58 replies to this topic

[Bill Lumbar]

Sir Wulfrick, on 02 May 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

If that really is the case, and I'm not doubting that it's true at all, then PGI should feel suitably ashamed and upgrade immediately. I also find their claimed reason to be highly suspicious - I actually own and use a machine that doesn't have a DX11 graphics card: the card is I think a 5800 part from about 5 years or so ago. Everything since then should be DX11 capable.

Given that MWO is now >3 years down the road from inception PGI has no excuse for not using the latest version of the Crye engine. Unless they either can't afford it or are so hell-bent on profiteering that they won't spend the money on it...?

Yeah... this is what I am thinking, even if its not a relic of the cry engine, if the new engine supports more features, DX12... mantle, they should make it happen and update, period. Using the crutch that they want as many players to be able to play on older rigs they can get just doesn't cut it, IMO. I didn't sit in on the town hall last time, glad I didn't, after hearing the news about no further plans to update to the newer engine, Really glad I didn't waste my time listening in.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 03 May 2015 - 05:36 AM.

[QuantumButler]

Sir Wulfrick, on 02 May 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

If that really is the case, and I'm not doubting that it's true at all, then PGI should feel suitably ashamed and upgrade immediately. I also find their claimed reason to be highly suspicious - I actually own and use a machine that doesn't have a DX11 graphics card: the card is I think a 5800 part from about 5 years or so ago. Everything since then should be DX11 capable.

Given that MWO is now >3 years down the road from inception PGI has no excuse for not using the latest version of the Crye engine. Unless they either can't afford it or are so hell-bent on profiteering that they won't spend the money on it...?

They didn't bother to keep up their contract with Crytek beyond the early Beta phases so they don't have access to any cryengine support staff, information, tools, or newer versions of Cryengine.

They aren't willing to put in the time and money required to migrate to a better version.

This coupled with many many many talented people who used to be at PGI leaving in the wake of Transverse means their current programmers don't understand much of their own code.

Edited by QuantumButler, 02 May 2015 - 07:54 PM.

[stjobe]

Sir Wulfrick, on 02 May 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

Given that MWO is now >3 years down the road from inception PGI has no excuse for not using the latest version of the Crye engine. Unless they either can't afford it or are so hell-bent on profiteering that they won't spend the money on it...?

They don't know how to.

Remember, the version they have is extensively rebuilt (took them forever, too) to be server-side authoritative (instead of client-side, which the stock CryEngine is), and to have HSR (which the stock CryEngine doesn't have, or need).

Chances are sadly rather high that exactly zero of the people that did the rebuild of the current version still work for PGI - which in PGI-land means the code cannot be changed, ever (c.f. ammo switching for ACs, or any number of closed beta features we don't have any more).

In other words, don't get your hopes up. We're stuck on this version of CryEngine forever; it won't get any better, and it won't get any improvements.

Edited by stjobe, 02 May 2015 - 08:43 PM.

[CocoaJin]

My 4690k w/16% oc, GTX970, 8GB RAM and 32GB ReadyCache run flawlessly. Fresh install, no programs on except MWO.

No stutters, no lag...there is a sweet spot for MWO, it may not be as high as my system, but it's much higher than the minimum or even recommended specs.

[Troutmonkey]

My system runs BF3, FC3, Witcher 2, Tomb Raider and many other graphically demanding games on high at 40-60 frames. But for some reason it only runs MWO (a by far less pretty game) at 25-35fps with massive lag spikes.
-AMD 1090T
-AMD ATI 6970
-16GB RAM

PGI are completely inept programmers and cannot optimize if their life depended on it. The game is also full of easily fixed bugs that they have so far shown they are incapable of fixing.

MWO is extremely CPU heavy for no good reason. So much so that when upgrading my ATI 6970 to a nVidea 970 I saw exactly 0% improvement in my frame rate. I will be upgrading my system to an Intel 4790k because I expect to play Witcher 3 on ultra, but there is absolutely no reason for current AMD CPUs to run this game so poorly.

My advice to the OP is if you really want to run MWO well, spend the big bucks and get ridiculously overpriced parts. The only way to get a good framerate from poor coding is to brute force it with overspec'd hardware.

[MrMadguy]

Simple answer - use DX9. I have 2 years old Intel CPU + NVidia GPU. No difference in graphics quality, but 75FPS at all setting set to Utra. Microsoft's story about DX10/DX11/DX12 improving your gaming performance by 100500% - is appearing to be simply marketing lie at the end.

Edited by MrMadguy, 03 May 2015 - 01:00 AM.

[Sir Wulfrick]

QuantumButler, on 02 May 2015 - 07:53 PM, said:

They didn't bother to keep up their contract with Crytek beyond the early Beta phases so they don't have access to any cryengine support staff, information, tools, or newer versions of Cryengine.

They aren't willing to put in the time and money required to migrate to a better version.

This coupled with many many many talented people who used to be at PGI leaving in the wake of Transverse means their current programmers don't understand much of their own code.

stjobe, on 02 May 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

They don't know how to.

Remember, the version they have is extensively rebuilt (took them forever, too) to be server-side authoritative (instead of client-side, which the stock CryEngine is), and to have HSR (which the stock CryEngine doesn't have, or need).

Chances are sadly rather high that exactly zero of the people that did the rebuild of the current version still work for PGI - which in PGI-land means the code cannot be changed, ever (c.f. ammo switching for ACs, or any number of closed beta features we don't have any more).

In other words, don't get your hopes up. We're stuck on this version of CryEngine forever; it won't get any better, and it won't get any improvements.

I hadn't heard of this situation, it must have happened during my 'year off' while I was away playing Path of Exile. Damn, they don't even have access to their own bloody code base??!!? Didn't the departing programmers leave any non-compiled code? Development documentation? What the hell?

I suppose this would explain why any number of improvements simply haven't happened: a portion of the code base must be simply locked away from the current dev team. That's extremely concerning for the future of MWO. Any game needs an accessible code base for effective onwards development to happen, otherwise all that will happen is that the game will stagnate because new features are almost impossible to implement!

That has me more worried for the future of MWO than any silly design decisions that the current dev team have made. At some point they'll be forced to either radically overhaul the code base (under these circumstances a total re-write) or to just stop. Oh. Oh dear...

Edited by Sir Wulfrick, 03 May 2015 - 03:22 AM.

[Mystere]

Sir Wulfrick, on 03 May 2015 - 03:08 AM, said:

I hadn't heard of this situation, it must have happened during my 'year off' while I was away playing Path of Exile. Damn, they don't even have access to their own bloody code base??!!? Didn't the departing programmers leave any non-compiled code? Development documentation? What the hell?

I suppose this would explain why any number of improvements simply haven't happened: a portion of the code base must be simply locked away from the current dev team. That's extremely concerning for the future of MWO. Any game needs an accessible code base for effective onwards development to happen, otherwise all that will happen is that the game will stagnate because new features are almost impossible to implement!

That has me more worried for the future of MWO than any silly design decisions that the current dev team have made. At some point they'll be forced to either radically overhaul the code base (under these circumstances a total re-write) or to just stop. Oh. Oh dear...

Hold a second! Who said PGI has no copy of the source code? I think you're assuming too much.

Having said that, having the source code and a different person looking and understanding it are two different things.

[Sir Wulfrick]

Mystere, on 03 May 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

Hold a second! Who said PGI has no copy of the source code? I think you're assuming too much.

Having said that, having the source code and a different person looking and understanding it are two different things.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know if they can't access the old source code, but the way in which the incident in question is described infers that there are portions at least of the code that are inaccessible. If true, that would be a very serious situation. If not, then good, and we'll hopefully see continued development including things like switchable ammunition for LB-X autocannons

Edited to add: Unfortunately it appears I was at least partially correct. There is code, and some documentation... In Icelandic... Which the current dev team don't appear to be able to read:

http://www.reddit.co...their_own_code/

Edited by Sir Wulfrick, 03 May 2015 - 11:52 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

MrMadguy, on 03 May 2015 - 12:57 AM, said:

Simple answer - use DX9. I have 2 years old Intel CPU + NVidia GPU. No difference in graphics quality, but 75FPS at all setting set to Utra. Microsoft's story about DX10/DX11/DX12 improving your gaming performance by 100500% - is appearing to be simply marketing lie at the end.

Haha, no.

But you see, if you want to have DX11 features, you must code them. They don't magically appear just because you added a DX11 switch to the game. So while MWO may run under DX11, this doesn't really mean much. Last year, it meant even less, but since, they've added some stuff, like TXAA support.

DX11, or even DX12, also won't fix the graphics. PGI needs to put bigger and better textures in for that.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Seems like AMD CPU is the common denominator for people's poor performance.

[Bill Lumbar]

Kevjack, on 03 May 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

Seems like AMD CPU is the common denominator for people's poor performance.

Not true, even some higher end Intel rigs was having the "drops" in FPS. Sure some Amd rigs perform better then others with this game for sure, but my FX-8350 build really didn't have any issues running this game that was much different from guys running Intel Rigs with I7's. My mins did dip lower at times, but all in all rarely did I see any stutters in my game play with this game. Yeah, it happened from time to time, but even guys running I7's and 970's had the same issues we all have had.

Mystere, on 03 May 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

Hold a second! Who said PGI has no copy of the source code? I think you're assuming too much.

Having said that, having the source code and a different person looking and understanding it are two different things.

I really hope this is not the case... and the later is the case, either way, not looking to promising either way.

[Death Metal]

Gigabyte GA-990FX-UD3 mobo
AMD FX-8350@4.6GHz cpu
Corsair H100i liquid cooling
Radeon HD AX7870 gpu
8G Corsair Vengeance RAM
60-90fps in 1080p using this build.

[Bill Lumbar]

Death Metal, on 03 May 2015 - 11:10 AM, said:

Gigabyte GA-990FX-UD3 mobo
AMD FX-8350@4.6GHz cpu
Corsair H100i liquid cooling
Radeon HD AX7870 gpu
8G Corsair Vengeance RAM
60-90fps in 1080p using this build.

Intel or go home bro....

I still say it would be very interesting to set up 4 gaming rigs.... each with either Intel or Amd mid to high end parts. Sit down a group of gamers, blind test each gamer on this game and see if they can guess which companies parts are in the rig they just played. I could be wrong, but I bet you that some would completely guess the wrong parts more then once.

Btw... make sure they are equally split among the most die hard fan boys they can find to blind test for both sides.... It would make the tears even better.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 03 May 2015 - 11:17 AM.

[Chuck Jager]

I have found AMD cpu motherboards to be more finicky with good results in game than with Intel. It is mostly due to variations of the hardware manufacturers and the chipset (very simplistic). I have had to research the specific versions of my boards and other hardware to find good ways to tweak the system. IE Just saying the chipset name or graphics cards is not always the issue. It is how those work with the other parts of your system. I would recommend turning all graphics settings to low and the number of processes and programs running to as low as possible and then trying the game. This will help eliminate a number of potential problems.

[Bill Lumbar]

For my Amd builds I have ran nothing but Gigabyte, Asus, and Asrock for the last 4 years. I have had no issues with them at all. I agree that some components just do have "bugs" that are hard to work out, and they can cause performance issues.

[PurpleNinja]

I love MWO, but game has much room for improvement on the performance side. GTAV is running smoother on higher graphics settings than MWO.

Maybe it was a bad engine choice.

[CocoaJin]

CryEngine was a poor choice, but it's what we have...so my inky concern is making it the best it can be.

[Johny Rocket]

I run it on an MSI 970A-g43 Motherboard, FX8310 3.4ghz, MSI Radeon R7 265 2GD5 Armor OC edition, 8gb of DDR3 1600mhz, and an OCZ Arc 100 SSD.
Spectacular build? eh I could have spent $300-400 more and been phenomenal but it is pretty solid.
I have the nice MSI bios and OC the cpu and ram from there, Just a small bump over stock to 3.66ghz and 1680mhz. I have the GPU running about the same level of OC from in catalyst.
Im on Comcast Xfinity and average 69mb/s

This box runs other graphics intensive jobs like a dream, Solidworks, Slic3r etc. I can play WarThunder on stupid high settings. I only play the planes but it has clouds set to movie.

MWO is the only game that I have found that Gaming Evolved won't do the work optimizing. It just set everything to very high. It runs it like that but had some fps drops into the high 20s. So I tweaked it and turned off Vsync and AA. I like to play playlists from youtube while I game and it handles the game and that nicely. Ive checked framrates and resources both ways and very little change.

The only issue Ive seen is the teleporting lights and I only see it once in awhile and was worried it was my box but after checking into it I can't find anything to say it is, including running the game on medium, still see fast lights jumping a few meters thru the ether.

I built this rig for solidworks, but gaming was also a secondary concern, I research all major purchases and from experience with I5 and I7 chipsets and research it just wasn't worth the price, It was only half the difference in price to just run bigger AMD than what I set out looking for.

Now please, some Intel Fanboy please tell me how wrong I am, I need a good laugh.