Crysis 2 - Discussion Thread
- Thread starter pavasedge
- Start date
Here is a summary. Short and to the point.
Introduction - Crysis 2 DX11 Tessellation & High-Res Texture Pack | [H]ard|OCP
Introduction - Crysis 2 DX11 Tessellation & High-Res Texture Pack | [H]ard|OCP
jc36lect3r
Skilled
These are closing comments from the above article
comp@ddict
Skilled
This is the only part that counts from HARDOCP's article.
"FAIL"
They should have added MAXIMUM, bah! never mind
"FAIL"
They should have added MAXIMUM, bah! never mind
I am not claiming to be an expert or anything, but the HARDOCP article seems very unfair. Note that I am only commenting about the graphical updates and not on the other more important issues that the game has like the patch install and various issues with MP. Most people are of the view that though the "visual quality" of the game has certainly improved but it is all subtle changes and nothing drastic, but the performance hit is "way too disproportional". This statement is most probably true, but I do not think most people who have made this statement really know what it means! Remember, a seemingly small and subtle change, which is hardly noticeable, improves the visual quality only slightly, but it may require heck of a lot of computation resources to achieve. As far as I know, no one has rigorously defined the term "visual quality" and how to measure it, but for argument sake we may assume there is a way to measure it. The claim being made by many people is that if Crysis 2 DX9 is "100" in our measurement, then Crysis 2 +hi-res patch + DX11 is something like "110". But most people expect performance to be only 10-20% or so lesser! It just might be impossible to introduce these small subtle changes without a massive performance drop. One should not assume that just because these changes are small the performance drop is going to be equally small. Of course, by my argument one can defend any game which is unoptimized, but it is still valid till some other game developers show that the same effects can be achieved in a much more optimized way. For instance GTA IV is one of those games. There are games whose visual quality is much better than GTA IV and run much better also. Something tells me that BF3 is not going to be the game that exposes Crytek. From the rumours on tech forums, it looks like it is going to be the most demanding PC game ever.
People should also remember that DX11 is very new compared to DX9. In theory for the same visual quality DX11 should perform better, but it might take time before the developers learn how to use it effectively. Blizzard have already taken advantage of it in WOW improving the performance by 30%. Since Crytek were focussing on the consoles, there developers might not be fully acquainted with DX11 yet. Hopefully Crytek will do some optimizations and improve performance in the next few patches.
People should also remember that DX11 is very new compared to DX9. In theory for the same visual quality DX11 should perform better, but it might take time before the developers learn how to use it effectively. Blizzard have already taken advantage of it in WOW improving the performance by 30%. Since Crytek were focussing on the consoles, there developers might not be fully acquainted with DX11 yet. Hopefully Crytek will do some optimizations and improve performance in the next few patches.
jc36lect3r
Skilled
^^ As they say, there are two ways of becoming famous.....
comp@ddict
Skilled
Infected said:
True that, it took me 5 hours to download all the 3 patches, 5 minutes to install all of them(texture pack took 3 minutes)asingh said:
Patch 1.9 is too good man.
At 19x10 Extreme with Dx 11 I get 20-40% more FPS approx, like 60-80 is avg now.
However, I prefer to play at 14x9 Everything Ultra (Motion blur max) but Post Processing at Extreme. And I avg 55-60+ with occasional dips below 50 and rarely below 40-45. It looks much much better at Ultra even at a much lower rez, and the performance isn't bad either, however, not as good of course!
At 19x10 Extreme with Dx 11 I get 20-40% more FPS approx, like 60-80 is avg now.
However, I prefer to play at 14x9 Everything Ultra (Motion blur max) but Post Processing at Extreme. And I avg 55-60+ with occasional dips below 50 and rarely below 40-45. It looks much much better at Ultra even at a much lower rez, and the performance isn't bad either, however, not as good of course!
gamingstill
Adept
they are developing separately for PC,360 and PS 3 and all of them runs at 60 fps ( not locked at 30 fps) . Doom 4 will be locked at 30 fps for consoles AFAIK.Gannu said:
quixand
Skilled
dx11, HiResTex On, Ultra
Thought I'd post a few Crysis 2 videos here, not the best of coversions, running dx11 + high res patch @ 1360 x 768 (Ultra). The first one is Fullscreen = Off and the 2nd one is with Fullscreen. While playing with fullscreen off there was a very noticeable difference in smoothness.
dx9 HiRes Off Ultra Settings
Thought I'd post a few Crysis 2 videos here, not the best of coversions, running dx11 + high res patch @ 1360 x 768 (Ultra). The first one is Fullscreen = Off and the 2nd one is with Fullscreen. While playing with fullscreen off there was a very noticeable difference in smoothness.
dx9 HiRes Off Ultra Settings
comp@ddict
Skilled
nobody in the world has got more fps using DX11 except you,
Pray thee HOW!
