Yeah very few people could finish the last level in DX10 model. Everyone with 64bit had to revert to DX9 for most of the aircraft carrier sequences.
Crysis 2 PC edition OT
- Thread starter Neb
- Start date
Yeah very few people could finish the last level in DX10 model. Everyone with 64bit had to revert to DX9 for most of the aircraft carrier sequences.
That's because quite a few things were not really rendered correctly in Dx9, for example the object motion blur was just a hack in Dx9 compared to the actual implementation in Dx10, I even remember there being a difference in the way they did the particles. I don't exactly recall them though, Nebula would do a better job explaining it.
EDIT: Come to think of it I do think the OMB implementation in Crysis 2 is incorrect as well, the object will get blurred both ways regardless of it moving left or right instead of leaving something like a trail, the most noticeable example of this is your gun sight, just take a look at how the green dot at the end of your gun barrel gets blurred when you turn. This one time I threw this box and saw that the object was still 'blurred' for half a second even after it stopped moving.
The lighting in Crysis 2 is far superior. As for POM, in Crysis 1 you had the limitation of AF while using POM, who knows if they have an issue with their implementation of lighting or something else. Yes Crysis 2 is a step back in some areas but to claim that its a step back in every area is just a moot argument.
EDIT: Come to think of it I do think the OMB implementation in Crysis 2 is incorrect as well, the object will get blurred both ways regardless of it moving left or right instead of leaving something like a trail, the most noticeable example of this is your gun sight, just take a look at how the green dot at the end of your gun barrel gets blurred when you turn. This one time I threw this box and saw that the object was still 'blurred' for half a second even after it stopped moving.
Oh come on !
The lighting in Crysis 2 is far superior. As for POM, in Crysis 1 you had the limitation of AF while using POM, who knows if they have an issue with their implementation of lighting or something else. Yes Crysis 2 is a step back in some areas but to claim that its a step back in every area is just a moot argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm playing the carrier level now in DX10 on Win7 64bit. Maybe the stability I'm seeing is down to later patching as suggested earlier in the thread. I'm certainly seeing no issues though.
I dunno, outdoors it probably is but some of the indoor lighting in Crysis is stunning. I'm thinking in particular the mines and the carrier levels. Some stunning real time lighting and soft shadowing effects there.
While I appreciate AF a lot, the POM adds so much to Crysis that it's the clear winner IMO in an either/or situation.
Not that I think there's any value to comparing hand selected textures from completely unrelated areas of two games but those textures all look significantly better than that C2 texture to my eyes. Especially the third one, looks bloody good!
OMB is not present in Crysis DX9, though it can be forced with a console command. And you are right it is very buggy. This is the only visual difference I am aware of between DX9 and 10, if Very High settings are forced in DX9.
But DX10 mode still runs slower even if you disable OMB.
Regarding stability, the only times I've ever managed to crash Crysis were due to GPU overclocking. On my old 8800GT (which is now dead) Crysis would give me trouble with even mild overclocks when other games would show no issues. Of course I don't fault the game for that.
Playing on the medium difficulty (soldier?) and the AI is pretty bad. Fire a missile at a truck, killing 3 guys making a big mess, and another truck and 3 guys only a few meters away just stand around..
Is it worth restarting on a higher difficulty to get the AI more active? I'm on the FDR highway.
Is it worth restarting on a higher difficulty to get the AI more active? I'm on the FDR highway.
+99
BTW, BF3 wont be any different:
http://videos.pcgameshardware.de/hdvideo/1982/Battlefield-3-Fault-Line-Episode-III
Well, we can allway's play some Oblivion we mods
BTW, BF3 wont be any different:
http://videos.pcgameshardware.de/hdvideo/1982/Battlefield-3-Fault-Line-Episode-III
Well, we can allway's play some Oblivion we mods
Techspot has produced a thorough article on GPU/CPU performance in Crysis 2.
If their results are to be believed, in Crysis 2 the GTX 580 is heavily CPU bound even on Extreme quality @ 1920x1200:
2600K 3.4GHz = 79 fps
Q6600 2,4GHz = 41 fps
E8500 3,16GHz = 23 fps
Any thoughts on why this is happening? Usually as texture quality and resolution go up, games become GPU-bound and it doesn't really matter what the CPU is. I don't know of any other game so CPU-bound at these settings ...
If their results are to be believed, in Crysis 2 the GTX 580 is heavily CPU bound even on Extreme quality @ 1920x1200:
2600K 3.4GHz = 79 fps
Q6600 2,4GHz = 41 fps
E8500 3,16GHz = 23 fps
Any thoughts on why this is happening? Usually as texture quality and resolution go up, games become GPU-bound and it doesn't really matter what the CPU is. I don't know of any other game so CPU-bound at these settings ...
"Crysis 2 fully utilizes four cores and is seemingly unplayable on dual-core processors."
Unless hardcore mode is massively CPU limited - it may be, I haven't tried running it on very low res - this is absolute nonsense. I'm running this on a AMD X2 215 (2.7ghz Athlon X2 basically), with a 5570.
At least with respect to High & Very High settings, I'm completely GPU bound. On high it's very rare to dip below 30fps at 1360x768, usually I'm hovering around 35-40fps with 4X forced aniso from the ATI control panel, higher in indoor sections.
Even on very high, if I drop down to 1024x768 I'm coming close to 60fps. An E8500 at 3.16 ghz actually benches faster than my CPU from results I've seen, so their results don't make a lick of sense unless extreme really pushes everything back on the CPU. Crysis2 is far from CPU limited IME.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
At a guess perhaps a lot of their lighting calculations are done on CPU? GI has to be fairly taxing otherwise everyone would be doing it.
Regards,
SB
That's not quite the case. The GTX 590 is CPU bound until about 3Ghz on a 2600K. Its completely CPU bound on slower CPU's but then it is the fastest dual GPU solution available.
The 580 would be GPU limited on much slower CPU's.
Sounds like complete nonsense comment from that article as my E8400@3.6GHz runs it near 60fps at "high", avg 40-50fps at "very high" and mostly 20-30fps at "ultra extreme" (tweaked beyond "extreme"). I am GPU bound in most cases.
