Crysis intentionally crippled on Windows XP
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Crysis intentionally crippled on Windows XP
MS must have paid them a lot of money to disable features on Windows XP:
http://www.crysis-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=11837.0I have no reason at all to get Windows Vista now.
That edit doesn't give actual DX10 effects though, it just gives you access to crap that should have been user-enabled to begin with.
(basically, larger view distance, farther distance before LoD kicks in, and other misc. stuff, none of the fancy shader effects from the DX10 rendition)
I don't think anyone's arguing that editing those files gives you DX10 effects, but the point is, seeing what it does add, you have to ask, what benefit is DX10 really giving you, and why isn't the demo set up to give you the best effects possible under DX9, without this hack?
According to the thread, it adds quite a lot of effects. Improved shading, depth of field effects, improved water effects, ray effects when looking at the sun. It's a lot more than just viewing range and LoD settings.
I took the improved water and volumetric lighting to be DirectX10 effects. If those are not, then what are the amazing benefits of DX10? I am not aware of any others.
I wonder if the guys at Crytek knew the demo would be picked apart and this extra functionality found... If they were serious about disabling it, surely they could have hardcoded it? If they chose not to - then good on them.
From a quick browse, it was pointed out that DX10 will use the GPU rather than the CPU to calculate various fx - but that doesn't preclude those fx from working under DX9...
Isn't that guy stupid though? his card is capable of running it under dx10 just fine.
Just get vista, its a great looking os. Whats all the resistance to change for? its not healthy.
The game is totally sweet with DX9 anyway who cares?
Whats all the resistance to change for? its not healthy.
Of course! We should just totally accept what Microsoft puts out and be thankful for it <rolls eyes>
Just get vista, its a great looking os.
Which is a good thing. Since you'll spend most of your time staring at it, wondering why it won't run your applications - at least it's tarted up for your viewing pleasure!
Whats all the resistance to change for? its not healthy.
This pretty sums up my reasons... I wouldn't call them 'stupid'
http://www.tlanews.com/TLA/NEWS/2006sec/2006-12-27-vista-drm.htmPeople with both Vista and XP are seeing much better performance of Crysis in XP on the same hardware. Definitely looks like someone at Crytek wanted those settings to be found.
what a world we live in...
it's true!!!
i just changed the scripts used in crysis and i got VERY HIGH settings running under windows xp and DX9!!!
so where are the benefits of dx10 and vista in crysis? - nowhere!
dont know why very high settings are disabled if they are running anyway...
Perhaps they just assume that XP systems in general are not as high spec as Vista systems and thus turned down the default settings a little, maybe, perhaps, possible :)
perhaps maybe possible microsoft paid them a lot so they do that.
absolutely NO REASON for disabling the very high settings! because winXP pc's will become powerful soon enough...
yet, i thought it would be disabled because it is a PRE-release demo!
Perhaps they just assume that XP systems in general are not as high spec as Vista
LOL my system is pretty high spec. They need to figure out people buy decent PCs primarily to run high power APPLICATIONS, not to feed a resource greedy OS.
Wait a minute - I told you lot that the stuff was crippled a few days ago. They purposely set the limits to 'High' in the demo. I'm sure this was done on purpose and the full release would allow the 'Very High' settings. I wouldn't class this as underhand - it's probably safer for them in terms of people wacking everything to 'Very High' and getting tons of various problems with the demo - it would be a bad advert for the full release.
But the point is, they didn't set the limits to high when it is running on Vista. If you're argument is 'Vista/DX10 can play it without straining the system', then this is contrary to fact. It is generally playing better on XP systems for equivalent settings.
@Lowcs,
I agree, I have no reason not to use Vista either. So you buy me a copy, and Ill let you know my postal address
I use vista on my laptop and will use vista on my main. All the stuff I need works on it fine.
I remember when everyone said this about XP.
lol you guys truely suck at change. Are you single too or perhaps socially stunted, just a thought.
Change is good.
XP is an older system and has had time for most stuff to reach optimum performance. Vista has not been out for very long and has not reached peak performance. Some parts are still slow, and combined with that is the fact that Vista itself is more demanding on system resources. So of course games are going to run faster on XP than Vista.
At least until DX10 gets optimized. My understanding is that DX10 moves most of the graphics stuff off to the GPU instead of having the CPU handle the fancy visuals as well as everything else. It may also be that you have to have a DX10 graphics card for the offloading to work.
I have both Vista and XP on my computer, Vista is visually more pleasing, as well as more secure (debatable), has a ton more performance monitoring features, and has DX10 (although there aren't many games out yet that use it. And why does Flight Simulator X use DX9 when it is supposed to showcase the power of DX10?). But I use XP for gaming because it runs faster.
Wow,
They're really pushing Vista/DX10 - that's pretty nasty!
What I find most surprising is that the DX9 version with equivalent settings seems to be achieving much better framerates. You get the same impression reading reviews of DX10 cards.
No idea what's up there - driver maturity perhaps? I can't imagine MS have stuffed up DX10 architecture to such a degree.
But the 3D API wars are becoming more and more irrelevant anyway. So much is done on the card these days that there *shouldn't* be much difference.
And the cards are improving at an incredible rate. I've just upgraded from a 6600 to a 8800 and the difference is stunning. Reasonably complex fragment shaders that could slow down the 6600 are just eaten up by the 8800!
Just get vista, its a great looking os. Whats all the resistance to change for? its not healthy.
Well, I've been using it for most of the year and have found it to be a tad unstable. Highlights include:
* Occasionally wont recognize my keyboard(s) at login.
* Occasional hang on login screen if screensaver starts.
* Occasional problems transferring large files over network. Fixed somewhat by a 'remove tcp window optimization' hack, but still unreliable.
* Couldn't get it to see networked Mac's until I found the appropriate registry hack.
* Occasionally can't load my user info on boot up, complete with scary/obtuse error message.
* Occasionally starts refusing to copy files at all.
Yes, the GUI is nice, but apart from that there doesn't seem to be anything significantly 'extra' in there (for me anyway) and 400 bucks for translucent windows is a bit rich!
And, in that sense, it's not really 'resistance to change' - as there's very little real change - it's more 'resistance to pointless, money milking updates'.
one question: are the 'very high' settings enabled in the pre-release demo at vista?, cause if they are, it's disabled on purpose to force us to buy vista...
ps: my hardware gets me to run crysis at medium settings and farcry at very high.
Maybe the force be with DX10(.1) ,but not with Vista. ;)
it's a money making campangne, thats forced vista and not Dx10.
DX 10 is the key to the gamers to use vista.
ok maybe vista is ok but my xp runs fine and i see no reason to change.
@Mark
after you say this, Microsoft will never help you to make a dx10 for b3d such like the dbpro people
;)
mfg panno
And, in that sense, it's not really 'resistance to change' - as there's very little real change - it's more 'resistance to pointless, money milking updates'.
Hi Mark :-) Agreed on the money making update but Vista isn't going away. As developers and users we do not have a choice and its pointless fighting it so I tend to invest energy in working with it early on.
I've noticed the 8800 cards eat vista up. Another issue with vista gaming being slower is actually memory. Turn off the fancy UI and I find its just as fast.
lol you guys truely suck at change. Are you single too or perhaps socially stunted, just a thought.
That's very very impolite, and grammatically shocking.
My main vista issue is that I can't get drivers for virtually all of music gear. Likewise from reviews of performance my computer would be crippled by it, so if I 'upgrade' to vista my computer will run slower and many external bits and bobs will no longer function... Um... doesn't really sound like a forward move to me.
Yes I was impolite, apologies, I wanted to shower some cold water on the old anti-microsoft train.
I don't think it's anything to do with anti-microsoft. I think it's simply the want for an upgraded operating system that doesn't effectively downgrade and existing system.
The only point of Crysis and DX10 is what Crytek mention on the multiplayer part already: The consistent physics which is done through the phys units on the DX10 graphic cards ...
the rest of what will be in 1st generation DX10 games could be done in DX9 as well.
It will take 1-2 years until they can really use DX10 capabilities, by then we are on DX10.2 or DX10.3
I don't think it's anything to do with anti-microsoft. I think it's simply the want for an upgraded operating system that doesn't effectively downgrade and existing system.
The thing is, dx10 cards run a bit faster on vista than they do on xp. IF you upgrade the whole shebang, you are looking at improved computing from every angle.
The thing is, dx10 cards run a bit faster on vista than they do on xp. IF you upgrade the whole shebang, you are looking at improved computing from every angle.
Don't you care to actually read what problems people face with Vista? It was stated before and i'll repeat: Vista botched alot of industry proven driver architectures. Especially the musicians with extensive investments in external hardware are happy to now have unprecedented lags using their REALTIME applications.
If all you care is running games i guess you can tweak Vista to be an OK, sub-par system but for many many other applications it just plain sucks.
I'll watch Vista mature alot before i do another test with it. I guess 1-2 years and it will be ready.
The thing is, dx10 cards run a bit faster on vista than they do on xp.
Can you provide a source for that info?
IF you upgrade the whole shebang, you are looking at improved computing from every angle.
No, you're not.
A few headings posted from the article I linked earlier. Vista gives you...
Elimination of Open-source Hardware Support
Elimination of Unified Drivers
Increased Hardware Costs [Even if you don't use Vista]
Increased Cost due to Requirement to License Unnecessary Third-party IP
Unnecessary CPU Resource Consumption
Unnecessary Device Resource Consumption
Elimination of Open-source Hardware Support
Elimination of Unified Drivers
Increased Hardware Costs [Even if you don't use Vista]
Increased Cost due to Requirement to License Unnecessary Third-party IP
Unnecessary CPU Resource Consumption
Unnecessary Device Resource Consumption
This is all a load of crap. None of it is true. No offense but that site is pretty amateur hour. I respond to your post with:
What's interesting is that Yerli told us that if you have Windows Vista and an older DirectX 9 card, you should still see better performance with Windows Vista than Windows XP, even if the hardware remains unchanged. "DirectX 9 on Vista will run faster throughout due to the better device driver model...which is a great thing because just upgrading the operating system on the same rig, you get a better gaming experience,"
From the horses' mouth ie Crysis developers. Link here:
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/news.html?page=2&sid=6154899DX9 is faster on Vista.
* If you want open source hardware, then you really are using the wrong OS for it. Vista isn't intended for open source hardware.
* Unified drivers still work. Provide evidence.
* There isn't increased hardware costs. Provide evidence.
*What increased cost for the end user? Where is evidence?
* What unnecessary resource consumption? You can turn off features which consume resources to the point it ticks over the same as XP.
I think you haven't even tried vista Go and find out for yourself. Gaming is Faster On Vista, and this is actually proven using current hardware. Perhaps the guy in the above article is repeating crap from yet a different article. That is The Internet for you.
Go find out for yourselves. I did.
Lowcs, if gaming is faster on Vista, then tell me why STALKER almost comes to a complete halt on the same hardware on which it runs acceptable on XP. Something must be wrong with that picture, if you ask me. (I know, you don't ask me. :)
Vista is the OS of choice for .NET developers. Other than that, there simply is NO reason to advocate it.
And. It. IS. Slower. Than. XP. You can tune the crap out of the system, basic file I/O operations will also kill your performance on Vista. I don't know how the folks at Microsoft screwed that up, but they did. And as Steve Jobs would say: "This is huge." ;-)
And just for your info, I use Vista everyday on my iMac at work, and we have two more Vista test boxes running since a couple of months now. The rest of the office desktops is still on XP, and the are all the same Dell machines (Dual-core boxes with 2GB RAM). The XP boxes beat the shit out of the Vista machines. That's evidence enough for me.
Looks like somebody is desperate to justify stumping up for Vista like a good little consumer.
haha Hujiklo, please just get a life will you.
Winni -- some configurations are a little buggy. Update drivers and such, let it mature.
I use Vista on one of my mains and my laptop* and it is as fast as shit off a shovel. I do think its a device driver issue for you, and you need to ensure -all- drivers are to the latest standard and you have all updates :)
Some hardware vendors do not update to the lastest vista driver specifications and this causes slowdowns where a compatibility mode is used.
* Yes its very fast on my 2gig mem laptop. I assume you guys have memory, right?
This doesnt suprise me at all.
>* Occasional hang on login screen if screensaver starts.
>
>* Occasionally can't load my user info on boot up,
>complete with scary/obtuse error message.
I get both of these two on a regular basis, you've got to give credit where credit is due though for an OS that fails before you even start to begin using it. And that's just to boot up a test PC running to see which games have stopped working.
I remember when everyone said this about XP.
As do I. At the time, it was true as well. Just because Microsoft in the mean time have had 6 years to get it right, doesn't invalidate the original statements.
Well, I've been using it for most of the year and have found it to be a tad unstable. Highlights include:
That reminds me of another classic Microsoft product. Amiga BASIC, which shipped with such wonderful bugs as "Scrolling the source code window with the mouse crashes the machine".
I mean you'd think someone would have tried that, right?
Lowcs,
Check this page out and particularly check out the 'sources' section if you are genuinely interested.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html No offense but that site is pretty amateur hour...
Just get vista, its a great looking os.
Don't judge a book by its cover.
Perhaps we should just have Locust banned for swearing?
Banned? I'm holding out for capital punishment : )
Ok, this is going nowhere, and lowcs does indeed earn a holiday.