83 replies to this topic

[burns]

ComradeHavoc, on 18 December 2015 - 09:43 PM, said:

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

Well, Shift + F11 actually turns it off, you can read it in OP.
No crosshair isn´t as bad, but playing without FoE (?) Markers is plain stupid


Having optional on/off for every single hud element though would be great to have - i could live w/o Speedo, Weapon Groups & Compass for a few extra FPS.

Maybe have another toggle for your selection aswell so you could switch it on/off quickly in battle just in case you really need one of those disabled components.



edit: I have a feeling that FoE isn´t the correct term, but you´ll get the idea.

Edited by burns, 19 December 2015 - 04:20 AM.

[mariomanz28]

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.

I use a program on my 2nd monitor to monitor the PC while games are running from temperature to clock rates to CPU load. MWO uses all 8 cores, they all show activity while playing the game, the 48% average load is across ALL 8 cores. None of the cores are sitting idle nor does the CPU even get very warm. The CPU runs at lower temperatures that no other game I've played since getting this CPU runs at. Every single other game I've played on this CPU the temperatures get much warmer on it than in MWO.

Also load and speed per core does not matter considering the FX-8370 blows the recommended specs out of the water. Again it all goes back to the recommended specs that PGI has set (which so many seem to ignore) and the fact that MWO Support themselves told me it was the games fault.

Here let me make this even easier:



The recommended AMD processor is an AMD FX-6300 Hexacore at 3.5Ghz. My processor is an AMD FX-8370 Octacore at 4.3Ghz. My processor not only has 2 more cores it also has 800Mhz more speed than what PGI themselves recommend and again yes MWO does use all 8 cores.

[VortexD]

I have an ancient computer....Game runs fine on a friggin Geforce 675m....Yes thats a laptop....

Buy a new bloody computer. If you cant run this game you dont have a gaming computer

[mariomanz28]

VortexD, on 19 December 2015 - 06:58 AM, said:

I have an ancient computer....Game runs fine on a friggin Geforce 675m....Yes thats a laptop....

Buy a new bloody computer. If you cant run this game you dont have a gaming computer

Yes because a game that can't even run well (with dips under 30 FPS in quickplay and dips below 20 in CW) on the recommended specification set by the developer is the PC's fault...

Considering I can run every other game that comes out perfectly fine and stay above 60 FPS it's got to be the PC's fault right and not the game?

Let's defend poor optimization more shall we, who needs new players or wants to keep them around amirite?

Since the Steam release this poor performance of MWO is getting more and more light and I'm seeing more post regarding such as time goes on. But clearly it's the PC and user's fault...

(PS My system isn't that old either and it's most certainly a gaming computer with an FX-8370 Octacore @ 4.3Ghz, a GTX 770 Superclocked, 16GB 2133Mhz DDR3, and a Samsung 840 EVO 120GB SSD)

[AEgg]

I think the big question here, and I've yet to see anyone answer it, is how well does Crysis run on your system if MWO doesn't?

Because if you have the same problems with Crysis/Crysis 2/Far Cry 2/3, then it's an engine issue and there's little to nothing that PGI can do about it.

That said, benchmarks for those games are easy to find, and most of the time, AMD CPUs are pretty competitive with similarly priced Intel chips.

Edit: As for the HUD itself, yeah, everyone knows they need to improve it, but it's safe to assume PGI knows that as well and either doesn't have the resources or is diverting them to something they deem more important.

Edited by AEgg, 19 December 2015 - 07:16 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

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...!

Way back when, when it was possible to turn off the damn cockpit using USER.CFG settings, I'd posted the performance differences.

Just standing still, not moving or doing anything in the game, your cockpit is easting 10% of FPS.

Cockpit Enabled:


Cockpit Disabled:


PGI's answer to this was to turn off the CVAR that allowed you to eliminate the cockpit.

Cockpit items are still a 'revenue stream' for them, so allowing people to turn off the cockpit would disinsentivise the purchasing of cockpit crap...

[Zordicron]

mariomanz28, on 19 December 2015 - 07:06 AM, said:

Yes because a game that can't even run well (with dips under 30 FPS in quickplay and dips below 20 in CW) on the recommended specification set by the developer is the PC's fault...

Considering I can run every other game that comes out perfectly fine and stay above 60 FPS it's got to be the PC's fault right and not the game?

Let's defend poor optimization more shall we, who needs new players or wants to keep them around amirite?

Since the Steam release this poor performance of MWO is getting more and more light and I'm seeing more post regarding such as time goes on. But clearly it's the PC and user's fault...

(PS My system isn't that old either and it's most certainly a gaming computer with an FX-8370 Octacore @ 4.3Ghz, a GTX 770 Superclocked, 16GB 2133Mhz DDR3, and a Samsung 840 EVO 120GB SSD)

It's like I said before, Intel>AMD for MWO.

You appear to not understand how that could be different-
It's like Playstation and Xbox. The same game can run badly on one system vs the other, yeah that can be hashed out by rthe developer, but then that same dev also has to make decisions on that. Let's say, as an example, a certain graphical effect runs fine on Xbox, but the playstation has issues. Does the dev try to split the difference so it is mediocre on both? Does the dev remove the effect so there is no issue? Does the dev just shrug and say, "well, Xbox is supposed to sell more copies so I guess playstation players will have to deal."?

it's not on PGi to make your PC work perfect, they can;t make the game work on all hardware out there without compromising a lot of ****. See my other post for more reasoning if you can wrap your head around any of it.

[mariomanz28]

Eldagore, on 19 December 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

It's like I said before, Intel>AMD for MWO.

You appear to not understand how that could be different-
It's like Playstation and Xbox. The same game can run badly on one system vs the other, yeah that can be hashed out by rthe developer, but then that same dev also has to make decisions on that. Let's say, as an example, a certain graphical effect runs fine on Xbox, but the playstation has issues. Does the dev try to split the difference so it is mediocre on both? Does the dev remove the effect so there is no issue? Does the dev just shrug and say, "well, Xbox is supposed to sell more copies so I guess playstation players will have to deal."?

it's not on PGi to make your PC work perfect, they can;t make the game work on all hardware out there without compromising a lot of ****. See my other post for more reasoning if you can wrap your head around any of it.

It doesn't matter if Intel>AMD at this point since they have both on the system requirements listing. If they can put it on there then it's on them to support it. I exceed the recommended specifications according to their own set standards, not mine. If they changed it up and said the game requires an Intel processor and that's it it would be a different story but they have both on their listing and mine beats the one they have listed, end of story.

Also I haven't played FC 3 or 4 on this system with this processor but I did play it on the processor I had before this one with the other memory and it played fine with 60+ FPS. I may just do that and see what it's like now but I doubt it will be any different. Remember the people behind those games are far more experienced and talented than PGI.

Edited by mariomanz28, 19 December 2015 - 10:36 AM.

[Nighthog]

mariomanz28, on 19 December 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

I use a program on my 2nd monitor to monitor the PC while games are running from temperature to clock rates to CPU load. MWO uses all 8 cores, they all show activity while playing the game, the 48% average load is across ALL 8 cores. None of the cores are sitting idle nor does the CPU even get very warm. The CPU runs at lower temperatures that no other game I've played since getting this CPU runs at. Every single other game I've played on this CPU the temperatures get much warmer on it than in MWO.

Also load and speed per core does not matter considering the FX-8370 blows the recommended specs out of the water. Again it all goes back to the recommended specs that PGI has set (which so many seem to ignore) and the fact that MWO Support themselves told me it was the games fault.

The recommended AMD processor is an AMD FX-6300 Hexacore at 3.5Ghz. My processor is an AMD FX-8370 Octacore at 4.3Ghz. My processor not only has 2 more cores it also has 800Mhz more speed than what PGI themselves recommend and again yes MWO does use all 8 cores.

Standard speed for FX-8370 using all cores is 4.0Ghz. 4.3ghz if at 2-4 cores etc.(unless you did bios changes to OC)

Recommendations will be taken with tons of salt. There are no standards by which they are set than by their own hubris they deem okay.
I could suggest you limit your MWO to 4threads to see if that helps. Even if a game uses all your threads it may be no better than limiting it to fewer if they don't use them fully. The game could just be faking it and just throwing the threads across all your cores for a little work before changing again to the next one. This is usually bad design.

[Goose]

Nighthog, on 19 December 2015 - 11:41 AM, said:

Standard speed for FX-8370 using all cores is 4.0Ghz

It's 3.6GHz, using it's four modals …

[Wolfhound22]

HUD Optimization should be a priority, it is taking up way to much resources that could go to running high settings or 1440P + resolutions. If the HUD didn't eat up so many FPS, I could probably bump up all my settings and make this game finally look average.

For everyone suggesting that people should buy new hardware: Why would you let the developers off the hook for something that has been an issue for years. With a bit of effort, PGI could improve the overall performance of the game which in turn will satisfy long term MWO players while also attracting new players from STEAM. There is no downside to optimizing the HUD and/or overall performance of the game.

Side Note: smooth fps is largely a matter of personal preference, however, more and more gamers expect fps much higher than 60fps. There is no reason not to cater to a higher fps standard.

[LordBraxton]

Alistair Winter, on 18 December 2015 - 03:52 AM, said:

the point is MWO's graphics have been left behind

MWO's graphics were bad ever since the drastic graphics nerf during beta


-totally checking out No Man's Sky now, thanks for the tip

Edited by LordBraxton, 19 December 2015 - 12:23 PM.

[Deathlike]

The only suggestion that I've seen by AMD users is attempting to use some sort of thread/affinity software for MWO and see if that helps. It has something to do with alternating cores or something along those lines... but I think someone that knows more about it can be more helpful regarding this.

You will also need your video card settings to allow for multi-threading (they have different names in their own software).

Also, make sure that the game is detected in your game profiles for your video card as well (or add it to the software manually).

Edited by Deathlike, 19 December 2015 - 12:36 PM.

[Madcap72]

Alistair Winter, on 18 December 2015 - 12:58 AM, said:

As others have said, the game is over 3 years old. It's time to upgrade the graphics, bring back inverse kinetics, introduce better damage textures, better effects, bigger maps. MWO shouldn't constantly be stuck in the past. Its graphics were amazing when the game was new, but as newer games have been released and as PGI has actually downgraded graphics in MWO, its graphics are no longer a major selling point at all, relative to other FPS games.

This is where high end video games are currently at.

LOL you're so disingenuous.

Look who's making SC, look how much money they STARTED with...

Comparing MWO to SC is straight up ridiculous. Give MWO 23 million and all the developers and partners that SC has and maybe MWO would be just as pretty... But yea, look where it's still at... in development. look what all that money has gotten them in the same timeframe as MWO? Basically nothing. While MWO has been a functioning playable game for years, despite forumwarriors crying that it's not so.

[Alistair Winter]

Madcap72, on 19 December 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

LOL you're so disingenuous.
Look who's making SC, look how much money they STARTED with...
Comparing MWO to SC is straight up ridiculous. Give MWO 23 million and all the developers and partners that SC has and maybe MWO would be just as pretty... But yea, look where it's still at... in development. look what all that money has gotten them in the same timeframe as MWO? Basically nothing. While MWO has been a functioning playable game for years, despite forumwarriors crying that it's not so.

How is that in any way relevant? You may as well talk about prices of mech packs vs ship packs. It's absolutely, utterly irrelevant to the point I'm making.

[Madcap72]

Alistair Winter, on 19 December 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

How is that in any way relevant? You may as well talk about prices of mech packs vs ship packs. It's absolutely, utterly irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Which is no point at all. You tried to compare the graphics of two completely differnt games, with differnt funding, skills of developing participants and one of which isn't even released yet. But keep trying, I'm sure somehow you'll find a way to continue comparing MWO which is an indie game, with indie skill and development, and SC, which is functionally a AAA title.

[Alistair Winter]

Madcap72, on 19 December 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

Which is no point at all. You tried to compare the graphics of two completely differnt games, with differnt funding, skills of developing participants and one of which isn't even released yet. But keep trying, I'm sure somehow you'll find a way to continue comparing MWO which is an indie game, with indie skill and development, and SC, which is functionally a AAA title.

Ok, dude. That'll be all.

[Madcap72]

Alistair Winter, on 19 December 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

Ok, dude. That'll be all.

What? You don't like it when people point out where high end current video games are at, is not a valid comparison to MWO which is neither high end, or current, and has no reason to be? That sucks.

[xWiredx]

mariomanz28, on 19 December 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

It doesn't matter if Intel>AMD at this point since they have both on the system requirements listing. If they can put it on there then it's on them to support it. I exceed the recommended specifications according to their own set standards, not mine. If they changed it up and said the game requires an Intel processor and that's it it would be a different story but they have both on their listing and mine beats the one they have listed, end of story.

Also I haven't played FC 3 or 4 on this system with this processor but I did play it on the processor I had before this one with the other memory and it played fine with 60+ FPS. I may just do that and see what it's like now but I doubt it will be any different. Remember the people behind those games are far more experienced and talented than PGI.

Using an AMD CPU is supported. Do you see anybody saying it's not supported? It's supported.

Support does not equal "crank all the settings up." It never has. It never will. Recommended system requirements are not that, and supported system hardware is not that.

If you do not like that your AMD CPU that even AMD has admitted is terrible and has walked away from, there is nothing we can do but point you in the direction of an Intel chip or tell you to wait for the Zen chips that are due out next year.

Want to crank the CPU-centric settings? The above applies. Go Intel, or go Zen (if it actually proves itself when it finally comes out), or go home. There is no crying in baseball.

[Koniving]

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...!

We do, I've made many complaints. PGI said they're aware of it, that it has to do with Scaleform scripting, and that they are redoing the HUD script to not use Scaleform (this was many months ago).