what a drag...the answer is up there...
Develop a game or a cg animation is a very long and complex process, and a lot of things concur in a good result: kind of meshes and number of triangles, texture quality, physics, lights and environment complexity, scripts accuracy, hardware and software compatibility...and so on.
Then everything have to be optimized for a good flow and incredible realtime rendering fps in our always different computers: a real mess.
Compare a game isn't relevant but ideally a good way to determinate the accuracy of a complex cg work.
I think that we have to respect and pay developers' work as they have to respect and pay our well-founded criticism...
over and out

Comparisons are valid, as long as the scale is similar.

Sure, if CoD was properly optimized they wouldn't be redoing their graphics engine (and it's a good thing they are), but don't expect a game that tracks 300-500 parameters for your aircraft alone (damageable components and the CEM module) over a huge map (map is loaded in segments, but object positional data is tracked for all segments and not just the one the player is in) to run at the same visual quality and maintain similar frame rates to a shooter that uses a few square kms of terrain at best.

I think it was Bliss who said that the mission running on the Syndicate server has about 15000 objects and 5000 of those are AA guns (which come with extra processing load, they have to take aim, fire and can cause extra effects on aircraft). The map is loaded in grids of 10x10km or so according to Luthier, but the state and position of all those objects is tracked all the time regardless of grid.

And before someone says that a lot of it is just the server crunching the numbers and passing the data on to the clients, it's completely doable to have missions with a similar load run in single player mode as well. There's a guy over on the simHQ forums who was building a map template. He has populated both sides of the channel except for London with anything you can think of (road blocks, static convoys, flak, pubs, the whole lot).

His stated aim is to have it so that wherever you fly you'll either find something of interest to look at in terms of immersion, something to shoot at or something that shoots at you (in other words, there's flak guns of all calibers covering almost the entire coast on both sides of the channel).

When asked about how it performs, he said that apart from the increased loading times, once in the mission he can fly with identical performance to someone who flies on an empty map. That's not a small feat to achieve and i think i don't even have to point out how important it is for the future when we'll be having online wars and dynamic campaigns.


On the other hand, if Crysis2 is anything like the first one it probably has less than a couple thousand items to track at any one time and i'm being way generous here, most probably it uses either a "bubble around the player" method, a set of predetermined spawn points for hostiles or a combination of the two to populate its map.

I'm not dissing it, i'm just stating the obvious: the scales are different, so the load on the PC increases appropriately.

Either way you look at it, CloD is not the most amazing and complex game ever written. BTW, I used A-10 as well as an example (a fairer comparison) which is far more complex and far more realistic and far nicer graphics than CloD. CloD is not that amazing, that it should need the fastest computer money can buy to run it on full. It could be the best WW2 sim ever if it gets fixed. Everyone knows its unfinished and it should run better. The fact that people can run every other more technically challenging sims/games full out and not this one is a HUGE red flag. Sorry the truth is not pretty sometimes, but if it gets fixed, it might be very pretty.

280.26 WHQL NVIDIA Drivers

Yes, you can get SLI to work, but any other option in the CP does nothing.

That's interesting, because thought I read that devs admit they broke SLI support in the last patch.

If you read carefully, what spiritdmp said was you can get SLI to work, but it doesn't work. hahaha

Yes CoD seems to have performance dependent more on the GPU than CPU, but it shouldn't be forgotten that Crysis is just another dumb FPS, while CoD is a sim requiring far more complex interactions between a more highly-loaded CPU and GPU etc.

Yes SLI definitely works with 280.26 drivers
BUT...
SLI in AFR1= 59-60fps and constant stutters
SLI disabled =45fps when low enough to see grass, 59-60 fps the rest of the time.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/846/codsli.jpg

This is strange ...
I just disabled SLI in Nvidia control panel and ran the last quick mission.
It ran like dog shit. 35fps with micro stutter flying low over the ground.

Enabled SLI in CP ...BUT left the launcher 3d options SLI rendering mode set on "Nvidia recommended"
Ran the same mission and it ran perfectly 45-60 fps no stutter.
The 1 card was 100% and 2 card was 10% but both cards have core, shader clocks and memory graphing high.
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/8162/clodwtf.jpg
For some reason it runs better with SLI generically turned on but then "launcher" set to Nvidia recommended.