 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> The fact of the matter is, if you were on an island surrounded by highly
> trained mercinaries and you were armed only with a pistol, you wouldn't
> last five seconds.
I read where they found the german soldier who was the last soldier on
Normandy Beach during the invasion. They figured out that between the
machine guns and the cement bunkers, he managed to kill about 3000
invaders all by himself after all the other germans were dead.
*That* is realistic. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:48a940e5$1@news.povray.org...
>>> After another hour of replaying the same few seconds of game, I got
>>> sufficiently lucky with my grenades to kill everybody. But I now have,
>>> like, 2% health left.
>>>
>>> I sneak into a room and kill Doyal. Fricken' FINALLY the game ends!! >_<
>>
>> You know you can just run past them all and then kill Doyal? Haha...
>> :)
>
> Oh, SURE, because 15 guys with rocket launchers might somehow all
> simultaneously miss me. :-P
Oh, SURE, they can shoot your ass off with RL's, no problem. But you
didn't arrive there with enough ammo to do what I said, so you would have no
chance really. What you do do is: with your sniper rifle, take out the guy,
(or there might be two of them, can't remember), to the right on the
platform, and the guy to the left of you on that small platform, (near the
mountainside). This will alert all the others because you've fired your
sniper rifle. The rest all bundle together behind those tanks, and by then,
you have reached the steps before turning the corner. You then take a deep
breath and lob a grenade over the top of the tanks, they immediately start
firing their RL's killing eachother, and to make things worse for them, you
do a runner through them all. Seriously, I've done it, but that's the harder
way, it's easier to do just by running through them.
>
>>> I BEAT FARCRY, BITCHES!!!
>>
>> LoL! Enjoyable game eh? :o)
>
> It's certainly a lot different to, say HalfLife.
>
> In HalfLife, you methodically worth through a room at a time, killing
> everything inside. (And almost everything killable makes enough racket
> that you can tell when you're alone or not.)
>
> In FarCry, there generally aren't any "rooms". And even if there are,
> people tend to wander around and follow you. The number of times I've gone
> somewhere, killed everything, started looking around for ammo and stuff
> and some guy has crept up from somewhere and frightened the living
> daylights out of me!
Yeah, it has its scary moments, that's true.
>
> Similarly, in many places in FarCry, killing *everything* would be
> absurdly difficult, and your best bet is actually to sneak past without
> firing a shot.
Yep, that's what it's all about. I played stealthily nearly all of the
time and I've had games where there are no enemies left whatsoever. I felt
all alone, just like you Andrew. ;)
>
> For example, the first time I played it, the second island with the radio
> antenna was really hard. There's snipers and guys with rocket launchers
> and all the rest of it. But then I reinstalled Windoze, and had to play
> again from the beginning. This time, I swam underwater to the *back* of
> the island, killed the three people guarding that end, and blew up the
> radio tower. The snipers and rocket boys never even took a shot at me. ;-)
Yes, I did that trick too, but with me, I went back and took 'em out!
<eg>
>
> There seems to be quite a few points in the game where you can take...
> obscure routes to improve your odds significantly.
Yes, FC was good for this with very unlinear game-play, (apart from
inside buildings, that is). Did you climb mountains? When I first played it,
I didn't think you could, but if you find the right place, you can. ;)
>
> How old is this game BTW? The foliage rendering is quite impressive, but
> many other things about the game look a little low-tech. (E.g., character
> movements, the cutscenes, etc.)
Four years old now, I think. 3d gaming has moved a notch up since
though.
>
> BTW... sticky ladders, much?!
Wuh... ? O-O
>
>> Now play FarCry 2. Coming your way soon. It's supposed to be superb and
>> made with the new Dunia engine.
>
> Uh... If it's a new game, then I doubt that a puny little GeForce 7900GT
> is sufficiently powerful to run it.
PLEASE SWAP ME YOUR 7900GT FOR MY 6600GT!! Heh... ;)
I don't know why you keep moaning about this. I'm playing Crysis on mine
with fairly good settings. Mostly medium, some low, and some high. I get
around 10 to 18 fps which is 'playable'. Of, course, when I get some 'heavy'
action, it will slow down even further, but it won't lock up, and I still
continue.
You know before playing a game that you can disable all of the services
running in the background apart fom MS services? I don't normally do this,
but when I have, I gain about 3-5 fps across the board.
~Steve~
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh, SURE, because 15 guys with rocket launchers might somehow all
>> simultaneously miss me. :-P
>
> Oh, SURE, they can shoot your ass off with RL's, no problem. But you
> didn't arrive there with enough ammo to do what I said, so you would have no
> chance really. What you do do is: with your sniper rifle, take out the guy,
> (or there might be two of them, can't remember), to the right on the
> platform, and the guy to the left of you on that small platform, (near the
> mountainside). This will alert all the others because you've fired your
> sniper rifle. The rest all bundle together behind those tanks, and by then,
> you have reached the steps before turning the corner. You then take a deep
> breath and lob a grenade over the top of the tanks, they immediately start
> firing their RL's killing eachother, and to make things worse for them, you
> do a runner through them all. Seriously, I've done it, but that's the harder
> way, it's easier to do just by running through them.
I couldn't *see* any of them until I rounded the corner. And then it's
far too late. In the end, my winning strategy (I use the term "winning"
very loosely) was to hurl grenades at random until most of them were dead...
>> For example, the first time I played it, the second island with the radio
>> antenna was really hard. There's snipers and guys with rocket launchers
>> and all the rest of it. But then I reinstalled Windoze, and had to play
>> again from the beginning. This time, I swam underwater to the *back* of
>> the island, killed the three people guarding that end, and blew up the
>> radio tower. The snipers and rocket boys never even took a shot at me. ;-)
>
> Yes, I did that trick too, but with me, I went back and took 'em out!
> <eg>
o_O
You scary man...
>> There seems to be quite a few points in the game where you can take...
>> obscure routes to improve your odds significantly.
>
> Yes, FC was good for this with very unlinear game-play, (apart from
> inside buildings, that is). Did you climb mountains? When I first played it,
> I didn't think you could, but if you find the right place, you can. ;)
It's kind of interesting how the game tends to strongly hint to you that
you should do one thing, when actually that's the "wrong" thing to do.
Like on River, where there are spare boats everywhere. Just hop in one
and watch yourself die repeatedly! :-P
HalfLife likes to use reverse psychology, but generally if there's a
weapon or a vehicle, you need to use it or you'll fail horribly. FarCry
isn't like that...
>> How old is this game BTW? The foliage rendering is quite impressive, but
>> many other things about the game look a little low-tech. (E.g., character
>> movements, the cutscenes, etc.)
>
> Four years old now, I think. 3d gaming has moved a notch up since
> though.
Really? I thought it was older than that... Oh well!
>> BTW... sticky ladders, much?!
>
> Wuh... ? O-O
That time-honoured tradition that once you're on a ladder, it's almost
impossible to get off it. As if the ladder were physically "sticky".
It's very irritating.
You know the end of Boat where you have to climb out the top? Can you
****ing climb back in again? NO! Even getting out of the top is a
struggle. The physics is so glitchy...
>> Uh... If it's a new game, then I doubt that a puny little GeForce 7900GT
>> is sufficiently powerful to run it.
>
> PLEASE SWAP ME YOUR 7900GT FOR MY 6600GT!! Heh... ;)
Oh... my God... o_O
> I don't know why you keep moaning about this. I'm playing Crysis on mine
> with fairly good settings. Mostly medium, some low, and some high. I get
> around 10 to 18 fps which is 'playable'. Of, course, when I get some 'heavy'
> action, it will slow down even further, but it won't lock up, and I still
> continue.
Wait - you're playing *Crysis*, the most insanely power-hungry computer
game in history, on a GeForce 6 series? 0_0
My God... you poor, poor human. x_x
> You know before playing a game that you can disable all of the services
> running in the background apart fom MS services? I don't normally do this,
> but when I have, I gain about 3-5 fps across the board.
Uh... that would kind of imply that the game is CPU-bound, which doesn't
sound right.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Uh... that would kind of imply that the game is CPU-bound, which doesn't
> sound right.
It really doesn't. Most services in Windows don't run most of the time,
unless you're actually using them. Why would BITS or clipbook or the
print spooler or the remote connection manager or anything like that be
taking any noticable amount of time, unless skipping over blocked tasks
in the scheduler was enough to cause problems? Even NTP only wakes up
once a minute.
You might have some pretty aggressive services running - antivirus or
something poorly written or some such?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48a9e0ac$1@news.povray.org...
>>> Oh, SURE, because 15 guys with rocket launchers might somehow all
>>> simultaneously miss me. :-P
>>
>> Oh, SURE, they can shoot your ass off with RL's, no problem. But you
>> didn't arrive there with enough ammo to do what I said, so you would have
>> no chance really. What you do do is: with your sniper rifle, take out the
>> guy, (or there might be two of them, can't remember), to the right on the
>> platform, and the guy to the left of you on that small platform, (near
>> the mountainside). This will alert all the others because you've fired
>> your sniper rifle. The rest all bundle together behind those tanks, and
>> by then, you have reached the steps before turning the corner. You then
>> take a deep breath and lob a grenade over the top of the tanks, they
>> immediately start firing their RL's killing eachother, and to make things
>> worse for them, you do a runner through them all. Seriously, I've done
>> it, but that's the harder way, it's easier to do just by running through
>> them.
>
> I couldn't *see* any of them until I rounded the corner. And then it's far
> too late. In the end, my winning strategy (I use the term "winning" very
> loosely) was to hurl grenades at random until most of them were dead...
LOL, well, I've done it that way too... :) You've got to have the ammo
though...
>
>>> For example, the first time I played it, the second island with the
>>> radio antenna was really hard. There's snipers and guys with rocket
>>> launchers and all the rest of it. But then I reinstalled Windoze, and
>>> had to play again from the beginning. This time, I swam underwater to
>>> the *back* of the island, killed the three people guarding that end, and
>>> blew up the radio tower. The snipers and rocket boys never even took a
>>> shot at me. ;-)
>>
>> Yes, I did that trick too, but with me, I went back and took 'em out!
>> <eg>
>
> o_O
>
> You scary man...
It was phun!! ;)
>
>>> There seems to be quite a few points in the game where you can take...
>>> obscure routes to improve your odds significantly.
>>
>> Yes, FC was good for this with very unlinear game-play, (apart from
>> inside buildings, that is). Did you climb mountains? When I first played
>> it, I didn't think you could, but if you find the right place, you can.
>> ;)
>
> It's kind of interesting how the game tends to strongly hint to you that
> you should do one thing, when actually that's the "wrong" thing to do.
> Like on River, where there are spare boats everywhere. Just hop in one and
> watch yourself die repeatedly! :-P
I've NEVER completed River by using boats. I died every time I tried.
I'm sure it is possible, if you're good enough to control them properly.
Heck, I got to the last grunts in a boat, and then they killed me!! Hmm...
If you do the stealth thing along the right-hand side of the river, you can
take out most of the RL and sniper grunts leaving room to get to your
destination. Hiding in the big waterfall helps too.
>
> HalfLife likes to use reverse psychology, but generally if there's a
> weapon or a vehicle, you need to use it or you'll fail horribly. FarCry
> isn't like that...
>
>>> How old is this game BTW? The foliage rendering is quite impressive, but
>>> many other things about the game look a little low-tech. (E.g.,
>>> character movements, the cutscenes, etc.)
>>
>> Four years old now, I think. 3d gaming has moved a notch up since
>> though.
>
> Really? I thought it was older than that... Oh well!
Just checked: released '04.
>
>>> BTW... sticky ladders, much?!
>>
>> Wuh... ? O-O
>
> That time-honoured tradition that once you're on a ladder, it's almost
> impossible to get off it. As if the ladder were physically "sticky". It's
> very irritating.
You mean: "to jump off the ladder as and when you want"? Yes, I get it
now. Unfortunately, that still happens in Crysis too. It's an animation when
you climb ladders so there's nothing you can do to change that. (Unless you
create a MOD that is!) ;)
>
> You know the end of Boat where you have to climb out the top? Can you
> ****ing climb back in again? NO! Even getting out of the top is a
> struggle. The physics is so glitchy...
I can't remember where this is. Are you sure it's at the end of 'Boat'?
For what it's worth, I don't think I had any problems going back through the
levels.
>
>>> Uh... If it's a new game, then I doubt that a puny little GeForce 7900GT
>>> is sufficiently powerful to run it.
>>
>> PLEASE SWAP ME YOUR 7900GT FOR MY 6600GT!! Heh... ;)
>
> Oh... my God... o_O
>
>> I don't know why you keep moaning about this. I'm playing Crysis on
>> mine with fairly good settings. Mostly medium, some low, and some high. I
>> get around 10 to 18 fps which is 'playable'. Of, course, when I get some
>> 'heavy' action, it will slow down even further, but it won't lock up, and
>> I still continue.
>
> Wait - you're playing *Crysis*, the most insanely power-hungry computer
> game in history, on a GeForce 6 series? 0_0
Yes, seriously. I've played it *many* times now on this two year old
6600GT. I can't stress enough that it 'PLAYS'. It plays well enough to enjoy
it without ripping your GC out and stamping on it. Graphics Cards are weird.
In the forums over at crymod.com, I've seen guys having trouble playing with
their 8800GTX's. Why? I have no idea. :o/
Most don't, but some have. Go figure. <shrug>
>
> My God... you poor, poor human. x_x
As I said: SWAP ME! ;)
>
>> You know before playing a game that you can disable all of the
>> services running in the background apart fom MS services? I don't
>> normally do this, but when I have, I gain about 3-5 fps across the board.
>
> Uh... that would kind of imply that the game is CPU-bound, which doesn't
> sound right.
No, it just clears some heavy memory for you as far as I understand it.
(I might be wrong). Just make sure your internet isn't active though if you
do it.
~Steve~
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> No, it just clears some heavy memory for you as far as I understand it.
Virtual memory, much? Maybe Windows' VM algorithm sucks, but I wouldn't
think it sucks that bad. And you'd need to have a crapload of services
running before the bookkeeping overhead started to take up noticable
memory, methinks. On my machine, all the services put together are 100
meg, which is about 4 times the size of explorer with no windows open.
Assuming that "mem usage" actually means "in physical memory" and I
don't have to subtract out the "vm size" to find the working set size.
Not exactly "heavy memory" either way, methinks. :-)
You should try it and tell us how many FPS it saves you, for real.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48aa1660@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> No, it just clears some heavy memory for you as far as I understand
>> it.
>
> Virtual memory, much? Maybe Windows' VM algorithm sucks, but I wouldn't
> think it sucks that bad. And you'd need to have a crapload of services
> running before the bookkeeping overhead started to take up noticable
> memory, methinks. On my machine, all the services put together are 100
> meg, which is about 4 times the size of explorer with no windows open.
> Assuming that "mem usage" actually means "in physical memory" and I
> don't have to subtract out the "vm size" to find the working set size.
> Not exactly "heavy memory" either way, methinks. :-)
Well, maybe not, but it does make a difference.
>
> You should try it and tell us how many FPS it saves you, for real.
Sure. See the attached. This is quite a heavy scene from my map in the
editor. Screen1_mem is with all services on. Screen2_mem is with only 9
non-essential services turned off. I more or less managed to get the shots
in the same position, but notice the difference. Now, when you're running
along a clear road, I can see that being a good 3 to 5 fps gain, (probably
more).
~Steve~
>
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'screen2_mem.jpg' (89 KB)
Download 'screen1_mem.jpg' (88 KB)
Preview of image 'screen2_mem.jpg'
Preview of image 'screen1_mem.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Well, maybe not, but it does make a difference.
That's weird. I have no idea why it would make that much of a
difference. I didn't think the Windows scheduler sucked that much. :-)
(It's not that I didn't believe you. It just wasn't clear to me from
your earlier posts whether this was a first-hand experience or something
you heard rumored somewhere. Actually, reading it again, it is clear
you said you personally experienced that. Sorry.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48aaeb70@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> Well, maybe not, but it does make a difference.
>
> That's weird. I have no idea why it would make that much of a difference.
> I didn't think the Windows scheduler sucked that much. :-)
Well, I didn't disable that. I left all windows services running and
disabled ZA, AVG email scanner, AVG Watchdog, Google update service,
Ad-Aware, Epson printer status, A-Squared free service, Office source engine
and nVidia driver service(???).
I guess you could also disable a lot of Windows services too, but you'd
have to be careful (or at least I would), because some rely on others to
work and I haven't got a clue as to what services rely on others.
>
> (It's not that I didn't believe you. It just wasn't clear to me from your
> earlier posts whether this was a first-hand experience or something you
> heard rumored somewhere. Actually, reading it again, it is clear you said
> you personally experienced that. Sorry.)
Dang man! Now you've just killed my trolling! ;) No need to apologise
Darren, I'm not the brightest spark in an engine when it comes to computers
that's for sure. But I continue to learn from you guys as best I can. :)
Here's something I learnt all by my very own self only an hour ago.
Today, I bought a 500Gb external hard drive. I shoved all of my FarCry files
(2 gigs)over to it, and all of my Crysis files (6 gigs) too. I then tested
my map ingame after trying to sort out the first savepoint in my level. It
*felt* even faster than it usually does! The savepoint didn't work, so I've
done something wrong, but when I figure what it is and test it again, I'll
get Fraps to show me the fps ingame. This is with all services on. Hmm, just
getting rid of 8 gigs helps game performance? I'm not so sure about that,
but it felt more 'fluid' if you like.
See, that's the kind of thing that puzzles me about computers. <scratches
rapidly balding head> Heh... ;)
~Steve~
>
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Well, I didn't disable that.
I meant the process scheduler, not the service called "scheduler". :-)
> I left all windows services running and
> disabled ZA, AVG email scanner, AVG Watchdog, Google update service,
> Ad-Aware, Epson printer status, A-Squared free service, Office source engine
> and nVidia driver service(???).
Oh, OK. Well, I guess the AV type stuff might be running more than you'd
expect, and I wouldn't be surprised of the nVidia driver services were
the problem. I almost always leave that sort of stuff turned off and
never have a problem. Lots of AV stuff is a performance suck.
> I guess you could also disable a lot of Windows services too, but you'd
> have to be careful (or at least I would), because some rely on others to
> work and I haven't got a clue as to what services rely on others.
Well, it's all listed, and turning it off tells you what else it'll
disable. Knowing what they're *for* is another question. And it won't
let you turn off the stuff you need to run windows at all.
> but it felt more 'fluid' if you like.
"Feelings" is what I was trying to avoid, especially when the game will
show you the actual measured results. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
