Crysis engine real-life comparison

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAMMAN

yeah, in call of duty 2 i cant turn on AA+shadows @ 1280x1024 and still get acceptable fps.

---

WellI haven't had that problem...and i'm stuck at same res as you 1280x1024. The main reason I went with the cheaper 7800GT. Why spend a crap load of money on a card that is over kill for 1280x1024 when DX10 is around the bend. Maybe its your CPU holding you back:shrug: I went from X850XT to 7800GT and noticed a pretty big differance. I hate Nvidia ...but i got the card so cheap I had to do it. Plus, they are cheap enough now for you to just add another card and go SLI....that should be plenty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

A sunny day is a sunny day anywhere.

---

This is kind of funny coming from a Canadian.:slapass:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flexkill

WellI haven't had that problem...and i'm stuck at same res as you 1280x1024. The main reason I went with the cheaper 7800GT. Why spend a crap load of money on a card that is over kill for 1280x1024 when DX10 is around the bend. Maybe its your CPU holding you back:shrug: I went from X850XT to 7800GT and noticed a pretty big differance. I hate Nvidia ...but i got the card so cheap I had to do it. Plus, they are cheap enough now for you to just add another card and go SLI....that should be plenty.

---

well things are gonna get a whole lot worse if i decide to slap a x1900xtx or something of the like in there one day.maybe its got something to do with the 84.21,s set to quality and the fact that i havent overclocked anything just yet? my fps in cod2 and doom3 seem to match the tests done at hardocp.i doubt cod2 would be cpu limited when the fps is as low as 30.i cant go sli, im stuck with a non-sli board that only accepts .13 micron/90nm single core p4,s :( so i already have the second most expensive cpu my board accepts.my next upgrade is in december, whatever it may be and i never spend over $350usd on an individual part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAMMAN

well things are gonna get a whole lot worse if i decide to slap a x1900xtx or something of the like in there one day.maybe its got something to do with the 84.21,s set to quality and the fact that i havent overclocked anything just yet? my fps in cod2 and doom3 seem to match the tests done at hardocp.i doubt cod2 would be cpu limited when the fps is as low as 30.i cant go sli, im stuck with a non-sli board that only accepts .13 micron/90nm single core p4,s :( so i already have the second most expensive cpu my board accepts.my next upgrade is in december, whatever it may be and i never spend over $350usd on an individual part.

---

You need a new board for sure:( As far as the CPU speed...it is important these days more than ever, as fast as these GFX cards are today, but i hear what your saying though. I play COD2 1280x1024 quality drivers 2xAA 8XAF and im not in the 30's often or at all that i know of. 2 G's o mem helps a lot as well;) as I see you have now that I look...DOH!!!

Well to be honest I looked at them breifly and then had to scroll up again. But upon further inspection you can see onside is lacking detail, but it still looks damn awesome.

The other thing that is quite noticable is the shadowing. An object in real life casts a different shadow based on the position of the sun and the distance between the object casting the shadow and the object the shadow is being cast on. You can see this clearly in the shed where all shadows in the crysis photo look really dark. Naturally, some are lighter and some are darker.

That is something they will probably leave for last. Shadows and parallax mapping are not easy as they are anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flexkill

You need a new board for sure:( As far as the CPU speed...it is important these days more than ever, as fast as these GFX cards are today, but i hear what your saying though. I play COD2 1280x1024 quality drivers 2xAA 8XAF and im not in the 30's often or at all that i know of. 2 G's o mem helps a lot as well;) as I see you have now that I look...DOH!!!

---

here is the hardocp testing i was comparing with:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

as you can see they used an fx-55, had textures, normal mapping, dynamic lights set to normal and still got lower fps than me.mind you i have shadows set to no, smoke edges set to off and number of bodies set to tiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAMMAN

here is the hardocp testing i was comparing with:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

as you can see they used an fx-55, had textures, normal mapping, dynamic lights set to normal and still got lower fps than me.mind you i have shadows set to no, smoke edges set to off and number of bodies set to tiny.

---

That test sux....Why is it when people comaper cards they put the faster cards with more AA and crap....thats not a real comparison....everything should be the same.:( I mean why do they not have the same settings for the 7900GT as they do the 7800GT so we can tell the real speed differance:slapass:

It's not meant as a comparison...

They show the HIGHEST possible playable IQ settings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

This is kind of funny coming from a Canadian.:slapass:

---

Why? I'm even going to play into what you seem to be suggesting and point out the high reflectivity of snow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flexkill

That test sux....Why is it when people comaper cards they put the faster cards with more AA and crap....thats not a real comparison....everything should be the same.:( I mean why do they not have the same settings for the 7900GT as they do the 7800GT so we can tell the real speed differance:slapass:

---

interesting...i started lowering the res in cod2 and my average and maximum framerate went up but the minimum framerate didnt change much.1280x1024@2xAA is almost as demanding as 1024x768@8xAA(enabled through driver)so res affects framerate alot more than AA/AF.minimum framerate didnt go up to 60 until res was set to 800x600 LOL.so if i was to upgrade to an x1900xtx i would probably have an average fps above 60, maximum fps up to 200 but minimum fps might still drop below 40.so i think i will get a cheap x1900 at christmas and then a cpu+mobo in may(thank god my birthday is not too long after vista,s release lol.)btw i noticed in cod2 my x800pro has noticeably better iq than my 7800gt at any given setting ;) but i cant crank up the res or AA with the x800pro so i dont use it.

COD2, should win an award, for worst coded crappy engine of all time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hicks

COD2, should win an award, for worst coded crappy engine of all time.

---

lol, that would explain the low minimum framerate in cod2.a while ago i set all graphics settings to minimum, stared at the sky in the 2nd tank level and got 450fps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

No it isn't, it is just too much of it in the farcry engine, and as far as I remember you can set it to any value you want.

HRD is not about shiny stuff, it's about eye reaction to changes in lightning, for example if you are outside in the sun and enter a dark room you will need a few seconds to adjust. The overbright surfaces are HDR bugs.

---

I already have eyes that do that for me though.

Back to the pictures, just gorgeous. It appears that the most difficult thing to recreate in the outdoors environment is foliage/grass but it's still amazing how far graphics have come. Hopefully, AI will make such a jump in quality soon.

The difference may be more obvious for LCD users since it looks more sharp, but
please consider the following before criticizing the game or engine::slapass:

1) The Crysis engine is probably the first engine built from ground up that fully supports SM4 and its looking verry good in SM3 mod. Its probably even superior than the Unreal Engine 3 (SM3) in foilage and outdoor enviroments.

2) Those screenshots are GPU limited by a x1900 CF solution that doesnt benefit from a SM4 architecture. Its unknown how far this engine can go without the right hardware. Probably with a r600 or a g90 we will be able to see more.

3) Be realistic with texture quality. They are not going to put high resolutions textures with low compression in such a large enviroment. Then you will be complaining why the game require so much video and system memory or why only $5000 PC setups can run it. :rolleyes:

4) If you look at the older screenshots and videos and you compare it to the current ones, you will notice that the engine has impproved, so its likely that some graphical defects will be corrected during the development of Crysis.

5) The full potencial of the engine is unknown. Some of the imperfecion may be due to imperfections in texturing, mapping, or modeling.

The picture below is a good example pointing out some of the things I mentioned above. If you look closely you will see that some some things look better than the picture on page 1, like the grass.
This shows you that: 1. they are improveing the engine; 2. the engine has a greater potential if the hardware is available or more detail is put into the game; 3. the bad resolution is due to hardware limitations and not engine limitations.


http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/2...on018mx4df.jpg
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/arti...9092931879.jpg



And I dont know why a lot of people are complaining about HDR. :stick:
IMO, games look a lot more dynamic and better looking with HDR than without it. Even if its not exact in timming and intensity vs real life, its still looks better than having the same boring lighting.

BTW, the shadowing is not solid black. In a CRT it may look solid, but its not compleately black like some Doom3 engine shadows.
The HDR effect also contributes to this effect, since in a shade the gap in contrast will be lower.
The difference in shadow and light intensity is also due to HDR. The volumetric clouds move and have different shapes, so in the second picture above was probably taken while the clouds were blocking a bit of the sun, shich is why it may have less HDR, making it look less intensive than the irst picture above it. It could also be the HDR effect adjusting itself.

Yes, HDR does look better- but still isn't anywhere near how real light interacts with objects and our eyes.

Yes, this is the best looking engine yet and it makes use of all the next gen bells and whitsles- but anybody who says they can't tell the difference between this and real life needs to spend less time playing games.

We will get photo-realistic and maybe even in the next 10 years or so but we need a radical overhaul of how we construct virtual environments before that can happen. Traditional textures don't work because there is a limit to how detailed you can make them for each generation of hardware. Tileing occurs on landscapes and multiple copies of an object look exactly the same. We will need procedural generation of textures and models, with physics that affects every polygon and interacts with the textures directly.

Sprites will have to go. Lighting will have to be improved. Water will have to use fluid dynamic equations. Its a lot of work and I don't wish to demean such a great looking game. And it really is spectacular, but I get annoyed when claims of photo-realism are made at this stage in our hardware development.

Just look at movies such as the matrix where there is heavy intergration of CG and real footage. Even with fantastically detailed models and textures of huge proportions and all of that is pre-rendered. Yet still it is quite easy to tell the difference.

Anyway. I do look forward to this game and I just hope my X1800XT will be able to run it on something other than lowest settings lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

No it isn't, it is just too much of it in the farcry engine, and as far as I remember you can set it to any value you want.

HRD is not about shiny stuff, it's about eye reaction to changes in lightning, for example if you are outside in the sun and enter a dark room you will need a few seconds to adjust. The overbright surfaces are HDR bugs.

---

Funnily enough you already get that effect when going from a dark area in a game to a light area. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

The overbright surfaces are HDR bugs.

---

I only just noticed this post but overbright is not a "bug" it is part of the way HDR is used. It is ment to make the lighting more obvious so that people don't feel cheated when they turn of HDR and see very little difference. HDR should be a far more subtle effect but that just isn't the case in any games we've seen so far.