100 replies to this topic

[AdamBaines]

Hardin4188, on 26 February 2015 - 06:54 PM, said:

To be fair to PGI(I know it feels weird saying that) they are working on improving framerates and the patches in february have already improved it a lot.

I think in the Town Hall Russ was saying up to 15 fps gain. So most of us will see 5-10 it would seem.

[Silme]

Running a 5820k at 4.5 GHz and 2x GTX 780 Ti's in SLI - also sitting between 100-120 FPS on average, dips down to 60-70 during arty or long viewlines. DX11, TXAA, everything on High, no motion blur. Running 4k at 40-70 fps with the same setup.

[xWiredx]

Finkledbody, on 27 February 2015 - 10:12 AM, said:

Did I read that first post right?
You have your SSD's in RAID? any reason why?

Even my laptop has SSDs in RAID0. Who doesn't RAID their SSDs? Do you not like having gigabit read speeds?

Actually, a legitimate thing here would be trying to avoid the pop-in and retexturing that happens in MWO. It drives me crazy. Although in very early testing I could already tell it had nothing to do with drive read speeds. My user.cfg has something in it that helps, I'm just wary of saying "this definitely fixed that" especially when I still haven't found the best parameters yet. It will definitely also hit GPU performance somewhat significantly (a good like... 10-15fps).

So to answer the question legitimately, OP probably only has SSDs in RAID because he can (since his parents probably paid for the machine anyway, judging by his temperament). There are legitimate uses for high-speed I/O, but not in this game. A spinning 7200RPM HDD with a 64MB cache is probably the most it could possibly require.

[Goose]

xWiredx, on 27 February 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

Actually, a legitimate thing here would be trying to avoid the pop-in and retexturing that happens in MWO. It drives me crazy. Although in very early testing I could already tell it had nothing to do with drive read speeds. My user.cfg has something in it that helps, I'm just wary of saying "this definitely fixed that" especially when I still haven't found the best parameters yet. It will definitely also hit GPU performance somewhat significantly (a good like... 10-15fps).

IK:R

[NocturnalBeast]

Tarogato, on 26 February 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

If you can consistently get more than 30fps, I personally say you have no right to complain about performance. Try joining the rest of us at 20fps. =P

True, the game is quite playable at > 30 FPS, but your HSR will dramatically improve with a solid 50-60+ FPS.

[LordKnightFandragon]

So, what in MWO is GPU and CPU?
I currently run all the settings on low, aside from textures and object detail. I have heard you can help performance by putting more load on the GPU if the CPU is the weak link and like wise, ofc, both is my issue in MWO, but still. My GPU is a bit better then my CPU, being in the Recommended specs vs my CPUs required lol.

Best I have seen is 30 in a normal battle, and while it runs better then it used to, its still kinda derpy and stuttery. I have placed my details and textures to high and in a CW battle, it was 12-15 no matter what anyway lol.

[Brother MEX]

Ed Steele, on 26 February 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

I have found that if I turn Effects, Shadows and Particles to Low, AA off, motion blur off and everything else to Very High, then go in to NVidia Control Panel and force it to override most game settings, that MWO looks very nice and runs smoother than silk.

But you need SHADOWS at VERY HIGH for sniping, as it allows you to detect enemies easier when they hide behind obstacles !

[Toxicresidue]

well hell maybe its a glitch in your positronic sub-processer commander, have geordi run a level3 diagnostic

[NocturnalBeast]

Brother MEX, on 10 June 2015 - 01:05 AM, said:

But you need SHADOWS at VERY HIGH for sniping, as it allows you to detect enemies easier when they hide behind obstacles !

No, I have had Shadows at "LOW" for a very long time and I have no problems (although I almost always brawl and not snipe).

Toxicresidue, on 10 June 2015 - 01:33 AM, said:

well hell maybe its a glitch in your positronic sub-processer commander, have geordi run a level3 diagnostic

No sir, it is most definitely a failure of your high-speed Johnson gear!

[Aidan]

It is discussions like this that make me continue to encourage PGI for the early adoption of DX12. The asynchronous graphics driver calls in DX12 will greatly increase video performance. This will not be an incremental increase in performance but a very large increase. But alas, DX12 PC hardware will be needed and since PGI wants to maintain a large user community to keep the money rolling in, the adoption of DX12 will be a very slow process.

Such is the disadvantage of a Free To Play game business model. Embracing new technology in this game is a business risk that needs to be considered in the light of how this new technology will increase or decrease the PGI revenue stream.

[MCchum]

I was here from the start . in beta testing was times all had a hard time running the crysis engine .. there engine was the feature of a lot of benchscores for a lot of site's online .. the original crisis was extremely demanding .
So having a top of the line system doesn't mean much while running this game . a lot has to do with the type of connection u have .. meaning if ur internet connection sux's .. ur top of line system may or maynot run the game good ..
is a lot of good info here and is always easy to say it all doesn't apply to me ..
but , anywhere u go will tell you playable is around 20-30 fps , decent gfx is around 40-50 fps . good stuff happening is 60 - 60+ fps . .. now this info is a general statement and applies to any system ..
now when tis game started it had 2 servers 1 was closed beta and a lot of ppl was in there .. the other server was invite only and u had to sign no talky papers for it .. .. me ad a friend of mine had pretty much the same system running I was getting around 25 to 40 fps and dropping to 0 fps then catching back up to 25 to 40 .. my friend on the otherhand had 20 to 0 and would have to reboot to get back to 20 fps .. well we couldn't upgrade our systems . we had top line systems . best gfx and cpu there was at the time . but , he got has internet provider look into his connection .. well guess what .. was a problem there so it was fixed and he then got same type of fps I did ..
so no matter the system and anything like that .. posting in forum and not listening to ppl how knows is problems no matter u having good system or not .. really has nothing to do with it , if u like playing the game or not u do the best u can and keep plugging on playing games and having fun ..

so play the game and have fun .. have a nice day

[Kh0rn]

I actually had better FPS in closed beta. Before 12 vs 12

[o0Marduk0o]

You want 120 FPS on 1440p???

[Peter2k]

Kh0rn, on 14 June 2015 - 11:31 AM, said:

I actually had better FPS in closed beta. Before 12 vs 12

gonna leave this here

Karl Berg, on 12 June 2014 - 09:18 PM, said:

The draw calls made into D3D are very CPU intensive. A good chunk of that is due to the lego-like nature of the mechs; being formed out of dozens of individual components rather than a single character that can be rendered with a single draw call, like in most other games.

more mechs, more Draw Calls, worse fps


that's why FarCry 4 runs at double the fps on my system than MWO while looking a lot better (i5 oc to 4.2, 780ti)

Aidan, on 14 June 2015 - 09:31 AM, said:

But alas, DX12 PC hardware will be needed

actually to get the better performance you only need a card from the gtx 400 line or better (that's actually kinda old), and AMD anything with a GCN architecture, that's not new either, nor expensive



it's not like Windows 10 doesn't support DX9
if I would have to bet money, I would say PGI is waiting for the steam statistics on the adoption rate of Windows 10
even a CoreDuo or Q6600 would benefit from DX 12 support in this game



sigh
I do wish people would put the screws more tightly on REALLY important stuff in Townhalls and not just balancing this, mech pack that

just so you know
official stance on why we can't have 4k textures is not fps concerns, but install size; pfft

Edited by Peter2k, 15 June 2015 - 01:18 AM.

[xWiredx]

Peter2k, on 15 June 2015 - 01:17 AM, said:

just so you know
official stance on why we can't have 4k textures is not fps concerns, but install size; pfft

Considering how muddy some of the textures look at 1920x1080, I'd like to see them completely redo the current ones in addition to getting everything to look good at 4k. Install size can't possibly be that big of an issue these days considering how many people went nuts over the 2GB or whatever of high-res textures for Crysis 2 several years ago. These days we see games on Steam take tons more space than MWO does. I honestly don't buy PGI's excuse on this. I don't think that anybody wanting higher-res textures is going to complain about performance, and the added complaints from those who can't run the highest settings but still try to isn't going to change at all.

[Peter2k]

xWiredx, on 15 June 2015 - 05:55 AM, said:

I honestly don't buy PGI's excuse on this.

Matthew Craig, on 28 May 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

We actually scaled back a bit which is why you see the shift to 1k reason being we were releasing Mechs/Skins quite aggressively and were concerned about ballooning the install footprint

yeah, even in my system with only SSD's, I'm sure I have enough room to spare when SC is going to require like 100GB n more

I'd wished they drop that argument really

[NocturnalBeast]

Brother MEX, on 10 June 2015 - 01:05 AM, said:

But you need SHADOWS at VERY HIGH for sniping, as it allows you to detect enemies easier when they hide behind obstacles !

True, but I prefer brawling, so I will take the extra FPS.

The problem is Cry Engine.

If you are running DX9, you need a hardcore CPU and a decent amount of memory; DX11 is a bit less CPU dependant and will make better use of a top-of-the-line GPU. Fast SSDs are only useful for loading into a match, or launching the game faster.

Edited by Ed Steele, 15 June 2015 - 06:55 PM.

[Exarch Levin]

Ed Steele, on 15 June 2015 - 06:53 PM, said:

The problem is Cry Engine.

If you are running DX9, you need a hardcore CPU and a decent amount of memory; DX11 is a bit less CPU dependant and will make better use of a top-of-the-line GPU.

Sadly, I've observed the opposite and I've got a rather high-end modern GPU. DX9 mode offers superior performance for me, even though my hardware is DX11 and 12 ready. DX9 also gets rid of that nasty blurring/ghosting that I was having.

I hope that CryTek can hold it together long enough to get Vulkan support into CryEngine and that PGI can finally see the wisdom in using it...or that they change the way they create the mechs as so to be more CPU efficient.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Should not have to worry about CryTek, they just signed there largest customer they have ever had. So, that should allow for some new $ into the company.

Reference the 4k textures;
If PGI is concerned about the install size, set up DLC for these additional content items.
- Separate them into there own library, and called when required.
- Game updates or patch's only address the normal library but should reference if something may change the 4k add-ons. And require getting the latest 4k files to match any physical or artistic game changes. (yes, it's more work for PGI, but they have already stated the 4k models are done. And probably what the original designs start as.)
As noted, Dx12 has advanced call states code, library organization optimizations and specifically designed for the newer faster rendering games.

- Do you see Dx9 running your game 'what appears to be faster'? But, you'd be missing transparencies, more advanced smoke and dust particles, faster and more advanced rendering of effects and shadows, as well as sharper images of nearly everything.
- This doesn't mean that Dx11 is slower, it's not, as it should grant this game 4 to 8 times the speeds over Dx9, just that it's not yet optimized/tuned by PGI to run at the best possible rendering speeds.
- There's still many elements within Dx11 that we have yet to see, items that are just not 'turned on'. These require the artists to basically 'look at' nearly every object they have created and set up it's parameters for these renderers. Tessellation and bump mapping being major eye popping changes, rendering changes to everything including the 'Mech's themselves. Adding the 3d effect to surfaces, objects, structures.
- Having the engineers and artists branch there code efforts between Dx9 and Dx11, offering different states for nearly everything, may not be the best 'bang for the buck' on there part. Concentrating on Dx11 and tuning it, is 'in my opinion' a single effort and better use of their time.

As a note here, Crytek's latest Dx12 code has dropped any support for Dx9. For this newest engine, that old code is done, and no longer viable or able to be advanced. Probably one of the major reasons PGI can't update to it or would require building a 'specialized' version for MWO. (possible future proofing issues in that route.) Dropping all Dx9 support for MWO requires losing any of the lowest spec. players, and that's $ from potential customers for PGI, a very difficult decision. With 'Steam' about to be opened for MWO, that lowest end market could be required for PGI, at this time.

The end market for Dx9 only, was around the 400 series cards, that's about 6 years ago. It's definitely time for PGI to up there min. spec's for this game. 32 bit systems are rapidly disappearing as 64 bit becomes common and it's additional RAM capabilities are actually required for higher end programs. Speed of video cards and rendering jumps every year, it's hard to believe we have cards now with 6Gb on board. (that's more Vram than a 32bit system could use.) The gaming industry is following in step with this, and building games that make use of this additional power. It's time for PGI to step up and commit to advancing there game into the Dx11 and beyond pipeline.

9erRed

Edited by 9erRed, 20 June 2015 - 10:19 AM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Cry Engine's physics engine seems to use the CPU rather than the GPU to avoid propriatary engines like nVidia's PhysX. The main problem is our expectations, just shoot for a steady 40-60FPS @ 1080P and have fun.