Crysis 2 only DX9 - DX11 will be "later" with an update

[Carfax]

I finally fixed the flickering!

I disabled my GTS 250 in the device manager, and the flickering problem when running in SLi disappeared completely

This game makes great use of SLi, and uses both GPUs very nicely..

[RaZz!]

hence the reason I have not touched it since i played the first 10 minutes.
[...]

i stopped playing after i've read about a dx11 patch for the first time. but after crytek denied any rumour regarding a dx11 patch i was like "f*ck it, i'll play it now". and now they officially announce such a patch.

horrible way of communicating with the community and players

[DTU_XaVier]

i stopped playing after i've read about a dx11 patch for the first time. but after crytek denied any rumour regarding a dx11 patch i was like "f*ck it, i'll play it now". and now they officially announce such a patch.

horrible way of communicating with the community and players

They denied the rumors of a DX11 patch being launched at the date discussed in the thread on their own forums... They never said there wouldn't be one

Best Regards

[gatecrasherlok]

I'll keep my eyes on this thread and thanks for chasing this problem up JohnZS.

[clayton]

I've just beat the game and I have to say it's much funner than the first game.

[Jodiuh]

Ok, so I'm going through the first one again. First time through on an 8800 GT and I wanna say I tried for Medium/no AA most of the way with 20~30 frames, maybe more.

So now I'm playing on a 560 Ti @ Very High detail levels with 4x AA and getting maybe a little bit more 25~35, 40 or so.

Does this seem right for Crysis 1 @ 1680 x 1050?

CPU's were c2d e6400 and i5 760.

[Kai Robinson]

Running through Crysis 1 with a Radeon 6850 @ 850/1000 nets me around 38-45fps in 1680x1050 res, using a custom config (TOD mod + HDR stuff)

[16floz470ml]

I like the game but sure would like it more with Directx 11. I have not had any issues with sli. My setup runs fine with the newest and the previous drivers. I still cannot get the LE code to work though.

[cold2010]

Beta version and final version



http://www.expreview.com/14592-4.html

[GoldenTiger]

That is what I thought, but apparently the DirectX11 Patch requires DirectX11 hardware only

I do indeed hope I am wrong, and Cry-Adam as typed things slightly bluntly and also you are correct

But as it stands Maxium Fail has

1) Currently no Multi GPU support (both SLI and Crossfire suffers horrific flicerking which is not driver related).

2) No 64Bit Support

3) No AF (you have you force this and it can look odd).

4) No True FSAA

5) Currently no DX 11/10 support.

John

Hmmmm, I really want Crysis 2 but... all of those points (especially #1) are why I haven't bought it yet.

I'm glad a DX11 patch is confirmed as coming now, though I hope it fixes all of these points and not just #5.

[JohnZS]

I'll keep my eyes on this thread and thanks for chasing this problem up JohnZS.

No problem

I have not heard anything official from Crytek yet, but I had been chatting with a mod developer who is in contact with Crytek regularly as he is going to get an early bite on the Sandbox3.

I asked him if he knew anything about SLI and Crossfire having problems with Crysis 2.

He said that Crysis 2 is multiGPU compliant and the engine at a technical point of view makes very good use of multiGPU's, however the DirectX9 path the game currently uses is not optimal due to various issues.

The issue lies with the light and shadows over certain textures when scaling to produce the image. This is why the "flickering" is more prominent in evening/dawn TODs. It will be addressed

Hopefully this might be a subtle hint the DirectX11 patch will have working SLi/CFX?

One of the big enhancements coming with the DirectX11 path is tessellation, you can all but confirm this yourselves as there are console commands (which currently do nothing) relating to tessellation.

Many people including Hornet have said that DirectX10 hardware is compatible at the API level with a DirectX11 render path, only that DirectX11 hardware effects will not be available (this is how I have always believed the case to be).

However Cry-Adam's "DX11 only" comment when quizzed about DX10 support worried me, but another mod developer has hinted 295 will run it fine. (So I assume this means 4890 etc will do too).

HOWEVER

The person who is in regular contact with Crytek said

DX11 is not DX10 backward compatible, that theory only exists at the operating system level. One or the other would suffer a watered-down effect. At this point it won't be DX11 that suffers this. The API is a much better fit for Crysis 2.

I am not sure what that means as I always understood D3D11 was a subset built upon D3D10, unless there is a vanilla D3D11 which is tailored for D3D11 Hardware and simply rejects anything which does not meet this requirement?!

John

[Chrono Detector]

I'm running GTX 580's in SLI and never had any issues with Crysis 2. I hope Crytek would fix those annoying multiplayer issues, can't even sign in at some occasions, very annoying.

[ColonelCain]

Beta version and final version



http://www.expreview.com/14592-4.html

Would be nice if they looked at the image quality differences between the 2.

[jstutman]

Later on they will claim high piracy on PC, and because of that... the DX 11 patch will be canceled.

Crytek forum is still full of excuses. This being the most common reason.

Reviews were obviously paid off cause most I read, gave it a high score.
*Im not sure what game they were playing.

The videos I watched show me nothing that makes this game any better than the first. A new story? So basically an expansion?

[Ket]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Crysis 2 sucks balls. Graphically, gameplay wise and in level design Crysis2 is magnitudes of inferior to Crysis or Warhead.

ED - Somebody needs to post a link to this thread on the Crytek forums, see what excuses they spurt out then when people read real objective opinions. That is, unless Crytek just delete the link, which would be no more than to be expected of them with their shenanigans.

[Kallenator]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Crysis 2 sucks balls. Graphically, gameplay wise and in level design Crysis2 is magnitudes of inferior to Crysis or Warhead.

ED - Somebody needs to post a link to this thread on the Crytek forums, see what excuses they spurt out then when people read real objective opinions. That is, unless Crytek just delete the link, which would be no more than to be expected of them with their shenanigans.

Comments like "Crysis 2 sucks balls" is just too childish, this is exactly the kind of comments which leads silly talk. If you want to have a proper fruitful discussion which Crytek might even want to read you would have to be far more neutral and actually add a screenshot for comparison where either game excels or lacks.
I am not saying that this thread is not objective, because there sure a great comments here.

My opinion:
Graphics aren't THAT bad. Even though I to am disappointed that they haven't improved it's still a good looking game in general until BF3 comes out and hammers it I suppose. (I am aware of the CF/SLi faults as well as several disgusting textures etc)
As for the gameplay and level design I will agree with you, cause it's boring and dumbed down extensively for the console breed. I am having much more fun with Crysis 1 still.

[Ket]

Not childish at all, its a perfectly accurate description. If you prefer you may choose to substitute "Crysis 2 sucks balls" with any of the following;

• Crysis 2 is crap
• Crysis 2 sucks
• Crysis 2 is wholly inferior to Crysis or Warhead
• Crysis 2 is absolutely nothing like it was made out to be, it is not superior to Crysis or Warhead in any shape or form.

[orangekiwii]

Not childish at all, its a perfectly accurate description. If you prefer you may choose to substitute "Crysis 2 sucks balls" with any of the following;

• Crysis 2 is crap
• Crysis 2 sucks
• Crysis 2 is wholly inferior to Crysis or Warhead
• Crysis 2 is absolutely nothing like it was made out to be, it is not superior to Crysis or Warhead in any shape or form.

I take issue to this. Not only is this your opinion you are supposing it is correct over everyone elses.


I for one completely disagree with your opinion. I am a pc gamer, I loathe consoles, and I often don't play games if they're generic or have unusable mousing schemes (if I can't get close to 1-to-1 movement in sub 30 minutes editing i'm not playing it).

Having recently played Crysis, Crysis Warhead, AND Crysis 2, I will say that I played Crysis 2 TWICE off the bat. It is the only game I can remember EVER having played twice right after completing it.

I downloaded the Rygel texture pack for crysis, Xtreme particle mod (XFX2 if you're interested) and used an extreme CFG/TOD config. I ran it on my 580 to the point of only getting like 40 ish average at 1920x1200 (most of the performance comes from the XFX2 pack which is heavily cpu bound). Even with these mods I think crysis 2 is far and away better looking.

Not only is the performance significantly better, models are better, animations are better, particles look great even in comparison to the XFX2 mod, maps are better (imo), AI is SIGNIFICANTLY better (play through crysis then play through crysis 2, Crysis 2 AI is far and away better compared to crysis), and the way you interface with the Nanosuit is much faster/more fluid and won't break immersion which could happen if you sometimes swiped your mouse in the wrong direction in crysis.

I love all 3 games (crysis warhead more than crysis) but you're making a mistake (arguably crytek did) in that you're comparing the games directly. These ARE NOT the same games. Play them... setting is different, maps are different, gameplay (except for cloak) is TOTALLY different.

If you evaluate Crysis 2 without the name crysis 2, you get a stellar game. High production values, great controls, great gameplay, amazing graphics (which look much better than crysis 1 imo even with mods).

However because they added Crysis 2 to the name (there are very few tie ins in the story like 2 - 3 tops) you instinctively compare it to the first crysis. Much like battlefield series and bad company. They're TOTALLY different balls of wax, yet DICE/EA decided to tag the battlefield moniker onto it for the sake of marketing it with an established brand. Crytek did the same and attached crysis to it when in reality it could have been a totally new game and lost no value (or make it a parallel game in the crysis universe).

I just find your supposition that your opinion is right where others are wrong distasteful. The simple fact that you are unwilling to even explain your opinions speaks to your immaturity and I would hope, for your sake, that you take the time to actually explain your opinions.

[HelixPC]

Crysis 2 does not suck, it just isnt a great game, graphics are not bad, but if you compare them to crysis 1, you might be disappointed, textures are very low resolution, and thats because they had to for the console 512mb, you gotta take it for what it is, its not worth $60, wait till price drops to $20, then it would be worth it, but for them to charge $60 for this game is crazy. Bulletstorm is a much better looking game, and plays better as well.

[AMDJunkie064]

a DX11 patch has been officially announced, please check the Crysis 2 PC discussion forum at mycrysis.com, its the first sticky thread at the top.

[Pontos]

I downloaded the Rygel texture pack for crysis, Xtreme particle mod (XFX2 if you're interested) and used an extreme CFG/TOD config. I ran it on my 580 to the point of only getting like 40 ish average at 1920x1200 (most of the performance comes from the XFX2 pack which is heavily cpu bound). Even with these mods I think crysis 2 is far and away better looking.

Are you for real? The world is annoyingly static, there are barely any physics going on when you actually interact with stuff, the levels are narrow, some textures are extremely low quality including those that were in the original Crysis and were reused in Crysis 2 (Albeit downsampled to accommodate to console's RAM, which is silly no matter how you put it since they had the original ones at hand to use in the PC version if they wanted to).

The game is proved to be artificially locked at console's capabilities. How can you say it looks better?
It looks nice, sure. But better? Hell no.

[Hornet331]

I take issue to this. Not only is this your opinion you are supposing it is correct over everyone elses.


I for one completely disagree with your opinion. I am a pc gamer, I loathe consoles, and I often don't play games if they're generic or have unusable mousing schemes (if I can't get close to 1-to-1 movement in sub 30 minutes editing i'm not playing it).

Having recently played Crysis, Crysis Warhead, AND Crysis 2, I will say that I played Crysis 2 TWICE off the bat. It is the only game I can remember EVER having played twice right after completing it.

I downloaded the Rygel texture pack for crysis, Xtreme particle mod (XFX2 if you're interested) and used an extreme CFG/TOD config. I ran it on my 580 to the point of only getting like 40 ish average at 1920x1200 (most of the performance comes from the XFX2 pack which is heavily cpu bound). Even with these mods I think crysis 2 is far and away better looking.

Not only is the performance significantly better, models are better, animations are better, particles look great even in comparison to the XFX2 mod, maps are better (imo), AI is SIGNIFICANTLY better (play through crysis then play through crysis 2, Crysis 2 AI is far and away better compared to crysis), and the way you interface with the Nanosuit is much faster/more fluid and won't break immersion which could happen if you sometimes swiped your mouse in the wrong direction in crysis.

I love all 3 games (crysis warhead more than crysis) but you're making a mistake (arguably crytek did) in that you're comparing the games directly. These ARE NOT the same games. Play them... setting is different, maps are different, gameplay (except for cloak) is TOTALLY different.

If you evaluate Crysis 2 without the name crysis 2, you get a stellar game. High production values, great controls, great gameplay, amazing graphics (which look much better than crysis 1 imo even with mods).

However because they added Crysis 2 to the name (there are very few tie ins in the story like 2 - 3 tops) you instinctively compare it to the first crysis. Much like battlefield series and bad company. They're TOTALLY different balls of wax, yet DICE/EA decided to tag the battlefield moniker onto it for the sake of marketing it with an established brand. Crytek did the same and attached crysis to it when in reality it could have been a totally new game and lost no value (or make it a parallel game in the crysis universe).

I just find your supposition that your opinion is right where others are wrong distasteful. The simple fact that you are unwilling to even explain your opinions speaks to your immaturity and I would hope, for your sake, that you take the time to actually explain your opinions.

Did you even read what you write...

Crysis 2 is the successor of crysis 1, it would be stupid not to compare them... The battelfield vanilla/BF:bad company analogy is bogus... since every Battelfield fan knows they are complettly different series.
Crysis 2 was tounted by crytek themself to be the successor of crysis 1, but what they made out of it is another topic.

Also another thing.. you claim the controlels are better? Then you clearly havn't played the first one. The controlles in crysis 2 have the "sticky syndrom" that is quite comon for game that are ports. Crysis 1 feels snappy and no delay in the responses, in crysis 2 alone tha fact that jump/power jump difference is how long you press the space bar makes it worse. Also why i can't run without energy, why does armor mode consume energy etc. etc.

There are so many little thing that make crysis 2 not only graphicalyl but also gameplay wise worse then crysis 1.

Everyone has a right on a opinion, but my opnion is that your opinion is rubish and you don't know what your talking about.

[orangekiwii]

Are you for real? The world is annoyingly static, there are barely any physics going on when you actually interact with stuff, the levels are narrow, some textures are extremely low quality including those that were in the original Crysis and were reused in Crysis 2 (Albeit downsampled to accommodate to console's RAM, which is silly no matter how you put it since they had the original ones at hand to use in the PC version if they wanted to).

The game is proved to be artificially locked at console's capabilities. How can you say it looks better?
It looks nice, sure. But better? Hell no.

I do agree it is egregiously lacking in the realm of physics which definitely added to the visual splendor of crysis. I was mistaken in saying it looks far and away better, but IMO it does look better than crysis 1 especially in motion, images don't capture how good it looks in motion.

The textures are really the only thing (open map design as well) that actually stand out as inferior in crysis 2 in my eyes. But despite being half the texture size as default crysis 1, they still look better in many instances (don't link images of the horrible trash in water or anything... yes those textures are horrible but you DO NOT notice them at all even if you are in the water - this is for the consoles as has already been stated and crysis 1 also has some horrid textures).

Here's a small album of some quick shots i took from crysis1/crysis2.

Crysis 1 look a bit better in these screenshots but in motion crysis 2 looks better imo. Images 2 and 3 are crysis 1 the rest are crysis 2

http://imgur.com/a/qVOPB#8VAyB

[orangekiwii]

Did you even read what you write...

Crysis 2 is the successor of crysis 1, it would be stupid not to compare them... The battelfield vanilla/BF:bad company analogy is bogus... since every Battelfield fan knows they are complettly different series.
Crysis 2 was tounted by crytek themself to be the successor of crysis 1, but what they made out of it is another topic.

Also another thing.. you claim the controlels are better? Then you clearly havn't played the first one. The controlles in crysis 2 have the "sticky syndrom" that is quite comon for game that are ports. Crysis 1 feels snappy and no delay in the responses, in crysis 2 alone tha fact that jump/power jump difference is how long you press the space bar makes it worse. Also why i can't run without energy, why does armor mode consume energy etc. etc.

There are so many little thing that make crysis 2 not only graphicalyl but also gameplay wise worse then crysis 1.

Everyone has a right on a opinion, but my opnion is that your opinion is rubish and you don't know what your talking about.

No you evidently don't understand at all. Read the battlefield comparison. What you yourself wrote is EXACTLY what i meant. They used the battlefield tag to launch bad company. Just as crytek is using crysis to launch crysis 2. The only difference is crysis hasn't had 18 other versions.

I have played the first one. The response times are identical (mouse is slightly laggier in 2). How about you actually play them instead of basing your opinions off of random dribble. Also if you actually PLAYED crysis 2 you'd realize the holding space to high-jump works perfectly... i haven't ONCE had an issue with it not doing EXACTLY what i want. Your speed issue is assinine. There are several videos on youtube showing the walk speed of crysis 1 = armor walk speed in crysis 2. The default SPRINT in crysis 1 (shield mode) is the same as the WALKING SPEED in crysis 2. and the SPRINT MODE in crysis 2 is IDENTICAL to the sprint speed in speed mode in crysis 1. The only difference being the default speed you start at without any keys pressed is walking in crysis 1, level 1 lets say, and in crysis 2, that default is sprinting, level 2 lets say. theres no in difference. Perhaps, once again, actually play the game before bashing.

Even your statement, why does armor mode consume energy... it did in crysis 1 as well... you took damage you lost energy. Now in crysis 2, its just a constant drain but still LASTS LONGER THAN ARMOR IN CRYSIS 1. Play the in games before you say i haven't.

You evidently don't play games before creating an opinion of them. I highly recommend you do so because honestly you make yourself look stupid when you assert your opinion as fact when your own opinion is simply how you feel about the new controlset. I said i LIKED the new control scheme more.

EDIT: Sorry for sounding so aggressive don't take it personally kind of a bad day today. Here are two pics of timesquare I just took http://imgur.com/a/bTmwV

[DeltZ]

I had more fun with crysis 2 and thought it looked overall better. The lighting makes a billion times more difference than any texture resolution could in my opinion. I don't face hug walls so i can scrutinise texture resolution, so bar the funny floating rubbish textures, it looked better. Not to mention, upgraded textures is an easy thing to upgrade.

Physics seem to be mostly ported from the first but scaled back in usage.
A few destructable road items etc /= to numerous huts you can break in crysis 1. Destructible trees still present in Crysis 2, but to a less extent, more unbreakable types + obviously not much jungle.

Generally preferred controls, functionality is pretty much identical, Q and E for default mode switch is far far better than having to scroll wheel press and move to the side. Lets face it, if I was wearing a nano suit, I'd prefer the crysis 2 controls linked to my suit not ..oh crap, went into the wrong mode on my billion dollar suit again lolz, like whoever designed the UI of the suit was <10 years old.

Except for any preference to sandbox delinearising features for gameplay, all this game needed is apparently higher textures and tesselation and 90% of complainers would shut up...