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 1.
Older [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Newer
1.
 
No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 22:29
1.
No subject Sep 13, 2007, 22:29
Sep 13, 2007, 22:29
 
Ghey..

I have an 8800gtx KO series and id just like to say FU Microsuck for forcing gamers to buy your pos, unfinished OS in order to play games that actually take advantage of todays hardware.

You care about gamers? lol. you care about money, money and more money you greedy fat bastards.

/die Bill.)

Avatar 33180
2.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 22:39
Exe
2.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 22:39
Sep 13, 2007, 22:39
Exe
 
Not Microsofts fault in this case. Read it again. What they are saying is that Directx 10 enabled games guarantee that your system meets specific high end requirements that can handle the load. If you have directx 9 your hardware may not be able to handle the load. As such this is not a Directx 9 limitation, but rather the company is using directx as a indicator for your machines capability and giving the higher machines a full featured playground free of lower end machines that may not be able to handle the load.

This really has nothing to do with DirectX Version limitations...

What's unfortunate is that there isn't a better way to implement this reliably... In all fairness, games that upload your system specs are usually met with consumer bitching about spy ware so making the limitation via directx is understandable.

3.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 22:39
3.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 22:39
Sep 13, 2007, 22:39
 
Um, what exactly does the client graphics have to do with server load? Fewer people will have DX10 cards so the server will have less people!?!?

Edit: With the extra overhead of DX10 and Vista, there's still no guarantee server performance is going to be better even if it's more likely that DX10 people will have newer systems (or at least newer video cards). I don't believe DX9 servers are going to have more server performance problems than DX10. It's probably going to be the opposite. Besides ping is still king.

This comment was edited on Sep 13, 22:46.
4.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:00
4.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:00
Sep 13, 2007, 23:00
 
Um, what exactly does the client graphics have to do with server load? Fewer people will have DX10 cards so the server will have less people!?!?

To put it more simply than it actually is, picture a situation where you mow down the cover where the enemy is. In the DX10 version that's possible, and it's going to require that everyone on the server is able to react to that situation like the cover is mown down.

Wouldn't really be fair to DX9 users who can't see that the terrain has been altered.

5.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:01
5.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:01
Sep 13, 2007, 23:01
 
vista is fine, have you even tried it?

the only people i hear bitching about vista either a). haven't tried it or b), tried it with 5 year old hardware.

6.
 
No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:02
6.
No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:02
Sep 13, 2007, 23:02
 
That's total BS whether you realize it or not, you could have a half-ass system running shitsta and a crappy 10x card, yet you according to this article could play on the dx10 servers,

You are however correct that it's not JUST m$ this time crytek are notorious for shitty assed decisions that screw gamers, maybe not as many as m$ but crytek has only been around for a couple of years compared to m$, so just give them time.


Trust me, most of the names I have been called you can't translate in any language...they're not even real words as much as a succesion of violent images.
Scorpio Slasher: ... What about you boy, what do hate?
Marcus: ... Bullies. Tiny d*ck egotists who hurt people for no reason, make people lock their doors at night. People who make general existence worse, people like you.
Avatar 1858
7.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:03
7.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:03
Sep 13, 2007, 23:03
 
I tried it on my brand new Dell H2c 710 and 90% of my software did'nt work (even those with 'patches') it was slow, clunky..I guess my duel Gtx8800's weren't up to the task either.

8.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:14
8.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:14
Sep 13, 2007, 23:14
 
This is total BS. So far games that are Dx10 have run WORSE in Dx10 mode on a 8x nvidia card under Vista then they do with the same hardware in Dx9 mode and WinXP! This is just M$ trying to get people to switch by putting artificial limits on non-vista users.

I personally duel-boot vista an xp. Vista runs to much software like shit for me to rely on it completely.

This comment was edited on Sep 13, 23:16.
Avatar 17499
9.
 
sniff sniff
Sep 13, 2007, 23:16
9.
sniff sniff Sep 13, 2007, 23:16
Sep 13, 2007, 23:16
 
I smell horse shit.

10.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:23
Tom
10.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:23
Sep 13, 2007, 23:23
Tom
 
Wow, this really makes no technical sense at all. These limits come off as totally artificial. Nice try with the spin there, Crytek.

11.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:28
11.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:28
Sep 13, 2007, 23:28
 
I can buy a dx 10 card that will give me fewer fps than in dx 9 mode on the same dx 10 card.

Having dx 10 card doesn't mean you have lots of RAM and a fast processor.

They are splitting the MP community. Is crytek and MS one company or have they been paid to artificially put in limits to make dx 10 and thus vista more attractive?

12.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:39
12.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:39
Sep 13, 2007, 23:39
 
Wouldn't really be fair to DX9 users who can't see that the terrain has been altered.

So alter the terrain for them in a non-fancy way that gets the job done.

13.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:45
13.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:45
Sep 13, 2007, 23:45
 
Unbelievable.

14.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:46
14.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:46
Sep 13, 2007, 23:46
 
Considering several of the techs found in the Dx10 edition but not the Dx9 edition, such as alpha-to-coverage (basically anti-aliasing of foliage, shrubs, etc, one of the reasons it looks so crisp and clear,) we've been told is a Dx10 tech that's not in the Dx9 edition because it's not possible. An example of this is the Dx9/Dx10 comparison video found on gametrailers.com. You can see a very clear difference in the foliage and shrubbery between the two.

Thing is, Valve has introduced this same tech into the Source engine for Episode 2 because Ep2 takes place out in the natural world, not in the city. But whats this? The EP2 engine upgrade isn't a Dx10 only thing? Thats right.. for Valves game it seams, alpha-to-coverage is entirely possible in Dx9!

So yea, it's probably M$ heavily funding Crytek to put certain lovely new techs in the Dx10 version of the game to make it look a bunch better, when in reality, you they could be doing the same exact thing in Dx9.

Oh and the whole 'there is no day/night cycle because Dx9 hardware wouldn't be able to handle it in a multiplayer environment.' Who the f' do they think they are kidding here?

This comment was edited on Sep 13, 23:47.
Avatar 17499
15.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:46
15.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:46
Sep 13, 2007, 23:46
 
Just get vista you tightarse bitches and quit whining.

Avatar 19028
16.
 
No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:48
16.
No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:48
Sep 13, 2007, 23:48
 
Yeah this doesn't make sense. My computer can't play Supreme Commander with all options on, but I still have all the options available to me. So why isn't physics and day/night an option and you select it at your own risk?

There are people out there with smokin quad core xp machines and a pair of $500 SLI vid cards...

http://www.bandega.com - Never miss a show again
17.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:51
17.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:51
Sep 13, 2007, 23:51
 
Yea, Valve is saying Dx10 isn't necessary yet, you can still do everything in Dx9. Id is now saying the same thing. The only real difference is that it's much simpler and easier to program for Dx10 now because it's, basically not nearly as 'cluttered' as Dx9 is.

But the difference in graphics programing capability is practically non-existent. Dx10 utilizes the GPU for things like Physics a lot more then Dx9 does. That's about it.

Avatar 17499
18.
 
Vista/DX10
Sep 13, 2007, 23:51
18.
Vista/DX10 Sep 13, 2007, 23:51
Sep 13, 2007, 23:51
 
I am a die hard PC gamer and I am one of those suckers who usually buy something when it's the latest and greatest. I have hundreds of PC shooters that I've bought throughout the years and I tend to keep my hard drive packed up with many games installed at once. I recently upgraded to Vista and got myself a DX10 card and I have ZERO complaints about it! I must have over 50 games installed (fron Doom1 to MoH Airborn) and they all run fantastic on my machine. I have noticed no performance loss between this machine and the machines I run XP on.
I look forward to new games taking advantage of DX10 finally, and the more games that do it the faster the whiners will upgrade.

All I'm saying is Vista will be the norm soon, DEAL WITH IT! If you want to experience your gaming with DX10 features than bite the bullet and give into it. If you want to continue to use DX9 and bitch about DX10 and Vista go ahead, where is it getting you?

When all thats left is console gaming, I will game no more."
"When all thats left is console gaming, I will game no more."
Avatar 16493
19.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 13, 2007, 23:55
19.
Re: No subject Sep 13, 2007, 23:55
Sep 13, 2007, 23:55
 
if having to upgrade to vista to play a game that is not compromised due to consoles, and appealing to kiddie gamers, vista is a small price to pay.

screw consoles, they are killing PC gaming faster then Vista/dx10/M$. If this supports companies that are making PC games and ONLY PC games I'm all for it.

20.
 
No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 00:03
20.
No subject Sep 14, 2007, 00:03
Sep 14, 2007, 00:03
 
OK, I'm lost. Every benchmark I've ever seen comparing DX9 and DX10 shows a marked slowdown in DX10(/Vista). So they're saying that only the systems that have this crippled performance will have the fancy schmancy options available to them, while the people with better performance on DX9/XP will have to do without, for performance reasons?

Am I the only one that thinks the devs have it completely backwards?

107 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
Older [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Newer