Crysis Engine Real VS. Game

oqvist said:
That is probably the Vista and DX 10 version of course. You shouldn´t worry you just have to except that the closer to real life it gets the more demanding it gets. What would be worrying was if developers wouldn´t give us the chance to get such graphics if we pay for it... You will be able to scale it down of course.

I have no problem with lighting that is better than real. Can´t stand lens flare though :D The only thing that really told by a quick look was the grass otherwise the one that complains about such shots I don´t know what they expect...

I have another one for you which is real and which is not?
*images removed for bandwidth etc*
Click to expand...


They're both not real. Ones DX9 other is DX10.
 
In the first picture, the water looked blurred out. In the second shot the grass wasn't too great and the fence was too perfect for a chain linked fence. Other than that, it looked really nice. I doubt it will look like that, and I doubt the game/story will be any good. It will probably just be a game you buy to look at and say wow graphics. I hope i'm wrong, but I don't want to get excited over another game that looks to re-invent immersion that turns out to be only that without any substance.
 
oqvist said:
That is probably the Vista and DX 10 version of course. You shouldn´t worry you just have to except that the closer to real life it gets the more demanding it gets. What would be worrying was if developers wouldn´t give us the chance to get such graphics if we pay for it... You will be able to scale it down of course.

I have no problem with lighting that is better than real. Can´t stand lens flare though :D The only thing that really told by a quick look was the grass otherwise the one that complains about such shots I don´t know what they expect...

I have another one for you which is real and which is not?





click for larger images.
Click to expand...


Something that i don't quite get yet. What's the real difference between those two pictures? The second pic looks like it uses more pixel shaders, but if that's the case, it's really nothing more than a hyper version of the first pic and whatever hardware did the first one should be able to do the second one as well.
 
well yea, and probably take it to its knee's, if its being displayed on a DX10 part, its probably taking advantage of the decreased overhead and various other performance increasing benefits that comes with the DX10 standard

the only difference between the two is the water surface, thats all we see
 
well, dx10 will not be able to run on any dx9 cards (dx10+ cards only), dx10 is totaly remade from the ground up, but the performance will be greater than dx9, with different code they managed to increase the fps in games such as the purty pictures in this thread.
straight from the developers mouth, but re-worded.

but since there are no dx10 vid cards out there, i do not know how they properly rendered the images, unless it was an actual render from the 3d prog displaying what it might look like.

or maybe they have a beta card.

edit: Vista will support both versions of DX, but they are completely seperate.
 
Sly said:
Something that i don't quite get yet. What's the real difference between those two pictures? The second pic looks like it uses more pixel shaders, but if that's the case, it's really nothing more than a hyper version of the first pic and whatever hardware did the first one should be able to do the second one as well.
Click to expand...

at like 1 frame a minute perhaps?
 
From just reading hard to say the big difference is that shaders can change nature. Meaning pixel shaders can become vertex shaders and there is also gemoetry shaders. Allowing it to work more efficiently then with fixed shaders...

Guess there is more but from just reading I get the idea this is the big thing.

This can of course be done in DX9 but it´s not efficient enough to render it with acceptable performance. Though not sure you can get something exactly like it because there is some features unique for dx 10...

gamepc had a write up I think it was.

the pictures btw is of the dx9 version of FSX (flight simulator X) and DX 10. There is changes in textures as well but hardly noticeable... One thing that helps things is that in DX 10 mode the game developers know it´s high end computers they are aiming for even if it was possible on dx 9 I don´t think they would feel they could go all the way when it requires X1900XT:s in crossfire or 7950:s to run it at anything acceptable.

But static and moving water is one thing will be interesting to see :).
 
Here's a question - what kind of hardware was the E3 demo of Crysis running on?
I'm thinking that it had to have been running on something current (or Conroe or AM2), no?
I'm curious about the video card, too.
 
The Cysis people stated a while ago that everything you have seen so far is DX9 (unless it was specifically labeled as DX10), but I dunno. I think at this point that when I upgrade to Conroe I'm going to just get integrated graphics (965G), and upgrade the video after the dust settles.
 
The power of Direct X 9 right there....

beautiful, and i think its time some people i know take the "Crysis challenge", sorta like the pepsi challenge, cept not run by a bunch of jack-holes.... :D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top