NameGenerated
Who paid you to grab Dr. Pavel?
Edit, Nvermind.Doc Evils said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Crysis |OT| Big Screens, Comfy Couches and 5.1 surround sound
- Thread starter MickeyKnox
- Start date
NameGenerated
Who paid you to grab Dr. Pavel?
Uh this didn't quite work out...
What's the problem?
What's the problem?
Just tried it in DX10. HUGE difference. I had been playing on DX10 Very High at some sort of 12xx by 1050 resolution and getting around ~25 fps average. Not only does Cuban's config look way better, (at least up close) but I'm also getting around 30-35 fps on average.
Unfortunately, you can tell where the tradeoff is when you look 20 feet away and see the vegetation being rendered as you move towards it. There is also a weird roughness to everything that is about 30 or more feet away. In the end, though, the config seems worth it overall.
BTW, I am having an unusual issue with the water. While it looks great, whenever I move it freezes up for half a sec and then resumes where it would have been had it not- almost as if it's skipping frames but, at least according to the info display, I'm not getting any frame drops. Anyone else having this problem?
Edit: Is that the DX10 version ng? I installed the DX9 config first and had similarly craptastic textures.
Unfortunately, you can tell where the tradeoff is when you look 20 feet away and see the vegetation being rendered as you move towards it. There is also a weird roughness to everything that is about 30 or more feet away. In the end, though, the config seems worth it overall.
BTW, I am having an unusual issue with the water. While it looks great, whenever I move it freezes up for half a sec and then resumes where it would have been had it not- almost as if it's skipping frames but, at least according to the info display, I'm not getting any frame drops. Anyone else having this problem?
Edit: Is that the DX10 version ng? I installed the DX9 config first and had similarly craptastic textures.
Name, I'd uninstall the configuration and make sure everything is okay with the Crytek defaults. Obviously something did not go as planned. Yuck. 
I gave the config a whirl and was somewhat underwhelmed. It does look and perform well, as advertised, but the sacrifices that were made to achieve the added frames and up close detail hurt the overall experience for me. I've yet to find a config that doesn't fall into that same bin.
Anyway, went ahead and installed Vista last night. Had to do it for some work related stuff. Wow, what a shitty environment for gaming. I know we've had this out in here before, but man, it's just so bloated and the driver support is just terrible.
Windows XP, my Nvidia 8800GT, and my old school Sammy 32" worked well together. I could never get the timings right with the Sammy to have it native 1366x768, but that's a circuitry issue with the set and the HDMI port, rather than an OS issue. But I could get 1280x720 up an running no problem and it looks and performed cleanly.
Vista detects the monitor with a native resolution of 1920x1080. Joy. 1280x720 runs well off the screen, as does every other resolution outside of 1900x1080 and 1152x864. No problem, I figure I'll just fire up the old Nvidia panel and make the adjustment. Nope. Not only are the custom resolution features that were up and running in XP gone, but the set is no longer treated as an HDTV, courtesy of Vista's "updated" driver. Cool. I'll just use Rivatuner. Nope. Uh, I guess Power Strip then? You can probably guess what kind of success I had there as well.
Ugh.
What an unmitigated piece of shit. Needed a reminder why I'm not allowing this bloated advertisement for every Microsoft software suite on my network. Holy balls, I think I canned two dozen services and an equal number of features to strip it down to a sensible memory footprint. What a joke. How did it make it past two RCs and still get shipped like that?
Ugh. Ugh.
Fired up Crysis at 1152x864 (lol) and it was outperformed by an average of 4 frames by my XP build. Very High everything. I'm sure there's some differences, but I'll be damned if I notice any of them.
I gave the config a whirl and was somewhat underwhelmed. It does look and perform well, as advertised, but the sacrifices that were made to achieve the added frames and up close detail hurt the overall experience for me. I've yet to find a config that doesn't fall into that same bin.
Anyway, went ahead and installed Vista last night. Had to do it for some work related stuff. Wow, what a shitty environment for gaming. I know we've had this out in here before, but man, it's just so bloated and the driver support is just terrible.
Windows XP, my Nvidia 8800GT, and my old school Sammy 32" worked well together. I could never get the timings right with the Sammy to have it native 1366x768, but that's a circuitry issue with the set and the HDMI port, rather than an OS issue. But I could get 1280x720 up an running no problem and it looks and performed cleanly.
Vista detects the monitor with a native resolution of 1920x1080. Joy. 1280x720 runs well off the screen, as does every other resolution outside of 1900x1080 and 1152x864. No problem, I figure I'll just fire up the old Nvidia panel and make the adjustment. Nope. Not only are the custom resolution features that were up and running in XP gone, but the set is no longer treated as an HDTV, courtesy of Vista's "updated" driver. Cool. I'll just use Rivatuner. Nope. Uh, I guess Power Strip then? You can probably guess what kind of success I had there as well.
Ugh.
What an unmitigated piece of shit. Needed a reminder why I'm not allowing this bloated advertisement for every Microsoft software suite on my network. Holy balls, I think I canned two dozen services and an equal number of features to strip it down to a sensible memory footprint. What a joke. How did it make it past two RCs and still get shipped like that?
Ugh. Ugh.
Fired up Crysis at 1152x864 (lol) and it was outperformed by an average of 4 frames by my XP build. Very High everything. I'm sure there's some differences, but I'll be damned if I notice any of them.
urk said:Name, I'd uninstall the configuration and make sure everything is okay with the Crytek defaults. Obviously something did not go as planned. Yuck.
I gave the config a whirl and was somewhat underwhelmed. It does look and perform well, as advertised, but the sacrifices that were made to achieve the added frames and up close detail hurt the overall experience for me. I've yet to find a config that doesn't fall into that same bin.
Anyway, went ahead and installed Vista last night. Had to do it for some work related stuff. Wow, what a shitty environment for gaming. I know we've had this out in here before, but man, it's just so bloated and the driver support is just terrible.
Windows XP, my Nvidia 8800GT, and my old school Sammy 32" worked well together. I could never get the timings right with the Sammy to have it native 1366x768, but that's a circuitry issue with the set and the HDMI port, rather than an OS issue. But I could get 1280x720 up an running no problem and it looks and performed cleanly.
Vista detects the monitor with a native resolution of 1920x1080. Joy. 1280x720 runs well off the screen, as does every other resolution outside of 1900x1080 and 1152x864. No problem, I figure I'll just fire up the old Nvidia panel and make the adjustment. Nope. Not only are the custom resolution features that were up and running in XP gone, but the set is no longer treated as an HDTV, courtesy of Vista's "updated" driver. Cool. I'll just use Rivatuner. Nope. Uh, I guess Power Strip then? You can probably guess what kind of success I had there as well.
Ugh.
What an unmitigated piece of shit. Needed a reminder why I'm not allowing this bloated advertisement for every Microsoft software suite on my network. Holy balls, I think I canned two dozen services and an equal number of features to strip it down to a sensible memory footprint. What a joke. How did it make it past two RCs and still get shipped like that?
Ugh. Ugh.
Fired up Crysis at 1152x864 (lol) and it was outperformed by an average of 4 frames by my XP build. Very High everything. I'm sure there's some differences, but I'll be damned if I notice any of them.
I'm REALLY curious about seeing how my rig would perform with XP instead of Vista 32. (or even Vista 64) I haven't seen a single person who has said anything other than that it is better. Hmm, guess it's time to learn how to set up dual boot.
Hey, with some of the screens I've seen in this thread, the AA in the leaves looks great, but most have those glaring AA problems with leaves and trees. I know from what I've read here that "Edge AA" needs to be on, but what setting is that?
I can turn on 2xAA and get decent framerates on Medium, but the only thing still nagging at me is the AA problems on leaves...and turning on AA, even 8x (even at the expense of frames), doesn't seem to fix it. What config or setting are some of you using to get the leaves/grass/vegetation not looking like crap?
BTW, XP user here.
I can turn on 2xAA and get decent framerates on Medium, but the only thing still nagging at me is the AA problems on leaves...and turning on AA, even 8x (even at the expense of frames), doesn't seem to fix it. What config or setting are some of you using to get the leaves/grass/vegetation not looking like crap?
BTW, XP user here.
bigmit3737
Member
Sweet! Finally this thread hit a 1000 posts.
Thanks (again). Just tried EdgeAA @ 2, and it looks sextacular!
I need a new CPU and some more RAM, but even on my new 8800GT with my old 3000+ Athlon64 and 1gig it runs pretty good. I'm getting around 23fps average on everything HIGH with edgeAA at 2. Medium is where it'll stay for me (with EdgeAA of course!) until I get the CPU/RAM situation rectified.
I need a new CPU and some more RAM, but even on my new 8800GT with my old 3000+ Athlon64 and 1gig it runs pretty good. I'm getting around 23fps average on everything HIGH with edgeAA at 2. Medium is where it'll stay for me (with EdgeAA of course!) until I get the CPU/RAM situation rectified.
No, not in this case. 95% of the games run equally as well in both operating environments for me, but Crysis DOES run a touch smoother in XP. If I run the three benchmarks, XP generally scores 2-3 fps higher. It doesn't really make a HUGE difference, but you can notice a very slight boost in performance under XP (though loading is faster under Vista 64).Gattsu25 said:
Nobody will see a massive improvement from Crysis under XP, but it does help a bit.
Yeah, it really shines up close and in pics. It's only when you see the shadows and vegetation popping in a few feet away that you realize the drawbacks.
What OS are you using btw, doc?
Edit: By stock, you mean DX10 Very High? That's weird. I tried that and got a framerate averaging around 20 -25 with no AA and a much lower resolution than you did. Cuban's config performs WAY better (like 10 fps better) and looks better. (But I guess I should chalk that up to personal taste) My rig isn't substantially different from yours either. (I have a E6850 instead of the Quad Core, but everything else is the same) Hmm.
What OS are you using btw, doc?
Edit: By stock, you mean DX10 Very High? That's weird. I tried that and got a framerate averaging around 20 -25 with no AA and a much lower resolution than you did. Cuban's config performs WAY better (like 10 fps better) and looks better. (But I guess I should chalk that up to personal taste) My rig isn't substantially different from yours either. (I have a E6850 instead of the Quad Core, but everything else is the same) Hmm.
traveler said:
Vista Ultimate.
With the standard DX10 very high you get long distance drawing and no weird orangish tint, while with Cubans config, he has purposely lowered the drawing distance and other weird noticable tweaks it to get higher fps.
For example,
Standard:
Custom:
Standard:
Custom:
Standard:
Custom:
Standard:
Custom:
MickeyKnox
Member
I've yet to come across a TOD file that I prefer over the default.
Gonna take my lumps. I came hope expecting an epic clash with my rig. Instead, I hooked up a VGA cable and the motherfucker worked like a charm. 1360x768 output, clear as a fucking bell. XP shat craps when I tried to use VGA to produce anything and my Sammy would freak out and tell me that the mode was not supported.
Crow eaten. Vista over VGA at close to the native resolution (small, black bars on the side accounting for 1366x768) looks tons better then 1280x720 over HDMI/DVI. Still lost about 4-5 frames on average, but if I overclock, I can get it over 30fps with everything on Very High.
Crow eaten. Vista over VGA at close to the native resolution (small, black bars on the side accounting for 1366x768) looks tons better then 1280x720 over HDMI/DVI. Still lost about 4-5 frames on average, but if I overclock, I can get it over 30fps with everything on Very High.
NameGenerated
Who paid you to grab Dr. Pavel?
OK so my setting are like permanently effed up. Anyone know how I can restore them to the default settings without re-installing?
NameGenerated said:
Did you run the uninstallation routine? It should replace the level folders with the backup it makes. If not, you can probably root out the files and replace them manually if you installed the TOD. If you didn't install the TOD, then you can delete the .cfg file from your Crysis root or just rename it.
Agent Ironside
Member
If you ever need the orig CVar's folder just explore the DVD under Crysis/Game, I never make back ups :lol
NameGenerated
Who paid you to grab Dr. Pavel?
I have the original CVARS, just not the system, but I'll go look, thanks.Agent Ironside said:
NameGenerated
Who paid you to grab Dr. Pavel?
I put the original setting back but I still get crap results, I guess I'll just reinstall tomorrow.
NameGenerated
Who paid you to grab Dr. Pavel?
I've messed with the settings so much since I got it. Copying and pasting configs/system files/in game console settings. I just need to start fresh and stay with one custom config without fiddling with it too much.urk said:
NameGenerated
Who paid you to grab Dr. Pavel?
So true, I was never satisfied with what I had.urk said:
"What the? Did that shrub's shadow twitch and move incorrectly?"
**Messes with console setting for 20 minutes**
Agent Ironside
Member
NameGenerated said:
Oh wow, you and me both, im serious, it gets so bad for me I cant enjoy the game, I have fraps up constantly looking at the framerate, I had to learn how to turn fraps off and just play the freakin game. Its a wonder Crysis even loads up for me considering how much ive done to the config files.
Agent Ironside
Member
Crysis gets more amazing but the framerate gets more amazingly bad as you go through it, might have to tweak some settings through the 2nd half of the game. I dunno though on your decision, have you played HL2/EP1/EP2?
legend166 said:
It hasn't let up for me yet and I'm about 5 - 6 hours or so in. (Although I have heard the end is weaker) If it's between this and the Orange Box, however, I'd go with the Orange Box. Crysis is fantastic, but it can't touch that set, I'm afraid. (Personally, I'd grab both)
legend166 said:
I'd still go with the Orange Box. Ep. 2 was my second favorite game of last year, TF2 was my favorite mp game of last year, and Portal was widely regarded as one of the most innovative (not to mention best) games of last year. It is THE best "game" available at retail pricing of all time.
The game gets consistently better and better, with a crapload of level variety. About 2/3 of the way through the game (maybe a little later), it starts to drop off a little bit and becomes more linear, but it's never *bad* in my opinion. But the first 2/3 of the game is easily one of the most incredible gaming experiences I've ever had. Simply phenomenal.legend166 said:
Orange Box, however, is just as incredible. 25-30 hours of one of the best single player games of all time, 2-3 hours of a fantastic, innovative puzzle game, and endless hours of one of the most fun multiplayer games out there.
Really, get whatever first, but absolutely pick up the other one later.
Not really...I had some frame rate problems during one section late into the game, but it was an anomaly and exiting/starting up the game again fixed it. And that's on an Opteron 165 and 2GB of PC3200 ram (with an 8800gt), not a fancy core 2Agent Ironside said:
MickeyKnox
Member
The demo is the first level of the game in almost it's entirety. As for the quality of the game based on it?legend166 said:
Well like I've said many times before, the levels that come after (starting with the 2nd one) make the first one seem as closed and restricted as something from Half Life.
http://www.stage6.com/user/tda3d/vi...stom-map,-Tombstone---ClockTower-walkthrough-
Pretty nice level design, especially on the audio front. Definitely could use some texture updates, but it looks and sounds pretty sweet.
Pretty nice level design, especially on the audio front. Definitely could use some texture updates, but it looks and sounds pretty sweet.
NameGenerated
Who paid you to grab Dr. Pavel?
Arg, re installed it and I still get this crap..
Seriously? What is wrong?
Seriously? What is wrong?
KyanMehwulfe
Member
Is what you're seeing basically geometry warping?
The surfaces look larger than what would be indicative, but it could be texture artifacting.
Texture artifacting is basically when texture surfaces rip off and tear across the screen. It's often heat related, or a symptom of a damaged GPU. I've dealt with it a handful of times over the years.
I'm not sure that's what your problem is based on just those shots though. Are surfaces just replaced with a larger single surface? Or are those large surfaces actually tearing off geometry?
The surfaces look larger than what would be indicative, but it could be texture artifacting.
Texture artifacting is basically when texture surfaces rip off and tear across the screen. It's often heat related, or a symptom of a damaged GPU. I've dealt with it a handful of times over the years.
I'm not sure that's what your problem is based on just those shots though. Are surfaces just replaced with a larger single surface? Or are those large surfaces actually tearing off geometry?
NameGenerated
Who paid you to grab Dr. Pavel?
It's not a GPU problem (I hope, both of my 8800 GTs are brand new) becasue TF2 looked fine, as did Trackmania. This all started when I tried to use Cuban's config. Do you think it might have to do with my save file? I'm using the same one from before I re-installed it.KyanMehwulfe said: