just pissed off because you think you have the bleeding edge of hardware and should be able to max this game.
Get over yourselves and wait like the rest of us for the 9800. |
There is a simple rule thing that a videogame developers should always follow. When a game is released it must playable on maximun settings on an high level pc. |
That's not what they intended it for silly. Their pushing it as hard as they can. Far cry came out a couple years ago and people had troubles running it on max settings. To this day it's still one of the best looking engines not including the new ones out. Their securing the future of the engine. So by the time 3 years is here, the engine is still up to date and will prob still be the best looking around. I simply can't see any games that would look any better on max than what they have done with this engine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:21 Post subject: |
|
|
You're all fan boys posting - what kind of immature 12 year old kid shit is saying "Whomever says this game sucks is a fag"... that sounds like something a 12 year old kid would say to keep someone from leaving. The simple fact is we've seen videos of this game running a lot smoother.. and yes the Q6600 was officially said to be better for Crysis, when benchmarks show otherwise... The fact of the matter is this game isn't what it was, it was over hyped. The fact that it doesn't look like some of the earlier videos and screenshots should tell you right there to not believe everything you see. Sure it can be added, but the fact is the game isn't what Crytek made it out to be... It seems nothing more then a way to show of their new engine, and I am sure in a few months we'll get a card that can run the game at 30-40 FPS in DX10, MAYBE. Right now DX10 is junk. It so happens I can run the game fine in DX9 but any reasoning behind buying it Mr.Scarface would of been for the MP, and if I can't play the MP in DX10 mode with my DX10 graphics card at playable frame rates, then I will not buy it..
The game itself is enjoyable, it has nice visuals, and its fun.... One of the worst flaws in the game is the fact that you cannot move the dead bodies, and of course the Korean Patrol will come looking for their partner and set the whole base on alert when he finds his dead body, even splinter cell had that. German laws, what a cop out...
Anyway you fan boys can back down, I've seen enough of you. I was all for this game, and it me buying it is more about how unoptimized it actually is, and truth be told it is pretty piss poor, and even if you look past the fact that the game sucks in DX10, theres still the obvious dumb AI, which was also said to be next-gen, when in reality FEAR, and even Source( God I hate to say that) has better AI. I didn't have my expectations super high, but good lord the game was looking great from what we had seen... I was the guy sitting back arguing with Immunity, and friends that play games about how good Crysis was and most of them warned me about hype, and that the game would look, nor run nothing like they say it would, or did in the videos. Guess what I am proven wrong, in all aspects should of kept my mouth shut..
Say what you will about them making this game push our hardware to its limits, but the fact remains that DX10 no matter what it does, runs shitty compared to DX9... Gears of War is a perfect example, it runs crappy, and its not worth being in DX10 unless you are using the AA, in which I did, and was satisfied with, but it made no sense to include an option to use DX10 as if it would be faster even without the AA, when in reality its not, its slower. Every damn DX10 game runs like ass, and a few of them have no visual improvements..
Last edited by gulizard on Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:24; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| SpykeZ wrote: | lol! this is what happens when I try maxing it out. My poor lil 7900GS is sitting in the corner of my case crying. at least it could squeeze out 7FPS lol
 Spoiler: | |
|
Mine does that when I load save points, sometimes the game is completely lame looking with grey everything, had to play with the settings for hours to get it to play right, ended up restarting, and actually reinstalling the game to fix the damn issue I was having....
and FYI I am o/cing I have a similar setup to the tard that posted above...
Last edited by gulizard on Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 11:44 Post subject: |
|
|
i need a 8800GTS for XMAS ^^;;;;;....or not....
GEARS OF WAR runs flawless on MAX all on my rig...,sum lil stoppin' and the GearsGame4Live thingy but no prob afterall..
IC2D E6600@2,4Ghz NO OC,3GB DDR2 633Mhz RAM,400GB HDD,nVidia EN7900GT 256MB
But GOD,i had to low down some settings that were on medium for the game to work..!!!
ASUS X570 TUF GAMING PLUS, 32GB DDR4@2666 ,RYZEN 5800X3D (NO OC),GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Super GAMING OC, Western Digital Blue 4TB 5400RPM + SAMSUNG 860 EVO 500+1TB GB SSDs , OEM SATA DVD 22xNoctua NH-D15 Chromax Black, BenQ XL2420T Case: Be Quiet! DARK BASE PRO 901. PSU CORSAIR RM1200 SHIFT
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poullou
Posts: 1746
Location: Internet Express
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 12:02 Post subject: |
|
|
KrAzY-KaMeL, but you can't judge a game from technical aspect...only. I think most of the people with negative or at least not so positive comments regarding crysis, have to do with the fact that crysis overshadowed everything with it's gfx hype. And those looking deeper into the game could not sum up a good 95% based only on it's awesome gfx. We all know the game is fantastic in visual quality but did you hear anyone saying anything about it's fantastic story, etc?
Ἢ τὰν ἢ ἐπὶ τᾶς - Μολὼν λαβέ
Today is a gift. That's why it's called the present.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 12:13 Post subject: |
|
|
Well so much for my post vanishing. Anyway yes may be true but I'm sorta on the edge. The technology involved in many of these games is what pushes the PC gaming genre. The tech goes hand in hand with the hardware and without either we would not be making progress.
That's why when a game like this comes out with such a massive opportunity to provide immersion with this newly developed technology either within the engine or whatever it's a mile-stone. But in that regard judging from a single angle like that is not possible I agree.
Nobody even mentions the story or other elements that for some reason the average FPS player misses and whines when not provided but then wipes under the carpet when it's intact in other games because I'm not sure this game was portrayed to be very deep. I mean the overall concept behind the story was given away immedietely, Aliens land on island, Koreans are there, you go fight. Do people honestly expect a Novel out of the coloring book?
And as for gameplay the same thing applies, this is a more diverse and refined version of their first offering, if you look for more then that I don't see the logic involved. The half-life series recycles the same gameplay mechanics over and over changing locals WHILE providing an engrossing story, there is always ONE element that draws customers.
For this game that ONE aspect is the visuals, everything else is secondary and expected. Given the caliber of the visuals I don't see anything wrong with that, nor the gameplay. It's a new experience either way.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 12:40 Post subject: |
|
|
is there difference between 163.75 and 169.04 drivers?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 13:25 Post subject: |
|
|
Need help please.
| Spoiler: | How do i destroy the big boss? I have already shot the 2 wings with tac gun and blown hole in the hatch but when i shoot the hatch with tac gun nothing happens. i have shot it with tac gun maybe 25 times and nothing? Is it bug or did i do something wrong? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 13:37 Post subject: |
|
|
How can i display ingame fps? the command for the demo doesn't work here.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nakitu
Posts: 1144
Location: Croatia
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 14:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| WalkerBoh wrote: | | How can i display ingame fps? the command for the demo doesn't work here. |
Use Fraps.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 14:23 Post subject: |
|
|
169.04 is better for crysis, but 163.75 is good for Gear of Wars.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 14:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| gulizard wrote: |
Say what you will about them making this game push our hardware to its limits, but the fact remains that DX10 no matter what it does, runs shitty compared to DX9... Gears of War is a perfect example, it runs crappy, and its not worth being in DX10 unless you are using the AA, in which I did, and was satisfied with, but it made no sense to include an option to use DX10 as if it would be faster even without the AA, when in reality its not, its slower. Every damn DX10 game runs like ass, and a few of them have no visual improvements.. |
runs shitty compared to dx9? i have to disagree
runs pretty good in dx10 for me. actually the same as in dx9 + a tad better looking
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Nov 2007 15:13 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, although i like the game a lot, have to say that its way too heavy in hardware needs.
my pc:
core2quad q6600 @ 3ghz
2gig ddr2 @ 1066
gf 8800 ultra 768.
If i run the game at very high settings with no AA, at 1680x1050, i cant get more than 25fps, maybe 35 if i look the ground.
Haven't checked other resolutions cause thats the native res for my 22" tft and if i go lower it just sucks.
Also i tried running both with xp x86 dx9 (very high settings) and vista x64 dx10 (very high settings) nothing changes at performance, graphics are the same, fps are the same.
Its strange that when i press the optimal auto config inside game, it puts all the settings at very high, but i cant really play with 25fps max... i guess very high settings are only intended for sli/crossfire systems.
ps r_displayinfo 1 still works.
ps2 people are talking about tweaking ingame settings etc, any guide or links around?
The skies shall rain fire and the seas will become as blood.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 128 of 183 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
