79 replies to this topic

[Product9]

Peter2k, on 10 October 2016 - 02:26 AM, said:

I know that
That's why I used to push for dx12 support
Also cryengine just got PhysX support and I think this month vulcan, or next month

Problem here is that those modern API's give more control over to the dev
Away from the driver
I'm not sure I feel confident about PGI's ability in coding for that to be a good thing

Tools are only as good as one's ability to use them after all.

Peter2k, on 10 October 2016 - 02:26 AM, said:

Here's the thing
When I drop in testing grounds without looking at anything special I have way over 100fps (of the top of my hat like 115 or so, dx9 more than dx11)
Dropping in a live match and not having a mech in front of me I have ~75fps (depending on map, CW sometimes less)

Who knows what's going on on the CPU side of things. It may take quite a bit of CPU calculations to position the mechs correctly given that they seem to be split up into a whole bunch of individual meshes (though I can't actually speak to this, just an idea).

Their method of animation might be costly. Or perhaps collisions. Anyone have info on this?

Peter2k, on 10 October 2016 - 02:26 AM, said:

Also does anyone else have a very short stutter for time to time on crimson since they had a beauty pass?

Yeah, I believe I have experienced that as well.

[Mycrus]

mogs01gt, on 09 October 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

Who the hell doesnt run this game in full screen mode...

Its still full screen dumb ***

You still dont see the windows border

It forces the gpu to run at 100%

[Kin3ticX]

X-Plasma, on 09 October 2016 - 07:51 AM, said:

System Specs: i7-6700k, 16GB RAM, EVGA GTX 1080 FTW, Samsung Pro 950 m.2

Why does MWO not use 100% GPU and get choppy sometimes? I compared it to Crysis 3 because they are using the same engine and see that Crysis 3 is utilizing the GPU much more effectively while MWO is bouncing all over the place. Check out these screenshots from MSI Afterburner....

MWO & Crysis 3 GPU Usage : http://imgur.com/a/ipT5l

MWO floods the CPU with draw calls. This means its common to have situations where the GPU is waiting for work from the CPU.

There are old posts from devs explaining this. Think of each player having the cpu load of 2-3 players in a traditional multiplayer shooter. The mechs are being tracked and rendered as multiple pieces.

[627]

Kin3ticX, on 10 October 2016 - 03:22 AM, said:

MWO floods the CPU with draw calls. This means its common to have situations where the GPU is waiting for work from the CPU.

There are old posts from devs explaining this. Think of each player having the cpu load of 2-3 players in a traditional multiplayer shooter. The mechs are being tracked and rendered as multiple pieces.

Even if you take every arm and leg as single entity in the game it shouldn't be such a high load for the cpu.

This is not the first game where you have bigger machines that move in a certain way and other games have complex character models, too. Look at a normal player model in battlefield 4. Only 2 hitboxes you say, head and body? but still arms move, legs move you can have different stands so all the hitboxes are constantly moving And only because BF doesn't track which hitbox you hit, there are still different boxes for legs and arms that are moving. And there you have 64 players and vehicles and what not.

This game needs optimization on a level that is beyond ridiculous. We have a 4+ year old cryengine3 offspring that offers nothing the cryengine can do but can't be run smoothly on state of the art gaming PCs.

[JC Daxion]

Peter2k, on 10 October 2016 - 01:08 AM, said:

But to be frank
MWO is just not well optimised

Maybe it's could be better.. I don't know.. But


I play on a much worse system than anything anyone posted.. And NO i don't play at max settings.. But that said, Even if i did have my game set at max settings i would never expect 100 FPS and never a stutter for the simple fact that often CPU's and GPU's can take years before they are powerful enough to run some games at their full potential. I can recall many games that i have owned and played for 10+ years, that as time went on i slowly upgraded and finally i could max um out and they played smooth as silk. I think of games like Eve, that said if they had only known that CPU's would of gone multi-core verse increasing speed on a single core, they would have coded differently.. Or other games that say, we only built the game to work on two cores, because most people only had 2, and it wouldn't have been cost effective to code for 4, because such a tiny % of users have them.

But besides that, they have done a ton to optimize the game over the last bunch of years. Perhaps they can do more, but the simple fact is THEY HAVE done a lot of optimization.. How do i know this? because when 12 v 12 hit,, my frames tanked down to unplayable to about 10 even at the lowest settings.. But by November of that year, they moved up into the playable range to about 20. At that time i Built a new computer.. A power house of a i5 3500, with 8 gigs of ram,, and Moved my card the TI550 from my old Duo core 8500 with 4 gigs of ram. (yes i am being sarcastic)

My new i5 3500+ 8 gigs + 550 TI, bumped up to 30 FPS, at the lowest settings on everything.. This was 2 years ago now.. I have Done zero upgrades to my system in that time, outside of upgrading to win 10 just this last july, I was running 7 on both computers. Over those last 2 years i have slowly been able to increase my settings, and i have increased my FPS, up to my monitor cap of 60.

I now cap out at 60 because of the refresh rate, Yet i also have most of my settings at medium, and i can push some even higher. So obviously they have been doing optimization.. last spring i was able to hit 55 FPS, the spring before i was only hitting in the mid 40's, even while i was upping setting. Then i upgraded to win 10, and i could push it even more.

So Unless there is some sort of magic i don't know of, the only way i could get higher FPS, and increase my settings, is if PGI has been doing some sort of optimization.

Is that enough for some? I guess not.. But I never understood why people say,, well this game plays like this.. and this one isn't as good and looks worse,, when basically we have no idea how the engine is used/modded, and designed for the specific game.

Maybe there is something they can do to make it better, i don't know, i am not an engine designer, nor a GPU architect,, But to say they have done nothing to increase optimization is complete and utter BS..

and no this is not some white knight, PGI can do no wrong blah, blah, blah.. But the simple fact is, they have done much to increase optimization over the years..

Edited by JC Daxion, 10 October 2016 - 03:41 AM.

[Imperius]

JC Daxion, on 10 October 2016 - 03:38 AM, said:

Maybe it's could be better.. I don't know.. But


I play on a much worse system than anything anyone posted.. And NO i don't play at max settings.. But that said, Even if i did have my game set at max settings i would never expect 100 FPS and never a stutter for the simple fact that often CPU's and GPU's can take years before they are powerful enough to run some games at their full potential. I can recall many games that i have owned and played for 10+ years, that as time went on i slowly upgraded and finally i could max um out and they played smooth as silk. I think of games like Eve, that said if they had only known that CPU's would of gone multi-core verse increasing speed on a single core, they would have coded differently.. Or other games that say, we only built the game to work on two cores, because most people only had 2, and it wouldn't have been cost effective to code for 4, because such a tiny % of users have them.

But besides that, they have done a ton to optimize the game over the last bunch of years. Perhaps they can do more, but the simple fact is THEY HAVE done a lot of optimization.. How do i know this? because when 12 v 12 hit,, my frames tanked down to unplayable to about 10 even at the lowest settings.. But by November of that year, they moved up into the playable range to about 20. At that time i Built a new computer.. A power house of a i5 3500, with 8 gigs of ram,, and Moved my card the TI550 from my old Duo core 8500 with 4 gigs of ram. (yes i am being sarcastic)

My new i5 3500+ 8 gigs + 550 TI, bumped up to 30 FPS, at the lowest settings on everything.. This was 2 years ago now.. I have Done zero upgrades to my system in that time, outside of upgrading to win 10 just this last july, I was running 7 on both computers. Over those last 2 years i have slowly been able to increase my settings, and i have increased my FPS, up to my monitor cap of 60.

I now cap out at 60 because of the refresh rate, Yet i also have most of my settings at medium, and i can push some even higher. So obviously they have been doing optimization.. last spring i was able to hit 55 FPS, the spring before i was only hitting in the mid 40's, even while i was upping setting. Then i upgraded to win 10, and i could push it even more.

So Unless there is some sort of magic i don't know of, the only way i could get higher FPS, and increase my settings, is if PGI has been doing some sort of optimization.

Is that enough for some? I guess not.. But I never understood why people say,, well this game plays like this.. and this one isn't as good and looks worse,, when basically we have no idea how the engine is used/modded, and designed for the specific game.

Maybe there is something they can do to make it better, i don't know, i am not an engine designer, nor a GPU architect,, But to say they have done nothing to increase optimization is complete and utter BS..

and no this is not some white knight, PGI can do no wrong blah, blah, blah.. But the simple fact is, they have done much to increase optimization over the years..

Dude my computer can render a Dreamworks movie in real time at 4K and get above 60FPS (Sarcastically saying my system is boss)

It could be 10000 years and no hardware will be able to run this game on its current engine at a smooth 60 fps. Let alone ever reach VR FPS levels.

You're right they have done things to improve performance. Visual fidelity back in closed beta was better.

Edited by Imperius, 10 October 2016 - 04:39 AM.

[Peter2k]

JC Daxion, on 10 October 2016 - 03:38 AM, said:

Maybe it's could be better.. I don't know.. But


I play on a much worse system than anything anyone posted.. And NO i don't play at max settings.. But that said, Even if i did have my game set at max settings i would never expect 100 FPS and never a stutter for the simple fact that often CPU's and GPU's can take years before they are powerful enough to run some games at their full potential. I can recall many games that i have owned and played for 10+ years, that as time went on i slowly upgraded and finally i could max um out and they played smooth as silk. I think of games like Eve, that said if they had only known that CPU's would of gone multi-core verse increasing speed on a single core, they would have coded differently.. Or other games that say, we only built the game to work on two cores, because most people only had 2, and it wouldn't have been cost effective to code for 4, because such a tiny % of users have them.

But besides that, they have done a ton to optimize the game over the last bunch of years. Perhaps they can do more, but the simple fact is THEY HAVE done a lot of optimization.. How do i know this? because when 12 v 12 hit,, my frames tanked down to unplayable to about 10 even at the lowest settings.. But by November of that year, they moved up into the playable range to about 20. At that time i Built a new computer.. A power house of a i5 3500, with 8 gigs of ram,, and Moved my card the TI550 from my old Duo core 8500 with 4 gigs of ram. (yes i am being sarcastic)

My new i5 3500+ 8 gigs + 550 TI, bumped up to 30 FPS, at the lowest settings on everything.. This was 2 years ago now.. I have Done zero upgrades to my system in that time, outside of upgrading to win 10 just this last july, I was running 7 on both computers. Over those last 2 years i have slowly been able to increase my settings, and i have increased my FPS, up to my monitor cap of 60.

I now cap out at 60 because of the refresh rate, Yet i also have most of my settings at medium, and i can push some even higher. So obviously they have been doing optimization.. last spring i was able to hit 55 FPS, the spring before i was only hitting in the mid 40's, even while i was upping setting. Then i upgraded to win 10, and i could push it even more.

So Unless there is some sort of magic i don't know of, the only way i could get higher FPS, and increase my settings, is if PGI has been doing some sort of optimization.

Is that enough for some? I guess not.. But I never understood why people say,, well this game plays like this.. and this one isn't as good and looks worse,, when basically we have no idea how the engine is used/modded, and designed for the specific game.

Maybe there is something they can do to make it better, i don't know, i am not an engine designer, nor a GPU architect,, But to say they have done nothing to increase optimization is complete and utter BS..

and no this is not some white knight, PGI can do no wrong blah, blah, blah.. But the simple fact is, they have done much to increase optimization over the years..

It's not that bad

However as was stated by a dev himself

Scaleform (the stuff that makes the hud work) is not very performance friendly
But newer cryengine uses an updated better performing one
Integrating it now them self would be a lot of work
And also stated that more performance passes are a lot of work but community wants more features more

McValium, on 09 October 2016 - 08:59 AM, said:

xplasma it boils down to mwos model and weapon mechanics being way more complex (due to the modular destruction for example) than the basic crysis 3 stuff, so it adds a lot of additional strain to the CPU.

There have been multiple Dev posts about the issue:
http://mwomercs.com/...62#entry3712162

http://mwomercs.com/...94#entry3712694

[Peter2k]

627, on 10 October 2016 - 03:36 AM, said:

Even if you take every arm and leg as single entity in the game it shouldn't be such a high load for the cpu.

This is not the first game where you have bigger machines that move in a certain way and other games have complex character models, too. Look at a normal player model in battlefield 4. Only 2 hitboxes you say, head and body? but still arms move, legs move you can have different stands so all the hitboxes are constantly moving And only because BF doesn't track which hitbox you hit, there are still different boxes for legs and arms that are moving. And there you have 64 players and vehicles and what not.

This game needs optimization on a level that is beyond ridiculous. We have a 4+ year old cryengine3 offspring that offers nothing the cryengine can do but can't be run smoothly on state of the art gaming PCs.

There is more that makes draw calls
Everything particle for instance
Every other object

I can still force the issue by walking up to a wall and firing all my lasers
the particles spawning reduce fps

Maybe you remember there was a brief time of really bad fps when they upped to 12vs12 from 8vs8

First thing PGI did was reduce quality as a hotfix


I'd love a newer engine and better performance
No trust though ;-)

[627]

Peter2k, on 10 October 2016 - 05:34 AM, said:

There is more that makes draw calls
Everything particle for instance
Every other object

I can still force the issue by walking up to a wall and firing all my lasers
the particles spawning reduce fps

Maybe you remember there was a brief time of really bad fps when they upped to 12vs12 from 8vs8

First thing PGI did was reduce quality as a hotfix


I'd love a newer engine and better performance
No trust though ;-)

I'm aware of that. I upgraded from 570GTX to 1070GTX and while the game did run on 60fps most of the time with the 570 (max settings/no AA/fullHD) shooting the dirt would kill the framerate.

I just want to point out that it is not the unique feature "battlemech with half a dozen hitboxes" that slows this game down, it is just that the engine is poorly coded for it and is in dire need of upgrades.

We wont see that, though. And people talking about a whole engine change must have smoked some good stuff. PGI can't even code some weapon features that are trivial to do and we haven't seen anything in the last years where you could think "yeah, they can handle their engine quite well" - I mean look how long it took them to get UI2.0 out and *what* got out back in the day.

Big studios need a year or two to change the engine and that is pretty rare, most of the time you start from scratch and call it gameversion #2. That would be the only way to do it, make a new game, convert the old mech models and see if you can get it running. Yeah. Totally.

[Product9]

Peter2k, on 10 October 2016 - 05:34 AM, said:

There is more that makes draw calls
Everything particle for instance
Every other object

Batching can be used to reduce draw calls. Objects can be batched by sharing materials.

What I wanted to point out was the mechs themselves, it seems, aren't doing this. With potentially 24 different mechs on the screen at one time, that's a lot of overhead.

Mycrus, on 10 October 2016 - 03:16 AM, said:

Its still full screen dumb ***

You still dont see the windows border

It forces the gpu to run at 100%

Actually full-screen and borderless window are two different modes to Windows.

Near as I can tell games can get some benefits from being in full-screen because Windows will allow them full control over the hardware, rather than sharing resources in windowed mode.

Full-screen size borderless window is still a window.

I don't know if this applies to MWO, though. I don't notice any perceivable benefit from running in full screen. It just makes tabbing out more tedious.

Also, this information comes from a book published in 2003.

Edited by Product9, 10 October 2016 - 06:31 AM.

[X-Plasma]

I'll put this here for those of you saying that it is a CPU bottleneck. Look at the CPU cores. None of them are maxed out.

MWO & Crysis 3 GPU Usage : http://imgur.com/a/ipT5l

Edited by X-Plasma, 10 October 2016 - 07:26 AM.

[Revis Volek]

mogs01gt, on 09 October 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

Who the hell doesnt run this game in full screen mode...

I cant, because often i will load the game and my second monitor goes black.

Its not all the time, but sometimes....and then there are time i can run Full Screen and its fine for weeks on end. There is no rhyme or reason to it it seems.

[Deathlike]

Full screen (not Windowed-Fullscreen) in modern games is kinda depreciated as it's better to run some form of Windowed mode.

There's something about fullscreen that DX is trying to get away from for whatever legacy reason.

[Peter2k]

X-Plasma, on 10 October 2016 - 07:26 AM, said:

I'll put this here for those of you saying that it is a CPU bottleneck. Look at the CPU cores. None of them are maxed out.

MWO & Crysis 3 GPU Usage : http://imgur.com/a/ipT5l

It would still be interesting to see if increasing the frequency by say, 500 MHz is still increasing fps

It does on my skylake

[mogs01gt]

Mycrus, on 10 October 2016 - 03:16 AM, said:

Its still full screen dumb ***
You still dont see the windows border
It forces the gpu to run at 100%

if it has borders, its not 100% full screen.

[MandyB]

El Bandito, on 09 October 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

MWO is not a very optimized game.

Sad but True

Not sure why people think his CPU is the bottleneck, Ive got a 4820K and a 970 and I don't see any choppiness.

Edited by MandyB, 10 October 2016 - 01:14 PM.

[Duatam]

Duatam, on 09 October 2016 - 05:33 PM, said:

Do you have VSYNC enabled? VSYNC limits the framerate to your monitor refresh rate, which could explain why your neither you GPU or CPU is at 100%.

[Kaptain]

Returning to 8v8 would improve performance and lower TTK all while making the game more of a "thinking mans shooter". The change both in gameplay and performance was very noticeable on lower spec machines when 12v12 was introduced.

[Kin3ticX]

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3712162


"Also Mechs are not constructed in single parts and don't behave as simple characters this meant that earlier in the project when Mechs were being setup the approach that was taken was to compose them of separate attachments to give us flexibility to animate separate components, blow them off etc. over time we realized that this isn't ideal for optimal draw call use.

Most modern engines CE3 and UE4 included use deferred renderers. This means that there are multiple passes that objects get rendered in, so any object using a notable number of draw calls gets amplified e.g. it has to be rendered in the ZPass, Shadow Pass, General Pass and potentially Post Processing Pass which can amplify the draw call usage.

Draw calls remain very expensive on the CPU side and much of the research and development currently going into Mantle and DX12 is aimed at reducing overhead for draw call usage (and API / driver overhead in general) so that games can use more draw calls and focus on creating great consumer experiences without having to get overly concerned with hitting draw call barriers."

https://www.reddit.c...ld_you_upgrade/

Edited by Kin3ticX, 10 October 2016 - 02:54 PM.

[Imperius]

Kaptain, on 10 October 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

Returning to 8v8 would improve performance and lower TTK all while making the game more of a "thinking mans shooter". The change both in gameplay and performance was very noticeable on lower spec machines when 12v12 was introduced.

Yup but "server space"... rolls eyes.