From Playfuls.com: "Yeah, we all know how truly amazing Crytek's engine is and how tormenting it becomes even for Quad Cores and 8800 Ultras, but just wait till you see what huge maps this baby can render!"
Won't be possible on DVD9. It will only work with the power of blu-ray.
I hope u don't mean streaming textures from the disc cos that would suck major donkey balls on the game's performance as the bluray lens speed would seriously bottle neck the rendering speeds with those chunks of textures, it is always fastest and best to read from a physical hdd, why do u think even some of the games on ur precious ps3 request that u copy some files onto the hard drive for optimized gameplay because texture streaming from a br disc isn't a very good idea especially when u have detailed textures like the one's in crysis, if u even said the cell, it wouldn't have sounded too bad/flawed but even then the cell is one hardware unit with a single dye(PPE) emulating 7 other virtual cores(SPES) on silicone physical components, making for a total of 8 APUs on the same dye, so even then, it's abilities are limited even though it has impressive raw power available, processors can only do as much, u can have a quad core overclocked to 8ghz for that matter but without the adequate RAM, the power is held back, it's like having a PH.d College professor writing a long book but not providing him with enough paper and ink so he has the knowledge for the book but not enough resources to put his thoughts into writing to get a finished product, the ram will always be the bottleneck when rendering such a huge map, it's all about ram, because the processor gives instructions and doesn't necessarily store them, that is the RAM's job, and i don't think 512mb will cut it for a pre-rendered map at that size, i even doubt the first level of crysis can be fully loaded into that little RAM, Edit: @DJ, yes I do know exactly what I'm talking about, console noob, http://arstechnica.com/arti... By virtual cores, meaning they are logical cores but not physical cores on one dye like the way the intel/amd processors, the hardware components of the SPEs are physical components but they are not physically designed like cores themselves, but applications would read them to be, in other words, the architecture is translated as an 8 core on the software side, so u have storage logic, control logic and execution logic all being translated by the hardware components of the processor, "PS3 games typically install some amount of data onto the standard hard drive", isn't that exactly what I said? "why do u think even some of the games on ur precious ps3 request that u copy some files onto the hard drive for optimized gameplay?" or is it the wording? my point is BR may read faster than DVD9 but when the data to be streamed breaches a certain threshold, u are better off doing the streaming on the hard drive, that's why I gave that example of ps3 games copying files to the hard disk, please carefully read before u post a rebuttal, the moment someone says anything that portrays the ps3 in any negative way in the least, they get tons of disagrees without people actually taking time to read through the post properly, so u end repeating what the other person said
I'm not greedy. I just want to play on a map the size of Rode Island. With a few hundred of my favorite people.
Theox you'd be surprised at the things that mikeslemonade's "precious PS3" can do.
Literally has no clue what he's talking about. PS3 games typically install some amount of data onto the standard hard drive, and on top of that the Blu-ray drive reads faster than most DVD drives. And that's not how the PS3's CPU works. The PPE isn't "emulating" anything, and neither are the SPE cores.
i agree with streaming textures but even then thats just too much for DVD to stream considering that it has a slow seek speed
Just shut up dude. DVDs are just a medium. Unlike your poor console, a PC gamer has all of his data on his mass storage drive of choice. (usually a HDD) How it gets there, DVD, flash drive, or DL from the net doesn't matter. It most CERTAINLY does not need your precious Blu-Ray to do a damn thing.
HOLY [email protected] huge.
Huge's an understatement, that's universal.
haha yeah your right, i just told a work colleague and his jaw dropped. haha
Whats the point its gonna flop anyway(crysis 2)
LOL... shame you need 458 times the power of the average PC to make it run.
There was another news on the front page proving that you can run Crysis fairly good on a 900 dollar machine...but yes, rendering a map 458 times bigger than Earth's surface would flatten even the entire army of servers and PCs in existence... ;)
Crytek has achieved a lot, but I can't help but wonder if they could have optimized the bloody engine a little bit better. When you consider what last gens flagship card were...7800GTX @ 256MB, with these 8800GTX @ 768MB, I can't help but scratch my head at the thought of this monstrosity of a card not running this game well.
Q6600..... 8800ultra Q6600..... GTX Q6600..... SLI GTS (640mb) Q6600..... SLI GT (512mb) and so on...... None of the above give you stable frame rates at a "respectable" res (1650x1080). Yes its playable, but is it really Crysis? No.
I play crysis with e6600 at 3.01 ghz with 2gb ram, and 8800 GTX OC..and it plays respectably for me at 1680*1050. I get 35 FPS which altho not perfect, is good enough to run this game start to finish. Main place I noticed slow down, was beside the big mountain when the boulders were falling from the top. (btw I use all settings at high bar shadows and post processing which were at medium)
ur framerates suck, check ur machine for problems, viruses, memory leaks, apply the patch and tweak the damn thing, i'm on an e6600 stock, 8800gtx, 2gb ram and i get 25-30 fps with all settings very high untweaked at 720p, tweaked with custom System.cfg 1080p, I get 35 fps running very high in dx9, same visual fidelity, also imo 35-40 fps is the best framerate to run crysis for playability, I tried getting framerates in the 60s and the animations look so fast and unrealistic at those speeds, the game was not optimized to run at 60 fps because the rendering of the animations have a lower frame speed, that's why lower framerates in crysis feel smoother than other games q6600 with Ultras is when u want to crank every notch up, with the patch it is now possible to have every bell and whistle up with AA up to 16xQ, because the patch stabilized framerates and optimized AA by filling several memory leaks it creates, meaning crysis can be fully maxed to the bone with rig under $2000 as long as the resolution stays within the 1680 range
What's even crazier is when this becomes dated
Make Star Wars then.
Not very practical, but awesome nonetheless.
amazing technical achievement...but i wonder what teh actual use of this would be? I cant see any from a gaming point of view...at least not until technology picks up and is able to do full ray tracing real time (or whatever its called!)
Now that's a future mmo I'd like to play.
they're making an mmo based on cryengine 2, can't wait, the largest world even bigger than the world itself,
Lol, you can render those kinds of map sizes with almost any modern engine. It's just a matter of whether or not the CPU/memory can handle the load. Engines aren't inherently limited in their abilities to render large maps, there's no artificial ceiling in place. Only the bottleneck of processing power.
My laptop will implode...
He'll just say "Well ps3 can render maps 538409345884979485894750948540 98x the size of earth, ps3 pwns pc all the way!" lol, that'll be hilarious. But really, that is freakin awesome stuff!
Stupid PC nerds get off to sh1t like this. I'll stick with my consoles.