@ShotaCanvas they simply did not use "optimized models for tesselation". they used the normal models and that obviously creates a TON of polygons when tesselated.
i read somewhere that for proper tesselation you wanna use pretty much low-poly models (like distant LOD models look like) and then the tesselation does its job best.
Yea, Crysis 2 with DX11 is downright unplayable with my HD Radeon 5970, which is should not be. Without DX11 enabled, I can play it at aprox 60 FPS with a 3rd party HD texturepack at 1080p.
Tessellation is a broken technology, it has been ever since it was introduced in the Xbox 360. When models are lightly tessellated it creates massive artifacting, with stray polys exploding in odd triangular spikes all over the object. The only way to solve this is to over tessellate, it makes the spiking so small you can't see it, although it IS still there. Problem is it requires way too much GPU power to be worth while, so when Crytek decides to use it, people accuse them of being anti-AMD.
but take a look at battlefield 3. it's terrain is tesselated, but not as heavy as anything in crysis 2. very very great detail, very good performance/visual ratio.
i know what you are saying - if tessellated just a bit it creates artifacts but a factor of lets say 16 is enough to have all the detail you need. crysis' factor is way over x64
@M3G4G0TH A factor of 16 is only enough if you're using an alternative algorithm of some kind to mitigate the majority of the artifacts. It's a much more complex implementation of tessellation, one that takes a much larger amount of math and programming skill, not to mention a deep understanding of the architecture. Crytek chose the simple solution with their implementation, letting the gamer buy better DX11 cards as they become available, it's exactly what they did in the first Crysis.
Crysis 2 runs great on today's hardware, so quit whining about your imaginary performance issues. In case you haven't notice the LoD is adaptive so it's not like you have some heavily tessellated objects far in the background. C1 required a high end PC, but the graphics justified it. This game after all these years still has one of the best graphics ever. CE3 was a big step forward in terms of technology. You should be grateful that C2 runs and looks that good
@morphmee could you please take the time to note that in the video i show objects from a far distance to show that there is a "pop" where the objects get swapped out with tesselated versions which are not optimized at all, causing millions and millions of tris.
there are so many articles on crysis'2 bullshit tesselation, how can you say something else? use google my friend.
MESS-ellation. The fact is that tessellation IS true innovation and useful, not a gimmick like DoF & Bokeh.
The problem is tessellating FLAT surfaces. It's the same thing as rendering objects that are behind other objects and can't be seen. You don't do this because it's a waste of resources-rendering objects isn't bad, it's rendering objects you CAN'T SEE. Crytek has been my favorite developer, which is why getting the finger from them hurts so much. Buy C2 on sale, don't reward this behavior
I think people need to adjust to the new way of thinking about geometry with tessellation.
It's much like texturing. Generally texture resolutions are 'too high' as well, these days. They weren't in the past, because memory storage and bandwidth were scarce. But these days you just take textures that are super-high resolution, and sample them down to pixel-perfect resolutions in most places.
Crysis 2 just doesn't make good use of the extra geometry.
@Scalibq Your kinda arguing against urself. First u say "since when is high polycount a bad thing?" and then u say "Crysis 2 just doesn't make good use of the extra geometry." Bad use of tesselation will give almost no visual improvement but still suck alot of performance. That isnt good graphics that is just bad usage of resources.
@kilgam100 I'm not arguing against myself, I just don't think you got the message.
I'm saying that it's not the polycount that's bad. What is bad is:
1) AMD cards can't handle the polycount as well as nVidia cards.
2) The polycount is not used to the best effect.
What I'd like to see is the same polycount (current hardware can handle it), to better effect. And AMD catching up to nVidia in tessellation performance.
@kilgam100 I'm not arguing against myself, I just don't think you got the message.
I'm saying that it's not the polycount that's bad. What is bad is:
1) AMD cards can't handle the polycount as well as nVidia cards.
2) The polycount is not used to the best effect.
What I'd like to see is the same polycount (current hardware can handle it), to better effect. And AMD catching up to nVidia in tessellation performance.
@kilgam100 I'm not arguing against myself, I just don't think you got the message.
I'm saying that it's not the polycount that's bad. What is bad is:
1) AMD cards can't handle the polycount as well as nVidia cards.
2) The polycount is not used to the best effect.
What I'd like to see is the same polycount (current hardware can handle it), to better effect. And AMD catching up to nVidia in tessellation performance.
@kilgam100 I'm not arguing against myself, I just don't think you got the message.
I'm saying that it's not the polycount that's bad. What is bad is:
1) AMD cards can't handle the polycount as well as nVidia cards.
2) The polycount is not used to the best effect.
What I'd like to see is the same polycount (current hardware can handle it), to better effect. And AMD catching up to nVidia in tessellation performance.
@Scalibq On the other hand, why bring a up a problem that doesn't exist. This amount of polys will not be needed for a very long time, so its not interesting that gpus meet that criteria.
Tesselation is overrated really, after 8x its graphical performance vs visual enchancement isnt good at all. They shouldnt make gpus better at handling more polygons, they should instead improve how efficient and fast they run, things that really matters for people.
@Scalibq On the other hand, why bring a up a problem that doesn't exist. This amount of polys will not be needed for a very long time, so its not interesting that gpus meet that criteria.
Tesselation is overrated really, after 8x its graphical performance vs visual enchancement isnt good at all. They shouldnt make gpus better at handling more polygons, they should instead improve how efficient and fast they run, things that really matters for people.
Yep everyone's pretty much on the ball about this being a marketing scam. Tessellation is overrated and isn't worth a damn. The idea behind normal maps and parallax mapping is to fake having this many polygons, maintain the same look and graphical fidelity and NOT hit your computer like the tree trunk trap from Predator.
Tessellation is not the answer to pushing next-gen graphics, it's the answer to GPU manufacturers for hitting a road block where newer games don't need newer graphics cards.
@GamingCrow Nvidias fault because they were the ones that pushed/paid crytek in development in this game. What is likely is that they "asked" crytek to have unnecessary tessellation because it affects Ati cards more than nvidia.
Wow. That's fucking insane amount of tris in simple objects. A total overkill. With all of those, they could've tesselated the skyscrapers to have idividual windows and stuff. It would've made much larger impact to the visuals compared to the extremelly heavy tesselation of flat surfaces.
Looking at the polycount in this rather small environment... That's more polys than in ANY Crysis 1 level you'll find while playing. It's hilarious that a small indoor environment has that many polys.
yeah man. in the end they just made the game run shitty without delivering the same GFX eye candy that crysis 1 did. ofc CE3 is more optimized, but still...overall C1 looked better in my opinion. but since now C2 runs as shitty as C1 did, "everyone" who does not know shit about software/hardware thinks that C2 GFX are better. more performance cost = more graphics? ;)
crytek man... crytek... really a good business, but not a good, true heart. :(
@sorwis First, I congratulate you for not being one of these idiots who are incapable of understanding the very real, very serious issue regarding Crysis 2's MESS-ellation. This on TOP of the fact that C2 was dev'd for 6 YEAR OLD HARDWARE and thus an epic failure.
I wanted to point out that you had it backwards--Crysis was mostly 3,000K polys--the avg in this vid is ~400K with a max of 1,500K. That's INCLUDING the mess-ellation. NVIDIA user and Crytek fan here--maximum disappointment.
DX11 has become a more like marketing gimmicks than any tangible benefit to graphics. 64bit OS needed for their for so call "hi res" textures. While textures in Witcher 2 look far more detailed and runs perfectly on 32bit windows 7 or XP.
Crytek has done this before. 64bit was "needed" for Far Cry, expect that it wasn't. DX10 features with Crysis 1 could be unlocked with DX9. And now useless tesselation. My guess it is all about money.
Any idiot knew the gig was up when Crysis 2 was announced a console port. Don't expect these moronic developers to use it properly in a slap-on and don't blame Nvidia because ATIs tessellation performance is shit.
This is a great demonstration, why not make the video public? I wasn't really interested in playing this game anyways but fuck any company that does this, making the consumer pay more to get desired performance. Hah now I have another reason to subscribe to you.
@M3G4G0TH Urgh, you're not all talking about that voxel thing 'unlimited detail', are you? Because believe me, not only does it have LIMITED detail, it also has bugs and problems that aren't encountered from the polygon approach.
Wait i dont really really see whats the problem here... these are just few things that are tessellated. I really find the lack of tessellation not OVERtessellation. Alltho some objects that are hidden apear to use lots of tessellation wtihout even looking tessellated just like at the end with that bridge. It's just like endless city nvidias demo ... simple models have lots of tessellation even tho you can make it look the same with per say 100 triangles and they used like 100000 triangles.
@sermerlin1 problem is that because even SIMPLE objects are tessellated with ridiculous factors which are completely unneeded the game performance drops too far down. proper thinking and planning would have ended in more visible details and better performance.
@M3G4G0TH and @ much later time... In order to achieve optimized well tessellated factors on all objects it takes some time and it needs to be done from the scratch. Soon every game will be done from the scratch with tessellation then we will have almost life like graphics with fair amount of fps :)
Crytek suck cock on the PC platform now, they should just develop for the casual derp console kids becuase they really shafted the PC crowd with the shit that is crysis 2.
So let me get this straight... Because AMD decided to go weak on a feature that THEY themselves pushed so hard with the creation of the HD2900 series, any company that pushes Tessellation in a very demanding manner is doing so only to sabotage AMD?
I think anyone who happens to be smart already knew that more demanding DX11 titles are going to continue to raise in the amount of tessellation found in their titles. Asking for them to do otherwise is asking for companies to slow down progress.
@Dilapodated i am not hating tessellation. i am hating OVERtessellation which is USELESS looking at "performance/more visible details" - data. just look at this video, even plane surfaces like the alien shield are tessellated, for what reason? to get those tiny little details in there? the model could have been splitted in 2 parts. the plane parts and the parts which requre tessellation, effect/performance ratio would have been impressive.
@Dilapodated also, look at the wood pieces covering the door... this does NOT need tessellation at all... at least not in the amount we see there, it is FAR beyond x64
@Beclubter and NVIDIA is overprices bullshit money maker who gets kids to buy their software and blocks real programming and developing progress. ati's price/performance is always better than nvidias, guess why...
ATi must because they find otherwise also no buyer good price/performance. NVidia invested for the customer and it is like more paid. What's better? At the wrong end to save or prefer some more money and more satisfaction?
"it is being used not really to show how pretty a game can look with more detail but to fuck up the performance for ATI users." I lold, Hopefully bf3 will be different.
@ironmaidenwes ye well since nvidia handles tessellation better its less of a problem for their cards. check the benchmarks. ati looks waay worse there. and it could have been prevented by simply allowing/tweaking tessellation in a SMART way ... I mean most of those objects could have been modeled with the high detail from the beginning (like the bricks in the walls) and it would not cost as much performance as it does now with tessellation...
@M3G4G0TH I'm running 2 6870's in corssfire@990/1150 and an amd x6@ 4.1ghz and I get about 60 fps on the demanding levels, 70 on the less demanding and 100+ on the interiors with everything maxed. Is this the performance most ati users are getting or am I just lucky? Also the only way I could get crossfire to work properly was to alt enter the game out of full screen and alt enter it back to full screen
@M3G4G0TH Ok this video now makes a lot more sense to me. In the later levels im getting like 45 fps. I can't imagine how bad it must be for single card owners. They really did fuck ati users by implementing tessellation in an incredibly stupid way. The tessellation on that wood makes me lol.
holy cow, and I thought the Heaven benchmark used an awfully unnecessary amount of polygons....
what was crytek thinking when they put 2x more polygons on a flat floor than on the characters!?
ShotaCanvas 1 month ago
@ShotaCanvas they simply did not use "optimized models for tesselation". they used the normal models and that obviously creates a TON of polygons when tesselated.
i read somewhere that for proper tesselation you wanna use pretty much low-poly models (like distant LOD models look like) and then the tesselation does its job best.
M3G4G0TH 1 month ago
Yea, Crysis 2 with DX11 is downright unplayable with my HD Radeon 5970, which is should not be. Without DX11 enabled, I can play it at aprox 60 FPS with a 3rd party HD texturepack at 1080p.
WNxAtlas 2 months ago
Fucking PC gamers, holding back the industry by making devs waste time on this shit...
minxamo 2 months ago
@minxamo *Coughloltrollcough*
WNxAtlas 2 months ago
Tessellation is a broken technology, it has been ever since it was introduced in the Xbox 360. When models are lightly tessellated it creates massive artifacting, with stray polys exploding in odd triangular spikes all over the object. The only way to solve this is to over tessellate, it makes the spiking so small you can't see it, although it IS still there. Problem is it requires way too much GPU power to be worth while, so when Crytek decides to use it, people accuse them of being anti-AMD.
Destroyer12101 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Destroyer12101 roger.
but take a look at battlefield 3. it's terrain is tesselated, but not as heavy as anything in crysis 2. very very great detail, very good performance/visual ratio.
i know what you are saying - if tessellated just a bit it creates artifacts but a factor of lets say 16 is enough to have all the detail you need. crysis' factor is way over x64
M3G4G0TH 3 months ago 8
@M3G4G0TH A factor of 16 is only enough if you're using an alternative algorithm of some kind to mitigate the majority of the artifacts. It's a much more complex implementation of tessellation, one that takes a much larger amount of math and programming skill, not to mention a deep understanding of the architecture. Crytek chose the simple solution with their implementation, letting the gamer buy better DX11 cards as they become available, it's exactly what they did in the first Crysis.
Destroyer12101 3 months ago
Crysis 2 runs great on today's hardware, so quit whining about your imaginary performance issues. In case you haven't notice the LoD is adaptive so it's not like you have some heavily tessellated objects far in the background. C1 required a high end PC, but the graphics justified it. This game after all these years still has one of the best graphics ever. CE3 was a big step forward in terms of technology. You should be grateful that C2 runs and looks that good
morphmee 4 months ago
@morphmee could you please take the time to note that in the video i show objects from a far distance to show that there is a "pop" where the objects get swapped out with tesselated versions which are not optimized at all, causing millions and millions of tris.
there are so many articles on crysis'2 bullshit tesselation, how can you say something else? use google my friend.
M3G4G0TH 4 months ago 7
MESS-ellation. The fact is that tessellation IS true innovation and useful, not a gimmick like DoF & Bokeh.
The problem is tessellating FLAT surfaces. It's the same thing as rendering objects that are behind other objects and can't be seen. You don't do this because it's a waste of resources-rendering objects isn't bad, it's rendering objects you CAN'T SEE. Crytek has been my favorite developer, which is why getting the finger from them hurts so much. Buy C2 on sale, don't reward this behavior
Suckbutton 4 months ago
Since when is high polycount a bad thing?
I think people need to adjust to the new way of thinking about geometry with tessellation.
It's much like texturing. Generally texture resolutions are 'too high' as well, these days. They weren't in the past, because memory storage and bandwidth were scarce. But these days you just take textures that are super-high resolution, and sample them down to pixel-perfect resolutions in most places.
Crysis 2 just doesn't make good use of the extra geometry.
Scalibq 5 months ago
@Scalibq Your kinda arguing against urself. First u say "since when is high polycount a bad thing?" and then u say "Crysis 2 just doesn't make good use of the extra geometry." Bad use of tesselation will give almost no visual improvement but still suck alot of performance. That isnt good graphics that is just bad usage of resources.
kilgam100 5 months ago
@kilgam100 I'm not arguing against myself, I just don't think you got the message.
I'm saying that it's not the polycount that's bad. What is bad is:
1) AMD cards can't handle the polycount as well as nVidia cards.
2) The polycount is not used to the best effect.
What I'd like to see is the same polycount (current hardware can handle it), to better effect. And AMD catching up to nVidia in tessellation performance.
AMD should not be an excuse for polycount.
Scalibq 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kilgam100 I'm not arguing against myself, I just don't think you got the message.
I'm saying that it's not the polycount that's bad. What is bad is:
1) AMD cards can't handle the polycount as well as nVidia cards.
2) The polycount is not used to the best effect.
What I'd like to see is the same polycount (current hardware can handle it), to better effect. And AMD catching up to nVidia in tessellation performance.
AMD should not be an excuse for polycount.
Scalibq 5 months ago
@kilgam100 I'm not arguing against myself, I just don't think you got the message.
I'm saying that it's not the polycount that's bad. What is bad is:
1) AMD cards can't handle the polycount as well as nVidia cards.
2) The polycount is not used to the best effect.
What I'd like to see is the same polycount (current hardware can handle it), to better effect. And AMD catching up to nVidia in tessellation performance.
AMD should not be an excuse for polycount.
Scalibq 5 months ago
@kilgam100 I'm not arguing against myself, I just don't think you got the message.
I'm saying that it's not the polycount that's bad. What is bad is:
1) AMD cards can't handle the polycount as well as nVidia cards.
2) The polycount is not used to the best effect.
What I'd like to see is the same polycount (current hardware can handle it), to better effect. And AMD catching up to nVidia in tessellation performance.
AMD should not be an excuse for polycount.
Scalibq 5 months ago
@Scalibq On the other hand, why bring a up a problem that doesn't exist. This amount of polys will not be needed for a very long time, so its not interesting that gpus meet that criteria.
Tesselation is overrated really, after 8x its graphical performance vs visual enchancement isnt good at all. They shouldnt make gpus better at handling more polygons, they should instead improve how efficient and fast they run, things that really matters for people.
kilgam100 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Scalibq On the other hand, why bring a up a problem that doesn't exist. This amount of polys will not be needed for a very long time, so its not interesting that gpus meet that criteria.
Tesselation is overrated really, after 8x its graphical performance vs visual enchancement isnt good at all. They shouldnt make gpus better at handling more polygons, they should instead improve how efficient and fast they run, things that really matters for people.
kilgam100 5 months ago
I have an nvidia card, but really I can't tell a difference.. I only lose a ton of FPS for what seems to be ignorable graphic differences.
Yellownealy 5 months ago
@Yellownealy difference is in performance. if you would play the same scene with ATI card you would notice a big performance loss.
M3G4G0TH 5 months ago
@M3G4G0TH Perhaps. I already see a performance hit on my 560 ti and the graphics look the same. I'm guessing ATI's users are seeing worse?
Yellownealy 5 months ago
So basically ATI users are fucked because Tessellation heavily favors an Nvidia card?
equilibrium1736 5 months ago 2
@equilibrium1736 pretty much. well ATI handle tessellation well TOO but the HYPER SUPER DUPER OVER-tesselation is what fucks it up for us ATI guys.
M3G4G0TH 5 months ago
Yep everyone's pretty much on the ball about this being a marketing scam. Tessellation is overrated and isn't worth a damn. The idea behind normal maps and parallax mapping is to fake having this many polygons, maintain the same look and graphical fidelity and NOT hit your computer like the tree trunk trap from Predator.
Tessellation is not the answer to pushing next-gen graphics, it's the answer to GPU manufacturers for hitting a road block where newer games don't need newer graphics cards.
darkl3ad3r 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is Crytek shitting us?! something as simple as a flat wall or wooden plank uses crazy amount of polycount.
SIedgeHammer83 6 months ago
Comment removed
SIedgeHammer83 6 months ago
Whats new NVIDIA has been playing dirty, for a very long time.
SIedgeHammer83 6 months ago 4
@SIedgeHammer83 Why is this NVIDIAS fault? and dont say im a fanboy cuz i have an ATI card...
GamingCrow 6 months ago
@GamingCrow Nvidias fault because they were the ones that pushed/paid crytek in development in this game. What is likely is that they "asked" crytek to have unnecessary tessellation because it affects Ati cards more than nvidia.
Stewb179 6 months ago 2
Wow. That's fucking insane amount of tris in simple objects. A total overkill. With all of those, they could've tesselated the skyscrapers to have idividual windows and stuff. It would've made much larger impact to the visuals compared to the extremelly heavy tesselation of flat surfaces.
Looking at the polycount in this rather small environment... That's more polys than in ANY Crysis 1 level you'll find while playing. It's hilarious that a small indoor environment has that many polys.
sorwis 6 months ago 21
@sorwis finally someone who gets my point...
yeah man. in the end they just made the game run shitty without delivering the same GFX eye candy that crysis 1 did. ofc CE3 is more optimized, but still...overall C1 looked better in my opinion. but since now C2 runs as shitty as C1 did, "everyone" who does not know shit about software/hardware thinks that C2 GFX are better. more performance cost = more graphics? ;)
crytek man... crytek... really a good business, but not a good, true heart. :(
M3G4G0TH 6 months ago 15
@sorwis First, I congratulate you for not being one of these idiots who are incapable of understanding the very real, very serious issue regarding Crysis 2's MESS-ellation. This on TOP of the fact that C2 was dev'd for 6 YEAR OLD HARDWARE and thus an epic failure.
I wanted to point out that you had it backwards--Crysis was mostly 3,000K polys--the avg in this vid is ~400K with a max of 1,500K. That's INCLUDING the mess-ellation. NVIDIA user and Crytek fan here--maximum disappointment.
Suckbutton 6 months ago
DX11 has become a more like marketing gimmicks than any tangible benefit to graphics. 64bit OS needed for their for so call "hi res" textures. While textures in Witcher 2 look far more detailed and runs perfectly on 32bit windows 7 or XP.
rapistmurderer 6 months ago
Crytek has done this before. 64bit was "needed" for Far Cry, expect that it wasn't. DX10 features with Crysis 1 could be unlocked with DX9. And now useless tesselation. My guess it is all about money.
Hirnlego999 6 months ago
YO DAWN, SO I HERD YOU LIKE TRIANGLES....
Maxximo6445 6 months ago
Any idiot knew the gig was up when Crysis 2 was announced a console port. Don't expect these moronic developers to use it properly in a slap-on and don't blame Nvidia because ATIs tessellation performance is shit.
Danaceb 6 months ago
This is a great demonstration, why not make the video public? I wasn't really interested in playing this game anyways but fuck any company that does this, making the consumer pay more to get desired performance. Hah now I have another reason to subscribe to you.
calvinjaramillo 6 months ago
lol gpu fanboys don't understand capitalism
enjoy aruging over pixels while unlimited detail (not a scam; see interview by [H]ardocp) will take over
dingumfCallofDuty 6 months ago
@dingumfCallofDuty fuck off mate i know about unlimited detail and I love it!
i know all about it, follow it and read interviews. go try being smart somewhere else ;)
M3G4G0TH 6 months ago
@M3G4G0TH Urgh, you're not all talking about that voxel thing 'unlimited detail', are you? Because believe me, not only does it have LIMITED detail, it also has bugs and problems that aren't encountered from the polygon approach.
3kliksphilip 6 months ago
@dingumfCallofDuty and by the way, we are arguing about POLYGONS, not pixels. i hope you know the difference.
M3G4G0TH 6 months ago 3
@dingumfCallofDuty that won't happen anytime soon though...
Sambbraz 6 months ago
then don;t play crysis 2 go play xbox 360 i love crysis 2 on my evga 590
deadman5236 7 months ago
Wait i dont really really see whats the problem here... these are just few things that are tessellated. I really find the lack of tessellation not OVERtessellation. Alltho some objects that are hidden apear to use lots of tessellation wtihout even looking tessellated just like at the end with that bridge. It's just like endless city nvidias demo ... simple models have lots of tessellation even tho you can make it look the same with per say 100 triangles and they used like 100000 triangles.
sermerlin1 7 months ago
@sermerlin1 problem is that because even SIMPLE objects are tessellated with ridiculous factors which are completely unneeded the game performance drops too far down. proper thinking and planning would have ended in more visible details and better performance.
M3G4G0TH 7 months ago 4
@M3G4G0TH and @ much later time... In order to achieve optimized well tessellated factors on all objects it takes some time and it needs to be done from the scratch. Soon every game will be done from the scratch with tessellation then we will have almost life like graphics with fair amount of fps :)
sermerlin1 7 months ago
Ati cards suck Nvidia own AMD
deadman5236 7 months ago
@deadman5236 Nvidia paid to crytek to make their cards go faster and you see it is bullshit graphics
TheMihek 7 months ago 2
Crytek suck cock on the PC platform now, they should just develop for the casual derp console kids becuase they really shafted the PC crowd with the shit that is crysis 2.
evilcrow1001 7 months ago 2
@evilcrow1001 yep.
M3G4G0TH 7 months ago
So let me get this straight... Because AMD decided to go weak on a feature that THEY themselves pushed so hard with the creation of the HD2900 series, any company that pushes Tessellation in a very demanding manner is doing so only to sabotage AMD?
I think anyone who happens to be smart already knew that more demanding DX11 titles are going to continue to raise in the amount of tessellation found in their titles. Asking for them to do otherwise is asking for companies to slow down progress.
Dilapodated 7 months ago
@Dilapodated i am not hating tessellation. i am hating OVERtessellation which is USELESS looking at "performance/more visible details" - data. just look at this video, even plane surfaces like the alien shield are tessellated, for what reason? to get those tiny little details in there? the model could have been splitted in 2 parts. the plane parts and the parts which requre tessellation, effect/performance ratio would have been impressive.
M3G4G0TH 7 months ago
@Dilapodated also, look at the wood pieces covering the door... this does NOT need tessellation at all... at least not in the amount we see there, it is FAR beyond x64
M3G4G0TH 7 months ago
And what's even worse, the whole game isn't in the end a good game at all.
TheSupremeSkill 7 months ago
AMD User better playing Tesselation off :-D AMD is lame
Beclubter 7 months ago
@Beclubter and NVIDIA is overprices bullshit money maker who gets kids to buy their software and blocks real programming and developing progress. ati's price/performance is always better than nvidias, guess why...
M3G4G0TH 7 months ago
@M3G4G0TH
ATi must because they find otherwise also no buyer good price/performance. NVidia invested for the customer and it is like more paid. What's better? At the wrong end to save or prefer some more money and more satisfaction?
Beclubter 7 months ago
@Beclubter Not AMD's fault.
NVIDIA paid Crytek off.
DaRysta 7 months ago
@DaRysta NVIDIA sucked Crytek off you mean...
MyTubeUser321 6 months ago
"it is being used not really to show how pretty a game can look with more detail but to fuck up the performance for ATI users." I lold, Hopefully bf3 will be different.
ironmaidenwes 7 months ago
@ironmaidenwes ye well since nvidia handles tessellation better its less of a problem for their cards. check the benchmarks. ati looks waay worse there. and it could have been prevented by simply allowing/tweaking tessellation in a SMART way ... I mean most of those objects could have been modeled with the high detail from the beginning (like the bricks in the walls) and it would not cost as much performance as it does now with tessellation...
aaah its a big topic, cant type more lahahaha
M3G4G0TH 7 months ago
@M3G4G0TH I'm running 2 6870's in corssfire@990/1150 and an amd x6@ 4.1ghz and I get about 60 fps on the demanding levels, 70 on the less demanding and 100+ on the interiors with everything maxed. Is this the performance most ati users are getting or am I just lucky? Also the only way I could get crossfire to work properly was to alt enter the game out of full screen and alt enter it back to full screen
ironmaidenwes 7 months ago
@ironmaidenwes your rig is UBER no wonder it runs the game smooth.
ATI users with single GPUs have more issues there ofc.
this could have been done much more clever by crytek but baaah fuck it now.
M3G4G0TH 7 months ago
@M3G4G0TH Ok this video now makes a lot more sense to me. In the later levels im getting like 45 fps. I can't imagine how bad it must be for single card owners. They really did fuck ati users by implementing tessellation in an incredibly stupid way. The tessellation on that wood makes me lol.
ironmaidenwes 7 months ago