Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Far Cry Tech Demo

Posted by Zonk on from the who-new-islands-were-so-processor-intensive? dept.

Ant writes "Blue's News mentions a Far Cry Tech Demo/ATI & Crytek Tech Demo. I just watched it on my Athlon 64 3200+ system with 1 GB of RAM and an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro AIW (128 MB) video card. Wow. I had to disable FSAA to keep the FPS up at 1152x864 screen resolution. There is also a video file format available for those who don't have a powerful system and/or video card."

42 comments

  1. Amazing! by AresTheImpaler · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow! Amazing! When is this game coming out? oh wait..... :D

    1. Re:Amazing! by bynary · · Score: 1

      I definitely do not have the hardware to run the actual demo (Athlon 2400+, Radeon 9100, 768 PC2700), so I watched the video. Does the actual tech demo look better than the video clip? If not, then I'm really not impressed. The water, explosion, and facial animation effects were terrible! The animation was forced and clearly artificial. Did anyone else notice the rings left by the jetski? Is that supposed to look like waves and or the wake? Not impressed.

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    2. Re:Amazing! by Nurseman · · Score: 1
      Athlon 2400+, Radeon 9100, 768 PC2700)

      (OT)
      Does the CPU really affect game performance ? I am gettuing ready to build a system, I thought a midrange processor on a good MB, a high end card and 1 gig of ram would suffice. Does the CPU really matter ? If yes , P4 ? AMD64 ? Where to spend my hard earned christmas bonus ?? Thanks

      --
      Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
    3. Re:Amazing! by bynary · · Score: 1

      Yes, the CPU does affect game performance although not nearly as much as does the GPU. One of the reviews I read of Half Life 2 contained performance testing results on various CPU/GPU combinations. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read the review (Google should "remember"). I know it's not FarCry, but the results did show that outdoor levels in HL2 put quite a strain on the CPU, much more so than they did on the GPU. Also, whenever I run any 3D game on my PC, the CPU temp. rises by about 5 degrees which indicates an increased load on the CPU. Anyone who actually works on 3D game design/game code optimization care to elaborate?

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    4. Re:Amazing! by jensen404 · · Score: 1

      I'd say that a high end CPU is more important in some ways.

      A CPU will be almost equally strained by any of a game's graphical settings.

      If your video card isn't fast enough, you can always lower the graphics quality to get better performance.

      I'm thinking of getting an Athlon 64 3000+ and a geForce 6600gt. AMD CPUs are generally better for games.

    5. Re:Amazing! by jensen404 · · Score: 1

      That being said, the performance difference between a $150 and $500 CPU is much smaller than the performance difference between a $150 and $500 video card.

      A $500 Athlon64 3700+ is only ~25% more powerful than a $150 Athlon 3000+.

      A $500 video Radeon X800 XT can be more than 200% more powerful than a $200 GeForce 6600GT (if the cpu is fast enough)

      A fast video card won't compensate for a weak CPU though. And the 200% will only be noticed at 1600*1200 with all the graphics options at max.

    6. Re:Amazing! by Metapsyborg · · Score: 0
      As for what cpu. go for a64 if you really want to deal with all the issues that may happen. It's getting a lot better, but there will be random issues every so often for awhile. Get dual procs if you really want performance.

      p4's are good, solid performaers that will last awhile.

      Nice completely random bash on AMD. All of the experience I've had says the opposite; most reviewers also emphasize AMDs reliability. If you're buying intel you're probably also buying from some crap company like Dell; there's a whole slew of problems associated with that. Are you an intel employee or something?

      My AMD 64 3200+ has not had a single problem in the year I've had it; runs great. Now that intel has finally given up and accepted that the AMD 64 architecture is better than it's own 64 bit arc we will probably be seeing some 64 bit applications (especially games) within the life of a new computer.

      In fact, FarCry was supposed to come out with a special 64 bit version available for free download; don't think it has happened yet though.

      If you really want performance, get a 939 pin Mobo and a AMD FX chip. I still don't trust Pentiums, even though they have improved over the "clock speed iz teh pwner" mindset they had...AMD chips can often do more work than intel, despite having a slower clock speed.

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^) INFECTED
      (")")
  2. Firefox crash? by snooo53 · · Score: 1

    Anyone else having firefox crash when you try to open the link?

    --
    The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
    1. Re:Firefox crash? by Shadow_139 · · Score: 1

      Worked Fine, but video running very slow....,
      Check you plugin list

      "NIPPLES!! I HAVE NO NIPPLES!!!" -- Happy Noodle Boy

    2. Re:Firefox crash? by 10537 · · Score: 1

      Happens for me with Firefox, IE and Opera, so something's not right... (To avoid too much mucking about I just used *gasp* Acrobat to scrape the site -- the link to the download is here if anyone else gets problems. {Dialup users beware: 161Mb!))

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    3. Re:Firefox crash? by Computerguy5 · · Score: 1

      It crashes on me in both Firefox and IE. I'm using XP SP2.

      No soup for me!

    4. Re:Firefox crash? by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Crashes my opera. And with the nifty, open on last page feature it was a pain to get rid of the problem.

    5. Re:Firefox crash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works fine for me. Firefox 1.0 & XP sp1

    6. Re:Firefox crash? by bogie · · Score: 1

      Nope, no crash. The video just plays slow.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  3. Graphics Are Already Here... by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People load up the newest games like Half-Life 2 or Doom 3, and are usually blown away. But show it to a non-gamer, and you usually don't get a wow. Why? They are used to things that you see in this Far Cry video, but the only way to get graphics like that is to design specifically for hardware like the x800. Half-Life 2 looks nice, but it would look twice as nice if they didn't have to worry about supporting people that don't have 256 megabyte graphics cards. Of course, nobody will ever make games like that because you would never sell any except to crazy rich people with expensive gaming systems. Remember next time you look at a next gen game running in real time and say "That doesn't look photorealistic!": It can, but nobody can run it.

    --
    Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    1. Re:Graphics Are Already Here... by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      "Of course, nobody will ever make games like that because you would never sell any except to crazy rich people with expensive gaming systems."

      Or gaming consoles.

    2. Re:Graphics Are Already Here... by mugnyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Half-Life 2 looks nice, but it would look twice as nice if they didn't have to worry about supporting people that don't have 256 megabyte graphics cards. Of course, nobody will ever make games like that ...

      So are you saying HL2 takes cheap systems into account, or doesn't? You make no sense. Games will always have to span a band of qualities.

      Frankly this demo is tailored to distinct hardware. Just like Intel's specialized thread model or MS's DirectX API, you pick your market. If FarCry only runs this well on ATI 800X then they're actually selling 2 things: the card and the game.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the 800X card series eventually started shipping with this game. Start the Hype Machine now.

      Market history proves, though, that these endeavors may push the competition to support new concepts (designed in this case by ATI) and is a Good Thing, but one cannot raise the bar indefinitely. Eventually, they catch up. OpenGL 2.0 comes along, AMD creates spiffy chips, etc.

      Then the premium you paid for such name-brand performance starts to look artificial. May I introduce my first piece of evidence: The Intel Pentium 4

    3. Re:Graphics Are Already Here... by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 1

      But show it to a non-gamer, and you usually don't get a wow. Why? They are used to things that you see in this Far Cry video

      come again? non-gamers are used to seeing incredible photorealistic computer graphics? do you mean as in real life, or a Pixar movie, or... what?

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
    4. Re:Graphics Are Already Here... by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

      Stuff like the Pixar and Dreamworks movies, or even stuff like special effects in other movies like The Lord of the Rings. Sure, they're totally different fields, but people have a train of thought that goes "I saw cool stuff in a movie. That was made with computers. If I play computer games, why can't they look as good?"

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    5. Re:Graphics Are Already Here... by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my language was vague. I was saying Half-Life 2, like all games, has to run on as much hardware as they can get it to run on. This isn't bad, that's just how business works. If Half-Life 2 were to only run on 3000+'s with a gig of Corsair dual channel RAM, an x800, and identical everything else, it would look crazy awesome. The less you reduce the similarity of the systems, the less potential you have for power. We do see amazing graphics when it is tailor made for only the 3d card, though, as in the Far Cry videos or the Ruby videos.

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    6. Re:Graphics Are Already Here... by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

      But gaming consoles are only state of the art for a few months after they come out. The X-Box is 733MHz, and it has 64 megs of memory. It's graphics chip is 233MHz fast. The X-Box is a DINOSAUR compared to the average computer that you can buy from Dell or something for 600 bucks.

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    7. Re:Graphics Are Already Here... by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand the context of the conversation--when a developer targets the xbox, they can count on the effects they program being used, there is no lower model to account for, they are all the same. That's a great thing for developers.

    8. Re:Graphics Are Already Here... by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is why X-Box games looked much better than PC Games when the X-Box first came out, even though PCs were faster even then. We're saying the same thing.

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    9. Re:Graphics Are Already Here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's graphics chip is 233MHz fast

      "Its".

      The X-Box is a DINOSAUR compared to

      In this age of HTML, the proper way to emphasize a word is with tags, not capitalization:
      The X-Box is a <em>dinosaur</em> compared to
      yields: The X-Box is a dinosaur compared to
  4. Nah, revenge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just think of it as a little revenge on the /. community for bringing all those innocent sites down ...

  5. Kills my computer :/ by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2, Funny

    nice to see something besides Halfe Life 2 make my system freeze..

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  6. Crashed FF0.8, FF1.0, *and* IE 6 here.. weird.. :o by Recoil_42 · · Score: 1

    That's some fucked up coding right there...

    --


    Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
  7. Rednition of People by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 1

    I was impressed with the rendition of objects, such as the trees and the chairs and instruments. The people however, leave a lot to be desired. There's simply not enough polygons to render a human convincingly, especially if they have complex clothing or hair. It's a Far Cry from Final Fantasy.

    Also, why bother doing this in an engine, when you still have to texture, rig, and animate the characters? Save for render time, I don't see any benefit.

    1. Re:Rednition of People by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1
      Also, why bother doing this in an engine, when you still have to texture, rig, and animate the characters? Save for render time, I don't see any benefit.


      To help show that this is really what the game would look like, and not some pre-rendered video.

      I've seen clips that have looked amazing, but impossible to have in real-time on even the fastest PC of the era.

      Face it, the game isn't anywhere near complete. They could say "we're not done yet, but here's what it's going to look like" and show some video. Most of us would shrug it off as hype or avertising. However, using the engine, they can say "Here, experience the engine for yourselves. As you can see, this is what it's going to run like."

      Think of it as a car you want to buy. You can watch a video clip of some professional diver flying across a closed course doing amazing things. Or you can test-drive the car and see how it really handles.
  8. Am I the only one... by wolf31o2 · · Score: 1

    ...that doesn't care what this guy's system specs are or what resolution he watched it at?

    Didn't we just have a nice article about game reviews? Where is the "meat" of this story?

    Wouldn't it be much better to read something like this, instead:

    Ant writes "Blue's News mentions a Far Cry Tech Demo/ATI & Crytek Tech Demo the showcases the capabilities of the amazing Crytek engine used to power the award-winning game, Far Cry. The tech demo is presented as a movie, called "The Project". The story is reminiscent of the 1930's adventure-serial "Cliffhangar" movie, but set in the present. I recommend everyone check it out.

    There is also a video file format available for those who don't have a powerful system and/or video card."

    Then again... this is Slashdot. *grin*

    1. Re:Am I the only one... by PhoenixOne · · Score: 2, Funny

      >...that doesn't care what this guy's system specs are or what resolution he watched it at?
      >
      I don't know, I'm still trying to figure out what brand of power supply he uses...

      --
      Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
    2. Re:Am I the only one... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Antec Model SL400 (400 watts; 80mm and 92mm fans) power supply.

      Happy now? =P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this guy up, he's obviously taken journalism 101. Unlike most /. eds.

    4. Re:Am I the only one... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I like that he left spec of his system...I've got an older 9500Pro and only some of the "new cool demos" still work on my machine. 162 MB is a LOT to download for nothing!!!

  9. Video on the site was compressed foolishly by NeMon'ess · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a 60MB, 5 minute video at 320x160. Video codec is wmv3 at 459kbps. The Audio however, is uncompressed pcm at 1411kbps! Yep, 50 megs of it is the AUDIO! Perhaps eventually someone at ATI will notice and save themselves 45MB per download.

  10. Works on Nvidia too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FWIW, I ran the demo successfully on my NVidia card (6800GT). Parts of screens looked a little blurred, but it's still an impressive demo.

    1. Re:Works on Nvidia too by 10537 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It appears that on nVidia cards the depth-of-field shader is offset horizontally, so instead of the masked areas being over foreground objects it misses them, causing them to be partially blurred and eaving a non-blurred area of background. This an "easy" fix, but I suspect that what with it being an ATi tech demo they're not going to bother. (Kinda like VALVe's deliberate crippling of DX9 on nVidia cards in HL2 by ignoring low-precision shader hints. Collusion in the gaming industry? Revenge for nVidia's previous "cheating" in 3D-Mark?)

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    2. Re:Works on Nvidia too by mcbridematt · · Score: 1

      And I thought Crytek were in bed with nVidia by producing SM 3.0 versions of FarCry.

      At least some company hasn't made up their mind exactly.

    3. Re:Works on Nvidia too by danila · · Score: 1

      The story goes that the whole Far Cry engine was born out of an ancient tech demo for nVidia. :)

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Hollywood quality? by henben · · Score: 1

    The visuals might be approaching Hollywood quality, but the scriptwriting wouldn't stand up in even the most hackneyed action flick. "No! I vant it alive!"