a couple of 4850 crysis screenshots..

[natty1]

People don't know what a poorly optimized game is. If you want a good example go back and look at the first Enemy Territory game.

 

[GlacierFreeze]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Adjust the gamma settings.

Good idea. I'll be sure and try that when I can.

 

[wolf2009]

wow looks good , i'll have to download this mod today .

 

[toadeater]

Originally posted by: Bull Dog
UE3 doesn't hold a candle to Crysis's game engine (CryEngine is it?).

Just because UE3 developers target their games at consoles doesn't mean the engine can't do more. Another thing is system requirements; I played Bioshock and GRAW 2 on a 7600GS and an overclocked Pentium D, I wouldn't want to try that with Crysis. Once you have to set Crysis to medium or low, it starts looking like Far Cry.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Here's one of my pics.
I had to decrease the size, though to avoid jpeg artifacts.

Crysis1

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Sylvanas

Originally posted by: Bull Dog
UE3 doesn't hold a candle to Crysis's game engine (CryEngine is it?). UE3 games (Gears, UT3, Bioshock ect.) have been made for consoles and as such don't really offer anything more than than we've already seen in the past three years. Sure they look pretty good, but in the end it still falls apart at the edges. Crysis doesn't have the problem. Frankly, compared to Crysis, those games look like crap.

Well that is you're own subjective opinion. I don't think any of us here would say that Bioshock or UT3 'look crap' that's ridiculous, especially given how on equivalent hardware it runs at least twice as fast fps wise than Crysis. I could link pictures as evidence but that would derail this thread into a argument.

I think I will reinstall Crysis and give this mod a go, thanks mancunian :thumbsup:

Yes, Bioshock looks amazing and it looks amazing with 3-4x the FPS on equivalent hardware even with AA and AF enabled under DX10. The problem with Crysis is that until recently, no one had the hardware capable of running it smoothly with any of the advanced graphics options turned on.

 

[KeithTalent]

Interesting, thanks OP. I was thinking of dumping my 2900XTs and picking up a couple of 4870s to Crossfire.

Looking at your pics is making me want to do it even more.

KT

 

[videogames101]

I'm always most impressed by the water in crysis. Like, it looks SO AMAZING. The water is the bets looking part of the game in my opinion, assuming your on high graphic settings.

 

[hooflung]

Crysis' problems are more to do with tired story, buggy experiences, EA baggage and lack of real emergent game play that sets itself apart from other shooters. Where it does set itself apart is graphics. It makes UT3 look out dated even with all the eye candy it does, in fact, have. Unoptimized code, yes I would say it is a bit unoptimized by looking at Cross-Fire support and that it runs pretty identical on a 3.2ghz C2D as it runs on a 4.0ghz C2D. But how many other games do the same?

Crysis is shit because... well its stale. Give me a game with a future packed engine on feature packed emergent gameplay with a deeply entwined plot. Maybe a Deus Ex 3 or a real System Shock sequel. Sorry, Bioshock was more a tech demo, sci-fi channel snoozer than a real SS sequel.

 

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020

Originally posted by: Sylvanas

Originally posted by: Bull Dog
UE3 doesn't hold a candle to Crysis's game engine (CryEngine is it?). UE3 games (Gears, UT3, Bioshock ect.) have been made for consoles and as such don't really offer anything more than than we've already seen in the past three years. Sure they look pretty good, but in the end it still falls apart at the edges. Crysis doesn't have the problem. Frankly, compared to Crysis, those games look like crap.

Well that is you're own subjective opinion. I don't think any of us here would say that Bioshock or UT3 'look crap' that's ridiculous, especially given how on equivalent hardware it runs at least twice as fast fps wise than Crysis. I could link pictures as evidence but that would derail this thread into a argument.

I think I will reinstall Crysis and give this mod a go, thanks mancunian :thumbsup:

I hate people saying CryEngine2 is badly optimized or badly coded, sure it doesn't run all that great at the highest settings but at medium the game looks much better than UE3 and runs at 60fps.

When the CryEngine2 is configured to produce graphics similar to other engines out there it runs just as well as them if not better.

So again, CRYSIS IS NOT A POORLY CODED GAME. Our hardware sucks, that is all, Crysis is meant to be futureproof.

Well if Crysis Warhead is suddenly 'better optimized' than the original in Cevat Yerli's own words- then that would tell you that in fact the original is UNoptimized and not running as well as it could do. Crysis does not run on medium at 60fps, maybe if you are at 1024x768...even then thats a stretch. I run UE3 games 1920x1200 DX9/DX10 max settings 16XAF and I get 40-60FPS in almost every instance- Crysis cannot do this at 1920x1200.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Sylvanas

Well if Crysis Warhead is suddenly 'better optimized' than the original in Cevat Yerli's own words- then that would tell you that in fact the original is UNoptimized and not running as well as it could do. Crysis does not run on medium at 60fps, maybe if you are at 1024x768...even then thats a stretch. I run UE3 games 1920x1200 DX9/DX10 max settings 16XAF and I get 40-60FPS in almost every instance- Crysis cannot do this at 1920x1200.

look at doom3 --> quake 4 --> ETQW