inCrysis - Crysis Forums

We didn't need multi-GPU setups with Crysis or Warhead in order to play on Very High.

Stop being ridiculous, people.

ProvidenceG wrote:

Mocib wrote:

We didn't need multi-GPU setups with Crysis or Warhead in order to play on Very High.

Stop being ridiculous, people.

wtf.. mocib are you confusing high with very high... show us some proof how you did it.

It's easy, it's called CCC 2.21, go check it out and even as low as LVL1, you are running Very High graphical features, and as low as LVL3, and 4, you are having a game look better than High with Very High's Graphical Features. Then try LVL5, and full post processing is turned on, and you're still running FASTER in most cases than both Very High, and Stock High, but it looks better by leaps and bounds, than Very High.

Trust me, of all people, I would know about optimizing config files.

ProvidenceG wrote:

Mocib wrote:

We didn't need multi-GPU setups with Crysis or Warhead in order to play on Very High.

Stop being ridiculous, people.

wtf.. mocib are you confusing high with very high... show us some proof how you did it.

I still use a CRT monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 959NF flat screen).

I can play Crysis and Warhead just fine on Very High at 1280x960 (or lower) resolution using E6600/8800GTX/4GB/DirectX10/64-bit/0xAA. No mods used.

Wouldn't mind seeing actual screenshots of C2, since I can't really imagine the game looking that much better than Crysis Warhead. I'm sure, that if the game doesn't actually look better, it'll run better; nice and smooth optimised performance!

But if not, as said, even if the game is as big a jump graphically as Crysis was, very high on an "average" (say, 1680x1050) resolution is still possible. Perhaps with a small amount of AA. All on a single card.

Mocib, you havent jumped on the CCC train yet? CHOOooo CHOOooo! All aboard!

why, the configuration file wasn't optimized enough for you/ or was it the Time-Of-Day used?

You do know that you can use either or, right?

Not to brag, but CCC is one of the more refined and optimized config offerings out there, I'd figure you two of all people would want to run Crysis with the perfect balance pf graphical fidelity and FPS possible?

RTsa wrote:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-v1.21,750.html

Crysis v1.21 on Very High, 8800 Ultra gets 26FPS average. It's playable. So no, you did not need a dual graphics solution to run it at very high back then.

But true, if you want 2560x1600, 16AA & AF with everything on very high, it's STILL not possible. But that's not the point. The point is that at least some people, who play at lower resolutions did enjoy Crysis at Very high at a decent framerate on a single GPU solution.

TBH, I've played Crysis on very high with my rig. 8800gtx, AMD64 4200+ dual core cpu and 2GB or RAM. It's certainly enjoyable and everything in there was available on launch.
(not in DX10 and Vista, but DX9 and XP using the small tweak you need to do to one of the .cfgs)

You consider 26fps playable.. my bad. nevermind then. I see this argument wont get anywhere since i said decent frame rates was what i wanted. which means smooth with no stutter. that is usually 35-60fps. Forget i asked.

sure..keep dreaming.

I play Crysis, Crysis Warhead, and Crysis Wars all on Very High with no mods.  Also anything over 20 fps I would say is still playable because my older PC plays the original Crysis on medium settings at around 18ish fps and it was pretty smooth.

Last edited by Fugitmdup (25-08-2009 12:01:57)

ProvidenceG wrote:

sure..keep dreaming.

I would be dreaming if it wasn't a fact that Motion blur when done correctly can make lower FPS gameplay keep it's smoothness and playability when compared to Higher FPS's in the same scenario.

No offense ProvidenceG, but I have the feeling that your opinion, even though they are rightfully yours, are contradictory to both the general consensus, and the factual knowledge base on the subject at hand, no matter how Off-Topic to this thread it may be.

Here's something for you: Full Motion Films run at 24 FPS. Even today, the latest in Bluray full 1080p Video and 35MM Hollywood Film Technology (what is used to record those films), Runs at 24 FPS. Why? Because the natural Motion blur facilitates that FPS to be seen as smooth and not "stuttery" to the human eye.

This is the same case with Crysis. And it's implementation of MotionBlur when the gameplay reaches Sub 30's in FPS.

@ Mocib, Motionblur aside, why only vanilla Crysis with no mods? Or better yet, not even config tweaks or performance optimizations, surely there can be no negative side to receiving a higher Graphical setting and draw distances, Smoother gameplay during Action, optimized Shadow Maps with sharper and more realistic qualities extending LODs of Shadows by 3-4x stock, among other optimizations making the loss of some settings as subtle as possible, all this... at an alarminly Higher FPS than the Stock variant of the Graphical Setting. Balancing Fidelity with FPS....

I'd just like to understand your Reasoning and train of thought is all.

Last edited by Cuban_Legend (25-08-2009 12:13:45)