Crysis DirectX 9 & 10 MP Performance [Sep 13, 2007, 10:23 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
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.
"4x1GB or 2x2GB is not the end of the world and even will have advantages over 3GB RAM limit in certain current games already. "
No, it won't and it never will. Hardcore, you're so fuill of shit in this thread and it's getting tiresome. You seem not to have a clue about what you're talking about and you're dissembling about it in a way I find repulsive. Take the first couple of posts in this thread, where you resort to the tired old "well, you're too stupid to figure it out and I'm not going to tell you" method of argument with your basic misunderstanding of DirectX, networking and programming.
And now this frustratingly idiotic piece of typing, completely ignoring the facts and making the ONE exception (upgrading to x64) your whole talking point. Shit, unless you need that memory (for 2d or 3d work [maybe, as unless you're a professional your application WILL NOT SUPPORT THAT MUCH MEMORY], maybe some hardcore simulation), upgrading to x64 is useless for gaming.
Also, nice one on your cpu analogy and how you ignore improvements in architecture. Almost clever, if it weren't so transparent.
No, it won't and it never will. Hardcore, you're so fuill of shit in this thread and it's getting tiresome. You seem not to have a clue about what you're talking about and you're dissembling about it in a way I find repulsive. Take the first couple of posts in this thread, where you resort to the tired old "well, you're too stupid to figure it out and I'm not going to tell you" method of argument with your basic misunderstanding of DirectX, networking and programming.
And now this frustratingly idiotic piece of typing, completely ignoring the facts and making the ONE exception (upgrading to x64) your whole talking point. Shit, unless you need that memory (for 2d or 3d work [maybe, as unless you're a professional your application WILL NOT SUPPORT THAT MUCH MEMORY], maybe some hardcore simulation), upgrading to x64 is useless for gaming.
Also, nice one on your cpu analogy and how you ignore improvements in architecture. Almost clever, if it weren't so transparent.
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 17 July 2025, 12:43.