295 replies to this topic

[Goose]

xWiredx, on 01 January 2015 - 07:57 PM, said:

So as far as I can tell, MWO has a set page file that is 32MB at max or something like that.

Where should I look for this page file?

xWiredx, on 01 January 2015 - 07:57 PM, said:

I need to take some time to look in-depth at the rest of the user.cfg stuff. I just started pulling out random items that looked interesting and seeing what they did, what impact they had, etc. I'm pretty happy with my extra bit of eye candy right now, but if I can pull just a little more out, and maybe keep my fps a little more stable, I think it'll be worth it. Any suggestions off-hand?

I wish I did, sorry, but you've fond the spots I thought PGI was sandbagging, already; I was mostly looking for things I could turn down, in my quest for a minimum of ~45fps …

[Catamount]

45fps... I think I just managed that myself follow Smokey's suggestions.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg - HPG
17550, 221484, 53, 123, 79.238

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg - Tourmaline
28648, 427078, 37, 105, 67.079

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg - Viridian
16197, 210625, 48, 109, 76.900


I haven't tried messing with damage glow. I've decided the night time utility is more than I care to lose for a few fps.

[Goose]

And now for something compleatly diffrent:



My buddies' i7-3770/ GTX 480, sans overclock, running laps around River City Training. AO was set to performance in the driver, and the treads had been sorted …

[Goose]

Goose, on 02 January 2015 - 03:19 PM, said:

I wish I did, sorry, but …

r_SSAO = 5
r_SSAODownscale = 0
r_SSAOQuality = 3

assuming Environment is Medium or High, fallowed by tweaking

r_SSAOAmount
r_SSAOBrighteningMargin
r_SSAOContrast
r_SSAODownscale
r_SSAOLargeRadiusRatio
r_SSAORadius
r_SSAOSmallRadiusRatio
r_SSAOTemporalConvergence

;

r_ssdo = 2

if Environment is Very High, fallowed by toying with

r_ssdoAmbientAmount
r_ssdoAmount
r_ssdoRadius
r_ssdoRadiusMax
r_ssdoRadiusMin

[o0cipher0o]

Ok, as goose kindly asked me, here are some preformance test on my rig.

Rig is:

i3 2100;
r7 250 1GB;
8GB ram @1333;

here are the logs: (red line empty user.cfg, green line user.cfg tweaked as per this post)



Both tests were made in river city testing grounds. At 1:30 minutes i started firing at the catapult from ~60m, then i facehugged the atlas and killed it, then i headshotted with two shots the jenner from ~200m, with 2x zoom, then i fired at the awesome from 200-250m, again with 2x zoom.

Fraps statistics:

Pre tweaks
Frames: 10318 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 57.322 - Min: 47 - Max: 60

Post tweaks
Frames: 10268 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 57.044 - Min: 42 - Max: 60

Edited by o0cipher0o, 03 February 2015 - 02:08 PM.

[Goose]

My Hero …

[Lordred]

Latest results.

sys_maxfps=65
cl_fov=80
gp_option_ShowCockpitGlass=0
r_HDRGrainAmount=0.0
r_DepthOfField=0
r_TexMinAnisotropy=16
r_TexMaxAnisotropy=16
e_ShadowsMaxTexRes=2048
;r_MSAA_samples=4
 
;r_MotionBlur=2
;r_MotionBlurShutterSpeed=10
;r_MotionBlurQuality=2
;r_DepthOfFieldBokehQuality=1
r_HDRVignetting=1
r_Sharpening=10
r_SSAO=2
;r_MotionBlurMaxViewDist=2000

Tourmaline Desert:

Damn near 60fps avg, but a dip into the 30's was had (It happened when I was going backwards while running very hot, the 'smoke' caused the dip)

Settings: Very High Preset

[o0cipher0o]

Goose, on 03 February 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

My Hero …

Let me know if you need more data .

P.S.: love that gif!

[Goose]

Always; Frozen Day and Forest are the Hard maps: Test them if you can …

[o0cipher0o]

Roger that, will do tomorrow .

[xWiredx]

Since FRAPS hates me and causes the 64-bit MWO client to crash immediately, I will give my initial impressions of this magic fix they made for performance. I will attempt to test regular matches with the 32-bit client later (I'll be traveling for business, and coming back just in time for Valentine's Day, so it'll be a little bit).

Overall, I played 1 CW match while constantly looking at the FPS via F9. Didn't notice a big difference. It felt a little more smooth maybe, and I think my average FPS probably is 5-10fps higher, but I still saw some pretty bad dips. I saw it even hit 48fps once, which is right down there with the other dips I documented months ago. So far, I'm not too impressed. I think this fix will be more noticeable on systems that desperately need every ounce of extra performance they can get, but for higher-end systems I'm left being skeptical.

[Goose]

Wound up on Forrest; Can't tell you when I died, but I lasted most of the game.

I'd reverted to PostAA, what with Paul saying something about it, and turned Environment back down to low, as I just don't see the point of more; I'm forcing Anisotropy to 16 in the driver.




Taht's about 2 percentage points less time below 45 then I remember, ever. 0.92%

I do think I can see the load(s) on the card change between PostAA and the 4xMS+4CS+4Tr setting I was trying out: Memory, memory controller-, and core-load all go up a fair amount.

[o0cipher0o]

xWiredx, on 03 February 2015 - 06:26 PM, said:

Since FRAPS hates me and causes the 64-bit MWO client to crash immediately, I will give my initial impressions of this magic fix they made for performance....

Well i didn't notice that much of an improvement either. I played a cw match in sulforous, where i lasted the hole 30 mins, and the framerate wasn't noticeabily better than pre patch. I had the usual ~25fps average, with ofte dips in the mid teens. Also, in the last 10 minutes or so, my framerate was always 20 or lower.

In standard matches, i've got like a 5fps increase on average, as with my locust, i did experience a much more fluidity than before. Also, dips in the low 20s seems to be much less common.

Overall, it looks like the last patch addressed fps fluctuation more thane fps numbers.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Bill Lumbar, on 21 December 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

The short answer is no, MWO is not a $3K gaming rig or poor frame rates kinda game. I would say it is a $800 gaming rig at least or experience a lower quality game, lower - mid settings, and just getting what most players would deem playable 25-30 fps in most games. $1200- 2000 grand should get you a system that can push 45-60 fps on this game. Anything higher in hardware and rigs pushing in the $3000 grand range is just gravy on top.

I still have some older AM2 AMD 6000x2 chips around, with older Micro atx boards with onboard Nvidia graphics laying around, I could always try to test them out with the 7970 or the 6870 or a 4870 and see what they can do in this game..... LOL, might be interesting.

My PC kinda meets the required and recommended settings. My Graphics card is a Radeon 5770 series.and my CPU is a 455 x3 AMD 2.20ghz....ive got 8 gigs of ram though....but yeah, I get pretty bad frames in game...doesnt help much with trying to do anything...and its kinda annoying to, seeing how I like the mechwarrior series overall, but this game...ugh.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 04 February 2015 - 02:22 AM.

[xWiredx]

So out of 3 test runs (forcing the 32-bit client so FRAPS wouldn't cause MWO to crash on me), here are the results:



As you can see, within margin of error. Not impressed with whatever "one-change mega ultra fps increaser extreme" thing they did. Again, I believe whatever optimization they made to the HUD really only benefits lower-end machines, and as system compute power increases the benefits become less noticeable.

Maybe next I'll try to raise the priority on the process or something. I mean, I'm very happy with my performance, but if I can get more then why not?

[Lordred]

I always feel like I get glossed over when I post data.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 04 February 2015 - 06:16 PM, said:

So out of 3 test runs (forcing the 32-bit client so FRAPS wouldn't cause MWO to crash on me), here are the results:



As you can see, within margin of error. Not impressed with whatever "one-change mega ultra fps increaser extreme" thing they did. Again, I believe whatever optimization they made to the HUD really only benefits lower-end machines, and as system compute power increases the benefits become less noticeable.

Maybe next I'll try to raise the priority on the process or something. I mean, I'm very happy with my performance, but if I can get more then why not?

More is always more better, right?

[xWiredx]

Lordred, on 04 February 2015 - 06:21 PM, said:

I always feel like I get glossed over when I post data.

I can't even remember what hardware you're running. Mine is in the sig, so it's an easy reference when I post numbers. That could be it. Maybe not. Not sure. I sometimes feel like everything I post gets glossed over, but that's usually because there's some major AMD fanboy with 2 posts in his year and a half of membership claiming obviously false things about their performance.

Bill Lumbar, on 04 February 2015 - 06:49 PM, said:

More is always more better, right?

More is indeed always better. Even the man who has everything is envious of the man that has two of everything.

[Lordred]

I am still foolishly rocking an AMD build wired.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Very quick and simple empty user.cfg training grounds run oing to try opens in a moment.

Pentium K @4.5Ghz
8GB DDR3 @ 1600Mhz
GTX 560TI 448






Fraps Logs.
2015-02-05 11:29:44 - MWOClient
Frames: 3542 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 59.033 - Min: 52 - Max: 61

2015-02-05 11:34:41 - MWOClient
Frames: 3573 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 59.550 - Min: 55 - Max: 61

Edited by DV McKenna, 05 February 2015 - 03:46 AM.