Crysis DirectX 9 & 10 MP Performance

Total Crysis offers an update on how multiplayer will work in Crysis (thanks Voodoo Extreme). A number of topics are covered, including how DirectX 9 servers will be limited compared to DirectX 10 servers, not because of software, but hardware:
DX9 vs. DX10 – The endless question
To shed some light into one of the most discussed topics regarding Crysis multiplayer I would like to explain you the differences between Crysis MP DX9 and DX10.

As for the DX9 version we won’t have physics and day and night cycle in-game. That means you won’t be able to shoot down trees and/or alter any other objects than vehicles on the map. Additionally the time of day setting doesn’t change dynamically. This is caused due to the tremendous server load such physics might cause on crowded gaming servers. Still you will be able to experience maps with different time of day settings since the maps can be altered in the Sandbox2 Editor.

Rather than providing the community partially working features we limit this for the DX10 version only. Due to the strong hardware available with DX10, server load is less and performance is increased. This ensures the pure physics and day and night cycle experience without any limitation.

Gamers with a DX10 card are able to play on DX9 servers, but with the limitation of the respective server. Vice versa it is not possible for gamers with DX9 cards to play on DX10 servers due to the limited features.
View : : :
107 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older
87.
 
Re: As different as day & night
Sep 14, 2007, 17:33
87.
Re: As different as day & night Sep 14, 2007, 17:33
Sep 14, 2007, 17:33
 
Your kidding right?

WoW day night cycle is silly.I imagine DX10 hardware will handle it better then DX9 so why make a server crappy cause peeps wont let their UBER Dx9 cards and old OS go.

Times are a changing.

I remember almost the exact topics when the 9700 pro was released.

If I remember right..QuakeWorld(prob date some of ya here) had Open GL servers only...OH NOOOOOeeSSSS

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 17:34.
86.
 
As different as day & night
Sep 14, 2007, 17:15
86.
As different as day & night Sep 14, 2007, 17:15
Sep 14, 2007, 17:15
 
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the entire "DX9 won't do Day/Night cycles because of the server load" thing. I mean, wtf?

WoW has been doing a pretty decent job of day and night cycles in a multiplayer environment for over two years now.
Don't start anything you can't finish. Preferably to component atoms.
Avatar 15305
85.
 
Re: ...
Sep 14, 2007, 16:26
Prez
 
85.
Re: ... Sep 14, 2007, 16:26
Sep 14, 2007, 16:26
 Prez
 
Did I read this right? There are no physics in the DirectX 9 version?!?!?! WTF?!?!??!?!

Might as well make it a Vista-only title! Sheesh!


This comment was edited on Sep 14, 16:33.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
84.
 
Re: ...
Sep 14, 2007, 15:03
84.
Re: ... Sep 14, 2007, 15:03
Sep 14, 2007, 15:03
 
I agree that Crysis will be a factor and the demo will be out in 12 days so the benchmarks will be there. But as far as I am concerned, if I can have a single 8800 gtx run crysis at 1900 x1200 on very high settings and get fps at 40 or higher then I am completely fine.

83.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 14:20
83.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 14:20
Sep 14, 2007, 14:20
 
Of course it's relevant. If my OS is nine months old, why should I have to replace it to run a few games which could deliver the same capabilities on XP if written using OpenGL or other techniques

You realise of course, that XP can only be compared so favourably to Vista because of the excellent work Microsoft have been doing keeping it so up to date. Over the last 6 or so years too, I might add. That's a long, long time in this industry.

82.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 13:20
82.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 13:20
Sep 14, 2007, 13:20
 

You and Crytek are the ones trying to explain the lack of functionality away without detailing why those limitations are necessary.


If I were to explain the plausible scenarios in even greater detail, it would make no difference as far as your concerned, apparently. I decided to think of it as a developer and why they would do this, not just as some MS marketing scheme. Then certain things started to jive for me. You still don't want to grasp the relationship of DX10, a graphics API, with physics, CPU bound functions, and why Crytek indicates DX10 API makes a difference for physics. even after it was explained.

Could they have incorporated some of the missing physics in DX9? Yes, not with as many particles as DX10 could do or utilizing geometry shaders, or Shader 4.0 which is utilized.

DX10 isn't necessary at all really, neither is DX9 for that matter.

Maybe if the DX10 enhancements didn't exist then you wouldn't know what was missing in DX9 and you would be better off.

Crytek probably goofed by making this public now, in the limited fashion they did.

81.
 
...
Sep 14, 2007, 13:03
81.
... Sep 14, 2007, 13:03
Sep 14, 2007, 13:03
 
theyarecomingforyou, you had problems with oblivion with that?! I dunno.. maybe it really was because I am using a Q6600, but when I got my 8800gtx ultra and ran oblivion, it had zero problems with graphics at full.
I didn't say that I had problems - I said that performance wasn't that good. I didn't get any major slowdowns but it just didn't perform as well as I'd expect for a machine with much better specs than were even available at launch. After seeing how well BF2 and Source run Oblivion just doesn't feel as responsive or smooth. STALKER is another game where I'm not happy with performance, whereas other demanding games like F.E.A.R. run absolutely stunnginly with max settings and AA. I have high expectations and my system is certainly setup right. It's not just about slowdowns - ET:QW is terrible because it doesn't feel smooth even though I'm getting great framerates with maxed out settings.

I've been running my 24" Dell 2405FPW for several years now... and I wouldn't trade it for anything! (ok, except maybe a 2407FPW) I'm only running a 7950GX2, and I run my games fine.
In every situation, I can run a game the way I want at 1920x1200 with a little AA, or 1680x1050 w/decent AA quite well. My roommate has a 2405FPW on a 7800GTX, and he has no problems either.
It's not about problems but the user experience. The whole point about having a top end machine it getting an experience that is silky smooth with the eye candy turned on (that means AA at 2x minimum and everything on max). That means not havinng a framerate that drops below 60fps. I guess I have high standards but a 7800GTX with a 24" screen... that is not what I'd class as a nice experience. Then you have to factor in newer games. Performance at 1920x1200 in Crysis with max settings and 4xAA is just not going to be good with current generation cards like the 8800GTX - even in SLI it's entirely likely the framerates will drop below 50, which is far from ideal.

If other people want to run Crysis at 1920x1200 and see their framerate drop into the sub-50 zone then that's great but I don't and wouldn't recommend it to others. It's my advice. Obviously others are free to disagree with me and I'm not claiming my viewpoint is any more relevant or true than anyone else's (except for Riley - he's always wrong).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
80.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 13:00
80.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 13:00
Sep 14, 2007, 13:00
 
Tephlon you have thoroughly convinced me to stay at my samsung 244t 24" choice.....Thank you for your very thoughtfull comment.

As far as Nvidia new card the G92 I think?? It is still speculative at this point but rumors were favoring it to be 10.1 directx, yet midstream card, not the high end one

79.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 12:42
>U
79.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 12:42
Sep 14, 2007, 12:42
>U
 
Yet, so many people don't stop there and try an learn
I can only go by the statements in the news article, and those statements are implausible given what other games have been able to do under DirectX 9.

but instead try and explain it away
You and Crytek are the ones trying to explain the lack of functionality away without detailing why those limitations are necessary.


78.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 12:36
>U
78.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 12:36
Sep 14, 2007, 12:36
>U
 
Would it be so horrible if a developer actually tapped the real benefits of DX10 for once, by leveraging the new API to handle the effects?
It is a moot point because I am talking about the physics not the rendering of effects. There is no legitimate reason why Crysis running under DirectX 9 can't allow the player to "shoot down trees and/or alter any other objects" when other games such as Half-Life 2 do. Would it require more work on the developer? Probably so if it required a different approach than what is available using DirectX 10. And, if that is true Crytek should simply come out and admit that it made the choice not to support those features under DirectX 9 due to time constraints and economic reasons not technical limitations instead of trying to mislead consumers by claiming that it isn't possible except under DirectX 10.


77.
 
They guessed wrong
Sep 14, 2007, 12:27
Dev
77.
They guessed wrong Sep 14, 2007, 12:27
Sep 14, 2007, 12:27
Dev
 

Crytek no doubt assumed that by the time Crysis came out, Vista would have a big market penetration. So perhaps they coded the advanced graphics with DX10-exclusive language that they now can't or won't remove. No way for us to know.

What we do know, and they will soon find out, is that it's taken on political overtones just like BF2142's surprise insertion of ads. BF 2142's move led to it underselling and is now in an early grave. We'll see if Crytek can salvage their mistake any better.

76.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 12:12
76.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 12:12
Sep 14, 2007, 12:12
 
Well, duh! I don't understand why Crysis won't have the same physics in multiplayer mode running under DirectX 9 as it does under DirectX 10.

Yet, so many people don't stop there and try an learn, but instead try and explain it away, with their admitted lack of understanding and limited scope on the subject.

I'm sure plenty of people had great arguments on why the earth was flat, because afterall, it was all they could see.

I'm just saying more may meet the eye, and we should possibly consider that maybe Crytek is leveraging things in the DX10 API for once that can't be done in DX9, therefore they are not compatible. This compatibility would be the issue for any developer that leveraged DX10 in changing the game world, beyond the cursory junk they have called DX10 thus far.

75.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 12:04
75.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 12:04
Sep 14, 2007, 12:04
 
You keep equating DirectX versions with physics.


I keep equating it because the developers have equated it by making DirectX 10 the determining factor of whether advanced physics will be enabled. If you read my posts it should be obvious that I don't believe that DirectX 10 should have any effect on such physics since games which predate DirectX 10 obviously didn't need it for their advanced physics.


Since you persist to not read my posts and address my valid points on reasons why DX10 may make sense, let me ask you 2 simple questions?

What if they use the DX10 API for the massive amounts of objects while exploding, which DX9 cannot, and leverage the geometry shaders for this functionality as well, would that help you understand?

Would it be so horrible if a developer actually tapped the real benefits of DX10 for once, by leveraging the new API to handle the effects?

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 12:05.
74.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 12:02
>U
74.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 12:02
Sep 14, 2007, 12:02
>U
 
Well then maybe there is something you don't understand???
Well, duh! I don't understand why Crysis won't have the same physics in multiplayer mode running under DirectX 9 as it does under DirectX 10. Based upon the description provided in that news article, it does not make sense given what other games have been able to do with regards to physics under DirectX 9.

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 12:02.
73.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 11:58
>U
73.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 11:58
Sep 14, 2007, 11:58
>U
 
You keep equating DirectX versions with physics.
I keep equating it because the developers have equated it by making DirectX 10 the determining factor of whether advanced physics will be enabled. If you read my posts it should be obvious that I don't believe that DirectX 10 should have any effect on such physics since games which predate DirectX 10 obviously didn't need it for their advanced physics.


72.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 11:42
72.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 11:42
Sep 14, 2007, 11:42
 
Well that makes no real sense then because the main difference between multiplayer and single-player performance is bandwidth and DirectX 10 isn't going to provide players or servers with any more bandwidth than DirectX 9. DirectX 10 is also irrelevant for servers because they aren't rendering the game anyway.

Well then maybe there is something you don't understand???

71.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 11:42
71.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 11:42
Sep 14, 2007, 11:42
 
especially when vista is a pile of fucking shit, really, a pile of fucking shit. I think they did it on purpose to get people to jump to the 360, whichis what most developers are makin games for now anyway. fuk

70.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 11:39
70.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 11:39
Sep 14, 2007, 11:39
 
Do you seriously believe there will be "No" physics.


This is not an argument over semantics. Of course all FPS games have at least a basic physics system for character and ohject movement. What I mean is more advanced and interactive physics as major FPS games have had for the past several years such as those provided by Havok or another physics library. From those official comments, it appears that Crysis will not have that on DirectX 9.

Come on, I have no doubt they are talking the big physics explosions


Read the official comment again. It states "you won’t be able to shoot down trees and/or alter any other objects than vehicles on the map." That means that its physics won't do what Havok-powered games like Half-Life 2 and F.E.A.R. do.

Do you think driving the jeep won't have physics attached, etc.?


I don't consider vehicle physics to be anything special since games with vehicles in them have had advanced physics for them long before even DirectX 9 was released.


Yeah, I get the obvious, just wondering if you get what i am saying.

You keep equating DirectX versions with physics. The DX API doesn't effect the amount physics you can have, physics is a function of the CPU, DX10 will be able to render more objects as they fly apart, that is the only effect of DX API and it's reduced overhead on CPU.

69.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 11:32
>U
69.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 11:32
Sep 14, 2007, 11:32
>U
 
That is for MP only.
Well that makes no real sense then because the main difference between multiplayer and single-player performance is bandwidth and DirectX 10 isn't going to provide players or servers with any more bandwidth than DirectX 9. DirectX 10 is also irrelevant for servers because they aren't rendering the game anyway. Since the multiplayer game most likely won't have AI characters in it, its performance on the client should be better and certainly no more taxing than the single-player game.

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 11:32.
68.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 11:22
>U
68.
Re: No subject Sep 14, 2007, 11:22
Sep 14, 2007, 11:22
>U
 
Do you seriously believe there will be "No" physics.
This is not an argument over semantics. Of course all FPS games have at least a basic physics system for character and ohject movement. What I mean is more advanced and interactive physics as major FPS games have had for the past several years such as those provided by Havok or another physics library. From those official comments, it appears that Crysis will not have that on DirectX 9.

Come on, I have no doubt they are talking the big physics explosions
Read the official comment again. It states "you won’t be able to shoot down trees and/or alter any other objects than vehicles on the map." That means that its physics won't do what Havok-powered games like Half-Life 2 and F.E.A.R. do.

Do you think driving the jeep won't have physics attached, etc.?
I don't consider vehicle physics to be anything special since games with vehicles in them have had advanced physics for them long before even DirectX 9 was released.

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 11:33.
107 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older