really? I played it on an ATI Radeon 4350 with 1 gig video card. It ran good with almost no lags, maybe 1 or 2 lags at a certain point that last about 2 seconds. Everything else was good
I don't know what the problem might be, this is the only games that keeps giving me headaches. And I'm not even using DirectX 10 in this one. I just bought RE5 and it looks great! All maxed out and the average fps are 35-40.
The shadow of chernobil is a lot older than the first Crysis so dont even bother to compare them i completed CrysisWarhead and i have to tell you that i didnt see anything different than the first one only the story has been changed and is twice as shorter than before same goes for the new stalker only thing is they added more like team wars gun upgrades anomolies some new items i think you get the drift BTW not saying that one game is better than the other just little was changed just stories
Christ, you just threw your point the window. Maybe if you just spellchecked, used proper grammer, and didn't make your paragraph one giant sentence, you wouldn't have looked like such an idiot.
Yeah its Called Crysis: Warhead .... its comming soon and it will be realy good. At the mean time on Crysis there is a Reality Mod which is supposed to bring even better graphics than on "Very High" so i hope the next one will be as action packed as this one :P
Actually Warhead will lower the Polygon counts and texture sizes, so that it won't drain so much power from your machine, basicly it looks worse than Crysis :P
Your forgetting Crysis is like over a year old. If they wanted to make another More advanced Crysis they could, just there would be no hardware avaible to the public to run it.
People dont realize that it was so hard to get a PC to run crysis well because the graphics were programmed inefficiently. If they had taken more time and care, they could have achieved the same graphical level without the ungodly requirements.
With that said, stalker and crysis were both sickeningly awesome games and I will be picking up Clear Sky and the next game crytek puts out the day of their release :)
Lol video memory wont help if you have a shit graphics card. My laptop has 500mb memory on my graphics card and its rubish. And judging from this game you will need more then one graphics card to run this full spec.
Its the lighting effects what will use up your Graphics card on this. I think Crysis looks alot better then this anyhow but i guess thats because its in exotic locations on a island and not some urban dump.
i really hope the sounds during the lightning were placeholders, because it takes a couple of seconds for the sound of the lightning to reach you after the flash.
As amazing as these visuals look I know I'm gonna have to settle for static lighting if I want decent frames just like with Shadow of Chernobyl on my laptop 8600m GT, although I was able max out all other settings including native res of 1400x900 but without any AA.
Directx 10 here we go again another game showcasing the dx10 i mean crysis tried and failed come on how many play crysis on vista most people i know play it on xp screw dx10
i hear that the specs are right around what the first game had so if u could play shadow of chernobyl you'll most likely be able to play clear sky. this video was just a tech demo for the dx10 effects. (which look badass i might add) (i play on an integrated intel chipset, with only a gig of ram, hows yours?)
If all those effects are do-able in DirectX 9 why are they making those effects DirectX 10 only? Some mass conspiracy with Microsoft? ROFLMAO. You guys are n00bs if you think DirectX 9 can do any of this stuff at a reasonable frame rate. Look at what a tough time people had with Soft Shadows in F.E.A.R. I'll admit Call of Duty 4 looks pretty damn good, but compared to maxed out Crysis? It's the difference between a 7800GTX and a 8800GTX
Yea, DX10s primary goal was to do everything DX9 could, but more efficiently. On top of that, a few new features were added. At the moment, it doesnt seem like DX10 is running quicker than DX9, but that is probably down to the operating system. Hope that's rectified soon. DX10 looks promising.
Well, you can max out Crysis on DX9, somehow Crytek decided to lock the very high setting for Vista, but this can be easily undone. So I'm joining "show me DX10 effects which can't be done on DX9" crowd.
hehe, I got that hack for my old XP machine and used it on vista (same machine) and it does run a slightly faster rate on vista. still DX11 will be out soon enough along with windows seven (which by the way looks shit).
Um...no. Most of those things aren't doable in DX9, or they are very, very difficult (not to mention crude and unoptimized) to do in DX9. Show me one game that uses DX9 and has effects even half as good as those. Come on...I'm waiting. Yeah, guess what, you can't.
Furthermore, this I have to say is gonna be the first game to truly utilize DX10 to anything like it's full effect, even Crysis was mostly just extra flash in it's use of the new standard. DX10 is here to stay folks.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Speaking of Crysis... it has volumetric smoke/ other particles and God rays.
Now, shadow mapping for rain I'm not sure about because I'm not sure what it means. The water running down surfaces is just a material effect I think. The thing is, a lot of DX10 titles have limited some features to DX10 which are perfectly doable in DX9, at better performance. Crysis and World in Conflict off the top of my head. I doubt GSC will be able to turn DX10 into a success this easily... but we'll see.
yeah i'll play call of prypiat on windows 7... huhh huhh :) cheers everybody! release - 2 oct
pianoguyyy 2 years ago
DX 10 IS FOR WINDOWS VISTA AND 7
killer2340 2 years ago
My pc can run any game with maximum graphics, but this one in particular makes me wanna kick it... keeps giving me problems with the fps =/
matthiasfsa 2 years ago 2
what's your graphics and video card?
splintercell1290 2 years ago
I own an intel E7400 2.8 ghz, 4 gigs of ram ddr2 800mhz, HD sata II 500 gigs and a geforce9600gt.
matthiasfsa 2 years ago
really? I played it on an ATI Radeon 4350 with 1 gig video card. It ran good with almost no lags, maybe 1 or 2 lags at a certain point that last about 2 seconds. Everything else was good
splintercell1290 2 years ago
I don't know what the problem might be, this is the only games that keeps giving me headaches. And I'm not even using DirectX 10 in this one. I just bought RE5 and it looks great! All maxed out and the average fps are 35-40.
matthiasfsa 2 years ago
whats fps? I know its frame by secend of someting but whats that?
jesperjesper123 2 years ago
To put it simple, is the speed by wich the images are put into your sceen, the higher the fps, the more real-time it will look. Less laggy.
(excuse my english)
matthiasfsa 2 years ago
oh ok thx for letting me know! ;)
jesperjesper123 2 years ago
what map is it at 0.52????
skyraptor 2 years ago
Base in Army Warehouses, before Freedom moved in.
SiroDra 2 years ago
where i can download DIRECT 10 for WIN XP ¿?¿?¿?
Ram747 3 years ago
DX10 for XP dont exist. If you want DX10 you must install Windows VISTA
Reitl 3 years ago
That doesn't exist, it is designed to only perform in windows vista.
matthiasfsa 2 years ago
What graphics card should i get to run this best? 8800GT Or Radeon® 3870? Please reply
TheDanishBadger 3 years ago
8800GT because it raise your fps to a very higher version.
esykillll 3 years ago
The shadow of chernobil is a lot older than the first Crysis so dont even bother to compare them i completed CrysisWarhead and i have to tell you that i didnt see anything different than the first one only the story has been changed and is twice as shorter than before same goes for the new stalker only thing is they added more like team wars gun upgrades anomolies some new items i think you get the drift BTW not saying that one game is better than the other just little was changed just stories
raivoyo 3 years ago
Christ, you just threw your point the window. Maybe if you just spellchecked, used proper grammer, and didn't make your paragraph one giant sentence, you wouldn't have looked like such an idiot.
23MP23 3 years ago
sounds like my buddy who doesn't know what commas or periods are lol.
bryand1989 3 years ago
3.2 ghz
nvidia 8800gt 512 mb
3.5 gb ram
vista premium
dancespider1 3 years ago
@dancespider1
too bad for you
vista cant use more than 3gb ram... i know it's only .5 but that can be a lot
lucasrenitif 2 years ago
what are you talking about
im pretty sure it can use way more than that.. xp doesnt recognize more than 3 or 4..
kamal187 1 year ago
кризис отдыхает
XJIOP 3 years ago
fucking whinners.
XShevaX 3 years ago 3
yeah omg even doom 1 had better graphics
danielt113 3 years ago
Yeah its Called Crysis: Warhead .... its comming soon and it will be realy good. At the mean time on Crysis there is a Reality Mod which is supposed to bring even better graphics than on "Very High" so i hope the next one will be as action packed as this one :P
WhiteScarWolf 3 years ago
Actually Warhead will lower the Polygon counts and texture sizes, so that it won't drain so much power from your machine, basicly it looks worse than Crysis :P
jumalaauta 3 years ago
but looking past visual appeal crysis sucked my dick.
zdizzlfoshizzl 3 years ago 4
finally people will realize, Crysis is not the only one. Stalker = awesome gameplay
and plus graphics that are higher than Crysis,
Take that crysis lovers!
SeriousIlya 3 years ago
Your forgetting Crysis is like over a year old. If they wanted to make another More advanced Crysis they could, just there would be no hardware avaible to the public to run it.
kiefer23 3 years ago
People dont realize that it was so hard to get a PC to run crysis well because the graphics were programmed inefficiently. If they had taken more time and care, they could have achieved the same graphical level without the ungodly requirements.
With that said, stalker and crysis were both sickeningly awesome games and I will be picking up Clear Sky and the next game crytek puts out the day of their release :)
shurikdm 3 years ago
I got a gig of video mem... and 8 gig of ram... + 2.8 quad core... I can run every game in the world...
357infusion 3 years ago
Lol video memory wont help if you have a shit graphics card. My laptop has 500mb memory on my graphics card and its rubish. And judging from this game you will need more then one graphics card to run this full spec.
kiefer23 3 years ago
which is a shame that they havn't done a great deal with the graphics. sure it has some cool bits but it still looks like the old game.
redhammer999 3 years ago
nah these graphics are alot newer... i seen it
NoobsGonnaDie 3 years ago
Its the lighting effects what will use up your Graphics card on this. I think Crysis looks alot better then this anyhow but i guess thats because its in exotic locations on a island and not some urban dump.
kiefer23 3 years ago
trow 5 gigs in your basket lol
faceofblunt 3 years ago
@357infusion
hope it aint vista though
lucasrenitif 2 years ago
i really hope the sounds during the lightning were placeholders, because it takes a couple of seconds for the sound of the lightning to reach you after the flash.
Mustacio 3 years ago
what i mean actually is that lightning is suppose to take a couple of seconds to reach you after you see the flash
Mustacio 3 years ago
As amazing as these visuals look I know I'm gonna have to settle for static lighting if I want decent frames just like with Shadow of Chernobyl on my laptop 8600m GT, although I was able max out all other settings including native res of 1400x900 but without any AA.
lilaznkid265 3 years ago
looks better then the 1st one
morgancc 3 years ago
well no shit its Dx10
SeriousIlya 3 years ago
now i rly want windows vista because of dx10 =/
tomazas363 3 years ago
man graphically weak... but i don't want it to be the next "crysis" anyway
rrXIII 3 years ago
god rays ftw
laidt0rest 3 years ago
Directx 10 here we go again another game showcasing the dx10 i mean crysis tried and failed come on how many play crysis on vista most people i know play it on xp screw dx10
WARP10CK 3 years ago
i play crysis on vista... whats ur problem with that?
tutanga14 3 years ago
he doesnt have vista or a pc to support vista =D
GiannouG 3 years ago
I doubt that the story will be interesting like the first one.i wish it will it more interesting. :)
G36n 3 years ago
i'm not going to be able to play that on my sucky computer
Ullmaaark 3 years ago
i hear that the specs are right around what the first game had so if u could play shadow of chernobyl you'll most likely be able to play clear sky. this video was just a tech demo for the dx10 effects. (which look badass i might add) (i play on an integrated intel chipset, with only a gig of ram, hows yours?)
McBlasterson 3 years ago
Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHZ, GEForce 8600GT,4 GB RAM =)
bender266 3 years ago
I'm getting a laptop with 2 gigs ram, 2.0 Ghz, and an 8400 gs, will it run smooth and look nice? Sorry I'm quite new to specs. :(
SupaGreenBean 3 years ago
probably not, it probably be cheaper and easier to run it on a desktop
danielt113 3 years ago
Ah, thanks :)
SupaGreenBean 3 years ago
If all those effects are do-able in DirectX 9 why are they making those effects DirectX 10 only? Some mass conspiracy with Microsoft? ROFLMAO. You guys are n00bs if you think DirectX 9 can do any of this stuff at a reasonable frame rate. Look at what a tough time people had with Soft Shadows in F.E.A.R. I'll admit Call of Duty 4 looks pretty damn good, but compared to maxed out Crysis? It's the difference between a 7800GTX and a 8800GTX
RichGilly 3 years ago 2
I think, cos DX10 uses less resourses to provide this effects, and it is easiear to create those feauteres on DX 10 then DX 9.
It is harder to create those effects on DX 9.
And marceting way: Vista and her family.
ElectZ 3 years ago 2
Yea, DX10s primary goal was to do everything DX9 could, but more efficiently. On top of that, a few new features were added. At the moment, it doesnt seem like DX10 is running quicker than DX9, but that is probably down to the operating system. Hope that's rectified soon. DX10 looks promising.
AngryDutchman 3 years ago 2
Well, you can max out Crysis on DX9, somehow Crytek decided to lock the very high setting for Vista, but this can be easily undone. So I'm joining "show me DX10 effects which can't be done on DX9" crowd.
ZeeKat 3 years ago 3
Yep and its not that big of a difference really i tried both dx9 and dx10 whats the f... difference? well FRAMERATE thats the only thing I noticed.
WARP10CK 3 years ago
hehe, I got that hack for my old XP machine and used it on vista (same machine) and it does run a slightly faster rate on vista. still DX11 will be out soon enough along with windows seven (which by the way looks shit).
redhammer999 3 years ago
August? Didn't they settle for June?
Meh, oh well. Anyway, most of these effects are doable in DX9, I don't know why they'd show them as part of a DX10 demo.... Still, looks very nice.
EikC 3 years ago
Um...no. Most of those things aren't doable in DX9, or they are very, very difficult (not to mention crude and unoptimized) to do in DX9. Show me one game that uses DX9 and has effects even half as good as those. Come on...I'm waiting. Yeah, guess what, you can't.
Furthermore, this I have to say is gonna be the first game to truly utilize DX10 to anything like it's full effect, even Crysis was mostly just extra flash in it's use of the new standard. DX10 is here to stay folks.
n00dleZombie 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Speaking of Crysis... it has volumetric smoke/ other particles and God rays.
Now, shadow mapping for rain I'm not sure about because I'm not sure what it means. The water running down surfaces is just a material effect I think. The thing is, a lot of DX10 titles have limited some features to DX10 which are perfectly doable in DX9, at better performance. Crysis and World in Conflict off the top of my head. I doubt GSC will be able to turn DX10 into a success this easily... but we'll see.
EikC 3 years ago
shadow mapping for rain means that the rain casts slight shadows, water running down surfaces is a dynamic shader, crysis has it as well.
djcowshit 3 years ago
bioshock
matt606 3 years ago
*facepalm.jpg*
You are deeply, deeply stupid.
n00dleZombie 3 years ago 3
looks fucking... well... what cyberhure said. lol.
RichGilly 3 years ago 3
lol. Same rofl.
NeoXF 3 years ago
looks fucking hot
cyberhure 3 years ago 3