Hello there, ever since I got Clear Sky I have been fiddling with the settings trying to get it as beautiful as I could without the game crumbling into a slideshow. It was a difficult process, but with the help of knowledge gained from experimenting and good ol' Tweakguides.com I have reached the best I can get. Below, I have example screenshots, my own system specs and a picture of the settings I used. Hope this helps!
My System Specs
ZOTAC 8800 GT (512mb) Intel Q6600 (2.75gHz) 4gb Corsair XMS2 (DDR2 800mhz PC2-6400)
Comparative Screenshots The below shots are of my settings and then maxed out settings, both at 1920x1200 resolution. You will notice that there is very little difference between the two. The main ones that stand out are small things in the distance like cabling, and distant textures are very slightly diminished (due to anisotropic being turned off, but can be raised at little fps drop). The trees even look BETTER on the tweaked settings!
These images are reduced in size but are not compressed. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Spo_On/tweaked.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Spo_On/maxed.jpg
This rar file contains full size images, still not compressed. RapidShare: Easy Filehosting Maxed graphics crippled my computer at around 3 to 7 frames per second. Tweaked graphics ran smooth and playable at around 30-40 frames per second, dropping into late 20's in very busy areas.
As you can see, the screenshot was taken in the Stalker base in Agroprom which is a pretty densely populated area. I am also facing in the direction of all the people (see radar, more are in the north too).
So, how is it done?
Well the answer is just to lower a lot of settings that drain performance at negligable visual impact. Without further explanation, here are my 'tweaked' settings:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Spo_On/settings.jpg If you have a CRT monitor, don't tick the 60Hz option at the bottom.
Some of those settings I bet you will look at and think "There's no way I'm turning that feature that low, I love it too much". Well I can guarantee you that it makes very little difference, find out for yourself. Sun rays for example look identical at Low, Medium and High, but still affect performance a lot. Visual distance also only takes effect below 25%. Above that and you're talking the occasional shrub.
If you want more proof of this without testing yourself, check out this page which has plenty of example comparison screenshots:
So, after reading all this, what are you waiting for? Go and enjoy the game you paid for without having to worry about your pc suffering a heart attack.
If you have any additional questions, please ask away.
23rd July 2008
my sys specs are 880GT amd 3500+ 3 gigs of ram (2x512 OCZ gold and 2x1gig OCZ platinum)
And i have great results with no "tweaking" and my cpu is weaker. I can tell very little difference in your screenshots aside from more dense trees and slightly lighter textures.
If we're looking for a performance increase then post some frames per second data if we're looking for eye candy im sure you can find a better scene to represent the graphical changes in your game.
I have my game at 1440x960 or something with full dynamic, full view distance, everything on max pretty much with the exception of antialiacing which is at like x2 and ansiotropic which is also around x4 or something and it looks great running at about 25-30 frames per second on avg. FPS drops in marsh though but i think its due to dense vegitation. Anyways i love tweaksguide.com but i think if you want to show off changes then id recommend picking a better scene and posting some more screens.
Trust me, it's far from showing off. I'm just trying to help out people who ended up in my shoes thinking they could max it out on Dx10 and finding it couldn't.
I gave approximate fps results in the area, but if you think it necessary I can take some screenshots of other areas with the fps meter up. However, I can guarantee these settings will improve performance across the board if you're looking for the highest settings on a mid-high end pc.
Personally, vegetation doesn't seem to affect performance for me. It's more the densely populated areas such as bases. The biggest performance kick is between 6 and 8 am when the sun rays are in full effect. Even that kick can be avoided when you turn it to low, and it still looks the same.
23rd July 2008
No no no i dont meen that you showed off. i appreciate the guide as it will help some people although people with slightly different specs will need to experiment on their own. I simply meant that screens in a more "scenic" location like overlooking the hangar or something with at least a camp fire to give a feel for the lighting etc would be better to represent the changes as its difficult to see in yours, plus running fraps while taking screens will also show the fps results.
WHY CAN'T I WIN!?!?!
24th July 2008
Hmm even though I use dx9 lowering the sun settings manually by temporally putting it on DX10 then switching back seems to have given my FPS a boost. And I hardly noticed any difference too.
Supernatur4L;4585177better to represent the changes as its difficult to see in yours, plus running fraps while taking screens will also show the fps results.
That's the point. I'm not trying to promote the differences, I'm trying to promote the similarities. These are the next best settings to completely maxed out graphics without the big performance hit. I'm finding it hard to tell if you understand my purpose or not. :) Anyway, I am still going to take another screenshot or two just for the more curious. I am also aware of FRAPS, thanks... time to dig out the installer.
I don't mean to come across negatively, just trying to eliminate any confusion.
On another note, why can't I edit my original post anymore? Edit timer? Evil forums...
I didn't make it!
I see you reduced DOF far to about 100-150 looking at your screens... nice