Crysis Screenshot Thread

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by SlickRig

Im sure the editor pic has less jaggies than the first pic (if you examine it with a microscope) but the fact is that you have so much AA enabled in the first pic that the jaggies are not even apparent to begin with.

I see a difference too, but it's not drastic like he's making it out to be. It's not like the first shot has jaggies all over the place. The biggest difference I see is in the trees, but they're not all that bad.

This guy must operate an electron microscope for a living.

[Nanosuitguy]

Originally Posted by m3dude

well i mean ur sitting here posting that u dont see a difference besides the rocks, and theres a huge difference. i mean if i had access to atis image difference program, it would show u the huge difference between the pics

Youre wrong, the difference really is NOT that big like everyone here agees about and certainly something you dont think about when playing the game... And why are you bitching so much over anti-aliasing? The game looks really great even tho the vegetation wouldn't have that kind of AA. I dont lie when i say those pics are ingame. They are ingame shots taken by me (and others) playing crysis in the game. So wtf are you taking about then? Only thing thats is added is more more more AA. Textures, lighting, shadows are still the same you idiot. Those shots are only little balanced in brightness and color. Some of them are using other TOD lightin settings that original. This is what crysis would look like with that much more AA added. And actually, those shots would have looked about just that great even without AA so stop bitching please... After all these pics where taken for wallpaper purpose only and the game aint even playable at those settings anyway. This is what Ce2 looks like with huge amount of AA added (and AF in some cases) and truly the nr1 technically best looking graphic engine out there...

[m3dude]

that much extra aa is a big deal when wed need more than 20x the power of a g80 to run it at playable framerates. and dont lie and say they are raw ingame screens. last time i checked no one plays in game at 5000x3000 resized down to 1680x1050

[Nanosuitguy]

Didnt you read my post? These pics where taken for wallpaper purposes. Noone can play at those settings anyway. This discussion is pointless. And honestly dont think you need 20 times the power of the 8800gtx to run crysis at those settings. You must be lol'd up if you think that. Ok they aint raw... Maybe it would be better to say inengine?

[m3dude]

how fast do u think a gtx would run crysis with 8x8 supersampling? if u dont know, the answer is less than 1 frame per second. probly far less than 1 frame per second.

and i did read your post, let me quote exactly what u said.

"Those are raw ingame shots with just a little brightness/contrast and color balancing. Also Multisample AA for all vegetation is added in additional to the regular 16xQAA "

100% blatant ass lie. theres not a trace of multisample aa in those pics, nor are they ingame. first of all how can u possibly consider them ingame when u took them within the editor(u played the game in the editor?), and after specifically telling the editor what the size and width of the screenshot would be and then specifically typing in the e_screenshot command.

[Bokishi]

Arguing about AA, sheesh.

[jeffmd]

Ok, I finally went and finished crysis (I had been afraid to since getting my RAM back, was afraid it would crash on me again). All I can say is..jesus christ the end %20 of this game is absolutly unplayable on a single 8800gtx. I had No AA, no AF, no sub sampling, pushed the res to 1280x, and that damn thing was still loving it in the SINGLE digits. Inside the carrier wasnt bad at all, but the end of the flight sequence (seconds per frame), and the carrier deck (Seconds per frame). I had to us god mode on the final bosses because it was simply impossible for me to hit the flyers in the air at the frame rates I was getting. Could I have gone to high or medium settings? sure.. but if I cant run it on very high in vista/DX10, theres no point in playing it in vista period. I could just jump into xp and boom.. near-very high with great performance.

[SlickRig]

Originally Posted by jeffmd

I could just jump into xp and boom.. near-very high with great performance.

You dont need XP for that. You can play Crysis in Vista with the DX9 path and use the ini tweaks to enable the very high settings which do not really impact performance.

I have tested both methods under XP and Vista 64 and the difference was exactly 1-2fps using the same settings.

[SlickRig]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

I see a difference too, but it's not drastic like he's making it out to be. It's not like the first shot has jaggies all over the place. The biggest difference I see is in the trees, but they're not all that bad.

This guy must operate an electron microscope for a living.

Look at the rocks in the Second pic that I circled in Red. Then go back and look at those same rocks in the first pic. LMAO.

He keeps bragging about that editor pic but it looks like ass im some places.

[m3dude]

wow can u not read or what?

[Jonelo]

[einstein_314]

Originally Posted by SlickRig

Look at the rocks in the Second pic that I circled in Red. Then go back and look at those same rocks in the first pic. LMAO.

He keeps bragging about that editor pic but it looks like ass im some places.

Would you guys just shut the F Up! This is a thread for posting screenshots. Not arguing about AA and all this crap. Make your own thread for that.

And would you all learn how to read each other's posts. He clearly said that he had to disable texture streaming for the editor picture because it would crash the editor otherwise. That is why the rocks don't have sharp textures. Seeing as the purpose of the screenshots was to compare 16xQ ingame and downsized editor shots, blurry rocks make no difference.

And I agree that the AA is obviously much better in the editor pic, it's not even a comparison really. On the leaves anyways.