45 replies to this topic

[CenturionOmega]

This game has great potential in terms of gameplay, and I will be one of the first to acknowledge that. This game has come a long way, but has a long journey ahead. One main issue with this game is that it is not very nice to those of us playing on Laptops/older PCs. I have seen many threads/topics posted about this, but PGI has, in my opinion, ignored it. Personally, I don't enjoy playing an interactive slideshow, with ~ 8 fps. PGI, you have lost yet another MW player, who played MW3, MW4 Mercs and Vengeance, in addition to being a Closed Beta Tester. At this point, I am somewhat disappointed at the lack of progress this game has made. However, call me back when you fix this problem, I will happily rejoin and jump into the fray. And to those of you who share my irritation and slight disappointment, feel free to make your own threads about this because if this is to be a F2P game, it needs to be more accessible to those of us who have lower-end PCs. Until then, I'll be playing the uninstall. See you all later...

Best Wishes,

CenturionOmega

P.S. if you find any info about this issue being addressed, please reply to this post. Thanks

Edited by CenturionOmega, 31 October 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[PapaKilo]

Since it works just fine on technology from five years ago (Core 2 Quads came out five years ago), how far do you want them to go back? Seven years? Ten?

Try the game again the next time you upgrade your machine.

[JustPyro]

It is on the CryEngine. One of the more taxing engines to come to the PC. When MW4 came out I had to leave because my computer couldn't play it. It's kind of one of things. Especially laptops.

What are your computer stats? Perhaps just a small upgrade could help significantly.

[madman24k]

PapaKilo, on 31 October 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

Since it works just fine on technology from five years ago (Core 2 Quads came out five years ago), how far do you want them to go back? Seven years? Ten?

Try the game again the next time you upgrade your machine.

I have a laptop that's barely three years old, and could run Crysis, but all I'm seeing everywhere is spheres for trees, and buildings, and some terrain is missing...

[The Gunman]

madman24k, on 31 October 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

I have a laptop that's barely three years old, and could run Crysis, but all I'm seeing everywhere is spheres for trees, and buildings, and some terrain is missing...

That sounds more like a bug... I play on a laptop with minimum settings and I don't get that.

[Cobra6]

Mine runs it fairly decent although it has some stutter here and there:
Core Duo 2,5Ghz
4GB DDR2 677Mhz
Quadro FX3600M (512MB)

Laptop. I run it on low, but the performance could be better.
Hope they optimize it a bit better still.

Cobra 6

[AbettedShark]

I too am having major issues with playability and grapics with my system which is kinda funny as i can play BF3 on high settings @ 45FPS without a burp and WoT on high settings @ 60 FPS with no issue yet MWO while i realize is still in beta i should be able to see my mech in the garage instead of just an outline . and in game everything is ghost images completly see through and the hud is tranparent as well any help would be apreciated .there seemes to be a miscoception that i am Expecting screaming FPS no i would be ok with 20-40 as long as i can see the terrain and mechs not just out lines and ghost images , I am also well aware that BF3 and WoT both run on diffrent engines than this but let's face it if you are making a free to play game then you should look to wargamings support and such they are making bankand constaly improving the game .as for the people who were a bit sarcastic about me mentioning WOT and BF3 FPS's my system runs crysis 2 @ 31FPS which is not grand but has none of the problems i'm experiencing with MWO.

AMD A8 3850 2.9Ghz this is an APU
Embedded graphics core AMD Radeon HD 6550
8.00GB 1600 Ram 7.48GB usable
64bit windows 7 OS
directX11 as when i try installing 9 it tells me a newer version is already in place .

Edited by AbettedShark, 01 November 2012 - 02:31 PM.

[Tonberry]

As always try updating your drivers thats always the first thing you should try. Bear in mind this is cryengine 3; not 1, this engine is a lot more system taxing and it is not friendly to older machines. you need a fairly new GPU and a decent CPU to run it.

[CenturionOmega]

Thank you all who replied. I had posted related threads in the Closed Beta Forums, and my calls went unanswered by anyone. As for my laptop, I got this thing in June, it's one of the newest Toshiba Satellite models (with i7 processor). Obviously, it is not a gaming computer. That being said, I can still get 50-60 fps on WoT easy. I get 8 fps on this game on the lowest settings, always have. My friend also said that my graphics card was fairly standard, and should be able to run just about any game just fine. Dunno bout you guys, but 8 fps is not "just fine." If anyone has any FPS boost suggestions, they would be gladly appreciated!
@PapaKilo, please be more constructive with your feedback, I wasn't suggesting that they "go back" 7-10 years. It was just a statement that I have been a MW fan for quite awhile. Also, an upgrade for me is not economically feasible for me right now, nor does it seem to be so in the near future (about 3-4 years).

As for my system specs:
Intel HD 4000 Graphics Card
Intel i7 processor @ 2.3 GHz
Windows 7 64-bit
8 GB of RAM

Edited by CenturionOmega, 01 November 2012 - 03:00 AM.

[StainlessSR]

BF3 uses the Frostbite engine
WOT uses the bigworldtech engine


Each game engine requires different PC specs due to each having different answers to the compromises inherent in game programing (CryEngine tries to have no compromises, and so it needs alot of resources). Comparing one to the other on the basis of "this runs fine on my system, so this should also" is a flawed argument from the start.

You can boost game performance on older systems by editing some game files
in %GameDrive%:\Games\PiranhaGames\MechWarrior Online
there is a file called user.cfg (stock file is empty)
open the file with notepad (or similar)
paste one of the low level computer configuration setups into the file and save

Spoiler

**********in game settings*********

Effects - VH
Object Detail - low
part -vh
postproc - vh
shading - med
shadows - off
texturing - high
environment - low
postmsaa – off

*******user config settings*******

;Distance used for per-pixel detail layers blending. Usage: r_DetailDistance (1-20) Default is 6.
r_DetailDistance = 4

;Toggles the glow effect.
;Usage: r_Glow [0/1]
;Default is 0 (off). Set to 1 to enable glow effect.
r_Glow = 0

;Toggles the anamorphic flares effect.
;Usage: r_GlowAnamorphicFlares [0/1]
;Default is 0 (off). Set to 1 to enable.
r_GlowAnamorphicFlares = 0

;not sure if this works but try anyways
;r_PrintMemoryLeaks should be 1 to enable i think
r_PrintMemoryLeaks = 1

;Enables glow particles.
;Usage: r_UseParticlesGlow [0/1]
r_UseParticlesGlow = 0

;use numbers lower than 100 to increase view distance. This can have a severe impact on performance though.
e_ViewDistRatio = 100
e_ViewDistRatioDetail = 100
e_ViewDistRatioVegetation = 100

;Set the amount of grain on the sky. The default is 0.6. Use 0 to turn it off.
r_HDRGrainAmount = 0

;Enable (1) or disable (0) motion blur. To extend the blure effect to all objects, use the 2 setting.
r_MotionBlur = 0

;Use 0 to turn off depth of field. Use 2 to enable HDR Depth of field. default 1
r_DepthOfField = 0

;This one can only be used on the crysis 2 shortcut: Use 0 for 32x sampling of depth of field.
;Use 1 to sample 64x to increase the optical offect. It can only be tweaked via the Crysis 2 shortcut.
r_DepthOfFieldBokehQuality = 0

;use 0 to turn off glow effects. It works only thorough the Crysis 2 shortcut
r_glow = 0

;+r_HDRRendering=0/1 -> Disables/Enables HDR Rendering
r_HDRRendering = 0

r_SSAO = 0
;(Ambient Occlusion awesomeness)

d3d9_TextureFilter = trilinear
;(Textures look sharper !)
;---
;============================ STREAMING ===============================
;--- I have changed some of the values to better fit my system the original is listed the the description inside of ()
;r_TexturesStreaming=0
; *** r_TexturesStreaming=1 is HARD-CODED into the engine core after Sept/19 patch, so just a placeholder. ***
r_TexturesStreamingMaxRequestedJobs=512
; --- Maximum number of tasks submitted to streaming system. Default is 256. ***(0) Will give NONE ! ***
r_TexturesStreamingMaxRequestedMB=4.0
; --- Maximum amount of texture data requested from streaming system in MB. Default is 2.0(MB) ***(0) Will give NONE ! ***
r_TexturesStreamPoolSysSize=1028
; --- Size of system memory pool for managed textures in MB. Default is 800 MB for PC. *** (0) Will give NONE ! ***
r_TexturesStreamPoolSize=512
; --- Size of pool for textures streaming in MB. Default is 128(MB) for PC. ***(0) Will give NONE ! ***
;r_TexturesStreamingMinReadSizeKB=64
; --- Minimal read portion in KB. Default is 32(KB)
r_texturesstreamingPostponeThresholdMip=3
; --- Threshold used to postpone high resolution mipmaps. Default is 1 [count]
;r_TexturesStreamingPostponeThresholdKB=1024
; --- Threshold used to postpone high resolution mipmap loads in KB. Default is 1024(KB)
r_TexturesStreamingPostponeMips=1
; --- Postpone loading of high res mipmaps to improve resolution ballance of texture streaming. Default is 1 (on).
r_TexturesStreamingResidencyEnabled=1
; --- Toggle for resident textures streaming support.
;r_TexturesStreamingSync=0
; --- Force only synchronous texture streaming. All textures will be streamed in the main thread. Default is 0, 1 for enabled.
r_TexturesStreamingResidencyThrottle=1
; --- Default is 0.5. Max is 1.0 means textures will become resident sooner, Min 0.0 means textures will not become resident.
r_TexturesStreamingResidencyTime=180
; --- Time to keep textures resident for before allowing them to be removed from memory, in seconds. ***(60) Will give 1 min. ***
r_texturesstreampooldefragmentation=0
; >>> Enabled CPU (1), GPU(2) and disable (0) textures stream pool defragmentation.

This is what I use personally and I get 45-50 fps on I3 -2100 and hd6770 (your mileage may vary as my system is not the same as yours in power). If this one does not work for you then GOOGLE is your friend, read around and try some of the setting you find. There used to be a thread for older system config files but sadly that thread is gone. Good luck.

Edited by StainlessSR, 01 November 2012 - 03:05 AM.

[Swiss Beats]

Yeah PGI, I am mad too.. this stupid game won't run on my Commodore 64! *grumble grumble*

To all of you complaining about how awful the game play is on your computer please do enlighten us with your system specs.

Laptop users you know you are surely to be out of this unless you have a dedicated video card and even if you did I would guess that mobile processors are not going to cut it..

CenturionOmega, on 01 November 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

Obviously, it is not a gaming computer. That being said, I can still get 50-60 fps on WoT easy.

As for my system specs:
Intel HD 4000 Graphics Card
Intel i7 processor @ 2.3 GHz
Windows 7 64-bit
8 GB of RAM

You hit the nail on the head, this is not a gaming computer, it is a laptop.. a laptop with an integrated video card. End of story. Although this is not a cutting edge, new, high-end gaming engine it beats the hell out of a lot of the better PC's. I hate to break it to you but this was inevitable and especially on a laptop. If you had a stand alone card that met the minimum system specs then great but a little homework and this should not have been a surprise.

I can play WoT on triple monitors at 5760 x 1080 at highest and get 60 FPS but this game cripples me and I get at best 30-40 with bouts of 20 FPS at times but I expect this from a new title with a better game engine.

As was mentioned by others you cannot possibly expect the game developer to dumb this down and to what level? I can expect someone with an iPad to start a thread next.

Edited by demonr6, 01 November 2012 - 03:26 AM.

[Egomane]

CenturionOmega, on 01 November 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

My friend also said that my graphics card was fairly standard, and should be able to run just about any game just fine.

Intel HD 4000 Graphics Card

Your friend is wrong! This integrated GPU (it is not a Card), is relativ low end. You can run any game with it, but you are not guaranteed that you are able to enjoy it.

You might want to read up on this article to get an impression of what your GPU can do:
http://www.techpower...idge_GPU/1.html
For a comparison to MWO look for the Crysis 2 Benchmarks.

[Swiss Beats]

I think they should have stated clearly that laptop users would not be supported unless they had a stand alone card and even then made the minimum specs higher than the pc counterparts. Unless you own a purpose built gaming laptop then that is another story but even then it would have to cost a pretty penny to play this at the level of some people's expectations.

[Dandyman]

My laptop runs the game currently on full settings, but its a pretty beefy 17" system with an Nvidia Quadro 3000M. The last part being the key, the laptop MUST have a discrete graphics card designed to run demanding 3D applications. Most consumer laptops use grossly underpowered GPUs. The only games they're designed to run were published in the previous decade.

DemonRs point is a good one. Too many people just think a laptop is a smaller desktop without considering the trade-offs that had to be made to make it smaller.

[evilC]

Jeez man, there are some pretty harsh responses here.
Anyone saying that there isn't an issue is living in dreamland.

From asking around on the Teamspeak servers, there are LOTS of people with good gaming rigs that are having problems getting a stable 60FPS.

For example, my rig:
Intel Core i7-930
6GB 1600 RAM
nVidia GTX 660 Ti Superclocked

I am getting dips down to 20FPS and lower. I never go above 60. It tends to average out at 30FPS.

For a rig of this calibre, this is not acceptable - I can play BF3 at high settings @ 60FPS.
From what I can tell, MWO is very much CPU bound - check the MWO Benchmarking Project thread for more info.

[CenturionOmega]

@demonr6, I was looking for more positive feedback. Don't brag to me about how awesome your triple monitor gaming computer is. My point is that if this is supposed to be a F2P game, it needs to be accessible to those of us who cannot afford your priceless NASA computer. So before you ever bully (for lack of a better world) a guy like me, think about how snobby you are being, as in check yourself before you be an ***. Also, my laptop is new, and your reference to an ancient computer isn't an accurate analogy or reference to my problem. I am on mobile at school so when I get home I'll address the issue further. Keep those FPS booster options coming guys!

[Scarlett Avignon]

In all fairness, I run this game on a single-core comp and with tweaking get about 15-20 FPS. Not great, but playable.

[Egomane]

CenturionOmega, on 01 November 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

My point is that if this is supposed to be a F2P game, it needs to be accessible to those of us who cannot afford your priceless NASA computer.

Free2Play does not equal low hardware requirements. Your graphics hardware is below the minimum requirements of this game (they can be found here). It does not have anything to do with how old, how new or how expensive a PC is, just with pure technical capabilities, where yours is lacking.

[BigTaeng]

CenturionOmega, on 01 November 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

As for my system specs:
Intel HD 4000 Graphics Card
Intel i7 processor @ 2.3 GHz
Windows 7 64-bit
8 GB of RAM

You mentioned you are using the Low settings, but what resolution are you running? The 4000 can handle some recent games capably, but at a far reduced resolution compared to other cards. Tom's Hardware benchmarks showed the 4000 systems they tested averaged between 20-30 fps in Crysis 2, but that was at 1024x768. All the way up to 1920x1080 they were only getting 7.7 fps.

Intel is also known for poor driver support in newer games. They are getting better, but they lag far behind the big guns of nVIDIA and AMD(ATi).

I am not disputing the fact that the engine itself can use some major tweaking. I imagine we will see performance increases when they finally implement DX11 support. But the fact of the matter is, you are using an integrated 3D graphics card that just does not have all the horsepower. Just because it is free to play, does not mean they have to cater to the lower end systems. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but I do not understand where that sense of entitlement comes from.

demonr6, on 01 November 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

I think they should have stated clearly that laptop users would not be supported unless they had a stand alone card and even then made the minimum specs higher than the pc counterparts. Unless you own a purpose built gaming laptop then that is another story but even then it would have to cost a pretty penny to play this at the level of some people's expectations.

Knowledge Base said:

Minimum PC Requirements

MechWarrior Online minimum requirements:
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz / Athlon II X2 245e
GPU: GeForce 8800GT / Radeon HD 5600/5700
RAM: 4 GB
OS: Windows XP 32-bit SP3
DirectX: DX9
HDD Space: 4 GB

We're aware the game will run on some systems that are running on lower end specs but we can only offer minimal support in this situation.

I think the fact that they only listed dedicated graphics cards under minimum requirement should have told you a stand alone card was necessary.

[evilC]

evilC, on 01 November 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Jeez man, there are some pretty harsh responses here.
Anyone saying that there isn't an issue is living in dreamland.

From asking around on the Teamspeak servers, there are LOTS of people with good gaming rigs that are having problems getting a stable 60FPS.

For example, my rig:
Intel Core i7-930
6GB 1600 RAM
nVidia GTX 660 Ti Superclocked

I am getting dips down to 20FPS and lower. I never go above 60. It tends to average out at 30FPS.

For a rig of this calibre, this is not acceptable - I can play BF3 at high settings @ 60FPS.
From what I can tell, MWO is very much CPU bound - check the MWO Benchmarking Project thread for more info.

Hmm, I noticed tonight that my CPU was running @ 2.4Ghz (Instead of the stock 2.8). I think I had some issues in the past so I had clocked it down.
So I clocked it up to 2.8 - huge improvement - probably averaging more like 40-50 now - it tends to sit at 60 and dip down to 40 or sometimes 30.
I then OCed to 4Ghz but did not notice that much improvement.