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

2008-07-29 19:14:12

#1

David.P: Banned; +649|6734

As well know even the most advanced gpu's on the market right now have a problem running Crysis at very high settings. But what i wanna know is, Crysis was released when the 8800gtx was king, and even there were problems running it on high. How the hell did the Crytek guys develop a game that even now on very high settings the top of the line Gpu's have trouble running the game?

Did they use what Octo-Sli 7850gx2's or Did they acquire some advanced top of the line GPU for game development?

2008-07-29 19:17:46

#2

NooBesT: Pizzahitler; +873|6929

David.P wrote:
Did they acquire some advanced top of the line GPU for game development?

Pretty much that I think. There was some topic about those long ago if I recall right.

Last edited by NooBesT (2008-07-29 19:18:18)

2008-07-29 19:18:23

#3

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

Or maybe they just developed it on shit FPS and hoped it wasn't their code that was doing it.

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

2008-07-29 19:19:33

#4

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6929

I dunno, 30 FPS is very playable.

2008-07-29 19:22:05

#5

csmag: Member; +92|6908|Canada

Isn't there uber 1337 developer graphics cards out there? I heard they aren't optimised for gaming, is this true?

2008-07-29 19:22:05

#6

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

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.}

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

2008-07-29 19:28:27

#7

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6929

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.

2008-07-29 19:31:57

#8

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6848

Im running it on very high at 1280x1024 with a slightly overclocked 8800GTS 512 at around 30 FPS.

2008-07-29 19:33:05

#9

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|7115

They could probably run the game on multiple computers and test it that way. Kinda like how Pixar and Dreamworks have entire rooms of PCs running that are dedicated to rendering their animations.

2008-07-29 19:34:02

#10

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6848

Also, with the motion blur, drops in FPS are virtually unnoticeable unless it drops into the single digits.

2008-07-29 19:34:39

#11

NooBesT: Pizzahitler; +873|6929

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.

It's just funny how many times someone has posted that eye can only make difference up to x FPS and then bunch of people post and say that eye can actually detect above x FPS.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

Though I do agree that 30 is well playable.

2008-07-29 19:34:42

#12

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7168|67.222.138.85

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.

2008-07-29 19:38:18

#13

chittydog: less busy; +586|7296|Kubra, Damn it!

What makes anyone think that professional game developers are limited to using standard commercial grade products? NASCAR drivers don't drive regular cars. Musicians don't play the same strat you can buy. The military doesn't use the same grade of weapons that are available to you.

2008-07-29 19:47:24

#14

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

The stupid thing is even the highest end graphics cards now when you see the bench results for Crysis they do not include any AA. Let alone x8 or x16.

It's going to be ages before anything plays Crysis on max settings. And I mean absolute max.

I think the pl at crytek would run it with half the textures for smooth fps. Then run the other half another time and hope that when put together a future rig could handle it.

2008-07-29 19:49:54

#15

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6848

TheAussieReaper wrote:
The stupid thing is even the highest end graphics cards now when you see the bench results for Crysis they do not include any AA. Let alone x8 or x16.

It's going to be ages before anything plays Crysis on max settings. And I mean absolute max.

I think the pl at crytek would run it with half the textures for smooth fps. Then run the other half another time and hope that when put together a future rig could handle it.

I didnt see any improvement with AA on, so I just turned it off.

2008-07-29 19:51:49

#16

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

3D design GPUs are insanely expensive, they better be able to make some retardedly demanding graphics if they cost 4000$ each.

2008-07-29 19:53:18

#17

BlackKoala: Member; +215|6786

I'm 9000% positive they wanted to FUTURE proof the game....meaning they put settings in it that could not be run now, but will be able to in the future.

2008-07-29 20:13:42

#18

Blehm98: conservative hatemonger; +150|6924|meh-land

BlackKoala wrote:
I'm 9000% positive they wanted to FUTURE proof the game....meaning they put settings in it that could not be run now, but will be able to in the future.

he has a good point tbh...

if it looks good for a game that just came out, and a year and a half from now it looks like a game that just came out, there is some form of win there

2008-07-29 20:17:28

#19

csmag: Member; +92|6908|Canada

Blehm98 wrote:
BlackKoala wrote:
I'm 9000% positive they wanted to FUTURE proof the game....meaning they put settings in it that could not be run now, but will be able to in the future.
he has a good point tbh...

if it looks good for a game that just came out, and a year and a half from now it looks like a game that just came out, there is some form of win there

And when the multiplayer still sucks a year later... Crytek better hope that theres alot of rich graphics whores who are willing to play singleplayer over and over. Maybe Crytek should rethink their plan.

2008-07-29 20:26:55

#20

chittydog: less busy; +586|7296|Kubra, Damn it!

csmag wrote:
Blehm98 wrote:
BlackKoala wrote:
I'm 9000% positive they wanted to FUTURE proof the game....meaning they put settings in it that could not be run now, but will be able to in the future.
he has a good point tbh...

if it looks good for a game that just came out, and a year and a half from now it looks like a game that just came out, there is some form of win there
And when the multiplayer still sucks a year later... Crytek better hope that theres alot of rich graphics whores who are willing to play singleplayer over and over. Maybe Crytek should rethink their plan.

What Crytek really hopes is that other companies will license its engine to use for their own games for years to come. That's where they'll really make their money. Think of how many games were made on the old Quake engines.

2008-07-29 20:31:09

#21

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7177

here's the Crysis devs test machine... they just assumed everyone would buy one also...lol
http://www.geekologie.com/2008/06/100_m … r_brea.php

Love is the answer

2008-07-29 20:32:46

#22

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

chittydog wrote:
Think of how many games were made on the Unreal engines.

fix'd

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

2008-07-29 20:38:58

#23

CrazeD: Member; +368|7133|Maine

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.

2008-07-29 20:54:39

#24

chittydog: less busy; +586|7296|Kubra, Damn it!

CrazeD wrote:
Are you saying that when I play BF2 at 200FPS, that it should be a motion blur because I can't see that fast?

That's not what they're saying at all. They're saying that your eyes would simply ignore most of those frames.

2008-07-29 22:17:31

#25

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6907|Chicago, IL

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

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

David.P wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Cheez wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Cheez wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

BlackKoala wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

BlackKoala wrote:

csmag wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

BlackKoala wrote:

chittydog wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

Board footer