CRYSIS-How to run it!

W

whiteout

n00b
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
5
It isn’t often that a blockbuster title such as Crysis hits the shelves.
Am I surprised how system taxing it is? No, not really. When we all
saw the first screenshots of it released long ago some of us figured
you’d need a supercomputer just to run it! Hell, some folks even thought
the screenshots were actually pixilated photos!

Ok, first I’m going to go ahead and say WOW! Wow, that the graphics
are every bit as good as what they advertised and, look even more
impressive in first-person on fullscreen. And wow… that some of you
folks are actually beating Crysis down because your rig can’t handle it!
Shame on you.

I’m sure at least a few of us remember the old days when the time came
to upgrade due to some new outstanding game or a benchmarks
“unbelievable graphics.” Everyone wants something new and amazing.
It’s just the way the gaming market goes. To me, this game introduces
opportunity to a healthy PC gaming economy. Supply and demand;
Crysis has upped the ante on demand, so the majority of us (budgeted)
folks just have to wait for the supply.

Well, there’s my rant. To you folks who can’t wait to play this game,
but don’t have the SLI/Quad core computers for it… you don’t have to.

My modest testbed:

AMD 4400+ dual-core (slightly OC)
8800 GTS (320) OC
2g corsair
1280x1024 native resolution monitor

It’s not a bad machine aside from the processor being a bit behind.

Here is how you can make this game very playable! It’s really simple
too, ready? Run it in WinXP! Here are some screenshots of the difference
between Vista (High settings) and XP (High settings) both with fraps
framerate indicators.

XP-1Vista-1



XP-2Vista-2


XP-3 Vista-3


XP-4 Vista-4



XP-5Vista-5


While the difference is negligible from the screenshots.. it is much nicer
on DX-10. The only thing you're NOT seeing is the lag from the motion blur.
This is where screenshots fail as a test.

In Vista it just isn’t playable. I find it interesting that even on the Low
setting in DX-10 it still isn’t quite as smooth as XP’s High setting… a
HUGE indication that optimizations are forthcoming. The lag in DX-10/Vista
is too much to play. You’ll notice the difference too.

If you don’t have a Windows XP box up and running, I suggest you either
partition and create one, or go buy an extra HD to boot it on. I’m currently
using the latter method with VistaBoot, at least until Microsoft makes it easier.

Overall, the demo is amazing. The animations are great, story seems
interesting, vast area to explore, great sound, great graphics (*cringe*),
the gameplay (swapping armors/weapon modes quickly) will take a bit
to master, and not to mention it’s the most anticipated game in a long,
long time.

Edit: I also ran the benchmark utilities included with the demo, just now,
and the results are similar: +10 fps avg, not much added in the way of
graphical detail, but it runs much smoother.

Happy gaming!

-Whiteout.
 
looks good ! I can play like on All high setttings at 1440x900 with my 8800gts oc and amd6000, i get like 35-25 fraps a sec. Anyways whens the exact release date again?
 
by playing the demo in vista, but using xp sp2 compatibility mode it plays much smoother. i also seem to gave picked up about 6fps average in the gpu demo.
 
vanilla_guerilla said:
by playing the demo in vista, but using xp sp2 compatibility mode it plays much smoother. i also seem to gave picked up about 6fps average in the gpu demo.
Click to expand...

How did you do that, when I right click the shortcut it doesn't have the compatibility tab and I can't find the exe file.
EDIT: ok I found the exe but the compatibility thing was grayed out, so idk how you did that still.
 
Guys, i have a good computer, but this game is VERY slow

My rig:
Core2 X6800
2 x 8800GTX (SLI)
1.5 Gb RAM (one line of memory burned out :eek: )
WinXP Direct x9
30" Dell display

First of all: I am unabke to select Very High gfx settings. Why ? Is this a demo limitation?
Second, running it at 1600 x 1024, High Settings, No AA gives me only 30 FPS and it still looks like shit.

Am i doing something wrong?
 
That lag you're referring to from motion blur? Just change motion blur to '0' in CVarGroups config files under 'post processing.cfg' and you can edit that out. You can also add in sunrays at high, but any shader level below high the sunrays don't work.
 
Players can only select VERY HIGH settings in Vista.

In WinXP, you are liimited to HIGH.

What strikes me as interesting about these discussions is the lack of mention regarding players running Vista who prompt the game to optimize their graphics settings. Under those circumstances, the game will set anything with an 88xx to VERY HIGH, which, of course, is completely unplayable because the fps is so poor, even at 1280x1024.

In my experience, the game plays best in WinXP, PERIOD.
 
Nom Anor said:
It also looks like shit.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Look at the images above. It looks identical in XP and is about 50% faster.

DX10 super high effects are something to consider in a year or two when there are much faster graphics cards but for time being they are pointless as is Vista for gamers.
 
Nom Anor said:
It also looks like shit.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be the one rolling your eyes, i hate this and the future generations of games, all you do is bitch out graphics, you seem to have forgotten games are supposed to be FUN, and the developers have too.



pz, im going to go play some half-life.
 
I don't see what driver versions you were using. Plus remember, Vista has more services running out of the box.

My guess with a better processor and/or tweaking Vista services would narrow this gap.
 
tpfaff said:
How did you do that, when I right click the shortcut it doesn't have the compatibility tab and I can't find the exe file.
EDIT: ok I found the exe but the compatibility thing was grayed out, so idk how you did that still.
Click to expand...


you have to check the box first (Run this program in compatibility mode for) and then select which the os you need.


btw

0x10DE, 0x0295, 3 // NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT
0x10DE, 0x03D0, 1 // NVIDIA GeForce 6100 nForce 430
0x10DE, 0x03D1, 1 // NVIDIA GeForce 6100 nForce 405
0x10DE, 0x03D2, 1 // NVIDIA GeForce 6100 nForce 400
0x10DE, 0x0241, 1 // NVIDIA GeForce 6150 LE
0x10DE, 0x0242, 1 // NVIDIA GeForce 6100
0x10DE, 0x0245,-1 // NVIDIA Quadro NVS 210S / NVIDIA GeForce 6150LE
0x10DE, 0x029C,-1 // NVIDIA Quadro FX 5500
0x10DE, 0x0191, 4 // NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
0x10DE, 0x0193, 3 // NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS
0x10DE, 0x0194, 4 // NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra
0x10DE, 0x0400, 2 // NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS
0x10DE, 0x0402, 2 // NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
0x10DE, 0x0421, 1 // NVIDIA GeForce 8500 GT
0x10DE, 0x0422, 1 // NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS
0x10DE, 0x0423, 1 // NVIDIA GeForce 8300 GS
0x10DE, 0x0611, 4 // NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT


this is the table thats used when you click the "optimal" button. 4 = very high, 3 = high, etc. -1 is unplayable i guess. so all 88xx do not default to very high. notice that the 8800gt is 4, but the 8800gts is 3. it has settings for all nvidia and ati cards (none of the ati cards gets a "4"), but i just copied these, to illustrate.
 
ivanmoe said:
Players can only select VERY HIGH settings in Vista.

In WinXP, you are liimited to HIGH.

What strikes me as interesting about these discussions is the lack of mention regarding players running Vista who prompt the game to optimize their graphics settings. Under those circumstances, the game will set anything with an 88xx to VERY HIGH, which, of course, is completely unplayable because the fps is so poor, even at 1280x1024.

In my experience, the game plays best in WinXP, PERIOD.
Click to expand...


Direct X 9 is limited to High, DX10 cards will show Very High in Vista.
 
ivanmoe said:
Players can only select VERY HIGH settings in Vista.

In WinXP, you are liimited to HIGH.

What strikes me as interesting about these discussions is the lack of mention regarding players running Vista who prompt the game to optimize their graphics settings. Under those circumstances, the game will set anything with an 88xx to VERY HIGH, which, of course, is completely unplayable because the fps is so poor, even at 1280x1024.

In my experience, the game plays best in WinXP, PERIOD.
Click to expand...

Funny, it's playable on my system set to very high. Granted I can't play above 1280x800 or so, but still it plays better than all the people like yourselves who are claiming that VERY HIGH settings are unplayable at any res. That's simply NOT true. BTW I'm running Vista and it's fine.
 
Dan_D said:
Funny, it's playable on my system set to very high. Granted I can't play above 1280x800 or so, but still it plays better than all the people like yourselves who are claiming that VERY HIGH settings are unplayable at any res. That's simply NOT true. BTW I'm running Vista and it's fine.
Click to expand...

I think this game looks amazing at "only" high settings @ 1280x1024. I haven't tried very high yet but I'm also on a GTS not GTX/Ultra.

But still, "High" settings are way above any other games out now, plus its a huge open world so it has to render a hell of a lot more than other games which are mostly indoors / a city, not an island.
 
ivanmoe said:
Players can only select VERY HIGH settings in Vista.

In WinXP, you are liimited to HIGH.

What strikes me as interesting about these discussions is the lack of mention regarding players running Vista who prompt the game to optimize their graphics settings. Under those circumstances, the game will set anything with an 88xx to VERY HIGH, which, of course, is completely unplayable because the fps is so poor, even at 1280x1024.

In my experience, the game plays best in WinXP, PERIOD.
Click to expand...

You are so full of misinformation I don't even know where to start...
 
jmackay said:
I think this game looks amazing at "only" high settings @ 1280x1024. I haven't tried very high yet but I'm also on a GTS not GTX/Ultra.

But still, "High" settings are way above any other games out now, plus its a huge open world so it has to render a hell of a lot more than other games which are mostly indoors / a city, not an island.
Click to expand...

I can do VERY HIGH at 1280x1024 and it indeed looks better, aside from the aspect ratio being screwed up on my monitor. Otherwise, the game does look alot better at 1280x1024 than it does at lower resolutions. The only thing is that I have to disable AA completely when running at 1280x1024. Still the game does look pretty good. Oh I look forward to the day when I can run this game at 2560x1600 with at least 4xAA or more with everything else on VERY HIGH settings. Granted by the time that day comes we will probably be drooling over much better looking games.
 
installed crysis demo on my second rig ( asus A8V-vm se , amd 3200 venice , 1gb ram , evga 6800 gs co ) and believe it or not its running fine at medium settings (res 1024 x 768). :D
 
I could not get it run at all at first. i had to redo my chipset drivers, go to the beta 169 's and go to the latest creative driver. Even then , it wont run the 64 bit version, i had to go into the program files and right click the 32 bit exe and run as admin.

That said, the game is beautiful. It is playable at 1650x1080 but barely with a single GTS on high settings. I cannot wait for this game and next gen cards.

It is like far cry but way better graphics and it looks to have a better story line. The cut scenes were real choppy but things were fairly smooth considering the lower frame rates.
 
This is MY OPINION only! I know nobody asked for it, but we all know what opinions are like...

Not to bash on "graphics heads," but if you are looking at the graphics that much, you aren't playing the game the way it was meant to be played. If you can tell the difference between a few pixels here and there between High and Very High settings, you are staring at the wrong things in the game. Once again, this is just my $.02

Also, on another note, if the game requires unearthly power to run it at decent settings, isn't that the developer's fault? I mean, why should we all be required to upgrade our systems just for a playable experience? Crysis definitely needs to be optimized.

Granted it is fun looking at eye candy, and some of the high resolution 2560x1600 or whatever screenshots have almost struck me as being real, nobody will actually be able to play it decently at that resolution. It's almost as if they developed the game for use on an unrealistic system with unrealistic expectations.

Till the expectations become within this earthly realm, I'll stick to playing Half Life 2.

Let the flaming begin

syn0s
 
syn0s said:
This is MY OPINION only! I know nobody asked for it, but we all know what opinions are like...

Not to bash on "graphics heads," but if you are looking at the graphics that much, you aren't playing the game the way it was meant to be played. If you can tell the difference between a few pixels here and there between High and Very High settings, you are staring at the wrong things in the game. Once again, this is just my $.02

Also, on another note, if the game requires unearthly power to run it at decent settings, isn't that the developer's fault? I mean, why should we all be required to upgrade our systems just for a playable experience? Crysis definitely needs to be optimized.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. It is certainly possible that the game is not optimized as well as it could be or that the games code and engine are inefficient, but I think the real reason why the game runs so poorly is a result of the intense graphics. There is so much foliage and physics calculations going on and I think right now we are simply in the same position we were when Farcry came out.

syn0s said:
Granted it is fun looking at eye candy, and some of the high resolution 2560x1600 or whatever screenshots have almost struck me as being real, nobody will actually be able to play it decently at that resolution. It's almost as if they developed the game for use on an unrealistic system with unrealistic expectations.
Click to expand...

Not at all. They created the game as best as they could and now we must wait for the hardware to catch up to the software. This cycle occurs all the time. I for one am glad that they did this. Now they've raised the bar for what games should be like. Now we'll have a reason to upgrade again. Also I don't think we are getting the most out of our machines with this game anyway. SLI doesn't work and the video card drivers will no doubt mature in regard to Crysis as time goes on.

syn0s said:
Till the expectations become within this earthly realm, I'll stick to playing Half Life 2.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the hell this means or why I keep seeing these comments pertaining to Half-Life 2. HL2 has NOTHING to do with Crysis. There is also no reason you can't enjoy both games. I certainly do.

syn0s said:
Let the flaming begin

syn0s
Click to expand...
 
HL2 is very small compared to Crysis. HL2 levels are split up a lot and well, don't take place in the jungle but indoors / caves with very few open areas, and those are blocked off with cliffs / water, not miles of land that is rendered.

Crysis doesn't have "loading" screens, its the whole level and you can go whereever you want basically. I'm not swimming across the map and then bam: "Loading....", I just get to the other side and never knew I just swam a mile :p

Also, Crysis graphics are much higher than that of HL2 (not even including the foliage, just models and textures) so it demands a lot more out of a computer.

And high @ 1280x1024 looks amazing and runs pretty well too. It will take new hardware to run everything @ Max settings above 1600x1200 though, or at least working SLI.

Do I think its a sham? No. I knew it would take very good hardware to play it at max settings and I knew that I would have to tone down my resolution. Crytek did a great job with it though, no other game can compete with it graphics wise and the gameplay is very open and fun.
 
Same as always - the hardware has to catch up with the games. Nothing new. We've just seen a longer gap than normal for games that pushed our systems.

I can still get F.E.A.R and Oblvion to tank my 8800GTX at 1600x1200 if I try hard enough with the 16xQ AA and AF...

IMO, we are at least 2 vid-card generations away from seeing superb performance from this game at high res and max settings.

Nothing new here, just sucks when you drop $550 on a vid card and this happens.
 
Fel said:
pz, im going to go play some half-life.
Click to expand...
same here. I have vista and i auto detected settings with a
6400+ BE
eVGA 8800GTS
2GB g.skill
and it gave me medium settings :< set it to 12x10 and it ran fine.. not that great of a game... gameplay wise not to mention its gonna take a few years and an actuall release for the game to run well and look as good as they want everyone to think it does, but for now i'm gonna stick with orange box
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top