37 replies to this topic

[VikingN1nja]

SETTINGS




DX9 CPU



DX9 GPU



CPU THREADS DX9



DX9 Avg: 31.053 - Min: 12 - Max: 62



DX11 CPU



DX11 GPU %



CPU THREADS DX11



DX11 Avg: 24.583 - Min: 12 - Max: 41


EXCESSIVE GHOSTING IN DX9 NOT SEEN BEFORE PATCH



*More dips in FPS dx9 & dx11.
*Lower minimum FPS.

Software to monitor and create a .csv http://www.hwinfo.com/

What the DX9 average does not show is the amount of dips into low 20's i am having which I never had before.

Edited by omegagun, 08 March 2014 - 08:31 AM.

[Deathlike]

You should do a comparison vs DX11 or so, for reference.

It won't be the same, but getting the same runthrough would be nice. It may be best replicating through a trip the Training Grounds and record the path you go and see what differences there may be.

Although, I honestly wonder how MWO does its threading because it breaks (or messes up) so easily (omicron.log says a lot of stuff). Runaway thread and other stuff does not inspire confidence.

Edited by Deathlike, 06 March 2014 - 03:40 PM.

[VikingN1nja]

Deathlike, on 06 March 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

You should do a comparison vs DX11 or so, for reference.

It won't be the same, but getting the same runthrough would be nice. It may be best replicating through a trip the Training Grounds and record the path you go and see what differences there may be.

Although, I honestly wonder how MWO does its threading because it breaks (or messes up) so easily (omicron.log says a lot of stuff). Runaway thread and other stuff does not inspire confidence.

I'll post up some tomorrow. It kinda depresses me as i was getting 30-35 avaerage and was upgrading 460m to 6970m now it won't make much of a differencve to what I had I bet. I know a guy with an R2 290 going as low as 30fps.

Edited by omegagun, 06 March 2014 - 03:46 PM.

[Deathlike]

omegagun, on 06 March 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

I'll post up some tomorrow. It kinda depresses me as i was getting 30-35 avaerage and was upgrading 460m to 6970m now it won't make much of a differencve to what I had I bet. I know a guy with an R2 290 going as low as 30fps.

Sounds tragic. I'm fortunate... but wow.

[Reno Blade]

What are you using to record these graphs?

I'm interested in doing the same while using a user.cfg and without.
I got a

i5 3570K @3.4GHz
16GB RAM
GTX 460Ti 2GB GRAM
Win7 64bit ultimate

And running around 30-40fps on ultra high (with post processing an anti aliasing of) in both DX9 and DX11.

[VikingN1nja]

Reno Blade, on 07 March 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:

What are you using to record these graphs?

I'm interested in doing the same while using a user.cfg and without.
I got a

i5 3570K @3.4GHz
16GB RAM
GTX 460Ti 2GB GRAM
Win7 64bit ultimate

And running around 30-40fps on ultra high (with post processing an anti aliasing of) in both DX9 and DX11.

Hi

http://www.hwinfo.com/

Then it creates a .csv which u can open with excel.

[Jabilo]

Fantastic post.

What it shows is that despite neither the CPU or GPU being fully loaded the frame rate is dropping and stuttering.

Exactly what I have monitored on my gaming desktop.

It ain't the hardware it's the game...

[Grendel408]

Yeah, it's definitely the game... my guess is there's a huge memory leak somewhere because it taxes the hell out of my ATI Radeon HD 6850 GPU... but really only hits a couple cores on my i7-3770k... but this has been consistent since I've started during Closed Beta.

[Dakkath]

Jabilo, on 07 March 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

Fantastic post.

What it shows is that despite neither the CPU or GPU being fully loaded the frame rate is dropping and stuttering.

Exactly what I have monitored on my gaming desktop.

It ain't the hardware it's the game...

Pretty much this. I've sent in numerous trouble tickets about this behavior back in Closed Beta. So far yet to be discovered. Send in support tickets if you guys can.

-Dak

[FuzzyLog1c]

I could easily make 150+ fps at 2560x1600 prior to this patch, but in DX11 mode, the game will simply not run faster than 45 fps, regardless of GPU utilization. Moreover, it feels like the "actual" framerate is 22.5 fps. Almost as if the engine is throwing away every other frame.

5 GHz Core i7 3970k with 32 GB of RAM and three Radeon 7970s @ 1.25 GHz with the Bioshock.exe Crossfire override.

Edited by FuzzyLog1c, 07 March 2014 - 04:55 PM.

[Grendel408]

Question... do you really need to view something in 150+ fps when your own eyes cannot process that much information at once?

[VikingN1nja]

Grendel408, on 07 March 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Question... do you really need to view something in 150+ fps when your own eyes cannot process that much information at once?

Generally if your hitting 60 fps you are sweet, i think it's the huge dips on all systems is affecting most of us, it's just when you hovered over 30fps and are now just over 20 fps with lag into teens that's when it's a real issue. Something needs fixing asap imo.

[Grendel408]

Don't get me wrong... the FPS issue needs to be addressed, but with so many different type of systems playing MWO someone is always going to have a problem... especially those depending on integrated GPUs on the mobo... but does someone really need to exceed 60fps? I pull more stable FPS in BF4 than MWO and it's a much more graphically intense game, but that's proof of experience in coding a video game.

[That Dawg]

Jabilo, on 07 March 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

Fantastic post.

What it shows is that despite neither the CPU or GPU being fully loaded the frame rate is dropping and stuttering.

Exactly what I have monitored on my gaming desktop.

It ain't the hardware it's the game...

that, in spades, for hundreds of us

[Exarch Levin]

Grendel408, on 07 March 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Question... do you really need to view something in 150+ fps when your own eyes cannot process that much information at once?

The eye can perceive such; whoever started this "can only see 60 FPS" rot should be ashamed. It's the monitor that can't display such, but with 120 FPS monitors becoming "essential" for "real" gamers I do believe that 150+ FPS is something to shoot for (as just aiming for the 120 is setting the bar low).

This game is the only "resource intensive" game that I play (others are all old and/or console ports) and it irks me that it is so unoptimized that it doesn't take advantage of what I've got. Y'all have given me some solace through the knowledge that even throwing top-shelf hardware at the unoptimized software doesn't do much of anything.

[SirDubba]

120Hz is so old school. Miss my CRTs


As for what eyes can see, stable 60fps is smooth enough. As is 24fps for movies. Anything more than 60 is really just candy for eyes and has no effect for gamer's performance. 120fps and 150fps are so fast that eyes really can't see the difference, they only have a different kind of "feeling" to them and your brain makes it matter. Also your eyes are blending more frames together, boosting the smoothness. (120+ Fps gives a really nice placebo for some too.)
My last monitor was (a CRT) running at 1280*1024@75 and these newer displays can't compete with that smoothness, even with beer. Nowadays I'm actually capping my framerates to 60 because of refresh rate of my monitor, but I also think running at faster frame rates only adds strain and heat on hardware for almost nothing.

If we only got the stable 60fps back..

[Jabilo]

Grendel408, on 08 March 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong... the FPS issue needs to be addressed, but with so many different type of systems playing MWO someone is always going to have a problem... especially those depending on integrated GPUs on the mobo... but does someone really need to exceed 60fps? I pull more stable FPS in BF4 than MWO and it's a much more graphically intense game, but that's proof of experience in coding a video game.

It is a common misconception that because films are shot in 24 fps, that is all you need in computer games for the experience to be smooth and playable.

First of all, films have motion blur on the individual frames that mask jerkiness. Even then, fast panning shots will appear jerky to those looking closely.

Secondly, games are interactive and the lower the frames per second the greater the dissonance (lag) between you taking an action and receiving visual feed back.This is immediately noticeable to most people when frames drop below 60 fps.

Finally, frames per second are only a rough indication of smoothness and you really need to look at individual frame times to assess the performance of a game and how responsive it will feel.

The frames per second counter only updates once per second or so (otherwise you could not read it). This means that the minimum frame rate recorded is still really an average of sorts, and individual frames may have timings that are in reality much lower.

All this means that for many people the experience will not be smooth unless you maintain much higher frame rates than you might think.

I notice immediately if I do not maintain an absolute minimum of 60 fps. If you are playing a twitch shooter and making fast 180 degree movements you may benefit from frame rates higher than 60 fps.

The problem with MWO is that, basically, it is broken. Frame rates will dip below 60 fps at higher settings no matter what hardware you have. If you monitor GPU and CPU core usage as omegagun has, you will see that there is stuttering and fps dips even though the CPU and GPU are not running at their maximum load.

My GTX 770 can maintain about 120 fps with every setting maxed. With V-Sync on the game will be at 60 fps and the card is barely ticking over at about 60 % load. The CPU is similarly untaxed. However when I monitor FPS I notice frequent drops in to the 40s (before the latest patch).

After this patch it is dropping right in to the 30s and sometimes even lower.

If you see a minimum frame rate of 30 fps then this is a bad sign. Lets analyse it further.

1 second divided by 30 is 33.3 ms (milliseconds) per frame. However that does not mean that every frame in that second is separated by 33.3 ms. Some frames may be delivered more quickly, and some more slowly. It is the slower frames that are problematic, because they are the cause of the lag and stuttering.

If you are running vertical sync then there can be additional problems. If a new frame is not ready when the monitor refreshes then you will get the same frame displayed twice, which can be a cause of horrendous micro stutter.

If you run without vertical sync then you can have problems with "tearing" (visual artefacts).

The best way to avoid these problems? Adjust your graphics settings to be realistic for your computer - so you can maintain a constant 60 fps.

However, in MWO this is impossible due to the poor optimisation of the game.

As an experiment I turned the game down to the lowest possible settings and it ran at an even 60 fps. It also looked terrible.

What frustrates people is that PGI will not openly admit the problem. This means people are constantly deleting config files, running the repair tool, reinstalling the game and video drivers and generally tearing their hair out looking for a solution that does not exist.

For me performance is the number one issue with the game. I personally would rather delay the clans and community warfare for 3 months and have a nicely running game.

Obviously most people will not agree with me on this one

Edited by Jabilo, 09 March 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[nightsniper]

[color=#959595]Obviously most people will not agree with me on this one [/color] [color=#959595] [/color]


Well I for one would agree with you I think scrap the time table and fix the game once and for all. My fear is they still do not know what they are doing wrong. So thus we live with their trial and error. Stop wasting the money on digital mechs that will disappear with the game and put it into some real engine support and get Cry 3 running as it should. Bite the bullet PGI

Edited by nightsniper, 09 March 2014 - 10:37 AM.

[Bromineberry]

omegagun, on 06 March 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

EXCESSIVE GHOSTING IN DX9 NOT SEEN BEFORE PATCH

THIS! This "ghosting" as you call it, is so damn annoying. I can assure you, it exists in DX11 as well. I treid DX 11 as soon as it was implemented in the patch, but switched back to DX9 because of the "ghosting". What should I say? DX9 has the same problem, just not as bad as in DX11. It looks just horrible!

[Exarch Levin]

Maybe CryTek ought to lend a hand or at least change their movie at the beginning of the game. I want MWO to succeed because it is fun*, but CryTek ought to want it to succeed because it was "achieved with CryEngine" and, well, what we have here isn't the most commendable achievement for a game engine.

Quote

First of all, films have motion blur on the individual frames that mask jerkiness. Even then, fast panning shots will appear jerky to those looking closely.

Drives me nuts. I can't stand it and it is even worse when MWO, a game that I know should be fluid, does it. "Lag Teleport" is bad enough (really, the matchmaking ought to not pair players who will have a 250+ ping) but when lights start warping across my screen due to framerate drop it is just unbearable. Especially when the ghosting glitch is in effect as it is like MWO has become one of those "drunk driving simulators" that the cops use.

Luckily MWO isn't heavily reliant upon "twitchiness" as then a 120 FPS monitor would give an advantage. Thankfully the only time there are 1-hit-kills in MWO are when something goes terribly, terribly wrong.