Crysis best DX10 effects for XP DX9

Aug 9, 2007
150
0
0
For all of those "poor" souls like me who are still stuck with the 100MB footprint OS XP 32-bit and not marvel at the nice looking 500MB Vista juwel, I've made a small list of "DX10" effects that aren't activated on HIGH settings in Crysis and must be enabled manually.
It's really better to just pick what you really need. If you just activate "VERY HIGH" on all the options you'll get a performance drop to e.g. 25 fps from 40.
If you just activate the coolest looking ones and cut some crap you can still have 35-40fps and basically won't notice the difference between DX10 VERY HIGH and the tuned DX9 "ALMOST VERY HIGH"

Just copy and paste that what you want into a txt-file called "autoexec.cfg" and put it in your GAME/config folder. É voila: VERY HIGH on DX9 and it runs even a little faster than DX10 Vista.

I get between 30-40 fps in the Crysis demo with a lot of the VERY HIGH options enabled.
Plz note that you may have to play at a resolution of 1280x800 or 1440x900 to get smooth results. Crysis just isn't the game u can run at 1920 and all VERY HIGH and still have 35+ fps. Oh and very important:
Ditch that AA, it isn't going to work on the foilage in Crysis at all and causes a huge performance hit. There is a way to enable ingame edgeAA for all the foilage with almost no fps loss. Try this instead.

Now here is a list of the commands I use:
Note that I have set everything, except SHADOWS to "HIGH" in the advanced game settings. SHADOWS I have at MEDIUM because I think the difference in visual quality is negligible and you get like 4-5 fps more if you let them at MEDIUM. Sometimes they even look nicer with the little flickering going on, like you'll get in RealLife with vegetation and tropical heat.


So here is my autoexec.cfg

-- Enable Framerate info counter (of course not needed for gameplay)
r_displayinfo = 1

-- Enables the nice sun rays coming through vegetation (must have)
r_sunshafts = 1

-- Enables some additional volumetric ray stuff (isn't necessary but nice to have)
r_BeamsDistFactor = .05
r_BeamsMaxSlices = 200

-- Enables 3d effects on ground terrain like stones and sand dunes on the beach. (Parallax occlusion mapping) and normal maps on trees, rocks etc.
r_GeomInstancing = 1
r_UsePom = 1
r_shownormals = 1
e_terrain_normal_map = 1

--Enable in game Anti-Aliasing for foilage. 1 is activated when you play in HIGH, 2 is a little better
r_UseEdgeAA = 2

--Very nice feature. Dust is kicked in the air and stays, blows with the wind if a battle is intense. Really adds to the combat situations
g_battleDust_enable = 1

-Foilage is drawn and wind is activated a little farther away
e_view_dist_ratio_detail = 30
e_view_dist_ratio_vegetation = 45
e_foliage_wind_activation_dist = 25



Basically the "must have" stuff in my opinion is the Battledust, the sun rays and the parallax occlusion mapping for ground and other textures.
I don't find the more advanced water stuff really worth the performance drop. Sometimes the higher waves look more ridiculous when in shallow waters than the algorithm used for HIGH.
With this and the normal "HIGH" activated you can still achieve very playable framerates in the upper 30s or even 40s and have all the important eyecandy from DX10

If you want the full "VERY HIGH" treatment, regardless wether you'll notice stuff or not, here is the complete list. But be prepared to have a fps drop of at leat 25-33% from the fps you get in HIGH. Just copy this into an autoexec.bat file:

sys_spec_GameEffects = 3
sys_spec_ObjectDetail = 3
sys_spec_Particles = 3
sys_spec_Physics = 3
sys_spec_PostProcessing = 3
sys_spec_Quality = 3
sys_spec_Shading = 3
sys_spec_Shadows = 3
sys_spec_Texture = 3
sys_spec_VolumetricEffects = 3
sys_spec_Water = 3
e_foliage_wind_activation_dist = 25
e_max_entity_lights = 16
e_obj_quality = 4
e_particles_max_emitter_draw_screen = 32
e_particles_quality = 4
e_shadows_cast_view_dist_ratio = 0.8
e_vegetation_sprites_distance_ratio = 1.5
e_view_dist_ratio_detail = 30
e_view_dist_ratio_vegetation = 45
e_water_ocean_fft = 1
e_water_tesselation_amount = 10
es_DebrisLifetimeScale = 1
g_battleDust_enable = 1
g_breakage_particles_limit = 250
g_ragdollDistance = 40
g_ragdollMinTime = 15
q_Renderer = 3
q_ShaderFX = 3
q_ShaderGeneral = 3
q_ShaderGlass = 3
q_ShaderHDR = 3
q_ShaderIce = 3
q_ShaderMetal = 3
q_ShaderPostProcess = 3
q_ShaderShadow = 3
q_ShaderSky = 3
q_ShaderTerrain = 3
q_ShaderVegetation = 3
q_ShaderWater = 3
r_BeamsDistFactor = .05
r_BeamsMaxSlices = 200
r_ColorGrading = 1
r_DepthOfField = 2
r_DetailNumLayers = 2
r_DynTexAtlasSpritesMaxSize = 32
r_MotionBlur = 4
r_ShadowJittering = 2.5
r_SSAO_quality = 2
r_SSAO_radius = 2
r_sunshafts = 1
r_TexAtlasSize = 2048
r_Usepom = 1
r_WaterReflectionsQuality = 3
r_WaterUpdateDistance = 0.2
 

Fistandantilis

Senior member
Aug 29, 2004
845
0
0
I would like to try your offered tips, but I cant figure out where to put the file. could you just create the file for me (dx10 very high settings)and give detailed directions as to where to put it?
thank you.

 
Aug 9, 2007
150
0
0
Just copy and paste the list into a Text-File. You can create one on your desktop by rightclicking with the mouse and selecting New->Text Document. Then paste the stuff you want in there. Save it as a file called "autoexec.cfg" and move it to:
C:\games\Crysis SP Demo\Game\Config
That would be the folder for the Demo and assuming you have a Games-Folder
If you see plenty of other .cfg files in there you know it's the right directory.
It will be autoexecuted at startup each time.
 
Aug 9, 2007
150
0
0
Why bashing? Sometimes you can't just impartially show both sides of an argument equally, when one side is just plain wrong or worse.
After examining the DX10 situation with Crysis closely, which btw was hailed as "the DX10 title (tm)" you can't ignore the fact that the whole justification for DX10 on Vista only, namely more speed, new effects, more particles etc.. was just a flat out propaganda lie to sell Vista.
I'm baffled that no major hardware site has really called them out on the subject the way it should be covered. There are some blogs which touched upon it but no one really dug deep enough imo.
They still say " ah wait till the first DX10 titles which have been built from the ground up as DX10 will come out" blabla.
Fact is: DX10 is a year old and not one of the announced titles runs better in DX10 than DX9 + you need a monster machine way more expensive to achieve the same performance.
It's the ripoff of the decade and we should name it as that.
Maybe in another year DX10.2 will show some improvements but by that time the successor to Vista will be almost ready. I think people have all the right to critize Vista.
 

Fistandantilis

Senior member
Aug 29, 2004
845
0
0
OK thanks, I will post back at some point with my results. right now I am playing on high settings at 1680x1050 and I am getting ~35-40 FPS and the game looks fantastic, I especially like how the foliage seems to bend as you walk thru it, that is a nice touch.
 

mode101wpb

Senior member
Aug 16, 2005
445
0
71
Originally posted by: frythecpuofbender
Why bashing? Sometimes you can't just impartially show both sides of an argument equally, when one side is just plain wrong or worse.
After examining the DX10 situation with Crysis closely, which btw was hailed as "the DX10 title (tm)" you can't ignore the fact that the whole justification for DX10 on Vista only, namely more speed, new effects, more particles etc.. was just a flat out propaganda lie to sell Vista.
I'm baffled that no major hardware site has really called them out on the subject the way it should be covered. There are some blogs which touched upon it but no one really dug deep enough imo.
They still say " ah wait till the first DX10 titles which have been built from the ground up as DX10 will come out" blabla.
Fact is: DX10 is a year old and not one of the announced titles runs better in DX10 than DX9 + you need a monster machine way more expensive to achieve the same performance.
It's the ripoff of the decade and we should name it as that.
Maybe in another year DX10.2 will show some improvements but by that time the successor to Vista will be almost ready. I think people have all the right to critize Vista.

You have to be careful on here with the Vista comments, bleeding edgers will respawn in full effect.

I don't think your Vista bashing at all, thanks for the post I'll have to try it when I pick up Crysis.
 

VashHT

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2007
3,364
1,441
136
Originally posted by: frythecpuofbender
Why bashing? Sometimes you can't just impartially show both sides of an argument equally, when one side is just plain wrong or worse.
After examining the DX10 situation with Crysis closely, which btw was hailed as "the DX10 title (tm)" you can't ignore the fact that the whole justification for DX10 on Vista only, namely more speed, new effects, more particles etc.. was just a flat out propaganda lie to sell Vista.
I'm baffled that no major hardware site has really called them out on the subject the way it should be covered. There are some blogs which touched upon it but no one really dug deep enough imo.
They still say " ah wait till the first DX10 titles which have been built from the ground up as DX10 will come out" blabla.
Fact is: DX10 is a year old and not one of the announced titles runs better in DX10 than DX9 + you need a monster machine way more expensive to achieve the same performance.
It's the ripoff of the decade and we should name it as that.
Maybe in another year DX10.2 will show some improvements but by that time the successor to Vista will be almost ready. I think people have all the right to critize Vista.

I'm not arguing that it runs better in xp, but you're blowing the performance drop in Vista way out of proportion, so much that it makes your argument look like a stupid pathetic conspiracy theory, and you really are. I've tried Crysis with my machine in Vista32bit, 64bit and XP 32bit. I have no numebrs for 64bit yet, but with the settings I am using at 1920x1080 I get a pretty steady 30fps in XP. In Vista 32bit with the same settings I get around 27fps. Yeah theres a performance drop, but you don't need a "monster machine" to get the same performance, its actually just a small drop in performance. I have no numbers from 64bit vista yet, but people have been saying it gives a 10-20% increase over 32bit, so it may even run just as well in 64bit vista as it does in 32bit xp.

BTW I am playing it mainly in XP because it runs slightly better in it, so I have no reason to defend Vista except that I've actually used it and its not as bad as you make it out to be.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
I think people are getting too upset/defensive about their vista purchase. I bought it, and I feel embarrassed, too. But I'm not going to disagree that it's not worth the upgrade right now. I moved back to xp 64bit for now. Maybe in the future when sp1 or later comes out, I'll switch forward.

Vista really pissed me off, though. I'm not going to deny that or insult people because they didn't make the same early purchase that I did.
 

VashHT

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2007
3,364
1,441
136
Originally posted by: manowar821
I think people are getting too upset/defensive about their vista purchase. I bought it, and I feel embarrassed, too. But I'm not going to disagree that it's not worth the upgrade right now. I moved back to xp 64bit for now. Maybe in the future when sp1 or later comes out, I'll switch forward.

Vista really pissed me off, though. I'm not going to deny that or insult people because they didn't make the same early purchase that I did.

I got my copy of vista for free for beta testing it, so no I'm not embarrassed I spent money on it or anything petty like that. In all honesty its exactly as I said, people are blowing the performance drop in Vista way out of proportion. To be honest the only reason I have ever gone back to XP is because of poor drivers support for Vista. I was very happy with Vista 64 using my x1900xtx, but when I got my 8800gt I began having far more driver problems and eventually went back to XP.

For me the most annoying part about people who bash Vista is the ridiculous exaggerations they place on small problems. Maybe I'm just annoyed because all the problems I've had for it have not been with the OS itself, but the drivers for it. Luckily I've gone through this before when XP came out, so I have no problem running two different OS's until Vista becomes more stable.

If I had to buy Vista though I would not have it right now, but only for poor driver support. When the drivers are working correctly I really like using Vista, but until the driver support is better I will keep an XP install to fall back to whenever I have problems
 
Aug 9, 2007
150
0
0
Don't want to derail this further but just one more thing about Vista.
I work with a lot of applications that need very good OpenGL support, like After Effects or Maya. Vista at first had zero support planned for OpenGL, obviously a powerplay by Microsoft to finally bring Adobe, Autodesk etc to ditch OpenGL support and switch to DirectX. I don't know the exact situation right now. but I think the OpenGL support in Vista is still way behind the performance XP achieved. Maybe I'm a little too romantic tech-progress lover but I only like new tech when it's either faster, more efficient, leaner, smaller or more environment friendly (power). Vista doesn't have any of those. And I don't need more eyecandy or new desktop playthings. Crysis was a candidate to suck my over to the Vista side but Crytek nicely put all the "DX10" options in Crysis to be activated in DX9 too.
As there is no DX10 killer app on the horizon it seems like I could skip Vista altogether and just wait til the next OS from Microsoft.
 

Billyzeke

Senior member
Jul 7, 2006
652
1
0
Originally posted by: frythecpuofbender
Don't want to derail this further but just one more thing about Vista.
I work with a lot of applications that need very good OpenGL support, like After Effects or Maya. Vista at first had zero support planned for OpenGL, obviously a powerplay by Microsoft to finally bring Adobe, Autodesk etc to ditch OpenGL support and switch to DirectX. I don't know the exact situation right now. but I think the OpenGL support in Vista is still way behind the performance XP achieved. Maybe I'm a little too romantic tech-progress lover but I only like new tech when it's either faster, more efficient, leaner, smaller or more environment friendly (power). Vista doesn't have any of those. And I don't need more eyecandy or new desktop playthings. Crysis was a candidate to suck my over to the Vista side but Crytek nicely put all the "DX10" options in Crysis to be activated in DX9 too.
As there is no DX10 killer app on the horizon it seems like I could skip Vista altogether and just wait til the next OS from Microsoft.

Well said, and thanks for the tweaks.
 

mode101wpb

Senior member
Aug 16, 2005
445
0
71
Originally posted by: frythecpuofbender
Don't want to derail this further but just one more thing about Vista.
I work with a lot of applications that need very good OpenGL support, like After Effects or Maya. Vista at first had zero support planned for OpenGL, obviously a powerplay by Microsoft to finally bring Adobe, Autodesk etc to ditch OpenGL support and switch to DirectX. I don't know the exact situation right now. but I think the OpenGL support in Vista is still way behind the performance XP achieved. Maybe I'm a little too romantic tech-progress lover but I only like new tech when it's either faster, more efficient, leaner, smaller or more environment friendly (power). Vista doesn't have any of those. And I don't need more eyecandy or new desktop playthings. Crysis was a candidate to suck my over to the Vista side but Crytek nicely put all the "DX10" options in Crysis to be activated in DX9 too.
As there is no DX10 killer app on the horizon it seems like I could skip Vista altogether and just wait til the next OS from Microsoft.

Many of Autodesk's latest releases support both OpenGL and DirectX. Even SolidWorks which is OpenGL only is certified for 32 bit Vista, not Vista x64 yet. My VAR isn't recommending Vista right now, eventhough it's pointless not to switch at the release of SP1.



 

spunkz

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2003
1,467
0
76
thanks op. i'll be using this setting from vista. i have to load the game using dx9 since the dx10 version gives me some insane mouse lag with the same graphics settings. anyone know why that is? i'm assuming driver issue but the 169s were the first ones i tried in vista.

oh and was anyone else annoyed that the stupid boat gunner could spot you from 3 miles away through dense foliage?
 
Aug 9, 2007
150
0
0
The battledust is subtle but very nice. Machine gun fire or cars kick up dirt and it lingers in the air for a couple of seconds. I'll try to get a screenshot of it when I'm done installing my full version.
Right now I'm searching for an English.pak file cause my 60? (87$ !!!) Special Edition of Crysis only has German, Turkish and Russian as language options. Thx to the stupid EA marketing exec who thought that it would be a great idea to seperate the different multilanguage versions.
 
Aug 9, 2007
150
0
0
Originally posted by: Aharami
are you sure it's called autoexec.bat, not autoexec.cfg? you call it by the .cfg once, rest of the times you refer to it as .bat

the crysis tweakguide in the crysis forums calls it autoexec.cfg.

Haha Shit! That must have been the good ole MSDOS Memmaker days messing with my brain. It's .cfg of course not .bat. LOL
Sorry for the freudian typo.
 

beatle

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2001
5,661
5
81
Thanks for the post. Just when I thought things couldn't look any better... :)
 

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,205
165
106
What kinda FPS do you get with these tweaks? The UsePom gives me a 3-4 FPS hit. w/o any tweaks I get 30 FPS avg on a
Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz
Abit IP35E
EVGA 8800 GTS 640 @ 620/2000
2 GB Ballistix PC6400 RAM
Win XP
169.09 beta drivers - yields about 1-2 FPS increase over 163.75

Seems kinda low for my system. Maybe I should run the crysis benchmarks
 

badnewcastle

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2004
1,016
0
0
Originally posted by: Aharami
What kinda FPS do you get with these tweaks? The UsePom gives me a 3-4 FPS hit. w/o any tweaks I get 30 FPS avg on a
Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz
Abit IP35E
EVGA 8800 GTS 640 @ 620/2000
2 GB Ballistix PC6400 RAM
Win XP
169.09 beta drivers - yields about 1-2 FPS increase over 163.75

Seems kinda low for my system. Maybe I should run the crysis benchmarks

I run 32-35 with dx9 on high no AA 1280x1024...

Drops to 25-29 with the dx9 tweaks... except shadows on medium.
 

CKent

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
9,020
0
0
Man, I kept saying my 1950xt would be fine for the game, but playing around with some of these tweaks, which somehow manage to make it look EVEN BETTER (didn't think that was possible) has really got me itching for an 8800u :(

PS - You need shaders on high to enable sunshafts, with shaders set to medium the shafts won't work even when enabled. Does anyone know the specific prerequisite cvar for them? I'd rather leave shaders on medium, since turning them up really pwns my fps.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Well, I just tried out the tweak config, and hot damn. This game is just... holy oh my god crazy sexy cool impossible amazing at 1920x1080 on a 42 inch monitor. The tweaked config didn't do much to my FPS, still make about 25-30 constant, but it looks better (the sun rays are especially mind blowing in their awesomeness). This is on a C2D @ 3GHz, 8800 GTX, 2 GB RAM, Raptor boot disk... Absolutely amazing graphics, everyone I've shown it to has been completely blown away (and most of the people I've shown it to couldn't care less about first person shooters).