One would think that there being a pc team for the game they'd make it dx11 from the start... they shouldn't need to change anything. I personaly don't even care bout dx11. I just can't stand how much of a console port this is.


Seriously anyone who knows anything about programming knows how retarded this statement is. 94.4% (+ the consoles) of the gaming population can't run DX11. Therefore making sure 100% (Well technically 91.X%, since there are still a chunk of people on DX8 and lower) of the gaming population can run the game, then adding support for the minority makes more sense then doing it the other way around. Not to mention it's easier to upgrade then downgrade.

Well Bainshie hit the nail right on the head. That's precisely what the situation is and those who don't see it that way either don't want (willing ignorance) or simply don't get it (stupidity). I mean I only have a Dx10 card (GTX280) and almost all of us would see no benefit. I wouldn't mind having dx10 enabled, but really it doesn't bother me much.


all the features in dx10 are in dx11 and any game that runs dx11 your card will run as dx10. That's why you see most games jump from dx9 to dx11. That's why udk jumped from dx9 to dx11 as well

Cevat Yerli is a liar. I wouldn't cite any of his quotes for fact.

And things change. Somewhere along the line they probably decided to cut it. It's been two years.

Hrm, maybe you're just a plain douche bag who can't take a joke. *sigh*

My bad. I thought a joke was supposed to be funny.....

it would be if you had any sense of humour , your life must be a sad one T_T .
Which, Being Canadian, You have experience of

all the features in dx10 are in dx11 and any game that runs dx11 your card will run as dx10. That's why you see most games jump from dx9 to dx11. That's why udk jumped from dx9 to dx11 as well

I'm 100% aware of this. I also edited my message further since you quoted me so perhaps you received the wrong impression. If you notice my point is that it didn't care i don't have the dx10/11 even though it would be nice, I actually was surprised how little i ended up caring in the end. I've been doing this PC stuff since 1993 (used them prior to that but that's when I got into it when Doom first came out) so I dunno, I just don't really mind as much anymore. I like to just enjoy a good game and damn does it still look really good in dx9 so it didn't bother me at all.

Cevat Yerli is a liar. I wouldn't cite any of his quotes for fact.

And things change. Somewhere along the line they probably decided to cut it. It's been two years.


I would not go that far...

I think dx11 is in the works and will be released this summer along with sandbox 3 or cryengine3 sdk

Crytek just does not want to tell you its gonna take that long . because they had to make a version of cryengine 3 that supports dx11

because they had to make a version of cryengine 3 that supports dx11
No, they didn't. Cryengine 3 already supports DX9 and DX11. The problem is that Crysis 2 wasn't being developed with DX11 fully in mind, only DX9. I wonder why...

I was referring to DX11 at launch. It is obvious that it was intended for a very early release, due to all the hype from both Crytek and Nvidia. It is almost certain that DX11 will be released before the end of Summer. It SHOULD have shipped with the game, though.

My god so many stupid people on these forums.

There is no hidden secret. Crytek said that Crysis 2 and the engine will support DX11 eventually in a later patch, that's basically confirmed (+ the fact that the leaked beta had work in progress DX11 stuff in it). They've never stated that they never mentioned anything about DX11, just that there is no real official statement (Aside from the coming in a patch thing) so all the BS that surrounds stupid people mentioning it is mostly speculation.

People seem to think that changing to DX11 is as simple as changing the version number and pressing the 'make everything look better' button. It isn't. To take true advantage of the upgrade you need to write a whole bunch of code, this takes time, and takes far longer then the mere 2+ weeks they've had so far.

Why wasn't DX11 on release you ask. Because from a financial and time management sense, it isn't worth it. Not because PC gaming isn't worth it, but because the amount of people that can even open a DX11 game is 5.6% of you. That's it. Most of the people complaining think that somehow adding DX11 support will change their DX9/10 cards and make the game look better and are jumping on the bandwagon of stupid. Newsflash: For most people DX11 will do nothing, and in the short term, working on it is a waste of time (Sandbox 3, SDK and bug fixes are FAAAAR more important and will effect 100% of the playerbase).


+2000 I'm ok with that, too many people who can be DX11 card, and yes it takes time for DX11 rewrites map

ignore Borss......hez crytek's bich too busy giving them jobs

because they had to make a version of cryengine 3 that supports dx11
No, they didn't. Cryengine 3 already supports DX9 and DX11. The problem is that Crysis 2 wasn't being developed with DX11 fully in mind, only DX9. I wonder why...

I was referring to DX11 at launch. It is obvious that it was intended for a very early release, due to all the hype from both Crytek and Nvidia. It is almost certain that DX11 will be released before the end of Summer. It SHOULD have shipped with the game, though.



cryengine 3 does not support dx11. Go ahead and show me proof of that. You will not find a single video showing it run dx11. On the cryengine website know where on there does it show that it supports dx11. The reason why we are waiting for crysis 2 dx11 is because they had to implement the feature in cryengine version 3.3. current version is 3.2 which does not support dx11. You can't put dx11 features in a game if your tools are not equipped to do so.

So please show me where cryengine 3 supports dx11.

My god so many stupid people on these forums.

There is no hidden secret. Crytek said that Crysis 2 and the engine will support DX11 eventually in a later patch, that's basically confirmed (+ the fact that the leaked beta had work in progress DX11 stuff in it). They've never stated that they never mentioned anything about DX11, just that there is no real official statement (Aside from the coming in a patch thing) so all the BS that surrounds stupid people mentioning it is mostly speculation.

People seem to think that changing to DX11 is as simple as changing the version number and pressing the 'make everything look better' button. It isn't. To take true advantage of the upgrade you need to write a whole bunch of code, this takes time, and takes far longer then the mere 2+ weeks they've had so far.

Why wasn't DX11 on release you ask. Because from a financial and time management sense, it isn't worth it. Not because PC gaming isn't worth it, but because the amount of people that can even open a DX11 game is 5.6% of you. That's it. Most of the people complaining think that somehow adding DX11 support will change their DX9/10 cards and make the game look better and are jumping on the bandwagon of stupid. Newsflash: For most people DX11 will do nothing, and in the short term, working on it is a waste of time (Sandbox 3, SDK and bug fixes are FAAAAR more important and will effect 100% of the playerbase).


this is the real reason why there is no crysis 2 dx11

why dx11 won't show up til summer and why crytek is quiet
Post 31/03/11

I am actually going to say that both crytek and EA or at fault but I believe the lionshare of the blame is on crytek thou.

If you remember last year after E3 crysis 2 was originally slated for a fall launch. it was going to be launched in september or october but then got delayed til March of 2011. This means crytek told EA they could not get this out the door on time and EA made some adjustments to there release schedule to accomodate Crytek.

Now understand EA is a publicly held company which means ownership is in the hands of shareholders and the perception of how well or how bad the company is doing is usually perceived by perception. For example poor reviews of Medal of Honor, caused the stock price of EA to drop dramatically because of the poor reviews. Although I could understand why they released Medal of Honor when they did and in the state that it was in was because the market for that game was rapidly closing. There is no way that a polished medal of honor could have even began to compete with BF3 and EA knew what it had with BF3. That's why that game got released in october in the state that its currently in. You also have to take into account that the big wigs at EA are under pressure from the market and shareholders in regards to competing with activision.

My belief is that originally crysis 2 was not going to be a dx11 game at all and it was just going to get released last fall. But then Nvidia steps in with 2 million dollars with a deal regarding this game and I believe this was the real reason for the delay in the first place. EA/Crytek took Nvidia's 2 mil and said we can implement dx11 on the pc side and also optimize the game for FXAA. EA then asked crytek when could you get this done and they said in the spring. EA said can u do it before the end of the 2nd quarter and Crytek said yes. EA said good cause we need this out by then to please our shareholders and the market.

Now here is where the problem starts. Cryengine 3 does not support direct x11 currently. So if you are going to build a game with dx11 your going to have to have a tool that can implement those features. So that means they have to build a dx11 capable version of cryengine 3 before they could implement dx11 features in crysis 2.

So crytek made them a dx11 version of cryengine 3 but by the time they got it working or at least got it functional enough that they could begin converting crysis 2 console version to dx11 pc version, time was rapidly running out .(note: if you look on crytek's mycryengine website you will find no where on that site that says cryengine 3 supports dx11. )

Crytek knew they would not have a dx11 version in time so they said it would be patched in later. But once you have an engine that would enable those features your going to have to have assets to place in the game to take advantage of those features. And I am willing to bet that's what they are doing now or they could have the assets but lack the tool to take advantage of them and that would probably explain Tiago Sousa's tweet the other day.

So I place a lot of the blame on crytek because they built a game around dx9, but told Nvidia that they could deliver on dx11 on release date which was false.

This also explains why there is no sandbox editor because the dx11 one can only be found with crytek and it would not make since to release a dx11 tool with a game that was built in dx9. Nor would it make since to release a dx9 tool for a game that suppose to be dx11.

The whole point of the secrecy probably has to do more with cryengine 3 then anything else. Cryengine 3's selling point has been that you could build all your versions of the game simultaenously , but from what is taking place here , makes that selling point questionable

Now for a timeline

E3 2010 crysis 2 was slated for a fall christmas launch in 2010

then in the beginning of august 2010 we find crysis delayed til first quarter 2011

as shown here : http://www.1up.com/news/crysis-2-delayed-2011-financial

but then we find out a month later as why the delay has occurred. It has to do with nvidia and there 2 million dollars. you can see more info on this here

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graph ... on-crysis/

and then 2 months later we get an article on crysis 2 regarding the game being redesigned for the gtx580. But we know now that it really was for the the gtx590. You can read that here

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graph ... ct-delays/

this is why you won't see crysis 2 dx11 til probably summer. The thing is thou will anyone care by then, because I bet the BF3 beta will be active by the time dx11 crysis 2 see's the light of day

Obviously this game was supposed to be DX11 at release time.

About 6 months ago wikipedia had a list of current and upcoming DX11 games.

Crysis2 was posted on Wikipedia as being DX11 and the release date was posted as 1st Quarter 2011.

Wikipedia has since removed Crysis2 from their DX11 games list.


Charles

cryengine 3 does not support dx11. Go ahead and show me proof of that. You will not find a single video showing it run dx11. On the cryengine website know where on there does it show that it supports dx11. The reason why we are waiting for crysis 2 dx11 is because they had to implement the feature in cryengine version 3.3. current version is 3.2 which does not support dx11. You can't put dx11 features in a game if your tools are not equipped to do so.

So please show me where cryengine 3 supports dx11.


just for you in the sandbox version hacked, there are 2 or 3 command for only DX11, "r_SSGI", "r_shadowgenGS" and another, so yes the CryEngine 3 supports DX11 but it is not still active, so the evidence I just given you the

here is your proof my dear sir

cryengine 3 does not support dx11. Go ahead and show me proof of that. You will not find a single video showing it run dx11. On the cryengine website know where on there does it show that it supports dx11. The reason why we are waiting for crysis 2 dx11 is because they had to implement the feature in cryengine version 3.3. current version is 3.2 which does not support dx11. You can't put dx11 features in a game if your tools are not equipped to do so.

So please show me where cryengine 3 supports dx11.


just for you in the sandbox version hacked, there are 2 or 3 command for only DX11, "r_SSGI", "r_shadowgenGS" and another, so yes the CryEngine 3 supports DX11 but it is not still active, so the evidence I just given you the

here is your proof my dear sir

yes its in there but it does not work which is what you just said so how does that prove me wrong. Doesn't dx11 have to function in the engine before you put it in the game. you just lost some IQ points for responding




education today or lack thereof

"sheeesh "

just for you in the sandbox version hacked, there are 2 or 3 single control for the DX11, "r_SSGI", "r_shadowgenGS" and another, so yes the CryEngine 3 supports DX11 but it is not still active, so the evidence I just given you the

here is your proof my dear sir

just for you in the sandbox version hacked, there are 2 or 3 single control for the DX11, "r_SSGI", "r_shadowgenGS" and another, so yes the CryEngine 3 supports DX11 but it is not still active, so the evidence I just given you the

here is your proof my dear sir


you posted this twice and you know it does not work moron because i have seen what sandbox editor 3 can do and it has no dx11 functionality. Saying that the leaked version has bits of code that say dx11 does not mean jack unless you can actually do somethings in the engine that implement those dx11 features.

you just lost 10 more points off your IQ...

yes its in there but it does not work which is what you just said so how does that prove me wrong. Doesn't dx11 have to function in the engine before you put it in the game. you just lost some IQ points for responding

education today or lack thereof

"sheeesh "


no you could not read sir, scaffold returned to school, I said there avai of command but what was not active

yes its in there but it does not work which is what you just said so how does that prove me wrong. Doesn't dx11 have to function in the engine before you put it in the game. you just lost some IQ points for responding

education today or lack thereof

"sheeesh "


no you could not read sir, scaffold returned to school, I said there avai of command but what was not active


all base are belong to us!!!!

more IQ points gone

One would think that there being a pc team for the game they'd make it dx11 from the start... they shouldn't need to change anything. I personaly don't even care bout dx11. I just can't stand how much of a console port this is.


Seriously anyone who knows anything about programming knows how retarded this statement is. 94.4% (+ the consoles) of the gaming population can't run DX11. Therefore making sure 100% (Well technically 91.X%, since there are still a chunk of people on DX8 and lower) of the gaming population can run the game, then adding support for the minority makes more sense then doing it the other way around. Not to mention it's easier to upgrade then downgrade.


Do you have any stats to back up these claims? I'm not trying to shoot you down here, i would just like to know so as to better educate myself on the subject. That said...

Ok i see where you are coming from. But lets rewind the calender back to 2005 when we got our first glimpse of DX10. At the time DX9 was still the hot-tiks and majority of the user-base was still running DX8 cards. Crytek had shown us a game that was intended to take full advantage of the then new API. Fast forward to years to 2007 when the best Graphics card available was the 8800 ultra, which if you recall was the top dog of the FIRST gen of directx10 hardware. People such as myself and others who had more money than i invested into tri-sli rigs. I remember dropping 600 dollars for a 8800GTX with my brand spanking new QX6700. Tri-SLI and regular SLI proved USELESS for running the game. Consumer hardware and drivers at the time were simply incapable of running the game at high resolutions with eye candy maxed out. At the time most people still had DX8 and DX9 cards, In fact that was the final generation of DX9 cards we would see. Add onto that the fact that DX10 was available exclusively on windows Vista while the rest of the world was running XP. With all these taken into consideration DX10 games only made up the fringe of the fringe in 2007.


Now if Crytek and EA were concerned that only a small percentage of users were going to be running hardware and software even capable of rendering the most rudimentary of DX10 based graphics why didn't they focus all their resources on DirectX8 and 9 development?

By default if EA was concerned about wasting their money on the PC market and by extension the small userbase that was even capable of purchasing a DX10 card and vista then they would have pulled the same stunt they are pulling now.

So what did we get in 2007?

We got a game that was MONSTOROUSLY taxing on the contemporary generations highest end hardware and configurations. We got a game that spent two years in development utilizing an API that only people running DX10 hardware and Vista could use. We got a game that spent two years in development that no computer at the time was capable of running on max settings. On top of that we also had 64bit support out of the box.


So what do we have now?

We have a game that has been in development for two years running on a two generations old API that has had it's textures and models optimized for hardware that isn't even half as powerful as this generations. The game is running exclusively on 32bit.DX11 development began in november. Now compare that to the DX10 development for the first crysis which had came into being two years prior.

Cryengine3 by default supports DX11. Crysis 2 is the flagship title of Cryengine3 and as such should show it.



I'm sorry but Crysis 2, at the very least, should have been DX10 by default for PC's. DX11 support should have been included.


Now we could go on and on about how what we did in DX10 we also could have done with DX9 but then we would just be purely speculating.


So my question for you is this.


Why the hell even claim that a game is going to be cutting edge if it is fiscally irresponsible to develop for new API's and hardware? Wouldn't that be false advertising? Why bother doing it the first time when the marketshare was significantly smaller? DX11 is available on vista and 7 and no doubt will be available on windows 8. DX10 cards are capable of using some of DX11's features and make up a significantly larger portion than when they were first released. For those facts alone DX11 is worth developing for and is one of the lures for programmers and developers.

Simply put: Why in the hell even say you are going to bother when it results in gaining a sliver of the market?

The simple answer is that maybe they were hoping to drive up sales of DX11 cards for one of their partners like they did when DX10 came out.


Forgive me if any of this is incoherent, it is late where i am at the time i post this. If you need me to clarify anything i will gladly elaborate.

People want an uplift to the PC graphics which have fallen below expectations.

Whether thats through DirectX 11, 64bit executable, higher poly models, greater environmental effects or improved assets (like textures) or a combination of the above isn't that important.

1. Remove pirates, hackers and cheats from MP
2. Resolve major game bugs
3. Uplift PC graphics
4. Release some flavour of editor or SDK which can modify Crysis2

Crytek is visibly attempting 1 & 2, saying sod all on 3 atm and some vague old news on 4.

40/60 communication at best
10/90 in tangible results/updates

result = pretty poor effort by any reasonable measure

Come on,... Cry-tom/adem/baby is not gonne reply on this and you know.
The dont even reply on the thousands of complaints that have been filled on the forum. Besides overall-sketchy-way to late one.
like "Oke we know, we wil work on it"... 2 weeks later nothing has changed. Does 2 are just here to close threads and gief us the illusion that there is a support group from crytek, nothing els. Same as there support its "nothing"

kk Firstly here's my stats, the steam hardware survay. You can assume it's a good representation of the gaming player base due to only people who play games need to install steam:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

As you can see only 5.6% actually have the required hardware to run the DX11 changes.

The thing is yes Crysis 1 did push the boundries of graphical hardware. However that gathered it a lot of crtitic, as they kinda forgot to make a actual game and seemed to focus more on the tech demo side of things. It proves that overall crytek learnt their lesson: Build games people can actually play now, not in 10 years. DX10 isn't THAT much better then DX9, (unlike DX11) so it makes more sense to build a base on DX9 (Since you can use that for consoles as well) then do a upgrade to DX11, rather then creating 3 versions of the engine (DX9, DX10, and DX11).

People seem to think that somehow because Crytek learnt their lesson and made a actually playable game, that's a bad thing.

And the engine doesn't support DX11. The leaked beta shows they are working on it, but it's in a work in progress.

I'm not too concerned over DX11, don't get me wrong I just purchased a new PC so I want to play games at there maxiumum potential - but I'd rather bugs were ironed out before looking into adding features.

Though, if they said it was going to be there from the start ( Which it sure looks that way ) and it's now missing seems like a bad business/customer relationship to me : /

Reading the dumb threads on this forum makes me sad.

Then get off the forums and go enjoy your most favoritest game ever.

Sorry... I finished System Shock 2 years ago.

@ Bainshie
It's not a good representation. People who play crappy games like Football Manager 2011 also install steam and that are people that just have some standard PC. So there are a lot of people using steam that are not real gamers.

Besides that Crysis 1 was a game with great graphics. Because of that a fan-base exist around it. So people that are interested in Crysis 2 are more likely to have a higher interest in graphics and so a system for higher graphics. I did see some poll on this forum asking what people had. Just under 75% had DX11. A few had DX 9 and the rest had DX 10 or hardware that supported a higher version then DX9 but worked with XP.