Jump to content

Russ: Town Hall Question About The Game's Visual Quality


146 replies to this topic

#21 Lancer Deistler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 193 posts
  • LocationStationed with the 8th Arcturan Guards at Here

Posted 03 October 2014 - 04:50 AM

Well to have a PIP you basically have to render a scene or parts of a scene two times as i understand it. Thats a considerable workload. Maybe you can do some tricks and reuse some calculations from the first render for the PIP render, but that has to be tied deeply in the games Engine.

Edited by Lancer Deistler, 03 October 2014 - 04:51 AM.


#22 Billygoat

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 298 posts

Posted 03 October 2014 - 04:58 AM

The graphical downgrade wouldn't be so bad if the game ran better.

But the game generally runs worse on my system than it did back in CB and I've made substantial hardware upgrades since then as well.

Now granted I've been running AMD graphics hardware for the last couple of generations and this is a TWIMTBP game, but even so, performance shouldn't be declining despite "optimisation." If your game both looks worse AND runs worse, something ain't right.

#23 PaladinCrow

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 23 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationGeorgia USA

Posted 03 October 2014 - 05:00 AM

I hate to say it, but there are some of the eye candy effects mentioned in this thread that I would like to see implemented again. I wasn't here for the beta (at least not for long) and never got a chance to really experience the gameplay with proper shadowing and lighting.

A good starting point I would say is to get the shadows figured out. What makes a good looking game, in my opinion, all comes down to how properly the shadows are rendered.

#24 Remarius

    Banned - Cheating

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 820 posts
  • LocationBrighton, England

Posted 03 October 2014 - 05:01 AM

Interesting post op but you lost me totally when I suddenly clicked you were comparing post rendered images to in game footage and saying how much nicer the post rendered one was.... seriously????? :huh:

I'm curious as to what you're all running machine wise btw as I rarely drop under 60 FPS using 2560x1440 @ 144 on an Asus ROG Swift (all graphics settings maxed). There are some distinct moments with massive LRM spam when it drops quite a bit (particles I presume) but it recovers fast.

PS: As much as I liked the old Atlas eyes my number of headshot instances dropped through the floor when they went. ;)

#25 Jetfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,746 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 03 October 2014 - 05:16 AM

Honestly I vastly prefer the current DX11 MSAA graphics to anything we ever had. Everything looks better. Sure the texture maps for damage look cheesy if you paint a whole mech with them, but that doesn't happen in matches much and it accentuates the damage more than it used to. IK would be nice to have back, but I would take a lot of other things like Collisions way before I saw it as a priority.

#26 SgtKinCaiD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,096 posts
  • LocationBordeaux

Posted 03 October 2014 - 05:38 AM

I still remember when the slings on the atlas shoulder where going up and down while the Atlas was moving ... ah good days !

Edited by SgtKinCaiD, 03 October 2014 - 05:38 AM.


#27 Glucose

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 286 posts

Posted 03 October 2014 - 05:53 AM

I never fully realized when the walking animations of the mechs changed. The IK solution looks so much better. I can't help but feel that the scale of the mechs seems wrong when playing, and I think it's all in their walking animation. Their gait is now too fast and the feet don't connect to the ground like they used to.

Edited by Glucose, 03 October 2014 - 05:54 AM.


#28 Colby Boucher

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 285 posts

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:02 AM

View PostTichorius Davion, on 03 October 2014 - 04:32 AM, said:


It is like 5:30am in vancouver so...check back in like 3-5 hours.


lol, good point

#29 Foxfire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,904 posts

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:06 AM

I miss the older, better looking MWO.

#30 Fut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 1,969 posts
  • LocationToronto, ON

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:09 AM

View PostBillygoat, on 03 October 2014 - 04:58 AM, said:

The graphical downgrade wouldn't be so bad if the game ran better.


Yeah... I really just wish that this game would run a little better.
When I first started playing, I'd have the game on mostly High Setting, with a few Medium - and things were fine. These days though, I'm on mostly Medium, with quite a few low settings... Still can't seem to get this to run at higher than 30fps.

#31 A banana in the tailpipe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,705 posts
  • Locationbehind your mech

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:15 AM

Wow the older stuff does look a LOT better. I wonder if cockpit glass and gold mech skins had anything to do with it.

#32 Scratx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 3,283 posts

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:20 AM

View Postlockwoodx, on 03 October 2014 - 06:15 AM, said:

Wow the older stuff does look a LOT better. I wonder if cockpit glass and gold mech skins had anything to do with it.


Can't say about the cockpit glass, but if you think the gold mech skins are in any way related to the issue, I'd like to sell you this bridge in Paris....

#33 Randodan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 322 posts

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:26 AM

View PostCrunk Prime, on 03 October 2014 - 02:38 AM, said:

I think you're on a bit of an island there bud, these generic low res bullet hole textures put the mechs in the best state they've ever been!


Sorry, but they look ugly, generic, and rushed. :(

#34 CMDR Sunset Shimmer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,341 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:29 AM

View PostRandodan, on 03 October 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

[/size]

Sorry, but they look ugly, generic, and rushed. :(

Posted Image

#35 Randodan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 322 posts

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:35 AM

View PostGlucose, on 03 October 2014 - 05:53 AM, said:

I never fully realized when the walking animations of the mechs changed. The IK solution looks so much better. I can't help but feel that the scale of the mechs seems wrong when playing, and I think it's all in their walking animation. Their gait is now too fast and the feet don't connect to the ground like they used to.


Totally agree. Animations look like Mechs are now suspended from wires like a being handled by a puppeteer, especially noticeable with Clan Mechs. Based on their animations, they don't feel heavy anymore, as their feet don't solidly land on the ground, not to mention the loss of inverse kinematics makes it all look a lot less sophisticated and far more amateurish - like a pre-alpha concept build. Sad, that the game is being "dumbed down" like that...

#36 Xune

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 810 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:39 AM

View PostBillygoat, on 03 October 2014 - 04:58 AM, said:

The graphical downgrade wouldn't be so bad if the game ran better.

But the game generally runs worse on my system than it did back in CB and I've made substantial hardware upgrades since then as well.

Now granted I've been running AMD graphics hardware for the last couple of generations and this is a TWIMTBP game, but even so, performance shouldn't be declining despite "optimisation." If your game both looks worse AND runs worse, something ain't right.

Amen....

#37 Xyroc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 855 posts
  • LocationFighting the Clan Invasion

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:39 AM

Dunno how anyones system ran better in CB because it was rather poo for everyone I know. None of which had duo cores.

#38 Jonny Taco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 706 posts
  • Locationan island

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:59 AM

View PostBeliall, on 03 October 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

Dunno how anyones system ran better in CB because it was rather poo for everyone I know. None of which had duo cores.


8v8 instead of 12v12. Fewer mechs and visual effects to render.

#39 Kain Demos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,629 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:08 AM

My only issue with the visuals is that I have an i7 3930k oc'd to 4ghz and two 7970s and get frame rate drops all the time. If I change to DX11mode it gets even worse and if I enable any kind of anti aliasing then it really goes in the *******.

I should never see anything less than 60fps just like Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3. With my CPU and GPUs showing less than 20% usage why am I getting such terrible performance?

#40 Anarcho

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 538 posts

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:23 AM

Yes I would like some better graphics too. But to be honest, when the lrms start to fly, the graphics is the last thing Im worried about... lol





10 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 10 guests, 0 anonymous users