CryEngine3 3-5 times Crysis

lol it means jack, CryEngine 2 is garbage. If they were smart they wouldnt even develop games and just focus on thier engines which are coded by chimps.

Sure it looks awesome but it scales for shit.
 
mobusta1 said:
Also to hamxida how do you force the game to play in dx9 mode?
Click to expand...

Simple.
If you are playing in XP, then obviously it will run in DX9.

But, I am assuming you (like me) are a Vista user, so all you would have to do is:

1. Go to your Games folder
2. Right click on the Crysis icon
3. Select Play DX9

If you want to permanently set it to run in DX9 by just double-clicking on it from henceforth, then

1. Go to your Games folder
2. Right click on the Crysis icon
3. Click Customize
4. Then a Play Menu window comes up, and where you see Play (Play DX9), click move up until it goes to the top of the menu.

Now you are set.
It will always default to DX9 mode whenever you double-click the Crysis Icon in your games folder.

To confirm, once you are in the game, you can type in:
r_displayinfo=1
(assuming you have con_restricted=0 in a config file, which you should if you followed my other instructions from my previous post)
 
Kowan said:
Discussion @ Beyond3D about how well Crytek optimizes.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=49437

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1206237&postcount=30
Click to expand...

THANK YOU. I don't have a problem with someone saying it's unoptimized as long as you show your fuckin work.

That said, the b3d post brings up an issue specific to DX9, while insinuating that DX10 handles things more efficiently. So the question to be asked, are the performance issues with Crysis related to the inefficiency of Microsofts DX? CryEngine2 clearly raises the graphical bar; is it a matter of having your cake and eating it too?
 
Kaldskryke said:
Haven't we always been saying something along those lines?

"Wow, with texture mapping this game looks so much more realistic. I bet we'll have photorealism soon!"

"Wow, with hardware T&L this game looks so much more realistic. I bet we'll have photorealism soon!"

"Wow, with bump mapping this game looks so much more realistic. I bet we'll have photorealism soon!"

Ever wonder why Pixar makes nothing but cartoons? Even with a massive Renderman farm at their disposal, a realistic human depiction is still the hardest thing to get right. Sure the HumanHead demo looks pretty good, but he didn't have hair. I have a feeling light/blonde hair is going to be one of the hardest hurdles to overcome. Accounting for the way light scatters through all those translucent strands is going to be rough.

But to be less antagonistic, you might be right. 12 years will hopefully correspond to a lot of progress. Virtualized memory and 'infinite' geometry are only a few years away if the Carmack has his way, and interactive GI will hopefully follow soon. I'm sure by 2020 we'll at least have tech demos that are hard to tell from 'real life', but whether we can pack all that fidelity into a game at interactive framerates by 2020 is perhaps less likely.

I wonder what new features for CryEngine3 are in the works.
Click to expand...


pixar is heading there fast though. the amount of expression they are giving animation is astounding.
 
I hope that if v3 ends up being a glorified PhysX showcase it turns out to be a bit more stable than the solver in v2.

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for even one other game that looks as good as Crysis but runs better. Must be a piece of cake since Crysis was "coded by chimps", right?
 
Crytek is a very "cutting-edge" company and it is good to see them still in the game. The industry needs companies like them to push development further and set the bar. While I agree that Crysis and the Cry Engine 2 wasn't the most polished/optimized game, there is no doubt it was the best looking game to grace the market. Hopefully, Crytek can learn from this and release an engine that not only looks great, but also scales well and is better optimized so that it can be enjoyed by more of the market.
 
Crysis may be unoptimised, but if it is then so is every other modern game. Crysis has way bigger textures (you can look at things closely without them going blurry like most games), it has pretty good shaders and lighting... as good as any other game I've seen, and it has draw distances far beyond any of its competitors Dont forget a draw distance that big takes a lot more system resources. As well as the terrain is far more dynamic than other games. You fire a missile through or throw a grenade between some trees and they flex in response to the missile or explosion.

With some good configs I get 30fps in Crysis at 1680x1050, and it looks better than "high" settings. Compared to COD4 where I get around 50fps. I think the far greater complexity of Crysis warrants the 40% performance decrease.

So it may be unoptimised, but if it is, so is every other game out now, its just those other games aren't as ambitious with dynamic terrain, massive draw distances and higher quality textures.

Probably the biggest thing that needs to be fixed in Crysis is the graphics settings. Medium looks like average at best, high enables too many things that dont hugely affect visuals but do affect performance, so it still doesn't look amazing but runs like arse, then very high is just over the top as far as shaders, textures and draw distances are concerned, so it runs horrible. That's why the customised configs are so good, they give you a better set of graphics settings.
 
^^ I have to agree with you . World needs developers like Crytek, who are able to take chances to push the graphics to its limits.
 
Tudz said:
Crysis may be unoptimised, but if it is then so is every other modern game.
Click to expand...
I'd like to disagree with this statement.

Crysis really does suffer from somewhat 'poor' coding. So did Far Cry, by the way. For example, one way an engine can be optimized is by finding groups of similar instructions (ie Draw Primitive calls) that can be merged into a single call. Reducing the number of DX calls will reduce CPU overhead and can improve render times. The folks at B3D pointed out that Crysis makes over 5x as many draw primitive calls as would be typical, and that's not just because of draw distance.

I'm not sure how you can insinuate that every other modern game makes all the same mistakes/oversights. That just doesn't make any sense.

I don't doubt that even if it were 'perfectly' coded, Crysis would still be the the most demanding game available. But maybe we could coax a fair bit more performance out than what we're currently getting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top