87 replies to this topic

[CocoaJin]

Get a a Sandisk ReadyCache. It's 32GB of automatic frequently used file cache(SSD like performance, persistent RAM like use...at a much lower cost and no need to replace your current HDD). If they used a catalog of baked animations, the cache might help minimize the lag spike for accessing and then rendering the animation.

This is all a big maybe...regardless, it's worth it just for the 15sec load into Windows, and less than 30secs from CTD to back in match benefits.

[bad arcade kitty]

Kristov Kerensky, on 10 May 2015 - 08:38 PM, said:

Actually, it's not, I've seen much worse. I'm using an original i7 950 cpu on an Asus X58 Sabretooth board with 6g ram and a GTX 750 vcard, and I get 60fps constantly with everything cranked.

If this game barely runs for you, you seriously need to upgrade your computer because THAT is the entirety of the problem, especially if you are having to run in DX9 and/or 32bit.

Seriously, PGI has to have DX9 and a 32bit application for the game because the majority of the playerbase can NOT run higher than DX9 or in 64bit, and you are trying to tell us the coding is the problem? Get out of the catnip.

yes, the coding is the problem

this game is so much more demanding than dota2 it's not even funny
and dota 2 has a prettier graphic too (consider to use that free camera mode to estimate)

it's sometimes ridiculous to being funny, like i read on the forum how one person left the game working for a night with a mech standing in the hangar and the hangar mist generation wasted quite a while of electricity on their electric meter

i can run the game now, already had to upgrade for it (and note how a lot of people did the same), but if they introduce something new... i dunno

[CHH Badkarma]

I did not say it wasn't poorly coded. I said it has already been dumbed down for low spec machines. That is a simple fact. Several times since beta it has had "optimization passes for low spec machines" done. This has done a wonderful job of making the game look worse and worse.

I do not have a beast of a machine but a couple years a built it to be able to run MWO specifically with headroom to grow. I only have a 3770k and two 680s and run it well over 70 fps consistently. This on hardware several generations old already.

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 10 May 2015 - 09:18 PM.

[EgoSlayer]

bad arcade kitty, on 10 May 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

yes, the coding is the problem

this game is so much more demanding than dota2 it's not even funny
and dota 2 has a prettier graphic too (consider to use that free camera mode to estimate)

it's sometimes ridiculous to being funny, like i read on the forum how one person left the game working for a night with a mech standing in the hangar and the hangar mist generation wasted quite a while of electricity on their electric meter

i can run the game now, already had to upgrade for it (and note how a lot of people did the same), but if they introduce something new... i dunno

Dota 2 may very well be "prettier" but it's drawing less. Much less. The Triangle/polygon count of a mech in MWO is between 10-20,000 triangles. A Dota hero is hard capped by Valve to be no more than about 3500 for the most detailed hero.

That means the draw counts for 1 mech in MWO is between 3-6 times more work for the graphics subsystem than one Dota hero. And there are 12 Mechs in game per team. Equal to 72 to 144 heros in a Dota match. How many are there per match? Oh, right...

The biggest problem lies in Direct X limits, especially DX9. DX12 without any other changes would gain MWO between 25-100% more FPS on a modern system.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 10 May 2015 - 09:19 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

bad arcade kitty, on 10 May 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

yes, the coding is the problem

this game is so much more demanding than dota2 it's not even funny
and dota 2 has a prettier graphic too (consider to use that free camera mode to estimate)

it's sometimes ridiculous to being funny, like i read on the forum how one person left the game working for a night with a mech standing in the hangar and the hangar mist generation wasted quite a while of electricity on their electric meter

i can run the game now, already had to upgrade for it (and note how a lot of people did the same), but if they introduce something new... i dunno

Wow, a game that's built around DX9 is so much less demanding than a game using DX11, color ME shocked and amazed! Psst, you might want to pick a game that uses an engine that's not LESS when comparing it to the CryTek 3 engine, just saying. It's made to run on a dual core cpu and requires all of a GTS 8600 or HD2600! Oh My God! Seriously, do you have any idea how much lower that is than what the CryTek 3 engine requires? Try a few generations behind, and that's top end specs for DOTA2 compared to low end specs for CryTek 3 btw, not a joke, look it up yourself. Seriously, wtf is with these people who think their games which are using old code and run on hardware built last century are pushing the envelop?

CryTek 3 engine, one of the most resource hungry and bleeding edge engines on the market. You probably don't think it's so great since you obviuosly don't have the hardware to see what all it does, but believe me, it's a lot more impressive for those of us who have better hardware. Go pick up a copy of Crysis 3 and let us know how it does on your hardcore system. Before you ask, it runs great on my system, and so does MWO.

[STEF_]

An old game like bad company 2 has destructible buildings and larger maps.

Why couldn't mwo have this stuff since day one?

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 10 May 2015 - 10:21 PM.

[GreyNovember]

*Raises hand*.

I've done some terrain deformation in Unity before. Having an object impact on a mesh collider, then from the conatct point, move vertices on a mesh in a direction that is "away" from the contact point, multiplied by how far they are from the contact point/ the maximum threshold of effect.

Completely reorganizing a single mesh like that is stupid expensive. Your terrain would likely have to be smaller bits and pieces put together. Which would most likely turn into a nightmare when trying to look through the Engine's inspector to see what Terrain bit is acting funny.


That aside, it'd be pointless to do so. Watch someone dig themselves into a pit by constantly firing a small laser at their feet.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Destructible terrain I could take or leave. It was awesome in the games that had it (especially in Red Faction... ooooh that game was so far ahead of its time), but didn't add much unless the devs built the game mechanics around the crazy crap gamers could do with those mechanics. Most devs never did. No offense to PGI, but maybe one or two games in fifteen years have pulled off terrain deformation effectively. MWO is not likely to be the next.

Destructible buildings, cars, trees, and light poles? Yes, please. Little details make or break immersion. Also, being able to clear some of the clutter on maps like Bog with weapons would add a lot of tactical options by opening up different attack lanes and escape routes. Choosing to walk over and destroy things like trucks and shipping containers as opposed to leaving them (where they could potentially slow down an enemy advance) would become a decision point that skilled players could capitalize on. Likewise blowing up a building that's known to be a good piece of cover/sniper nest/whatever- vs using it yourself. I'm absolutely 110% for that kind of stuff. It makes for a better, deeper game.

[Spr1ggan]

EgoSlayer, on 10 May 2015 - 09:16 PM, said:

Dota 2 may very well be "prettier" but it's drawing less. Much less. The Triangle/polygon count of a mech in MWO is between 10-20,000 triangles. A Dota hero is hard capped by Valve to be no more than about 3500 for the most detailed hero.

That means the draw counts for 1 mech in MWO is between 3-6 times more work for the graphics subsystem than one Dota hero. And there are 12 Mechs in game per team. Equal to 72 to 144 heros in a Dota match. How many are there per match? Oh, right...

The biggest problem lies in Direct X limits, especially DX9. DX12 without any other changes would gain MWO between 25-100% more FPS on a modern system.

DoTA 2 is a bad comparison. I will put BF4 forward though. Better graphics, destructibility, bigger maps, more players, and it runs better than MWO.

[Anjian]

bad arcade kitty, on 10 May 2015 - 06:07 PM, said:

and it will

we should be ready for it for a huge fps drop is coming

Why?

War Thunder has bigger, more detailed, more glorious maps than this, including dynamic weather, and not just destructable environments, but deformable terrain (like huge bomb craters). Then throw in more players (16v16) and AI bots to boot, and yet they attain higher FPS than MWO on the same rig.

MWO needs a major graphics optimization pass.

[FatYak]

Anjian, on 11 May 2015 - 12:40 AM, said:

Why?

War Thunder has bigger, more detailed, more glorious maps than this, including dynamic weather, and not just destructable environments, but deformable terrain (like huge bomb craters). Then throw in more players (16v16) and AI bots to boot, and yet they attain higher FPS than MWO on the same rig.

MWO needs a major graphics optimization pass.

i run warthunder at 60FPS and "movie quality" settings, its something to behold, and looks amazing.

MWO, anywhere between 25 and 60 depending on their server load and if I'm using thermal vision.

No reason for MWO to be this crappy

[Anjian]

EgoSlayer, on 10 May 2015 - 09:16 PM, said:

Dota 2 may very well be "prettier" but it's drawing less. Much less. The Triangle/polygon count of a mech in MWO is between 10-20,000 triangles. A Dota hero is hard capped by Valve to be no more than about 3500 for the most detailed hero.

That means the draw counts for 1 mech in MWO is between 3-6 times more work for the graphics subsystem than one Dota hero. And there are 12 Mechs in game per team. Equal to 72 to 144 heros in a Dota match. How many are there per match? Oh, right...

The biggest problem lies in Direct X limits, especially DX9. DX12 without any other changes would gain MWO between 25-100% more FPS on a modern system.

That is what exactly optimization is. You don't have to draw that much polygons when you can achieve it for less. Optimization is about proper allocation of the total polygon budget. It is not a silver bullet but carefully planned degradation, done so seamlessly you don't notice the magic.

For example, you don't need 10,000 polygons on the mech in your screen all the time. If the mech is rendered as something at a far distance away, you can degrade the number of polygons to lets say, less than a hundred, or even less than fifty. You won't tell the difference if the mech is described as a far object. Heck, since in combat, all the mechs are seeing are going to be some distance away and are relatively small to your eyes, they can go with much less. The only time you probably need 10,000 polygons is when you are examining and gloating at your mech in the Mechlabs. With a lower polygon count on the battlefield, you can display multiple mechs. Zooms will increase the polygons you see obviously, but it also drastically cuts down the number of mechs you see in your field of view. Mechs not in your field of view are simiply not rendered.

World of Tanks boasts some 8,000 to 100,000 polygons on their new tank HD models, but this is not what you are going to see in the battlefield. You will probably see all that 100,000 polygons in their HD glory when you are viewing your tank in the workshop.

Edited by Anjian, 11 May 2015 - 12:58 AM.

[FatYak]

El Bandito, on 10 May 2015 - 07:03 PM, said:

Especially on the damn Forest Colony.

Perhaps too, if trees/forests begin to mean something, they might use them to provide some radar "clutter" to targeting / sensors.

Hell, its still looks like trash that TAG lasers are not effected by foliage

[Rushin Roulette]

MauttyKoray, on 10 May 2015 - 07:40 PM, said:

We've had destructible stuff like this since THE 90'S.

Not sure about the 90s. but yes, destroyable environments have been around for quite a while now (see Red Faction 1 from 2001)

[Anjian]

The poor framerates you see in MWO are more likely due to excessive map clutter than the rendering of mechs themselves. For instance, all that clutter that traps your feet in River City or Viridian Bog, they also consume their share of polygons. You don't need excess objects that ruin the player's experience and yet parasitically consuming the polygon budget. I believe the FPS in the maps can be improved by doing another design pass on the maps. It seemed to me that before PGI was rushing and releasing one map after another and they were so busy doing other things (or simply not allowed to) to give the released map an optimization pass. (War Thunder for example, does considerable optimization passes on their maps).

Another example are all the crappy trees on Emerald Taiga. Do you really need all those trees? Do you need all those boulders and rocks in Forest? Do you need all those vines and branches in the Bog?

Sometimes, when you got too much garbage in the map, not only do they cause FPS drops, they may crash your client altogether from consuming too much memory.

Edited by Anjian, 11 May 2015 - 01:09 AM.

[generalazure]

Anjian, on 11 May 2015 - 01:08 AM, said:

The poor framerates you see in MWO are more likely due to excessive map clutter than the rendering of mechs themselves. For instance, all that clutter that traps your feet in River City or Viridian Bog, they also consume their share of polygons. You don't need excess objects that ruin the player's experience and yet parasitically consuming the polygon budget.

Who cares about the handful of polygons those things use? How many vertices does one of the cars on river city have anyways, does it even reach 50? And since they're all the exact same car, they just reuse the same VBO anyways... meaning each car after the first is just a 4x4 matrix (or at least could be, depending on how intelligent CryEngine is when handling copy&paste clutter).

It's the small stuff on the maps that keeps the sense of scale in this game from going completely down the drain and prevents the maps from looking like a last century game with HD textures slapped on. If anything, we need way more of those...

[Lily from animove]

depend sif the trees shot will disappear, the entire beginning of a match will be laser woodcutting. after this fps are fine or even better than before.

I fear a lot more how all those objects interacting will affect the server and network side.

[oldradagast]

Alistair Winter, on 10 May 2015 - 08:13 PM, said:

I think that's the answer, yeah. With a few exceptions, most of the people complaining about low fps seem to be people who can't quite grasp the idea that you need a relatively new computer to play relatively new games. I.e. if your computer is 8 years old and wasn't really that good 8 years ago, get a better computer.

There also seems to be a lot of MWO players who just started playing the game with an old computer, because they don't normally play FPS games at all and don't spend a lot of money on hardware. But they just started playing MWO anyway, because they're huge Battletech / Mechwarrior fans. And then they demand that the game run smoothly on their old Pentium 100 computer. "I pressed the turbo button, but it's still not working!"

The problem is that it's not true.

I have a decent machine (2.5 years old) but - oops - it's an AMD, so it will never run the game ideally, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

This game runs poorly on AMD machines, poorly with various graphics cards, and so on. It is also badly optimized, CPU locked, and so forth. Anyone else remember the cockpit glass fiasco, where they dropped everyone's FPS so we could all enjoy window smudges? And did they ever add a way to turn that off that's not manual editing of the user.config files? This is also a game that, last I checked, still runs WORSE in DX 11 than in DX 9, which is insane; maybe they fixed that, but come on... So, no, I have zero faith that they'll add destructible environments without also dropping FPS even further.

Edited by oldradagast, 11 May 2015 - 03:18 AM.

[Sarlic]

Most people dont consider anything. Like teamwork, mechpacks and more. Why would they consider this?

My true dream would be to let a huge building fall like Battelfield(?) on the top of a Mech. Get a few percentage damaged.

My dream is a FPS killer.

Like this: http://youtu.be/Io3DMMuGy_c

Edited by Sarlic, 11 May 2015 - 03:22 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

oldradagast, on 11 May 2015 - 03:14 AM, said:

The problem is that it's not true.
I have a decent machine (2 years old) but - oops - it's an AMD, so it will never run the game ideally, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

That would be some of the exceptions I referenced above. Some people have really big issues with it, but I'm running this game on a computer that was entirely average 7 years ago. Even back then, I couldn't run new games on the highest graphical settings, but I can still run MWO ok with medium graphics settings today.

Yes, the game is poorly optimized, but let's not blow things entirely out of proportions. You don't need a monster rig to run this game. People like me are going to struggle with a FPS drop, but that's the cost of being part of the PC master race. It's expensive.