FarCry running choppy

Well I just bought farcry and I can only run it on the medium video settings otherwise it runs choppy. My system is in my sig and I think I should have no problem at all running this game at the highest settings possible. Any idea's as to why my comp dosnt seem up to the challenge? I have DiX9.B installed and I am running the latest version of the omega drivers.

Should I try reinstalling the card drivers? I need help .

only 512 mb of ram is why

FarCry runs choppy on my system as well, and I have 1gig of ram. Is this going to be another Halo type game?

CrazyP said:

only 512 mb of ram is why

Click to expand...

I have to agree...
more and more game beg for more system memory for high game settings to be used.
even though you should have more then enough vid card memory, you can run into problems with only 512mb of system mem.

try doing one of two things....
first make sure AA and AF are at min or turned off.
next you can lower the resolution you are playing at.
(btw, what res are you playing at?)

also, a good idea is to shut down all the back ground items you may be running...I'll bet you tryed that, but I had to ask.

good luck

mica

Hrmmm it says 512 recomended on the box for Farcry but when I do "detect video settings" it runs everything at meduim. I really hope it is not my RAM since I love my BH-5. I am running it at 1280x1024. I was I will try turning down all the AA and AF settings.

Kinda disapointed thought I would be able to run this game at the max for sure.

It is a very intesive game. With the **** overclocked out of my 9000 Pro and my 256mb of ram, I can barely run it at all low settings. At first I was a little overconfident of my system and set it all to "high" and that was quite a mistake.......after 15 mins I could not get my comp unfrozen and had to do a hard reset.

I could run it at 1152x864 med settings perfectly on my old 9500np(256bit). When I turned up the settings it got slower and slower(DUH) with each bump up. At highest I would get 5-10fps average. Remember, this is a full DX9.0 game, using the latest pixel shaders and everything.

Ohh on a side note, try turning the particles way down, and everything else up. In some places it massively overdoes the particles.

Why do we want to turn down the AA and AF completely? I thought that ATi cards had no problem at that?

the fact with this game is this. I have a 9600xt and can play with all settings at veryhigh, 1024/768 res, no AA or AF and it doesnt stutter or lag at all. I have 1 gig of pc3200. I alt tab out of the game and memory usage is way over 512mb of usage. towards the end I even saw 900MB being used which to me was insane.

but really, Battlefield vietnam is the same way, ut2004 plays better with a gig, and so does desert combat mod.

it seems its the way to go for the newer games coming out

oh and on the case it says 512mb - 1024 recommended. you now how box reco=comendations are. always believe the higher number

The people complaining about performance while running high resolutions with AA and AF turned on are completely missing the boat here...

This is the next generation of video games. This is what HL2 and D3 were bringing to the table, it just happened to have come out first. This is DX9 in it's full glory, this isn't a DX7/8 game with pixel shaders slapped on at the last minute... The CryTech engine was built from the ground up to maime all the egos of those who thought their machine was all that and a bowl of Tostitos chips.

Intel 3.75Ghz, ram at 500 1:1 with PAT fully enabled, hardware EAX support and a 9800XT overclocked as far as I can get it on a VGA silencer is enough to run the game at a comfortable 30-60fps at 1024x768 with all in-game details at their fullest. I can turn on the AF to 8x and it doesn't get too bad, drops to an average of 25-55FPS. But the moment I force AA, the framerate plummets into the teens or worse.

THIS is the whole reason why NVIDIA and ATI are gearing up to produce cards with gobs of pipelines and performing something ridiculous like 300% faster than current hardware. It's not because you need that horsepower for existing games, it's because you need that horsepower for the true next generation games.

Farcry is your first glimpse of such...

I run with everything on high except AA is on meduim. Its not choppy at all.

How do you guys find out what your fps is?

Apparently, the new ATI drivers (4.4) address some of the coppyness in far cry. Make sure you have the most recent drivers.

From within the game, press the tilde key, and type this:
/r_displayinfo 1

This will give you all the critical stats to include polygons in-scene, polys per second, total number of active hardware lights, and of course current frames per second.

Albuquerque said:

The people complaining about performance while running high resolutions with AA and AF turned on are completely missing the boat here...

This is the next generation of video games. This is what HL2 and D3 were bringing to the table, it just happened to have come out first. This is DX9 in it's full glory, this isn't a DX7/8 game with pixel shaders slapped on at the last minute... The CryTech engine was built from the ground up to maime all the egos of those who thought their machine was all that and a bowl of Tostitos chips.

Intel 3.75Ghz, ram at 500 1:1 with PAT fully enabled, hardware EAX support and a 9800XT overclocked as far as I can get it on a VGA silencer is enough to run the game at a comfortable 30-60fps at 1024x768 with all in-game details at their fullest. I can turn on the AF to 8x and it doesn't get too bad, drops to an average of 25-55FPS. But the moment I force AA, the framerate plummets into the teens or worse.

THIS is the whole reason why NVIDIA and ATI are gearing up to produce cards with gobs of pipelines and performing something ridiculous like 300% faster than current hardware. It's not because you need that horsepower for existing games, it's because you need that horsepower for the true next generation games.

Farcry is your first glimpse of such...

Click to expand...

well said....may I add some more info?

I'm just not convinced that PS and VS2.0 are the true reasons for the slowdowns in speed....
you see, the 9800pro might be a 8x1 pipeline card, but it is able to do not only one texture unit but one floting point unit as well(think PS2.0 unit).

now texture size is what most will agree that is truely slowing down are newer games like this one.

anyone remember textures the size of 320x320???
well say goodbye to crap like that.
it takes a 64mb card just to run 1024x1024 textures at 32bit with 32bit color in Q3A.
most cards are now 128mb, but you can start saying goodbye to 1024x1024 textures in todays games.

larger size textures and larger LVLs are not only forcing us to move onto 256mb cards as stated above, but 512mb of system ram just wont do any more.

run your newer DX9.0 game at a higher res and you increase the geomitry needed to complete the image....
you'll learn real quick that AA and AF will no longer be free with max in game settings.

mica

is that the demo or full game? unless they added a whole bunch of stuff in the full game over the demo, somethings very wrong. I can see your cpu is faster than mine, so is your gpu. are you using windows xp? even with that handicap, you still have a nice gpu advantage over me. There may be a driver conflict or something, try running 3dmark and publish, link the score. also make sure nothing is running in the background, it could be hogging your cpu cycles. you should be able to run 1600x1200 everything maxed out and get 40fps because I can do that with medium details or max details at 1024x768!

Overclocker550 said:

you should be able to run 1600x1200 everything maxed out and get 40fps because I can do that with medium details or max details at 1024x768!

Click to expand...

BZZT! Very very incorrect. At medium details, you are missing a significant amount of details of the game. You might be trying to force high details, but the CryTek engine assignes a "system spec" ID to your machine on game startup. It rates your processor model, speed, total onboard ram, video card model and video card memory -- takes all of that, and makes it into a sysspec number of 0 thru 4. Your system is probably detecting as a 1 based on your CPU speed and video card type, which means even setting your details on "high" is going to skip many VERY large pieces of the game. On your system, foliage density is almost nill, trees are at the lowest 3d model LOD, you have fish or birds, you completely lose dynamic lighting, all per-pixel rendering (environmental bumpmapping, dynamic water reflections, enviromental lighting on the foliage, etc)

My rig at "medium" details at 1280x1024 pulls something insane like 100+fps. My rig at all "very high" details at 1024x768 pulls an all-encompassing average of about 45 frames per second without AA or AF.

Again, as I had stated in my previous reply, you are sorely missing the boat on what's going on here. This isn't some paltry weenie DX8 game with pixel shaders slapped on to make things pretty. This is a true next-generation game. That doesn't mean it has shoddy framerates on ALL hardware, because the engine designers were fortunately smart enough to allow a very large amount of optional graphics components.

What it does mean is that forcing all features to their absolute highest setting is going to bring any current machine to it's knees. This game simply cannot be played with all features maxxed (AA, AF, high resolution) on any of today's hardware. Period.

Edit!
Maybe you don't believe me, so let's have a screenshot:
http://www.hyundaiproject.com/farcry/FarCry0012.jpg
Click on that link and look at what's going on in the upper right corner. Want something similar on your rig to compare notes? Hit the tilde key when you're in-game, and type this: /r_displayinfo 1
As you can see in this screenshot (dam level, at the very beginning) we have something around 30 million polygons per second being pumped through, with only one dynamic light. This is with all settings on "very high" quality, except for the water which is on "Ultra high" (water is the only thing that has a higher setting than "very high". Now notice the framerate -- 31fps. Now look at my signature...

This is without antialiasing, but it is running at 8x anisotropic filtering. Are you getting the idea yet?

well I have forced high details. I see all what you described but I have to back down to 1024x768 for that to get good fps. I see a difference if I set em to medium but my fps doubles so I know I ran with all the goodies on(except any dx9 stuff which isnt much) I saw my friends screenshot and hes got a 9800 pro and my IQ looks identical to his when I run high details you say no hardware can play the game on max details, thats right I cant use max details either if I try 1600x1200

I edited my post a little, please note my top mention of the sysspec qualifier and the screenshot. Whether you're noticing it or not, there's a considerable difference between what your rig is rendering and what your friend's rig is rendering on the 9800.

Here's a screenshot of one of the differences:
http://www.hyundaiproject.com/farcry/FarCry0007.jpg
Look in the water reflection, and notice that the jeep and all the trees are being reflected. So is fire, smoke, and other badguys. You can't enable that on your hardware, it physically won't let you.

Albuquerque said:

http://www.hyundaiproject.com/farcry/FarCry0012.jpg

Click to expand...

thats screenshot right there shows why you need more than 512mb to run it lagfree with all the bells and whistles. the level is huge and there are so many things going on.

I dont remember if there was reflection when I ran the game but everything else is there. the reflection is quite useless since much of the game I exporer the interiors of the island. I get 95% the details you guys do and great performance so I am not complaining