Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Crysis DX9 Demo Tweak

DX 10 Features in Windows XP - MUST SEE on the Crysis Forums offers a tip on improving the visuals in the Crysis demo under DirectX 9, saying the game can be coaxed into looking more like the game running under DirectX 10 without using Vista (thanks ActionTrip). On that topic, there are DirectX 9 and 10 comparison screenshots on this page (thanks Ant and Digg). Here's word on the tweak, which is obviously going to require pretty good hardware to run smoothly:

If you tweak the configuration files in \CVarGroups\ by copying and pasting the "very high" settings (1st paragraph) IN PLACE of the "high" settings (last paragraph) the game will load the highest possible settings even though the drop-down menus display "high."

View
70 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

70. Re: No subject Jun 14, 2008, 07:27 the
 
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Mar 9, 2009, 09:02.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
69. Re: No subject Nov 2, 2007, 19:08 Shadowcat
 
(edit: ah, never mind.)
This comment was edited on Nov 2, 19:20.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
68. Re: No subject Oct 30, 2007, 14:42 kookaveetsa
 
Looks like its still not time to upgrade to vista yet.

Not by a long shot.
 
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
67. Re: No subject Oct 30, 2007, 12:31  SFSW 
 
You know the more i read up about this whole "I can play the DX10 stuff in XP on DX9" the more i realise that the people who can actually do this are running the game with an 8 series nvidia card.... A DX10 card! So no matter what bloody OS it's in, it's a DX10 card, so really they're not playing it on DX9, but actually DX10 (if you understand the logic there)

You may want to do some research on this to learn about the differences between the two OS's. DX10 is not available on XP and a DX10 card runs in DX9 mode on XP, there is no DX10 option on XP. If something is running on XP SP2, it's running with DX9... even if there is a DX10 card installed. DX10 cards are designed to run with the globally compatible (XP and Vista) DX9 in addition to the Vista limited DX10.

Ok i had a look at those DX9 VH and DX10 VH screens and i'm confused.

I suspect they look the same simply because DX9 and DX10 are essentially the same, the game was coded in DX9 and simply 'ported' to support DX10 as an additional rendering option. It's true that DX9 can render virtually any scene DX10 can render, there are simply a few minor 'common sense' performance tweaks in DX10. If you're into the development side of things, check out the latest SDK, you'll see how similar they are. DX10 offers a few tuning features and shortcuts, but you're basically rendering everything using the same technology, just with a few common sense additions/changes. You might even be surprised at how much stuff DX10 actually removes from DX9's capabilities (Microsoft uses the term 'deprecated').

But still i'm confused. DX10 enables SM4 right, and for SM4 to work you need an 8 series gfx card right? I'm pretty sure Crysis takes advantage of SM4 as well as a lot of other nifty tricks. If that's the case, how are people running SM4 on SM3/2 cards? As far as i know you cant do that.

DX10 has SM4, which is simply an expansion on SM3, not a revolution in graphics tech or anything, just a little more working room. SM3 can handle virtually everything SM4 can and by running the game in XP, even on a DX10 card, you're running in DX9/SM3 anyway, which is plenty capable of rendering the scenes you see in Crysis. Both SM4 and SM3 give you the capability to create just about any scene you want, performance conditions are the limiting factor. As performance improves, new details can be added.

Same goes for some other effects. I'm confused as to how effects that are more... compatible with DX10 (i.e they run better/optimized for DX10) and with DX10 cards can work on DX9 hardware.

Because they are essentially the same. Both DX9 and DX10 can render such effects, the limiting factor is performance, not DX technology. DX10 provides a few performance improvements to aid in providing some more details, but the technology, including what it offers and how it's used, is basically DX9 with some fine tuning. I would argue that one of the biggest 'benefits' DX10 offers is unifying the way video cards are built, making it easier for developers to work with it (not having to code something different ways for different chipsets). But from an effects standpoint, DX9 is just as capable.

The only thing that comes up in my mind is that people are running an 8series gfx card on XP and tweaking Crysis. Has anyone got the kind of detail in those screenshots on a 7 series or before gfx card?

As you can see here, yup. An 8 series card simply has more performance with DX9, which is why you see the performance differences between those and a 7 series. But both can handle Crysis with the effects you see.

This comment was edited on Oct 30, 12:32.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
66. Re: Overreaction! Oct 30, 2007, 07:47 Overon
 
There is no conspiracy, just dodgy dx10 drivers.
There is no conspiracy you say, then explain this:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=8
There are a few things we would like to clarify based on what we have found with this single-player demo. Over the past few months there have been countless interviews with the people from Crytek about Crysis and 'Cervat Yerli' has made a few claims that we wanted to look into. First of all he claimed that upgrading to a quad-core processor would be essential and this had quite a few gamers madly chasing after Q6600 processors. From what we have seen based purely on this single-player game, is that quad-core processors will make little to no difference at all.
Also explain this, same article:
Cervat Yerli also claimed that Crysis is a very CPU bound game rather than GPU bound. This is interesting since we found the complete opposite, Crysis is very much GPU bound and any Core 2 Duo processor and probably even any Athlon64 X2 processor for that matter will handle Crysis very well. So at this stage we do not believe quad-core processors are a necessity and we also do not believe you will need to upgrade to the latest and greatest Core 2 processor.
And finally explain this (same article):
Finally in the interview that we read, Cervat Yerli goes on to say that the game will run and load much better with 4GB or preferably more memory. Well we tried the single-player demo out with 4GB of memory and the load times appeared to be much the same, while the actual in game performance went unchanged. At this stage the only real requirement we have for playing the game is a high-end graphics card, preferably the expensive GeForce 8800 GTX.
And then from bluesnews we have someone who says:
I love the demo..stunning visuals even on medium and great open ended gameplay. Can't wait for the full game (it better be as good as I think as I just pulled the trigger on a $3000 gaiming rig mainly just for it)
The implications are clear.
Intel, AMD/ATI, Nvidia, Microsoft, and RAM makers, all love when something like Crysis comes out. Microsoft tries to convince you that you need DX 10 and thus need Vista. Intel AMD/ATI and Nvidia try to convince you to buy their latest and greatest and expensive CPU or graphics card and the RAM makers to buy more memory. And to help them in this we have the Crysis tech developers spreading misinformation that has the consequences of encouraging new hardware/software purchases, when in fact what they have said about their engine has proven untrue from those that have put their claims to the test (like in the above article).

This comment was edited on Oct 30, 07:54.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
65. Re: No subject Oct 30, 2007, 07:36 Ecthelion
 
But it depends on what you do. I'd say go for 1 gig minimum with XP and 2 gigs with vista (because its a hog)

The idea with 64bit vista is that it doesn't create a giant memory hole like XP does that makes your 4gb more like 3gb because you can't use the extra in XP (for sure with 32bit XP, not sure about 64 XP).

Just depends on your system. The money is better spent on a graphics card or CPU. The couple percent differance with the memory isn't worth the cost unless you upgraded the other parts, or you have a very low amount of memory.
I'd say stick with 2GB on XP. I have 32bit XP and I definitely saw a difference between 1GB and 2GB. Beyond 2GB probably isn't going to do much - as has already been said, upgrading your other hardware will provide more benefit than upgrading RAM past 2GB. I don't have enough experience with Vista to tell you how much it needs, but I can tell you that it certainly needs more memory than XP.

This comment was edited on Oct 30, 08:08.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. No subject Oct 30, 2007, 04:40 BrutalDeluxe
 
LOL ok this is getting complicated, let's just say everyone is right

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63. No subject Oct 30, 2007, 03:25 Dev
 
I think the sense that he was replying to was that since DX10 is vista only, XP is only DX9, and so the card can't be doing DX10 stuff. So if thats what he meant, he was right in saying that the other guy was wrong

Also keep in mind, that dx10 is mostly about optimization than anything else, and having higher capacities on certain operations and variables.


So an argument could be made either way

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
62. Re: No subject Oct 30, 2007, 02:33 BrutalDeluxe
 
"That is totally and completely wrong."

Actually the guy you replied to was completely right. Yes with the tweaks enabled the dx9 game indeed looks like dx10 (mind you, it's not identical either). BUT it ultimately doesn't matter because the fastest dx9 card cannot play it properly with the tweaks on. Of course this is a bit subjective, some people consider 'properly' to be 50fps at 1900x with 4AA, others are happy at 1024x , 20fps and no AA.


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61. Re: No subject Oct 30, 2007, 01:48 PHJF
 
You know the more i read up about this whole "I can play the DX10 stuff in XP on DX9" the more i realise that the people who can actually do this are running the game with an 8 series nvidia card.... A DX10 fucking card! So no matter what bloody OS it's in, it's a DX10 card, so really they're not playing it on DX9, but actually DX10 (if you understand the logic there)

That is totally and completely wrong.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. No subject Oct 29, 2007, 23:45 Dev
 
D4rkKnight: Yeah, and I listed out stuff you could build for about a grand and get a kick butt system.

Creston: Part of the reason could very well be the whole content protection thing thats mandatory in vista. All those extra tilt bits, etc.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. Re: No subject Oct 29, 2007, 23:43 Fion
 
I'm using a Dx9 card and have used the tweaks. Now mind, normally I can only run on Medium, so it was a bit of a slide show to be sure, but it looks JUST as good as the Dx10 Very High shots. The only differences I could notice was the tree textures were just a bit more touched up looking.

But yea, for Crysis at least, it appears the only real advantage for using a Dx10 card is that, you'll get better performance simply because it's a newer card. Just like running any other game with a Dx10 card in Dx9 gets you a performance gain over using an older card.

But yea, the visual difference is nill, seriously. I'm using an XFX 7900GS 256 XXX edition and graphically there I had to look really hard to find a difference. So basically theres absolutely no need to go with Vista. You get better performance with that Dx10 card running XP and using these Very High 'tweaks.' Kinda funny.

Now if only I had a duel core system with a 8 series nvidia and those 'Very High tweaks' were playable for me. With these new mind blowing cards by nVidia, like the 8800GT that costs $250 but outperforms or similarly performs the $500 cards, that goal may be closer then I expect.

That and gods let Funcom do the same with Age of Conan and let us edit the Cvars lmao. Thats the ONLY other game I'm really considering going Vista for, now that I know Crysis has absolutely no need for it, and actually performs WORSE under Vista with Very High then under XP with Very High tweaks.


 
Avatar 17499
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. No subject Oct 29, 2007, 23:32 JJJ
 
I just tried making a autoexec file like said in the last post on page 2 here (number 19). I have a ati x1950 pro 256 mb (dx9 card) and it worked. I got the sun rays, 3d waves, high tex etc. The only thing I'm not sure is the POM, since I didn't seem to see good looking rocks as in the very high screen shots. But I must say I didn't really explore at best since its slow as hell.

It runs at like 5 - 2 fps, dropping to about 0.1 in gun fights. I just did it to prove the point some are making.

This comment was edited on Oct 29, 23:33.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. No subject Oct 29, 2007, 20:47 Malakai
 
You know the more i read up about this whole "I can play the DX10 stuff in XP on DX9" the more i realise that the people who can actually do this are running the game with an 8 series nvidia card.... A DX10 fucking card! So no matter what bloody OS it's in, it's a DX10 card, so really they're not playing it on DX9, but actually DX10 (if you understand the logic there)

Is there anyone out there who's attempting this tweak on a 7 series or below card please say if they can get graphics comparable to the pictures posted?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: No subject Oct 29, 2007, 20:11 D4rkKnight
 
it better be as good as I think as I just pulled the trigger on a $3000 gaiming rig mainly just for it)

What the heck are you building that costs 3000 bucks? A Galaxy class starship???

Ha no shit, I'm guessing something like Alienware, and you could build the same specs yourself for about a grand.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: Overreaction! Oct 29, 2007, 19:58 Creston
 
Unfortunately, because the dx10 drivers aren't really mature just yet, the performance gap of the re-enabled dx9 version and the dx10 original isn't that large.

Ah yes, just what I thought. It's the drivers. After a year, the drivers still aren't any good. I guess all the driver guys died en masse, huh?

Creston

 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: No subject Oct 29, 2007, 19:56 Creston
 
it better be as good as I think as I just pulled the trigger on a $3000 gaiming rig mainly just for it)

What the heck are you building that costs 3000 bucks? A Galaxy class starship???

Creston


 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Teehee Oct 29, 2007, 19:55 Creston
 
So the need for DX10 is... non-existant? Since DX9 can apparently do pretty much everything DX10 can do?

And really, so far the only thing in DX10 I've seen that I thought "hmm, that's pretty" are the God Rays. And those are now already being enabled in DX9 as well.

All the rest? Whatever. "Look how in the DX10 screenshot, the dark areas are darker than they are in DX9"

Turn down the fucking gamma correction, and you have the same effect.

DX10 is nothing but MS hype. The only thing it delivers is -20% performance. Or are all the MS Monkeys still claiming that's because of "unoptimized drivers?"

Creston


 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. No subject Oct 29, 2007, 19:52 Dev
 
Beamer: Probably not even then.

But it depends on what you do. I'd say go for 1 gig minimum with XP and 2 gigs with vista (because its a hog)

The idea with 64bit vista is that it doesn't create a giant memory hole like XP does that makes your 4gb more like 3gb because you can't use the extra in XP (for sure with 32bit XP, not sure about 64 XP).

Just depends on your system. The money is better spent on a graphics card or CPU. The couple percent differance with the memory isn't worth the cost unless you upgraded the other parts, or you have a very low amount of memory.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: No subject Oct 29, 2007, 19:43 Shataan
 
Yeah, I have an 8800 GTX. The tweaks made a very noticable visuals enhancement difference. I dunno if the 7 series support the effects that the 8 series does.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
70 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo