PDA

View Full Version : FarCry Demo: How to force PS 2.0 on NV3x hardware


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

ATI_Dude
01-25-04, 01:33 PM
As many of you probably know the recently released FarCry demo only uses Pixel Shader 1.1 on NV3x hardware even if you try to force Pixel Shader 2.0 via console commands. Last night I found a fix which invloves tricking the application to believ it's using R3xx hardware. Here's how to do it:

1. Download 3DAnalyzer Here (http://www.tommti-systems.de/main-Dateien/TOOLS/dontlinkthefile_3danalyzer-v23.rar).

2. Run 3DAnalyzer and point to the farcry.exe

3. Type "4098" under "VendorID" and "20040" under "DeviceID"

4. Clicke "Run"

Bring down the console and scoll up a few pages. Notices the application thinks it's using R300 hardware. You may have to adjust the advanced video settings to "very high" in order to enable PS 2.0.

Here're two screenshots showing the difference in IQ and FPS:

Here's a shot using PS 1.1:
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/noname1970-ResizeFarCryPS11.jpg

And another one using PS 2.0 (notice the difference in FPS!)
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/noname1970-ResizeFarCryPS20.jpg

Although the images are compressed (uploadit only allows small files) the difference in lighting quality should be noticable.

Edit:

I uploaded some new images using the exact same position.

-=DVS=-
01-25-04, 02:32 PM
Nice find , but how does R300 perform in same place ?

digitalwanderer
01-25-04, 02:36 PM
What's the performance hit?

jAkUp
01-25-04, 02:41 PM
How cool! Im posting this at the official forums now... giving credit where credit is due of course :)

ATI_Dude
01-25-04, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
What's the performance hit?

Take a look at the Fraps counter in the top right corner of my screenshots. It's about 30-50 % indoors with the flashlight turned on. Outdoors I didn't notice any difference which is probably because there're only few if any PS 2.0 effects used.

I used the following settings:

1024x768
"Very high" video settings
No AA
Max AF (application preference)
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra clocked 530/1030

ATI_Dude
01-25-04, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by -=DVS=-
Nice find , but how does R300 perform in same place ?

I don't have an R3xx at the moment so I can't test it. However my guess is the R3xx performs close to if not better than the NV3x using PS 1.1 . But one has to remember it's only using 24 bit precision while the NV3x uses 32 bit precision.

indio
01-25-04, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by ATI_Dude
I don't have an R3xx at the moment so I can't test it. However my guess is the R3xx performs close to if not better than the NV3x using PS 1.1 . But one has to remember it's only using 24 bit precision while the NV3x uses 32 bit precision.
One also has to remember that 24 bit FP percision and 32 bit FP percision only applies to PS 2.0 not 1.1

ATI_Dude
01-25-04, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by indio
One also has to remember that 24 bit FP percision and 32 bit FP percision only applies to PS 2.0 not 1.1

True, I was only referring to performance in places with heavy use of PS 2.0 such as the bunker complex.

volt
01-25-04, 05:44 PM
cg shaders wooohooo! :rolleyes:

Malfunction
01-25-04, 05:46 PM
Why are there more polygons on the top pic than the bottom pic? :|

Peace,

:afro:

SH64
01-25-04, 06:48 PM
Dosent work for me .

it recognize it as a R300 hardware but its uses PS_1.1 only!
Do i have to check any option on 3danalyzer list ??




Full stats: HAL (pure hw vp): 3D-Analyze v2.3 - http://www.tommti-systems.com
Hardware acceleration: Yes
Full screen AA: Disabled
Stencil type: Two sided
Projective EMBM: enabled
Detail textures: Yes
Z Buffer Locking: Yes
Use multitexture mode: Yes (8 texture(s))
Use bumpmapping : Yes (DOT3)
Use paletted textures : No
Current Resolution: 1024x768x32 Full Screen
Maximum Resolution: 1280x1024
Maximum Texture size: 4096x4096 (Max Aspect: 4096)
Texture filtering type: TRILINEAR
Use 32 bits textures
Gamma control: Hardware
Vertex Shaders version 2.0
Pixel Shaders version 2.0
Use Hardware Shaders for ATI R300 GPU
Pixel shaders usage: PS1.1 only

Nv40
01-25-04, 07:53 PM
the second screenshot is closer than the first one to the wall , looks bigger ,also notice the floor. can you take screenshots at the same distance? use the square in the floor as reference and the same angle in the weapon.

tEd
01-25-04, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Malfunction
Why are there more polygons on the top pic than the bottom pic? :|

Peace,

:afro:

because it has more fps

with my 9800pro the ps20 version is around 44fps(with 8x AF it's around 40fps) in that scene while ps1.1 is around 54fps

1024*768 vhq

MikeC
01-25-04, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Nv40
the second screenshot is closer than the first one to the wall , looks bigger ,also notice the floor. can you take screenshots at the same distance? use the square in the floor as reference and the same angle in the weapon.

Or you can save the game. The starting position of the player is restored when the saved game is loaded. Use the save and load commands in the console.

\save_game nameofsavedgame
\load_game nameofsavedgame

Viral
01-25-04, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Malfunction
Why are there more polygons on the top pic than the bottom pic? :|

Peace,

:afro:

That just reinforces the case further anyway.. even when rendering less polys than it did using PS1.1 it is still way slower.

shim
01-26-04, 03:00 AM
when i tryed this on my 5800 it didnt like it much due to textures being very glitchy.. nice post tho :)

-=DVS=-
01-26-04, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by tEd
because it has more fps

with my 9800pro the ps20 version is around 44fps(with 8x AF it's around 40fps) in that scene while ps1.1 is around 54fps

1024*768 vhq

Obviously FX line can't even keep up at 16FP PS 2.0 ;) , but what CPU did you had ?

ATI_Dude had
P4 2.53@3.02 GHz
Asus P4P800
512 MB PC3200 (Dual channel)
Leadtek A380 TDH MyVIVO GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256 MB @510/1020

ATI_Dude
01-26-04, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by SH64
Dosent work for me .

it recognize it as a R300 hardware but its uses PS_1.1 only!
Do i have to check any option on 3danalyzer list ??

Make sure "very high" is selcted for all graphics option. Then restart the demo using 3Danalyzer.

ATI_Dude
01-26-04, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by Viral
That just reinforces the case further anyway.. even when rendering less polys than it did using PS1.1 it is still way slower.

It doesn't render fewer polygons, but fewer polygons PER SECOND using PS 2.0. From the two poly count stats one can see that PS 2.0 is about 40 % slower than PS 1.1 on my NV38 card. I'm sure the same would be true for a R3xx card although the difference between PS 1.1 and PS 2.0 would be smaller.

SH64
01-26-04, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by ATI_Dude
Make sure "very high" is selcted for all graphics option. Then restart the demo using 3Danalyzer.

Wow thanks it works now . my mistake that i used the command \d3d9_ ForcePS11 & forgot to disable it !!

the Fps goes from 39fps (PS1.1) ---> 25fps (PS2.0) ! thats about 35-40% performance hit!
settings were : 1024x768 ,4xAA , 0xAF , all very high [5950u + P4:3Ghz +1 gb ram] . at EXACTLY same distance :p


5950u using PS1.1



http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/sh64/FarCry 5950_PS1.1.jpg

5950 using PS2.0

http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/sh64/FarCry 5950_PS2.0.jpg

SH64
01-26-04, 10:10 AM
Hmmm looking at the screenshots proves what ATI_dude said .

the same amount of polys being rendered in the 2 sences , but the polys rendered per /sec using PS2.0 is lower !

Polygons = 12,949
Polygons /sec (PS1.1) = 0.504
Polygons /sec (PS2.0) = 0.323

And after testing the 5950U system with 4xAA ,8xAF the framerate dropped to 21 fps .
& after a few calculations with the other screenshot i posted on the other thread for the 9800XT with same settings + 4xAA ,8xAF we got around 35 fps i can say that the 5950u is slower than the 9800XT roughly 40% percentage when PS2.0 is used .(w/o taking in consider the view distance of the screenshots taken )

ATI_Dude
01-26-04, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by SH64
Hmmm looking at the screenshots proves what ATI_dude said .

the same amount of polys being rendered in the 2 sences , but the polys rendered per /sec using PS2.0 is lower !

Polygons = 12,949
Polygons /sec (PS1.1) = 0.504
Polygons /sec (PS2.0) = 0.323

And after testing the 5950U system with 4xAA ,8xAF the framerate dropped to 21 fps .
& after a few calculations with the other screenshot i posted on the other thread for the 9800XT with same settings + 4xAA ,8xAF we got around 35 fps i can say that the 5950u is slower than the 9800XT roughly 40% percentage when PS2.0 is used .(w/o taking in consider the view distance of the screenshots taken )

It's fair to say that while the game is playable with PS 2.0 with NV 3x hardware it'll take an NV40 or lower precision (FP16) to maintain tolerable frame rates at higher resolutions.

Nv40
01-26-04, 07:29 PM
thanks SH64 for the screenshots .. the diference is noticeable.

can u post now an R3xx screenshot in Ps2.0 with an Nv35 in pS2.0 ,at the same distance? it will be interesting to see if there are diferences between both when they are in full Ps2.0. :)

SH64
01-26-04, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Nv40
thanks SH64 for the screenshots .. the diference is noticeable.

can u post now an R3xx screenshot in Ps2.0 with an Nv35 in pS2.0 ,at the same distance? it will be interesting to see if there are diferences between both when they are in full Ps2.0. :)

Here ya go ...
aah .. took me much time to get the right spot approx. becuase i'm using 2 PC's as you know .

Nvidia PS2.0
http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/sh64/FarCry 5950_PS2.0.jpg


ATI PS2.0
http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/sh64/FarCry ATI_PS2.0.jpg

Obviously ... the ATI renders the PS2.0 better than Nvidia in this screenshot . (even that the brighness is changed a lil bit)
BUT keep in mind that we forced the Nvidia card to use the PS_2.0 by the 3Danalyzer trick !!
so that may dosent reprsent the final quality for Nvidia's Full percsion shaders.

another note : the polys renderd per sec for Nvidia is less than the ones rendered by ATi . maybe that explains why it looks better ?!


EDITED : As for OWA 's question : Look at my post below .
it looks like there are some other places use PS2.0 . & dont forget its just a demo .
i agree with you .. they are hard to be noticed unless you keep stairing at them for a long period!
however i may need to take a look at the water shaders & make a comparsion between the 2 cards to see which one render better & at what performance .

Smokey
01-26-04, 09:33 PM
Even though when looking at the 2 shots, ATIs looks better in terms of how its meant to look in the game. But IMO, shiny rusty pipes just doesnt look right :confused: to me, shiny pipes and rusty pipes, are 2 different things.