# Easiest way of increasing your Crysis Warhead performance on enthusiast mode by 20%.



## DarkMatter (Sep 23, 2008)

I finished the game on enthusiast mode, changing to gamer when performance was not pleasing and as I always do, on games that is possible, it was the time to make some tweaking to Cvars and see how much performance I could squeeze out of the game. Many Cvars increase performance a bit, but the result with two of them was shocking. I found an easy way to increase framerate by as much as 20% (or 5-10 fps depending actual framerate of 25-50fps, good scaling up to 100 fps) changing only two values that have a little inpact on image quality. This is subjective, so test it yourselves. You know how to do it:

- Create an autoexec file on the game directory.
- Write this into the file:

con_restricted=0 - Enables you to change many values in the console. I don't actually know if it is required, but won't hurt if you write it.

r_displayinfo=1 - Will show many info on the screen, fps included.

- Save.

Once you made that, you can try changing any cvar on the console. To enter the console press "~" key (the one below Esc).

The two values in question are the next:

- *r_DepthOfField [0,1,2]* - You have to put it to 1. Default is 2 when on enthusiast, 0 on lowest setting and 1 on others. It does impact the quality of depht of field in outdoor scenes, but it's not too noticeable when you are actually playing. Indoor you will not see the difference in the image, but the impact in performance is notorious.

- *r_colorgrading [0,1]* - 1 only on enthusiast mode. Put it to 0 to dissable it. Ok, there's a big difference in the color of the image, but the image still looks great without it. Better than gamer mode and performance is close to gamer once you dissable this and DOF.

This is intended for those who can play the game on enthusiast mode, but they need some extra fps on some places and don't want to lower the graphics to gamer settings. Those who cannot just play it at enthusiast mode by a few fps can give this a try too, but performce will be compromised on many places, it will be up to them if they can stand playing at below fluent framerates.

EDIT: Of course I can't assure this will work for every system or operating system. Send some feedback so we can help as many people as we can.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 23, 2008)

Ok, here are some screenshots so you can see what I'm talking about.

Don't pay too much attention to lighting and shadows, none of the 2 cvars change that. It's impossible to make two SS in the same exact moment. 

Also it says CUSTOM in every image (also in default one) because I have this other minor changes:

e_precache_level=1
r_TexturesStreaming=0

Both make the complete level and textures load at startup, instead of streaming them all the time. No slowdowns when entering new areas, but no aparent or small fps increase. Loading times are longer.

s_MaxChannels=128 - It's obvious, 128 sound channels for my X-Fi. Only change if the sound card is capable. I found increasing this value improved my framerate in original Crysis by a pair of frames. Yeah... 

r_ShadowJittering=1.8 - The higher the value the softer the shadows look. It has tiny performance impact. Enthusiast mode is 2.5, other modes are 1. 
I lowered it because I think default shadow edges are way too soft and bland.

Default: r_colorgrading 1, r_DepthOfField 2







r_colorgrading 1, r_DepthOfField 1






r_colorgrading 0, r_DepthOfField 2






r_colorgrading 0, r_DepthOfField 1






Indoor screens.

r_colorgrading 1, r_DepthOfField 2






r_colorgrading 1, r_DepthOfField 1






r_colorgrading 0, r_DepthOfField 2






r_colorgrading 0, r_DepthOfField 1


----------



## ShiBDiB (Sep 23, 2008)

so much sexier with colorgrading imo


----------



## Jmatt110 (Sep 23, 2008)

Thats what I thought, without colorgrading it looks a bit dull. Havn't got the game yet but I'll turn down DOF if it dosn't run well.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 23, 2008)

I agree guys. Without colorgrading it doesn't look so gorgeous. I wouldn't go as far as saying it looks dull though. IMO is the biggest difference between high and very high settings and it truly is what makes the game look so sweet at very high. That's one of the reasons I even went so far as playing some of the levels at 1152x864 pixels , in order to not have to lower the settings to high. (Keep in mind my CRT with that res looks better than any 22" LCDs I've seen though)

But most people just can't lower the resolution and have to use high/gamer in order to play the game. This is a quick solution they can change on the fly whenever they feel they need some extra frames.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 23, 2008)

this thread is interesting - any chance you could just upload that autoexec file? not having modded the original game, i dont know what i'm doing there.


----------



## kyle2020 (Sep 23, 2008)

same for me mussels - i got warhead yesterday and have had to lower it to the level below gamer for the hovercraft section :shadedshu

Time to chop in the GT methinks


----------



## Mussels (Sep 23, 2008)

i just started again, on enthusiast with no AA and no motion blur. ran fine during the intro level at least, we'll see how it goes later on.


----------



## kyle2020 (Sep 23, 2008)

I can remember on the first game that after I had done the no - gravity trippy place thing and came out into the snow, i hit epic lag, and had to lower everything right down. I guess my system hates snow 

Ill try this "fix" tonight and probably post some results later.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Sep 23, 2008)

so darkmatter i have same of your card im play on enthusiast 1280x1024 and i got 20-25 and sometimes drops to 15-20 , did this normal


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 23, 2008)

hayder.master said:


> so darkmatter i have same of your card im play on enthusiast 1280x1024 and i got 20-25 and sometimes drops to 15-20 , did this normal



There are many factors that can make for the difference.

First of all, I played it on 1280x960 which is the real 4/3 resolution, 1280x1024 is 5/4. Even if both look like they are the same, and do look almost identical, they are not. There is a 7% pixel count difference and that translates to 2 fps in your case. Not much but it is something you have to take into account.

Then there's the CPU. Before I got this Quad I thought it was not so important, because on benchmarks and when idling I had the same fps than others with better CPU. Overall frames are the same as similarly cloeked cards around the web, no matter what CPU you use, but on actual gameplay the CPU helps a lot mantaining higher lower frames. In Crysis the CPU sometimes is the bottleneck. With the X2 4800+ I used to have 15 fps lows many times, now it rarely goes below 20. There is an exception that is related with the AI and memory, I think. Happened sometimes on original Crysis on both CPUs and also on Warhead, after playing some hours on very crowded areas. When that happens fps' can go as low as 10-15. I almost could replicate it, you just have to make an entire enemy base look for you without killing them. If you manage to reunite them in a relatively small area you got it. Only quiting to main menu and loading the entire level again solved this for me.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 23, 2008)

Mussels said:


> this thread is interesting - any chance you could just upload that autoexec file? not having modded the original game, i dont know what i'm doing there.





Mussels said:


> i just started again, on enthusiast with no AA and no motion blur. ran fine during the intro level at least, we'll see how it goes later on.



I don't know if that second one means you already did it.

If you didn't, don't be lazy and make the autoexec yourself. 

You can't go wrong. Just do this:

- Enter the Game folder in your Crysis Warhead install folder (i.e. D:\Steam\steamapps\common\crysis warhead\Game)
- Right click > new > text file
- Copy the lines you want:

con_restricted=0
r_displayinfo=1
r_colorgrading=0
e_precache_level=1
r_TexturesStreaming=0
r_DepthOfField=1

- Save as "autoexec.cfg".

Just make sure DOF is the last one otherwise you will not be able to change it on the console, I really don't know why.


----------



## Wartz (Sep 23, 2008)

What I did was just run in DX9. You get Gamer DX10 performance and you can still use Enthusiast which looks 100% exactly like DX10 Enthusiast.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 23, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> There are many factors that can make for the difference.
> 
> First of all, I played it on 1280x960 which is the real 4/3 resolution, 1280x1024 is 5/4. Even if both look like they are the same, and do look almost identical, they are not. There is a 7% pixel count difference and that translates to 2 fps in your case. Not much but it is something you have to take into account.
> 
> Then there's the CPU. Before I got this Quad I thought it was not so important, because on benchmarks and when idling I had the same fps than others with better CPU. Overall frames are the same as similarly cloeked cards around the web, no matter what CPU you use, but on actual gameplay the CPU helps a lot mantaining higher lower frames. In Crysis the CPU sometimes is the bottleneck. With the X2 4800+ I used to have 15 fps lows many times, now it rarely goes below 20. There is an exception that is related with the AI and memory, I think. Happened sometimes on original Crysis on both CPUs and also on Warhead, after playing some hours on very crowded areas. When that happens fps' can go as low as 10-15. I almost could replicate it, you just have to make an entire enemy base look for you without killing them. If you manage to reunite them in a relatively small area you got it. Only quiting to main menu and loading the entire level again solved this for me.



So I take it my lil ole x2 4200+ is going to screw me six ways from sunday.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Sep 23, 2008)

i lag like a bitch on the snow levels


----------



## Sc1mitar (Sep 23, 2008)

i actually found it was the least laggy on the snow for me.

liek seriously, it was chillin at liek 25-35 fps in the snow w/ all enthusiast and 2x AA @1680x1050

i found the level "from hells heart" to be the laggiest, was like 15 fps. :/


----------



## ShiBDiB (Sep 23, 2008)

i just got to the sub explodeing snow level... thing... and im laggy as hell haha


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 23, 2008)

r_TexturesStreaming=0 doesn't work for me when I use the "~" key to see what commands are active when using Enthusiast mode.   I've found the following to offer the best frame rates with little to no difference in image quality depending on what's being used:

r_ssao = 0;  = 1 enables self shadowing  which makes objects more life like
r_usePOM = 0; replace this with AF instead
r_TexMaxAnisotropy = 8; or =16 (replaces r_usePOM with sharper textures)
r_DepthofField = 1;  when = 0 there is a slight difference in IQ
e_precache_level = 1; level is loaded up beforehand or a potential drop in any in-level stuttering.
r_MotionBlur = 0; this is simply not needed and not realistic
r_Glow =0; Removes the excessive glow on distant objects 


Optional
e_phys_foliage =1;  This will make foliage static and will not react to your movement
cl_fov = 55; instead of default of = 60
r_UseEdgeAA = 1; instead of = 2 makes palm tree leaves, etc look more fuller
e_lods = 1; uses less detail on objects as they recede into the distance

Example:
Create autoexec.bat file using notepad and save it:
Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis WARHEAD\

con_restricted = 0
r_ssao = 0
r_usePOM = 0
r_TexMaxAnisotropy = 8
r_DepthofField = 1
e_precache_level = 1
r_MotionBlur = 0
r_Glow =0
e_phys_foliage =1
cl_fov = 55
r_UseEdgeAA = 1
e_lods = 1

Once the autoexec.bat file is created go to:
\My Documents\My Games\Crysis_WARHEAD\Shaders\Cache
and delete all the *.cfxb files
then go to 
\My Documents\My Games\Crysis_WARHEAD\Shaders\Cache\D3D9\CGPShaders
and delete all *.cfxb
\My Documents\My Games\Crysis_WARHEAD\Shaders\Cache\D3D9\CGVShaders
and deleta all *.cfxb

Next defrag the harddrive that these files are stored in (usually C:\drive).  Then start Warhead.  Make sure you defrag the harddrive after you delete those cache files.


----------



## Zehnsucht (Sep 23, 2008)

Good info. Gonna try it tomorrow.

Edit: How do you take screenshots in Crysis: WH? I pressed printscreen but it didn't work.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 23, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> ...



Eek.. most of those changes have far greater IQ impact than those two I said and will make the game look more like MEDIUM mode.

IMHO:

- POM in Warhead, now that it works properly is indispensable.

- SSAO has an incredible impact in image fidelity. r_ssao to 1 might be an option but is the one for gamer mode.

- Motion blur, glow, static physics? Come on... If you want to play Farcry go play Farcry...

But that's only my opinion, of course. Anyway if those have a little to no impact in image quality for you, I now really am embarrased for taking seriously many IQ comparison discusions with you in the past. Sorry but it's true, don't want to discuss or anything, but come on...

EDIT: r_TexturesSteaming = Load textures when level loading, just like precache. Actually I never knew if it works as I always put it alongside the precache one. Both are related. Of course, changing it in the console does nothing. Quick loading after changing it does nothing either. A full level loading must occur.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 23, 2008)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So I take it my lil ole x2 4200+ is going to screw me six ways from sunday.



Well when you have old CPUs you have to make some compromises on the CPU side of things. Lowering physics to medium helped me, but there are probably other ways. IMO it was not a problem of the CPU itself with the X2 as OCing it didn't really help me, maybe the platform, memory... What I mean is you shouldn't expect a worse scenario than what I got and your GPU will help mantaining higher overall frames. IMHO HD4850+4200+ > 8800GT+4800+



ShiBDiB said:


> i lag like a bitch on the snow levels





Sc1mitar said:


> i actually found it was the least laggy on the snow for me.
> 
> liek seriously, it was chillin at liek 25-35 fps in the snow w/ all enthusiast and 2x AA @1680x1050
> 
> i found the level "from hells heart" to be the laggiest, was like 15 fps. :/





ShiBDiB said:


> i just got to the sub explodeing snow level... thing... and im laggy as hell haha



Quiting and entering again doesn't solve the problem? As I said above I found those slowdowns related to AI or maybe physics in my case.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 23, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> Eek.. most of those changes have far greater IQ impact than those two I said and will make the game look more like MEDIUM mode.
> 
> IMHO:
> 
> ...



As I've stated those changes provide minimal IQ change to none.  A person can pick and choose what they want to achieve a reasonable frame rate:
-Disabling POM in favor of AF is a common practice that has been used since the release of Crysis.  The effects are minimal and from what I've seen hard to distinguish.  In any case it's either POM or AF you can't have both.  

-SSAO does not have a high impact on objects as much as you make it out to be.  It only adds shadows to the object itself.  This can be minimized to a degree where FPS can be increase.

-Motion blur is very overrated and many disable this without me posting it.  The amount of blur induced with moving objects and just turning 90 degrees is in far excess to real life.  If there is nothing wrong with your vision turning your head 90 degrees does not induce blur.  Objects moving about as they do in this game do not induce blur as it does in this game.  For me as well as many others this feature is turned off.

-Glow is something that can be turned off and would actually sharpen objects in the distance instead of blurring them with a glow effect. 

-Static physics is part of the optional selection and it's a personal taste if a person wants it on or off.  Depending on frame rates if it's not important it's something that can be turned off.  This has no effect on IQ that's why I added it as an option.

In all what I suggest does offer some IQ trade offs but from what I've seen are minimal.  Unlike the r_colorgrading=0 depending on where/what you looking at the IQ can be drastically changed. For example 1 and

Example 2 from another user:





The use of color grading as you suggested offer as much change to IQ if not more then what I suggested when a person is in shaded areas.  Don't get me wrong, reducing/removing colorgrading offers little IQ change when it's sunny outside but when you are in shaded areas IQ is altered.  Now don't take this the wrong way, the photo does show a 1.0 FPS improvement.  However, when in shaded areas without sunlight is this the level of IQ people are willing to deal with? IMO, they would look for other alternatives and perhaps use this as a last resort. 

 I think we can agree that the goal is to offer some level of performance boost with as little to no IQ changes as possible.  However, it's unavoidable that IQ will change to some degree.  In the end it will be up to the end user to decide on how they will balance the scale of IQ vs performance if they are having a problem.


----------



## ShadowFold (Sep 23, 2008)

I play DX10, would I clear the DX10 cache too?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 23, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I play DX10, would I clear the DX10 cache too?



I am playing on XP so I would assume the same would apply with Vista.


----------



## Xzero (Sep 24, 2008)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So I take it my lil ole x2 4200+ is going to screw me six ways from sunday.



Nope. Same processor here, 8800GT, and I'm running all enthusiasts no AA 1280x1024 at 30 - 50 FPS, dips to 24 or so on harsh cutscenes and such. 

Object quality is by far one of the most demanding settings. I lose nearly 10FPS for every increase in setting. I just leave it at mainstream.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> As I've stated those changes provide minimal IQ change to none.  A person can pick and choose what they want to achieve a reasonable frame rate:
> -Disabling POM in favor of AF is a common practice that many have used when Crysis is released.  The effects are minimal and from what I've seen hard to distinguish.  In any case it's either POM or AF you can't have both.
> 
> -SSAO does not have a high impact on objects as much as you make it out to be.  It only adds shadows to the object itself.  Then can be minimized to a degree where FPS can be increase.
> ...



Well part of my point was that changing those DO NOT have as much of an impact on performance as those two. FOR ME at least changing all those together don't offer as much performance boost as one of mines alone. SSAO only changes few decimals when disabled, same with POM, motion blur, etc. agree all the settings change the image to the same degree, to tell that in some way. But colorgrading mostly alters the whole image tone, while the ones you suggested reduce the detail. It's very possible to attain similar results of colorgrading by tweaking the monitor, for example. Nothing will return you the bump detail of POM, the lighting of SSAO (it has nothing to do with self shadowing BTW, it's ambient occlusion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Space_Ambient_Occlusion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambient_occlusion) or the vitality of dynamic foliage.

Of course it's up to each to decide, but in no way colorgrading affects IQ more than the others. It does alter the IMAGE LOOK more, but not IQ. All others are dependant on geometry, light placement and bump mapping in order to create realistic looking objects. Colorgrading alteres the general tone of the image, using an algorithm that depends on the amount of light. Nowhere near what all the other things add up to the IQ.

Motion blur amount is too personal to disagree though.

EDIT: Hmm I just tried a similar place as the one on your Example1 and colorgrading has nowhere that same impact as it does for you. Just look at my examples, there's not as much of a difference. I wonder if it is graphics brand dependant?

EDIT2: e_lods default is 1, enabled, and it does have a great impact on performance, but not much in IQ as you said. Dissabling would be stupid as all games have been using it since... I can't even remember when. I confused it with e_lod_min or e_lod_ratio, which do reduce IQ a lot.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 24, 2008)

Here is the results of using what I suggested vs play Warhead without any modding.
photos here

The option I provided offers very little change and can offer a FPS boost.  The idea here is offer more alternatives to increasing frame rates with as little IQ difference as possible.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Here is the results of using what I suggested vs play Warhead without any modding.
> photos here
> 
> The option I provided offers very little change and can offer a FPS boost.  The idea here is offer more alternatives to increasing frame rates with as little IQ difference as possible.



First of all my apologies regarding e_lods and r_glow as are not what I thought they were. Glow is a very valid option for outdoor scenes, it has far greater impact on indoor scenes though.

Now, on your comparison look at the bushes in the right. When default they look realistic as they cast shadows as a real object would do. On the moded one they seem completely artificial, as if they were put there. Compare that to your first example:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/crysis/Colorgrading.gif

Here the overall color changed, but the shadow detail is still there.

And regarding POM. Post screens on the snow for a fair comparison. Maybe I'll do it myself.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 24, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> First of all my apologies regarding e_lods and r_glow as are not what I thought they were. Glow is a very valid option for outdoor scenes, it has far greater impact on indoor scenes though.
> 
> Now, on your comparison look at the bushes in the right. When default they look realistic as they cast shadows as a real object would do. On the moded one they seem completely artificial, as if they were put there. Compare that to your first example:
> 
> ...



The 1st pic relates to color grading. The second comparison involves a modded autoexec.bat vs original.  They have nothing in common with one another.  When I attempted what you suggested with color grading that's what I get in shaded areas outdoors.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 24, 2008)

Here is another example of the original vs modded Warhead this time in the frost level.  Minimal IQ difference with a nice boost in frame rates (which will vary from one PC to the next).


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> The 1st pic relates to color grading. The second comparison involves a modded autoexec.bat vs original.  They have nothing in common with one another.  When I attempted what you suggested with color grading that's what I get in shaded areas outdoors.



I'm saying here all the depth and richness of lighting/shadowing is gone and is specially noticeable in the bushes, but also in the ground, while here all the details, depth and richness still remain. It's just that the color is a bit duller, but you can almost fix the color issue in the second one by altering your monitor settings. That's what I'm saying.

*POM*

POM enabled






POM disabled






Enabled






Disabled






It does have some performance impact, but usually not as much as in the second SS, more like in the frozen one.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Here is another example of the original vs modded Warhead this time in the frost level.  Minimal IQ difference with a nice boost in frame rates (which will vary from one PC to the next).



Again look at all the bushes and the rocks on th right, they look plastic and artifiacially placed there compared to the original one.

All in all is a matter of preference. but the drop in IQ is far greater than dissabling colorgrading.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 24, 2008)

DarkMatter, 
You are basically going around in circles here.  While you insists on nit-picking IQ I've already said there will be IQ difference but they are minimal.  And, people can pick and choose which they prefer based on the frame rates they need.  Now at this point, this is getting moot as what you point out I've already summed up (but not as bad as you make it out to be).  The person performing the tweaks will decided on what they prefer.  The whole idea is to improve frame rates with as little impact to IQ as possible.

Your statements of "look at the bush" & "look at that" are derived from a statement I never made or imply to make.  And, because I offer another suggestion you want to down play them as the result of some personal issue. What's been shown here is IMO very good IQ for the frame rate boost you get.  And, I certainly would not tweak my monitor because it's already properly calibrated.

Now keep in mine all my photos are at:
-1680x1050
-4xAA
-PC specs in System Specs


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> DarkMatter,
> You are basically going around in circles here.  While you insists on nit-picking IQ I've already said there will be IQ difference but they are minimal.  And, people can pick and choose which they prefer based on the frame rates they need.  Now at this point, this is getting moot as what you point out I've already summed up (but not as bad as you make it out to be).  The person performing the tweaks will decided on what they prefer.  The whole idea is to improve frame rates with as little impact to IQ as possible.
> 
> Your statements of "look at the bush" & "look at that" are derived from a statement I never made or imply to make.  And, because I offer another suggestion you want to down play them as the result of some personal issue. What's been shown here is IMO very good IQ for the frame rate boost you get.  And, I certainly would not tweak my monitor because it's already properly calibrated.
> ...



I can give on the performance issue on SSAO, as I never tested it in Warhead (I have now and there is a big hit when indoor). In Crysis the fps increase was minimal.

About IQ is undeniable SSAO increases IQ A LOT, you can try to obscure the thing as much as you want, but Crysis' graphics are all about lighting and shadowing and those are ALL about SSAO, here you havescreens:

Enabled






Disabled






Enabled with colorgrading put to 0, for comparison.






Like night and day, black and white, REALITY or playing around with TOYS or MODELS.

I'll let people decide, but if they choose the SSAO = 0 one, I'll have to quit my job and migrate to the mountains, because all the orientation and the point of my job would be pointless...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 24, 2008)

That's not night and day, far from it.  Your Tris count went from 506.XX to 504.XX which shows the complexity of the scene being rendered.  A difference of -/+ 2 and looking at the scene itself indicates to me a minimal change in IQ.  But the lack of AA is noticeable though.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> That's not night and day, far from it.  Your Tris count went from 506.XX to 504.XX which shows the complexity of the scene being rendered.  A difference of -/+ 2 and looking at the scene itself indicates to me a minimal change in IQ.  But the lack of AA is noticeable though.



AA has nothing to do with this. As you can see colorgrading has a greater impact on performance so it would actually leave more room for enabling AA. 

Yeah and the colorgrading 0 one has 507.xxx and what? Please...


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Sep 24, 2008)

I personally run fine on my 3800+ (single core) since I have optimized.  Most things are on Mainstream, detail is on "Enthusiast."  I don't get why you guys lag behind.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 24, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> AA has nothing to do with this. As you can see colorgrading has a greater impact on performance so it would actually leave more room for enabling AA.
> 
> Yeah and the colorgrading 0 one has 507.xxx and what? Please...



Your images are at 1280x960 without AA. My images are at 1680x1050 with 4xAA on Enthusiast.  There are going to be IQ difference and the amount of AA has everything to do with it as they are part of what you are trying to criticize.  What I offer is simply another option at higher resolution using AA which you obviously have personal issues with (IQ aside).


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Your images are at 1280x960 without AA. My images are at 1680x1050 with 4xAA.  There are going to be IQ difference and the amount of AA has everything to do with it as they are part of what you are trying to criticize.  What I offer is simply another option at higher resolution using AA which you obviously have personal issues with (IQ aside). Instead of taking the additional information as a compliment to this thread you get mad :shadedshu.  What you consider night/day, black/white is obviously not that different and you are making a bigger deal out this then need be.
> 
> In all, you cannot help me as I have a setup that works for me .



As I said, you can just dissable colorgrading and play on 1680x1050 without having to dissable many things of what you said. Your suggestions may help AFTER my suggestions are applied, but the impact on IQ is undeniable! Of course you can post some screens where what you dissabled is not being used and claim no difference, but that's simply not the truth!

r_glow 1






r_glow 0






Now tell me there's no difference! 

I'm not saying to not use your suggestions, but SAYING they would not affect IQ is the BIGGEST LIE EVER!!!

I don't have any issue with your person, but this thread is to inform people, and there is no place for missunderstatements as the ones you are saying. There's nothing wrong in suggesting your changes, but tell what is the IQ reduction they will experiment!!

MY suggestions don't change the lighting, shadows object detail or anything else. Only some minor colour adjustements. The pictures are there for them to choose. I don't need words when I hace pictures.

As for what works for you or it doesn't, I couldn't care less.

EDIT: Same pictures with 4xAA. Since you so desperately need them!!


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 24, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> As I said, you can just dissable colorgrading and play on 1680x1050 without having to dissable many things of what you said. Your suggestions may help AFTER my suggestions are applied, but the impact on IQ is undeniable! Of course you can post some screens where what you dissabled is not being used *and claim no difference*, but that's simply not the truth!
> 
> Now tell me there's no difference!
> 
> ...



I never said there would be no difference in IQ (as explained in other posts).  This is something you've made up as a arguing point when I said minimal IQ differences.  Also, I said that people can pick and choose what they want to add to their customization.  Also, I don't need any help with the customizations, I've shown how they look when combined together.  . 

Is there anything else I need to clear up for you so we are on the same page?


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I never said there would be no difference in IQ (as explained in other posts).  This is something you've made up as a arguing point when I said minimal IQ differences.  Also, I said that people can pick and choose what they want to add to their customization.  Also, I don't need any help with the customizations, I've shown how they look when combined together.


Let's refresh your mind just a bit:



EastCoasthandle said:


> r_TexturesStreaming=0 doesn't work for me when I use the "~" key to see what commands are active when using Enthusiast mode.   I've found the following to offer the best frame rates *with little to no difference in image quality* depending on what's being used:
> 
> r_ssao = 0;  = 1 enables self shadowing  which makes objects more life like
> r_usePOM = 0; replace this with AF instead
> ...



On the other hand this is how I presented my suggestions:



DarkMatter said:


> I finished the game on enthusiast mode, changing to gamer when performance was not pleasing and as I always do, on games that is possible, it was the time to make some tweaking to Cvars and see how much performance I could squeeze out of the game. Many Cvars increase performance a bit, but the result with two of them was shocking. I found an easy way to increase framerate by as much as 20% (or 5-10 fps depending actual framerate of 25-50fps, good scaling up to 100 fps) *changing only two values that have a little inpact on image quality. This is subjective, so test it yourselves.* You know how to do it:
> 
> - Create an autoexec file on the game directory.
> - Write this into the file:
> ...




Something else?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 24, 2008)

> depending on what's being used


For example if someone just uses:
e_phys_foliage =1; 
etc
which offers no IQ difference.

Is there any other level of confusion that I can clear up for you?


----------



## bigtye (Sep 24, 2008)

Um guys, as a person running a socket 939 rig, I appreciate your posts on what settings I could try to alter to give me the IQ I am happy with at a frame rate I can play at. Which ones I decide to keep in the end will be personal choice.

But I do appreciate the time spent in gathering the info and posting the screenies. From what I can gather, that was the entire intention of the thread.

Thanks

Tye


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Sep 24, 2008)

bigtye said:


> Um guys, as a person running a socket 939 rig, I appreciate your posts on what settings I could try to alter to give me the IQ I am happy with at a frame rate I can play at. Which ones I decide to keep in the end will be personal choice.
> 
> But I do appreciate the time spent in gathering the info and posting the screenies. From what I can gather, that was the entire intention of the thread.
> 
> ...



That's what the thread should be about.  By all means if you find something useful let us know


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

Actually the thread was just about making enthusiast mode more affordable. It was not meant as a tweak guide, there are far better ones out there and it's far more complex than dissabling a pair of features. i.e. http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_1.html

But since the thread has been expanded, may I do some suggesions, before disabling features, you can actually tweak them. 

For instance SSAO can be easily tweaked and will do the job while performing closer to what you will get with it dissabled. You need to change these variables:

*r_SSAO_quality = 1 *  //down from 2 on enthusiast, 1 for gamer and mainstream.

*r_SSAO_radius = 1*  //down from 2 again, 1 for gamer again.

*r_DetailDistance* // enthusuast= 8; gamer= 4; unnoticeable to me both in perf and IQ.

For shadows:

*r_ShadowJittering*  // 2.5 is enthusiast, 1 gamer and below. Anything from 1 to 2.5 will slightly increase the performance compared to enthusiast, while looking better than gamer.

*r_shadows_cast_view_dist_ratio* //enthusiast=0.8; gamer=0.53; anything inbetween will offer better performance than enthusiast and better IQ than gamer.

Effects

Ones that have some IQ impact but only on few areas/circunstances:

*g_battledust_enable* // enabled only on entusiast mode. Tremendous perf boost under some circunstances (when it's actually being used for instance). But at the same time it has a great impact on the experience on some battles. You won't notice it lacking for the most part though.

*i_lighteffects* // enabled only on enthusiast.

Effects with overall impact through the game:

*r_BeamDistFactor* // enthusiast= 0.05; gamer=0.5

*r_BeamsMaxSlices* //enthusiast= 200 ; gamer= 64; medium= 32; at 128 there's an almost unnoticeable impact on both IQ and perf ON MY MACHINE and in Warhead. In Crysis and when I had the X2 4800+ the impact was bigger but small in comparison with the 2 in the OP.

Object detail:

*e_vegetation_min_size* // enthusiast=0; gamer= 0,5; small impact on IQ and perf.

That's the ones I remember and that I lowered in Crysis with good gains. That was with the X2 4800+, I never tested them with the Quad. In Warhead and with my rig on specs they have almost no effect in performance. Test them and see if they help.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

Now that enough time has passed for EastCoastHandle or anyone else to notice it, it's time to reveal the true joke: PICTURES ON MY POST #39 WERE PURPOSEDLY TAKEN WITH *r_colorgrading=0*!! 

It's so noticeable no one noticed it.


----------



## ShogoXT (Sep 24, 2008)

Well its kinda hard to tell unless their a side by side. Its not like we have a photographic memory. We need EZ mode compare!


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

ShogoXT said:


> Well its kinda hard to tell unless their a side by side. Its not like we have a photographic memory. We need EZ mode compare!



Yeah, but you don't need another picture to compare SSAO or glow once you know what it is and where to look at it. Either it's there or is not. 

Colorgrading on the other hand will be unnoticeable unless you compare it side by side. Even the greatest expert would be unable to tell if it is enabled or not, or if it is an issue with the clor balance on the card, monitor, etc. If he can EVEN notice there is something "wrong" at all. 

Did I mention colorgrading is 0 by default in anything but enthusiast, and that SSAO is enabled by default in both gamer and enthusiast? Clearly Crytek thought SSAO was more important. Dunno IMO is something to think about...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 24, 2008)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> I personally run fine on my 3800+ (single core) since I have optimized.  Most things are on Mainstream, detail is on "Enthusiast."  I don't get why you guys lag behind.



Well my rig barley pushes this game and slows down to a complete freeze when loading areas of a map. I put everything on mainstream and 1200x rez and AA off. I have no clue what the hell is wrong. If your pushing it with a 3800+ the my CPU should be fine.


----------



## kyle2020 (Sep 24, 2008)

Ive had some bugs with it, i hope this relates!

Basically i kept getting an error message after pressing play on the disc screen saying "MSOCK32.dll cannot be found" or something like that. I have to press ok 5 times and then the game loads. My second bug WAS (its stopped now) the game stopped loading at around 84% - black screen greeted me and i had to shut the game down via task manager.

Its stopped now but still, its bugs that shouldnt be there. Oh, and the games way too short. completed it last night ffs :shadedshu


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

kyle2020 said:


> Ive had some bugs with it, i hope this relates!
> 
> Basically i kept getting an error message after pressing play on the disc screen saying "MSOCK32.dll cannot be found" or something like that. I have to press ok 5 times and then the game loads. My second bug WAS (its stopped now) the game stopped loading at around 84% - black screen greeted me and i had to shut the game down via task manager.
> 
> Its stopped now but still, its bugs that shouldnt be there. Oh, and the games way too short. completed it last night ffs :shadedshu



And all that is related to this thread because... 

You are getting all those errors after using any of the tweaks mentioned here? I've never seen or heard of any error related to changing/tweaking the cvars.

Only errors I've had with Warhead were during the installation and related to EA's DRM crap. I thought I would be free of them with the Steam version, but no luck.

And it's totally off-topic but Warhead is not way too short considering it's an expansion and its price. I had to pay full price for COD4 and it took me less than 3 hours to finish it! That is short and was nowhere as pleasing for me. I have it on top of my worst investments ever list.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 24, 2008)

cod4's mutltiplayer is epic, however.

warhead was nice and short, but the game wasnt IRRITATING like crysis. there was no stupid 'black man is freezing, guard him!' or 'and now for some zero G!' levels that had nothing to do with the rest of the game.


----------



## Zehnsucht (Sep 24, 2008)

Mussels said:


> cod4's mutltiplayer is epic, however.
> 
> warhead was nice and short, but the game wasnt IRRITATING like crysis. there was no stupid 'black man is freezing, guard him!' or 'and now for some zero G!' levels that had nothing to do with the rest of the game.



 Yepp, Warhead is a lot more fun. I also hated the zero G zones. Mostly because movement was so awkward, while the enemies could float and swim around like fish, I felt myself as a moving brick. 

The biggest performance boost IMO is switching from DX10 to DX9.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

We are going way off-topic. 

It's all a matter of what you look on a game. COD4 MP was nothing special for me. Straight forward and nothing else. Maybe because I bought TF2 and Crysis around the same time. Even with all its bugs and it's unbalanced gameplay, I liked Crysis Power Strugle and instant action much more than COD4 MP. The use of the powers was new and refreshing and they really add a pleasing level of complexity and variety. Warhead has improved over them, so I would take Crysis MP anyday. Anyway both are irrelevant for me when we factor in TF2.

Oh and just to show that each one can have different tastes, I DID love the zero G level over the others, I missed the open gameplay there though, but I loved the atmosphere and the gameplay. I loved exactly what you guys hated: how it was difficult to maneuver and how easy was for the aliens. What makes you think it is easy and intuitive to move in zero g? What makes you think you would be relaxed and would be easy for you to fight enemies that could come from anywhere in real life? 
Ask astronauts and you will see that the "feeling" is probably well captured. Also think of one of the "norms" of war tactics, attack from above whenever you can, becuse the human being is not genetically prepared for attacks from above, and it's even not natural for us to look up very often.

Aditionally I remember seeing a documental where astonauts talked about living in zero gravity and how confusing it was. They could choose to be oriented in any direction, because it's zero gravity, but they always had the impression, to the level of becoming an obsession, they NEEDED the floor below and the ceiling above. They said it was an obsession because it was really easy to loose what they felt was the natural position and had to do absurd (considering the circunstances) efforts to recover it. They never thought about it deeply until they returned to the earth BTW.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 24, 2008)

TF2 has no singleplayer so its hardly in the same league as these games.


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 24, 2008)

Mussels said:


> TF2 has no singleplayer so its hardly in the same league as these games.



IMO it IS justified because COD4 practically lacked SP for me (and many, may of my friends never touched the SP). At least it lacked any pleasing SP experience for me AND it's very common to hear the COD4 MP argument as an excuse for the lacking SP. I have to go no further than your post above to prove my point.

And HL2:EP2 or Portal can be considered TF2's SP, in which case: IMO Orange Box >>>>>>>>> COD4.


----------



## Wartz (Sep 24, 2008)

kyle2020 said:


> Ive had some bugs with it, i hope this relates!
> 
> Basically i kept getting an error message after pressing play on the disc screen saying "MSOCK32.dll cannot be found" or something like that. I have to press ok 5 times and then the game loads. My second bug WAS (its stopped now) the game stopped loading at around 84% - black screen greeted me and i had to shut the game down via task manager.
> 
> Its stopped now but still, its bugs that shouldnt be there. Oh, and the games way too short. completed it last night ffs :shadedshu



I get that MSOCK32.dll error when I run in vista 64 bit


----------



## Mussels (Sep 24, 2008)

google says msock32.dll is a virus. In fact theres very damned little on that file, are you sure you didnt get the name wrong?


----------



## Namslas90 (Sep 24, 2008)

Mussels said:


> google says msock32.dll is a virus. In fact theres very damned little on that file, are you sure you didnt get the name wrong?



Look here;

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298436


----------



## Mussels (Sep 24, 2008)

.... a windows 98 file? wtf.

I'd suggest updating directX 9.0C, and then installing an OS that was released after the year 2000.

(last part was a joke)


----------



## Namslas90 (Sep 24, 2008)

Mussels said:


> .... a windows 98 file? wtf.




Exactly...I would assume that if he is having an issue in XP; either he is missing an update or he has a/the (MATRIX) virus.


----------



## Xzero (Sep 25, 2008)

DarkMatter, I too loved  the zero G level, I  thought it was the most beautiful level in the game (especially the start, the cave area was the most realistic part of the whole game aside from the snow level ;D)


----------



## Whilhelm (Sep 25, 2008)

Yeah the Zero G part of the game was totally unexpected and that is what made it so cool. I played that part last night  for the fourth time and I still can't get over how amazing the graphics look at that part. I found maneuvering and combat difficult but once you get used to it that part of the game ends.

And yes the Zero G part did have a point in the game because it let you see the Aliens firsthand, all the other parts were the Aliens in environment suits. It also provided foreshadowing for the coming alien attack and explained why everything froze when the ship opened up.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Sep 25, 2008)

doing this f'd up my game... when i get shot now i get a big black box that covers half my screen


----------



## johnnyfiive (Sep 25, 2008)

^^


----------



## AphexDreamer (Sep 25, 2008)

"Below the Thunder" was very optimized (I got like 75 FPS and thats cause I had Vsync on) and the most realistic point of the game... The caves look freaking sweet played that Level over and over again just to re-live it. 

It compared to the level in Crysis where you get inside the aliens base.

Why couldn't the whole game be as optimized as "Below the Thunder", is it cause it was in a compact space?


----------



## sneekypeet (Sep 25, 2008)

Zehnsucht said:


> Good info. Gonna try it tomorrow.
> 
> Edit: How do you take screenshots in Crysis: WH? I pressed printscreen but it didn't work.



Fraps!


----------



## ShiBDiB (Sep 25, 2008)

AphexDreamer said:


> "Below the Thunder" was very optimized (I got like 75 FPS and thats cause I had Vsync on) and the most realistic point of the game... The caves look freaking sweet played that Level over and over again just to re-live it.
> 
> It compared to the level in Crysis where you get inside the aliens base.
> 
> Why couldn't the whole game be as optimized as "Below the Thunder", is it cause it was in a compact space?



that is a sick level, but i believe its just as optomized as everything else, its just a much shorter draw distance then the outdoormaps with alot less moving parts (no trees moving in the wind etc..)


----------



## DarkMatter (Sep 25, 2008)

ShiBDiB said:


> that is a sick level, but i believe its just as optomized as everything else, its just a much shorter draw distance then the outdoormaps with alot less moving parts (no trees moving in the wind etc..)



Yep and it's exactly why you need more power to run it. No other game has the same detail and draw distance. Indoors it runs extremely well considering the detail level and effects quality, almost on par with other games.



sneekypeet said:


> Fraps!



Printscreen works for me...


----------



## i nEeD HeLp (Sep 28, 2008)

turn up all of the settings


----------



## Edito (Oct 8, 2008)

I don´t know what happened but the fact is, i was playing warhead yesterday with avg fps of 25~29 on GAMER with Res 168x1050 and my system become unstable don´t know why i changed the ram slots and boot up the system again and when i entered the game the performance was way better and i put the game in Enthusiast settings and i got the same fps with GAMER and its working just fine damn hope everthing still just like these...


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 8, 2008)

Edito said:


> I don´t know what happened but the fact is, i was playing warhead yesterday with avg fps of 25~29 on GAMER with Res 168x1050 and my system become unstable don´t know why i changed the ram slots and boot up the system again and when i entered the game the performance was way better and i put the game in Enthusiast settings and i got the same fps with GAMER and its working just fine damn hope everthing still just like these...



I feel really uncompfortable asking this in TPU forums, but you already had the memory in dual channel mode before the change right?

Anyway, Crysis is sometimes a memory hog, primarily due to it's complex AI and physics. Giving each enemy individual the kind of intelligence and organiztion they try to give them in Crysis, can make the RAM run short and sometimes it fails to liberate the RAM once they are killed (this not only happens in Crysis, but because of the volume of the AI it is more noticeable than in other games). Other times is the physics that for some reason the objects fail to return to sleep mode consuming lots of resources (common too, but not with such volumes). In both cases a game restart fixes everything: back to main menu, no need to quit to Windows nor reboot the system.

The first levels in the game are more demanding than the ones in the middle, so it is very possible you started playing with around 25 fps and as memory got filling the relative performance decreased while the requrements of the game decreased too, creating the ilusion everything went well. When you restarted the real performance for that level was revealed. That assuming you didn't restart the game before you changed the RAM and got the same unstability.


----------



## Edito (Oct 8, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> I feel really uncompfortable asking this in TPU forums, but you already had the memory in dual channel mode before the change right?
> 
> Anyway, Crysis is sometimes a memory hog, primarily due to it's complex AI and physics. Giving each enemy individual the kind of intelligence and organiztion they try to give them in Crysis, can make the RAM run short and sometimes it fails to liberate the RAM once they are killed (this not only happens in Crysis, but because of the volume of the AI it is more noticeable than in other games). Other times is the physics that for some reason the objects fail to return to sleep mode consuming lots of resources (common too, but not with such volumes). In both cases a game restart fixes everything: back to main menu, no need to quit to Windows nor reboot the system.
> 
> The first levels in the game are more demanding than the ones in the middle, so it is very possible you started playing with around 25 fps and as memory got filling the relative performance decreased while the requrements of the game decreased too, creating the ilusion everything went well. When you restarted the real performance for that level was revealed. That assuming you didn't restart the game before you changed the RAM and got the same unstability.



Im in the Adapt or Perish now full of snow and the game was running in a bad way and the performance made me crazy and with the instability of the system i turned off in order to find out whats going on i changed the ram positions (from dual channel 2 dual channel only different slots) and the game is running just fine.

And about the memory hog i used to feel it in the original crysis sometimes i was forced to back to menu and enter the game again and sometimes quit game...


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 8, 2008)

I understand you DID try restarting the game before the RAM change, so that the memory issue with AI/physics is not the problem. I too understand you have no problems since the change which corroborates the above statement.

The only explanation I can find is the problem was in hardware, it should affect every application though. Maybe one of the RAM slots is faulty or (the next did happen to me) probably one of the RAM sticks was not properly inserted. That way the RAM works but because of the bad contact... you can figure it out.


----------



## r9 (Oct 8, 2008)

kyle2020 said:


> I can remember on the first game that after I had done the no - gravity trippy place thing and came out into the snow, i hit epic lag, and had to lower everything right down. I guess my system hates snow
> 
> Ill try this "fix" tonight and probably post some results later.



I know what is with the snow likeing problem. You must put in your system ARTIC silver and  Sunbeam FREEZER cpu cooler that should help


----------



## Xzero (Oct 10, 2008)

RAM doesn't run out in DX10. It runs significanltly better RAM wise.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 10, 2008)

Xzero said:


> RAM doesn't run out in DX10. It runs significanltly better RAM wise.



I'm pretty sure i said that earlier and it got swamped out, but this is true. in DX10, video ram is no longer duplicated into system ram. It actually does decrease ram usage - however its not always visible ram usage. (its more about address space, instead of ram usage that will show up in task manager)


----------

