Tweaking Crysis with Gaco Retail_Tweak_Config_v1.0 Can it get any better on Vista?

[Digital_Trans]

I've been using Gaco's Retail_Tweak_Config_v1.0 which seems to be doing a great job so far on Windows Vista x64. It's been even far more better now that I have NVIDIA SLI again. I just had more burning questions to ask.
Is there away to make Crysis in Windows Vista x64 better then what Gaco's retail tweak config file has done so far? The game has been out for more then a month so I was just wondering if there's been anything new to bring to the table with tweaking Crysis graphics out.

[agentkay]

I would say some LOD tweaks are a good way to start to improve the draw distance of some objects a little.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=104498

Here is a list of some of the cvars that you can modify above "very high" values.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7681/crysiscvarsra4io7.th.gif (http://img179.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crysiscvarsra4io7.gif)

The first things that I'd change are the light beams to "300" and the shadow resolution to "2048". You can do a lot more as you can see in that list.

[m3dude]

lol, changing shadows to 2048, say goodbye to performance, even with sli. and u have a 30 inch monitor? no way in hell

[agentkay]

Yes the performance hit of 2048x2048 shadow textures is soooo huge and even much larger on computers with SLI. It makes the game unplayable.... totally.

Gaco's 1.01 cfg with motion blur and regular "high" shadows (default) - 28.4 fps

http://img160.imagevenue.com/loc833/th_54991_ScreenShot0001_122_833lo.jpg (http://img160.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=54991_ScreenShot0001_122_833lo.jpg)

Gaco's 1.01 cfg with motion blur and "high" shadows but with 2048x2048 shadow textures (e_shadows_max_texture_size=2048) - 26.2 fps

http://img132.imagevenue.com/loc1108/th_55000_ScreenShot0004_122_1108lo.jpg (http://img132.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=55000_ScreenShot0004_122_1108lo.jpg)

[Revs]

Running on 'very high' shadows here, no probs :)

[agentkay]

Just for the sake of information:

The default shadow texture resolution in high and very high is the same at 1024x1024. "Very high" has a more detailed shadow blur effect, increased shadow LOD, and disabled sun shadow map cache.

"Very high" shadows are also using the Geometry shader unit to generatate the shadow maps but I didn't run any tests if it actually increases the efficiency how the shadows are rendered.

[Nanosuitguy]

lol, changing shadows to 2048, say goodbye to performance, even with sli. and u have a 3 inch monitor? no way in hell

Hes right, for once in a history. Shadows on 2048 will cost performance for sure, especially on ATI cards.Also increasing lightbeams to 300 cost more performance. Cant you read that this guy is after more performance? not more eye candy. I tried Cago's config but it didnt give me any better performance than running without cfgs on everything veryhigh. Basically i only got texturestreaming with his config. However i found a custom tweak on the net that gave me about a 10+ fps increase. And it still all those veryhigh settings remains.


Take a look, its worth trying out;

con_restricted = 0
sys_spec_GameEffects = 3
sys_spec_ObjectDetail = 3
sys_spec_Particles = 3
sys_spec_Physics = 3
sys_spec_PostProcessing = 3
sys_spec_Shading = 3
sys_spec_Shadows = 3
sys_spec_Sound = 4
sys_spec_Texture = 3
sys_spec_VolumetricEffects = 3
sys_spec_Water = 3
sys_budget_videomem = 512
sys_budget_sysmem = 2048
sys_physics_CPU = 0

r_MultiGPU = 0

r_TerrainAO_FadeDist=1
r_TexturesStreaming=0
r_TexAtlasSize=2048

r_Flares = 1
r_Coronas = 1
r_UseEdgeAA = 1
r_sunshafts = 1
r_colorgrading = 1
r_UsePom = 0
r_Beams = 3
r_BeamsDistFactor = 0.02
r_BeamsMaxSlices = 175
r_MotionBlur = 4
r_DepthOfField = 2
r_WaterGodRays = 1

e_water_ocean_fft = 1
e_water_tesselation_amount = 10
e_obj_quality=4
e_view_dist_ratio_vegetation = 45
e_view_dist_ratio = 60
e_view_dist_ratio_detail = 30
e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy = 4096
e_detail_materials_view_dist_z = 256
e_particles_lod=0.7
e_vegetation_min_size=1.5
e_gsm_lods_num=4
e_shadows_from_terrain_in_all_lods=0
e_shadows_max_texture_size=1024
e_vegetation_sprites_distance_ratio=1.2
e_lods = 1

es_OnDemandPhysics = 1
s_MaxChannels = 24
g_battleDust_enable = 1

q_ShaderGeneral=3
q_ShaderMetal=3
q_ShaderGlass=2
q_ShaderVegetation=3
q_ShaderIce=3
q_ShaderTerrain=3
q_ShaderShadow=3
q_ShaderFX=3
q_ShaderPostProcess=3
q_ShaderHDR=3
q_ShaderSky=2
q_Renderer=3

[agentkay]

Hes right, for once in a history. Shadows on 2048 will cost performance for sure, especially on ATI cards.Also increasing lightbeams to 300 cost more performance. Cant you read that this guy is after more performance? not more eye candy. I tried Cago's config but it didnt give me any better performance than running without cfgs on everything veryhigh. Basically i only got texturestreaming with his config. However i found a custom tweak on the net that gave me about a 10+ fps increase. And it still all those veryhigh settings remains.

I never said that it wouldn't cost performance. ;) Digital_Trans wanted to know if there are ways to get more eye candy and yes there are and I responded accordingly. It is common sense that settings above "very high" will cost some performance but certain people shouldn't act like they turn the game into a slideshow.

Thanks for the new config, I'll give a try (but probably enable POM and change motion blur back to 1)

[Nanosuitguy]

Actually this is what he says;
Is there away to make Crysis in Windows Vista x64 better then what Gaco's retail tweak config file has done so far?
He only ask for ways to make it better. Better can mean both better quality or better performance. I guess he need both, or am i wrong? Anyway, in my config i kept the veryhigh settings for good visuals and tweaked some other things.. result was a 7 - 10 fps increase witch give me an average fps of around 30 with drops to 25.. And it feels rather smooth and definately playable. Cant wait for the new patch...


POM is no good agentkay, it cost around 5 fps and it only looks good closeup. Near distant and distant grounds get blurry because the texture lockup used with POM doesn't support AF, it will look bad. So i suggest you go for more performance and better textures and disable POM. Besides even without POM the textures sill have regular bumpmapping. Do what fits you best with motionblur and stuff. I personally like it when the mountains and distance are blurred slightly. It looks better.

[agentkay]

True that, "better" can mean both performance or visual. :) I know its a shame that AF doesn't work perfectly with POM but personally I do like it. I played the levels quite a few times without POM and with 16AF but usually I enable POM back again because I miss it. :lol: The DoF that slightly blurrs the distant mountains is very nice though!

It is a good config and nicely balanced! :thumbsup:

[Nanosuitguy]

Am glad you liked it! Tell me, how much fps increase did you get from my cfg than from Gaco's or from stock veryhigh settings?

If u dont know, can you measure please?

Also try to compare visual difference

[Digital_Trans]

I'm after good visuals and tweaked performance. What do I need to do in order to achieve this?

[Nanosuitguy]

I'm after good visuals and tweaked performance. What do I need to do in order to achieve this?

You need to create a file called system.cfg then open it with notepad then copy this into it:

con_restricted = 0
sys_spec_GameEffects = 3
sys_spec_ObjectDetail = 3
sys_spec_Particles = 3
sys_spec_Physics = 3
sys_spec_PostProcessing = 3
sys_spec_Shading = 3
sys_spec_Shadows = 3
sys_spec_Sound = 4
sys_spec_Texture = 3
sys_spec_VolumetricEffects = 3
sys_spec_Water = 3
sys_budget_videomem = 512
sys_budget_sysmem = 2048
sys_physics_CPU = 0

r_MultiGPU = 0

r_TerrainAO_FadeDist=1
r_TexturesStreaming=0
r_TexAtlasSize=2048

r_Flares = 1
r_Coronas = 1
r_UseEdgeAA = 1
r_sunshafts = 1
r_colorgrading = 1
r_UsePom = 0
r_Beams = 3
r_BeamsDistFactor = 0.02
r_BeamsMaxSlices = 175
r_MotionBlur = 4
r_DepthOfField = 2
r_WaterGodRays = 1

e_water_ocean_fft = 1
e_water_tesselation_amount = 10
e_obj_quality=4
e_view_dist_ratio_vegetation = 45
e_view_dist_ratio = 60
e_view_dist_ratio_detail = 30
e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy = 4096
e_detail_materials_view_dist_z = 256
e_particles_lod=0.7
e_vegetation_min_size=1.5
e_gsm_lods_num=4
e_shadows_from_terrain_in_all_lods=0
e_shadows_max_texture_size=1024
e_vegetation_sprites_distance_ratio=1.2
e_lods = 1

es_OnDemandPhysics = 1
s_MaxChannels = 24
g_battleDust_enable = 1

q_ShaderGeneral=3
q_ShaderMetal=3
q_ShaderGlass=2
q_ShaderVegetation=3
q_ShaderIce=3
q_ShaderTerrain=3
q_ShaderShadow=3
q_ShaderFX=3
q_ShaderPostProcess=3
q_ShaderHDR=3
q_ShaderSky=2
q_Renderer=3


Then you need to put in into your main crysis directory here;
C;\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis

With this cfg it keeps the veryhigh settings but increases the fps about 10 up. So about 10 fps plus from regular veryhigh where no tweaks where used.. so if you get around 15 - 20 fps in 1280x1024 and veryhigh then you'll get 25 - 30 fps with this :)

[raystone57]

Got to try it, would so love to jack up a few details in the snow/ice exterior levels. And be able to move in them.

[Digital_Trans]

What about running it at 1920x1200? Also is this for DirectX 9 or 10?
Do I also need to put in my Crysis short cut the following command?

"G:\Program Files (x86)\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis\Bin64\Crysis.exe" -dx9 ?



You need to create a file called system.cfg then open it with notepad then copy this into it:

con_restricted = 0
sys_spec_GameEffects = 3
sys_spec_ObjectDetail = 3
sys_spec_Particles = 3
sys_spec_Physics = 3
sys_spec_PostProcessing = 3
sys_spec_Shading = 3
sys_spec_Shadows = 3
sys_spec_Sound = 4
sys_spec_Texture = 3
sys_spec_VolumetricEffects = 3
sys_spec_Water = 3
sys_budget_videomem = 512
sys_budget_sysmem = 2048
sys_physics_CPU = 0

r_MultiGPU = 0

r_TerrainAO_FadeDist=1
r_TexturesStreaming=0
r_TexAtlasSize=2048

r_Flares = 1
r_Coronas = 1
r_UseEdgeAA = 1
r_sunshafts = 1
r_colorgrading = 1
r_UsePom = 0
r_Beams = 3
r_BeamsDistFactor = 0.02
r_BeamsMaxSlices = 175
r_MotionBlur = 4
r_DepthOfField = 2
r_WaterGodRays = 1

e_water_ocean_fft = 1
e_water_tesselation_amount = 10
e_obj_quality=4
e_view_dist_ratio_vegetation = 45
e_view_dist_ratio = 60
e_view_dist_ratio_detail = 30
e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy = 4096
e_detail_materials_view_dist_z = 256
e_particles_lod=0.7
e_vegetation_min_size=1.5
e_gsm_lods_num=4
e_shadows_from_terrain_in_all_lods=0
e_shadows_max_texture_size=1024
e_vegetation_sprites_distance_ratio=1.2
e_lods = 1

es_OnDemandPhysics = 1
s_MaxChannels = 24
g_battleDust_enable = 1

q_ShaderGeneral=3
q_ShaderMetal=3
q_ShaderGlass=2
q_ShaderVegetation=3
q_ShaderIce=3
q_ShaderTerrain=3
q_ShaderShadow=3
q_ShaderFX=3
q_ShaderPostProcess=3
q_ShaderHDR=3
q_ShaderSky=2
q_Renderer=3


Then you need to put in into your main crysis directory here;
C;\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis

With this cfg it keeps the veryhigh settings but increases the fps about 10 up. So about 10 fps plus from regular veryhigh where no tweaks where used.. so if you get around 15 - 20 fps in 1280x1024 and veryhigh then you'll get 25 - 30 fps with this :)

[Nanosuitguy]

What about running it at 1920x1200? Also is this for DirectX 9 or 10?
Do I also need to put in my Crysis short cut the following command?

"G:\Program Files (x86)\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis\Bin64\Crysis.exe" -dx9 ?

forget 1920x1200 if you want to play on higer settings. Its just too demanding. If you want to go fo 1920x1200 then you wil probably have to play on high-medium... 1280x1024 is the maximum if you want to go with my tweak.

Yes, you need to do that -dx9 to run in dx9 mode... its a good idea.

[sytaylor]

forget 1920x1200 if you want to play on higer settings. Its just too demanding. If you want to go fo 1920x1200 then you wil probably have to play on high-medium... 1280x1024 is the maximum if you want to go with my tweak.

Yes, you need to do that -dx9 to run in dx9 mode... its a good idea.

Or you can right click on the icon in your my games folder (start>games), and chose "Run DX9".

I'm quite impressed with this board. I've googled a few things for crysis and ended up right back here over the last few days.

Tangent: I'm also impressed that the newer versions of firefox have a spell checker. Making my life FAR more coherent.

[Gaco]

Naturally I'm still interesting in improving and optimizing my config having spend so much time into tweaking Crysis back at release. However I feel it somehow does more harm than good when somebody just comes around and says "lookie here I have a tweak which is better in performance and quality than Gaco 1.01" without specifying why. No offense but it's highly unscientific and just adds to the confusion in the config jungle. I know it's more work but you should really hold all parameters but one constant and test each one's impact and visuals and performance individually instead of just throwing a little of this and some of that in there. So lets try and make a direct comparison so we in the end eventually will end up with two configs based on preferences for various quality/performance assessions i.e. prioritisations, not "this is better than that definitively". To do it properly we still have some testing to do. I don't know when or if I will have the time to test, but here is the preparatory work I've done (comments in red italic):




PRESENT FOR BOTH, SAME VALUES:
-------------------------------------
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

r_TexturesStreaming=0
r_colorgrading = 1
r_UseEdgeAA = 1

r_WaterGodRays = 1
r_sunshafts = 1

e_water_ocean_fft = 1
e_water_tesselation_amount = 10

e_view_dist_ratio_vegetation = 45
e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy = 4096
e_detail_materials_view_dist_z = 256

g_battleDust_enable = 1

r_TexturesStreaming=0

q_renderer = 3
q_ShaderGeneral = 3
q_ShaderPostProcess = 3
q_ShaderShadow = 3
q_ShaderMetal = 3
q_ShaderHDR = 3
q_ShaderVegetation = 3
q_ShaderIce=3
q_ShaderFX = 3
q_ShaderTerrain=3


PRESENT FOR BOTH, DIFFERENT VALUES:
------------------------------------------
r_MotionBlur = (Gaco=0, Nano=4) - you prefer motion blur? Fine, but as far as I recall, it takes a good chunk of performance, we can test it again. This is a setting of personal taste, I had it on in 1.0 and off in 1.01
q_ShaderGlass = (Gaco=3, Nano=2) - all of these q_Shader settings set to 2 means that it's equivalent to medium instead of high, but I take that you're well aware of that and have made this choice. Do you reckon this downgrades to 2 instead of 3 have a relatively big impact on performance? Otherwise I want them just left on 3 for myself..
q_ShaderSky = (Gaco=3, Nano=2)
q_ShaderSky=(Gaco=3, Nano=2)
e_vegetation_sprites_distance_ratio = (Gaco=1.5, Nano=1.2)
r_UsePom = (Gaco=1, Nano=0) - I just want to note that this is a relatively major player in both eye candy and performance - turning it off won't give you parallax occlusion mapping aka. "3D-textures" that adds depth to sand, rock and other stuff. Eats up around 2-4 FPS in scenes where it's used I think


GACO EXCLUSIVE:
--------------------
es_DebrisLifetimeScale = 1 - This and the next two is just minor stuff like ragdoll physics being applied to bodies and physics being applied to debris a little bit longer
g_ragdollDistance = 40
g_ragdollMinTime = 20

q_ShaderWater = 3 - I doubt that you can convince me to downgrade it from high to medium but you can try if you have a good reason? ;)

NANOSUITGUY EXCLUSIVE:
-----------------------------
sys_budget_videomem = 512
sys_budget_sysmem = 2048 - Is this really necessary?

sys_physics_CPU = 0 - Isn't this the setting used when you want to capture a massive physics movie but how is this relavant to realtime gameplay?

r_TerrainAO_FadeDist=1
r_TexAtlasSize=2048 - I remember this one in particular as one of those where I didn't see enough difference to the single FPS I lost or something of that sorts. We can test it again if you think it's worth checking out
r_BeamsDistFactor = 0.02 - This is the beam setting below downgrades the beams a bit quality-wise from the high setting - how much does it give? Is it worth it? If you do not know the answer, this is once more a thing that needs testing
r_BeamsMaxSlices = 175
r_DepthOfField = 2 - Interestingly this looks like one of the few that gives a very high setting by making distant mountains blurry as well. I assume that this doesn't take up any real performance, so this might go in my 1.02 if I make such, but I won't make it for this setting alone

e_view_dist_ratio = 60 - I guess we need to test these e_view_dist_ratios as well but I think I remember tampering with them with no satisfactory result for performance at least. I could give it another try.
e_view_dist_ratio_detail = 30

e_particles_lod=0.7 - I'm pretty sure this is the one I saw Mad Boris' screenshots and performance comparison and there was barely a difference at all so I don't see any reason to downgrade it from high-default 1.0 to .7, correct me if I'm wrong
e_vegetation_min_size=1.5 - I think another one of those that I thought cost too much performance, but I'm not 100% sure about this one, can may have to test again

e_gsm_lods_num=4 - I don't remember having any experience with this and the next five parameters so this needs explaining or checking out
e_shadows_from_terrain_in_all_lods=0
e_lods = 1
e_obj_quality=4
es_OnDemandPhysics = 1
s_MaxChannels = 24


NANOSUITGUY EXCLUSIVE, OBSOLETE:
----------------------------------------
sys_spec_Sound = 4 - as far as I know you can't set any sys_spec commands to 4 in DX9 mode, so what is the deal?

r_MultiGPU = 0 - this defaults to auto detection (setting 2), why change it?

r_Flares = 1 - already the default value at high settings
r_Coronas = 1 - already the default value at high settings
r_Beams = 3 - already the default value at high settings

e_shadows_max_texture_size=1024 - already the default value at high settings




Now I remember fiddling around with those view dist values but at the time I thought it gave me unacceptable performance, some good 3 FPS lower than the 1.01. But Nanosuitguy it is simply wrong when you state that my tweak has performance equivalent to that of very high settings, it's VERY untrue. Lets work together with the tweaking and do the proper testing and in the end we can split on key settings that will come down to personal preference, but there's no reason to (unintentionally?) lie about anything. But we got some good testing ahead of us now if we want to get to the bottom of this :D

[Nanosuitguy]

Allright Gaco, lets work together. But lets face it, i tried your config on 1280x1024 and experienced a fps around 20... With my config i get 25 - 30, most around 30 at the same resolution. Witch i see is alot better. Also i was running the demo back then so doh.. Now i got the full game and tomorrow am gonna try both your config and my config out once again. You and I shall make the very best config out there and then upload it on places, digg it, forums, stickies.. It shall be, out finest hours :) *calm trums* (like in those ww2 movies)

So lets get to work tomorrow Gaco! And let us celebrate the new year, the year of crysis!

[ASUSEN7900GTX]

Gaco NAno make a good CFG one that has ggreat visuals at no performance cost well lees or more since visuals kill performance sometimes and Crysis is one for sure to do that. Since you too tamper the most with it :D

PS you´ll be like Starsky and hutch only at making a killer .cfg for crysis :D

[Nanosuitguy]

Man, i just compared Gacos and my own config now when i got the fullversion... And surprisingly Gacos had a few fps more than mine. That wasn't the case when i first tried them both out in the demo. I had over 25 fps most of the time, between 25 and 30 fps. Now i had between 20 and 25 :(

I dont know what to say, hands down Gaco... However, the performance is only a few fps better than the veryhigh dx9 tweak. So theres no big deal really. Lets just wait for the patch to come out for better performacen. Or alternatively get the 9800Gx2 in february...

PS, Starsky and hutch sucks...

[Gaco]

Man, i just compared Gacos and my own config now when i got the fullversion... And surprisingly Gacos had a few fps more than mine. That wasn't the case when i first tried them both out in the demo. I had over 25 fps most of the time, between 25 and 30 fps. Now i had between 20 and 25 :(

I dont know what to say, hands down Gaco... However, the performance is only a few fps better than the veryhigh dx9 tweak. So theres no big deal really. Lets just wait for the patch to come out for better performacen. Or alternatively get the 9800Gx2 in february...

PS, Starsky and hutch sucks...
Yes I had 5 FPS worse performance with your config in the benches as well, but I didn't want to discuss with you and tamper with configs hours after hours again. So I'm still viewing my config as the best IMO :)

And heck yeah I'm buying that 9800GTX when it comes..

[ASUSEN7900GTX]

mot the original starsky&hutch the new gay movie sucks donkey balls big time

well seems no matter wich .cfg i use i can´t use AA at all if i do bye bye fps

[Nanosuitguy]

Geforce 9 ALL THE WAY BABY;

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1199396117RddjtJdk0Z_1_2.jpg

Cost whatever it must cost, am getting on of these in february... Or maybe 4 to a quad-SLI setup, as this is a 2-gpu based card i will have 8 gpu's in one system, man thats gonna rock! Also i hope i can play crysis on veryhigh with some AA in some big resolution and have over 30 fps.. kthxbye

:captnkill:

[slaWter]

Geforce 9 ALL THE WAY BABY;

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1199396117RddjtJdk0Z_1_2.jpg

Cost whatever it must cost, am getting on of these in february... Or maybe 4 to a quad-SLI setup, as this is a 2-gpu based card i will have 8 gpu's in one system, man thats gonna rock! Also i hope i can play crysis on veryhigh with some AA in some big resolution and have over 30 fps.. kthxbye

:captnkill:

Quad SLI is two GX2 cards, not 4.

Boy, you're totally falling for this nV crap...