Official Crysis Demo thread

Delvis · 30 Oct 2007 at 12:59

You people make me laugh.

On my rig thats like over a year old or more...Can't even remmeber now I got it that long ago, crysis run's fine, I first left it on the autodetected setting's (which is medium) It ran fine...

I then upped it to high, it ran fine.

Stop moaning, and play the game, if it's running pants, lower the resoloution fgs. Or buy better hardware if your that fussed about the framerates your getting.

Are you not surprised the games stuttering? At the resoloutions some of your are playing at I'm not surprised at all.

It's a pre-release demo, there's thing's called patches, nearly every game has them. (See that..."Nearly", I say nearly cause I know not every game has had a patch)

Probably get quoted to buggery here but hey, I just find it highly amusing

Each to they're own.

Dutch Guy · 30 Oct 2007 at 13:38

Delvis said:
I then upped it to high, it ran fine.

I guess what you call fine isn't fine by someone else his standards, what resolution are you using?

helmutcheese · 30 Oct 2007 at 13:49

Makes me laugh even more that some peeps are happy to be sold BS by the Crysis CEO ( I have posted all over forums) and then it cant run on specs even higher than he said at the given RES's + Settings.

I still hope the PRE Release Demo was buggy and will be ok by final or a patch or 2 soon after or a lot of peeps quite rightly will be fuming at Crysis and Cevat Yeril.

It would have been better if he simply said it will run like crap on your current high end PC's at the current settings you are used to playing at.

Robert · 30 Oct 2007 at 13:59

It wasn't buggy for me. Also what the **** is BS? It has ALWAYS been said that the engine is designed to make use of future hardware.

What can't you grasp? Also from what I've read the multithreading isn't on in the demo, although I could be wrong.

Adam Senior · 30 Oct 2007 at 14:03

How on earth do i run the benchmark in this demo? Im stumped.

helmutcheese · 30 Oct 2007 at 14:06

Whats cant you grasp ?, you aint read any of the interviews going by your lack on knowledge on subject.

The Game has code burried deep in it that can be brought to use in later years by means of PATCHES, it is not made today in its current state for PC parts that aint invented yet.

Maximum PC - Cevat Yerli Crysis Interview
Maximum PC magazine published a technology focused Crysis interview with Crytek CEO and President Cevat Yerli on their October 2007 issue. Below is a short summary of the main topics from the one-page interview. Thanks to littlecheez9 for this!

- The game physics in Crysis will be handled by the CPU only so there will be no GPU or PhysX PPU aided physics acceleration.
- What comes to digital distribution Crysis will not be available on services such as Steam but on EA Link (EA Store).
- Crysis is highly optimized for both single-core and multi-core CPUs.
- The benefit from having multi-core CPUs will only be better performance i.e. higher and smoother frame rates.
- Cevat believes that GeForce 8800 GTS or Radeon 2900 will be good for running Crysis at 1280 resolutions on maximum settings but for 1600x1200 or higher you'll need faster hardware."

http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?op...sk=view&id=456 "

So if a 8800GTS with 1280x *** (your res 4:3 or such) can MAX the game ( He actually said a 8600GTS at Mid RES and High settings in a previous interview AFAIR) what can a 8800GTX/Ultra do with it ?.

You want to go to that URL, then come back and argue black is white ?.

You can go and Google every interview (latest being OCT) and read for yourself all along what he has been saying and it now looks BS unless the DEMO is majory buggy.

Ther you go, same as one of other interviews, the game uses more CPU than GPU, in other interviews he replied to a Q and said in order of importance its 1) CPU, then 2) GPU then 3) Memory.

Now as users inc myself are finding the game is not uses the 2 or 4 cores well or even maxing 1 core to near 100%, that could be reason it runs bad, although you can change CPU Prio to High or Realtime and it will run a bit better.

Random_23 · 30 Oct 2007 at 14:09

Robert said:
It wasn't buggy for me. Also what the **** is BS? It has ALWAYS been said that the engine is designed to make use of future hardware.

What can't you grasp? Also from what I've read the multithreading isn't on in the demo, although I could be wrong.

Agreed 100%. Not buggy for me and runs fine on very high and I welcome knowing what I will be able to use new hardware for! how do you expect to play it at silly res (i play at 1680*1050) with 16x AA with a yr old card?

Adam Senior · 30 Oct 2007 at 14:10

How do i benchmark crysis>?

helmutcheese · 30 Oct 2007 at 14:11

Adam Senior said:
How on earth do i run the benchmark in this demo? Im stumped.

You wander into the Games install DIR and go into the Bin86 or Bin64 Folder.

Example : C:\Program Files (x86)\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis SP Demo\Bin64

Then you see "Benchmark_CPU.bat" and "Benchmark_GPU.bat"

helmutcheese · 30 Oct 2007 at 14:13

Random_23 said:
Agreed 100%. Not buggy for me and runs fine on very high and I welcome knowing what I will be able to use new hardware for! how do you expect to play it at silly res (i play at 1680*1050) with 16x AA with a yr old card?

Because if you read the CEO's interviews you will see it was to run on them, the hint in here :

" Cevat believes that GeForce 8800 GTS or Radeon 2900 will be good for running Crysis at 1280 resolutions on maximum settings but for 1600x1200 or higher you'll need faster hardware "

Now you decide whats faster hardware than a 8800 GTS or Radeon 2900.

mohawk · 30 Oct 2007 at 14:15

well looks like theres some new drivers now, 169.04 released today,

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_169.04.html

Random_23 · 30 Oct 2007 at 14:16

He dont state what hardware though your just assuming, and you know what assuming is ? If it said you need a onboard video card for 800*600 but would need a 8800GTX to run at 1680*1050 or higher then fair play! but it dont your argument has more floors

than a hotel

martin9887 · 30 Oct 2007 at 14:16

The GTS can run the game, Cevat Yerli never said anything about it will be ''playable'' at those resolution with those settings, but in actual fact it is quite playable.

Everyones view of it being playable will be different. For me pesonally, it's perfectly playable with 20FPS, gets a little choppy when it drops though.

Chronictank · 30 Oct 2007 at 14:25

Delvis said:
You people make me laugh.

On my rig thats like over a year old or more...Can't even remmeber now I got it that long ago, crysis run's fine, I first left it on the autodetected setting's (which is medium) It ran fine...

I then upped it to high, it ran fine.

Stop moaning, and play the game, if it's running pants, lower the resoloution fgs. Or buy better hardware if your that fussed about the framerates your getting.

Are you not surprised the games stuttering? At the resoloutions some of your are playing at I'm not surprised at all.

It's a pre-release demo, there's thing's called patches, nearly every game has them. (See that..."Nearly", I say nearly cause I know not every game has had a patch)

Probably get quoted to buggery here but hey, I just find it highly amusing

Each to they're own.

It's funny how you put spin on things
The hardware may be a year old but it is the fastest available today
Why is it so difficult for you to fathom that the game looks rubbish when the settings are lowered sufficiently to make it playable, therefore graphically TODAY (when it counts) it is rubbish
That is mine, and a lot of people here's gripe.
Resolutions and settings are irrelevant, if it looked ok by todays standard on todays hardware the ability to max out the game is a non-issue but that is not the case.

20fps is not playable for me personally, that is pretty much crawling.
And the mouse lag is appauling when you are near the edge of the limit

silversurfer · 30 Oct 2007 at 14:48

The gameplay doesnt appeal to you, I dont believe the graphics is 'why I wont play this' or you'd never have played any games in years previous to this.

Reminds me of a 10yr old who wont eat his chips without ketchup, god help the industry if thats who they have to win over to sell a game

Jakus · 30 Oct 2007 at 15:03

There must be other factors here, I can play at 1920x1200 with a single X1950XTX patched with High res at High (XP DX9) in the 20fps average and all is quite smooth (not perfect but very good)
My crossfire runs with graphical problems but it will put it in the 50fps av frame rates

Most of You guys have 8800 cards on a game optimised more for nvidia than ATI . with more power than the trusty X1900xt should have better performance ! IT must be other issues like background programs or slow drives ( some idiot pooh pooh raid the other day) but this game is using lots of swap file , for the people with problems it could be an area they need to look into....worth a try

Robert · 30 Oct 2007 at 15:22

JAKUS said:
There must be other factors here, I can play at 1920x1200 with a single X1950XTX patched with High res at High (XP DX9) in the 20fps average and all is quite smooth (not perfect but very good)
My crossfire runs with graphical problems but it will put it in the 50fps av frame rates

Most of You guys have 8800 cards on a game optimised more for nvidia than ATI . with more power than the trusty X1900xt should have better performance ! IT must be other issues like background programs or slow drives ( some idiot pooh pooh raid the other day) but this game is using lots of swap file , for the people with problems it could be an area they need to look into....worth a try

Or you may not be getting 20fps

Dutch Guy · 30 Oct 2007 at 15:40

JAKUS said:
There must be other factors here, I can play at 1920x1200 with a single X1950XTX patched with High res at High (XP DX9) in the 20fps average and all is quite smooth (not perfect but very good)
My crossfire runs with graphical problems but it will put it in the 50fps av frame rates

Did you measure the fps with FRAPS or a console code or are you guessing?

It isn't a disk problem as I have a RAID0 array and I don't see a lot of harddrive activity, I have also disabled a lot of services in XP so that's not it either.

helmutcheese · 30 Oct 2007 at 15:54

Random_23 said:
He dont state what hardware though your just assuming, and you know what assuming is ? If it said you need a onboard video card for 800*600 but would need a 8800GTX to run at 1680*1050 or higher then fair play! but it dont your argument has more floors than a hotel

And your clueless, the info in infront of you and you still cant see it.

If a 8800GTS can play it at 1280X*** and MAX settings according to him, then he does not need mention by name or model the "Higher Cards" needed to play at 1600x1200 as you should know what cards are higher than a 8800GTS.

The fact remains a GTX and Ultra struggle at the 1280x *** RES and MAX settings he just claimed thats a GTS should run.

Now he did not mention FPS but we assume he is talking about the game being playable not 10FPS (common sence)

Mansize_tissue · 30 Oct 2007 at 16:02

helmutcheese said:
And your clueless, the info in infront of you and you still cant see it.

If a 8800GTS can play it at 1280X*** and MAX settings according to him, then he does not need mention by name or model the "Higher Cards" needed to play at 1600x1200 as you should know what cards are higher than a 8800GTS.

The fact remains a GTX and Ultra struggle at the 1280x *** RES and MAX settings he just claimed thats a GTS should run.

Now he did not mention FPS but we assume he is talking about the game being playable not 10FPS (common sence)

But, you do realise that the game hasn't even been released yet and much can change in terms of drivers and patches in the future, right?