Official Crysis Demo thread

martin9887 said:
Well my brother is running it at medium settings on Pentium 4, Radeon X800Pro, 1GB DDR, 40-25 FPS (25 is fights and stuff).
Click to expand...

thats great news...i should be able to install it on my sons comp too then when i get his graphics card back.
my point was that the recommended spec is hardly ever accurate and i dont see why so many people are creating a fuss over it...if it doesnt run on the recommended spec then its hardly the first time its ever happened.
 
Think I’m going to buck the trend a bit and say this is a great game; I’m not entirely sure what some people were expecting (the second coming or something) but if you stop looking for something that changes the world and just play it like a game it’s quality. So what if it doesn’t run at ludicrous resolutions with everything on ultra max mind blowing detail, just knock it back until it’s playable and enjoy.

Remember that games are supposed to be fun and not to make you depressed about your PC. Fun, remember that??




.
 
Ewanb75 said:
tn_Crysis.jpg


Plays on high in my sig:D. Tried the CVAR and was a slide show :confused:
Click to expand...

there are atleast a couple of versions of that cvar thing.
out of the 2 i tried...one looks great and runs great....the other is a bit ott with the hdr and runs slower.

i thought it was just very high replacing high but i guess atleast in 1 of them there is more too it than that.
 
Just use 2xAA then, it hardly kills performance. It's a lot more nice with AA but without it, it's still very nice and the jaggies aren't really 'in your face all over'.
 
memory said:
you can run it on maximum settings(minus the AA) with a single 8800......just not on Vista lol.

btw since when did anybody believe the recommended spec? its not like recommended specs have ever been realistic in games.
Click to expand...

Vista 64 1920X1200 everything on very high, around 30 fps
 
Well, just to make you guys feel better about your rigs...

On my laptop - 2.0 c2d, 8600m GT (DDR2 256mb), 2 gig ram, Vista; It plays pretty well at 1024 x 640 (It's only a 15.4 screen which helps a lot), everything on medium bar shaders which are on high. No AA though, that kills performance and jaggies are only really noticable on wide open views... Running it in DX9 too. I have no idea of the FPS, but it plays damn well so I don't care :D

I'd post a screenie but I'm guessing I'd get a load of "that looks rubbish" so I wont bother haha.
 
Im using VERY old drivers atm. I dont have the internet at home due to an ISP change. Crysis at 1680*1050 everything on very high post pro on high 2xAA runs SWEET! no fps lag looks amazing. I will have the net tomorrow at home fingers crossed and post some pics (Its running in window mode I belive) slows down a TAD when in fullscreen

I have 6850C2D 8800GTX super clocked @ stock 2gig mem vista 32bit

Not sure 100% about FPS but looks amazing and if im getting 20-25fps then it dont seem like it! it runs beautiful !!

edit - I cant see any jaggies either.
 
Last edited:
Chronictank said:
Generic , Crytek told people that this engine would bring current HW to its knees, just like Far Cry did back in the day...
Click to expand...
The did fail to mention it would look ***** on the current hardware though didnt they ;)

Anything below 40-50fps is ***** imo, so in order to achieve this even on a GTX (as sli isn't supported) you are forced to play on low/medium for descent frame rates
Doesn't matter how you cut it, thats just poor

Farcry was playable at a level of graphics which for the time were on the par to pretty good depending on your hardware, so i wish people would stop bringing it up as its not the same at all. Farcry was ok for the time AND had future potential, Crysis isn't even on the par at the moment. I hope they bring some drastic performance boost measures and fixes for release, i have cancelled my pre-order personally to see how this pans out as in general i can only play a game once through

/end rant
Click to expand...
If you are going to quote me word for word, at least have the manners to attribute it... ;)

I really dont get why people are so bent out of shape over the general performance.

Perhaps thats because from using the Sandbox 2 for the last year, I was trying within the confines of the NDA to warn people not to expect too much in terms of levels from current HW...

Apart from wanting to keep my current rig intact for Beta Testing OE2 (specifically so we can support the lower end of the rig spectrum) its the very reason Ive sat on my £2K upgrade nest egg all year; waiting for the next gen GPU and CPUs to support a next gen engine...

There are definately some performace issues with the demo; my laptop runs it like a dog, but Crytek and their partners are sure to address them. If i can get 25fps on mostly medium with an AMD4000, 1GB and a 7800GTX in XP64, then once the are resolved the experience for high end HW should be stunning, even if you cant run flat out with all settings maxed.

Compare Crysis on medium with other games at max, for me I havent seen a better loooking game out there, and I happen to really like the way the SP plays...

Then again I'm a Crytek fanboi...
Figure they should be paying me for propganda posting like this :p

As an after thought, now perhaps its more clear why they havent included DX10.1 features as discussed here.
 
Last edited:
The jaggies are very distracting at 1280*1024 but it is one of those things you don't notice at first, until you search for them and when you found them you notice them more and more, but in this game I'd rather have more detail than having to run in medium with 2xFSAA and even then 2xFSAA is rubbish.

This is also the reason I did not go searching for dead pixels on my 40" 1080p LCD as I just know I will be looking for the dead pixel when watching.
 
Finally got finished playing it, I tend not to bother playing demos of games I am certain to buy, same reason I played like 4-5 games on UT3. Enough has been mentioned about graphics and performance, and I honestly can't be bothered getting into that. Crytek has made it clear that Crysis is pushing the tech out just now pretty much as far as it can go, and the game is just going to look and perform better as newer tech comes out.

Anyway, what I was pleased with was how fun the game is to play, I had roughly an hour or so on the save when I finished the game and I'm not sure if that included all the time I spent messing around. It's so much fun to just try the same setpiece over and over and do something different each time, run at the stealth, grab an enemy, switch to strength and then throw them through a building. Or you could play it slower and pick them off from a safe distance, or if you want spend the whole demo just punching trees. I think the demo has proved that there is more to Crysis than just the tech.

Plus it has the best game editor I've ever seen.
 
ive been running it on high @1280x1024 8AA and its running great, very playable and next to know slowdowns, getting a new monitor tomorrow so will see how it runs at 1680x1050.

did stick everything on very high and AA up too full but was next to unplayable lol but beautiful :P

looking forward to this coming out, i just hope its as long if not longer than farcry was, if its only 10 hours game play im gonna be a bit annoyed. although in an interiew they were saying it would take 15-20 hours to complete if u did all the side missions and about 10 hours if u went straight from point to point.
 
CuZ said:
If you are going to quote me word for word, at least have the manners to attribute it... ;)

I really dont get why people are so bent out of shape over the general performance.

Perhaps thats because from using the Sandbox 2 for the last year, I was trying within the confines of the NDA to warn people not to expect too much in terms of levels from current HW...

Apart from wanting to keep my current rig intact for Beta Testing OE2 (specifically so we can support the lower end of the rig spectrum) its the very reason Ive sat on my £2K upgrade nest egg all year; waiting for the next gen GPU and CPUs to support a next gen engine...

There are definately some performace issues with the demo; my laptop runs it like a dog, but Crytek and their partners are sure to address them. If i can get 25fps on mostly medium with an AMD4000, 1GB and a 7800GTX in XP64, then once the are resolved the experience for high end HW should be stunning, even if you cant run flat out with all settings maxed.

Compare Crysis on medium with other games at max, for me I havent seen a better loooking game out there, and I happen to really like the way the SP plays...

Then again I'm a Crytek fanboi...
Figure they should be paying me for propganda posting like this :p

As an after thought, now perhaps its more clear why they havent included DX10.1 features as discussed here.
Click to expand...
no intention of being impolite, didn't want to pick you out as you said it in another thread and wa sintended as a general statement rather than one from a specific person, was just the easiest post to hand at the time :p

The reason i am miffed is because i expected a dx10 game, not a dx9 one
In order to play with dx10 you need vista, from the posts here vista users are getting horrible performance compared to xp (i also experienced the same when i fired up xp last night, the difference is very noticable).
I didnt expect to play it at widescreen resolutions with everything maxed out at all, it was never a secret it was going to be a resource hog.
I did however expect to play it at dx10 buy sacrificing some resolution or AA, but keep a quality which is at least on the par to other games.
Yet even at 1280 i find it horribly jumpy, and unplayable when you are in intense combat situations
So it means tone down the gfx, i had to go to medium before i got a frame rate which i was satisfied with (vista), and it looked simply horrible even with AA and AF applied via the nvidia panel.
The blow lessened by the hack for xp which means you get away with high,
Yes i am one of those people who want to play a game as the developers intended you to see it

I know its a early demo, but i really cant see much changing between now and the release as it is so close, but who knows thye might pull it off in the crunch time which is why i cancelled my pre-order and am waiting to see how it pans out
 
Chronictank said:
Yet even at 1280 i find it horribly jumpy, and unplayable when you are in intense combat situations
So it means tone down the gfx, i had to go to medium before i got a frame rate which i was satisfied with (vista), and it looked simply horrible even with AA and AF applied via the nvidia panel.
The blow lessened by the hack for xp which means you get away with high,
Click to expand...
Yes, by the time you are done lowering detail to run 1280*1024, 4xAA, 16xAF the game looks far less impressive, it just doesn't look special anymore.

So it is either run at good IQ but lousy framerate, run at high settings without FSAA which is also painful in places or run at medium with FSAA/AF and it looks normal and still isn't a really good framerate.

Fingers crossed the demo code is actually quite old and Crytek managed to increase performance between this build and the final code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom