Jump to content

Pick A Side: Smooth Fps Or Graphic Enhancements

Gameplay General

70 replies to this topic

#1 The Robot Jox

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 72 posts
  • LocationEcuador

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:05 AM

Salutations, you can choose only one because of the small developer team we cant have both.

Choose what you value the most out of the two:

Type: FPS if you appreciate smoother stable fps and low latency on your game.

Type: FX if you like more eye candy than a stable fps

example of a good optimized game with good fidelity and performance even on low settings is overwatch, Evolve (same engine as mwo).

DON'T FRET, is just an example of what can be made with developers doing effort in the performance department without gimping on fidelity on the game.

let pgi know what you think should be priority.

07

fps
________________________________________________________________________________

if you have both then I´m happy for you and this thread is not for you. Be nice, and vote. =)

Edited by The Robot Jox, 21 July 2016 - 03:44 PM.


#2 DaZur

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 7,511 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:07 AM

I now have both... Why do I have to choose one?

#3 The Robot Jox

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 72 posts
  • LocationEcuador

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:09 AM

View PostDaZur, on 20 July 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

I now have both... Why do I have to choose one?

then this is not for you =)

#4 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,883 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:11 AM

I've read the complaints about performance post update, and frankly did not notice a difference last night playing.
If my potato can handle it, I can't imagine this is much of an issue for anyone other than those super high performing twitch folks.

Besides, PGI is going to do what PGI wants to do.

Edit: As requested: fps

Edited by Bud Crue, 20 July 2016 - 10:31 AM.


#5 The Robot Jox

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 72 posts
  • LocationEcuador

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:26 AM

View PostBud Crue, on 20 July 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

I've read the complaints about performance post update, and frankly did not notice a difference last night playing.
If my potato can handle it, I can't imagine this is much of an issue for anyone other than those super high performing twitch folks.

Besides, PGI is going to do what PGI wants to do.

be a pal and vote. =D

#6 Jonny Taco

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 706 posts
  • Locationan island

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:28 AM

FPS

#7 Dale Grible

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • 190 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:31 AM

Fps

#8 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:36 AM

I guess I vote FX... cuz I already have stable FPS at over 60fps with max settings and I remember what the game used to look like before PGI started tuning the game for potatoes.

#9 Iron Heel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 255 posts
  • LocationMy private booth in the Restaurant At The End Of The Universe

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:37 AM

I'm running a 2+ year old machine that's:
Win7 HP 64bit
AMD FX 6300 @ 4.2+ Ghz
XFX R9- 270X w/ 2 gig GDDR 5
16 gig Gskill Ballistics (recently up from 8 gig)
Toshiba 1 TB 7200rpm hard drive.
Corsair 600 watt power supply.
Gigabyte AMD chipset mother board (the model escapes me ATM)
All arguably low to mid level equipment by today's standards and with the exception of FSAA, I get a solid 60 fps (Vsync on) with most everything else turned up high @ 1920x1080.

So I have to ask.. What do you consider pretty FX & smooth FPS considering that, IMO, neither is beyond reach.

Edited by Iron Heel, 20 July 2016 - 10:40 AM.


#10 Aresye

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 3,462 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:49 AM

FPS

#11 9thDeathscream

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 563 posts
  • LocationDown Under. 260 pinging.

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:51 AM

Both, I got enough power err force Posted Image

If I could only have one its FPS.

Edited by Akulla1980, 20 July 2016 - 10:53 AM.


#12 AnTi90d

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,229 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • Locationhttps://voat.co/

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:53 AM

FPS

#13 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:54 AM

View PostThe Robot Jox, on 20 July 2016 - 10:05 AM, said:

Salutations, you can choose only one because we all know with a small dev team we cant have both.

Type: FPS if you appreciate smoother stable fps and low latency on your game

Type: FX if you like more eye candy than a stable fps


let pgi know what you think should be priority.

07

fps

I am currently relegated to a Potato. So the greedy side says FPS Enhancemnt.

But reality is, keeping a platform locked to obsolescence so people can keep playing on legacy computers? It's a bad model, IMO, and realyl holds back innovation. End of the day, I wanna play modern games, it's incumbent on me to get a modern rig.

That being said, there is zero reason one can't enhance both...since MWOs issue has always been how poorly optimized their code is.

#14 Coolant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,079 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 20 July 2016 - 10:55 AM

FPS...i'm border 30 fps on most maps, more on some a little less on others...lets call it 27-40.

Not everyone can afford upgrades

#15 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 20 July 2016 - 11:02 AM

View PostDaZur, on 20 July 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

I now have both... Why do I have to choose one?

I also have noth

#16 Quicksilver Aberration

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nightmare
  • The Nightmare
  • 11,531 posts
  • LocationKansas City, MO

Posted 20 July 2016 - 11:06 AM

FPS


They need to optimize first and then they can start adding enhancements so this doesn't look worse than other games.

#17 Juodas Varnas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,534 posts
  • LocationGrand Duchy of Lithuania

Posted 20 July 2016 - 11:08 AM

Can I pick quadrupeds instead?

#18 XX Sulla XX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,094 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 11:11 AM

FPS always comes first for me.

#19 BumbleBee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 527 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 11:14 AM

Im running on a 6-7yr old 1st gen i5-750.

Im getting between 40-50fps as is, so im voting FX

Im curious what machines you guys are running if a PC as old as mine is getting decent FPS

#20 SplashDown

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 399 posts

Posted 20 July 2016 - 11:21 AM

fps





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users