Just got home, installed the Crysis beta, haven't actually joined a game yet. But I just got done watching the Tutorial video for the multiplayer....holy crap EA turned Crysis MP into a Battlefield clone.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just shocking. Now I'm gonna go give it a whirl since TF2 beta hasnt been unlocked yet

----------------------------------------------------
Day of Defeat Source and S.T.A.L.K.E.R
Join the "Blues News" Steam Community Group.

regarding Crysis: in every interview i have read with them, the developer seems committed to making a dx9 version and has even made some light crits of DX10. I wouldnt worry about DX9 support in Crysis.

Well said Prez -- for gamers Vista isnt worth the crappy performance. MS knows this of course, and this is why the Vista launch came and went in the blink of an eye.

I agree with Tephlon : a widescreen monitor is one of the best investments you can make. Even though mine's a cheap Acer 19", I still just marvel at it sometimes, because it's just so *nice*. At work, I sit in front of fugly old CRT's, so it's always a treat to come home and stare at a pretty widescreen.

Someday I'll get a bigger one, but I don't see a point in doing it now since my computer isn't exactly top notch (AMD 5200+ 2.61ghz, 2 gig RAM, ATI X1800XT 256 meg). 1440x900 is good enough for now. But I'll bet having a GIANT one is nearly orgasmic.

maximus0402 said "Tephlon you have thoroughly convinced me to stay at my samsung 244t 24" choice.....Thank you for your very thoughtfull comment."

My pleasure. I've just been so very thrilled with my monitor, I don't like the idea of having fellow gamers miss out on the experiance a good monitor like that can bring. My advice to anyone is that if it's in their budget, then go for it.

"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"

Yeah, I haven't been following it all as closely as I normally do (tend to do so more when upgrade time rolls around), but I'd just heard something about it, just not much in detail. If that's all it's gonna be, then I'd say current generation cards will do perfectly.

"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."

Again, I can't give any promises about a game like Crysis, as we don't know much about performance yet. But it'll really be great to see how well it scales to lower-end hardware/graphics settings, that way you'll know you have plenty of flexibility to confidently tweak as you see fit... but I'm still gonna make the bet that you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Like I said before, I'm still tickled pink with the way [i]my[i] machine performs, and if I very rarely have to compromise my resolution (only from 1920x1200 to 1680x1050), you should have no issues at all. Widescreen gaming is the best favor you can do yourself as far as I'm concerned!



theyarecomingforyou said "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)."

I can understand the desire to have the game look as good as possible, but there's a point when you step past what's reasonable. There's lots of graphics settings (that vary by game) that don't scale well... by that I mean the visual result does not outweigh the cost in performance. If I can't tell the difference between 2x and 4x AA in a particular title (at a particular resolution), or at least not enough to sacrifice the 10fps, why do it? If taking my aniso from 8x to 16x tanks my machine for so very little gain graphically, why do it? Better yet, why even be bothered by it at all? So many times the only way you'll tell the difference between one setting to another will be through analyzing screen-shots, which is silly in my opinion. If you play it and it runs smooth and looks pretty, well done. I don't understand the need to max things out for the sake of having them 'maxed out.'

"I guess I have high standards but a 7800GTX with a 24" screen... that is not what I'd class as a nice experience."

I guess thats just where you and I differ, because I wouldn't call being stuck with a small screen and a max res of 1280x1024 a 'nice experiance' either. Having options to go up and down as you see fit is the beauty of having a pc. Having OPTIONS. Being stuck in 4:3 (or 5:4) with (relatively) low resolutions doesn't leave way for many choices.

"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"

How do you know this? Source? The devs have to be using something to test/build the game on. Even in the wild chance that they have access to some 'top secret un-released' hardware, the difference between it and current gen hardware can't be earth-shattering.
EDIT: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=25311788&union_id=3092&print=1
From the link: "A single 7800GTX will run the game quite well on fairly high settings according to Crysis Art Director, Michael Khaimzon"

"- even in SLI it's entirely likely the framerates will drop below 50, which is far from ideal."

Again, I don't want it to sound like I'm calling you a liar, but I think you're exaggerating. Source?

"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)."

I completely agree. It's all a matter of opinion, and I certainly hope my comments don't come across as if I'm attempting to 'invalidate' yours.
The other thing thats good to remember is that with a screen that big and beautiful, sacrificing a jaggy here or slightly more muddled texture there isn't going to detract from the fact that that's a big honkin', immersive field of view you're sitting in front of. Better to sacrifice those small things, in my opinion, than having graphics cranked up on a screen too small to enjoy them.
But again, that's the wonderful thing about PCs... you can have it your way. :-)

This comment was edited on Sep 16, 02:16.

Bungie is Microsoft, that's not the same as a kick-back. You'll have to do better than that.

WoW day night cycle is silly.

Be that as it may, but the fact of the matter is that they still do it with a heck of a lot more people on the server. Saying "Oh, we can't do it without DX10" is a cop-out, and a weak one at that.

Okay, I'll be the first to admit that I am not very technically saavy when discussing things like API's, OS's, Networking, programming, etc. So I understand that just because it seems logical that since no previous api is in now way tied to the OS, neither should DirectX 10 be, doesn't necessarally make it true.

But I do understand things like Frames per second, game performance, lag, stuttering, the cost of upgrading. So I am supposed to "upgrade" to Vista, and suddenly the 2GB of ram I had been getting by beautifully with in XP is now barely adequate, and all of the games I had been playing without a hitch now run 10 to 15% slower. It seems like a "downgrade" that I have to spend $200 for. Kinda hard to swallow.

If things start looking up in the Vista world,maybe I'll think differently. As of right now, I am growing more and more irritated by the day at the mess Vista and it's DirectX 10 exclusivity are creating.

Zeph, did you really ask that second question? Really?

Wow.

I'll give you one example of the many out there which are reported on websites every day. Bungie.

"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.

What, just like WinME became the 'norm'?

For christ sake you tards. The advanced physics are in DX9, just not in multiplayer mode for DX9.

That's still a big omission especially when you consider that many if not most players will play through the single-player game once and then never touch it again. If the multiplayer gameplay doesn't have advanced physics, what is the fucking point of playing it? Players might as well go play some five or six year old game instead which doesn't have destructable objects in it either.

I suspect it has to do with how DX10 and 9 are coded for the netcode; that in the DX9 version for some reason sending the location, speed, direction, etc, of the advanced physics requires more data to be transfered, a lot more.

That sounds unbelieveable especially since Windows Live is what Microsoft now recommends for its networking library, and it supports XP.

This comment was edited on Sep 15, 11:19.

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.

Well since Microsoft has been selling XP that long and is still selling XP, it certainly should keep XP up to date especially with all of its discovered security flaws.

Six years may be a relatively long time for an OS to be in service, but latecomers to the product shouldn't be expected to change just because Microsoft wants them to buy something new. Microsoft's own applications don't require Vista so why must its games?

explain to me how they "really aren't DX10".

I think what he was trying to say is that there's no way these features aren't doable without dx10. MMO's have been doing the day/night cycle thing for many, many years now, and that's with a hell of a lot more people connected.

explain to me how Microsoft is paying gaming developers

So you don't think there's a financial incentive why they're setting up some of their game's more enticing features as Vista only? What possible other reason could be behind their being willing to effectively split their game's community in two by not allowing XP players to play on Vista servers?

If you don't think that screams "financial incentive", you're living in a dreamworld. This happened because Microsoft wrote them a cheque, it really is that simple.

Is that an attempt at comedy for the geek?

First of all, explain to me how they "really aren't DX10". Secondly, explain to me how Microsoft is paying gaming developers.

if (mode == DX10) {

CoolFeaturesThatReallyArentDX10Specific() ;
CollectMSCash() ;

} else {

Crap() ;
DisplayVistaAd() ;

}
s{
This comment was edited on Sep 14, 20:08.

This makes no sense whatsoever. What does DX10 have to do with physics or server load?

In any case, I will be playing the DX9 version, because not even Crysis is worth Vista and the current generation of overpriced, overheated DX10 cards.

Watching you guys fret over all this techinical stuff is really funny. I mean, I know your troubles and I know how to get around them; and eventually I will. By the time I do, the game will have been patched to a point release and I'll probably have SP1 for Vista and DX10. All the hardware will have become cheaper and I'll buy Crysis and any other cool game for less than 1/2 price. And by then everything will work great with no incompatibilities and better graphics drivers. So I find it rather humorous that you're all worrying about these things. I don't worry about any of them.

For christ sake you tards. The advanced physics are in DX9, just not in multiplayer mode for DX9.

Why? I do not know. It probably has to do with the fact that their netcode sucks balls. FarCry had just about the worst netcode of any game, ever.

Other games on a 56K modem was better then FarCry on a high speed internet connection.


I suspect it has to do with how DX10 and 9 are coded for the netcode; that in the DX9 version for some reason sending the location, speed, direction, etc, of the advanced physics requires more data to be transfered, a lot more.

Why? Because their netcode sucks. Like always.




Alternating Logo (GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesNewslogo.user.js


This comment was edited on Sep 14, 18:03.

If they can't make the DX10 experience as smooth as butter it won't matter and everyone will be on DX9 servers anyway.

The game looks great on DX9 so people stomping their feet over this issue will forget about it come release.