83 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Mawai, on 18 December 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

PGI has said (as far as I know but I can't find a citation) that a new engine drop is not in the cards.

PGI apparently had to do a lot of custom coding to get server side authoritative to work properly with Cryengine, requiring quite a bit of work on the network stack and other items. They then went through the code at least a couple of times optimizing it. I agree with you that a new or different engine might be desirable for any number of reasons but I don't think PGI has the manpower to do it any time in the foreseeable future.

Oh, I'm not saying that PGI needs to change the engine at all. I'm just saying that MWO is falling behind in terms of graphics. That's just the reality. So they need to stop worrying so much about optimizing the game for potato computers and worry more about people whose computer can actually handle this 3 year old game.

Not just inverse kinetics, but also what about polygon count on the maps? Why do mountains in a 2015 game look like they're straight out of Unreal from 1998?

[Sadist Cain]

Regardless of your feelings on high performance potatos.

Its has to be said that Scaleform is most certainly not a very effective system at managing HUD graphics.

You have to ask yourself, in a game where the HUD is a far more integral part of the systems than the majority of other games, is it wise to use Cryengines De-facto HUD solution on something so vital to gameplay?

I'd be willing to bet this is one of the reasons we don't currently have a command wheel or contextual in game comms akin to BF2 or war thunder.

[Raggedyman]

DeathWaffle, on 17 December 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

Still no change, and its been 3 years since public release
2 years since this post
1 year since my patience ran out



Basically can PGI please focus on actually making the game function properly on our normal gaming PCs before anything else? Would be greatly appreciated...!

What would I do with 170fps?

[Tombstoner]

DeathWaffle, on 17 December 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

Still no change, and its been 3 years since public release
2 years since this post
1 year since my patience ran out



Basically can PGI please focus on actually making the game function properly on our normal gaming PCs before anything else? Would be greatly appreciated...!

Please define "normal" gaming pc cause a toaster is a toaster.

Also the game just entered beta when CW phase I was added... we have been in open beta for a very long time.... the game was released when it went live on steam. look up the recommended game setting and build a PC that has those or better specs. until then your not the target audience.

[Ezekeel666]

Kilo 40, on 18 December 2015 - 04:11 AM, said:

"I have a crappy computer so I can help the environment!"

More like: I refuse to update my PC hardware every two years because programmer get more and more sloppy optimizing their rushed games.

I fondly remember the time of the C64 demo scene when every few month some gifted brilliant coder surprised the community with a new thing that no one did before and which was believed to be impossible on the limited hardware.

Nowadays the software publishers release increasingly worse optimized games (because it is cheaper) and simply raise the minimum requirements so on the other hand the hardware manufacturers can push their regular hardware upgrades.

Nah, thanks to that hardware upgrade treadmill. The only winning move is not to play.

[Nighthog]

Playing on 7 year old computer.

AMD Phenom X4 9750 2.4ghz, 4Gb ddr2 800Mhz, ATi HD5770.(upgraded not long ago from a 4670, that did wonders)

So just crap by today's standards. this game seems to be IPC demanding. Much like any newer or online multiplayer game these days. That basically means you need a 4.5Ghz+ amd cpu... or a around 3ghz if even that today intel to have consistent not fps dropping performance because of bad or demanding code design.

[LordNothing]

i hope they arent rendering those displays in real time. rendering a lot of low level primatives like that will flood the bus with commands and slow down both the cpu and the video card. its kind of like how something seemingly simple like printing to a terminal can really slow down your program.

[Sug]

Mystere, on 18 December 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

PGI is going to have to upgrade MWO to a much more recent version of CryEngine. That would cost a whole lot of time, effort, and money, especially given all the customizations they did.

I'm going to put that in the pile of things that will never happen.

mariomanz28, on 18 December 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

Now I have 16GB of DDR3 2133Mhz RAM and an AMD FX-8370 Octacore processor with the same video card on an updated OS and a SSD with the OS and MWO on it and nothing has really changed at all! Oh did I mention that the game doesn't even use half of my CPU or GPU during playing even when the FPS falls out the bottom? Yeah it's like that.

So what they are saying here despite AMD processors being on the system requirements and the game being SPONSORED by NVIDIA, my AMD Processor and NVIDIA Graphics card are incompatible with MWO and the game cannot handle it.

MWO has never run well on AMD cpus. They just don't have the balls to plow through the unoptimized code.

[mariomanz28]

Sug, on 18 December 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

MWO has never run well on AMD cpus. They just don't have the balls to plow through the unoptimized code.

They have enough balls just the game doesn't even use HALF of my CPU. While playing it averages 48% load. Also it doesn't change the fact that it's on the system requirements list and mine blows the requirements out of the water. The fact it doesn't run well on AMD is no fault of the CPU, it's PGI's. They have avoided optimizing the game as a whole for so long it's just ridiculous at this point.

You know the sad part is, and I would have to dig back through a year or more worth of posts to find the exact one, but one of the devs a while back posted a chart of CPUs and their performance. He said anything with a good GPU and a CPU above a certain performance level could run the game at full settings without problems, he even specifically mentioned the FX-8350 being in that "zone" and mine is the newer version of that one. Clearly it can't. It's just irritating that the one game I play the most of runs the worst on my system out of every other newer game I have played none of which have any issues at all and a lot of the ones I've played outside of MWO use far more CPU as well.

[Ted Wayz]

Deathlike, on 17 December 2015 - 10:09 PM, said:

The reality is that you should be upgrading your comp.

On the other hand.. the HUD/UI/Scaleform will always eat your Gigahertz needlessly unless PGI decides to find or create their own UI overlay to soften the blow.

I'm resigned to the current "poorly optimized" scenario.

Huh?

How can I spend thousands on this game if I have to spend thousands to buy a computer to run it? Doesn't matter for me, but I am sure people given the trade off, will just go play a game that suits their computer. Which there are many.

Never give your competition free customers.

[Deathlike]

Ted Wayz, on 18 December 2015 - 06:37 PM, said:

Huh?

How can I spend thousands on this game if I have to spend thousands to buy a computer to run it? Doesn't matter for me, but I am sure people given the trade off, will just go play a game that suits their computer. Which there are many.

Never give your competition free customers.

Well, you don't expect some of the newer games to run on something as old as a Core 2 level processor these days.

I get that MWO is poorly optimized, but unless it's chugging on the current 6th Gen i7 or i5 processors or equivalent (which is likely to be the fault of PGI/MWO) with a modern $150-200 video card... you have to fight through all the terrible overhead this game has. Having the latest hardware every 4-5 years isn't going to break the bank (unless you do have money issues).

I had to upgrade my comp that was running 5-6 years old worth of hardware. It's unrealistic... if not unreasonable to expect games to keep running the "bare minimum" and expect positive results. Unless the game is old.. removing your computer as the primary culprit is silly.

I do want this game optimized better... but the last time this was done (and poorly executed IMO) was what caused some of the Open Beta HUD bugs. Doing this properly would require PGI to actually invest in programmers to get this done right. I simply don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

Edited by Deathlike, 18 December 2015 - 06:56 PM.

[Moldur]

Bottom line is that MWO looks like crap for how poorly it runs. Yes, there are a myriad of reasons. Doesn't change the fact that 3 years ago, we had a poorly optimized pretty game, and now we have a poorly optimized, resoundingly meh looking game.

My vote is that PGI says "screw it," and makes the game run better so long as the graphics are passable, because nobody in 2015 is gawking at the breathtaking graphical fidelity of MWO. Sure, there are cool looking, panoramic scenes of mechs fighting, but I don't really care about how beautifully they are rendered in CryEngine anymore.

mariomanz28, on 18 December 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

They have enough balls just the game doesn't even use HALF of my CPU. While playing it averages 48% load. Also it doesn't change the fact that it's on the system requirements list and mine blows the requirements out of the water. The fact it doesn't run well on AMD is no fault of the CPU, it's PGI's. They have avoided optimizing the game as a whole for so long it's just ridiculous at this point.

You know the sad part is, and I would have to dig back through a year or more worth of posts to find the exact one, but one of the devs a while back posted a chart of CPUs and their performance. He said anything with a good GPU and a CPU above a certain performance level could run the game at full settings without problems, he even specifically mentioned the FX-8350 being in that "zone" and mine is the newer version of that one. Clearly it can't. It's just irritating that the one game I play the most of runs the worst on my system out of every other newer game I have played none of which have any issues at all and a lot of the ones I've played outside of MWO use far more CPU as well.

Try turning hyperthreading off if you're using multicore.

[Sug]

mariomanz28, on 18 December 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

They have enough balls just the game doesn't even use HALF of my CPU. While playing it averages 48% load. Also it doesn't change the fact that it's on the system requirements list and mine blows the requirements out of the water. The fact it doesn't run well on AMD is no fault of the CPU, it's PGI's. They have avoided optimizing the game as a whole for so long it's just ridiculous at this point.

You know the sad part is, and I would have to dig back through a year or more worth of posts to find the exact one, but one of the devs a while back posted a chart of CPUs and their performance. He said anything with a good GPU and a CPU above a certain performance level could run the game at full settings without problems, he even specifically mentioned the FX-8350 being in that "zone" and mine is the newer version of that one. Clearly it can't. It's just irritating that the one game I play the most of runs the worst on my system out of every other newer game I have played none of which have any issues at all and a lot of the ones I've played outside of MWO use far more CPU as well.

And mine runs at 35% while playing. Doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying MWO is optimized or anything but AMD needs like twice the cores as Intel just to barely compete. It's an unoptimzed game plus an unoptimized cpu that kills MWO for AMD users.

It's like a Camry racing a Ram downhill while they're pulling 2 tons of cargo. Yeah it looks like they're even but once you hit that first uphill slope the Camry takes a ****.

Moldur, on 18 December 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

Try turning hyperthreading off if you're using multicore.

Pretty sure that's an Intel thing.

[DeathWaffle]

Sadist Cain, on 18 December 2015 - 04:22 AM, said:

Upgrade a computer that can play the latest games on mid-high because the HUD on a 3 year old game is poorly optimised and runs worse.

Logics.

[Darlith]

Bilbo, on 18 December 2015 - 07:12 AM, said:

How is that even possible. I'd throw the damn thing out the window 30 seconds into a fight.

I was wondering the same thing, I only get around 30fps max, with some maps hanging around 19-21fps, and that is barely playable in my mind. When it drops to 15 on occasion (some places in CW, and a couple spots on the newer maps) I consider it completely unplayable.

[Zordicron]

K

For MWO: Intel>AMD. Sorry, thats de facts mang. That's actually ben most of PC history as far as I am concerned when it comes to gaming- the titles I have wanted to play always did better on Intel. Not ALL titles, but the ones I wanted to play, so I have stuck with those.

Well, by stuck with them, i should elaborate. I am on my 3rd PC. Since 1998. My rig is from 2009, i will get to it in a sec- my first was a P3 665, lasted me a long while, played diablo 2 on it for a long time, along with baldurs gate and MW4. I "upgraded" to a prebuilt cheap-o box to get windows XP, it had a P4 in it(a crappy one though) more ram, but overall it performed similar, if a bit less buggy mostly because XP was so much better then windows 98 and in general I was playing most of my older games on it anyway. At that time, I got into City of Heroes, and played it for AGES(till it shut down) so it wasnt until they did a graphics overhaul and my friend showed me what the game looked like on a mildly better pC then mine on a brand new wide LCD screen(I had a 22" HUGE *** HP flat CRT) that i got the bug.

2009, bought a Core I7 920, highest ram my X58 mobo and windows 7 64 bit would recognize(had to go into bios even and change a setting because MS hadn't enabled it yet) and a Nvidea GTX 275 fx card. My CoH looked amazeballs, but beyond that I could now run new games. Including MWO.

In more recent years, I bought a clearance liquid cooler heatsink for my 920, and OC'd it a tiny bit(that first gen I7 does NOT like OC lol, gets hot as the sun) and that gtx 275..... you know, LOL, that card gave me 30-35 FPS, on ultra in MWO, constant. I don;t know what it was with that thing. It just did what I told it to, no matter what. It ran so F'ing hot it would actually heat the room up. not even exagerating, I had to move my PC farther away from my desk because my legs would ache from the heat on them. And the electricity. I bought a mega oversize PSU because it was on sale for black friday that year. I switched to a pair of Nvidea 650 TI Boost cards in SLI. That GTX 275? When I went to two cards in SLI my electric bill went DOWN 40 DOLLARS A MONTH . That 275, it was a trooper, I told it to do it and it said "yessir, oksir, may I have another sir" and then was a second heat source in winter and used enough electricity to run a dishwasher and a clothes dry every month.

Whats my point? My 2009 first gen I7 with some outdated video cards(not that far but still) gives me 60-80 FPS on mostly ultra(couple things I have turned down one notch mostly for visual preferance more then anything).

People come here and complain their Acer netbook can;t run MWO. They should go away, thats just rediculous.

People come here and complain their particular hardware runs bad. Know what? thats either your own choice for not researching what works best for the game titles you wanted to play, or on you for not setting up your system correctly etc. It is on PGI, IF, a significant amount of customers have the same issue. I don;t know, and no one here can pretend they know, how widespread the issue actually is. Should PGI pay a couple engineers a few months pay and time to scrounge/rewrite the code for less then 1% of the player base? Hellz no. What about 10%? hmmmmmm..... Point is PGI has to decide that, and only they know(from reports from customer service/tech support) how big an issue this actually is.

People also come here with stuff bordering antiquity and have MWO running just peachy. Which basically proves the above paragraph. The game isn;t 100% poorly optimized, even the HUD as the thread states, or people like me would have the same issues, and this would then indeed be a widespread problem and PGI would have to do something because customer retention etc would be being affected enough to warrant it.

In regards to optimization: it should be an ongoing goal for PGI, regardless, as it allows for graphical upgrades. It should not be done for these dorks complaining about how their Motorola Xoom can't play MWO well. If some minute % of the player base has some "perfect storm" combo of hardware that is creating an issue, too bad, PGI should pay the engineers to code new product, not satisfy a miniscule portion of players that didn't do their homework or had a run of bad luck. That's buisiness, thats life, thems the breaks.

[ComradeHavoc]

WHY THE **** ARE PEOPLE DEFENDING THE UI THAT EATS FRAMES FOR NO REASON?!

"HURRR JUST UPGRADE ur pc GUYS" ~Neck Warrior

WHY?! Why accept a negative addition?!



What's wrong with having a graphical setting to turn it off?!

I've never seen a more disillusioned community in my life.

[mariomanz28]

Sug, on 18 December 2015 - 07:09 PM, said:

And mine runs at 35% while playing. Doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying MWO is optimized or anything but AMD needs like twice the cores as Intel just to barely compete. It's an unoptimzed game plus an unoptimized cpu that kills MWO for AMD users.

It's like a Camry racing a Ram downhill while they're pulling 2 tons of cargo. Yeah it looks like they're even but once you hit that first uphill slope the Camry takes a ****.

You know it doesn't even matter, Of course Intel should run better considering they are like 3-4 times the price of what I paid for my motherboard and CPU. The fact still remains that my system is head and shoulders ABOVE THE RECOMMENDED REQUIREMENTS. Not the minimum, the recommended. Most people seem to be missing that point. In any other game I am above the recommended requirements and can max out everything and never fall below 60 FPS at 1200p.

It doesn't mean a damned thing how much better Intel is than AMD when BOTH are above the damned system specification that PGI themselves recommend.

After that point it's not on me to completely change my entire system around just to accommodate their shoddy workmanship. Especially considering MWO Support itself told me that it's a problem with the game and not my system. That right there invalidates any argument about which processor is better.

I can't believe how many people defend the poor optimization in this game, it's ridiculous.

[Nighthog]

mariomanz28, you know cpu load needs to be looked at per core load not just the overall average. A 48% load for your FX cpu means that 4 cores are basically at their limit and can't give more and four cores could be idling doing nothing. So there you have it. Your cpu is sweating as well as it can manage for the load given.
I mentioned this game was IPC heavy. This means high performance per core matters more than many cores.

And there IS the NEED for 4.5GHZ++++ core speed for many games when choosing a amd FX cpu for good performance when games require high IPC or are "INTEL" optimized.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Nighthog, on 19 December 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

mariomanz28, you know cpu load needs to be looked at per core load not just the overall average. A 48% load for your FX cpu means that 4 cores are basically at their limit and can't give more and four cores could be idling doing nothing. So there you have it. Your cpu is sweating as well as it can manage for the load given.
I mentioned this game was IPC heavy. This means high performance per core matters more than many cores.

And there IS the NEED for 4.5GHZ++++ core speed for many games when choosing a amd FX cpu for good performance when games require high IPC or are "INTEL" optimized.

1) That COULD be it.

2) The doesn't mean that's TOTALLY IT BRO.

3) So lay off the strawmans.

4) BTW, that's not it.... MWO uses every core....even on an 8 core AMD CPU....and they all get abou 35% and then stop being utilitzed by the game (at least on my PC)

5) This game is ****. It's not a hardware or driver problem.