FAR CRY

[Czar]

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Czar
I finished the game, finaly
maybe spoilers for some



only cheated twice
first it was the level where you are dumped at a hilltop with one rifle and sfsckngin 10 bullets, could have probably sneaked past all the critters but it would have just taken too many tries, ended when I was at the river, or sea, the water that parted the level
second was the last level, I mean I was only playing it at easy but that map is impossible!! it takes 8-10 shotgun shells to kill one of those bastard and I even used the rockets on one, all direct hits and needed 5 rockets to take one down!!

You can walk or swim past most of those guys.

swim? the water isnt deep enough for swimming
and I tried walking quite a few times and that didnt work, but thats definetly the way, I figured that out while I was cheating

I used the notarget cheat and the little buggers are realy attracted to sound so you can distract them easily by throwing rocks, and the big guys are either stationary and dont react to sound or have a fixed walking path

 

[PCTweaker5]

Most people with high end systems want to run with "all" settings maxed such as myself and thats when they notice how hard this game cripples their systems. I think it runs quite alright with all settings maxed and shadows on low for me but I doubt 1GB of RAM would make it any better.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Czar
I finished the game, finaly
maybe spoilers for some



only cheated twice
first it was the level where you are dumped at a hilltop with one rifle and sfsckngin 10 bullets, could have probably sneaked past all the critters but it would have just taken too many tries, ended when I was at the river, or sea, the water that parted the level
second was the last level, I mean I was only playing it at easy but that map is impossible!! it takes 8-10 shotgun shells to kill one of those bastard and I even used the rockets on one, all direct hits and needed 5 rockets to take one down!!

You can walk or swim past most of those guys.

swim? the water isnt deep enough for swimming
and I tried walking quite a few times and that didnt work, but thats definetly the way, I figured that out while I was cheating

I used the notarget cheat and the little buggers are realy attracted to sound so you can distract them easily by throwing rocks, and the big guys are either stationary and dont react to sound or have a fixed walking path

There is a river stemming from where you're dropped off from the helicopter. But being that this game has several different routes to one location, it doesnt surprise me that we both found different ways of getting to the objective. Anyways, yes...when you find the river...you can swim past most of the creeps and they will not attack. If I recall, only one actually attempted to attack me.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: PCTweaker5
Most people with high end systems want to run with "all" settings maxed such as myself and thats when they notice how hard this game cripples their systems. I think it runs quite alright with all settings maxed and shadows on low for me but I doubt 1GB of RAM would make it any better.

I jumped from 512 to 1GB right before buying the game. It was actually the day I puchased BFV. I installed it, and tweaked out the settings and it ran ok, but there was a little bit of a studder here and there. So, knowing that Farcry was coming down the pipe (along with HL2, D3, ect) I decided to upgrade and it made a huge difference in performance for me. It was a cheap $140 upgrade. Kingston is having a sale ($20 off each stick of 512MB pc2700). You would see a difference in load times and performance for sure.

BTW, I've got most settings maxed out as well, with shadows on low.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: PCTweaker5
Most people with high end systems want to run with "all" settings maxed such as myself and thats when they notice how hard this game cripples their systems. I think it runs quite alright with all settings maxed and shadows on low for me but I doubt 1GB of RAM would make it any better.

And rightfully so after spending $400+ on the latest video card and who knows how much on a fast processor, lots of RAM etc. I still believe that the video card is the limiting factor in most modern games and today's video cards are same as what we had 1 1/2 years ago with some minor upgrades. A $400+ video card should absolutely handle today's games at maxed out settings. In other words $400 today should be buying a lot more card than it does right now.

 

[HostVisions]

Originally posted by: Xiety
Will I be able to enjoy the game with maxed out settings?

My system is:

P4 2.44 Ghz
1024 MB DDR RAM
ATI RADEON 9500 Pro
Sound Blaster Audigy Gamer

???

Definately not. This is the same as my system (2.4 Xeon, 1GB Ram, 9500p). I'm running it on medium and it's silky smooth though. Bought a 9800p this weekend to see if it helps but haven't installed.

Even on medium the graphics are great.

 

[AEnigmaWI]

There is an easy way to see if you need more RAM for a particular game.. First of all, if you are swapping during the game (HD is running) you probably need more RAM.

A more methodical way is to do a fresh restart, run game with detail turned up, get into game, then switch out to the task manager. Look at your commit charge section under the performance tab, and notice the current and peak values. The current value is the amount of memory the system is asking for. The peak is the maximum amount it has asked for during your current windows session (ie the fresh restart before doing this). If either of these are above 524,000, you have need for more than 512 megs of RAM. If not, then you're golden. Unreal 2k4 with gphx settings turned all the way up needs about 800 megs of RAM to run smoothly in multiplayer. I would assume this game needs that much as well.

 

[zodder]

Here's my take on it:

I know a lot has been made about how wonderful and real the scenery looks in this game, but I have a very big bone to pick with this game:

WTF can't my machine plow through this game at acceptable resolutions and framerates?! It's absolutely ridiculous! I have an A64 3200 (@2.2ghz), 512 x 2 of XMS3200LL, and a 9800 Pro and I still have framerate issues at 1280x1024. That is absolutely unacceptable. I have the latest Catalyst drivers, but the same thing happens with the older Cats. With a high end rig like mine, there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to run Far Cry at 1280x1024 with all the eye candy on.

I have no idea how people are playing this on slower rigs, but it sucks and something needs to be done about it. Please don't bring your "It runs fine at 800x600, low details for me" comments in here. There is a problem with this game and it needs to be addressed.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: zodder
Here's my take on it:

I know a lot has been made about how wonderful and real the scenery looks in this game, but I have a very big bone to pick with this game:

WTF can't my machine plow through this game at acceptable resolutions and framerates?! It's absolutely ridiculous! I have an A64 3200 (@2.2ghz), 512 x 2 of XMS3200LL, and a 9800 Pro and I still have framerate issues at 1280x1024. That is absolutely unacceptable. I have the latest Catalyst drivers, but the same thing happens with the older Cats. With a high end rig like mine, there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to run Far Cry at 1280x1024 with all the eye candy on.

I have no idea how people are playing this on slower rigs, but it sucks and something needs to be done about it. Please don't bring your "It runs fine at 800x600, low details for me" comments in here. There is a problem with this game and it needs to be addressed.

it's made for high end systems. as simple as that. my friend has the same system as you and he has no problems whatsoever. maybe you need a cure for your system? read this thread and you will see people with high end systems don't have any problems with the game.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: zodder
Here's my take on it:

I know a lot has been made about how wonderful and real the scenery looks in this game, but I have a very big bone to pick with this game:

WTF can't my machine plow through this game at acceptable resolutions and framerates?! It's absolutely ridiculous! I have an A64 3200 (@2.2ghz), 512 x 2 of XMS3200LL, and a 9800 Pro and I still have framerate issues at 1280x1024. That is absolutely unacceptable. I have the latest Catalyst drivers, but the same thing happens with the older Cats. With a high end rig like mine, there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to run Far Cry at 1280x1024 with all the eye candy on.

I have no idea how people are playing this on slower rigs, but it sucks and something needs to be done about it. Please don't bring your "It runs fine at 800x600, low details for me" comments in here. There is a problem with this game and it needs to be addressed.

No, it's a problem with your hardware. The software is fine, you just need to get it out of your head that you can run it at 100% detail. Use the Auto-detect feature and play the game.

I have a P4 2.53 with 512 of CAS 3500 and a Radeon 9800 Pro. The game runs between 30-60fps with almost all details above the high mark. As long as it doesn't dip below 30 fps I'm happy. Remember this isn't a shoot/jumper like Quake or UT.

You may also want to wait for the compiled 64 bit version, it should be out in the next few months.

 

[zodder]

OK. Now that I've vented, can somebody with a very similiar setup to mine explain how they have this configured so it runs smoothly? From what I've gathered so far:

1. Disable AA/AS (both in game and in comp video settings)
2. Set everything to "Very High"
3. Set resolution to 1280x1024
4. Play and enjoy game

I'll try it one more time.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: zodder
OK. Now that I've vented, can somebody with a very similiar setup to mine explain how they have this configured so it runs smoothly? From what I've gathered so far:

1. Disable AA/AS (both in game and in comp video settings)
2. Set everything to "Very High"
3. Set resolution to 1280x1024
4. Play and enjoy game

I'll try it one more time.

Obviously there is a configuration problem on your end. The software is fine. My system isnt as powerful as yours, and it runs great. Did you turn of your Anti-viri software? Make sure you kill all the unecissary application in the BG.

 

[HardWarrior]

I run AV ALL the time and haven't had any problems with games. FC does have some sound issues though.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
I run AV ALL the time and haven't had any problems with games. FC does have some sound issues though.

Thats fine for you. But you're missing the point. Shes having issues and your not. Look at her system and reread the thread. Obviously something is using resources and not making it available for her. Hell, Farcry was made to take advantage of her 64-bit CPU, so it should be screaming! BTW, I didnt have any sound issues

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
I run AV ALL the time and haven't had any problems with games. FC does have some sound issues though.

Thats fine for you. But you're missing the point. Shes having issues and your not. Look at her system and reread the thread. Obviously something is using resources and not making it available for her. Hell, Farcry was made to take advantage of her 64-bit CPU, so it should be screaming! BTW, I didnt have any sound issues

No, I'm not missing the point. AV isn't going to cause the sort of problems this person in having. Telling her to chase wild gooses isn't going to make the situation better. FC's current build isn't 64-bit. There's a patch that makes that possible, but it isn't available yet. I'm glad you aren't having in sound issues, thougn many people seem too. The offending cards are 99% Audigy with many ZS users, like me, complaining. My I ask what sort of sound card you have?

 

[PCTweaker5]

Cmon guys keep it cool, no need for a fight that isnt ATI/Nvidia related.

 

[HardWarrior]

I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I wasn't cool. I just have issues with people who try to talk to me like I just feel off of a watermelon truck.

 

[jorwex]

so i dled the 560 mb demo (same as the 530 cept it came with dx9), and i think its only got one of the levels that i've heard of. i thought this one, being the newer one that came out in march, and not the one that came out in january (and this one being 60 megs bigger than the first demo)....would have both levels.

do you have to get to it w/ a console command? or do i really need to download the other 504 mb file to get the first demo?
i thought i had the right file, but my friend said that the one he had started out on a boat (that you can drive around), and the one i got didnt.

thanks!

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
I run AV ALL the time and haven't had any problems with games. FC does have some sound issues though.

Thats fine for you. But you're missing the point. Shes having issues and your not. Look at her system and reread the thread. Obviously something is using resources and not making it available for her. Hell, Farcry was made to take advantage of her 64-bit CPU, so it should be screaming! BTW, I didnt have any sound issues

No, I'm not missing the point. AV isn't going to cause the sort of problems this person in having. Telling her to chase wild gooses isn't going to make the situation better. FC's current build isn't 64-bit. There's a patch that makes that possible, but it isn't available yet. I'm glad you aren't having in sound issues, thougn many people seem too. The offending cards are 99% Audigy with many ZS users, like me, complaining. My I ask what sort of sound card you have?

Interesting, I have the box right infront of me and it has the Athlon64 logo on it. But, I couldnt find anything that says that is does support it out of the box. But I also couldnt find anything that says it doesnt, so perhaps this arguement is moot.

I do find it interesting that I would like to take away other variables to narrow down the troubleshooting field to see how it effects performance (it just ight increase it despite her system specs). Without even trying it out or hearing the results, you debunk it. I've been working on PCs for years and have encounted issues that AV software can create. Heck, we dont even know what kind she has...so we cannot even say whether or not its good or bad.

Were did you get this 99% number when reffering to offending audigy SCs?

BTW, my mobo is housing an nForce2 chipset.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
I run AV ALL the time and haven't had any problems with games. FC does have some sound issues though.

Thats fine for you. But you're missing the point. Shes having issues and your not. Look at her system and reread the thread. Obviously something is using resources and not making it available for her. Hell, Farcry was made to take advantage of her 64-bit CPU, so it should be screaming! BTW, I didnt have any sound issues

No, I'm not missing the point. AV isn't going to cause the sort of problems this person in having. Telling her to chase wild gooses isn't going to make the situation better. FC's current build isn't 64-bit. There's a patch that makes that possible, but it isn't available yet. I'm glad you aren't having in sound issues, thougn many people seem too. The offending cards are 99% Audigy with many ZS users, like me, complaining. My I ask what sort of sound card you have?

Interesting, I have the box right infront of me and it has the Athlon64 logo on it. But, I couldnt find anything that says that is does support it out of the box. But I also couldnt find anything that says it doesnt, so perhaps this arguement is moot.

I do find it interesting that I would like to take away other variables to narrow down the troubleshooting field to see how it effects performance (it just ight increase it despite her system specs). Without even trying it out or hearing the results, you debunk it. I've been working on PCs for years and have encounted issues that AV software can create. Heck, we dont even know what kind she has...so we cannot even say whether or not its good or bad.

Were did you get this 99% number when reffering to offending audigy SCs?

BTW, my mobo is housing an nForce2 chipset.

I noticed the logo on the box as well, but apparently the doesn't mean much. The link to the 64-bit patch is at the Ubisoft site if you'd like to know for sure.

Some variables need to be ignored out of hand. The myth of AV SW chewing up resources and CPU when a game is running is just that, a myth. Any of the commonly used AV SW can be included in this. As long as a automated scan doesn't start up the most AV SW will do is allocate RAM. And with a 1gig machine that isn't an issue.

From reading posts at Ubisoft. The overwhelming majority of those with sound issues have Audigy cards. I've seen 1 complaint from a person with a SB Live card, and his issues were different from mine. If you're thinking about arguing the 99% idea, don't waste your time.

I was actually thinking of activating onboard sound (Soundstorm) to see what would happen, but since I'm so satified with the ZS I'll just wait to see what Ubisoft does with the situation.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
I run AV ALL the time and haven't had any problems with games. FC does have some sound issues though.

Thats fine for you. But you're missing the point. Shes having issues and your not. Look at her system and reread the thread. Obviously something is using resources and not making it available for her. Hell, Farcry was made to take advantage of her 64-bit CPU, so it should be screaming! BTW, I didnt have any sound issues

No, I'm not missing the point. AV isn't going to cause the sort of problems this person in having. Telling her to chase wild gooses isn't going to make the situation better. FC's current build isn't 64-bit. There's a patch that makes that possible, but it isn't available yet. I'm glad you aren't having in sound issues, thougn many people seem too. The offending cards are 99% Audigy with many ZS users, like me, complaining. My I ask what sort of sound card you have?

Interesting, I have the box right infront of me and it has the Athlon64 logo on it. But, I couldnt find anything that says that is does support it out of the box. But I also couldnt find anything that says it doesnt, so perhaps this arguement is moot.

I do find it interesting that I would like to take away other variables to narrow down the troubleshooting field to see how it effects performance (it just ight increase it despite her system specs). Without even trying it out or hearing the results, you debunk it. I've been working on PCs for years and have encounted issues that AV software can create. Heck, we dont even know what kind she has...so we cannot even say whether or not its good or bad.

Were did you get this 99% number when reffering to offending audigy SCs?

BTW, my mobo is housing an nForce2 chipset.

I noticed the logo on the box as well, but apparently the doesn't mean much. The link to the 64-bit patch is at the Ubisoft site if you'd like to know for sure.

Some variables need to be ignored out of hand. The myth of AV SW chewing up resources and CPU when a game is running is just that, a myth. Any of the commonly used AV SW can be included in this. As long as a automated scan doesn't start up the most AV SW will do is allocate RAM. And with a 1gig machine that isn't an issue.

From reading posts at Ubisoft. The overwhelming majority of those with sound issues have Audigy cards. I've seen 1 complaint from a person with a SB Live card, and his issues were different from mine. If you're thinking about arguing the 99% idea, don't waste your time.

I was actually thinking of activating onboard sound (Soundstorm) to see what would happen, but since I'm so satified with the ZS I'll just wait to see what Ubisoft does with the situation.

hehe, this is even constructive anymore. Consider this now pointless arguement, done, on my end Now back to the real issue (if Zodder post again).

 

[Davegod]

I've found comments (not just this thread, or AT, but all over the place) about this game highlight a bizzare phenomenon.

People are calling it crap, rubbishing the coding, and generally saying things like zodder's post - although often more vitriolic, or they're caustic about the game generally and it has to be coaxed out that the highest settings performance is really what is actually pissing them off.

Visually, Far Cry pisses over every other game I've seen. It takes them out into the jungle and goes to the toilet on them. I mean ffs, look at the games released in the last 6 months, compare and contrast the screens? It runs slowly with all candy on because its a brand new engine that theyre hoping to be selling for many games over several years. Personally, I'm playing this smoothly at 1024x768 with everything at medium, no FSAA or Aniso and I'm damn impressed. Low settings on FC is like other games' max settings, no, it's still much better than most of them.

I'm pretty confident less people would whine if they just took high & very high detail settings out and renamed medium to "max".

 

[Slogun]

Originally posted by: Davegod
I've found comments (not just this thread, or AT, but all over the place) about this game highlight a bizzare phenomenon.

People are calling it crap, rubbishing the coding, and generally saying things like zodder's post - although often more vitriolic, or they're caustic about the game generally and it has to be coaxed out that the highest settings performance is really what is actually pissing them off.

Visually, Far Cry pisses over every other game I've seen. It takes them out into the jungle and goes to the toilet on them. I mean ffs, look at the games released in the last 6 months, compare and contrast the screens? It runs slowly with all candy on because its a brand new engine that theyre hoping to be selling for many games over several years. Personally, I'm playing this smoothly at 1024x768 with everything at medium, no FSAA or Aniso and I'm damn impressed. Low settings on FC is like other games' max settings, no, it's still much better than most of them.

I'm pretty confident less people would whine if they just took high & very high detail settings out and renamed medium to "max".

Your point is well taken.
I think people are worrying too much also about fps. Playing Far cry with an FPS of 50 is a hell of a lot better than playing half life at 99 FPS.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: Davegod
I've found comments (not just this thread, or AT, but all over the place) about this game highlight a bizzare phenomenon.

People are calling it crap, rubbishing the coding, and generally saying things like zodder's post - although often more vitriolic, or they're caustic about the game generally and it has to be coaxed out that the highest settings performance is really what is actually pissing them off.

Visually, Far Cry pisses over every other game I've seen. It takes them out into the jungle and goes to the toilet on them. I mean ffs, look at the games released in the last 6 months, compare and contrast the screens? It runs slowly with all candy on because its a brand new engine that theyre hoping to be selling for many games over several years. Personally, I'm playing this smoothly at 1024x768 with everything at medium, no FSAA or Aniso and I'm damn impressed. Low settings on FC is like other games' max settings, no, it's still much better than most of them.

I'm pretty confident less people would whine if they just took high & very high detail settings out and renamed medium to "max".

Agreed 100%, Davegod.

 

[snidy1]

It's awesome