167 replies to this topic

[Ghost142]

Recent patches has now made MechWarrior: Online run slower. I've noticed a considerable 4 to 6 FPS performance drop from these recent patches and think it's time for MechWarrior: Online to support a lower graphics setting for people already running it on Low. Hopefully the MechWarrior: Online team hears our complaints soon and will do something to improve it's performance issues.
Let me know what you think.

[Gremlich Johns]

If you are getting 25 FPS or higher, you're fine. your brain can't see any real difference over 25, anyway. If, however, you believe you do it's because you've talked yourself into believing that you can.

[ArmageddonKnight]

Gremlich ..not only is that wrong ..but people can see for themselves wether they can or canot see a difference, simply play a game that u can constantly keep FPS at 60 or above then lock the FPs to 25, play it ..then restart and play again with FPS locked at 60.
For those with 120hz screens, they can also do a 60 vs 120 comparison.

No need to argue ..like i said ..each perosn can check themselves.

As for 'talking urself into beleving it' ..thats just a statement to nulfiy any1's attempt to say otherwise

As for OP.

I voted no. bassicaly the game is already relativly light on the graphics front for a Cryengine 3 game in 2013 thats trying to be a mech Sim. The grpahics could be a whole lot better, and ofc more demanding. Every other patch that comes along seems to have some sort of grphpics tweek to improve performance at the cost of quality. Ofc some increase visual quility a tad...The last one added baked shadows which is nice, they r not 'real' shadows which would looked and feel a whole lot better., but atleat tthey added somthing.

Anyway 'most' people who have performance issues bad enough to complain have ancient or non gaming rigs, which tbh means they dont really have any right to be moaning..they want to game ..build a gaming rig..its like trying to play a PS2 game on a PS1..silly.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 20 April 2013 - 12:48 PM.

[Juicebox12]

Modern engines run on modern pc's. Any modern mid grade gaming pc will run this game well. If companies cater to the lower end it will prevent progress with visual fidelity on newer games. Move forward not backward i say.

[Thomas Covenant]

I think "yes" and "for people who need it" should be combined as to not separate the votes.
Though it boggles my mind would vote no on allowing more people the ability to play.

[Juicebox12]

Thomas Covenant, on 20 April 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I think "yes" and "for people who need it" should be combined as to not separate the votes.
Though it boggles my mind would vote no on allowing more people the ability to play.

The modifications to the engine are something they would not be able to do as they did not create and do not own the engine. Not to mention the adverse effects and bugs created by attempting that. This is the cry3 engine, it was not designed to run on outdated hardware period.

[Thomas Covenant]

There are hard, solid things within reach that can be done to smooth out the performance for all the kiddies without 'gaming rigs' and big christmases. I think PGI has done a lot of them. If there are a lot more that could be done, yes I would vote that is a sound investment.

Edited by Thomas Covenant, 20 April 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[Juicebox12]

Well if all you got to post is the LOD issue then that can be forced through your video card software suite.... Small change in performance if any.

[Catamount]

I think something has to be kept in mind here is that most of the problem with the game is CPU-side, not GPU-side, so reducing settings is going to have limited effect. Now some of that might be rendering overhead, so reducing certain aspects of the visual fidelity might help, but I've run tests between higher and lower settings, and found no discernible difference in minimum FPS (I posted those results with screenshots in a previous thread on the topic, getting 46fps as a minimum regardless of setting).

It takes a really low end GPU to not be able to run this game, graphically. Unfortunately, the CPU is a different story, so creating a lower setting would do little, if anything, to enable gameplay on more systems. If you don't have a GPU capable of playing the game at 1024x768 on low, then you almost certainly don't have a CPU capable of playing the game at any settings.

[Thomas Covenant]

Juicebox12, on 20 April 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Well if all you got to post is the LOD issue then that can be forced through your video card software suite.... Small change in performance if any.

Being an owner of a pc that play MWO only fairly well, maybe I should. I wouldn't know how to do it. "If all I got"? "I" am not PGI, I can imagine there being more that they could do for average performance pc users. If not well, too bad. If yes though, I would vote yes. Please and Thank you.

[Barbaric Soul]

As long as it doesn't affect the current highest graphical levels, I have no issue with it. If it hinders my gaming experience, sorry 'bout your luck. Go spend some money or spend more time looking for a better paying job.

[Catamount]

I'm frankly more concerned with the devs wasting time on something that won't help. Again, the game is not GPU demanding. My laptop GPU can play this game on medium settings, and it has a Mobility Radeon HD 5730, a laptop GPU that was considered midrange three years ago. It's equivalent to a desktop 5570.

Where it bottlenecks is the CPU, and reducing settings does not affect that.

http://mwomercs.com/...08#entry1833008


If my stock 3570k was getting down into the mid 40s regardless of settings (it now doesn't drop below 60 since I OCed it modestly to 4.2, and performance has modestly improved since those screenshots were taken on my system as well), then clearly tweaking settings isn't going to alleviate this problem. Those with older CPUs that are reasonably decent and not that old, like Phenom IIs and any Nehalem i5 or up, should get at least decently playable framerates, but if you're running much older and lower end than that, then you just don't have a CPU that can run Cryengine 3 in DX9, which is where the problem stems from. Crysis 2 in DX9 behaves in the exact same way (but will run on almost any CPU in DX11).

The quickest way the devs can solve this problem for people running Athlon IIs or Core II Duos is to not divert to some other project futilely trying to put lower settings into the game, so that they can get DX11 out ASAP.

Edited by Catamount, 21 April 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[Gremlich Johns]

ArmageddonKnight, on 20 April 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

Gremlich ..not only is that wrong ..but people can see for themselves wether they can or canot see a difference, simply play a game that u can constantly keep FPS at 60 or above then lock the FPs to 25, play it ..then restart and play again with FPS locked at 60.

I checked out some work showing 15/30/60 fps comparisons. There is an ever so slightly smoother flow in the 60 over the 30, but not enough for me to really be concerned. As someone who does not have a vid card or system that permits me to have 60fps or higher (normally 30-50) on high, I am content. I appreciate your points, all the same. Thanx

[Badconduct]

Gremlich Johns, on 20 April 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

If you are getting 25 FPS or higher, you're fine. your brain can't see any real difference over 25, anyway. If, however, you believe you do it's because you've talked yourself into believing that you can.

Actually, it depends on your monitors refresh rate. Anything below 60fps is noticeable.

It's not the average FPS that hurts you anyway, it's the dips into the 10's.

Once this game moves off DX9, it should run better. No need for a poll for a beta.

[SnuggleBug]

I have a two year old I7 equipped laptop and I am constantly in the 4-10 fps range on lowest settings. I think that the devs realize that they have a F2P game here. The lower you can make the game requirements the larger your audience becomes.

Sure you have some CPU elites out there that can run this on infinite pixel settings at 1x10^32 fps. That audience is minimal. They are not going to cater to those users, yet. They have to make this game playable to as many of the masses as they can in order to get the most bang for their buck.

I desperately want to spend more money on this game, but at 4-10 fps I will hold onto my cash. I am looking at it now as I can spend a couple hundred more bucks on a working low res game, or i can go drop a grand on a desktop and not give them a dime. These guys are business men. I am sure that they realize this too. I will play the game one way or another, its just a matter of do they want my cash or another F2P bum. I am surely not the only person that feels this way.

[Badconduct]

SnuggleBug, on 21 April 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

I have a two year old I7 equipped laptop and I am constantly in the 4-10 fps range on lowest settings. I think that the devs realize that they have a F2P game here. The lower you can make the game requirements the larger your audience becomes.

Sure you have some CPU elites out there that can run this on infinite pixel settings at 1x10^32 fps. That audience is minimal. They are not going to cater to those users, yet. They have to make this game playable to as many of the masses as they can in order to get the most bang for their buck.

I desperately want to spend more money on this game, but at 4-10 fps I will hold onto my cash. I am looking at it now as I can spend a couple hundred more bucks on a working low res game, or i can go drop a grand on a desktop and not give them a dime. These guys are business men. I am sure that they realize this too. I will play the game one way or another, its just a matter of do they want my cash or another F2P bum. I am surely not the only person that feels this way.

Graphics card?

[SnuggleBug]

Badconduct, on 21 April 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

Graphics card?

nvidia gt 330m

I know it is very far from the best, but prior to black Tuesday it was good enough to run at 20+ in a topped commando for hours on end. And the poll was a question of should there be lower graphic settings.

Edited by SnuggleBug, 21 April 2013 - 04:37 PM.

[Catamount]

SnuggleBug, on 21 April 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

nvidia gt 330m

I know it is very far from the best, but prior to black Tuesday it was good enough to run at 20+ in a topped commando for hours on end. And the poll was a question of should there be lower graphic settings.

Well if you were getting 20+, then the issue isn't needing a lower setting; it's correcting the technical issue that lost you performance.

[Vassago Rain]

Gremlich Johns, on 21 April 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

I checked out some work showing 15/30/60 fps comparisons. There is an ever so slightly smoother flow in the 60 over the 30, but not enough for me to really be concerned. As someone who does not have a vid card or system that permits me to have 60fps or higher (normally 30-50) on high, I am content. I appreciate your points, all the same. Thanx

It's quite the difference. Guilty gear or F-zero GX, compared to xbox crysis 2.

[Red October911]

I know it's going to pain people hearing this, but I want MW: O to run like World of Tanks in terms of graphics (to be honest i'm not sure if it's cause WG has dumbed down graphics on WoT or they have great servers that allow any crap comupter to run the game without a hiccup).

My Computer is really mediocre at running games (and buying a gaming PC is out of the question right now in terms of finance and in terms of having parents which are severely against it) and for some reason or another ( like i said before, not sure if server side or graphics), my comp plays WoT flawlessly with solid FPS and great ms.

When I play MW: O atm it's impossible to even play with any mech with speed since the cockpit twitches and lags behind in a very irritating way...

Now I know MW: O is still in Beta, unlike WoT, but what i'm saying here is that I would like to see MW: O take the same path as WoT and make it playable regardless of computer type.