85 replies to this topic

[POOTYTANGASAUR]

aniviron, on 05 June 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

Normally, I'd agree completely. I have a pretty good rig (i5 3570, GTX 680, 16gb) and have been able to run this game locked to 60 fps since I first upgraded in February. It'd be nice to add some things back in that take advantage of the hardware I have to make the game look great.

Unfortunately, the performance of the game has been degraded pretty seriously with every patch. Even though I haven't changed any hardware or installed any software in the last two months, I've dropped to 55 avg frames, but I get as low as 20 in combat now, which is odd because the game continues to look worse and worse as they aim for lower-end systems. Given the trouble they're having keeping the game running normally, I shudder to think what bringing back the details would do.

I have an i5-2320 3.0Ghz and an amd radeon 7750HD and i get 30fps smooth all day long lol doesnt ever drop below 30 even in heavy brawls. BTW i run 1920x1080 on ultra(max).

[bucurmish]

POOTYTANGASAUR, on 15 June 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

I have an i5-2320 3.0Ghz and an amd radeon 7750HD and i get 30fps smooth all day long lol doesnt ever drop below 30 even in heavy brawls. BTW i run 1920x1080 on ultra(max).

First of all there is no such thing as ultra(max) nowadays. I do think it looks worse than before , and after 4th april it doesnt run smoother either.
I do think the textures and the color filters were better back in closed beta.

Sadly enough this is the only screenshot that i got pre-open beta.

[Blue Footed Booby]

I'd really like someone to explain to me why PGI decided to remove visual details and features across the board rather than just moving the fanciest bells and whistles to the higher graphical settings, or making them separate options that default to off. It just doesn't make sense to me to take something that's in and working and pull it completely for the sake of people who can't play on max settings even with the decreased graphical quality. For things like texture resolution I could see them not wanting to pay for bandwidth to distribute gigabytes of assets most people won't use, this reasoning doesn't work for things like shaders or physics effects.

[carl kerensky]

FRYBOTH: The physical damage on Mechs looks really great. Are there any plans to expand upon this further? Maybe an additional layer of exposed internals underneath the brown/black pock marks? Also, is there ever going to be a visual representation of a destroyed side torso? When I Survive a round with only my center and another torso left, or just as a zombie (only CT), I wanna look like I just went through hell.
A: We actually dialed it back a bunch. We’re fighting a regular balance between high spec and min spec. Right now the game still needs improvement to run on lower end machines, which still dominate the market.


This....

In the latest dev answers its confirmed. PGI will you please dial it back up? I purchased a founders package based on gameplay AND the graphics. Ok your trying to get better min specs. Tell me why I can't have the options on my own machine? Honestly the game has lost that visceral feel for me. It's flat like cardboard now.

Ck

[aniviron]

Blue Footed Booby, on 17 June 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

I'd really like someone to explain to me why PGI decided to remove visual details and features across the board rather than just moving the fanciest bells and whistles to the higher graphical settings, or making them separate options that default to off. It just doesn't make sense to me to take something that's in and working and pull it completely for the sake of people who can't play on max settings even with the decreased graphical quality. For things like texture resolution I could see them not wanting to pay for bandwidth to distribute gigabytes of assets most people won't use, this reasoning doesn't work for things like shaders or physics effects.

This. A million times this.

[Igor Draskovic]

aniviron, on 05 June 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

Normally, I'd agree completely. I have a pretty good rig (i5 3570, GTX 680, 16gb) and have been able to run this game locked to 60 fps since I first upgraded in February. It'd be nice to add some things back in that take advantage of the hardware I have to make the game look great.

Unfortunately, the performance of the game has been degraded pretty seriously with every patch. Even though I haven't changed any hardware or installed any software in the last two months, I've dropped to 55 avg frames, but I get as low as 20 in combat now, which is odd because the game continues to look worse and worse as they aim for lower-end systems. Given the trouble they're having keeping the game running normally, I shudder to think what bringing back the details would do.

Indeed, this game is not optimized at all. I run an second generation i7 with a GTX 770 and I average about 50 fps. Crisis 3 runs better on this machine than this MWO.

aniviron, on 17 June 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

This. A million times this.

Because they don't know what they are doing. More specifically, they simply lack the engineering expertise required to make CRYENGINE run optimally. Remember how it took them 3 months to fix a single HUD bug?

[Tennex]

Igor Draskovic, on 17 June 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

Indeed, this game is not optimized at all. I run an second generation i7 with a GTX 770 and I average about 50 fps. Crisis 3 runs better on this machine than this MWO.



Because they don't know what they are doing. More specifically, they simply lack the engineering expertise required to make CRYENGINE run optimally. Remember how it took them 3 months to fix a single HUD bug?

its probably better to think of MWO almost like a mix of alpha, beta and released. Usually in game dev, the alpha build is completely unoptimized.

But they do passes as they develop to try to optimize where they can. As opposed to finishing the game and optimizing after. Their processs is much less efficient.

Part of the problem is they released this game to public hands before they have gotten many much needed features finished. its much harder to develop when the game is live.

[Blue Footed Booby]

Tennex, on 17 June 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

its probably better to think of MWO almost like a mix of alpha, beta and released. Usually in game dev, the alpha build is completely unoptimized.

But they do passes as they develop to try to optimize where they can. As opposed to finishing the game and optimizing after. Their processs is much less efficient.

Part of the problem is they released this game to public hands before they have gotten many much needed features finished. its much harder to develop when the game is live.

Traditionally, beta software is feature complete. The alpha/beta/release trichotomy really doesn't make any sense for FtP games, where part of the explicit purpose is to gradually add content over the game's life. I'm not sure why PGI has continued to maintain that MWO is in open Beta other than PR (that may in fact be the only reason).

Edited by Blue Footed Booby, 18 June 2013 - 03:39 AM.

[mekabuser]

tbh, cockpits look generic and quite frankly bad.
there are no visual quirks, no nothing .. cockpits and graphics in warthunder are far superior.

[Hotthedd]

Graphics are important in a SIM-type game.

We are getting 3PV.
We have lost R&R.
There is talk of respawns.
we have pinpoint alphas that will never be dealt with.
Heat is not something to actually manage, as long as you don't override.

WHY would graphics be important in THIS game?

[TehSBGX]

Honestly I think they need to get rid of the grain filter, I suspect it would raise framerates noteably and maake the game look better on top of it if they finally gave us an option to shut it off.

[White Bear 84]

aniviron, on 05 June 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Sorry to disappoint, but it is true. There are a lot of incidental details, I notice new things fairly often, always small. A good example of a small thing that was removed was how mech feet used to angle to the terrain and bend unevenly if the terrain was not level to keep the torso flat. Now the legs are always extended and the feet just clip through the ground or float. It apparently helps the framerate to do it like this, and it's a very small detail, but over time that kind of thing adds up.

This burns my OCD.

[The Gunman]

I built my new computer specifically for this this game, its getting quite irritating seeing the graphics quality dropping continuously for the sake of increased performance when my computer already had ample horsepower to run the game at 1080p60Hz before the quality was dropped.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

Didn't stop to read everyone's responses, but this is what my experience has been in the game development world with Cry. The level of detail has a very adverse affect on memory usage, adding more chassis into a drop has an adverse affect on memory usage, the more types of chassis in a drop has an adverse affect on memory usage, particle effects with lots of detail and splash have a huge affect on memory usage. This being said, you can have performance or detail, not both without making the majority of the community rage about how bad their machines handle it, and while you may want to say "To bad my machine can do it all" you might want to think about how loosing that many players would have an affect on PGI and MWO.

[Hexenhammer]

Just an observation.

A number of players turn their video settings down, not for better frame rate, which helps, but to cut down on all the environmental and atmospheric effects that impact light of sight.

Sure the game looks very pretty at max settings but if that prevents me from seeing mechs then what good is it? I'm going to drop my video seeings as low as possible so I can see the enemy as easily as possible. And low settings means less trees, and further draw distance.

[Sug]

Master Maniac, on 09 June 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

Stop freaking whining already. I don't know how the devs continue to operate in a blatantly negative, hostile environment so crowded with underappreciative twats.

**** gets through?

Edit: wtf. why did my **** get blocked?

Edit: twats.

Edit: Ah. Plural form.

Edited by Sug, 22 June 2013 - 09:01 AM.

[sirius89]

I agree with everything said.

WHERE THE F went my eye candy that i had in closed beta?LRM's look **** now (remember when every missle had it's own fly path?),Mech Models used to be insanely good and are now blurry looking and lower res,mech feet clipping through the ground and everything in the distance is now completely low res and vegetation and geometry and textures are popping in left and right.

Really,WHY would you take all that eye candy away from everyone instead of just giving us "Ultra High" graphics options.Shouldn't be too much work for a talented developer right?You are really the first developer to make your game look shittier the closer you get to release.Instead of optimizing the crap out of the game like other developers would do you go the easy route and just disable graphics effects.Good job,really.Like another person here said,i became a founder because of the gameplay AND graphics and because i love mechwarrior.

I want MWO to look like this again.....

Edited by sirius89, 22 June 2013 - 09:24 AM.

[aniviron]

Hexenhammer, on 22 June 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Just an observation.

A number of players turn their video settings down, not for better frame rate, which helps, but to cut down on all the environmental and atmospheric effects that impact light of sight.

Sure the game looks very pretty at max settings but if that prevents me from seeing mechs then what good is it? I'm going to drop my video seeings as low as possible so I can see the enemy as easily as possible. And low settings means less trees, and further draw distance.

But since the people that are turning down their graphics to reduce visual noise weren't playing on high to begin with... what's the problem with leaving in the high graphics options?

I don't think there are nearly as many people cutting graphics for a competitive edge in this game as most, either. The fact that big red target boxes pop up around your enemies helps a lot with player acquisition.

sirius89, on 22 June 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

You are really the first developer to make your game look shittier the closer you get to release.Instead of optimizing the crap out of the game like other developers would do you go the easy route and just disable graphics effects.

Timegate and Gearbox (The developers of Aliens: Colonial Marines) would beg to differ.

[carl kerensky]

The new [color=#959595] [/color]Project Phoenix Promotion is great but whats the sense in having these great mechs if the graphics have degraded to point where I feel like I'm playing borderlands in big robots. Referring to the cartoon like nature that the game has evolved to. Too much cartoon for me. Dialing back the graphics have broken the immersion factor for me. Its very disappointing. I hope PGI reverts back to the REALISM type graphics they first introduced in closed beta.

Ck

[Arcturious]

Strayed, on 09 June 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

Is graphics really an issue compared to gameplay? I would always consider the quality of gameplay more important but that's just me....

My question to you is, why can't we have both?

The lowering of the graphical fidelity is something I've been worried about for some time as well.

When you used to destroy a component on a mech, it would spark, bits would dangle off etc it was so much better.

There have been many small changes that are slowly accumulating to reduce the level of immersion that's possible on next generation hardware.

Remember, not long after this game officially launches it will be competing with games like Division, Witcher 3, Killzone etc. take a look at the trailers for those games and then take a close look at MWO. It's falling behind.

To be fair, a number of elements have improved. The recent pass on Caustic was excellent. The fine detail is back in force. Take a look at the pipes and rails at the D4 area ish, very nice. River City night is stunning, the environmentals and detail are top notch. Check out the little monuments and water features at the base of the citadel next time. Admire the drifting firey ash, the flame and smoke etc. The electrical effect they added to the bases was also a step forward.

However for every step forward, there has been another back. I want all the things! Give me options! FOV sliders, Anti-frikken-aliasing! DX11! Workin-bleedin-cockpit monitors!!

Edited by Arcturious, 26 June 2013 - 11:07 PM.