Crysis (The game based on the new Crytek Engine)

[Javokis]

I just got done watching the new videos on the game play on it. Crysis looks like it's a beafed up Far Cry with better shadowing, modeling, animations, effects, and hi-def textures. I was impressed with the additional features you're given; enough to look into the Far Cry mod scene once again. I still am not impressed with the C++ scene, but I have been looking at Lua (The custom made playground language of the Crytek engine). A strange, but useful language and it seems to have some good support on the Crytek forums.

But I still find the talent shown from mappers in the Crytek community to be a far cry (Bad pun) from the impressive talent right here in the VtMR community. Maybe when Crysis is launched, we can carry over some of that talent and do some awesome things mapping and modding wise. How many people here are getting their PCs ready for the next generation? I'm currently saving up for an upgrade.

Given the features of the Crysis game, I don't think it would be difficult to make something vampire related.

[ORI]

Well im starting college at 14/oct/2007 and since Ill need to live in dorms without much time to take a job ,im saving all my money for that so no computer upgrade for me in a while.

[Bloodywolf]

Lua Scripting isn't made for crytek only If I'm not mistaking. Its been around for a while.

And Cryisis, its gonne be one hell of a game to play, the very first Directx1? game out there.

[Azraelthe7th]

Actually, BioShock already supports DX10. 

I was actually thinking of the Crysis engine sometime ago, since it's features could allow for one hell of a massive game.  Also, I'm looking at which already existing engines would work best for my video game project, and I'm essentially hesitant between the Sandbox 2.0 (Crysis), Source or even one of id's Engines.  I was thinking that once I have some models and animations that I would need a programmer to implement certain ideas of mine, and thought of you for it.  That is, if you're somewhat interested.

[Javokis]

Actually I've been trying to move on to new game engines for some time now, but have lacked the skills needed for such a venture. I just spent a considerable amount of money on additional upgrades to my pc (considerable for my balance at least).

Just now I ordered the 640mb EVGA Geforce 8800GTS 320-bit... well just go here:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130071

Along with some XMS RAM (I only put the good RAM in my PC - this'll go with the XMS chips already in my pc). Overall I'll have 2gb of XMS RAM.
And a new fan for my hot new processor (Athlon 64 X2 4200). The damage was over 500 usd.

I BETTER BE CRYSIS READY OR I'LL SHIT!

[Azraelthe7th]

Damn man.  I'd say you are Crysis ready.

[Javokis]

I may end up having to upgrade my power supply later on. I'll do that next month. Right now I'm at 400w, which is the minimum needed to run the card. I just hope my motherboard can manage the power consumption till the next upgrade.

[Bloodywolf]

Actually, BioShock already supports DX10. 

Yeah but Crysis is the first game purely for DX10. :-p

[Azraelthe7th]

O...k...so explain how it will also work beautifully with DX9?

Especially considering the rather large differences between DX9 & DX10.

[Zurechial]

Bioshock was developed with both DX9 and DX10 in mind, but primarily as a DX9 game.
Crysis has been developed from the point of announcement of DX10 as a DX10-game, with support for DX9 systems.

Bioshock = Marginal difference between DX9 & DX10, a few DX10-exclusive shaders

Crysis = Significant differences between DX9 & DX10, owing to the differences in the render paths of the two APIs.

Both games support both APIs, but Crysis has been coded with DX10 far more in mind than Bioshock was, while still supporting DX9, so it will see major benefits from the improved DX10 reliance.
Crytek included (and optimised) DX9 functionality for the sake of their market-base which is largely still running XP on DX9 or early DX10 hardware, but I wouldn't be surprised if the game performs far better in DX10 because A: DX10 is supposedly faster and more efficient than DX9 on compatible hardware and B: Crysis is probably going to come under both Microsoft's "Games for Windows" and nVidia's "The way it's meant to be played" promotions, and Crytek would therefore be under pressure to push DX10 hardware onto the market with Crysis.

Other examples are Company of Heroes and Lost Planet - Two games developed for DX9, with DX10 extras tacked on as an afterthought later. Marginal differences in every regard.


Javokis, go for a Corsair HX620.
It's a 620W PSU with rock-solid stability, excellent efficiency and modular design. 620W is pretty-much the perfect wattage for a system such as yours right now, as it will run what you have comfortably, and will be able to handle future upgrades just fine too (unless you're planning on 8800Ultra SLI....but I know you have more sense than that )
A HX520 would be an equally good choice, with a tradeoff in cheaper price vs less scope for expansion later.

Judging by the performance of the MP beta (which is, admittedly, lacking in performance optimisation), that 8800GTS will run the game, but don't expect performance at the visual quality we've been seeing in screenshots all along. The game is just too demanding on the graphics subsystem for a 320mb 8800GTS to handle at high fidelity settings.
Sure, the full game will be far more optimised and offer better performance, but there's only so much optimisation can do.
Reports from reliable sources (staff at bit-tech.net) indicate that the MP Beta can get laggy on an 8800Ultra system at 'High' settings.
The MP Beta doesn't even have the "Very high" settings option available, which will unlock DX10 functionality in the full version..
Quote:
"My default setting was medium. Even with an ultra in our gaming rig it still struggles at the High setting (FPS avg of 13) and the Very High setting, which unlocks DX10, is greyed out."

[Azraelthe7th]

The reason I asked to explain what he said was because he made it sound like Crysis wouldn't play on DX9 machines.

As for that quote: You'd figure that the DX10 option would be available from the get-go for Vista users (who have the proper card, that is) since it's apparently a more efficient driver than DX9.

[Zurechial]

As for that quote: You'd figure that the DX10 option would be available from the get-go for Vista users (who have the proper card, that is) since it's apparently a more efficient driver than DX9.

Not in a far-from-finished beta, with DX10.1 waiting to be released around the corner. 

[Javokis]

Bioshock was developed with both DX9 and DX10 in mind, but primarily as a DX9 game.
Crysis has been developed from the point of announcement of DX10 as a DX10-game, with support for DX9 systems.

Bioshock = Marginal difference between DX9 & DX10, a few DX10-exclusive shaders

Crysis = Significant differences between DX9 & DX10, owing to the differences in the render paths of the two APIs.

Both games support both APIs, but Crysis has been coded with DX10 far more in mind than Bioshock was, while still supporting DX9, so it will see major benefits from the improved DX10 reliance.
Crytek included (and optimised) DX9 functionality for the sake of their market-base which is largely still running XP on DX9 or early DX10 hardware, but I wouldn't be surprised if the game performs far better in DX10 because A: DX10 is supposedly faster and more efficient than DX9 on compatible hardware and B: Crysis is probably going to come under both Microsoft's "Games for Windows" and nVidia's "The way it's meant to be played" promotions, and Crytek would therefore be under pressure to push DX10 hardware onto the market with Crysis.

Other examples are Company of Heroes and Lost Planet - Two games developed for DX9, with DX10 extras tacked on as an afterthought later. Marginal differences in every regard.


Javokis, go for a Corsair HX620.
It's a 620W PSU with rock-solid stability, excellent efficiency and modular design. 620W is pretty-much the perfect wattage for a system such as yours right now, as it will run what you have comfortably, and will be able to handle future upgrades just fine too (unless you're planning on 8800Ultra SLI....but I know you have more sense than that )
A HX520 would be an equally good choice, with a tradeoff in cheaper price vs less scope for expansion later.

Judging by the performance of the MP beta (which is, admittedly, lacking in performance optimisation), that 8800GTS will run the game, but don't expect performance at the visual quality we've been seeing in screenshots all along. The game is just too demanding on the graphics subsystem for a 320mb 8800GTS to handle at high fidelity settings.
Sure, the full game will be far more optimised and offer better performance, but there's only so much optimisation can do.
Reports from reliable sources (staff at bit-tech.net) indicate that the MP Beta can get laggy on an 8800Ultra system at 'High' settings.
The MP Beta doesn't even have the "Very high" settings option available, which will unlock DX10 functionality in the full version..
Quote:
"My default setting was medium. Even with an ultra in our gaming rig it still struggles at the High setting (FPS avg of 13) and the Very High setting, which unlocks DX10, is greyed out."

I noticed that newegg has one in stock, but I'll probably have to wait on it and after reading more on the 8800GTS, I have no chance at running it at 400w PSU. I'm going to have to just let it sit around awhile till I can upgrade, but I'll

a) want to make sure I purchased the books I need with my financial aid,
b) pay bills, and
c) if not enough left over then... then I'll just pull more out of my savings because I want that power supply. Corsair kicks ass!

As a whole I consider these upgrades as an INVESTMENT so I feel this will pay off in the long run because I hope that I will have learned some really usefull c++ skills that will allow me to make kick ass stuff for Crysis. Even if Crysis runs sluggish on launch, it WILL BE FIXED - if not by the developers of the games then by the makers of the video cards.

I remember how this rig ran Doom3 when I first bought it. My drivers were new and the x700 I have is actually low-end (it was low-end when I bought it). I had ran Doom3 at low settings with only 800x600 res and only had an average of 25-30 FPS, but within the year ATI merges with AMD and started launching tons of new drivers and software for the ATI Catalyst. The result was being able to run Doom3 on MEDIUM settings with 1440x900 res on my widescreen and full anistophic x16 filtering. That's with only 128mb VRAM. Doom3 ran at 30-40 FPS. I feel the same way with the 8800GTS card. What ever the 8800GTS has troubles with AT FIRST will be bridged by new drivers by NVIDIA. Within 3-6 months at most after Crysis' launch, you'll be able to run it on maximum settings with DX10 even if the developers of the game don't launch any new patches to fix the lag problems.

I would give Bloodlines as another example. Recent Catalyst drivers from ATI have allowed my little x700 to add a few more FPS to Bloodlines and fix areas that had lagged seriously on prior drivers. Given NVidia's better driver coding track record, I'm confident the 8800GTS will be made DX10.1 compliant (with maybe some emulated DX10.1 features). I'm not conserned. Besides, there is no games even on the rumorwheel about a DX10.1 required game.

[Bloodywolf]

Non yet, and it will probably take a while for the first to appear.

DX10 is nice already, but it takes hell lot of programming when a Direcx comes out for hte first time I think, since a lots is new, not to mention games get harder to make each year with more and more technology needed.

In the early days, a model took about a few days, one full day if you really kept working, these days, model + skin can take a loong time to create due hte gamers getting greedy. Shame sometimes the gameplay suffers.

Its like making a movie with the best exspensive actors you can find and have not much money left to do most of the story decently... ofcourse, the story can suck too :-p

[Zurechial]

Given NVidia's better driver coding track record, I'm confident the 8800GTS will be made DX10.1 compliant (with maybe some emulated DX10.1 features). I'm not conserned. Besides, there is no games even on the rumorwheel about a DX10.1 required game.

nVidia's XP driver track-record is proven, but their Vista drivers were an absolute debacle upon release. ATI were way ahead of them. Shame about their sub-par hardware.

Honestly, I can't see nVidia going to any great trouble to update the 88-series for DX10.1, It wouldn't be a good business move.
Why would they spend R&D and Dev-time on x.1 emulation when they can just push the rumoured soon-to-be-released G92 core series and make far more money?

What ever the 8800GTS has troubles with AT FIRST will be bridged by new drivers by NVIDIA. Within 3-6 months at most after Crysis' launch, you'll be able to run it on maximum settings with DX10 even if the developers of the game don't launch any new patches to fix the lag problems.

Sorry Rain, but I seriously doubt that. New Forceware drivers don't make a 7900GS perform like a 7950GX2.
New drivers certainly won't make an 8800GTS 320 run like an 8800Ultra, especially with the limiting factor of 320mb of video memory.
And that's before you even consider that an 8800Ultra lags in Crysis on settings below the maximum.
Software optimisation (of both the drivers and the game) can only do so much, it won't work miracles.. Sadly.
Overclocking might get you somewhere, but don't expect more than a few frames extra per second.

Besides, there is no games even on the rumorwheel about a DX10.1 required game.

There aren't even any upcoming or released games yet that require DX10, but developers aren't going to stick with 10.0 forever.
They didn't stick with DX9.a forever - Any game that requires DX9 these days explicitly demands DX9c because of the inherent benefits of updated code.
Sure, no games require DX10.1....but then, we could probably get Crysis running on a 6600GT if we handicap the engine like when they got Doom3 to run on a Voodoo2 in wireframe with all texturing renderpasses disabled, or Oldblivion running on the nVidia FX series.....but that puts you in the territory of not playing the same game and begs to question the point of playing modern games on old hardware when the core gameplay is the same as ever anyway.

DX10 is nice already, but it takes hell lot of programming when a Direcx comes out for hte first time I think, since a lots is new, not to mention games get harder to make each year with more and more technology needed.

That's already long been true of anything from the late DX8 and whole DX9-era.
When games started using multiple render passes for texturing on a single model, things got complicated.
No longer do skinners just have to produce a raster-layer texture, but also bump-maps, normal maps, lightmaps, parallax maps, etc etc.
Texturing for X3: Reunion, for instance, is a bloody nightmare, take it from me.

Thing is, that's nothing new to DX10, that's been the case for a few years now..

And yeah, it may be extra work, but the results (with the addition of some talent and skill) are worth it. I've been wishing for years that Redemption's engine supported additional surface maps for models, simply because it would look incredible.
But then I remember that the NOD engine is based on Quake 2. 


My own plans for hardware upgrades were set back today by the painfully-expensive purchase of the book "Big Java 3rd Edition" for Uni....but it's so worth it.