12 replies to this topic

[DeathWaffle]

Let's start with a positive point followed by THE point and end this with a friendly ambiance just because I'm a people pleaser.

Overall this game deserves a colossal round of applause for the new CW game mode that was brought to us recently, and the outstanding mech designs (recent and old design remodeling.) A huge thanks for all of that it was a refreshing experience and visual delight.

Now as we evolve through the phases MWO is going through, I realized that the root of all delight hasn't been met yet, actual playability of the game for many users. Actually let me cut this short and avoid unnecessary malarkey. Mechwarrior Online needs to be on Unreal Engine 3 or 4, or the hud needs to stop making us drop 10-20 precious FPS. It makes the game ever so choppy.

Other than that, excellent work.

Many thanks,

Your friendly waffle

[Edit: Misleading title]

Edited by DeathWaffle, 02 May 2015 - 10:25 AM.

[Sir Wulfrick]

I agree that the mech designs and general art direction of both the mechs and maps are superb. The design and art department at PGI should deservedly come in for some serious recognition for their awesome work.

I also agree completely that from the outset MWO should have been built on Unreal Engine 4 tech: it's vastly more efficient, the net code is superior and with a game engine license comes access to a HUGE store of ready-made content to be used.

The problem is that if one expects or believes that one's game project will make vast amounts of profit, then the licensing terms that come with the use of the U4 engine can appear rather expensive. Unfortunately choice of game engine is a ship that sailed long ago.

The best thing that PGI could do now is to use the latest version of the Crye engine, recognise and accept that unfortunately a portion of the player base with ancient machines couldn't then use it, get rid of DX9 mode and clean up the damned graphics! The muddy, foggy visibility in maps like Forest Colony are horrible compared to how they used to be back in closed beta.

[FupDup]

It's way too late now. They're never gonna change the engine, it's an even deeper-ingrained Legacy Feature than any other Legacy Feature of this game.

[Scratx]

Sir Wulfrick, on 02 May 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

I agree that the mech designs and general art direction of both the mechs and maps are superb. The design and art department at PGI should deservedly come in for some serious recognition for their awesome work.

I also agree completely that from the outset MWO should have been built on Unreal Engine 4 tech: it's vastly more efficient, the net code is superior and with a game engine license comes access to a HUGE store of ready-made content to be used.

The problem is that if one expects or believes that one's game project will make vast amounts of profit, then the licensing terms that come with the use of the U4 engine can appear rather expensive. Unfortunately choice of game engine is a ship that sailed long ago.

The best thing that PGI could do now is to use the latest version of the Crye engine, recognise and accept that unfortunately a portion of the player base with ancient machines couldn't then use it, get rid of DX9 mode and clean up the damned graphics! The muddy, foggy visibility in maps like Forest Colony are horrible compared to how they used to be back in closed beta.

Engine choice indeed is a ship that sailed long ago. And... well, that player base with older machines is likely a chunk big enough to justify not getting rid of DX9.

Honestly, I'm not sure it's worth getting rid of it until at least Win10 drops in with DX12 and CryEngine supports it. DX12 might actually make it worth an engine change and it gives probably an year or two more for the player base to update their PCs and OSs away from the "ancient machines" that are supposedly holding MWO back.

[Anjian]

The mech designs are good, though there are exceptions. The map level designs are generally horrible with some exceptions. I cannot comment on the general art direction which in my opinion, blows, though once again, there are a few maps that make good exceptions.

Here is another game, other than Star Citizen, that makes use of the Crytek engine. And it looks really really good. I wonder why MWO can't look as good as this.

[CocoaJin]

It's a spec thing. After upgrading, im finding MWO runs like silk. I don't think PGI intends to go backwards anymore...as players, we need to meet them halfway.

[Deathlike]

Cryengine 3 needs a beefy CPU.

Even then, UI 2.0 is still ironically sluggish when switching between certain elements in the UI (I've upgraded my system from a Core 2 Q9650 to a Core i7 4960S recently). It feels like I need a supercomputer to run it like silk, but optimizing the UI is apparently Lostech.

Edited by Deathlike, 02 May 2015 - 12:48 PM.

[CocoaJin]

3.5-4.0ghz quad-core seems to be the magic number. I'm not sure if it helps, but my 32GB Sandisk ReadyCache is a cheap way to totally take the HDD out of the equation. With the CPU and a cache that stores the whole game and OS, I find I have no issues, no FPS drops. The dang cache can transmit almost the whole game in one sec...so no bottle necks

[Vassago Rain]

CW isn't recent. It came out in december last year.

The other issues aren't engine issues, but PGI issues. You guys, though... Unreal 4 didn't even exist back in 2011.

Edited by Vassago Rain, 02 May 2015 - 01:33 PM.

[Navid A1]

Deathlike, on 02 May 2015 - 12:47 PM, said:

Cryengine 3 needs a beefy CPU.

Even then, UI 2.0 is still ironically sluggish when switching between certain elements in the UI (I've upgraded my system from a Core 2 Q9650 to a Core i7 4960S recently). It feels like I need a supercomputer to run it like silk, but optimizing the UI is apparently Lostech.

Here's the wrong thing with engine choice from the start:
1- You go for cryengine if you want realistic life like renders ingame.
2- You don't go with cryengine if you what your game to run on toasters

you can guess what happened here... PGI wanted 1 and then changed to 2. Simply 1 and 2 contradict each other in the first three words.

on a side note... The CPU hungry cryengine 3 uses deferred lighting to produce very realistic end results. However, it sacrifices the capability of having more than 1 render viewports simultaneously. That's the reason a working advanced zoom and rear view are lostech.

[Vassago Rain]

This was originally gonna follow in the footsteps of other mechwarrior games (next-gen, cutting edge technology and graphics), but sometime Q3 2012, they decided they needed the BR and russian audience, so cryengine had to be optimized for core 2 duos, nvidia 200 series, and other assorted outdated hardware and relics.

I don't think they could change back now, even if they wanted to. Electronic old men everywhere are now used to playing MWO at a stable 19 FPS on their 2008 beastmachines, and PGI probably doesn't employ engineers who could reverse the years of abuse and damage done to cryen- the years of optimizations, I mean.

[Kroete]

Navid A1, on 02 May 2015 - 09:43 PM, said:

Here's the wrong thing with engine choice from the start:
1- You go for cryengine if you want realistic life like renders ingame.
2- You don't go with cryengine if you what your game to run on toasters

you can guess what happened here... PGI wanted 1 and then changed to 2. Simply 1 and 2 contradict each other in the first three words.

Read the lincences for the engines (f2p cryengine lincence!) and you know why they choosed the cryengine ...

If you would go after engine specs, the cryengine with problems over 150kph, limited bullets at once and no 2. renderoption would be not be choosen for this type of game.

Its all about money ...

[Ralgas]

Kroete, on 03 May 2015 - 12:30 AM, said:

Read the lincences for the engines (f2p cryengine lincence!) and you know why they choosed the cryengine ...

If you would go after engine specs, the cryengine with problems over 150kph, limited bullets at once and no 2. renderoption would be not be choosen for this type of game.

Its all about money ...

^ this, pretty much. Cryengine is 1 of the very few platforms you don't have to pay for till you're making money off it. That said, there are quite a few games out there and in development that keep this title looking like keystone devs.........