What system Crysis developers used to test ???/

PhReaK_K · Post by **PhReaK_K** » 11 Apr 2008, 15:15

Now I was just wondering on what system did the developers test Crysis ?? Taking that is has been relesed a couple of months ago and still I am yet to see a system run in on max , high res and get really good frame rates ?

I am thinking something like this but I could be wrong ..

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Apr 2008, 15:16

I'd have to say a sli ultra system, as they'd recieve stuff before anyone else. Prob a dual processing solution as well. Something like a few FX 74s, which we all have seen

Firestrm_ZA · Post by **Firestrm_ZA** » 11 Apr 2008, 15:26

:stupid:

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Apr 2008, 15:31

No you're not. And I am not stupid.

Kthxbye.

PhReaK_K · Post by **PhReaK_K** » 11 Apr 2008, 15:45

I was thinking they super enfused the brain capabilities of Vernon Koekemoer and Chuck norris into one GPU/CPU/MOBO .. something like that ..

B0r0m1r · Post by **B0r0m1r** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:12

Then they wouldn't even play it on Ultra LOW@ 240x320 with directx7

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:16

Dx5 ftw. I remember having to install it for mortal kombat. LOL

PhReaK_K · Post by **PhReaK_K** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:25

definately not tested in this country, the power requirements would be to high for eskom ..

<< random ponderings >>

DAE_JA_VOO · Post by **DAE_JA_VOO** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:33

Developers don't use the kind of graphics we use. The cards they use costs ridiculous amounts of cash. I remember hearing somewhere that the video cards they use costs something like 100K 8O

I might be wrong though

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:36

Your're right to a point, but they only have the processing power of an equiv card. Like there was a batch that performed like 7900gts, but cost 10times as much.

PhReaK_K · Post by **PhReaK_K** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:38

HOLY CRAP !!!!
That is a couple months of salary right there !!!!
Now If I live on two minute noodles for a year, and walk to work.. I might be abe to do it ..

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:40

No you won't. You gotta pay tax :\ They'll take it all. LOL!

D3PART3D · Post by **D3PART3D** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:41

Cap should know how they do it

I've been wondering the same thing since Doom3.

Post by **OnlyOneKenobi** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:42

PhReaK_K wrote:HOLY CRAP !!!!
That is a couple months of salary right there !!!!
Now If I live on two minute noodles for a year, and walk to work.. I might be abe to do it ..

And if you don't use electricity. Or water. And don't buy groceries.

DAE_JA_VOO · Post by **DAE_JA_VOO** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:47

I34z1k wrote:Your're right to a point, but they only have the processing power of an equiv card. Like there was a batch that performed like 7900gts, but cost 10times as much.

Yes but there's a reason why they cost so much more. It's one of those situations similar to cameras, where you can have a 5MP camera that costs R1000, and a 5MP that costs R15000.

There's obviously something about those cards that makes them worth so much

capanno · Post by **capanno** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:49

You get workstation gfx cards, and yes they are damn expensive. Im not sure how they perform compared to mainstream cards. I know the developers developed crysis on alpha and beta software and hardware, which was an absolute nightmare! Very buggy and unstable developing environment. Much respect for doing it though.

I don't know much about the AAA side of development and the tools. Way out of my price league, for now at least.

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Apr 2008, 16:50

O sorry, didn't mention that.

Its something to the effect that they are like ECC and produce more accurate renders. They aren't for gaming actually, just rendering

PhReaK_K · Post by **PhReaK_K** » 11 Apr 2008, 18:25

but realistically though, they needed to test it on something to see if it is playable on "mainstream " systems?

I34z1k · Post by **I34z1k** » 11 Apr 2008, 18:42

They'll have more than just 5 pcs...

D3PART3D · Post by **D3PART3D** » 11 Apr 2008, 18:48

Hmmm... I guess when developing they'd set a minimum spec to aim for (actually, now that I think about it, Valve mentioned this in the HL2 Ep.1 commentary) which would be one of the current cards. Develop for that minimum spec card, and I suppose the higher settings are decided on easily: once the skeleton of the game is there (the minimum spec version) the higher level settings are easy - maybe upping texture quality just uses up more ram, and predicting things like the future amount of ram the average user will have can't be too hard.

Also, They probably wouldn't be too concerned about frames per second when developing, future cards do the same job (in most cases, when it comes to new API's like DX10 I don't know) faster.

My n00bish guess.

Post by **Anakha56** » 11 Apr 2008, 22:41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadro

Background on the Quadro beast.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadroplex.html

Specs of the latest...

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 12 Apr 2008, 09:48

Besides using workstaiton GFX they have some thing else up their sleeve to be able to compile as single level on ultra detail requires a lot of CPU power.

I know for me to compile a level even on a qaud core can take as much as 8 hours and a full 20 level game as much as a week or more.

So the only option to be more productive is to use a network of computers to compile a single level..Which can still ammount to a few hours.

jPm · Post by **jPm** » 12 Apr 2008, 09:52

I can remember in 1994/5/6, at my dads work, they needed to render a Massive Building Structure for a Presentation. They linked a few PCs together and it took a couple of days.

Although these were much slower PCs.lol. At the Time I think they had bought 5 Pentium Pro's which were like extreme Edition Intels at the time.

wizardofid · Post by **wizardofid** » 12 Apr 2008, 10:29

Hmmm... I guess when developing they'd set a minimum spec to aim for (actually, now that I think about it, Valve mentioned this in the HL2 Ep.1 commentary) which would be one of the current cards. Develop for that minimum spec card, and I suppose the higher settings are decided on easily: once the skeleton of the game is there (the minimum spec version) the higher level settings are easy - maybe upping texture quality just uses up more ram, and predicting things like the future amount of ram the average user will have can't be too hard.

Also, They probably wouldn't be too concerned about frames per second when developing, future cards do the same job (in most cases, when it comes to new API's like DX10 I don't know) faster.

My n00bish guess.

Like valve said blah blah.

All games being develop is rendered at best possible setting in other words ultra details ect.

But before than is even done.Some of the following would happen first.

Level design is first tested no fancy shaders or lighmapping ect.

Level design is where the frame rates really takes it's toll.Static/dynamic entities has to have the right blance AI needs to be tested to make sure that it doesn't load the CPU too much.Scripting with in the game level needs to be checked.

From there lightmapping is optimized and shaders added.Most software allows for shaders/soft decals/dynamic and static shadows to be switched off while testing the level out to make sure that frame rates are with in bounds in each section low end main and high end graphics cards is then tested and further optimized for the end user.

Polygons is also a great framerate killer and is optimized as well.

Because the level is optimized for lower end computers high end computers suffer the least.Shaders and static and dynamic shadows on the otherhand can't realy be optimized that much and that is why even high end suffer when choosing higher settings.

CranialBlaze · Post by **CranialBlaze** » 12 Apr 2008, 12:46

One thing i know is Crysis was probably benched @ Eureka the only place who would be able to jerry rig enough components together to get 60fps @ max.

Although they render with workstation graphics and are able to view it flawlessly with them, they would have to write specific instructions into those cards drivers for it to play games as that is not what they are intended for and if you had to spend the 100k+ on 1 of those cards you be extremely depressed when you notice not even basic games will work properly.

I have supplier prices near me and the most expensive workstation card i can find will retail around 32k - 35k depending on were you buy it and that would probably be a fraction of what they rendered Crysis on.

I remember reading somewhere that the new 9800GTX Dual GPU and way too much vid memory was intended as a type of bridge with the capabilities of gaming and mid range rendering, unfortunate i don't know any1 with the cash to bench it for me and test it with pricey rendering software