http://www.rlslog.net/crysis-makes-me-sick/

This is fucked up. I know I personally won't be buying this game now.

 

Ms is the bane of my existence. Though I had heard that they have bullied and payed off companies to make vista only or make it better for direct X 10.

 

To summarize. Crytek gimped Crysis to only run on high settings and look better on Vista/Dx10, then they claimed you need quad core to really run the game right. They got busted on their own forums by users finding out how to unlock the game so to speak, in dx9

 

...


Fuck, and I nearly picked this up today. Good thing I didnt. >_>

Niggers.

 

Reading this article gave me yet another reason not to buy this game. It being FPS was enough, but after this...well, if I found a copy of this now, I'd probably break it in half then take a shit on it.

 

That's not entirely true, while you can hack in getting some of the effects you get in very high in high for XP DX9, it's not intended to be like that and certain aspects do not run as well or at all such as the moving tree's/water etc. There are various effects such as steam/water etc that while can be done in DX9 doing so does cause more problems than in DX10 although if your running DX9 with DX10 high-end hardware you probably wont not notice quite so much but it will still be there. To summarize, a lot of people who know nothing have been bashing Crytek on this especially for having DX10 only features which is possible to have in DX9 instead, the fact is that a lot of the features are intended for DX10 for SM 4.0 class hardware etc and the very reasons DX10 was intended to improve on which DX9 although very good doesn't handle quite so well.

With regards to quad core, it's been said that should you have powerful enough gpu's crysis will use the quad cores a lot more, but not many people do have SLI 8800GTX's etc and plus nvidia/crytek are still working on the performance issues but there is a patch coming out from crytek soon to improve the performance.

I'm sure over the coming weeks when the nvidia drivers and crytek release the patch you will notice improvements in fps etc.

 

All dx 10 is is cleaned up libraries and a few more hooks for programmers. It is not some massive new "thing". It is bullshit things aren't done for both, no matter how you split it. I had the game, I've done a few of the community patches. Dx 10 and dx9 version, guess what? Dx9 looked better, ran better.

Dx10 reguires that bloatware Vista to run, and it drags the performance down to the gutter.

 

Microsoft is bringing out a patch to fix some performance issues as well although I am not sure when exactly it's coming. But, yes DX10 was never intended to be a massive leap but rather fix some of the issues with DX9 etc. Vista isn't really "bloatware" but rather has some issues with ways they tried to go about things which they are for the most part fixing.

 

Vista is the definition of Bloatware. If you willingly use it, you are a fool. I haven't hated an OS so much since Windows 3.11 era shit.

 

I think you'll find SP1 will fix the majority of the current performance issues although I am not sure if the fix I was on about in my previous post will be included as it's still in development. Also, no I do not work for Microsoft but when possible I do try to correct misconceptions or stupid comments when I actually know what I am talking about.

Vash, you calling anyone a fool is very much like pot calling a kettle black etc when it's actually a Chav thinking it's cool to say so. Never the less I will rep you +1 for the intelligent informed arrangement you have put forward and factual information to back up your statement.

 

Eh I have the game, and I wouldn't be playing it anywhere near very high settings anyway, so them telling me to do this or that to improve graphics is a pretty moot point. I'm having fun with the nano suit and seeing if my korean class will actually help me understand north koreans (dialects a bit different). Graphics might be the center piece of the game, but I'm enjoying myself enough that I'm not particularly concerned.

 

Which you don't.

I have a beta SP 1 via the same fellows who used to sail around in fancy ships. It sucks. The performance does indeed get slightly better, but the compatibility is even worse. It required me installing my sound card twice to get it to recognize it. It ignored my own drivers, substituted it's own, overwriting what I'd placed it, and produced no sound at all. Fun.

Vista is the same old windows xp bullshit, with horribly mismashed in code to make it look shiny and new. It's supposed improvements slow the entire system down to the point where it sucks.

Even if they bring dx10 up 30%, it's still far slower then dx9c. STALKER for example, 90-100fps maxed out on XPSP2 dx9c. Vista maxed out, 20-30 FPS, ultra stuttery, unplayable, constant dips down to 1-10 fps when firefights go on.

I applaud them for the readyboost idea, but they don't use it properly, and Vista just wasn't ready for launch

 

I actually just built a new PC last week. I made sure everything was Vista compatible even though I was planning on using XP anyway. I figure I'll upgrade after VistaSP2.. Let other people do the beta testing for me so to speak. I really hope it gets better.

 

Stalker is amazing example of a DX10 written engine/game. The key words you used in your first sentence were beta SP1. Is your sound card Creative by any chance?

stealth edit:
DX10 itself doesn't need to be changed at all. Vista has had some good improvements since release but a few more are in development and will hopefully be included with SP1 but hopefully released before!

Boofers, Vista SP2? :/

 

I happen to enjoy my version of Vista Middy. I like it much better then XP and Unix. It's good to play with and I'm not doing anything which requires full usage of my processors. So, it works for me.

 

Now you're just grasping and really do come off like a MS paid rep. Beta my ass. Vista RC1, was nearly identical save for a nonfunctional buggy READYBOOST, as what they released a year and a half later as the retail Vista. The fact that it's labeled as a beta is no excuse for poor performance. Oh no doubt it does improve upon retail Vista. Why stalker gets an average of 5 fps more maxed out, and crashes more often, why that's a large improvement.

Why don't you post system specs so we can see what you're playing with, so I can see I'm not having a discussion with someone who can't even use the aero bloatware in the first place k?

And I do find it amusing I can snag windowblinds and do a perfect mimic of Vista's Aero interface, with exactly zero noticable performance hit in XPSP2, yet Vista + Aero = 30% RAM usage at least, 24/7.

Glad to hear, to each his or her own =)

 

Vista handles RAM usage differently to XP. It's more closer to Linux which is a good thing. Search for it and you will find why.

 

Not understanding 99% of the bullshit of this thread I'll speak from a more practical point of view.

My computer and my old computer both have 1 GB of ram and one has XP while the other has Vista.

My newer system (The one with Vista) Has a better processor then the one with XP yet it still runs slower which can mostly be attributed to the fact that vista hogs so much resources.

When it comes down to it you can't call Vista anything other then bloated because it bogs down the system while providing no notable advatages over XP that I've noticed.

Being a typical computer user I'm sure there are facets which I don't know and are only utilized by the minority but somehow Microsoft doesn't seem like the type of company that would cater to the minority, thus making Vista an un-ideal operating system for the largest market of consumers who are the people that ultimately matter.

 

Vista does require slightly more resources than XP by default yes. Performance issues may be due to either not having the hotfixes applied or some other software. Do you have any anti virus, firewall, hips etc? I'd definitely wait until SP1 before installing Vista as without it or the hotfixes file copying speeds are shit.

Vista does handle memory usage better than XP, as it actually makes use of available memory rather than needlessly keeping lots of memory free. This same methodology is also used by Linux in a similar way. It wouldn't cause any issues as long as the memory is managed properly and when something needs memory it gets it.

It's swings and roundabouts really with XP -> Vista -> Linux and all depends on what your computer experience is and what you wish to do with your computer. I'd say if not the next release from Ubuntu then the one after it will be perfectly fine for anyone to use other than gamers, there are still a few very annoying show stopper bugs to be fixed. I'd not switch back to XP from Vista, but I will probably install the next LTS Ubuntu to test it out on my main pc, though I run Ubuntu only on my Notebook/Laptop and it works great in the most part although recently I keep having a few gnome related bugs - argh.

Edit: Just noticed the following that I hadn't responded to, sorry:

Intel Q6600, 4GB RAM, 3 x 500GB SATA-II, 8800GTX, Vista Home Premium 64bit, KIS 7.