167 replies to this topic

[AdultPuppetShow]

What I want to know is what happened on the April 2nd patch that made me lose 15 frames per second.

Edited by AdultPuppetShow, 21 April 2013 - 05:56 PM.

[SnuggleBug]

Catamount, on 21 April 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

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.

My issue is the further graphical upgrades that are in the works as well as the 12v12. No one has even brought that up on this thread yet. Its one thing to be in a fireball with 15 other mechs. Now it will be going to 23.

I know its beta. I get that. We seem to have a memory leak or something else currently. They are hard at it right now trying to get that fixed. When minimum specs were released for closed beta this rig met them all. That is why I purchased a founders pack. Once we get 12v12 I cannot see this rig being capable any longer.

Red October911, on 21 April 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

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.

Right there with you Red. I played 3-4000 matches on WOT. Never had any issues with it running on the higher end settings. Like i said in my original post they need to cater to as many possible customers as reasonably possible. Sure do hope they do because when this game is running smoothly it is fantastic.

[Quinn Allard]

Whats so hard about these things is....most people lie about their fps and performance. I am pushing 4.2Ghz cpu, 2GB gpu, 16GB ram, and game is on a SSD and I have V-sync enabled because of screen tearing. So I only see 60fps. With it off I am reading 80+fps, but I get screen tearing which is annoying. Most of the people that claim to be above 60fps, game all smooth as silk, are probably lying. This game is running on DX9, and isnt optimized yet. When DX11 comes in, game gets optimized as much as it can, then we shall see whos at what. If you are seeing 10fps or below, I am sorry I really am.....however this is PC gaming. Its not cheap, its not easy, and its full of long hours diagnosing problems, blue screens, random software events, over heating components, and the worst: bricking. With that said, if you are playing on a 10 year old computer and mad that u cant play a modern game.....go buy a Wii. You need to spend the few hundred to upgrade. I am sick and tired of all the whiners and babies in PC gaming. For a few years it was a very bleak landscape, a lonely place to be, now its growing and more are coming into the fold. Please, we want to help, we want to see our numbers swell we really do. Man up, do 30 minutes of research, work a few overtime hours here and there, sell your Pokemon cards, and buy a few key components. Or hell, goto Craigslist and buy a premade one. Thats not the best way to go, but if you think a molex cable goes into the back of your TV and IDE and SATA are are military weapons then for the love of Pete do some research.

[Lord of All]

PGI should consider this when considering this suggestion.

I could not play at a lower setting and get minimal acceptable framerates so I bought a new $250 card. If I didn't have to buy that card I would have spent a chunk of that in game instead.

Also this game should support every resolution the engine supports.


-Lord Foul has nothing on me!

Edited by Lord of All, 22 April 2013 - 11:56 AM.

[Dan Nashe]

Quote

.....however this is PC gaming. Its not cheap, its not easy, and its full of long hours diagnosing problems, blue screens, random software events, over heating components, and the worst: bricking. With that said, if you are playing on a 10 year old computer and mad that u cant play a modern game.....go buy a Wii. You need to spend the few hundred to upgrade. I am sick and tired of all the whiners and babies in PC gaming.

.

I'll be honest. This guy almost convinced me totrash my desktop and buy a Wii. Based on this, you clearly have to be a fool to play pc games. And don't get me started on the people on the internet. In fact, skip the wii. And the PS4. SNes all the way.

Next thing you know, people will want to buy cars and have them start every time without a jump.

Edited by DanNashe, 22 April 2013 - 12:27 PM.

[Catamount]

Lord of All, on 22 April 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

PGI should consider this when considering this suggestion.

I could not play at a lower setting and get minimal acceptable framerates so I bought a new $250 card. If I didn't have to buy that card I would have spent a chunk of that in game instead.

Also this game should support every resolution the engine supports.


-Lord Foul has nothing on me!

If you couldn't play reasonably at low settings, then you had either a very, very, very, very old card, or one that was bottom-of-the-barrel low-end, because this game will run just fine, at low settings, on entry-level Radeon HD 5000 GPUs. I have a GPU that's basically a desktop 5570 in my laptop, and I don't even have to restrict myself to the lowest settings (though I can't quite make medium).

You definitely don't need a $250 card, that's for sure. A $90 7750 would play this game quite nicely at somewhat reduced settings (maybe dead medium?).


Here's what people aren't understanding: the game isn't that GPU intensive; it will run on almost any modern dedicated card. The problem is the CPU intensity of this game.

Here's the takeaway: Making a lower setting won't help most people who can't run this game, because if someone really doesn't have the minimally capable GPU to run this game, they almost certainly don't have the powerful CPU needed to run this game.

What CPU and GPU did you have before switching, anyways?

AdultPuppetShow, on 21 April 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

What I want to know is what happened on the April 2nd patch that made me lose 15 frames per second.

This is definitely a HUGE part of the problem, too. Patching is always two steps forward, one step back for beta titles, but two patches ago, PGI practically broke half the game.

They need to be fixing the game not releasing new graphical settings for a broken game

Edited by Catamount, 22 April 2013 - 01:30 PM.

[Quinn Allard]

DanNashe, on 22 April 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Next thing you know, people will want to buy cars and have them start every time without a jump.

Thats what clutches and downhill slopes are for

[Lord of All]

Catamount, on 22 April 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

If you couldn't play reasonably at low settings, then you had either a very, very, very, very old card, or one that was bottom-of-the-barrel low-end, because this game will run just fine, at low settings, on entry-level Radeon HD 5000 GPUs. I have a GPU that's basically a desktop 5570 in my laptop, and I don't even have to restrict myself to the lowest settings (though I can't quite make medium)....

Maybe our definition of "reasonable min framerates" are different? Dipping below 30fps is not acceptable to me. And yes I'm fully aware of the Cpu dependencies, that is why my 960t is running as a 1600T@4g.

AFA buying a 7750 for a c note when it will be doing the same thing in 6 months is not a viable choice for me. I prefer to upgrade every few years as opposed to every 6 months.

Quinn Allard, on 22 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Thats what clutches and downhill slopes are for

Kids these days, can't even push a 2 ton car jump in and pop the clutch? What's this world coming to?

Edited by Lord of All, 22 April 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[Quinn Allard]

Lord of All, on 22 April 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Kids these days, can't even push a 2 ton car jump in and pop the clutch? What's this world coming to?

Lol....I drive a 1996 F250 XLT XCab 7.3L Powerstroke Longbed with a topper and grill gaurd......good luck pushing it...

[Catamount]

Lord of All, on 22 April 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Maybe our definition of "reasonable min framerates" are different? Dipping below 30fps is not acceptable to me. And yes I'm fully aware of the Cpu dependencies, that is why my 960t is running as a 1600T@4g.

Well that's why the CPU requirements need to go down from patent absurdity, but only DX11 can do that. Creating a lower setting won't help the CPU side.

Quote

AFA buying a 7750 for a c note when it will be doing the same thing in 6 months is not a viable choice for me. I prefer to upgrade every few years as opposed to every 6 months.

Well let's be fair then

You bought a $250 card because you want to play future games down the road, not because MWO necessitated it

And if MWO wasn't running on that GPU, then clearly is was inadequate for all AAA titles. MWO's GPU requirements are really quite modest.

[Baldarus Jones]

Should an AMD A-6 APU with a Raedeon HD6570(2GB DDR3) with 8GB of system ram be getting 10-15fps on lowest settings??

[Ghost142]

Ok, let's set some things straight.

Is it possable?: Yes! I've worked with animation programs and I can tell you that it would be easy to make a lower graphics setting no matter what the graphics engine. They could reduce texture quality by dragging their textures into Photoshop and just save them as (Example) a 10MB file instead of a 50MB one. Heck they could even do close to this by just forcing the game to use only Bilinear texture filtering textures instead of mixing Trilinear and Bilinear textures (Meaning what were far undetailed textures are now close and far textures). And just like Anti-Aliasing they could easily gave the option to turn off many of it's after effects.

Is it worth their time?: If they're bad at their job it'll take a day.

Should people just let it go because they're computers suck anyways?: Maybe. If you can't even play the first Crysis on low on your computer then you defiantly shouldn't try to play it's successor. It's one thing to make it computer friendly and another thing to make it play better then games made 6 years ago.

Is CPU power the real problem?: Not The problem, but can be a problem. I have a 2.30GHz Quad-Core CPU and am still only getting 7FPS on low. If you have at least a 2.8GHz Dual-Core CPU, you're probably fine in that respects.

My experience?: I can pretty much play any game, but this. Go figure.

[Ghost142]

Baldarus Jones, on 22 April 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

Should an AMD A-6 APU with a Raedeon HD6570(2GB DDR3) with 8GB of system ram be getting 10-15fps on lowest settings??

Ouch! You should be getting much better. If what I read is right and it does have 400 Stream Processors, and a 900MHz Memory Clock, you should be getting like 30FPS.

[Catamount]

Ghost142, on 23 April 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

Is CPU power the real problem?: Not The problem, but can be a problem. I have a 2.30GHz Quad-Core CPU and am still only getting 7FPS on low. If you have at least a 2.8GHz Dual-Core CPU, you're probably fine in that respects.

My experience?: I can pretty much play any game, but this. Go figure.

A 2.3ghz what? That's almost certainly either an awfully old CPU, or a laptop CPU.

And unless you're someone running with something like a laptop and integrated video, then the CPU is definitely "the" problem, because no gaming machine is going to have the very powerful CPU necessary to play this game, but not the absolutely minimalist GPU needed.

Edited by Catamount, 23 April 2013 - 06:35 AM.

[Baldarus Jones]

Ghost142, on 23 April 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

Ouch! You should be getting much better. If what I read is right and it does have 400 Stream Processors, and a 900MHz Memory Clock, you should be getting like 30FPS.

Can you suggest anything for me to try to improve my FPS? i am already using AMD's newest beta drivers. I play WOT on this machine, and am running everything on max, max resolution, ect and getting 30+ fps almost constantly.

To be honest, i have gotten to the point where i WANT to play MWO, but when i go to click on it, i end up playing WOT instead. Simply because im tired of trying to wade through lag and horrible fps, escpecially when there is just such a HUGE contrast between how the two games play.

[Lord of All]

Catamount, on 22 April 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

... Well let's be fair then You bought a $250 card because you want to play future games down the road, not because MWO necessitated it

Untrue, I havn't played a FPS since Doom3 until this game and the last video upgrade I did was for F@H. This game is what has brought me back to FPS.

But I am sure I am an exception to the rule on this one. But I have always had the same upgrade path all the way from Hercules Mono graphics.

But I will re-iterate that if the engine supports it then the game should as well. It is just smart business.

[Ghost142]

Catamount, on 23 April 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

A 2.3ghz what? That's almost certainly either an awfully old CPU, or a laptop CPU.

And unless you're someone running with something like a laptop and integrated video, then the CPU is definitely "the" problem, because no gaming machine is going to have the very powerful CPU necessary to play this game, but not the absolutely minimalist GPU needed.

What?? No offence, but you're either trolling me or don't understand CPU's/Processors. I'm not quoting a brand, I'm quoting it's specifications. Quad-Core means it has 4 cores (A core basically being the CPU in it's self) each running at the CPU's specified speed (In my case 2.30GHz). I'm using a Desktop, and aside from my CPU not being 3.2 GHz or more my Quad-Core CPU is still considered nicely above average. To my knowledge the best CPU's currently available are 6 cores running at 3.2 GHz, and that many cores hasn't even been optimised for most games yet. You could debate the semantics of CPU threading and caching, but in the end it's the cores and speeds that matters. (And as a side note: most Laptops that are Quad-Core aren't even running past 2GHz.) I monitor my CPU as well and it has never been maxed out in any of my gaming (Example: Crysis, CoD:4)... MechWarrier: Online also utilizes all the cores evenly and only uses a average of 35% of it's total power spiking only at 50%. Given those statistics a Dual-Core CPU could even keep up. So it's not a CPU issue - period.
Now I really don't want to sound mean, and I'm sorry if this was just a misunderstanding or if I'm at all mistaken, I just want to make sure that I'm clear and don't leave much room to be trolled on if that be the case.

[Juicebox12]

Ghost142, on 23 April 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

What?? No offence, but you're either trolling me or don't understand CPU's/Processors. I'm not quoting a brand, I'm quoting it's specifications. Quad-Core means it has 4 cores (A core basically being the CPU in it's self) each running at the CPU's specified speed (In my case 2.30GHz). I'm using a Desktop, and aside from my CPU not being 3.2 GHz or more my Quad-Core CPU is still considered nicely above average. To my knowledge the best CPU's currently available are 6 cores running at 3.2 GHz, and that many cores hasn't even been optimised for most games yet. You could debate the semantics of CPU threading and caching, but in the end it's the cores and speeds that matters. (And as a side note: most Laptops that are Quad-Core aren't even running past 2GHz.) I monitor my CPU as well and it has never been maxed out in any of my gaming (Example: Crysis, CoD:4)... MechWarrier: Online also utilizes all the cores evenly and only uses a average of 35% of it's total power spiking only at 50%. Given those statistics a Dual-Core CPU could even keep up. So it's not a CPU issue - period.
Now I really don't want to sound mean, and I'm sorry if this was just a misunderstanding or if I'm at all mistaken, I just want to make sure that I'm clear and don't leave much room to be trolled on if that be the case.

You must be trolling.... a 3.2ghz 6 core is not the most powerful cpu available. Your 2.3 quad core is what cpu? i haven't seen a 2.3 quad in ages so the architecture is probably ancient and inefficient as well as clocked very low. Most smart phones are verging on having as much power as your computer....

In case i wasn't clear your CPU is definitely below average.

Edited by Juicebox12, 24 April 2013 - 12:04 AM.

[Bad Karma 308]

Juicebox12, on 24 April 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

3.2ghz 6 core is not the most powerful cpu available.

He's referring to the i7-3960x (6 cores/12 threads @ 3.2GHZ & 3.8GHZ Turbo) There is a slightly newer one, the 3970X (6 cores / 12 threads @ 3.5GHZ & 4.0GHZ turbo). They are generally considered to be the highest performance CPUs available in the consumer category. To go any higher would require you to move into Xeon class territory.

Edited by Bad Karma 308, 24 April 2013 - 12:37 AM.

[Suprentus]

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.

That's only true if the medium you are watching has a smooth blurring effect. When you naturally look around in real life, your brain fills in the quick visual input it receives with blurring so it's a smooth transition for your eyes. On a static screen, however, your brain doesn't make that blur, and the medium has to do it for you. Film has gotten away with 24 FPS so far because it just naturally emulates that blurring effect.

When a screen shows images that have no blur, it can seem jerky and choppy, even when the FPS is more than 30. MWO has a screen blur option, but I don't use it because it's horrible and doesn't at all simulate the blur you actually perceive in real life. I think the screen blur option slows it down anyway, which kind of defeats the purpose of it to begin with.

Anyway, I've found that 60 FPS is the perfect threshold for games to stay at. Any more is not noticeable to me at all.

Edited by Suprentus, 24 April 2013 - 01:17 AM.