Farcry

eGoCeNTRoNiX · Post by **eGoCeNTRoNiX** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:45 pm

I was thumbing through it last night and it was giving system specs for different games.. This one it said (and I'm going by my memmory which ain't worth $hit.) : 3ghz+, Radeon 9800XT, 1GB of Ram.. WTF? I know these aren't the required specs or there would be a lot of people not playing this game. I play on throwing my Ti4400 in my rig this weekend and giving the demo a run for it's money before maybe buying it. But I've got other games I need to enjoy first. ha ha..

Anybody else see the above though and actually read the article to see what kind of crack they were smoking? eGo

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:53 pm

Far Cry detects your system specs and auto configures itself for best performance. On my system (AMD XP2400+, 1Gb, Radeon 9800 non-Pro) it considers it a "Medium Performance" system and configures it accordingly.

Performance is silky smooth at 1024x768 and respectable at 1280x1024. I prefer smooth performance so I run it at 1024x768.

Just for grins I've changed the system performance setting to "High" instead of Medium and yes it does look nicer (subtle things - the foliage and water in particular) but it runs too laggy for my taste.

I've also run the game on my LAN party system (AMD XP2200+, 1Gb, Geforce 4400) and Far Cry configured the system for "Low Performance". Performance was acceptable at 1024x768 but the visuals were no where near as nice as on the Radeon.

I'm hoping that when I install my new 9800XT on the main system I can run it in High Performance mode.

PreDatoR · Post by **PreDatoR** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:35 am

I dunno why the hell everyone is having such a hard time running this game... Barton at 2.3 Gig 1 gig of Corsair Radeon 9500 Pro 1280x960 res everything on high performance and i'm loving it. haven't encountered a laggy spot yet and just started playing it all over again.

xsiled · Post by **xsiled** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:24 pm

i dled it, installed it, loading the game took 4 minutes i died in a lag spike after 2 minutes, uninstalled it deleted the game files.

might be pretty, might be a good game, ill stick with CZ, its smooth on every system.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:09 pm

Pred, I've noticed from past discussions about FPS games and lag that you seem to be a lot more forgiving than I am of laggy performance or else your system has some Borg technology upgrade.

We played Far Cry at my LAN party and everyone was bitching that you needed a beefy system to get decent performance AND decent visuals.

Like I said my systems no slouch and it runs UT2004 at 1024x768 with max eye candy just fine, but Far Cry makes it choke at max eye candy - I get a lot of little stutters at bad moments. Medium performance settings work best for me right now - very smooth at that setting.

OH, and those of you running non-DX9 hardware cards, don't even bother with the game. It'll run fine (at the lowest performance setting) but it'll look like crap.

PreDatoR · Post by **PreDatoR** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 6:31 pm

i dunno how to check frame rates out but if i'm running 30fps at a low or consitant thats good enough for me. your eye can't see past that anyways and i can't notice a difference if its 30 or 120. the first level in single player does have some lag spikes in it. everyone has had that problem with the first level. I had it with my 8500 until i switched to opengl which BTW looks like shit but i could play the game. Right now i'm playing it over again with the 9500 Pro in DX9 it looks totally stunning and i'm having more fun this time around at a harder setting than before.

Post by **sbp** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:32 pm

Its a common mispereception that your eyes can't see pass 30fps.

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html
"Contrary to the belief that we cannot distinguish anything over 30 fps, we can actually see and recognize speeds up to 70+ fps."

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:19 pm

You certainly can see the difference between 30 and 60 fps - especially in moments when there's a lot of action. Try watching an old Charlie Chaplain film and tell me the frame rate is just as smooth as modern films...

Besides, it's not the MAX framerate that matters, it's the consistent AVERAGE framerate. 60 fps does you no good if the framerate dips below 20 briefly when a lot of guys are shooting at you.

As I said, I think you're just more forgiving than we are. That's okay. It's like arguing about VSync. Some people can't stand to see any image tearing and some never notice. It's a personal preference. Same goes with FSAA.

I know people that refuse to play a game at anything less that 1280x1024 even if that means it's going to lag or they have to turn down some of the eye candy. 1024x768 has always been more than adequate for me and I'd rather trade off the resolution for better performance.

jealous57 · Post by **jealous57** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:51 am

I saw that article Ego was talking about. They also pegged Doom3 and Lineage2 for 2 gigs ram!

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:44 pm

I believe it - when I check available memory running Far Cry on my 1Gb system it shows only 200Mb physical ram free.

Upgrade time again....

Busby · Post by **Busby** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:18 pm

Believe it or not in Quake 3 you can't jump as well with lower framerates than you can with 120 or above. It's one of those things where the eye can't tell a difference but the game engine obviously can.

PreDatoR · Post by **PreDatoR** » Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:34 am

Ya but look at Quake 3... u can pull 200 fps on a Voodoo 3 card :laugh

PCA Forums

Farcry

Anybody else see the game specs in MaxPC?