Which Crysis config do you prefer?

[Gaco]

I was DX9 as well, not rygels textures but in 64bit mode. I just can 64bit because I can, is there any reason to go 32bit?

[FastRedPonyCar]

a few extra FPS here and there in 32 bit. Again, why, I'm not sure. Only guess I have is incredibly poor coding...same reason why a core quad extreme doesn't net but a couple extra FPS as a budget core 2 duo.

[jmanrob]

Originally Posted by Gaco

WTF fastponycar, those result doesn't match mine at all. I really want them to though because I'd love to have 38FPS average with a config that looks so relatively good (would look 10x better without the damn distance blur though.. any idea how to switch that off?). Can you give me a link to that benchmark program, then I'll reinstall Crysis to be safe, then run a few benchmarks myself!

I think that distant blur your seeing is either overdone hdr, our something with the TOD.

r_depthoffield=2 will blur distant terrain slightly, most like that effect though as its pretty subtle, try setting it 1 you will have sharper textures. Also to much hdr will blur as well, so try a lower value.

Here is a compare of dof.

dof=1



dof=2

[Soetdjuret]

Can someone take a few more pics of CCC's config? I dont believe it looks that bad as in the first shot posted here. It looks to lit and yellow, kinda cartoonish...

[Gaco]

So 32bit is faster than 64bit with no drawbacks? Didn't remember that fact back from release.. gonna benchmark again soon then..

[FastRedPonyCar]

I put Xconfig 1.3 on last night. Very nice. I like it's TOD settings MUCH more than CCC's. It's not all orange and yellow though like Jman's screenshot would lead you to believe ??

[Soetdjuret]

Am also interested in Xconfig.. but it looked so damn yellow and overexposed from the pictures. But if you say its not, so then i'll have it a go.

Red, is the CCC really that lit and cartoonish as jman's picture?

[FastRedPonyCar]

no it looked fairly normal. The xconfig definately has the most noticable TOD modifications but they're VERY good IMO.

I made a few tweaks to the actual config file such as turning POM off but overall, everything about the mod is very very good. It draws more vegetation and objects than the MSTR config does so it's a bit slower (avg 32 fps benchmark) but the TOD settings alone are worth the price of admission.

[jmanrob]

Originally Posted by FastRedPonyCar

I put Xconfig 1.3 on last night. Very nice. I like it's TOD settings MUCH more than CCC's. It's not all orange and yellow though like Jman's screenshot would lead you to believe ??

okay, what are you saying my screenshots are lies? lol go into the Crysis folder and inject his TOD. I know when i first installed the mod the tod didn't install had to manually do it.

I can assure you it looks that way, but you can believe what you want.

xconfig highest lvl:

[Skinner]

Running a modified (DOF=0 and others) Xconfig here (1.3) and it looked way better then CCC (old one)
But I started editing en modifying myself to my personal needs. Kudo's to jmanrob (it's the only real no compromise setting)

[FastRedPonyCar]

Originally Posted by jmanrob

okay, what are you saying my screenshots are lies? lol go into the Crysis folder and inject his TOD. I know when i first installed the mod the tod didn't install had to manually do it.

I can assure you it looks that way, but you can believe what you want.

I didn't install the highest level. I did the next to highest level. Is there something different between the two that would make them look different? Different TOD settings for each one?

[Gaco]

Just ran a benchmark on a 100% freshly installed Crysis + officials patches + Mster Config 3.01, this is the result:



wtf... I guess the comma is on the wrong place, because from what I saw throughout the benchmark, around 21-24 FPS was about average