Ok how the hell did the guys at Crytek do it?

2008-07-30 00:47:12

#26

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7176

DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Cheez wrote:
DoctaStrangelove wrote:
I dunno, 30 FPS is very playable.
You sir, are delusional.

_{I played it on 25FPS on max before I realised it could be running a whole lot better.}
The only reason that you say that 30 FPS is bad is because the the companies tell you that you need at least 60 FPS. Even though many games are locked at 30 FPS and you'd never notice it.

30 FPS is more than playable, while it does get choppy at around 20 there is minimum difference between 30 and 60 FPS, your eyes aren't fast enough for one to notice the difference and going above 60 is redundant as your eyes cannot detect FPS differences at all above 60.

Human eye can notice up to 72FPS max. You can see 30fps clearly and pretty smooth, but 60FPS is a shitload smoother. Try it in BF2 tbh.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2008-07-30 01:28:36

#27

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6930

The Crytek engine runs pretty nicely at 30fps, which is surprising because not all games and engines will feel fluid at this sort of 'borderline choppy' level. With config tweaks the game ran smooth through the entire Storyline on all Very High with 4xAA- 8xAA at parts of the island before the Ice and (retarded) alien parts. An 8800GTX SLI set-up manages it just fine if you're realistic about the settings and bear in mind that they designed it for future hardware.

As for what graphics cards they actually used... who knows. As for people talking about the 'uber high industry graphics card'- maybe you're thinking about the pure-rendering GPU's that Nvidia make. I'm pretty sure these cards don't support Direct X or OpenGL or anything of the sort... they're just pure crunching and rendering machines for 3D modelling and computer animation.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-07-30 01:29:11)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-07-30 01:30:29

#28

Defiance: Member; +438|7131

S.Lythberg wrote:
does it matter?

the ultra intimidating specs killed the game's sales. Even gamers with mid-high machines were afraid to buy the game, for fear it would plummet to 20 fps on the icy levels

I'd be perfectly happy with 20 FPS on Crysis. My old 6800 completely died once I got in to the underwater level thing and trying to figure that place out at 5-10 FPS prompted a great big fuggit.

Edit: Docta, the 60 FPS came from CRTs using a 60hz refresh rate and video cards trying to match that, a la vsync.
Cyborg, the eye doesn't work with frames per second.

Last edited by Defiance (2008-07-30 01:35:03)

2008-07-30 01:58:58

#29

Ecilop Murof: I HOP OUT DA BEEEED..; +167|6239|loves Stimey <3 |

Played a few mission all on medium with my 8800 gt.

My 3,6 GHZ P4 takes me down methinks lol

2008-07-30 02:18:38

#30

bakinacake: HA HA; +383|6446|Aus, Qld

I played on all high easy 40-50 fps with my 8800 gts 640

2008-07-30 03:00:19

#31

VicktorVauhn: Member; +319|6852|Southern California

CrazeD wrote:
Why do people pull that "your eye can't see that fast so it doesn't matter" when we're talking about a game? It is entirely irrelevant.

Are you saying that when I play BF2 at 200FPS, that it should be a motion blur because I can't see that fast? And if you think that there is no lag difference between 30 and 60 FPS, then you have never seen 60 FPS. Hell, I think even 60 FPS is too laggy to be fun.

Does TV look laggy or choppy to you? Standard deff TV is 25fps....

2008-07-30 03:10:39

#32

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6930

bakinacake wrote:
I played on all high easy 40-50 fps with my 8800 gts 640

I barely topped 50fps-average with all settings on High / 4xAA on 2x8800GTX's overclocked, so I'm calling your bluff .

This was before I used any sort of tweak-config, but still I assume you're talking about the games settings only.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-07-30 03:13:15

#33

bakinacake: HA HA; +383|6446|Aus, Qld

Uzique wrote:
bakinacake wrote:
I played on all high easy 40-50 fps with my 8800 gts 640
I barely topped 50fps-average with all settings on High / 4xAA on 2x8800GTX's overclocked, so I'm calling your bluff .

This was before I used any sort of tweak-config, but still I assume you're talking about the games settings only.

im dead serious i did.

2008-07-30 04:09:30

#34

Cheez: Herman is a warmaphrodite; +1,027|6899|King Of The Islands

bakinacake wrote:
Uzique wrote:
bakinacake wrote:
I played on all high easy 40-50 fps with my 8800 gts 640
I barely topped 50fps-average with all settings on High / 4xAA on 2x8800GTX's overclocked, so I'm calling your bluff .

This was before I used any sort of tweak-config, but still I assume you're talking about the games settings only.
im dead serious i did.

With no AA this is true.

My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.

2008-07-30 05:45:22

#35

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|7177|Riva, MD

VicktorVauhn wrote:
CrazeD wrote:
Why do people pull that "your eye can't see that fast so it doesn't matter" when we're talking about a game? It is entirely irrelevant.

Are you saying that when I play BF2 at 200FPS, that it should be a motion blur because I can't see that fast? And if you think that there is no lag difference between 30 and 60 FPS, then you have never seen 60 FPS. Hell, I think even 60 FPS is too laggy to be fun.
Does TV look laggy or choppy to you? Standard deff TV is 25fps....

Yeah, I don't think 30 is where you're going to notice choppiness and yet people keep saying that. It's when it's below 20 that it gets choppy.

2008-07-30 06:09:13

#36

Benzin: Member; +576|6458

Defiance wrote:
Cyborg, the eye doesn't work with frames per second.

It does when you're high ...

2008-07-30 06:46:00

#37

NooBesT: Pizzahitler; +873|6929

VicktorVauhn wrote:
CrazeD wrote:
Why do people pull that "your eye can't see that fast so it doesn't matter" when we're talking about a game? It is entirely irrelevant.

Are you saying that when I play BF2 at 200FPS, that it should be a motion blur because I can't see that fast? And if you think that there is no lag difference between 30 and 60 FPS, then you have never seen 60 FPS. Hell, I think even 60 FPS is too laggy to be fun.
Does TV look laggy or choppy to you? Standard deff TV is 25fps....

The standard refresh rate is 60 Hz... Where did you get that 25 from?

2008-07-30 06:47:27

#38

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6613|what

TV refresh rates aren't measured by FPS anyway. lol

2008-07-30 06:48:20

#39

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|7177|Riva, MD

CapnNismo wrote:
Defiance wrote:
Cyborg, the eye doesn't work with frames per second.
It does when you're high ...

Oh please.....

NooBesT wrote:
VicktorVauhn wrote:
CrazeD wrote:
Why do people pull that "your eye can't see that fast so it doesn't matter" when we're talking about a game? It is entirely irrelevant.

Are you saying that when I play BF2 at 200FPS, that it should be a motion blur because I can't see that fast? And if you think that there is no lag difference between 30 and 60 FPS, then you have never seen 60 FPS. Hell, I think even 60 FPS is too laggy to be fun.
Does TV look laggy or choppy to you? Standard deff TV is 25fps....
The standard refresh rate is 60 Hz... Where did you get that 25 from?

The refresh rate is 60 but the actual framerate of regular T.V. or movies is around 25, maybe that's what he was trying to say.

2008-07-30 06:50:29

#40

NooBesT: Pizzahitler; +873|6929

_j5689_ wrote:
CapnNismo wrote:
Defiance wrote:
Cyborg, the eye doesn't work with frames per second.
It does when you're high ...
Oh please.....

NooBesT wrote:
VicktorVauhn wrote:
Does TV look laggy or choppy to you? Standard deff TV is 25fps....
The standard refresh rate is 60 Hz... Where did you get that 25 from?
The refresh rate is 60 but the actual framerate of regular T.V. or movies is around 25, maybe that's what he was trying to say.

My mistake, though it's still not 25, but 30... and there's no FPS drops in TV on action scenes.

But you don't normally sit right next to your TV now do you? The distance matters too.

Last edited by NooBesT (2008-07-30 06:52:46)

2008-07-30 07:01:09

#41

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|7177|Riva, MD

NooBesT wrote:
_j5689_ wrote:
CapnNismo wrote:

It does when you're high ...
Oh please.....

NooBesT wrote:
The standard refresh rate is 60 Hz... Where did you get that 25 from?
The refresh rate is 60 but the actual framerate of regular T.V. or movies is around 25, maybe that's what he was trying to say.
My mistake, though it's still not 25, but 30... and there's no FPS drops in TV on action scenes.

But you don't normally sit right next to your TV now do you? The distance matters too.

Most movies are still around 24 or 25 FPS, I think T.V. ranges depending on what a station decides to broadcast in.

And there's no FPS drops probably because it's not that intensive for something to render standard def video.

Last edited by _j5689_ (2008-07-30 07:02:39)

2008-07-30 07:14:07

#42

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|7009|UK

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
solid 30 FPS is playable. The problem is if it looks like you're around 30 FPS, you really keep dropping into levels that are quite noticeable by the human eye, and it looks laggy. Old games that are locked to 30 FPS are so easy to run they stay on the ceiling without your computer breaking a sweat.

Exactly, if the frame rate never went below 30 knowone would ever complain.

And the game is just shitly coded.

Martyn

2008-07-30 07:16:23

#43

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|7177|Riva, MD

Bell wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
solid 30 FPS is playable. The problem is if it looks like you're around 30 FPS, you really keep dropping into levels that are quite noticeable by the human eye, and it looks laggy. Old games that are locked to 30 FPS are so easy to run they stay on the ceiling without your computer breaking a sweat.
Exactly, if the frame rate never went below 30 knowone would ever complain.

And the game is just shitly coded.

Martyn

Ugh, it's 20 not 30.

Last edited by _j5689_ (2008-07-30 07:16:39)

2008-07-30 07:18:06

#44

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|7009|UK

_j5689_ wrote:
Bell wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
solid 30 FPS is playable. The problem is if it looks like you're around 30 FPS, you really keep dropping into levels that are quite noticeable by the human eye, and it looks laggy. Old games that are locked to 30 FPS are so easy to run they stay on the ceiling without your computer breaking a sweat.
Exactly, if the frame rate never went below 30 knowone would ever complain.

And the game is just shitly coded.

Martyn
Ugh, it's 20 not 30.

What is? Minimum of 20fps is playable?

2008-07-30 07:36:24

#45

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|7177|Riva, MD

Bell wrote:
_j5689_ wrote:
Bell wrote:

Exactly, if the frame rate never went below 30 knowone would ever complain.

And the game is just shitly coded.

Martyn
Ugh, it's 20 not 30.
What is? Minimum of 20fps is playable?

Yes, it's at the borderline of choppy but it's still playable.

2008-07-30 07:39:12

#46

BlackKoala: Member; +215|6785

This is like watching a bunch of penguins try to pick up a soccer ball, it's retarded. I'd bet out of the ten of you numbnuts arguing, one of you has some sort of informed and legitimate argument, and the other 9 are just regurgitating misleading information they read off of a forum at one point.

2008-07-30 07:41:43

#47

too_money2007: Member; +145|6768|Keller, Tx

My fps dropped to 1-2 inside the alien ship in the mountain. Otherwise, it was ~20 on the island and snow parts. This is on medium to low too.

2008-07-30 07:43:21

#48

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|7177|Riva, MD

BlackKoala wrote:
This is like watching a bunch of penguins try to pick up a soccer ball, it's retarded. I'd bet out of the ten of you numbnuts arguing, one of you has some sort of informed and legitimate argument, and the other 9 are just regurgitating misleading information they read off of a forum at one point.

Care to join us?

2008-07-30 08:59:40

#49

Ryan: Member; +1,230|7303|Alberta, Canada

Don't game developers have access to game engines and video cards with graphics that can't be purchased by consumers?

2008-07-30 09:01:29

#50

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7167|67.222.138.85

Ryan wrote:
Don't game developers have access to game engines and video cards with graphics that can't be purchased by consumers?

Well they're making the game engine, but yes they can get a hold of some commercial graphics cards.

BF2S Forums Ok how the hell did the guys at Crytek do it?

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Cheez wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

bakinacake wrote:

Uzique wrote:

bakinacake wrote:

bakinacake wrote:

Uzique wrote:

bakinacake wrote:

VicktorVauhn wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

Defiance wrote:

VicktorVauhn wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Defiance wrote:

NooBesT wrote:

VicktorVauhn wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

_j5689_ wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

Defiance wrote:

NooBesT wrote:

VicktorVauhn wrote:

NooBesT wrote:

_j5689_ wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

NooBesT wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bell wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

_j5689_ wrote:

Bell wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bell wrote:

_j5689_ wrote:

Bell wrote:

BlackKoala wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Board footer