Crysis on your Dell - Page 9

No, not really. To be more precise, 4 years ago my PC couldn't catch up with then current games. I bought a Xbox. Last year, I bought my 9400 and I'm still catching up with past years best games at their max settings (for example Fear, BF2, HL2, Prey, FarCry, etc) I think will do the same exact thing soon : console gaming for a few years and then catching up on PC best titles with my next PC. It makes senses, doesn't it ?

Im using geforcetony's modded 169 drivers, and on the XP machine I havnt even updated those drivers in a long time.

Here's some screenshots with Fraps running. I have an XPS Gen 2, 7800 GTX running 84.63 with LV2G .inf, 2GB RAM, and I ran the game at 1280x800 with 0xAA. In the NVidia Control Panel I did not force any AA or AF, Image settings was set to Quality, Negative LOD bias was set to clamp, and all other settings were left unchanged since installing the driver. 1. These shots were taken with volumetrics and sound quality on low, everything else set to medium. http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...ts/Crysis1.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...ts/Crysis2.jpg 2. These 2 are the same as before but with Physics set to low. http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...ts/Crysis3.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...ts/Crysis4.jpg 3. This group is with Blahman's settings (including HDR = 0) in a file named autoexec.cfg or system.cfg (same results with both). Shader Quality was set to high. http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...ts/Crysis5.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...ts/Crysis6.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...ts/Crysis7.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...ts/Crysis8.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...ts/Crysis9.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...s/Crysis10.jpg 4. This group is with the config folder tweak that changes Very High settings to work when High is selected (I found it on Anandtech). Sound quality was set to low while all other settings were set to high. Note the messed up sky in the first screenshot. It appeared normal until I took a screenshot, interestingly. http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...s/Crysis11.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...s/Crysis12.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...s/Crysis13.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...s/Crysis14.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...s/Crysis15.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...s/Crysis16.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...s/Crysis17.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...s/Crysis18.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~asche007/sc...s/Crysis19.jpg Conclusion: The last group is a very pretty slideshow. Blahman's suggestion strikes a better balance, but it is still unplayable. Blahman- is that what Fraps shows for you at that spot with your settings? Medium is playable, but barely. Personally, I don't plan on playing the game right now unless medium runs smoother. Whether that's more optimizations in the full game (I'm doubtful any will affect me) or drivers somehow pull more performance out of somewhere. I'm thinking next summer will be the time to build a desktop, so I'll just spend gaming time on Team Fortress 2 until then. I hope everyone enjoyed the pictures.

I agree with whoever said that to make the game playable it has to look like a six year old game on your screen. THAT is quite sad. Like I said, give us the same game on the Far Cry engine and we would at least enjoy a new shooter.

At this point we are all passing cause it just isn't cutting it. In my opinion there is not gonna be some magical patch that suddenly makes it playable on a "lower" high end machine. That would mean changing the basic kernal, or rewriting the engine. And that has not happened since....uh, since.....hmmmm....OH YEA, STRIKE COMMANDER! Oh and Mech Warrior got canned till we saw Mech Warrior 2...all for an engine change.

The GOOD NEWS here is that Matt Kenseth had to make an engine change this past weekend causing him to start 43, and he still finished 4th. So it COULD happen and end up a good thing.

Jon

You means some magical patch like the nvidia driver patch that doubled FPS for a lot of ppl? I think people need to hold judgement at least until the final product is released. At least give them a chance lol.

I run it at 1680x1050 on my external monitor @ Medium Settings(except shaders, low, and textures, high) with AA off, and it runs very very smooth.

Looks alot better than "a 6yr old game" too

Just like I said lol.

Speaking of drivers, the new 169.04 drivers give me yet another 3-7FPS boost on average with Crysis. I just finished uploading the MobileForce versions, which you can get here:

NBF MobileForce XP 169.04 M4 (Windows XP)

NBF MobileForce VS 169.04 M6 (Windows Vista)

it was using around 900MB on my system

here are some humorous/skillful videos I made messing around in the demo, enjoy:
First, low res but high settings: http://files.filefront.com/Depthchar.../fileinfo.html
Second, HD (720p), a little choppy, plus had to turn down settings: http://files.filefront.com/Barrelbom.../fileinfo.html

These are two completely different takes, so watch em both. First one was more of a depth charge, second was a direct hit.

Mega bonus! http://files.filefront.com/Im+in+ur+.../fileinfo.html
Barrel bomb attempt goes awry and I resort to boarding their boat and bashing their heads in.

Think I should stick to low res high settings? Much easier on my system anyways.

I was toying around with settings last night...i play at 1680x1050...i was running everything on high except for shaders, particle, and volumetric effects i think, they were on low. It was definitely playable. This is on an e6700 and a 7900GTX. The game looks amazing.

Ok good. At least I know i'm not crazy now and agree with your perceptions. There is just something wrong when you play Stalker at 1920x1200 max settings and then Crysis at 1024x600 on medium settings with low framerates.. when I say low I mean below 40. One other observation I noticed is how much different looking the game is when you change the shaders from medium to high. On high shaders the game looks awesome but unplayable due to framerates.. on medium it's starting to look almost like any other shooter out there.

lol... for like the 10th time- the 169.01 drivers are optimized for the demo. They literally double the frame rates of the game. 169.04, bumps us up even further. In addition this is a ...d e m o... Stalker is nice, but there are a lot of differences, especially when it comes to demanding graphics items such as shadows & shaders. In addition the game is made for newer hardware. With the 9xxxx on the horizon, you can't expect a 7 series card is going to play it well.

My laptop played it alright, but is currently awaiting an evaluation after my son graciously took it down the stairs for me. I was under no illusion that this game would play well on my 7800GTX desktop equivalent laptop. It's not meant to. It's meant to look beautiful on 8 series cards. Unfortunately your 1.86GHz proc does not help the situation & is probably more of a limitation than the 7950GTX.

Yep. Perhaps my standards are a bit higher than others but I simply refuse to play Crysis at a resolution I haven't had to tolerate in games since....Duke Nukem 3d for crying out loud. There's something wrong with not only having to play at a ridiculously low resolution, but toggle multiple settings to "low" and "medium" just to get quasi tolerable framerates! It's an asinine business and development decision when all they have to do is take a look at the typical gamer statistics. Hell, here's the latest Steam survey from March of this year: http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html Computers with an geforce 8800? 4.56% ! Take a look at those statistics; There's simply no way in hell that anyone other than the top 5-8% of gamers will be able to remotely enjoy Crysis. I'm sorry, but 20 fps is NOT playable for me anymore, and that's at any resolution. It's getting humorous reading some of the desperate posts so far: "I tried 800x600 with 5 settings set to "low", with all my system tray apps closed, 7950 gtx overclocked to 1800/1400 with liquid nitrogen, on a 15 inch monitor, with a thick pair of glasses on (low-tech AAx4) while squinting with my eyes closed approximately 50%, looking through a fish bowl, and the game looked pretty good! Playable framerates even! ~ <18fps>" Ah well, there's other games out there.

You're thick skulled aren't you? Oh well I guess this game's just not in the cards for you if you can't get it running and looking nice at 1280x720, a reasonably high resolution (hint: it's what 99% of Xbox 360 games run natively, Halo 3 is even lower 1138x640). Dismissing our suggestions on getting it running well for you is pretty rude. OH well.

Except that Halo3 does look good nonetheless (exept it makes poor use of AA). How can you run Crysis at 1280x720 ? This option is not in my choices. Perhaps I have to manually edit some .cfg file ?

Oh calm yourself, as I said... 1280xXXX is hardly an acceptable resolution for me in any modern game. Your Halo 3 runs at a resolution of 1152x640 on your t.v. which probably doesn't even come close to being able to display a 1920x1200 resolution image. I'm playing on a 24" LCD with native res of 1920x1200. 1280x720 on a 1920x1200 native res screen looks positively atrocious. Your suggestions are appreciated, but it doesn't obfuscate the simple fact that Crysis runs like warmed up poo on most current systems right now. You can perhaps tweak it up to steaming poo, or heaping smelly poo, but it's still poo.

To the contrary, I have a 37" 1080p monitor and 1280x720, when using NVIDIA flat panel scaling, looks fantastic. It gets a sort of "free AA" when doing the upscaling, not as good as real AA of course but it doesn't look "positively atrocious" by any stretch of the imagination.