146 replies to this topic

[Impyrium]

Fooooo, on 03 October 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

I think the one mech, it was an atlas in the original skin, in the forest was one of mine.

It was never intended to be taken as what MWO should look like (I hope nobody did) as it is just a "pre-set" scene I made with the cryengine sdk, with no call budget to watch out for in a map concept thread i think it was. (im sure people could make one a ton better than I did too.)


Theres no way that area could have been used (or it repeated over a 4km x 4km map) in an actual game like MWO as it uses way to many calls and if you add another 23 mechs + weapons + actually moving....well.......... Its just like you said.

I would never expect mwo to try and do a map exactly like that


Swamp / jungle hopefully will get somewhat close tho.




As to the OP, I agree it seems the quality has changed.

From those river city shots the lighting / sun has been changed there, as someone else already has mentioned.

Same with forest colony, the lighting / sun effects have been adjusted or changed, or maybe the engine update changed a few things they didnt fix up yet.......

Also the fog settings are probably different. (amount, distance, colours etc etc)

All these things can change the look of a scene a ton (from terrible to omg that looks real) from my experience playing around in the SDK. Even without changing textures or assets etc etc.

Huh... that's interesting to know. I've always thought it was a MechWarrior promotional pic.

[CocoaJin]

Vassago Rain, on 03 October 2014 - 03:13 AM, said:

It wasn't for good reasons, though, because dual cores still can't play the game properly, and when they were doing those 'optimizations,' people had advanced to i5s and i7s. MWO is heavily CPU dependent, so your other hardware doesn't really matter.

Also it makes people question why they went cryengine in the first place. It's a super beefy engine for making the (at the time) best looking games, with similarily high requirements. Why use the engine if you're gonna take out all the pretty things? Just roll unreal like hawken.

I have friends who used to get some 30 FPS back in the olden days, but they're capped out at 20 in today's MWO, which looks a lot worse than what we used to have.

Here's my favorite comparison picture to MWO of 2014. While yes, this is crysis 3, which was made by crytek themselves, think about what you're seeing here.



In MWO, there'd be a not very subtle filter applied to everything, probably some brownish haze, the clearly defined, white armored soldiers in front of the orange supply pyramid would be black blobs thanks to LOD, the lighting from the sun would have created awful green cockpit glass effects, and you'd likely not be able to read the text on my gun.

It doesn't have to be that way, and it wasn't always that way. While I don't have access to my old closed beta screenshots, know that it wasn't always this way.

I, too, dread 'optimizations,' because it's become PGI's way to say 'we're cutting out more features.' There's no good reason for it in 2014.

Here's some more of my favorites, from back when they said picture-in-picture is an engine limitation. If you look into my gun's scope, well...





Obviously, PIP is an engineering term. What we were asking for was 'that trick they do in crysis, crysis warhead, crysis wars, crysis 2, crysis 3, and living legends that makes it seem as if you have a PIP.'

Edit: remember what they sold you on!



I'm still sore.

Since the mechs are built to scale, you'd have a hard time seeing that detail. To get the idea, you'd have to zoom that view out to a fish eye view and then lift it 40ft into the air.

Not to mention, all that detail in MWO would appear shrunken down and at knee level as a lower rez LOD.

Such a cluttered map scaled up for mechs would suck for multiplayer, mech PvP...line of sight is like 50m, what good is that for a 15m tall mech with firing ranges between 100m - 750m? Plus the increased clutter over the area used for our maps would slow us to a crawl.

Meh, I refuse to accept any map rendering scaled for a 2m tall player as "representitive of what we are missing" when we have to play and exist in a much larger, scaled up environment for 15m tall giant robots.

[Iron Riding Cowboy]

aniviron, on 03 October 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

I'm the OP, and I'm running an i5 3570k, 16gb DDR3 9-9-9-24, an Nvidia GTX 680 on an MSI board. Oh, and a normal platter drive, 7200 RPM though. I run in a fullscreen window and my FPS varies widely between maps and environment conditions. When not in combat I generally get 60-100 FPS. In combat it's about 40-60. If there are particles anywhere near my mech, I get ~15-20. It's particularly bad on cold maps like Frozen or HPG, where a steam effect comes off of the mech anytime you start running hot; slashes my framerate to the single digits.

something is very wrong with your PC if its dropping FPS like that at max sattings
2500k @4.5,
8 gig of ram 1600 ,
GTX 780.. was a GTX 570 and my FPS did not improve much do to this game is CPU heavy and not GPU. never drop below 50 FPS
PSU corsair HX750


,

Edited by Iron Riding Cowboy, 03 October 2014 - 11:24 PM.

[aniviron]

Iron Riding Cowboy, on 03 October 2014 - 11:22 PM, said:

something is very wrong with your PC if its dropping FPS like that at max sattings
2500k @4.5,
8 gig of ram 1600 ,
GTX 780.. was a GTX 570 and my FPS did not improve much do to this game is CPU heavy and not GPU. never drop below 50 FPS
PSU corsair HX750

I don't drop frames at all in anything else I play. Most games are steady over 100, no drops at all. There's not a single other game on my hdd that lags me; I don't think it's my rig.

[Onmyoudo]

aniviron, on 03 October 2014 - 11:59 PM, said:

I don't drop frames at all in anything else I play. Most games are steady over 100, no drops at all. There's not a single other game on my hdd that lags me; I don't think it's my rig.

Agreed. Overheat smoke on hot mechs absolutely ruins my framerate, despite my system also being good. I have no issues with literally any other game.

[Thorn Hallis]

Just recently I watched a video I recorded back then in closed beta (which...I wasn't allowed to do anyway) and had a first hand look of the better graphics back then. And in my opinion it's because of different light on different maps. Forest Colony is much darker now then back in the days, same as River City. For whatever reason it was changed, but the end result is rather dull and bleak.

Another thing that bothers me (and I'm really on an island here) is that so many of the newer 'Mechs simply do not look like war machines (ingame), they look more like oversized toys.

[Iron Riding Cowboy]

Onmyoudo, on 04 October 2014 - 12:20 AM, said:

Agreed. Overheat smoke on hot mechs absolutely ruins my framerate, despite my system also being good. I have no issues with literally any other game.

aniviron, on 03 October 2014 - 11:59 PM, said:

I don't drop frames at all in anything else I play. Most games are steady over 100, no drops at all. There's not a single other game on my hdd that lags me; I don't think it's my rig.

check your tasks managers make sure your upu is @ % 0 with nothing running in the background. This game is very cpu heavy so you need to have all of your cpu dedicated to this game. oh and this game is very bad with AMD so sorry AMD users :-(other than that I do not know what is going on with your pc's I'm just not having problems with my FPS like y'all having

[Reno Blade]

I have a pretty good experience with the games graphics, but the fps on testing grounds vs an actual match is huge.

I got an i5 3570 @ 3.4GHz, 16GB DDR5 1600 RAM, and a GTX770 OC with 2GB VRam.
My settings are maxed with PP to PostAA only with a user.cfg that pushes stuff even higher.

Tested nvidia surround with 3 screens yesterday with 35 fps.
Using a single screen, i run around 50-70fps (like 100fps on testing grounds).
But sometimes steam (heat over 50%) on cold maps will reduce fps to very low numbers (extreme 15fps).

I would like to push it to 50fps with 3 screens or prevent dibs below 50fps by steam or other particle impact effects, but I don't like to reduce my graphic details

This is when they added the command for HDR and cockpitglass:

Spoiler

Reno Blade, on 30 April 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

From the patchnotes:


I noticed no difference with DoF on or off (with no other options in the config) at very high settings.

Here are before/after screenshots with the 3 new commands on/off (deleted shader folder each time) and the 3rd one with my full user.cfg (including these 3 commands off) from this thread (DX9).
All screenshots with DX11.

Now the question is, which is on and wich is off
I think the 2nd is with film grain (greenish)
1

2

3

[Impyrium]

I think the problem with performance loss when particle effects are near the camera is something to do with CryEngine, and I see it with a lot of other games, so it's not unique to MWO.

I do think that PGI should optimize it so that the particle effects emitting from the player's 'Mech shouldn't render when in cockpit view. Preferably add it as an option, because even though it affects performance it's very immersive being able to see effects from your own 'Mech.

I'm not sure how PGI have set up their cockpit view, but if done right particle effects from within the cockpit shouldn't be the same as the slowdown caused by the steam from the main level. If the cockpit is on a separate 'layer', then scaling shouldn't be a problem and the effects wouldn't be 'closely rendered' to the viewpoint. However, I do fear that the cockpit is directly rendered upon the main layer, since trees can clip into it, which might mean this is impossible anyway...

Edited by AUSwarrior24, 04 October 2014 - 02:42 AM.

[RedDragon]

Tekadept, on 03 October 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

Ok fair enough so how about we compare to armored warfare then using cryengine3? just as complex as a mech , multiple components hit locations physics, IK etc...

Great, now I'm really sad because of how MWO "could" look by now, thanks

[Impyrium]

RedDragon, on 04 October 2014 - 02:59 AM, said:

Great, now I'm really sad because of how MWO "could" look by now, thanks

I wouldn't feel too bad. I imagine their engine is quite different to MWO's. Also, tanks would almost certainly have less moving parts and simpler hit boxes (since they are, you know, a box).

And again, the game is running at a completely different scale.

[Tekadept]

AUSwarrior24, on 04 October 2014 - 03:28 AM, said:

I wouldn't feel too bad. I imagine their engine is quite different to MWO's. Also, tanks would almost certainly have less moving parts and simpler hit boxes (since they are, you know, a box).

And again, the game is running at a completely different scale.

Whatever helps you sleep at night bud , it is same engine as MWO hence why i used it for comparison, there is actually more "moving parts" and not simpler "hit boxes, maybe a tank game from the 90's that statement would be true.. The only thing true in your statement is the scale, but it "should" not be as big a deal as you think.

[Impyrium]

Tekadept, on 04 October 2014 - 04:01 AM, said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night bud , it is same engine as MWO hence why i used it for comparison, there is actually more "moving parts" and not simpler "hit boxes, maybe a tank game from the 90's that statement would be true.. The only thing true in your statement is the scale, but it "should" not be as big a deal as you think.

Maybe, I haven't actually played or really heard of the game but if it's anything like War Thunder or World of Tanks, then it can't be too different. I misspoke on hitboxes- sure, it's probably as if not more detailed than MWO. But then again, the hitboxes on a 'Mech have to change because it's so heavily animated, where as the only hitbox that really need change on a tank is the turret. There's lots of moving parts, but it's the hitboxes that have caused the problems in MWO. I think.

[Vassago Rain]

AUSwarrior24, on 04 October 2014 - 04:07 AM, said:

Maybe, I haven't actually played or really heard of the game but if it's anything like War Thunder or World of Tanks, then it can't be too different. I misspoke on hitboxes- sure, it's probably as if not more detailed than MWO. But then again, the hitboxes on a 'Mech have to change because it's so heavily animated, where as the only hitbox that really need change on a tank is the turret. There's lots of moving parts, but it's the hitboxes that have caused the problems in MWO. I think.

It has almost the same mechanics as MWO, except you're shooting at tanks, rather than robots. Because it's a cryengine game.

Here's another F2P cryengine game. A golf game.

[Glythe]

Old graphics were better..... that's just another reason to go back to 8 vs 8!

[Rashhaverak]

aniviron, on 03 October 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:

In regards to causing that damage, internal ammo explosions have lost their 'pop.' Here's a video of an ammo explosion from the outside in beta (starts at 20s)

http://youtu.be/rgJ2n5sEn9c?t=20s

and another of the explosion from the inside (starts at 5:20):

http://youtu.be/syyrgIKLim8?t=5m20s

^^^This!!!^^^

This is a huge aspect of the game that got deleted that I miss greatly. Ammo explosions don't occur very often, but when they did, they were awesome. You would see one and a cheer would go up from the team. Seeing that explosion was amazing, and really made a match.

Experiencing an ammo explosion from the inside was equally as great. You could hear the banging and your mech would shake and you'd think, "Oh crap, I'm popping!" and your mech would burst. Just awesome.

The fact it didn't happen often just made it that much better when it did. A ton of AC/20 ammo cooking off at once should be a huge, dramatic event, and I for one hope ammo explosions come back someday.

[Gremlich Johns]

The graphics are nerfed/fiddled with to make things cheaper for PGI to run.

Even trees in MW4 would explode when you walked into them, or be lit on fire, and mechs could be knocked over (so we can kill them quicker). Remember in closed beta we saw guys "bowling" lights and mediums with Dragons?

It is cheaper to not let any of that happen.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 04 October 2014 - 07:06 AM.

[William Mountbank]

I think I would like an optimisation run on the shader code for smoke generation.

I have an i7 Devil's Canyon rig and get solid 60fps (HD, maxed settings, vsynch) in every map, no matter how many mechs and missiles are on screen...

Until I happen to be zoomed in when my mech is emitting overheat steam, or there's dynamic smoke from dead mechs on screen. Then I get 15fps or lower.

[CocoaJin]

RedDragon, on 04 October 2014 - 02:59 AM, said:

Great, now I'm really sad because of how MWO "could" look by now, thanks

I'm not so sure that's a good example of what we are missing either, from what the game site says, that is still only a 4 player coop game...I saw nothing that implied a larger scale PvP feature...so what are talking 2v2, maybe 4v4. You still have to consider that having fewer players on map significantly reduced server and client loads.

Assuming that 4 players on map need like 16 packets per update cycle, our old 16player on map needed 256...and now our 24 player on map matches need like 576 packets per update cycle. Now even if that's not totally accurate, you can at least see there is an exponential increase in certain resources as player numbers go up.

Edited by CocoaJin, 04 October 2014 - 11:43 AM.

[Wolfhound22]

Beta had some cool looking features/graphics. That being said, I would be happy by having high resolution textures along with the option to enable high levels of Anti Aliasing at lower performance cost. Jaggies and low fps make this game an eyesore at times.

Also wondering if Russ would look into the HUD again, it uses 15fps when enabled. Try disabling the HUD in game and you should notice a big improvement.

Edited by Wolfhound22, 04 October 2014 - 11:49 AM.