167 replies to this topic

[Egomane]

While it is true, that the human eye and brain can only differentiate a limited amount of fps before it comes to the conclusion it is a flowing movement, I miss the part about frame rendering times in the argument.

If you only achieve 25fps, chances are, that some of them are super fast and some take very long to render. The fps number is only an average.

For example:
- You have 3 seconds of gameplay. 75 rendered frames in those three seconds. If all those frames would render at the same speed, you will not notice it much, that there are only 25 fps.
- If in the first second, 30 frames are rendered, 15 in the second and again 30 in third, all rendered at the same speed within their respective second, you will notice a difference, but you still have 25 fps on average.
- If in the first second, 20 frames are rendered at the speed of 0.03 seconds, one frame at 0.1 second and 4 frames at 0.075 seconds, you will also notice it, no matter how they are distributed, and still have 25 fps.

If you get higher frame rates per second, it is less likely that you will notice frames that took longer to render, because the average time to render a single frame is shortened. Spikes become less noticable. This is why higher fps are prefered by many, as higher fps often means lower frame rendering time, even in the spikes, and smoother experience to the eyes.

Also, while the human brain does believe a TV picture at 25 fps to be smooth, the movements within the picture will get sharper if you get to higher fps values.

Lastly, every human is different. This goes for weight, height, percentage of body fat, reflex/reaction speeds and eyesight. Some are able to notice faster movement then others and would indeed benefit from higher fps, as it fits better to their natural abilities.

All in all, it is a mood point to argue about, what fps are preferable, as everyone percieves it differently for several reasons. You can not judge from your own experience, be it real or imagined, on what is preferable for all.

[Kandow]

Quinn Allard, on 22 April 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

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.

Iagree toally..most people don't even know how to clean their comps once a week/mth...dust/dirt is a major computer heater...turn your comp off once a wek and clean the fans/heatsinks....you'd be surprised a the outcome 99% of the time...this also goes for laptops too..like Quinn said...do some damn research!!

[Bad Karma 308]

Egomane, on 04 May 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

While it is true, that the human eye and brain can only differentiate a limited amount of fps before it comes to the conclusion it is a flowing movement, I miss the part about frame rendering times in the argument.

All in all, it is a mood point to argue about, what fps are preferable, as everyone percieves it differently for several reasons. You can not judge from your own experience, be it real or imagined, on what is preferable for all.

____________________________________
To back up your position you can turn to Peter Jackson's film "The Hobbit" which was shot at 48 frames/sec, double the normal. People in the theaters had a very notable reaction to the change.

"Early reviews have been all over the map regarding the visuals. A lot of people are complaining about the loss of film texture - one common complaint is that it looks like live TV, and who wants a movie to look like a sitcom or sports event?

Others say that the increased clarity of the image creates problems all its own - makeup and sets look more like makeup and sets because without film grain, which functions more or less as a scrim that hides imperfections, the images are actually too revealing. It’s harder for the audience to suspend their disbelief."

Or you can go a bit further back at look at the aborted Showcan technology. Showscan was 70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second - two and a half times faster than the industry standard of 24 frames per second.

Simply put, Showscan was…amazing. There was no particular sense of watching a movie. Rather, you were watching an enlarged version of reality as if seen through a window. The detail that could be captured on 70mm film, combined with the increased speed of the filming and projection, obliterated both the ever-so-slight bob and weave of conventional film as it moves through the gears of the projector. It also minimized film grain.

Long story short: Showscan never happened; Paramount thought that re-equipping the cameras and theaters of the world would be cost-prohibitive.

FROM: http://www.pbpulse.c...troversy/nTRmq/
__________________________________________

What I think is missing from all of these arguments is that most people can not or will never be able to see a side by side comparison of what a drastic change in FPS actually looks like. I myself chose the highest FPS I can get simple because I like the smoothness and closer resemblance to reality that it presents. This is a sim of a theoretical reality, and I want it as close as I can get it to such. Anything less and I find it a distasteful distraction.

[F lan Ker]

S!

Phrase "gaming new titles" in your requirements for the new PC = forget cheap and laptops. OK, decent laptops out there but they are not cheap. For any other use except maybe heavy 3D rendering, AutoCAD, photo editing and stuff a cheaper machine will do. Gaming squeezes the maximum out of it as I for one do not want to play MWO looking like Minecraft in 2013

Voted for more options as some are gimmicks only.

[AdultPuppetShow]

All this PC $1500+ monster rig elitism is fine and all, and I say that with the utmost sarcasm, but that still doesn't change the fact that I was getting acceptable graphical visuals on low/medium settings with my A8 4500m hd7640g + hd1670m laptop over a month ago but since April 2nd I pretty much haven't been able to play the game at all.

Edited by AdultPuppetShow, 04 May 2013 - 12:46 PM.

[Phaneron]

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.

Same here! I have a quadcore and 4 GB RAM, not the best videocart in the world but I'm happy with it. (Not sure which one). The only thing is I don't have lagg. Maybe a little bit with during shooting and being shot and all that chaos, but I don't think that's annoying. Some say that it's the quadcore that makes it all good and not laggy. I don't know.

[Lord of All]

I say once again because I don't think people understand this.

The game should support every setting that the engine supports. That is the bottom line.

Arguing over system specs and how much you should spend to play a game is pointless and detracts from the fact that the engine designers make the platform specifications not the developers. Although shoddy developers can cut corners and force higher end hardware being needed but that is all it is is shoddy programming to not include all engine supported options.

[Bad Karma 308]

Lord of All, on 04 May 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

I say once again because I don't think people understand this.

The game should support every setting that the engine supports. That is the bottom line.

Arguing over system specs and how much you should spend to play a game is pointless and detracts from the fact that the engine designers make the platform specifications not the developers. Although shoddy developers can cut corners and force higher end hardware being needed but that is all it is is shoddy programming to not include all engine supported options.

I'd say your post reeks of a self-righteous arrogance. Don't you think PGI should be allowed to present the game and visual experience the way they choose? If PGi wanted to lop off the bottom performance bracket then that's their right. But If you think you've got all the answers and can program better then them, then by all means, make a better one.

[Lord of All]

Bad Karma 308, on 04 May 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

I'd say your post reeks of a self-righteous arrogance. Don't you think PGI should be allowed to present the game and visual experience the way they choose? If PGi wanted to lop off the bottom performance bracket then that's their right. But If you think you've got all the answers and can program better then them, then by all means, make a better one.

If I had a team, budget, rights and the inclination then I would but I don't. And I couldn't care what you think my post reeks of, that doesn't change the fact it is truth.

[Catamount]

Lord of All, on 04 May 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

I say once again because I don't think people understand this.

The game should support every setting that the engine supports. That is the bottom line.

Arguing over system specs and how much you should spend to play a game is pointless and detracts from the fact that the engine designers make the platform specifications not the developers. Although shoddy developers can cut corners and force higher end hardware being needed but that is all it is is shoddy programming to not include all engine supported options.

Your post is based on a premise that is not, itself, true: that PGI could notably expand the systems that can play the game by introducing a lower setting.

When the game isn't suffering technical issues, it'll play on almost any GPU under the sun. Midrange laptop GPUs from four years ago are sufficient. Where this isn't the case, due to the game's bugginess (it will sometimes just decide to perform poorly), the solution is to fix the bugs, not try to dodge around them with a lower graphics setting.

When the game is running properly, then it comes back to my point, which I'll reiterate yet again: This game is picky about CPUs, not GPUs. If you don't have the incredibly modest GPU capable of playing this game, you will not likely have the CPU to play this game and introducing a new graphical setting will not alleviate the CPU requirement for this game. Only the introduction of DX11 will do that.


Exactly what kind of system setup would benefit here? Really, I want to know what system configuration you have in mind with this suggestion.

Edited by Catamount, 04 May 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[Pinselborste]

you should have seen Performance before closed beta end, it ran on high on an old phenom x3, and that way better than it does on a better cpu now.

[Lord of All]

Catamount, on 04 May 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

Your post is based on a premise that is not, itself, true: that PGI could notably expand the systems that can play the game by introducing a lower setting.

When the game isn't suffering technical issues, it'll play on almost any GPU under the sun. Midrange laptop GPUs from four years ago are sufficient. Where this isn't the case, due to the game's bugginess (it will sometimes just decide to perform poorly), the solution is to fix the bugs, not try to dodge around them with a lower graphics setting.

When the game is running properly, then it comes back to my point, which I'll reiterate yet again: This game is picky about CPUs, not GPUs. If you don't have the incredibly modest GPU capable of playing this game, you will not likely have the CPU to play this game and introducing a new graphical setting will not alleviate the CPU requirement for this game. Only the introduction of DX11 will do that.


Exactly what kind of system setup would benefit here? Really, I want to know what system configuration you have in mind with this suggestion.

And right here Proof that some people are just too ignorant to understand my post. Before you get all bent outta shape look up the definition of ignorant.

I said nothing about "systems that can play the game by introducing a lower setting" so don't put words in my mouth.

Edited by Lord of All, 04 May 2013 - 02:49 PM.

[BoaThor]

The crytec3 engine is really demanding (the most demanding game engine available) and MWO did make any use of it. So we got the penelaties but not the extras (like environmental dmg, physx, volumetric smoke, particels etc etc). MWO looks like a 2004-2005 game with an 2012 engine below. They better should have used unreal 3 engine which has great graphics and low hardware demands (for todays computers). But now it is to late.

[Bad Karma 308]

BoaThor, on 04 May 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

The crytec3 engine is really demanding (the most demanding game engine available) and MWO did make any use of it. So we got the penelaties but not the extras (like environmental dmg, physx, volumetric smoke, particels etc etc). MWO looks like a 2004-2005 game with an 2012 engine below. They better should have used unreal 3 engine which has great graphics and low hardware demands (for todays computers). But now it is to late.

MWO is currently running on DX9, a 10 year old API. They are using 9 right now until they get the fundamental game play on line. When they do jump to DX11, a lot of players will pay the penalty for retaining older and less capable GPUs. DX11, while more efficient, is drastically more demanding than its predecessors. There have been several development studios to release new titles in the last 1-2 years that have completely eschewed DX 9 and jumped straight to 10/10.1/11.

Also note that DX11.1 is due out in the near future. You'll also need to remember that the DX API is hardware dependent not software or firmware. So DX11 capable hardware can not be upgraded to 11.1.

Edited by Bad Karma 308, 04 May 2013 - 03:05 PM.

[Catamount]

Lord of All, on 04 May 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

And right here Proof that some people are just too ignorant to understand my post. Before you get all bent outta shape look up the definition of ignorant.

I know what ignorant means, and I don't think it means what you think it means, which is apparently "the state of taking exception with my post".

Quote

I said nothing about "systems that can play the game by introducing a lower setting" so don't put words in my mouth.

I see, so you don't have a point here.

When you say

Quote

The game should support every setting that the engine supports. That is the bottom line.

You can't actually provide a reason as to why that should be done, because by your own admission, expanding the range of available settings wouldn't improve gameplay for much of anyone, because the game hangs up on CPUs, not GPUs, for any sensible computer configuration.

Edited by Catamount, 04 May 2013 - 04:05 PM.

[Lord of All]

Catamount, on 04 May 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

I know what ignorant means, and I don't think it means what you think it means, which is apparently "the state of taking exception with my post".



I see, so you don't have a point here.

When you say


You can't actually provide a reason as to why that should be done, because by your own admission, expanding the range of available settings wouldn't improve gameplay for much of anyone, because the game hangs up on CPUs, not GPUs, for any sensible computer configuration.

First of all, sorry about the tone of my posts earlier. I live in alot of pain and sometimes take it out on others. I've taken my meds and feel better now so I'll try to explain myself better. You see when In alot of pain it is very tough to concentrate and I tend to just make blanket statement without going into detail and this often comes across as crass which it is.

Now my comment that the game should support all modes the engine does is because of course 2 fold.
1) business wise the larger the base the higher the profit.
2) tech wise it is already built into the engine and there is a thing called "Unsupported Modes" which I'm sure your aware is a disclaimer that even though the setting is being provided it will not be supported and therefore will not tax the resources of the company.

There really is no reason whatsoever to launch any program Gimped unless it is to hide shoddy programming. Hope this clarifies my statements a little.

AFA This particular game being CPU bound, you are forgetting the fact that once DX11 is implemented this may no longer be the case (I can't comment on this as I don't have that knowledge and don't have the time to research it). I believe though that once Dx11 is implemented that the offload to the gpu will allay the cpu ceiling and then we will be reevaluating what gpu's will be needed and this is when The lower RES levels will really come in handy. Sorry I didn't explain all this earlier but sometimes I just don't have the patience to write protracted posts.

[Bad Karma 308]

Lord of All, on 04 May 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

AFA This particular game being CPU bound, you are forgetting the fact that once DX11 is implemented this may no longer be the case (I can't comment on this as I don't have that knowledge and don't have the time to research it). I believe though that once Dx11 is implemented that the offload to the gpu will allay the cpu ceiling and then we will be reevaluating what gpu's will be needed and this is when The lower RES levels will really come in handy. Sorry I didn't explain all this earlier but sometimes I just don't have the patience to write protracted posts.

The demands that DX11 makes on GPUs can be extreme. The data that DX11 is attemprting to crunch is almost an order of magnitiude above what DX9 could do. Some people who run fine right now may well be forced into lower resolution brackets once it is implemented. .


Here are a couple of vids from both GPU houses on what DX11 brings to the table.



http://www.youtube.c...d&v=4G9anRoYGko

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=ghazN5L7Ncw

The other big issue is that many people have GPUs that can't support DX11 at all. If you pay attention to stats, Steam has a well compiled list of their users hardware. According to Steam less than 50% of their gamers have hardware capable of running DX11. So if their numbers are anywhere indicative to MWOs gamer base, then when we hit DX11 we may well lose a good chunk of our players. And gaming with both DX9 & DX11 gamers creates huge issues. We may well lose those guys from MWO

Edited by Bad Karma 308, 04 May 2013 - 05:33 PM.

[Catamount]

Lord of All, on 04 May 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

First of all, sorry about the tone of my posts earlier. I live in alot of pain and sometimes take it out on others. I've taken my meds and feel better now so I'll try to explain myself better. You see when In alot of pain it is very tough to concentrate and I tend to just make blanket statement without going into detail and this often comes across as crass which it is.

Now my comment that the game should support all modes the engine does is because of course 2 fold.
1) business wise the larger the base the higher the profit.
2) tech wise it is already built into the engine and there is a thing called "Unsupported Modes" which I'm sure your aware is a disclaimer that even though the setting is being provided it will not be supported and therefore will not tax the resources of the company.

There really is no reason whatsoever to launch any program Gimped unless it is to hide shoddy programming. Hope this clarifies my statements a little.

AFA This particular game being CPU bound, you are forgetting the fact that once DX11 is implemented this may no longer be the case (I can't comment on this as I don't have that knowledge and don't have the time to research it). I believe though that once Dx11 is implemented that the offload to the gpu will allay the cpu ceiling and then we will be reevaluating what gpu's will be needed and this is when The lower RES levels will really come in handy. Sorry I didn't explain all this earlier but sometimes I just don't have the patience to write protracted posts.

Well I've been walking around on a fractured ankle for a month, so I can actually relate to that of late (college student, can't afford proper care on the "insurance" I'm mandated to buy by my school).

When DX11 comes in then I agree, the issue should be revisited if it starts becoming a serious issue. If DX11 improves performance or leaves it where it is, GPU-side, which is often the case in games (in the most extreme example, Star Trek Online became half again as fast switching from DX9 to DX11, across the board), then the game really doesn't need any further work on that front.

If the game gets more demanding and, say, requires something like a 6770 or a 550 just to play, then lower settings will need to be introduced. DX11 is typically faster for the same graphics, but if, by the time DX11 is in, a whole slew of new demanding graphical features have also made their way in, those two things will counteract each other (obviously), and at that point who can say whether the net effect will be the game getting more or less intensive.


As it is right now, the game plays just fine on a Radeon HD 5570, perhaps even lower (5450?), and I've heard reports of acceptable performance on the Intel HD 4000. The problem is that it requires a Phenom II X4 or a 1st gen i5 (Nehalem) to play at remotely acceptable framerates, so people with first gen Phenoms, or first gen i3s, Athlon IIs, etc, get absolutely screwed.

For RIGHT NOW, there's not much PGI can do about that. There is nothing they can do, at this moment, to expand the systems the game will play on, besides just getting moving on DX11.


The other people who get screwed are people for whom the game just doesn't work correctly. I've talked with people who have laptops twice as powerful as mine, and they can't play the game even though I can. That's something that should be fixed now, but that's ongoing work. A BIG part of the problem is that several weeks ago they really borked things up. All betas are two steps forward, one back (and this game, for where it is in development, has FAR milder bugs than many I've played), but that one patch just rendered the entire client FUBAR.

That's the other thing that has to be remembered; MWO can't be judged by how it's acting right at this moment, because PGI literally broke the client.


TLDR: Right now, the game is as optimized for low-end hardware as it can realistically get, pending DX11, but once DX11 comes in, the issue should get a second look. For now, they just have to get the game actually working again, at which point all of this will get a lot better than it seems right now.

Edited by Catamount, 04 May 2013 - 06:34 PM.

[Lord of All]

Bad Karma 308, on 04 May 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

The demands that DX11 makes on GPUs can be extreme. The data that DX11 is attemprting to crunch is almost an order of magnitiude above what DX9 could do. Some people who run fine right now may well be forced into lower resolution brackets once it is implemented. ....

Yes, a great argument for all res options.

Quote

when we hit DX11 we may well lose a good chunk of our players. And gaming with both DX9 & DX11 gamers creates huge issues. We may well lose those guys from MWO

I see no reason to limit the game to Dx11 only? Where did you see that? Dx9 should still be an option when Dx11 is implemented, not withstanding the fact if you run in dx9 you will not receive the 11 or 10 (shader 3.0 IIRC) benefits.

[Lord of All]

Catamount, on 04 May 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

...For RIGHT NOW, there's not much PGI can do about that. There is nothing they can do, at this moment, to expand the systems the game will play on, besides just getting moving on DX11....

Opening an "unsupported mode" for the Lappy community cannot hurt anything. Although I don't understand people that game on a laptop, Well I do if it's there only system but It's pretty unrealistic to expect a 3D shooter to perform on Integrated graphics. It seems that the crowd with the most issues I've seen posted are with Intel integrated graphics which leads me to believe that lower res/textures will help those systems and if it's in the engine it should be freed up. I know I sound like a broken record.