65 replies to this topic

[VagGR]

We all know that MWO is lacking proper optimization we knew it before and it became even more obvious with CW.

even after last patch FPS are just jumping all over the place from <30 to 70 to even 100 sometimes. the avg ingmae its about 40-45...

on an

i5-3470
8gb RAM
R9 290

running 64bit + DX11

particles at medium
Post proc at low
AA off
everything else on high

here is an example

36FPS looking at mechs just standing around...i honeslty dont know what else to say...

PGI we all appreciate your efforts but i think its really about time to make optimization a priority

[Sandpit]

VagGR, on 19 December 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

We all know that MWO is lacking proper optimization we knew it before and it became even more obvious with CW.

even after last patch FPS are just jumping all over the place from <30 to 70 to even 100 sometimes. the avg ingmae its about 40-45...

on an

i5-3470
8gb RAM
R9 290

running 64bit + DX11

particles at medium
Post proc at low
AA off
everything else on high

here is an example

36FPS looking at mechs just standing around...i honeslty dont know what else to say...

PGI we all appreciate your efforts but i think its really about time to make optimization a priority

MWO is extremely cpu reliant.

I'd turn particles down to low. It helped mine. FPS typically dropped because of steam, smoke, etc.

[oldradagast]

Sandpit, on 19 December 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

MWO is extremely cpu reliant.

I'd turn particles down to low. It helped mine. FPS typically dropped because of steam, smoke, etc.

He's exactly right about the way MWO runs and the system load it creates - turning particles off or down to low has also improve performance in my setup since I made that changes months ago.

Edited by oldradagast, 19 December 2014 - 05:44 PM.

[August55]

It is a CPU problem indeed. I have particles set to Medium and Shadows on High even with my High end system so I can stay constant 60+fps

[VagGR]

yes guys i know..but do you see any particles in the screenshot i posted?!

is it cpu load? is it particles? is it the hud?...all of the above...its optimization desperately neeeded

[Vassago Rain]

VagGR, on 19 December 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

yes guys i know..but do you see any particles in the screenshot i posted?!

is it cpu load? is it particles? is it the hud?...all of the above...its optimization desperately neeeded

That's been needed for over two years.

[VagGR]

same setup on a regular drop on therma (switched to afterburner for more info sorry for the purple font switched it to red afterwards )

early game practicaly looking at nothing 43 fps



mid game with several particle effects in sight 50fps



end game again looking at nothing 70fps



note that in all 3 screenshot both my CPU and GPU are at about 50%. So whats going on here half my systems power is not being utilized by MWO? in the first and last one fps should have skyrocketed. its also worth noting that in public drops fps seem to be more stable around 40 to 70 which adds to the fact that CW really REALLY needs serious optimization.

as a reference here are a couple of screenshot from Metro: last light an objectively more demanding game used by many sites for benchmarking. All settings except SSAA set to very high

one in the open


and one looking at nothing


PGI, we know you are trying but optimazation needs to be among your priorities. great content and game mechanics alone are not enough.

Yes i can lower my settings but that needs to stop being the solution to performance issues. We need real solutions especially now that CW is starting to become a reality.

[Zyllos]

A lot of their issues come from the UI/HUD.

If you turn it off, you get a HUGE performance boost, ~50% and up.

The only suggestions I can give here is for PGI to move most of their HUD into the screens in the cockpit, to get rid of many of the HUD elements or to optimize the HUD better.

[mariomanz28]

I have an older processor which is still pretty strong for most things and a good video card. I have been having FPS issues in MWO since 12v12 and DX11 came into the picture. Back when I started I was running this same processor, a Phenom II X4 980 3.7Ghz quadcore and 8GB DDR3, I started playing when I had a GTX460 which then got upgraded to a GTX570. That whole time I was running about 50 FPS on Very High settings except Post Processing and PostAA which were set to low/off.

Ever since 12v12 came out my FPS took a huge dump, when they added DX11 it fell even further to the point where I was running everything on Low and still averaging in 30s on FPS. I wound up upgrading to a GTX770 and adding a SSD to my system. The FPS stayed the same and I wound up spending over a full month talking back and forth to support for them, in the end, to tell me it was the game and nothing wrong with my system specs and that I would have to wait for optimization.

Fast forward to present day, since they gave us the 64bit client I have started using FRAPS to benchmark my matches again, using various settings, across different maps, and between CW and public matches. I still need far more matches in the public queue for a wider range of numbers to compare to but the results I do have are interesting.

64-bit has seemed to have improved my performance, but only in the public queue. CW matches remain unaffected.

Crimson Strait
Low settings: Frames: 25031 - Time: 418859ms - Avg: 59.760 - Min: 38 - Max: 127
Very High settings: Frames: 24027 - Time: 463344ms - Avg: 51.856 - Min: 26 - Max: 133

Now at the beginning of the year when I was working with MWO support the average FPS was much lower, as in the 30s not the 50s on Low settings. However the fact remains there's less than a 9 FPS difference on average between both extremes, Low and Very High. To me that just isn't right.

Now for CW numbers.

Sulfurous Rift Defense:
Low settings: Frames: 53087 - Time: 1568516ms - Avg: 33.845 - Min: 19 - Max: 157
Very High settings: Frames: 42016 - Time: 1514094ms - Avg: 27.750 - Min: 15 - Max: 97

As you can see the numbers are far lower overall (except Max which I believe is due to being in the dropship, so that will actually artificially increase the average somewhat), and that minimum wow only 4 FPS difference but BOTH Very High and Low bottoming out under 20 FPS. Not to mention only a 6 average FPS difference now between Low and Very High settings.

While my system isn't as powerful as a lot of the other ones around here, these numbers are far lower than they should be and MWO is the only game that suffers from this. I can nearly max out all the settings on Far Cry 4 and never drop below 50 FPS. I can play GRID Autosports at 60+ FPS. The one thing I have noticed between all the other games, the ones that run good, and MWO, the one that runs bad, is the same as has already been mentioned here. MWO does not use all the system resources, hell it barely even uses half of them. I have noticed if I drop into testing grounds, before a match, after a match, and while spectating on Low settings I get 100+ FPS, during this time MWO is using pretty much all of the PC, when the FPS takes a dive which is pretty much any time I'm in control of the mech (except for Testing Grounds), it's barely using half of the CPU and GPU The games that run good use far more CPU and GPU just like MWO when not in a live match and controlling my mech.

I hate to say it, but I'm glad more people are having issues like this because I have been dealing with it for over a year, and had pretty much given up and played MWO the best I could. So here's hoping to getting this sorted and getting the game to actually run worth a damn.

[Chimperator]

I got an GTX970 and and Haswell 5820K and the game runs realy bad...
CPU load max.25-28%
GPU load max.80%
At game start (maybe first 30seconds) ~150fps when uncapped
And when fihgts starting fps drops down to 50 sometimes
with low/medium settings only envoirment is on high...

We need performance PGI!

Edited by Chimperator, 21 December 2014 - 10:24 PM.

[VagGR]

Chimperator, on 21 December 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

I got an GTX970 and and Haswell 5820K and the game runs realy bad...
CPU load max.25-28%
GPU load max.80%
At game start (maybe first 30seconds) ~150fps when uncapped
And when fihgts starting fps drops down to 50 sometimes
with low/medium settings only envoirment is on high...

We need performance PGI!

well at least you get to use 80% of your GPU.

no matter the settings MWO just doesnt want to use more than 50% of my R9 290

[Maggiman]

CPU Load is usually a bad indicator for problems like this. You cannot put all possible bottlenecks of a complex chip in a single number and have it mean a whole lot.
Simple example: A game that uses only one core might show up as using 25% while still being limited by the cpu.

That being said, mwo is badly optimized (Though i get that from many Cryengine implementations) and uses way to much cpu power in my opinion. And it doesn't help that it even runs wildy different on system with similar specs..

Sadly though, you just have to deal with it. Just adjust cpu dependend sliders (Like smoke). Wasn't there a slider with grass density or some such? (Can't check right now) If so, that might help too.

[VagGR]

Maggiman, on 26 December 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

CPU Load is usually a bad indicator for problems like this. You cannot put all possible bottlenecks of a complex chip in a single number and have it mean a whole lot.
Simple example: A game that uses only one core might show up as using 25% while still being limited by the cpu.

That being said, mwo is badly optimized (Though i get that from many Cryengine implementations) and uses way to much cpu power in my opinion. And it doesn't help that it even runs wildy different on system with similar specs..

Sadly though, you just have to deal with it. Just adjust cpu dependend sliders (Like smoke). Wasn't there a slider with grass density or some such? (Can't check right now) If so, that might help too.

im not arguing what can i do to improve performance here. Yes lowering particles shadows and so on... i m arguing the fact the 2+ years in optimization is still very bad and need to become a bit of a priority..

as for numbers im not judging just by the CPU load. its more complex than that i know thats why im looking at the overall result and im also comparing with another game thats arguably more demanding.

for example look at the first screenshot i posted from therma. there is nothing going on in the screen, there is no reason i shouldnt have 60+fps. and then in the second screenshot there are particles smoke explosions i get 10 frames more...and my GPU never NEVER goes above 50%. GPU should always be close to 100% thats its purpose.

you could argue that my system is bottlenecking, thats why i used Metro LL as a comparison. everything is working as it should.

So its clearly a matter of coding, optimization. Yes i can lower my settings (and i have cause otherwise its unplayable) but thats not the solution...

Edited by VagGR, 26 December 2014 - 02:58 AM.

[Maggiman]

My neck hair just stans up every time i see a gpu or cpu load percentage xD
And with optimizations passes being expensive and hard to monetize i don't see Pgi doing them in the near future (Not with so much else to do). Even if we assume is can be done without major overhauls. (I'd love to know how far the engine is to blame for this)

Im just trying to be realistic though.
I fully agree that a game that has o.k. graphics and not much to calculate simulation wise (As in physics for example, not trying to attack the gameplay) should have way lower performance needs. Just don't see that happening...

[JDH4mm3r]

I'm having the same issues as you guys. I have an Intel Core I5 3570K mated up with a Radeon 7950 HD and 8 gigs of DDR3... and since CW maps have been introduced, i've seen my FPS start out at around 50 then drop mid way to 30ish when all other maps are at 60FPS (non CW) I had to wonder if i gotta go all out and get the highest end CPU to combat this?

I agree that you shouldn't have to adjust game settings just to play with the performance and FPS you want, I agree with this lot here, PGI, this game needs tweaked to be less CPU demanding.[/color]

Edited by JDH4mm3r, 26 December 2014 - 04:13 PM.

[Lantan Signi]

I'll just copy my email to support here.


Hi ppl.
I am very frustrating at the moment and here is why.
I have Win 7 x64 SP1, ASRock 970 Pro3 mainboard, AMD FX 8320 3.5, 8GB DDR3 1333, GTX 750Ti.
Msi afterburner shows that no matter what specs, client version or DX options my graphic card is loaded by 60-70% max... and 4 of 8 CPU cores loaded by 60-70%.
FPS jumps in 30-50 area and no matter what settings I set, I allways have allmost same unstable framerate, depends on map and mech quantity on the screen. Vsync off.
Newest Nvidia 347.09 drivers, clean install after changing from GTX 260, wnich had similar perfomance issues (any settings - 15-25fps, but GPU load was 90-100%).

Edited by Lantan Signi, 27 December 2014 - 11:06 PM.

[JDH4mm3r]

Support is on vacation till like the 5th of Jan 2015....

[DeathlyEyes]

The game isn't even using my GPU half the time. I get 10-20 FPS in community warfare 20% cpu utilization and then periods of time where I have absolutely no GPU usage at all. I have no idea why. I get 80 in BF4 on ultra.

FX 8350 @ 4.8 ghz
R9 290x @ stock
16 GB DDR3 1600 7-7-7-24

I even tried running the game from a ram disk. No dice. I get 30-40 in regular games as well. I run on mostly low settings.

Edited by DeathlyEyes, 29 December 2014 - 11:32 PM.

[xWiredx]

Chimperator, on 21 December 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

I got an GTX970 and and Haswell 5820K and the game runs realy bad...
CPU load max.25-28%
GPU load max.80%
At game start (maybe first 30seconds) ~150fps when uncapped
And when fihgts starting fps drops down to 50 sometimes
with low/medium settings only envoirment is on high...

We need performance PGI!

OC your CPU. I have a 5820K and a GTX 980. I do not have performance issues like this.

Really. This goes for pretty much everybody. Haswell+OC+decent GPU=happy fun time. Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge users will need bigger OCs. This information is abundantly available in the hardware subforum.

This game -does- need dev optimization attention badly, but many people complaining of performance issues -can- get better performance than they currently have. Trust me, I've been drumming on this for half a year at least.

[FuzzyLog1c]

xWiredx, on 30 December 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

OC your CPU. I have a 5820K and a GTX 980. I do not have performance issues like this.

Really. This goes for pretty much everybody. Haswell+OC+decent GPU=happy fun time. Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge users will need bigger OCs. This information is abundantly available in the hardware subforum.

This game -does- need dev optimization attention badly, but many people complaining of performance issues -can- get better performance than they currently have. Trust me, I've been drumming on this for half a year at least.

It's unwise to take your single use case and make global statements like "everyone just needs to increase their CPU overclock and that'll fix everything."

I have four systems:

- Core i7 930 @ 4.05 GHz, 12 GB DDR3 RAM, 2x Radeon 6970s, Catalyst 14.11.2 BETA
- Core i5 2600K @ 4.5 GHz, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, 3x Radeon 7970s, Catalyst 14.11.2 BETA
- Core i7 3770K @ 4.6 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, 4x Radeon 290Xs, 14.12 WHQL (Omega)
- Core i7 5830K @ 4.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR4 RAM, 2x Radeon 290Xs, 14.12 WHQL (Omega)

Since the latest patch was released, I've spent something like 20 hours trying all four combinations of DX9/DX11 and 32-bit/64-bit, with and without Crossfire enabled, 8 different Crossfire profile overrides (Bioshock.exe, Crysis3.exe, etc), and toggling all MWO settings between their lowest and highest settings. In all situations, total CPU utilization has never peaked above 25%, and I've never been able to maintain a constant 62 fps (limited by MSI Afterburner)--which was child's play before the latest patch.

If I were to graph out GPU utilization for you, it would look spastic: bouncing randomly (e.g. 13%... 45%... 3%... 89%) every 500 milliseconds (per my monitoring interval in MSI Afterburner). But the really interesting thing is that appears to be no correlation between GPU utilization, framerate, and scene content. Looking at a wall, GPU utilization is all over the place. While performance in MWO has always been exceedingly poor, this latest patch clearly brought things to a new low.

To date, here's what we know:

- This problem was introduced in the latest patch
- It occurs in both the 32-bit and 64-bit executables
- It occurs in both the DX9 and DX11 rendering pipelines
- It doesn't care whether you have an Intel or AMD CPU
- It doesn't care whether you have a nVidia or AMD GPU
- It doesn't care what driver revision you have installed
- It affects both single and multiple GPU systems
- It happens in both Windows 7 and Windows 8

Logical conclusion: MWO is at fault--not our systems.

Logical solution: replace the entire technical team with qualified personnel. If they can't manage to keep MWO running at a solid 60 fps with a single GTX 660 Ti or Radeon 7950, they need to be let go. Not only does this game look FAR worse than the original Crysis, released back in 2007, it runs FAR worse. We're almost in 2015--it's time.

It's been long established that a single, qualified, CryEngine 3 mapmaker can run circles around PGI's entire team in terms of content creation speed, graphical fidelity, and map design. When we asked if we could help, Paul/Russ shot us down because of "quality control, legal issues, and performance"--complete and utter BS.

Edited by FuzzyLog1c, 30 December 2014 - 08:54 AM.