The ONE AND ONLY ***OFFICIAL*** Crysis thread - SPOILERS!
- Thread starter vincent1989
- Start date
Cool 
I always turn the fps killers down even before loading the game anyway. Anything dynamic usually gets turned off or low, as do shadows and lighting and the dreaded 'post-processing'. Usually all i seek as a half decent texure setting so that everything looks pretty good all round.
Think i'll tell him i'l have it
I always turn the fps killers down even before loading the game anyway. Anything dynamic usually gets turned off or low, as do shadows and lighting and the dreaded 'post-processing'. Usually all i seek as a half decent texure setting so that everything looks pretty good all round.
Think i'll tell him i'l have it
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 1,873
How would you expect it to run on:
x2 3800 @ 2.7
2GB RAM
x1950 Pro 512mb
Windows XP SP3 RC1
I'm not one for having all the visuals on. I can happily run without AA and AF (even though i know that would be totally unrealistic with my system) and with low settings as most of the time it still looks great.
Would the gameplay make up for this?
My friend stupidly bought this the other week for his 3 year old pre-built system. Only had a FX5700
He's offered it me for a tenner so just wondering if its worth it.
I played it on high everything with 16 x aa in xp 1650x1050 and it used 1.3 gb ram and between 30-50% cpu much less than I expected after all the moaning I've been hearing ! No stuttering at all ,unlike oblivion and stalker,so if you can play those games your be fine !
You cant of played with 16xAA, it wont be playable with anything over 4xAA, infact all high, 1680x1050, 2xAA it would be choppy in places.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 1,873
what ever you say
Whats with the rolleyes? Its a fact you were not running at 16xAA, its not possible on current hardware!!
he probably made a typo, 16x AF (anistropic filtering) is probably what he ment. i doubt anyone would be stupid enough to purposly say they ran it at 16x AA (anti-aliasing) at high settings at 1680 rez and got playable fps.
I dont even think all medium 16xAA would be smooth, I guess 800x600, some things medium, some things high it might, but AA in NVCP dont even work as far as I knew and in game it only goes up to 8x, the Crysis benchmark does have 16xAA thought but I would never dream of trying it, I might later on.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
I cant even install the dam disk. Just ticks in my dvd drive. Its the special edition and the other disk reads fine.
??
??
yeah mine does that. you just have to be patient.
mine made some funny noises initially, just left it and eventually it started to install. still happens when i put the disc in once the pc has booted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
I was waiting 10 mins. It was never gonna happen. I downloaded a patch that makes my NEC drive write Dual Layer disks and it read it fine afterwards.
If thats any help to anyone.
If thats any help to anyone.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 1,873
tell me where you got this fact from !
maybe not in vista but its a fact that is what I'm running it at on xp !
The fact is the game will tank and tank obscenely at 16xaa, 4xaa on most systems at high res is barely playable. If you are somehow magically running at 16xaa you must also be running at 800x600 with everything set to low, 16xaa on high settings at a hi res is NOT playable yet (not even on sli systems) and thats all there is to it.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 1,873
says who
says who
Says anyone thats played the damn game, with the magical exception of one person who is claiming to play the game with settings that no current computer can handle. Let me ask you this, if you were somehow running with 16xaa on high settings do you think there would be even half the amount of posts criticising the performance of the game?
With 16x aa on you could probably back it down to 4xaa and get a constant 60fps through the game. You are claiming performance that is impossible with the hardware available today.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 May 2004
- Posts
- 4,669
Says me who owns same spec system as you (sept for 2gb ram) and tried 16xaa and it ran like poo.
Even 2xAA at 1680x1050 all high on my rig is pretty bad.
Spitfir3 are you trying to use in game AA? Motion Blur is Post Process.
I would put £1,000,000 on that you are not running at 16xAA, as people have said, its impossible, even at 4xAA it wont be smooth, also you should know if you had 16xAA the memory usage could possibly be over 768mb.
And if you still are trying to tell yourself you are running at 16xAA, then post some full size screenshots for us all to see, prefrebly with fraps on.
Oh open comman console too by pressing ¬` key, and type in the r_displayinfo=1 command and do screenshots with that.
Spitfir3 are you trying to use in game AA? Motion Blur is Post Process.
I would put £1,000,000 on that you are not running at 16xAA
, as people have said, its impossible, even at 4xAA it wont be smooth, also you should know if you had 16xAA the memory usage could possibly be over 768mb.And if you still are trying to tell yourself you are running at 16xAA, then post some full size screenshots for us all to see, prefrebly with fraps on.
Oh open comman console too by pressing ¬` key, and type in the r_displayinfo=1 command and do screenshots with that.
even at 800x600 it wont be much good with 16xaa too.
Last edited: