Originally Posted by FastRedPonyCar
What I don't like is that nearly every mod I've tried has some overly done SSAO settings that give that odd glow around your weapon and other object edges in low light...especially grass. It makes the grass look like it's got some wierd layer stroke effect from Photoshop or something.. Takes away all the crispness of the texture.
Anyways, here's my thread regarding my thoughts on the mster config.
The main thing for me was that it totally shattered my previous benchmarks and though after pouring through the config file, I discovered lots of visuals had been turned down, what mattered the most was that my eyes didn't realize this. They found the right ones to turn down and the right ones to leave high and it wasn't until I started hacking away in the command console and changing values, taking screen shots, etc and I went back to my screenshots folder and looked at the untouched Mster config sshots and those that I had ended up with after about an hour of tweaking, I saw that visually, there was nothing groundbreaking that I was missing, nothing that made me want to keep my settings and more importantly, I saw that my FPS had dropped from 43 down to 29.
The quality of visuals did not increase proportionally to how much the quality of gameplay decreased from that missing 12~15 fps.
That is the big picture (IMO) that a lot of us don't get. Gaco and I slaved over the console for over 2 weeks and exhausted every single console command and the fps changes and stuff and though we both had a good config setup going towards the end, it wasn't until I saw the mster config and saw the rediculous frame rates it was getting me then went through it's config files and realized I was going about it the wrong way.
I was starting with a very high 26 fps maxed out visuals config and then dumbing it down until it hit low 30's on avg in the benchmark and calling it a day. The guys that did mster config went the opposite way I believe and started with it dumbed down and built the visuals up and this way could see what made a difference and what didn't as far as visuals go and what affected FPS more than some other value.
anyways, I'm not knocking your config. I know that anyone who does this stuff obvoiusly has to put a lot of time, trial and error and screen shot comparison time into it and I respect that. I can't count how many hours I read through config files and how many various console commands I've typed in.. probably longer than I've spent playing the game!!
I totally agree with you about the ssao values, I have tried several combinations imo i think its the right balance. It really depends on what the users have their monitor brightness and contrast set at. I use 80% Brightness & 70% Contrast, some people might have this a lot lower making it seem really dark with some of the configs out there...
As for all the eye candy, if you can run it with no probs why not? I realize im not attracting a large crowd with my tweaked autoexec. I made this config for peeps that can run veryhigh without a hitch. I've made alot of optimizations in the config to improve performance and visuals. I have also fixed artifacts with the vanilla version, read my thread below on the users feedback; http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=31242
Hp's config performs slightly better with max fps than mine. However most find mine smoother and consistent with less stuttering, with increased visual quality. One thing about my config is im using the sys_spec_full cmd that elimnates the use of having to use so many cmds in a autoexec file.
When im back in the states I'll try mster config out, all i have now is my lappy with me