I've seen most of the CryEngine 3 videos, about how it will produce more complex and realistic textures and shaders, but one thing puzzles me. There has been claims that Crysis 2 will run better than Crysis, I don't know how much of that is true, but I don't really believe it. In my understanding, more complex and realistic graphics means that it will demand more power. CryEngine 3 clearly has made the point that it's going to have more advanced graphics, as well as physics, which may hurt ATI users. This conflicts with the claims of Crysis 2 having better performance than Crysis. Very few games has ever achieved better graphics along with more performance, most of the time it's a see-saw balance, quality goes up, performance comes down, and vice versa. As a result, it is really difficult for me to believe that Crysis 2 will have better performance than Crysis.

If Crytek manages to pull it off, giving Crysis 2 better graphics, and more performance, then I would be truely impressed. Crytek has already surprised us with Crysis, and how far ahead of the competition it is, and I surely have high hopes and confidence that Crytek will once again surprise us all.

Well Remember uncharted 1 and 2 quality went up and performance stayed the same. It's all about optimization. CryEngine 3 is being worked on very hardly by Crytek to optimize it to the max so I do believe they can make it possible. Also their physics is not based on nvidia's physx so ati users wont have any problems with performance. From listening to the devs I can say a gtx460 can run crysis 2 on max setting with 30fps and an ati 5830 to do the same. I also hope that other game devs would use the CryEngine so ati users won't have to be pissed with bad performance via physx and still have the best gaming physics to date.

Optimizing graphics/engine code isn't anything new, and gets done all the time, the quickest example would be the graphical optimizations of Crysis: warhead compared to Crysis, but there are plenty of others. Mass effect to Mass effect 2, for example. Both of these games use the same engine but improve on what is already there. (I think with Crysis Wahead they obviously could optimize the engine directly.)

My point being, is taking this into account it stands to reason that by working with the engine directly, it can be further optimized.

I guess consoles is another great example, look what comes out now compared to when the 360 was first released. Rage and Crysis 2 are coming up, compare that to the first Halo game. Though with consoles it is slightly different as they are almost clone systems so its easier to optimize for the hardware.

It is heavily optimized because of the new lighting system Crytek has, and now it obviously runs on consoles.

[quote]Well Remember uncharted 1 and 2 quality went up and performance stayed the same. It's all about optimization. CryEngine 3 is being worked on very hardly by Crytek to optimize it to the max so I do believe they can make it possible. Also their physics is not based on nvidia's physx so ati users wont have any problems with performance. From listening to the devs I can say a gtx460 can run crysis 2 on max setting with 30fps and an ati 5830 to do the same. I also hope that other game devs would use the CryEngine so ati users won't have to be pissed with bad performance via physx and still have the best gaming physics to date.[/quote]

More like a GTX 260 Quad Core and 100 fps on High.

I've seen the sandbox in person, used the sandbox in person, and spoke with the employee about it. Everyone is grossly exaggerating how bad performance will be.

^this

There are some presentations about the speed of the engine. And it's not only the renderer module of the engine, but also all the other modules (physics, ai, animations, scripting...)

[quote][quote]Well Remember uncharted 1 and 2 quality went up and performance stayed the same. It's all about optimization. CryEngine 3 is being worked on very hardly by Crytek to optimize it to the max so I do believe they can make it possible. Also their physics is not based on nvidia's physx so ati users wont have any problems with performance. From listening to the devs I can say a gtx460 can run crysis 2 on max setting with 30fps and an ati 5830 to do the same. I also hope that other game devs would use the CryEngine so ati users won't have to be pissed with bad performance via physx and still have the best gaming physics to date.[/quote]

More like a GTX 260 Quad Core and 100 fps on High.

I've seen the sandbox in person, used the sandbox in person, and spoke with the employee about it. Everyone is grossly exaggerating how bad performance will be.[/quote]

That really reassured me, thanks. We will be kicking ass in Crysis 2 WITHOUT LAG then.

[quote][quote]
[quote]

Well Remember uncharted 1 and 2 quality went up and performance stayed the same. It's all about optimization. CryEngine 3 is being worked on very hardly by Crytek to optimize it to the max so I do believe they can make it possible. Also their physics is not based on nvidia's physx so ati users wont have any problems with performance. From listening to the devs I can say a gtx460 can run crysis 2 on max setting with 30fps and an ati 5830 to do the same. I also hope that other game devs would use the CryEngine so ati users won't have to be pissed with bad performance via physx and still have the best gaming physics to date.[/quote]
More like a GTX 260 Quad Core and 100 fps on High.

I've seen the sandbox in person, used the sandbox in person, and spoke with the employee about it. Everyone is grossly exaggerating how bad performance will be.[/quote]

That really reassured me, thanks. We will be kicking ass in Crysis 2 WITHOUT LAG then. [/quote]

I really hope that will be the case. Crysis Warhead does have better performance than Crysis, but I don't consider it a completely new game compared to Crysis, more like an expansion. It has pretty much the same graphics, but more optimized. Mass Effect 1 and 2 is one of the few cases that they've managed to improve graphics and performance together, I was really impressed. If the guys at Bioware was able to do this so well, I would expect nothing less from Crytek.

If Crysis 2 can do 30FPS on max settings with GTX460/HD5830, that would be about the same performance as Crysis on max settings. I use an HD5850, and I get an average of 40FPS on Crysis with max settings, but because of the open environment, it often drops to 30FPS, still playable though.

I hope and think that Crytek realizes that we are in a recession and dont have as much money to drop to upgrade to our PC's. For instance, i dont have the money right now to move past my LGA 775 socket, and my motherboard only supports up to the Q6700 after BIOS updates (that makes me angry). So, i am hoping that Crytek keeps in mind that people are not upgrading as much as they were in 2006-2007.

But of course, they have already said they are heavily optimizing. It just leaves me a bit worried anyway because i am in a bit of a catch 22 with my current PC.

[quote]I really hope that will be the case. Crysis Warhead does have better performance than Crysis, but I don't consider it a completely new game compared to Crysis, more like an expansion. It has pretty much the same graphics, but more optimized. Mass Effect 1 and 2 is one of the few cases that they've managed to improve graphics and performance together, I was really impressed. If the guys at Bioware was able to do this so well, I would expect nothing less from Crytek. [/quote]

Yeah, at this point I think most game studios aren't trying to make games look better but rather making them look just as good/a bit better with the same/less resources.

In the case of ME/ME2 this was done through some great lighting work and art direction (imo, the textures still need a lot of work, but the game looks great where it matters, and it has a great ambiance to it).

The one thing that makes me wonder with the new deferred lighting system in CE3 is the performance cost of using AA. I'm guessing that the game will run pretty well maxed until you decide to play at 1920x1080 with 32xCSAA .

[quote]I hope and think that Crytek realizes that we are in a recession and dont have as much money to drop to upgrade to our PC's. For instance, i dont have the money right now to move past my LGA 775 socket, and my motherboard only supports up to the Q6700 after BIOS updates (that makes me angry). So, i am hoping that Crytek keeps in mind that people are not upgrading as much as they were in 2006-2007.

But of course, they have already said they are heavily optimizing. It just leaves me a bit worried anyway because i am in a bit of a catch 22 with my current PC. [/quote]

I still think you're way to nervous about that. You're PC is highend. Period. And it's not your task to make your pc run crysis, but crytek's to make crysis run on your pc. You're the customer - you got the money. And there are plenty of people with dualcores. Secondly - it even runs on consoles.

[quote]Secondly - it even runs on consoles.[/quote]
Yes it does.
So it means that the performance is optimized.
But i hope, that the Console graphics is just about low / mid settings.
the tree's are horrible.

If the Perfomance is worse on max settings as it already is in crysis, i think i have no chance to run it on max settings with AMD Phenom II X4 920 @ 3,2 GHZ overclocked and an overclocked GTX460.
and i don't want to buy new components just for crysis.
It would be sad if you need an overclocked GTX480 to run it at about 30 FPS...

[quote]If the Perfomance is worse on max settings as it already is in crysis, i think i have no chance to run it on max settings with AMD Phenom II X4 920 @ 3,2 GHZ overclocked and an overclocked GTX460.
and i don't want to buy new components just for crysis.
It would be sad if you need an overclocked GTX480 to run it at about 30 FPS...[/quote]
I Think the equivalent of maximum settings will be like High, and there will be a new Ultra High Settings that you will need 2 Asus Ares to play that in 1080p. Just like in Crysis, you needed hardware that almos didn't existed at the time, to keep Cryteks Crown in Graphics until their next release (Crysis 3!?)

Optimization=dumbing graphical features down .stuff u dont really notice...

[quote]Optimizing graphics/engine code isn't anything new, and gets done all the time, the quickest example would be the graphical optimizations of Crysis: warhead compared to Crysis, but there are plenty of others. Mass effect to Mass effect 2, for example. Both of these games use the same engine but improve on what is already there. (I think with Crysis Wahead they obviously could optimize the engine directly.)

My point being, is taking this into account it stands to reason that by working with the engine directly, it can be further optimized.

I guess consoles is another great example, look what comes out now compared to when the 360 was first released. Rage and Crysis 2 are coming up, compare that to the first Halo game. Though with consoles it is slightly different as they are almost clone systems so its easier to optimize for the hardware.[/quote]

Warhead looks better than Crysis yes, but it performs worse too...

Since Crysis 2 will be in a city it won't be as heavy as if it had larger more open areas like the first game as it won't need to show as many things at the same time

[quote]Since Crysis 2 will be in a city it won't be as heavy as if it had larger more open areas like the first game as it won't need to show as many things at the same time [/quote]

I agree on that, crysis had a lot of open spaces filled with palmtrees (wich have a relatively high polygon count). Now however the engine only has to run flat surface skyscraqers. I think this is what made it possible to run crysis 2 on consoles.

[quote][quote]Since Crysis 2 will be in a city it won't be as heavy as if it had larger more open areas like the first game as it won't need to show as many things at the same time [/quote]

I agree on that, crysis had a lot of open spaces filled with palmtrees (wich have a relatively high polygon count). Now however the engine only has to run flat surface skyscraqers. I think this is what made it possible to run crysis 2 on consoles.[/quote]

no. triangle counts are not the performance killer in cryengine. it is the draw calls. the vegetation caused many draw calls, not the tris.

Just because they said that graphics will be better doesn't necessarily mean that performance will be worse/not better. Graphics/performance don't work in a fixed ratio, there is always room for improvement with level design, how the engine runs and how it transforms the code that Crytek built into a series of images on the screen.

Since Crysis 2 is confirmed on New York setting, we won't be seeing the vast amounts of vegitation that we saw in the jungles of the Lingshan Islands (Crysis). True, the levels will still be rich in content and detail, but walls will block different areas where once everything was visible and needed to be rendered.

And that's just the level design, CE3 will certainly have different rendering techniques which won't work the same as in CE2. Differed lighting will be a huge performance booster as well general color grading instead of having to grade with internal light objects.

Overall, a rise in quality doesn't mean a drop in performance. It just means that Crytek will have to find new ways to cut tris, drawcalls and other FPS killers.

[quote]Differed lighting will be a huge performance booster [/quote]
Deferred Lighting only gives a perfomance advantage if many lights are used Otherwise Deferred Lighting can't use its strengths.

[quote]as well general color grading instead of having to grade with internal light objects.[/quote]
Firstoff, Ce2 has already colorgrading. Secondly, I don't get how colorgrading should enhance the perfomance? And what do you mean by "internal Light Objects"?

The reason Ce3 runs faster, is that it has been optimized in many ways, not just the renderer, but the Ai, physics, animation module as well.
Ofc I agree about the level design.

@Osok
True, but in certain situations, less tris wouldn't hurt And I'm quite sure, the city setting has less demand for tris, too. I agree with the drawcalls though. They're horrible =(

[quote]Warhead looks better than Crysis yes[/quote]

that's debatable. It's more stylized and maybe looks better to some people, but that's kind of subjective. depends on whether you like the lighting i guess.

I thought Crysis looked far better than Warhead, tbh.

+1

Doubt it, Cryengine 2 did show promise. It would the choice of any developer, because Cryengine 3 is still quite brand new.

It's about having a flexible game engine that's designed for multiple architectures that can efficiently use available resources to the best of the hardware's abilities regardless of complexity & amount of resources.The cry engine 3 has achieved the above statement where previous cry engines & other game engines have failed congrats crytek kudos to you guys for all your hard work.