[geRV]

Ive no idea whats up with it, according to crytek the game makes use of multi core cpu's and sli\crossfire. But looking at a few forums it seems the multicore use is tiny, cores are sitting there with 70% plus being unused. Don't really understand why, i know games using multicore never really make full use of all the cpu power available but using like 10-15% of each of the 3/4 cores is pathetic.

[geRV]

Pic of cpu usage;



Would have thought it would use the cores more efficiently...the rumour going round at present is "its a bug and will be fixed for release". Never mind the fact that the games most likely already being dulicated right not to meet the release in 18 or so days.

Btw anyone noticed in game you can grab a korean and toss him into a rock and he can get back up, but the minute you toss him into water he immediately dies. Kinda reminds me of bf2 syndrome where vehicles and water got on about as well as humans ingesting cionide.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by geRV

Kinda reminds me of bf2 syndrome where vehicles and water got on about as well as humans ingesting cionide.

Those poor lakes!

[dr nein]

I saw a guy instantly drown after I tossed a buddy of his into him and it sent him into the water. I also tossed a guy off the cliff near the command post, hitting several rocks on the way down only to have him stand back up and shoot me. Weird damage system, but at least he didn't yell "OY!"

[rudedog]

Originally Posted by Bean 2

Is this game really unstable? My first play through was extremely laggy, while the cinematic scenes were fine. Now on subsequent play throughs, the opposite occurs. And if i turn down my settings to medium, the graphics get really fucked up.

posts some specs, depending on the hardware and drivers it should be very stable.

[mr.miyagi]

It ran very stable for me, no very noticable drops in fps and I didn't spot many bugs. Playing on all high except shadows + post processing on medium, 2xAA.

Went around with god mode on and it never really slowed in large battles with explosions.
This is on a: C2D 2.2ghz, 2gig ram, 8800gts 320mb with crysis nvidia patch.

[ninty]

I haven't played much, when i got it to start up it defaulted to very high settings. looked like a slideshow, so I put everything down to high settings and it was still pretty choppy. so i put everything down to medium and it runs smooth.

will have to tweak around but if i have to run this game on medium settings with a quad core and 8800 ultra then

[geRV]

Originally Posted by ninty

I haven't played much, when i got it to start up it defaulted to very high settings. looked like a slideshow, so I put everything down to high settings and it was still pretty choppy. so i put everything down to medium and it runs smooth.

will have to tweak around but if i have to run this game on medium settings with a quad core and 8800 ultra then

Have to take into consideration though that the 8800 series is almost a year old, the ultras the fastest card available but at the same time its basically just a tweaked gtx which was released around november last year. Won't be long till theyre superceded either.

[ninty]

yeah i know, but still. this is the hardware they were building the game on and is pretty much top of the line at the time the game is coming out and it struggles.

[geRV]

Farcry also hammered cards when it first came out, seems that crytek like making games that are gonna be used ase benchmarks in reviews. And theyve already stated that the game has even higher settings that require new hardware, and when thats available they'll release a patch enabling ultra settings or whatever.

Im just pissed its not making proper use of quad core. And as i said the game would have to be off getting duplicated now to meet the release date so it looks like this demo would represent final game performance. If it is a performance bug then that means more waiting around for patches. =/

[Milla]

Originally Posted by mr.miyagi

It ran very stable for me, no very noticable drops in fps and I didn't spot many bugs. Playing on all high except shadows + post processing on medium, 2xAA.

Went around with god mode on and it never really slowed in large battles with explosions.
This is on a: C2D 2.2ghz, 2gig ram, 8800gts 320mb with crysis nvidia patch.

Where is this Crysis nvidia patch? Your specs are almost like my fathers. But his ran shitty.

[geRV]

Im assuming hes talking about the nvidia drivers which were released for crysis, the links are a few pages back. They break the 64bit version of the game though.

[geRV]

Crysis has also went gold:

http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?op...sk=view&id=543

Now to figure out if its worth buying =/

[strvs]

Originally Posted by mr.miyagi

It ran very stable for me, no very noticable drops in fps and I didn't spot many bugs. Playing on all high except shadows + post processing on medium, 2xAA.

Went around with god mode on and it never really slowed in large battles with explosions.
This is on a: C2D 2.2ghz, 2gig ram, 8800gts 320mb with crysis nvidia patch.

i got the same setup and my FPS hovered around 15-25 FPS.. pretty noticable chug in some points, i still haven't tried the crysis nvidia patch tho

i'm also running in 1440 x 900 though

[Miscguy]

Originally Posted by ninty

I haven't played much, when i got it to start up it defaulted to very high settings. looked like a slideshow, so I put everything down to high settings and it was still pretty choppy. so i put everything down to medium and it runs smooth.

will have to tweak around but if i have to run this game on medium settings with a quad core and 8800 ultra then

Odd, im assuming 2 gigs of ram for that. Im running all highs, except medium on shadows. Nvidia cards always seem to hate shadows and chug with em.