far cry x64 -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

BazookaTooth

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

12th September 2006

0 Uploads

16 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

is far cry compatable with windows x64 edition?




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago
BazookaToothis far cry compatable with windows x64 edition?

Ubi came out with a 64 bit patch that makes the game run in 64 bit and adds a lot of extra game content and enhancements to world detail for those running 64 bit CPUs. The patch is huge and you won't get any performance increase, but it's pretty good that you can get relatively similar performance with all the extra content and enhancements.

The enhancement feature that reportedly is most demanding on frame rates is Offset Mapping, and most noticably so in Catacombs where it can lower your FPS 10 frames (not to 10 FPS but 10 frames lower). It shouldn't be a problem or even noticable though with a moderately capable video card.

Here's some links, the article by hardocp.com is one of the most detailed and the ubi link has the patch.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGGL_enUS177&q=Far+Cry+64+bit+edition

Since I did some leg work for you could you please post some screenshots if you play it in 64 bit? I'd like to see the longer view distances, enhanced terrain detail, and the Offset Mapping effect in Catacombs. It would be nice if you could show some of the extra content too. There's supposed to be an added vehicle, beach road, and barrel storage area. They even added more area to explore which may mean some maps are bigger too. Hardocp mentions the extras in pretty good detail.




Faceless32

I follow teh Moo!

50 XP

22nd August 2006

0 Uploads

2,681 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago
BazookaToothis far cry compatable with windows x64 edition?

You seriuslt Thought that there was a window's 64? :rolleyes: Jesus Christ, the computer wasn't made for pratical use untill the 80's. U Sped or something?




BazookaTooth

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

12th September 2006

0 Uploads

16 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

thanks for the reply OMEN, after further review i have decided not to install x64. from my understanding a lot of games arent supported, and the ones that are can have problems. ill just wait for a good vista service pack then upgrade to directx 10 with new gpu's etc. in sli and a XHD monitor.




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago
BazookaTooththanks for the reply OMEN, after further review i have decided not to install x64. from my understanding a lot of games arent supported, and the ones that are can have problems. ill just wait for a good vista service pack then upgrade to directx 10 with new gpu's etc. in sli and a XHD monitor.

No problem, like I keep telling people, there's too much hype over 64bit and dual core to even make sense paying for it yet. I'm quite sure there are numerous people using both that by now are rather upset and wish they'd waited for better pricing, sufficed with something more affordable, and not listened to the hype about it. Worse yet there are lots of people that assumed with dual core they'd get better gaming performance, but when they run in single core mode they're slower than the single cores with the same P rating. SLI, Quad SLI, & DX10 can pretty much be viewed the same way. All these technologies are dependent on the software supporting it.;)




BazookaTooth

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

12th September 2006

0 Uploads

16 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago

will i be able to run crysis with decent in game settings, i play games at 1600x1200 my specs cpu: amd athlon 64 4000+ gpu: dual geforce 7800 gt SLI wd3200 7200rpm hdd antec 550w power supply




tha_jay

y helo thar :D

50 XP

2nd November 2005

0 Uploads

134 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago
Faceless32You seriuslt Thought that there was a window's 64? :rolleyes: Jesus Christ, the computer wasn't made for pratical use untill the 80's. U Sped or something?

learnnewbie1ll6.jpg




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

BazookaToothwill i be able to run crysis with decent in game settings, i play games at 1600x1200

my specs

cpu: amd athlon 64 4000+ gpu: dual geforce 7800 gt SLI wd3200 7200rpm hdd antec 550w power supply

You'll definately be able to run it with that sys, and perhaps with decent settings (though you didn't explain what settings you like to use), although maybe not at 1600x1200. It is far better to retain at least 2xAA and 4xAF and give up the 1600x1200 if you have too, than go 1600x1200 without any AA or AF.

Too soon to tell for sure how it will run on most systems, when we see a demo of it alot of questions will be answered.;)




BazookaTooth

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

12th September 2006

0 Uploads

16 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

in F.E.A.R i use 1600x1200 noAA AFx8 all max settings , no VS , no shell castings - gets 65fps

Ive gone back and forth with (AA & AF) or high res. My conclusion, playing any game at a higher res gives more viewable information on the screen than lower, (i.e. pixels) higher pixel count=sharper textures. I think thats more important than "smoothing out edges".

F.E.A.R above optimization with AAx4 AFx4 -- average 57fps




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago

BazookaToothin F.E.A.R i use 1600x1200 noAA AFx8 all max settings , no VS , no shell castings - gets 65fps

Ive gone back and forth with (AA & AF) or high res. My conclusion, playing any game at a higher res gives more viewable information on the screen than lower, (i.e. pixels) higher pixel count=sharper textures. I think thats more important than "smoothing out edges".

F.E.A.R above optimization with AAx4 AFx4 -- average 57fps

Well I disagree with some of what you're saying there Bazooka, though a lot of people seem to see it that way. You didn't detail how you arrived at the ave FPS, what I typically do is use the Test Demo results. Anything between 40-60 ave is plenty good. I keep my settings a lot lower if I record online play in FEAR so I can average about 80 FPS on the Test Demo. That way when I start recording online I get about 40FPS, but that's plenty to have smooth gameplay including good jumping.

I insist on using 2xAA even when I set the settings low, and even though I have an ATI based card, which are typically better at smooth edges to begin with. Lack of good AA can show up as vertical screen tear when mouse looking left and right too, it's not just limited to slight edge jagging. It's very important to have a smooth mouse look, especially when playing online when you have to check for sneakers a lot.

I personally would adjust those settings to 2xAA, 4xAF. That way you'd likely get close to the same FPS even at the same res. There is very little difference between 4xAF and 8xAF, especially in a game like FEAR that is mostly fairly close combat. Even in a game like Far Cry you'd mostly notice the 8x only on long optically aided views.




  • 1
  • 2