1.2 FarCry Patch (Fix for Nvidia cards!) is out!!

JBark said:
Try uninstalling both patches, then reinstalling the 1.2 patch. I've read a few post on various forums from people who had problems going from 1.1->1.2. Installing the 1.2 patch over a fresh 1.0 install seems to work the best.
Click to expand...

meh, isn't really worth it. I'll format in a week or two then do it.
 
rayg said:
im not getting the SM 3.0 Beta at the top of the screen. I have 9.0c installed (via SP2), i installed the 1.2 patch and changed my shortcut correctly (when farcry starts i go into console and it says that SM30 is enabled), and i added those lines to my nv4_disp.inf file and installed from there. Where could i have gone wrong?
Click to expand...

what drivers are you using. I am using the 61.71 drivers and I have sm30 beta on top of my screen.
 
heyyoem said:
Ok, sooo ATI owners shouldnt DL this patch then right?? :confused:
Click to expand...

^Pretty much. This is a pushed and paid for by Nvidia patch to try and start a new graphics trend again. I really dislike this shaddy kind of business between card makers and game companies.
 
I didn't uninstall far cry or patch 1.1

I didn't remove previous Nvidia drivers when I installed the modified .inf file

I still have my saved games from previous gaming sessions

I have installed 9.0c.

Installed the patch without problem; alot of the issues and concerns people had I wouldn't worry about. I installed the game from a DVD.

Check out this very nice thread at nvnews:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=32634
 
Sniper_Merc said:
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 3726, Recorded Time: 67.36s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 84.90s, Average FPS: 43.89
Min FPS: 36.10 at frame 857, Max FPS: 57.03 at frame 644
Average Tri/Sec: 8099537, Tri/Frame: 184559
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.77
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 85.54s, Average FPS: 43.56
Min FPS: 34.51 at frame 817, Max FPS: 57.03 at frame 644
Average Tri/Sec: 8063552, Tri/Frame: 185118
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.77
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 84.22s, Average FPS: 44.24
Min FPS: 34.51 at frame 817, Max FPS: 57.03 at frame 644
Average Tri/Sec: 8136038, Tri/Frame: 183910
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.77
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Slightly better than before 4-6 FPS on average and this time i did have the yellow text saying SM 3.0 Beta on it.
Click to expand...



And this is at 1600x1200 ? Have you tried at say, 1280x1024 to see any differences? I ask because I am at work and use an LCD at home, native 1280....I am jonesing to see if a lower res might see a bigger gaain?
 
im using the 61.76 from nvidia's site, and i edited the .inf file and put those lines in and installed. I guess I'll try reinstalling them again
 
TheRapture said:
And this is at 1600x1200 ? Have you tried at say, 1280x1024 to see any differences? I ask because I am at work and use an LCD at home, native 1280....I am jonesing to see if a lower res might see a bigger gaain?
Click to expand...

umm, also, keep in mind the differences aren't rote and universal..they'll vary from level to level depending on where the new code best can be utilized. Initially nvidia had reviewers test specific areas of levels to determine how much 3.0 could help in game. What I wish we saw was some HDR...gotta wait another patch! :(
 
Yes this patch is basically an nVidia only patch. Since ATi isn't paying the coder's salaries, they couldn't bother to make it functional for their cards.
 
heyyoem said:
Ok, sooo ATI owners shouldnt DL this patch then right?? :confused:
Click to expand...

thats what i wanted to know....

dont bother mate...are you having any actual issues in the game?

I figure mine aint broke...
 
Koz said:
Yes this patch is basically an nVidia only patch. Since ATi isn't paying the coder's salaries, they couldn't bother to make it functional for their cards.
Click to expand...
Not really. To even get to the SM3 path you have to add a command line parameter (-DEVMODE "r_sm30path 1"). The list of fixes in the readme file don't even have to do with SM3 rendering:

Current changes:

* Made the run speed about 15% faster
* Made sprint last 30% longer
* Adjusted damage to vehicles

(vehicles now survive longer in multiplayer and behave consistently between weapon damage types) Bullet damage can be disabled by “g_vehicleBulletDamage” cvar: 0 = no bullet damage (default), 1 = bullet damage; this works only in MP.
MP vehicles can get the same damage from every kind of bullet (no distinction between sniper rifle and the deagle), this value is set by ‘dmgBulletMP’ variable inside ‘DamageParams’ table of the vehicle.

-buggy, humvee and gunboat can be destroyed with one rocket.
-bigtruck can be destroyed with three rockets.

-buggy and gunboat can be destroyed with 100 bullets (if g_vehicleBulletDamage = 1)
-humvee can be destroyed with 150 bullets (if g_vehicleBulletDamage = 1)
-bigtruck can be destroyed with 500 bullets (if g_vehicleBulletDamage = 1)

-vehicle damage code cleaned and made more consistent.


* If punkbuster is not installed the "punkbuster enable" togglebox will not be disabled
* Fixed a number of serious issues with headshot detection
* Ported a number of sensitive routines into non SDK sources
* Fixed some issues with ladder animations appearing odd to other players
* Added quicksave support for single player (still in process)
* Fixed bug where players name tag didn’t show up
* Fixed bug where console would accept letters as variable states
* Fixed a number of ladder related issues
* Fixed error with warning message in connection dialogue
* Fixed a significant number of bugs relating to quicksave (~100 bugs)
* Fixed a connection dialogue error
* Fixed an incorrectly localized HUD message
* Fixed bug with server shutdown dialogue error
* Addressed a number of issues with the server list UI
* Fixed bug causing cancel button to stop working
* Server create sessions are now saved
* Fixed a bug causing game freezes when player joins and player rotates
* Fixed a rendering issue with Radeon 9600 graphics cards
* Fixed Punkbuster crash when switching from punkbuster online server to hosting LAN server
* Fixed issue with punkbuster icon not showing up in the server listing
* Fixed random crash relating to punkbuster server listing info
* Fixed issue with punkbuster refusing connection to a server that is destroyed and then re-hosted
* Fixed a number of crash problems related to punkbuster server creation with non-dedicated servers
* Fixed issue with punkbuster enabled in multiple server profiles
* Disabled e_vegetation_min_size in multiplayer (used as cheat)
* Added optimizations for character effects including invulnerability shader
* Added optimizations for scoreboard performance. Scoreboard no longer updates fields that have not changed
* Fixed issue where radar would not be drawn correctly with certain game type changes
* Fixed framerate issue when player touched assault ammo pickups
* Fixed issue with password protected servers not removing password after restart
* Fixed issue with spectators not being able to hear ambient sounds
* Fixed message printout for multiplayer statistics (was only working with log_verbosity 1, not it works with 0 (default) as well)
* Fixed listplayer on the client (was only working on the server)
* Changed multiplayer scoreboard system for less bandwidth and easier extendibility
* Fixed bug in scoreboard that reported ping incorrectly by a factor of 2. Pings now appear correctly (half the old values). Note: ping is still the same, the output value was inaccurate)
* Fixed check in server/client version check (now you cannot connect to servers with old network code)
* Fixed bug in submitted Punkbuster ID causing random CD Key hash to be generated. Global ID unique to CD keys is now parsed correctly.
* Added MultiplayerUtils:OnChatMessage a script function which is called on the server for every chat message (to enable saving out chats)
* Made several changes to improve network packet scheduling
* Separated multiplayer and single player weapon code better functionality with mod developers and support for changes to MP balance without affecting single player.
* Made a number of changes to multiplayer weapon parameters, outlined below:

All weapons – Increase accuracy while standing still by 25%
Made the medic packs give 50% more health for the engineer class
Reduced rocket launcher clip to 1, no change to lethality.
Increased MP5 damage by 30% with full auto, 50% increase with semi-automatic
Adjusted AG36 damage to head and torso.
Reduced AG36 grenade radius.
Increased OICW accuracy by 30% when zoomed.
Reduced OICW grenade clip to 3 with max carry of 3 in the gun and 3 in reserve
Increased Pancor damage slightly
Reduced P90 damage by 10% and reduced max range by 25%
Increased lethality of mounted weapons.

* Improved detection code for player name tags, fixed issue causing name tags not to appear if crosshair was on arms and legs
* Fixed collision detection on the dedicated server with different arm position because of different weapons. Hit detection is now more accurate.
* The record console variable was marked as protected because it opened up some cheat possibilities.
* Fixed a bug that sometimes caused players hit by a buggy not to credit the driver with a kill
* Fixed a number of issues with discrepancies between player cameras in 1st and 3rd person
* Fixed a crash relating to Rcon commands with dedicated server
* Fixed bug with FarCry MOD version number being incorrectly displayed as 1.0
* Reworked a number of installer issues
* Fixed a number of bugs relating to Linux dedicated server porting
* Fixed bug causing mercenary reinforcements to behave incorrectly

:rolleyes:

IOW, everyone should want the patch, especially for online play.
 
This patch fixes tons of shit, I actually read the rage3d forums and some people are having no problems, sounds like usererroritis maybe.
 
Why do WE have to do all this and not the deveopers? I mean this is a big selling point for nVIDIA, they are the ones who should be making this "easier"... :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Cannibal Corpse said:
Why do WE have to do all this and not the deveopers? I mean this is a big selling point for nVIDIA, they are the ones who should be making this "easier"... :mad: :mad: :mad:
Click to expand...

it's microsoft bro, dx9.0c hasn't been officially announced yet.
 
TheRapture said:
And this is at 1600x1200 ? Have you tried at say, 1280x1024 to see any differences? I ask because I am at work and use an LCD at home, native 1280....I am jonesing to see if a lower res might see a bigger gaain?
Click to expand...

Not noticeable differance in frame rates here at 1280x1024, hell they aren't any different than my 1600x1200 runs, hitting CPU limit here I think.

SM 2.0 1280x1024
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 3726, Recorded Time: 67.36s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 78.78s, Average FPS: 47.30
Min FPS: 34.06 at frame 866, Max FPS: 70.54 at frame 1955
Average Tri/Sec: 9201747, Tri/Frame: 194559
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.73
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 80.19s, Average FPS: 46.46
Min FPS: 33.48 at frame 844, Max FPS: 70.54 at frame 1955
Average Tri/Sec: 9061706, Tri/Frame: 195029
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.73
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 79.95s, Average FPS: 46.61
Min FPS: 33.48 at frame 844, Max FPS: 70.54 at frame 1955
Average Tri/Sec: 9003340, Tri/Frame: 193182
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.74
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

SM 3.0 1280x1024
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 3726, Recorded Time: 67.36s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 77.45s, Average FPS: 48.11
Min FPS: 34.37 at frame 827, Max FPS: 74.32 at frame 1910
Average Tri/Sec: 9068927, Tri/Frame: 188504
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.76
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 78.97s, Average FPS: 47.19
Min FPS: 33.59 at frame 848, Max FPS: 74.32 at frame 1910
Average Tri/Sec: 8920683, Tri/Frame: 189056
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.75
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 78.99s, Average FPS: 47.17
Min FPS: 33.59 at frame 848, Max FPS: 74.88 at frame 1890
Average Tri/Sec: 8910383, Tri/Frame: 188885
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.75
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 78.38s, Average FPS: 47.54
Min FPS: 33.59 at frame 848, Max FPS: 74.91 at frame 1906
Average Tri/Sec: 8958034, Tri/Frame: 188447
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.76
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
 
One thing I can say for sure, the 61.76 WHQL's suck for quality. Im seeing texture popping on sides of hills n such, I'll post up a couple pics of it.
 
Cannibal Corpse said:
Well, I am amazed why nVIDIA didn't include this support in their drivers.
Click to expand...

I take it u didnt read the post u quoted?

DX9.0c has not been officailly released/announced...

when it is I am sure Nvidia will release some drivers that have the SM3.0 bits enabled as standard...and I am sure that they will be WHQL certified.
 
creedAMD said:
Don't you love it when developers and graphics companies are in bed together?
Click to expand...

Not to pick on you specifically creed, but don't you think people jump to this conclusion way too much? I mean, who's to say the problems are a result of crytek being "in bed with nvidia". How do you know it isn't an ATI driver issue? Pretty much any example you can give of a developer being "in bed with" a graphics company and thus screwing over another graphics company could be explained in many ways other than them simply "being in bed together".
 
Syphon Filter said:
I take it u didnt read the post u quoted?

DX9.0c has not been officailly released/announced...

when it is I am sure Nvidia will release some drivers that have the SM3.0 bits enabled as standard...and I am sure that they will be WHQL certified.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing Nvidia's oem partners want WHQL certified drivers...and Microsoft won't certify them WHQL with them supporting features it doesn't officially support yet. But that's just a guess.
 
Don't you love it when developers and graphics companies are in bed together?
Click to expand...

Well, the thing that I don't understand is, WHY nVIDIA or CryTek don't make this easier. Then again, they don't want to make their "relationship" that obvious. :rolleyes:
 
Cannibal Corpse said:
Well, the thing that I don't understand is, WHY nVIDIA or CryTek don't make this easier. Then again, they don't want to make their "relationship" that obvious. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dude it's all microsoft gumming up the works. If anything Nvidia wants everyone to know they are "in bed with" Crytek, because it's a good thing that they are working very closely with developers, because that's how they get support for thier new features in the latest games.
 
Cannibal Corpse said:
Well, the thing that I don't understand is, WHY nVIDIA or CryTek don't make this easier. Then again, they don't want to make their "relationship" that obvious. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

what are you on about?

Its not an officially supported feature...wait till it is then you will get it all done for you...if you cant be arsed to edit a couple of lines of text then you'll just have to wait, bitchin about it aint gonna help
 
I know, I was just joking. ;)

Seriously though, do you see those "shiny" textures after applying the new patch and DX9c?
 
^eMpTy^ said:
Dude it's all microsoft gumming up the works. If anything Nvidia wants everyone to know they are "in bed with" Crytek, because it's a good thing that they are working very closely with developers, because that's how they get support for thier new features in the latest games.
Click to expand...

Until 1.3 comes out with 3dc support and makes the SM3.0 look like yesterdays news. Crytek has admitted they maxed the performance out of SM3.0 with this patch so time will tell.

I need these 6800 boys to post before and after screen shots showing all the new ENSANE graphics SM3.0 brings to the table. ;)
 
MrHappyGoLucky said:
Until 1.3 comes out with 3dc support and makes the SM3.0 look like yesterdays news. Crytek has admitted they maxed the performance out of SM3.0 with this patch so time will tell.

I need these 6800 boys to post before and after screen shots showing all the new ENSANE graphics SM3.0 brings to the table. ;)
Click to expand...

what makes you think that there are new graphics with this patch? I think HDR is going to be implemented in the 1.3 which screenshots have already surfaced showing, what are you getting at?
 
3DC is the new compression technology thats in the x800 cards right?

I am interested to see how that works out for them...i am looking to get a new card but i really cant decide which one which one to get...last time round it was really easy to decide as the 9800XT was THE best card on the market..no doubt....but this time its a lot tighter...
 
MrHappyGoLucky said:
Until 1.3 comes out with 3dc support and makes the SM3.0 look like yesterdays news. Crytek has admitted they maxed the performance out of SM3.0 with this patch so time will tell.

I need these 6800 boys to post before and after screen shots showing all the new ENSANE graphics SM3.0 brings to the table. ;)
Click to expand...

There are no new insane (note that insane is spelled with an "i") graphics, it's all about speed improvements, and there have been benchmarks showing those improvements on every major hardware website I know of. Granted they aren't earth shattering but they are present. At this point if you're posting on this board I assume you know this already.

As far as PS3.0 being yesterday's news, that's entirely possible, only time will tell. I'm as curious as the next guy to see what 3Dc will bring to the table.
 
TheRapture said:
Yeah I am seeing some of that too.....thinking of going back to my beloved 61.45's....
Click to expand...

I'm going back to the 61.72's they performed the best on my sys.
 
I really thought PS 3.0 is all about "enhancing" the quality of textures, and not improving the speed. This feature was emphasized by showcasing the screen-shots of PS 3.0 and 2.1 during 6800 launch.
 
how do i know SM3.0 is on? i did all the steps but it kinda looks the same, will it say something in the game?
 
Cannibal Corpse said:
I really thought PS 3.0 is all about "enhancing" the quality of textures, and not improving the speed. This feature was emphasized by showcasing the screen-shots of PS 3.0 and 2.1 during 6800 launch.
Click to expand...

That stuff during the 6800 launch was total bullshit. They were showing PS1.1 or 1.4 vs 3.0, not 2.0 vs 3.0. It was all hype. There are some other shots of a beta version using displacement mapping stuff that does provide some image quality improvements, but that stuff isn't in this patch.
 
OK, here are my settings, and my benchmall results...I am not satisfied, it seems something is amiss....my old 61.45 drivers avg'ed 49fps....

Far Cry 1.2, everything to HIGH, water to ULTRAHIGH. 2X FSAA, 4x AF, and Trilinear filtering.

In Nvidia control panel, settings to HIGH QUALITY. Using hacked 61.76 drivers for SM3.0 support. Card clocked to 350/1100. I am going to run it back to 400/1100 and retest using the same settings...




Map: Fort Demo: BenchemallDefaultDemo on 6800GT @350/1000

Custom config file: C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Crytek\Far Cry\system.cfg
640x480 not selected
800x600
run# 0: Average FPS: 45.57
run# 1: Average FPS: 45.85

1024x768
run# 0: Average FPS: 45.03
run# 1: Average FPS: 45.72

1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 40.98
run# 1: Average FPS: 44.98


OK, now with the card overclocked...no difference?????

Far Cry

Map: Fort Demo: BenchemallDefaultDemo on 6800GT @400/1100

Custom config file: C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Crytek\Far Cry\system.cfg
640x480 not selected
800x600
run# 0: Average FPS: 45.42
run# 1: Average FPS: 45.88

1024x768
run# 0: Average FPS: 41.42
run# 1: Average FPS: 45.73

1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 44.15
run# 1: Average FPS: 45.03
 
Cannibal Corpse said:
I really thought PS 3.0 is all about "enhancing" the quality of textures, and not improving the speed. This feature was emphasized by showcasing the screen-shots of PS 3.0 and 2.1 during 6800 launch.
Click to expand...

the screenshots shown at the 6800 launch were ps1.1/1.4 vs. ps2.0 or ps3.0 (and it doesnt really matter if it was 2.0 or 3.0 because they can both output the same image quality).

now, if you had known this before would you still think this whole sm3.0 farcry patch was such a big deal?

[edit]

looks like sniper_merc isn't the only one seeing very little or no improvement (therapture's benchmarks)
 
OK, I am back on the 61.45's...at stock clock speeds and the exact same settings I am getting slightly faster benches than using the 61.76's hacked....



Far Cry

Map: Fort Demo: BenchemallDefaultDemo

Custom config file: C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Crytek\Far Cry\system.cfg
640x480 not selected
800x600
run# 0: Average FPS: 46.71
run# 1: Average FPS: 47.70

1024x768
run# 0: Average FPS: 43.42
run# 1: Average FPS: 47.70

1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 46.30
run# 1: Average FPS: 46.46


and now overclocked to 400/1100.....worse?


Far Cry

Map: Fort Demo: BenchemallDefaultDemo

Custom config file: C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Crytek\Far Cry\system.cfg
640x480 not selected
800x600
run# 0: Average FPS: 46.46
run# 1: Average FPS: 44.90

1024x768
run# 0: Average FPS: 46.14
run# 1: Average FPS: 46.85

1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 45.44
run# 1: Average FPS: 45.86



i too am getting tired of trying to tweak...gonna go play a bit :D
 
Sniper_Merc said:
Here's what I was refering to about the 61.76's being shit

http://snipershide.free-universe.com/remote_pics/far_cry/6176_crap/FarCry 2004-07-21 15-23-40-10.jpg

It's a pretty obvious goof.

More shots of the same shit. http://snipershide.free-universe.com/remote_pics/far_cry/6176_crap/ :mad:
Click to expand...

That phenomenon is common in alot of drivers, thats what I was referring to a week ago in another thread, how the mountains/foliage 'draw in' late. I think there are a few sets of drivers where it is less of a problem. Obviously, it hasn't been addressed in the latest official release. I'll stand by my saying I think the 61.45's still have the best performance/compatibility/quality of the drivers I've tested so far.

Until I see some graphic improvements and native 3.0 support, I don't even care to install Far Cry anymore, I'm bored to tears with it and need something besides framerates to keep me interested.
 
im not getting the SM 3.0 Beta at the top of the screen. I have 9.0c installed (via SP2), i installed the 1.2 patch and changed my shortcut correctly (when farcry starts i go into console and it says that SM30 is enabled), and i added those lines to my nv4_disp.inf file and installed from there. Where could i have gone wrong?
Click to expand...

I have the same problem I do only have a FX5700 but I can't even get SM 2B!!! my drivers are 61.76 I've done the command line thing and even tried it in the game console still no notification of SM 3.0 at the top.

Only difference I see is that the patch states 9.0c version 1221 or later and my version that came with SP2 is 0904

Would appreciate any help with this one :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top