Five Elite Mercenaries are send to an Island in middle of the 1980'. The Task: Find and Eliminate a local Drug Baron. Features: new Physic, real Sunmovement, Day/Night Change, Hunger/Food system, realistic (!) Weather system, Light/Dark viewing system for AI, 5 different Fractions on the Island. Complete Realistic simulation of nearly all things, including Sleep. New weapons, new Vehicles. Vehicles driving system is now exact (!) like GTA IV , FireSystem,... this mod is Heavily inspired by GTA, IGI, FarCry.
ihatethis
(view original)
Post a comment
a friend (Tnlgg) have tested the actual map i promote here, with his PC and got awefull FPS, around 50% less then i have with my 8 years old rigg on WXP.
so i restarted my PC with w7 64bit, and started the game and have also seen a drastical performance drop. its even clear seeable at this testmap. please note also the minview FPS, which is only 30% of the original on WXP (identical PC !)
unfortunately, due moving home, i didnt have really time to digg again deeper in this and try to find work arounds or even first developing debuggin tools, (its important so i can find out which is exactly the bottleneck). it's definately a software driver bug on newer OS , maybe
only on 64bit systems, but it may also interact with the good old driver "bug":
remember this :
Moddb.com
AMD and also NVIDIA release newer drivers which always slow down "old" cards drastically.
and i mean drastically ^^ the same card with old driver can have in same windows up to 100% more performance in farcry on cryengine1 .
i have readen that this happens also to other old dx9 engines, but i didnt have the time to digg also into this topic.
and pls dont unterestimate this problem: the real maps are designed to run on my old rigg from ~25-50 FPS, sometimes 60 or 70, seldom more.
but on Tnlgg's new machine with w10 64bit, he have a max of 40 FPS and a minimum of 25FPS (but not the min fps, they might even be lower which makes it not really enjoyable).
The problem is that NVIDIA and also AMD release drivers only for new games since most of the people who buy better GPUs playing new games and not old ones so they just don't care about the older games. So, it's always better to have two PCs. Unfortunately, my older PC is really old and I played on a low resolution, but with almost any mod I have always over 60fps expect FC2010, but that's a Crysis level graphic so I don't mind that.
but the psychological aspect is very heavy:
tnlgg got the game, maybe thinking: yeah, my new rigg is better, turn on all to maximum and got horrible results in fps, from not running to stuttering like hell in lower grafix quality in options.
i have to take care of this aspect and maybe must insert a dynamic options menu, which, invisibility for player, allow only certain max settings for certain maps, which simply wont run on ultra high settings, because of a physical memory limitation which farcry have.
Most of the people who have a very good rig for a game like Far Cry 1 would think that and they would be definitely disappointed, but it's all about the drivers. A lot of people including me are not using Linux because of that for example. Or they don't play old games.
Luckily, most of the games like C&C, old Battlefield games, Cod 1 Gold, 2, (cough old Moh games cough) and so on don't have many problems with it, but they have either 30fps lock or don't need a good PC at all. However, FC1 is a completely different story. It's a real pity that when you want to play an old game on a high end system and it has much less framerate like on the old one.
yeah, you have right!
i actually try to find ways for riggs (combinations from PC and OS) which do not bring good FPS, to make a magical switch in options which allow to play it anyway.
actually i unlocked the distance scaler, which dynamicly de and increase the viewrange to keep a 30FPS minimum and prepared the menus and structures for, i also have prepared the ingame devmode hud and inserted more functions so its now possible to start (!) searching the bottleneck (shader, renderer, AI, drawcalls).
finally it will and HAVE to end with, that anybody can play it and THEN can increase single sliders from quality and look then what happens.
unfortunately the usual PC gamer do the different thing:
start the game, go in menu, grafic -> set all to ultra high / max, load map and yell "what a **** performance" :D
have seen that in crysis release.
even if it was possible to reduce all qualities in crysis the most heared call was: "it runs so poor with all set to max, what a ****** engine".
later, as crysis2 came out, with drastical drawbacks in grafical quality (but with higher FPS therefore), all raged against the "downgrade" :D
i have to find a psychological way and a nice menu tuning to avoid this -.-
Yes, definitely. Most of the people think that if its an old game 6 or 8 years, it has to run on their system. Horever, Far Cry 1 has a very high requirements on its year and Crysis 1 even much more. Also, I haven't played Crysis 1 much on a new PC since I'm busy with a lot of other games + mods. I think that Crysis 1 wasn't properly optimised since EA don't give Crytek enough time to optimise it.
Crysis 2 was drastically downgraded since consoles would explode from that graphic which was in Crysis 1.
I use Windows 7 for modding,not Windows 10,due to 3ds max not working on Windows 10,but both Far Cry & ET are running fine.
On memleak map i have more fps then you,above 100 i think,will test again later.
My PC is old too,i have only a new gfx card,the rest is a few years old.
Q9550 @ 3.4 GHz
8GB DDR2 Memory
240GB SSD
1TB HDD
R9 380 4GB Gpu
Then that's not bad at all. Actually, it's a great news and hopefully it stays that way or there will be even more fps.
That's not that very old, but the CPU is the bottleneck and probably the oldest one from the list. Memory is good and GPU is newer than mine, but I hear that there were some problems in the release with it.
yeaaaaah, cpu :/ my Q6600 @ 3GHz is slower, my AMD6950 GPU is slower, so its really the GPU driver or the memory management from a 64bit OS or a combination :/
what happened to your Nvidia card which was behaving strange in the single texture room scenario last year ?
I have a Windows Vista laptop, running Windows 7 32-bit, and I get 20fps on High settings, in normal Far Cry, and QFB is at 15 and sometimes 30fps, depending on the map.
And that scene has 150 thousand polys, so if it had 1 million polys (like that destruction video where you destroy a wooden structure on a cliff) it would lag terribly on your PC, right?
that scene is a simple test scene, farcry have also this polycount.
my mod have ~600.000 - 1.2 millions and if you slide the shadowslider to max viewdistance, 2.8 mio poly. but those are the drawcalls, it seems the single Core power of your CPU is also extreme important.
and yes, my mod is not designed to run on low end systems ;(
Don't worry about my laptop. I will soon buy parts for my dream rig (Nvidia GTX 750 Ti, 8GB of RAM etc.), so it will not be a problem at all.
Of course, only if I pass this 9th grade with very good marks.
haha, so i wish you good luck :)
So you have 85 fps on your Windows 7 machine & i got 166 fps on mine.
Its 20 fps better then on your XP machine.
My cpu can go up to 3.91GHz
thank you!
hmm, but instantfightmap, how man FPS standing at starting point, looking to the river (not ocean) ?
this is one of the absolut worst case scenes (beside standing close to the river, looking to the city).
with middle quality settings: how much can you achieve there ? (without activated distance scaler!)
"Medium"
-Distance scaler off!!!
Looking to the river/city i get 42 fps
"Very High"
-Distance scaler off!!!
Looking to the river/city i get 34 fps
wow, that is twice time what i have ^^
one additional question: how the distance scaler behave in such scenes, if you already HAVE over 30 FPS and turn it on ? theoretically they then should increase the viewdistance ? but practically, what happens on your machine in such situations (please set them to "aggressive") ?
Scaler set to aggressive!!!
"Medium" - 37 fps
"Very High" - 33 fps
Its worse then with Scaler set to off.
Setting my cpu speed to 3.91GHz gave me 2-3 fps more,not worth it.
i already tried to give simply a FPS goal, which the scaler should try to reach, but i failed to hack my own 3 year old code :D
OPCL/DEVKID at "Very High" (Textures set to High & Bumpmaps to off) results with 34 fps!!!
Not possible to test at "ULTRA"!!!
ET at "ULTRA" results with 66 fps!!!
Both OPCL/DEVKID & ET use almost the same % of CPU(33% for OPCL vs 38% for ET)but ET uses up to 99% of GPU while OPCL uses only 50%.
Vram usage of OPCL is also lower than for ET(OPCL 472MB vs ET 900MB),this is all by testing both OPCL & ET at start of the level.
Cant say if OPCL will use above 512MB of Vram further in the level,but ET surely will use up to 1.2GB or more.
it's not the vram, at ultra and very high the memory exceeds his limit from 1.86 gb, so it will crash. (this is the 32bit limit from fc.exe and its caused by a to big and to well stuffed map. it have absolut nothing to do with CPU power or GPU ram or GPU load.
This is sad, but you can't really judge AMD or Nvidia for not making drivers for new GPUs for every game there is
sorry for late response:
but i can judge both manufactures for sizing down old GPU's to 50%, just so the new ones looks epic faster.
sorry, but this is, hmm, very very very baaaaaaaaaaad ^^
Heh, I didn't know they do that, wow. That's a really scumbag move from them