High vs Very High details

[pcslookout]

This is when everything is on very high in Crysis. You even can see his skintone on his face become more realistic.

Does anyone else notice this difference ? I noticed this when playing in the map editor and switching between high and very high.

 

[alcoholbob]

But is a result of lightning or just better looking textures?

 

[math20]

The lighting in very high mode is WAY better, you can see the rays showing through the trees and other atmospheric effects. Also, the water looks a lot better too. You don't need vista for most of the settings though, check out this.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: math20
The lighting in very high mode is WAY better, you can see the rays showing through the trees and other atmospheric effects. Also, the water looks a lot better too. You don't need vista for most of the settings though, check out this.

Will I get the same lighting in very high mode that is way better if I use these settings with DX9 in Vista please ?

 

[imported_Shaq]

Originally posted by: math20
The lighting in very high mode is WAY better, you can see the rays showing through the trees and other atmospheric effects. Also, the water looks a lot better too. You don't need vista for most of the settings though, check out this.

Link to files so you don't have to manually enter them here. http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=101089

 

[AzN]

It's shader effects.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: math20
The lighting in very high mode is WAY better, you can see the rays showing through the trees and other atmospheric effects. Also, the water looks a lot better too. You don't need vista for most of the settings though, check out this.

That doesn't give you DX10 features...not even close. If you know what you're looking for you can tell the difference right away.

 

[math20]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: math20
The lighting in very high mode is WAY better, you can see the rays showing through the trees and other atmospheric effects. Also, the water looks a lot better too. You don't need vista for most of the settings though, check out this.

That doesn't give you DX10 features...not even close. If you know what you're looking for you can tell the difference right away.

The light shafts and parallax occlusion work with this fix, what other features are there in dx10?

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Will I get the same lighting in very high mode that is way better if I use these settings with DX9 in Vista please ?

I am pretty sure that is the case, I definitely worked in xp.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: math20

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: math20
The lighting in very high mode is WAY better, you can see the rays showing through the trees and other atmospheric effects. Also, the water looks a lot better too. You don't need vista for most of the settings though, check out this.

That doesn't give you DX10 features...not even close. If you know what you're looking for you can tell the difference right away.

The light shafts and parallax occlusion work with this fix, what other features are there in dx10?

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Will I get the same lighting in very high mode that is way better if I use these settings with DX9 in Vista please ?

I am pretty sure that is the case, I definitely worked in xp.

You really think that DX9 just magically gives you these things now? Becides, if you actually know how to adjust settings properly... DX10 can run the same FPS as DX9 WITH everything on very high by just turning down a couple small things.

Oh and when I run DX9 on High it is slower than DX10 in High. By a few FPS, not much. Just FYI.

In DX10 the blur looks better, the water is much more crisp looking etc. I have tried this DX9 adjustment and even with it I see differences between DX10 and DX9. In motion it is different. Just looking at a static picture doesn't tell the story.

 

[math20]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: math20

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: math20
The lighting in very high mode is WAY better, you can see the rays showing through the trees and other atmospheric effects. Also, the water looks a lot better too. You don't need vista for most of the settings though, check out this.

That doesn't give you DX10 features...not even close. If you know what you're looking for you can tell the difference right away.

The light shafts and parallax occlusion work with this fix, what other features are there in dx10?

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Will I get the same lighting in very high mode that is way better if I use these settings with DX9 in Vista please ?

I am pretty sure that is the case, I definitely worked in xp.

You really think that DX9 just magically gives you these things now? Becides, if you actually know how to adjust settings properly... DX10 can run the same FPS as DX9 WITH everything on very high by just turning down a couple small things.

Oh and when I run DX9 on High it is slower than DX10 in High. By a few FPS, not much. Just FYI.

In DX10 the blur looks better, the water is much more crisp looking etc. I have tried this DX9 adjustment and even with it I see differences between DX10 and DX9. In motion it is different. Just looking at a static picture doesn't tell the story.

The light shafts and parallax occlusion do work, I saw them! And I get WAY better performance with the same settings on xp compared to vista so even if there is a minor difference, it isn't worth it to me.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: math20

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: math20

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: math20
The lighting in very high mode is WAY better, you can see the rays showing through the trees and other atmospheric effects. Also, the water looks a lot better too. You don't need vista for most of the settings though, check out this.

That doesn't give you DX10 features...not even close. If you know what you're looking for you can tell the difference right away.

The light shafts and parallax occlusion work with this fix, what other features are there in dx10?

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Will I get the same lighting in very high mode that is way better if I use these settings with DX9 in Vista please ?

I am pretty sure that is the case, I definitely worked in xp.

You really think that DX9 just magically gives you these things now? Becides, if you actually know how to adjust settings properly... DX10 can run the same FPS as DX9 WITH everything on very high by just turning down a couple small things.

Oh and when I run DX9 on High it is slower than DX10 in High. By a few FPS, not much. Just FYI.

In DX10 the blur looks better, the water is much more crisp looking etc. I have tried this DX9 adjustment and even with it I see differences between DX10 and DX9. In motion it is different. Just looking at a static picture doesn't tell the story.

The light shafts and parallax occlusion do work, I saw them! And I get WAY better performance with the same settings on xp compared to vista so even if there is a minor difference, it isn't worth it to me.

Those sfeatures aren't the only things DX10 adds. There are object blurs (when an object is thriow or blasted away and you see it blur). Longer distances on the foliage pop-in. Things that eat the FPS but are adding more to the look and feel. If you don't notice then good for you. Have fun. I think that they shouldn't even have added DX10 at all, not if it causes everyone to run 15fps by default.

As I've said many times before, Running full DX10 is not ready. They should just wait until next year for the hardware to be ready to go. What is the point of buying a game you can't play in full details for over a year after release? That's pathetic.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

The Crytek team have stated for the longest time that the game is meant for future hardware that won't be released until after the game. Unfortunately, Crysis doesn't like quite as good as UT3 at the same framerate for me.

 

[SniperDaws]

Delete me

 

[SniperDaws]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
The Crytek team have stated for the longest time that the game is meant for future hardware that won't be released until after the game. Unfortunately, Crysis doesn't like quite as good as UT3 at the same framerate for me.

Nonsense, it stated that if you had an 8800 card you would be able to play it with all the bells and whistles they even showed footage and claimed it was an 8800GTX with an over clocked Quad core, now my mates got a Q6600 @ 3.4 with a GTX and its abismal at the highest settings the demo lets you turn on so nevermind VeryHigh settings.

if an 8800GTX Ultra with a Quad core is pulling say 15-25 fps @ 1680x1050 at Very high then how long do you think its going to be until we are seeing 50-60fps at the same settings? Im guessing 18months to 2 years which is ridiculess as itll be in the bargain bin by then.


And a big thanks to Crytek for giving us the worlds most intresting slideshow..........Take a bow!

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
The Crytek team have stated for the longest time that the game is meant for future hardware that won't be released until after the game. Unfortunately, Crysis doesn't like quite as good as UT3 at the same framerate for me.

Nonsense, it stated that if you had an 8800 card you would be able to play it with all the bells and whistles they even showed footage and claimed it was an 8800GTX with an over clocked Quad core, now my mates got a Q6600 @ 3.4 with a GTX and its abismal at the highest settings the demo lets you turn on so nevermind VeryHigh settings.

if an 8800GTX Ultra with a Quad core is pulling say 15-25 fps @ 1680x1050 at Very high then how long do you think its going to be until we are seeing 50-60fps at the same settings? Im guessing 18months to 2 years which is ridiculess as itll be in the bargain bin by then.


And a big thanks to Crytek for giving us the worlds most intresting slideshow..........Take a bow!

LOL! Exactly what I'm thinking at this point. Everyone says it's for the engine's longevity, but how many game engines from far cry did they sell? ZERO! That game had similar poor performance for a while. This game will be no different. Nobody will take it seriously if nobody can really play it. More engines will be sold from Id Tech 5 and UT3 before anyone picks this one up for their game.

The only hope they have is since they partner with EA, they may get a new Medal of Honor generic garbage WWII shooter using the engine.

The game is good, I'll probably pick it up and play it to get the story and whatnot, but I'm not at all really excited about the release.

 

[SniperDaws]

Im just so glad theres an unusual amount of decent games knocking about otherwise i might off been gutted about crysis, ive been playing Team Fortress 2 and its such a laugh.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws
Im just so glad theres an unusual amount of decent games knocking about otherwise i might off been gutted about crysis, ive been playing Team Fortress 2 and its such a laugh.

I'm not big on multiplayer. I'm not very good at competitive shooters and tend to get annoyed with losing all the time.

 

[SniperDaws]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SniperDaws
Im just so glad theres an unusual amount of decent games knocking about otherwise i might off been gutted about crysis, ive been playing Team Fortress 2 and its such a laugh.

I'm not big on multiplayer. I'm not very good at competitive shooters and tend to get annoyed with losing all the time.

i just bought the Big orange box and portal is amazing you need to play it, ive just started on HL2 Ep2 so im getting my fix Crysis can wait til im ready, although playing the demo i did enjoy it, but this game needs to be played at its best and not with settings turned down.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SniperDaws
Im just so glad theres an unusual amount of decent games knocking about otherwise i might off been gutted about crysis, ive been playing Team Fortress 2 and its such a laugh.

I'm not big on multiplayer. I'm not very good at competitive shooters and tend to get annoyed with losing all the time.

i just bought the Big orange box and portal is amazing you need to play it, ive just started on HL2 Ep2 so im getting my fix Crysis can wait til im ready, although playing the demo i did enjoy it, but this game needs to be played at its best and not with settings turned down.

I finished Portal and Ep2 and need Ep3 sooner than 2 years from now

 

[Sparky6string]

Ok bonehead question here: is a 64 bit OS necessary to run DX10?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Sparky6string
Ok bonehead question here: is a 64 bit OS necessary to run DX10?

No. There is a 32bit binary to Crysis and DX10 is available in either 64bit or 32bit.

 

[Sparky6string]

Cool, and thanks. So XP can run it in DX10 as well as 32 bit Vista?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Sparky6string
Cool, and thanks. So XP can run it in DX10 as well as 32 bit Vista?

Some of the DX10 effects, yes. Not everything. The screenshot I saw looked identical though.

 

[Pez D Spencer]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws
if an 8800GTX Ultra with a Quad core is pulling say 15-25 fps @ 1680x1050 at Very high then how long do you think its going to be until we are seeing 50-60fps at the same settings? Im guessing 18months to 2 years which is ridiculess as itll be in the bargain bin by then.


And a big thanks to Crytek for giving us the worlds most intresting slideshow..........Take a bow!

Agreed. However, Far Cry was pretty much the same story. I didn't play Far Cry until late 05 because I didn't have a good enough system to really enjoy it so I held off. When I did finally play it I had an Opteron 170 w/ a 25% OC, 2GB XMS DDR 400 and dual 7950GT's. With everything cranked all the way up it still chugged sometimes.

 

[taltamir]

The way I look at it, if it is unplayable with the hardware available at release then it just means that the "real" max settings are lower then they claim... if its playable at high only (not very high) then that is the real max settings.. I go, I play it high, and I know that by the time hardware will be avilable to make it playable on very high BETTER looking games will be out. (because it will be more then a year later)