Crysis 2 a step backwards?

I think this pics says it all really.

Far Cry looks way better than that.

Stylistically? I'd say yes. Gameplay-wise? Kind of seems like that to me. Graphically, though? There's no way in hell Nvidia is letting them put it out looking the way it does in those screens. I guarantee it will look amazing.

yup farcry looks way better than that.... its still a good looking game today :P

Wow, I'm pretty dissapointed man.

Feels bad man.

Graphically? Then, judging by the vids and pics, yes, but I've been told that they're only playing the game on medium settings so that the console gamers won't be jealous.

I'm convinced that it will at least look stunning (on PC).

This game is not out yet.:P Also, I played Far Cry sometime ago maxed out and looks better than that screen.

Graphically I can't tell yet, but gameplay-wise in my opinion from the gameplay footage, yes.

thats a picture of the console version, taken from a compressed video of the alpha build

so yea

I dunno, the MP beta on the 360 looked pretty decent:

That's compared to Crysis 1 MP on High, though:

I would love to have this game but unfortunetly i need a computer from 2021 in order to play it.

I would love to have this game but unfortunetly i need a computer from 2021 in order to play it.

_CaptainHappy_

Supposedly it runs better than Crysis did. I remember them saying something about it running about twice as fast as Crysis with the same level of visual fidelity (that's obviously PR bull but the message is that it's supposed to have lower system requirements).

If people want to compare Far Cry, here's a few on my PC. To be honest, I like Crysis 2 better. It looks better than Far Cry, at least the higher quality images.

I think this pics says it all really.

mattuk69

Not a fair comparison! The Crysis screenshot is the one shown at one of the previous E3s, and till today, nobody can achieve that level of graphics fedelity. Try posting an actual screenshot rendered by a non-Crytek rendering pc instead.

first of all, cgi screen of crysis. even on enthusiast it doesnt look like that. secondly, crysis 2 has a different approach. yes, crysis looked amazing, but crysis 2 is going towards a more realistic look. thirdly, they (at least to my knowledge) havent released any pc screenshots/videos otherwise it would make the console versions look less appealing i guess. lastly, far cry looked a lot better than that lmao.yellosnolvr

You mean is doesn't look like this or this... I guess these videos are fake? And yes i know their modded.

[QUOTE="mattuk69"]

I think this pics says it all really.

jhcho2

Not a fair comparison! The Crysis screenshot is the one shown at one of the previous E3s, and till today, nobody can achieve that level of graphics fedelity. Try posting an actual screenshot rendered by a non-Crytek rendering pc instead.

This appease you? From the gdc06 map remake.

[QUOTE="mattuk69"]

I think this pics says it all really.

jhcho2

Not a fair comparison! The Crysis screenshot is the one shown at one of the previous E3s, and till today, nobody can achieve that level of graphics fedelity. Try posting an actual screenshot rendered by a non-Crytek rendering pc instead.

Pretty sure it's CGI. The foliage is just a bit too good (those big leaf plants can look kinda like that though), the explosion and the falling tree is also a bit too good and the forrest floor in Crysis just can't be saved.

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

[QUOTE="mattuk69"]

I think this pics says it all really.

Filthybastrd

Not a fair comparison! The Crysis screenshot is the one shown at one of the previous E3s, and till today, nobody can achieve that level of graphics fedelity. Try posting an actual screenshot rendered by a non-Crytek rendering pc instead.

Pretty sure it's CGI. The foliage is just a bit too good (those big leaf plants can look kinda like that though), the explosion and the falling tree is also a bit too good and the forrest floor in Crysis just can't be saved.

Not, CGI, old version of crysis before they downgraded it for the average computer user. We can surpass that quality with mods now though

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"]first of all, cgi screen of crysis. even on enthusiast it doesnt look like that. secondly, crysis 2 has a different approach. yes, crysis looked amazing, but crysis 2 is going towards a more realistic look. thirdly, they (at least to my knowledge) havent released any pc screenshots/videos otherwise it would make the console versions look less appealing i guess. lastly, far cry looked a lot better than that lmao.mattuk69

You mean is doesn't look like this or this... I guess these videos are fake? And yes i know their modded.

One is a custom map and neither look as good as the images in this thread. It would also run like total ass in proper resolutions.

I like how the hermits are hating on it now but when it comeas out and becomes the best graphically capable game on all of PC they'll just pretend there is no console version and that Crysis 2 is awesome :P

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

Not a fair comparison! The Crysis screenshot is the one shown at one of the previous E3s, and till today, nobody can achieve that level of graphics fedelity. Try posting an actual screenshot rendered by a non-Crytek rendering pc instead.

ferret-gamer

Pretty sure it's CGI. The foliage is just a bit too good (those big leaf plants can look kinda like that though), the explosion and the falling tree is also a bit too good and the forrest floor in Crysis just can't be saved.

Not, CGI, old version of crysis before they downgraded it for the average computer user. We can surpass that quality with mods now though

Really? Even modded, I can't seem get it to go that far. Well, mostly but the forrest floor remains vulnerable to scrutiny.

Got a list of mods for me?

I've used realifesys (reli2), CCC, HD foliage, Rygel's textures and it does'nt really seem to do the trick.

Nevermind that fact that my rig hates the game in 1920*1080. How I hate native resolutions on montitors... Anything but 1920*1080 is ugly.

Edit: I do realize there's a lot of things you need to do right to not mess up the gfx. Guess I should try and reinstall, with a properly maxed Nvidia control Panel. The texture optimizations there may have degraded image quality somewhat.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

Not a fair comparison! The Crysis screenshot is the one shown at one of the previous E3s, and till today, nobody can achieve that level of graphics fedelity. Try posting an actual screenshot rendered by a non-Crytek rendering pc instead.

ferret-gamer

Pretty sure it's CGI. The foliage is just a bit too good (those big leaf plants can look kinda like that though), the explosion and the falling tree is also a bit too good and the forrest floor in Crysis just can't be saved.

Not, CGI, old version of crysis before they downgraded it for the average computer user. We can surpass that quality with mods now though

No we can't. That footage shown at E3 was a special version rendered by special computers presumably to showcase the full capability of CryEngine 2. The retail version of the game simply didn't have the code to run the game at that level of detail, with or without mods.

Eh, forest/jungle areas can be deceiving. Even UC2 and some areas of Call of Duty Black Ops looked great... when the map is setted in forest / jungle. Now, we have cities which is an area that Crysis was never strong at.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Pretty sure it's CGI. The foliage is just a bit too good (those big leaf plants can look kinda like that though), the explosion and the falling tree is also a bit too good and the forrest floor in Crysis just can't be saved.

Filthybastrd

Not, CGI, old version of crysis before they downgraded it for the average computer user. We can surpass that quality with mods now though

Really? Even modded, I can't seem get it to go that far. Well, mostly but the forrest floor remains vulnerable to scrutiny.

Got a list of mods for me?

I've used realifesys (reli2), CCC, HD foliage, Rygel's textures and it does'nt really seem to do the trick.

Nevermind that fact that my rig hates the game in 1920*1080. How I hate native resolutions on montitors... Anything but 1920*1080 is ugly.

Edit: I do realize there's a lot of things you need to do right to not mess up the gfx. Guess I should try and reinstall, with a properly maxed Nvidia control Panel. The texture optimizations there may have degraded image quality somewhat.

Im not sure what you see that is so amazing about the forest floor in the gdc pic. Here is one i took in the remake map:

[QUOTE="_CaptainHappy_"]

I would love to have this game but unfortunetly i need a computer from 2021 in order to play it.

Filthybastrd

Supposedly it runs better than Crysis did. I remember them saying something about it running about twice as fast as Crysis with the same level of visual fidelity (that's obviously PR bull but the message is that it's supposed to have lower system requirements).

Are there good PC images of Crysis 2 around?

Is anyone really surprised that features had to be stripped out of the game to get it to work on consoles?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Pretty sure it's CGI. The foliage is just a bit too good (those big leaf plants can look kinda like that though), the explosion and the falling tree is also a bit too good and the forrest floor in Crysis just can't be saved.

jhcho2

Not, CGI, old version of crysis before they downgraded it for the average computer user. We can surpass that quality with mods now though

No we can't. That footage shown at E3 was a special version rendered by special computers presumably to showcase the full capability of CryEngine 2. The retail version of the game simply didn't have the code to run the game at that level of detail, with or without mods.

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"]first of all, cgi screen of crysis. even on enthusiast it doesnt look like that. secondly, crysis 2 has a different approach. yes, crysis looked amazing, but crysis 2 is going towards a more realistic look. thirdly, they (at least to my knowledge) havent released any pc screenshots/videos otherwise it would make the console versions look less appealing i guess. lastly, far cry looked a lot better than that lmao.mattuk69

You mean is doesn't look like this or this... I guess these videos are fake? And yes i know their modded.

Those videos look good because they are low quality, so the lack of resolution alone already covers up all the flaws. I had been extensively modding my Crysis with Realifesys etc etc and I can say that the actual gameplay doesn't look as good as the original E3 video, or what we are lead to believe from these videos.

Most of these mods use tricks like overdoing the bloom and lighting so that the glare from the sun blurs out detail on the foliage. And despite how good realifesys looks on youtube videos, one major problem is the draw distance. They literally blur out everything from 20 meters away, and once again concealing graphical flaws from the blur. You can see from the video you sent, that foliage from a distance are blurred out, whereas the original Crysis code doesn't do that. You can see foliage on mountains from a distance. This forest setting takes advantage of trees being in close proximity, and constantly obstructing far away objects. So we see the things nearby, but ignore the far away objects which were conveniently blurred out. The bloom from the sun was overdone to give a silhouette effecton the trees, which again conceals the graphical flaws.

As someone who has used all these mods and looked at the modded graphics pixel by pixel, I can safely say that i'm aware of all the tricks used. The so called ultra-realism in the modded graphics is not due to genuine quality, but tricks used to fool you into thinking they look good, and more so if you watch a low quality video on youtube. And these mods generally work well only on a dense jungle map. If you use the mod to play the campaign, where there are open spaces and day-night variations, the mod just falls flat. The Realifesys mod, which is heralded as one of the most ultrarealistic mods to date, literally makes the first campaign mission almost pitch black. And during the scene of first daylight, where they start playing the 'Terminal' soundtrack, the whole landscape within the horizon was blurred like never before.

So, many of these mods were custom for jungle maps only, but it isn't a superior mod in general.

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

Not, CGI, old version of crysis before they downgraded it for the average computer user. We can surpass that quality with mods now though

ferret-gamer

No we can't. That footage shown at E3 was a special version rendered by special computers presumably to showcase the full capability of CryEngine 2. The retail version of the game simply didn't have the code to run the game at that level of detail, with or without mods.

Are you blind? Where in the statement "presumably to showcase the full capability of CryEngine 2" implies that CryEngine 2 was incapable of it? If anything, it implies the exact opposite.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

Not, CGI, old version of crysis before they downgraded it for the average computer user. We can surpass that quality with mods now though

ferret-gamer

Really? Even modded, I can't seem get it to go that far. Well, mostly but the forrest floor remains vulnerable to scrutiny.

Got a list of mods for me?

I've used realifesys (reli2), CCC, HD foliage, Rygel's textures and it does'nt really seem to do the trick.

Nevermind that fact that my rig hates the game in 1920*1080. How I hate native resolutions on montitors... Anything but 1920*1080 is ugly.

Edit: I do realize there's a lot of things you need to do right to not mess up the gfx. Guess I should try and reinstall, with a properly maxed Nvidia control Panel. The texture optimizations there may have degraded image quality somewhat.

Im not sure what you see that is so amazing about the forest floor in the gdc pic. Here is one i took in the remake map:

Well that's a lot more in line with what I get from normal, modded Crysis (actually mine looks better but less realistic). IDK, I just hate the look of the forrest floor in the original levels.

[QUOTE="mattuk69"]

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"]first of all, cgi screen of crysis. even on enthusiast it doesnt look like that. secondly, crysis 2 has a different approach. yes, crysis looked amazing, but crysis 2 is going towards a more realistic look. thirdly, they (at least to my knowledge) havent released any pc screenshots/videos otherwise it would make the console versions look less appealing i guess. lastly, far cry looked a lot better than that lmao.jhcho2

You mean is doesn't look like this or this... I guess these videos are fake? And yes i know their modded.

Those videos look good because they are low quality, so the lack of resolution alone already covers up all the flaws. I had been extensively modding my Crysis with Realifesys etc etc and I can say that the actual gameplay doesn't look as good as the original E3 video, or what we are lead to believe from these videos.

Most of these mods use tricks like overdoing the bloom and lighting so that the glare from the sun blurs out detail on the foliage. And despite how good realifesys looks on youtube videos, one major problem is the draw distance. They literally blur out everything from 20 meters away, and once again concealing graphical flaws from the blur. You can see from the video you sent, that foliage from a distance are blurred out, whereas the original Crysis code doesn't do that. You can see foliage on mountains from a distance. This forest setting takes advantage of trees being in close proximity, and constantly obstructing far away objects. So we see the things nearby, but ignore the far away objects which were conveniently blurred out. The bloom from the sun was overdone to give a silhouette effecton the trees, which again conceals the graphical flaws.

As someone who has used all these mods and looked at the modded graphics pixel by pixel, I can safely say that i'm aware of all the tricks used. The so called ultra-realism in the modded graphics is not due to genuine quality, but tricks used to fool you into thinking they look good, and more so if you watch a low quality video on youtube. And these mods generally work well only on a dense jungle map. If you use the mod to play the campaign, where there are open spaces and day-night variations, the mod just falls flat. The Realifesys mod, which is heralded as one of the most ultrarealistic mods to date, literally makes the first campaign mission almost pitch black. And during the scene of first daylight, where they start playing the 'Terminal' soundtrack, the whole landscape within the horizon was blurred like never before.

So, many of these mods were custom for jungle maps only, but it isn't a superior mod in general.

That's my experience as well. Personally, I've had the best overall results with CCC even though the game does'nt "shine" in any particular department with it.

Got any good suggestions for me?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="jhcho2"]

No we can't. That footage shown at E3 was a special version rendered by special computers presumably to showcase the full capability of CryEngine 2. The retail version of the game simply didn't have the code to run the game at that level of detail, with or without mods.

jhcho2

Are you blind? Where in the statement "presumably to showcase the full capability of CryEngine 2" implies that CryEngine 2 was incapable of it? If anything, it implies the exact opposite.

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

[QUOTE="mattuk69"]

You mean is doesn't look like this or this... I guess these videos are fake? And yes i know their modded.

Filthybastrd

Those videos look good because they are low quality, so the lack of resolution alone already covers up all the flaws. I had been extensively modding my Crysis with Realifesys etc etc and I can say that the actual gameplay doesn't look as good as the original E3 video, or what we are lead to believe from these videos.

Most of these mods use tricks like overdoing the bloom and lighting so that the glare from the sun blurs out detail on the foliage. And despite how good realifesys looks on youtube videos, one major problem is the draw distance. They literally blur out everything from 20 meters away, and once again concealing graphical flaws from the blur. You can see from the video you sent, that foliage from a distance are blurred out, whereas the original Crysis code doesn't do that. You can see foliage on mountains from a distance. This forest setting takes advantage of trees being in close proximity, and constantly obstructing far away objects. So we see the things nearby, but ignore the far away objects which were conveniently blurred out. The bloom from the sun was overdone to give a silhouette effecton the trees, which again conceals the graphical flaws.

As someone who has used all these mods and looked at the modded graphics pixel by pixel, I can safely say that i'm aware of all the tricks used. The so called ultra-realism in the modded graphics is not due to genuine quality, but tricks used to fool you into thinking they look good, and more so if you watch a low quality video on youtube. And these mods generally work well only on a dense jungle map. If you use the mod to play the campaign, where there are open spaces and day-night variations, the mod just falls flat. The Realifesys mod, which is heralded as one of the most ultrarealistic mods to date, literally makes the first campaign mission almost pitch black. And during the scene of first daylight, where they start playing the 'Terminal' soundtrack, the whole landscape within the horizon was blurred like never before.

So, many of these mods were custom for jungle maps only, but it isn't a superior mod in general.

That's my experience as well. Personally, I've had the best overall results with CCC even though the game does'nt "shine" in any particular department with it.

Got any good suggestions for me?

The sad conclusion i came up with, in my opinion, is that the original code for Crysis is the overall best, taking into account the different scenarios in the game. Some mods only look good in jungles, some look horrible at night, some are horrible at open spaces, some are horrible at the snow stages etc. etc. At least the original code was balanced for every situation. The lighting may be a little conservative compared to some mods, but it overall gives the sharpest graphics.

The only mod i use is the one which enables anisotrpic filtering on the ground textures. Without it, the ground textures are usually blurred after 5 meters. With the mod, the ground textures look sharp all the way, and with zero performance loss. I read somewhere that Crytek disabled anisotrpic filtering on the ground by default. That's why even at higher settings, the ground still looks like crap at a distance.

I think this pics says it all really.

mattuk69

If you think the pic says it all, then you haven't played either of those games.

[QUOTE="mattuk69"]

I think this pics says it all really.

TheGrayEye

If you think the pic says it all, then you haven't played either of those games.

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] And for what reason do you think that cryengine2 is incapable of that? Do you have any actual proof to back up your statements or are you just talking out your butt?ferret-gamer

Are you blind? Where in the statement "presumably to showcase the full capability of CryEngine 2" implies that CryEngine 2 was incapable of it? If anything, it implies the exact opposite.

The retail version of the game does not wholly represent the full capability of CryEngine 2. Just because a game uses CryEngine 2, doesn't mean the actual yield from the game is the best the engine can offer. The full capability of CryEngine 2 is tied to programming, optimization and of course your rendering hardware. The video was made to look that good because Crytek had a rendering farm at their disposal. If no one is gonna have something like that on a home pc, there's no sense in tuning the game to run that way. So naturally, Crytek probablytoned the game down graphically so that it scales better with home PCs. But can we say that what see on a home pc is all that CryEngine 2 can offer? Of course the answer is no. It can do more, but the bigger question is, why should it, if no one can run it.

A good example is Gears of War 2 & 3. Both are using Unreal Engine 3.5. But why does Gears 3 looks so much better? Simple, Gears 2 wasn't fully optimized for performance. So at the time of release of Gears 2, can we say that Gears 2 is the full representation of Unreal Engine 3.5? No. And Gears 3 proves that the engine is more capable than that. In the case of Crytek, they already knew how to get more out of CryEngine 2, but the home pc hardware posed a restriction, so they scaled down the graphics code. And in my defense, there hasn't been any mod which yields graphics to that same level of detail as the E3 video. If you can find one, I'll admit i'm wrong.

i played the 360 beta and I was actually impressed at the level of graphical detail and effects they cramed onto that thing. The lighting and special effects were brilliant. Textures were good and models were good. AA and AF with texture pop-in was crap however, but I think they just used a stable, alpha build of the code. The point of the beta was a network stress test, not a real balancing beta or anything.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="jhcho2"]

Are you blind? Where in the statement "presumably to showcase the full capability of CryEngine 2" implies that CryEngine 2 was incapable of it? If anything, it implies the exact opposite.

jhcho2

The retail version of the game does not wholly represent the full capability of CryEngine 2. Just because a game uses CryEngine 2, doesn't mean the actual yield from the game is the best the engine can offer. The full capability of CryEngine 2 is tied to programming, optimization and of course your rendering hardware. The video was made to look that good because Crytek had a rendering farm at their disposal. If no one is gonna have something like that on a home pc, there's no sense in tuning the game to run that way. So naturally, Crytek probablytoned the game down graphically so that it scales better with home PCs. But can we say that what see on a home pc is all that CryEngine 2 can offer? Of course the answer is no. It can do more, but the bigger question is, why should it, if no one can run it.

A good example is Gears of War 2 & 3. Both are using Unreal Engine 3.5. But why does Gears 3 looks so much better? Simple, Gears 2 wasn't fully optimized for performance. So at the time of release of Gears 2, can we say that Gears 2 is the full representation of Unreal Engine 3.5? No. And Gears 3 proves that the engine is more capable than that. In the case of Crytek, they already knew how to get more out of CryEngine 2, but the home pc hardware posed a restriction, so they scaled down the graphics code. And in my defense, there hasn't been any mod which yields graphics to that same level of detail as the E3 video. If you can find one, I'll admit i'm wrong.

Gears 3 actually uses a very recent build of the UDK, it's not Unreal Engine 3.5. Each Gears games used the latest UDK build at it's time.

Don't get me wrong, it's one hell of an impressive graphics engine.

I think Crysis 2 looks very good.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

Those videos look good because they are low quality, so the lack of resolution alone already covers up all the flaws. I had been extensively modding my Crysis with Realifesys etc etc and I can say that the actual gameplay doesn't look as good as the original E3 video, or what we are lead to believe from these videos.

Most of these mods use tricks like overdoing the bloom and lighting so that the glare from the sun blurs out detail on the foliage. And despite how good realifesys looks on youtube videos, one major problem is the draw distance. They literally blur out everything from 20 meters away, and once again concealing graphical flaws from the blur. You can see from the video you sent, that foliage from a distance are blurred out, whereas the original Crysis code doesn't do that. You can see foliage on mountains from a distance. This forest setting takes advantage of trees being in close proximity, and constantly obstructing far away objects. So we see the things nearby, but ignore the far away objects which were conveniently blurred out. The bloom from the sun was overdone to give a silhouette effecton the trees, which again conceals the graphical flaws.

As someone who has used all these mods and looked at the modded graphics pixel by pixel, I can safely say that i'm aware of all the tricks used. The so called ultra-realism in the modded graphics is not due to genuine quality, but tricks used to fool you into thinking they look good, and more so if you watch a low quality video on youtube. And these mods generally work well only on a dense jungle map. If you use the mod to play the campaign, where there are open spaces and day-night variations, the mod just falls flat. The Realifesys mod, which is heralded as one of the most ultrarealistic mods to date, literally makes the first campaign mission almost pitch black. And during the scene of first daylight, where they start playing the 'Terminal' soundtrack, the whole landscape within the horizon was blurred like never before.

So, many of these mods were custom for jungle maps only, but it isn't a superior mod in general.

jhcho2

That's my experience as well. Personally, I've had the best overall results with CCC even though the game does'nt "shine" in any particular department with it.

Got any good suggestions for me?

The sad conclusion i came up with, in my opinion, is that the original code for Crysis is the overall best, taking into account the different scenarios in the game. Some mods only look good in jungles, some look horrible at night, some are horrible at open spaces, some are horrible at the snow stages etc. etc. At least the original code was balanced for every situation. The lighting may be a little conservative compared to some mods, but it overall gives the sharpest graphics.

The only mod i use is the one which enables anisotrpic filtering on the ground textures. Without it, the ground textures are usually blurred after 5 meters. With the mod, the ground textures look sharp all the way, and with zero performance loss. I read somewhere that Crytek disabled anisotrpic filtering on the ground by default. That's why even at higher settings, the ground still looks like crap at a distance.

That would be the POM/AF mod right? I suppose I could try vanilla with nothing but that and texture mods. It would run better as well.

[QUOTE="jhcho2"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

That's my experience as well. Personally, I've had the best overall results with CCC even though the game does'nt "shine" in any particular department with it.

Got any good suggestions for me?

Filthybastrd

The sad conclusion i came up with, in my opinion, is that the original code for Crysis is the overall best, taking into account the different scenarios in the game. Some mods only look good in jungles, some look horrible at night, some are horrible at open spaces, some are horrible at the snow stages etc. etc. At least the original code was balanced for every situation. The lighting may be a little conservative compared to some mods, but it overall gives the sharpest graphics.

The only mod i use is the one which enables anisotrpic filtering on the ground textures. Without it, the ground textures are usually blurred after 5 meters. With the mod, the ground textures look sharp all the way, and with zero performance loss. I read somewhere that Crytek disabled anisotrpic filtering on the ground by default. That's why even at higher settings, the ground still looks like crap at a distance.

That would be the POM/AF mod right? I suppose I could try vanilla with nothing but that and texture mods. It would run better as well.

Oh yes, POMAF, Paralax Occlusion Mapping Anisotropic Filtering. I remember now. Apparently Crytek disabled AF for the ground textures when POM is enabled. So this mod turns on AF as well.

At least you don't need a Nasa Supercomputer to play Crysis 2 this time! :lol: