Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Noticed something odd in Crysis...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 17, 2008 12:34:49 PM

In Crysis, I've noticed that certain things in the environment don't appear until I'm almost on top of them. For example, sticks just appear at my feet while walking on the beach. They aren't there at all until I'm almost on top of them, then they just pop into existence. Also, when the frame is filled with rocks, this happens again. The rocks will just pop into existence as I get closer. What's up with this? Is there a setting I can change?

More about : noticed odd crysis

January 17, 2008 12:39:38 PM

Try www.tweakguides.com, it has a good explanation of tweaks to crysis, maybe there is a value you can change. Its just the draw distance on minor objects, but it is quite noticeable.
January 17, 2008 3:33:41 PM

get a better video card

your system can not render stuff fast enough is my guess

it is controlled lag
Related resources
January 17, 2008 4:29:09 PM

Crank up "object detail" to at least high or you will have insane pop-in.
January 17, 2008 6:36:19 PM

dragonslayer: I'm getting 15189 3dmark06. 3.6 GHz Q6600; 780 MHz 512 GTS G92

I'll take a look at the object detail, although I'm pretty sure everything is set to high.
January 17, 2008 8:32:36 PM

If you are a DX10 user you can try very high. Object detail is probably the most important setting gameplay-wise, since it Edit: affects effects view distance.

If you are still on XP (or run DX9 mode in Vista) you can use a very high hack on object detail to achieve the same effect as very high DX10. Keep in mind that your FPS will suffer...
January 18, 2008 12:12:20 AM

dragonsprayer said:
get a better video card

your system can not render stuff fast enough is my guess

it is controlled lag


Uhhh, shouldn't you say that there is not really a card atm that is capable of running crysis above 30-35 FPS instead of advising the man he should spend like 600 euro (yes euro dunno the dollar price) for that crap 30 FPS?
Also...his system? Q6600 is able to take the stress when it comes to physhics. If I was him I would wait to play crysis till it's 2009. By that time the cards will come out that will let him play Crysis and other DX10 games at a normal framerate like 50 FPS or higher.
January 18, 2008 1:25:37 AM

hmm, isnt that controlled by an option similar to "max rendering distance"?
games like half life 2 has it for decals, and stuff like trees.
so why not check for an option similar to that, maybe its set too low.
January 18, 2008 2:24:39 AM

I've noticed the same thing playing Crysis even though I have everything on high settings. It seems to have something to do with playing in DX9 on XP as none of the settings can be pushed past high. It'd be great if there was an option for rendering distance, but there is none. As annoying as it is, Crysis plays great on my setup otherwise with 30-50 fps and still looks amazing.
a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2008 2:36:55 AM

I'm waiting until at least 2016 to play Crysis, as I want it to run 60+ FPS on my phone. Seriously, I just picked up a copy of Doom 2 for my new gaming rig, I get crazy great FPS with all settings on max! waiting years to play games is what PC gaming is all about! $1500 well spent...
January 18, 2008 2:37:55 AM

It's a necessary evil at the moment considering the hardware isn't good enough yet. (We'll see how the double pcb cards handle it in the next few months).

It actually helps at the moment. There is no point seeing tons of rocks and sticks if it slows your pc and framerate down even more. Unless of course you bought the game to walk around enjoying the view as opposed to blasting anything that moves.

Hopefully - in enough time - GPU's will eat Crysis for breakfast.
January 18, 2008 12:32:56 PM

My OCed 512 GTS has not had a hiccup yet..that's why I'm trying to get those damn sticks to appear sooner....lol
January 18, 2008 2:18:23 PM

I didnt see where you posted your sys specs so its hard to help.

I can say though that I ran into this same problem with COD2 as well as Crysis. There may have been more FPS games that did it but I didnt test them. COD4, & Source engine games worked fine. I didnt pursue fixing it with Crysis since I didnt really care for the game.

I asked questions on forums and the only semi-direction I got was that it was mipmapping. I coudn't find a setting for COD2 that would change it. I tried multiple hardware configs and even a couple operating systems. I even tried the Vista SP1 Beta in hopes of fixing it. I finally decided it was my video driver since my machine was plenty beefy. (thats why it helps to post your specs)

As I write this I realized it had been a couple weeks since I checked for a new driver. The driver page is under maintenance though...

January 18, 2008 9:10:24 PM

I did post my system specs... fourth post down...

3.6 GHz Q6600 and a 780 MHz 8800 GTS 512. 4 gig RAM. Vista Ultimate x64. You couldn't buy a faster system right now.

I really don't care much for Crysis either. I've caught myself saying "lame" more than once. Team Fortress 2 and Quake Wars are much cooler. Hell, Half Life 2 is cooler.
January 18, 2008 9:11:59 PM

BTW: Increased object detail to Very High. Increased AA to 4x. Neither did anything. Like I said though, this game is all hype, so I don't care too much. The graphics are cool in some spots, but all looks and no substance...
January 18, 2008 9:53:36 PM

I think hype was simply our own or collective expectations.

I also think that we use hype as more of an excuse because we haven't been able to enjoy Crysis because of frame rates ie. Hardware

If the hardware had been ready - I think everyones perception would have been twice as good.

I believe Crytek deserve a pat on the back along with other projects like Windows Vista. These products have encouraged and persuaded the industry and many of us to bring the future on more quickly - and they have forced manufacturers to deliver more powerful solutions to get us there.

I haven't bought Crysis yet because I'm holding out for my next build (for financial reasons and GPU ones). The demo was pretty good but I couldn't adequately enjoy it for all of the same FPS reasons.

I will still buy it when the hardware is out there and looking forward to some good multiplayer and team action.

Thanks to Crysis, the GPU manufacturers are workng as best they can to put products out the door that are far superior to previous solutions.

We'll get there and hopefully some other cool games and things will be on the shelves along with Crysis...
January 18, 2008 11:03:55 PM

a_dude said:
I think hype was simply our own or collective expectations.

I also think that we use hype as more of an excuse because we haven't been able to enjoy Crysis because of frame rates.

....

I haven't bought Crysis yet because I'm holding out for my next build (for financial reasons and GPU ones).


I'm really not trying to brag or anything like that, but my machine is more than fast enough to play Crysis with everything on high or Ultra, and AA enabled (although I don't notice a dramatic difference between AA and non AA). In any case, I'm not referring to the graphics as being a let down. On more than one occasion I was wowed by the eye candy. I'm talking specifically about gameplay and story, which is repetitive, derivative and, at times, rather tedious. For example, I can be 50 meters away from an enemy, shoot him about 100 times (and I know I'm hitting him because of the blood), and he still keeps walking around. Additionally, the AI is horrible. The game is so corny that sometimes I wonder if I'm laughing with, or at, Crytek.

Bioshock, HL2 (and the subsequent episodes), Team Fortress 2, etc etc, are much more enjoyable than Crysis. When compared side by side they may lack a bit in the graphics department, but the difference really isn't as dramatic as you'd think, except for some obvious bits where Crysis blows the competition out of the water (expansive environments comes to mind). This being said, I'll probably play through Crysis...it's not so bad that I want to avoid it. However, it falls far short of even the lowest expectations. I didn't even know Crysis existed until it was released, so my expectations weren't as high as those who've been waiting a year plus. In fact, I really didn't have any expectations beyond it being graphically amazing. Truth be told, although the graphics are pretty sweet, they really aren't as mind blowing as I thought they'd be, based, again, on the hype. I'm just glad this game was included with my graphics card. Had I bought it outright, I'd probably be pretty disappointed.
January 18, 2008 11:25:51 PM

Man did I get fed up with the "will this play crysis max settings" threads. Who cares. Its just a game. On top of that its just another fps with no unique selling points, unlike Bioshock, HL2 with its story, or the atmosphere in Fear. Its unique selling point was graphics that no machine could run properly. Oblivion used to be the gpu killer which was actually annoying because all you wanted to do play the game because it was actually good.

On top of that now the game is released we keep getting threads asking why it won't run properly or telling us that they are getting 60fps very high settings with a 9600pro and its soo amazing. Just play the bloody game.

End of rant
P.s this isn't aimed at you JJBlanche. Its aimed at the people who insist on telling/asking rubbish.

a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2008 12:05:42 AM

Is the game patched? and also are the graphics drives updated?
January 19, 2008 1:48:50 AM

Yes and yes, but the above comments are in reference to the patched game.
January 19, 2008 1:50:09 AM

i'm running q6600 oc to 3.6 fsb at 1800 ddr2-800 @ 900 and 2x2900Pro OC to XT. Runs max DX9 like butter and renders everything properly.

(I REFUSE TO RUN VISTA!!!)
catalyst 7.2 at the time. going to update to 8.1 with the hotfix when i get home.
January 19, 2008 2:02:49 AM

...could be an ATI vs. nVidia thing. I've heard something to this effect in other threads.
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2008 2:43:04 AM

Quote:
I'm really not trying to brag or anything like that, but my machine is more than fast enough to play Crysis with everything on high or Ultra, and AA enabled


What resolution did you play at? What kind of framerates are playable to you? I can't see any current single GPU playing Crysis on all high with high fsaa/af at 1680x1050 or above. Reviews I've seen show the 8800U averaging low 20's fps at such settings, which to me isn't quite playable even in Crysis.

For me, a single 8800GT OC averged 21.99 fps at 16x10 high 2x/16x, and 17.63 fps at 4x/16x. FSAA is a killer in crysis. Just enabling 4xaa alone (no AF) knocked fps from 31 down to 21 average.
January 19, 2008 2:55:34 AM

nvalhalla said:
I'm waiting until at least 2016 to play Crysis, as I want it to run 60+ FPS on my phone. Seriously, I just picked up a copy of Doom 2 for my new gaming rig, I get crazy great FPS with all settings on max! waiting years to play games is what PC gaming is all about! $1500 well spent...

:lol:  This wins best post of the day! I was having a bad day until now....I laughed so hard i nearly fell off my chair...
January 19, 2008 3:42:38 AM

I agree that Crysis is just a game. I also had no expectations because I didn't really get into Far Cry at all. Crysis is the first game for me that hasn't been playable enough because of my hardware. (Fine on medium settings but this rig is almost 4 years old)

However, after playing Joint operations and all of the Delta Force versions - I felt the sniper rifle in Crysis is just me cup of tea. Hence - I'm holding out to play it in Multi-player on some good servers and can't wait to sit on a hillside and snipe - and look forward to eventually being nuked out of existence (a first gaming experience for me).

Like someone said - it's just a game - so we stay and play - or move on.
When playing the demo I noticed the rocks appearing late, but that helps my X800pro - else I'd never have been able to appreciate the rest of the game play as much as I could.
Having watched a few in game vids on YouTube - it is evident that some folks are getting a pretty decent gaming experience.

(This reply is not to anyone specific and neither was my previous one).
January 19, 2008 4:22:54 AM

I have been getting a kick out of the flaws in Crysis.. like after you go into the school house and free the archoliest the tanks come in. I shot the second one once with a rocket launcher and the tank was spinning in the air shooting... LOL. Another thing is the dancing guns that just keep fireing after you kill an enemy. There are too many quirks to list. I've been playing it fine on my system (see sig) with everything set to medium except water and something else and it plays fine. Ive played through the game 3x now and still not sick of it. I must be easily amused...
January 19, 2008 9:30:47 AM

scorch said:
I have been getting a kick out of the flaws in Crysis.. like after you go into the school house and free the archoliest the tanks come in. I shot the second one once with a rocket launcher and the tank was spinning in the air shooting... LOL. Another thing is the dancing guns that just keep fireing after you kill an enemy. There are too many quirks to list. I've been playing it fine on my system (see sig) with everything set to medium except water and something else and it plays fine. Ive played through the game 3x now and still not sick of it. I must be easily amused...


I'm glad your enjoying the game at the performance of your system. My housemate thinks its great and he's running it on a P4 2.4ghz and (he just upgraded this and didn't ask me before he did) a x1550pro.
January 19, 2008 1:25:41 PM

pauldh said:
Quote:
I'm really not trying to brag or anything like that, but my machine is more than fast enough to play Crysis with everything on high or Ultra, and AA enabled


What resolution did you play at? What kind of framerates are playable to you? I can't see any current single GPU playing Crysis on all high with high fsaa/af at 1680x1050 or above. Reviews I've seen show the 8800U averaging low 20's fps at such settings, which to me isn't quite playable even in Crysis.

For me, a single 8800GT OC averged 21.99 fps at 16x10 high 2x/16x, and 17.63 fps at 4x/16x. FSAA is a killer in crysis. Just enabling 4xaa alone (no AF) knocked fps from 31 down to 21 average.


I really don't know what my framerates are, as I haven't bothered to check them. I just go by what's playable to me (and believe me, I'm very picky about those types of things). I wasn't talking about 100x FSAA or anything like that...I'm talking about everything on high, object detail on ultra, and 4xAA. 1680x1050 res. 3.6GHz Q6600 and an 8800GTS G92 OCed to 780MHz. I don't know what CPU you're running, but my GTS is running at 155MHz higher than your GT (ie: significant increase). Plus, I'm using 4 gig of system RAM. Like I said in the original post, I'm really not trying to brag, but you literally couldn't buy a system that's faster than mine.
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2008 2:10:25 PM

Thanks. What's playable to you is what counts to you...I understand that. When posting results for others it helps IMO to have numbers to compare, like say running the built in GPU benchmark. I was just curious on the resolution and fps as I have not seen anyone or any review site claim they can run high details at 16x10 with 4xaa on a single card. Do you use AF too? Like I said, the 8800 Ultra falls way short of that from what I have read so your claim peeked my curiousity. If you were happy at 16x10 high with 4xaa in Crysis, good for you, enjoy it. Imagine your machine with two of those cards! Then you could better make the claim about your rig as one of any card can be beat pretty easily in a game like Crysis. Shoot even so, anyone with unlimited budget can order a Mach V from Falcon Northwest with three 8800Ultras and a QX9 9650 that would be better.


I just posted what a single 8800GT can do (with a 3.0GHz Q6600) just as an example of single card performance hit enabling fsaa. 4xaa takes a huge hit. Yeah, I know your GTS is alot higher clocked and would be faster than a GT. But reviews have shown even the Ultra only beats the 8800GT by up to 5 fps in crysis high detail. I run dual 8800GT, which spanks any single card by a long shot posting 55% gains in crysis with fsaa on. Even so I run 2x/16x and not 4x/16x do to lowered fps with 4xaa. 4xaa no AF is possible, but AF need to go on before aa IMO and 16x didn't hurt performance much at all over 8x.

a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2008 2:17:49 PM

Quote:
This wins best post of the day! I was having a bad day until now....I laughed so hard i nearly fell off my chair
:lol:  I enjoyed that one too.
a b U Graphics card
January 19, 2008 2:23:46 PM

scorch said:
I have been getting a kick out of the flaws in Crysis.. like after you go into the school house and free the archoliest the tanks come in. I shot the second one once with a rocket launcher and the tank was spinning in the air shooting... LOL. Another thing is the dancing guns that just keep fireing after you kill an enemy. There are too many quirks to list. I've been playing it fine on my system (see sig) with everything set to medium except water and something else and it plays fine. Ive played through the game 3x now and still not sick of it. I must be easily amused...

yeh, lol, I had the second tank upside down and moving around too. There are alot of bugs like that. Even with patch 1.1 I threw a grenade into a watch tower, took out the guys and blew the legs off the tower, but the platform still was left floating in thin air.
January 19, 2008 3:06:55 PM

scorch said:
I have been getting a kick out of the flaws in Crysis.. like after you go into the school house and free the archoliest the tanks come in. I shot the second one once with a rocket launcher and the tank was spinning in the air shooting... LOL. Another thing is the dancing guns that just keep fireing after you kill an enemy. There are too many quirks to list. I've been playing it fine on my system (see sig) with everything set to medium except water and something else and it plays fine. Ive played through the game 3x now and still not sick of it. I must be easily amused...


Before the release of Crysis, everyone was saying it was going to be the Halo killer...now that I"ve played both through, I'd have to say the graphics were improved some (Halo 3 had great graphics, but as usual, the pc beats the console), but the storyline was undeveloped...not enough to it. A good portion of the backstory (for the first half of the game, at least) is found listening to the radios found in various buildings in-game (have to wonder how many people even thought to turn them on). At least they left the ending open.

I did think that it came to the climax a little fast, though...I expected more of a land campaign after escaping from the mountain and sphere. Then again, that may have caused an 8-10 GB game rather than just 6...

I've never noticed any of the mentioned quirks aside from the lag in some objects appearing. It is kind of disorientating, running down a road with a jeep materializing suddenly inside you :na: 

I'm running a C2D6850, HIS 3870, 2GB DDR2@1066, playing at 1280 x 1024, graphics flat at medium across the board, getting 40-45 fps average
January 19, 2008 7:17:20 PM

My Q6600/G92 GTS rig can play Crysis Comfortably at ultra high settings across the board @ 1280x800
January 19, 2008 9:04:33 PM

I quite enjoyed the gameplay, it was very open, and did leave room for thinking, but i admit that the story was crap, and once the aliens showed up, the gameplay went to pot as well
January 19, 2008 9:58:14 PM

parawizard said:
My Q6600/G92 GTS rig can play Crysis Comfortably at ultra high settings across the board @ 1280x800

I've never seen a 1280x800 monitor except on a few laptops.
January 20, 2008 12:31:01 AM

pauldh: My card OCed to 780 is notably faster than an Ultra. But I digress. The GTS is just a stopgap to the 9800 series.
January 20, 2008 1:53:22 AM

jjblanche said:
I'm talking specifically about gameplay and story, which is repetitive, derivative and, at times, rather tedious. For example, I can be 50 meters away from an enemy, shoot him about 100 times (and I know I'm hitting him because of the blood), and he still keeps walking around. Additionally, the AI is horrible. The game is so corny that sometimes I wonder if I'm laughing with, or at, Crytek.


Thats very strange, I never had any problems like that. Also, I never had any rendering problems with things magically showing up under my feet. I played at 1920x1200 with all settings on medium and reasonable 30+ framerates. Perhaps you should turn the settings down, or perhaps your hardware is overclocked a little too much leading to errors?

On a slightly related note, my system was 24+ hours stable with Orthos dual prime and I never had a glitch or lockup with anything running my cpu at 3.2GHz. Crysis however locked up all the time in the menu before i could even start the game until i lowered my overclock to 2.9GHz. Strange.

Unlike most people here i found the game enjoyable with a reasonable plot. And i think the best thing about the game was the suit and the gamplay that it enabled, not the graphics (although i think the graphics were very nice even at medium). If i had one complaint it was that the game was short with an ending that was a slight let down.


January 20, 2008 2:01:25 AM

jjblanche said:
3.6 GHz Q6600 and a 780 MHz 8800 GTS 512. 4 gig RAM. Vista Ultimate x64. You couldn't buy a faster system right now.


I could easily put together a faster system if i had the money ;-)
January 20, 2008 2:27:49 AM

pshrk said:
I could easily put together a faster system if i had the money ;-)

But it wouldn't be able to play Crysis @ >1600x1200 DX10 Very High with a minimum of 30FPS :) 
January 20, 2008 2:30:10 AM

JJ... I have a faster system (other than ram.. but that's because I have 2 GB sitting on my desk).

Also XP is faster than Vista. And there is the Crysis DX10 hack.
January 20, 2008 2:37:34 AM

cnumartyr said:
JJ... I have a faster system (other than ram.. but that's because I have 2 GB sitting on my desk).

Also XP is faster than Vista. And there is the Crysis DX10 hack.

**sigh**

Bragging as always... :kaola: 
January 20, 2008 2:41:28 AM

homerdog said:
But it wouldn't be able to play Crysis @ >1600x1200 DX10 Very High with a minimum of 30FPS :) 


Perhaps your right, but that really doesn't have anything to do with my point.
!