View Single Post
Old 10-31-07, 07:47 AM   #19
Resident Tire Destroyer
FastRedPonyCar's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 3,012
Send a message via AIM to FastRedPonyCar
Default Re: some ultra high graphics pics

Originally Posted by Vasot02
Nice pics

But 20 fps is bad
Is the game playable enough ??
Actually, it plays surprisingly well in the mid 20's though it's not nearly as comfortable as it is when it's at 30. I've said it a few times here and other fourms but this is the first game I've ever played that 30 fps is totally smooth and playable. Comparable to 45~50 fps in other games like stalker or oblivion.

I don't know what it is but I usually get irritiated as hell when it goes below 40 fps but the first time I fired up crysis, I didn't have fraps running and was like "wow this game is so smooth" I was thinking I was getting around 40 or so fps and was thinking how much better the optimization was than the beta MP demo and then when I ran fraps with the demo and saw low 30's, I was shocked to say the least.

So long answer, yes it's playable enough but there are several ultra high graphics effects that really don't add a noticable amount of detail that do suck down a couple of FPS per effect that I think 99% of players could live without.

I for one, don't miss motion blur at all and the healthy FPS gain from turning it off is great.

Others such as:

Foliage wind distance
maximum light beam slices
cull vegetation activation

Are all settings that I really noticed little to no difference visually when manually changing values. I also noticed very little (but some degree) of visual difference when going from the ultra high down to high material view distance settings (from 4096 to 2048 and 256 to 128 Z distance). Those alone are responsible for about 4~5 fps in the larger areas where a lot of stuff is drawn. And I saw no real visual benefit because even with the material view distance at 2048/128, the trees on the mountain side off in the distance are still all perfectly rendered and the face of the mountain itself is the same high res texture appearance. When the full version comes out, if it's better optimized or if Nvidia puts out drivers that actually give me an increase in performance or even if the game really doesn't have too many huge sprawling vistas like this bay area (although I doubt it) then I think it would be playable with a few more of those ultra high options turned on.

I'm sure having all of them all going at their full values at once compared to all of them at the standard very high settings would yield some degree of a visual difference, but right now, I think I'd need another ultra to pull it off and be totally playable but by picking and choosing a few select options to bump up a little higher like water quality for example can make things look a hair better without too much of a frame rate hit because right now, all the little ultra high settings tweaks just nickel and dime the frame rate and when it dips below 30 fps, I can tell that it's not quite as smooth and playable and in the benchmarks, it still never drops below 20 fps so it never turns into a slide show aside from the occasional checkpoint hiccup but that's forgivable (especially after what we dealt with in FEAR).
- Desktop -
4770k @ 4.45 ghz - ASUS Gryphon Mobo - 16 gigs Corsair Vengeance Pro 1866 RAM - XSPC Rasa 750 RS240 H2o Cooling - EVGA GTX 680 @1325mhz - 128 gig Crucial RealSSD C300 - 150 gig Velociraptor +2.75 Terrabytes of WD Sata 3.0 storage - 910 watt PC P&C PSU - Corsair Obsidian 650D case

- Server -
Core I7 D0 revision 920 @ 3.75 ghz - ASUS P6T Deluxe - 12 Gigs Mushkin DDR3 1600 - Corsair HX 620 PSU - Noctua NH-U9B cooler - Coolermaster WaveMaster Case

- Laptop -
MSI 16F2-012
- i7 2630QM - GTX570m @ 750Mhz - 8 gigs HyperX 1866 - 120 gig OCZ Vertex 3 SSD- 750 gig Scorpio Black - BluRay - 95% Gamut Screen - IC Diamond goop
FastRedPonyCar is offline   Reply With Quote