48 replies to this topic

[Feral Clown]

I think my favourite was when one of the major gaming sites guy said that it looked like an xbox game.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Feral Clown, on 10 June 2019 - 09:59 PM, said:

I think my favourite was when one of the major gaming sites guy said that it looked like an xbox game.

lol. I don't think he remembers what Xbox games looked like .

[Nesutizale]

To me it looked a lot like they just took over the MWO assets and did little for useing the Unreal engine to its fullest potential in terms of graphics.

On another note...MWO dosn't look so bad on the highest setting. Sure it has aged but its still not that bad...just the performance is very bad.

Edited by Nesutizale, 11 June 2019 - 06:36 AM.

[MechaBattler]

Considering their experience with Cryengine. They probably wanted to be sure it would run on most computers. We'll hopefully see lighting and other visual mods. As you often see in other games. Though I'm betting the ray tracing feature was just to get them in as part of the Nvidia presentation, free press, plus whatever deal they got from them. So it'll probably be half baked. They certainly didn't do a very good presentation. Just Russ talking and nothing that actually showed off ray tracing very well

[MrVaad]

MechaBattler, on 11 June 2019 - 10:07 AM, said:

Considering their experience with Cryengine. They probably wanted to be sure it would run on most computers. We'll hopefully see lighting and other visual mods. As you often see in other games. Though I'm betting the ray tracing feature was just to get them in as part of the Nvidia presentation, free press, plus whatever deal they got from them. So it'll probably be half baked. They certainly didn't do a very good presentation. Just Russ talking and nothing that actually showed off ray tracing very well

I hope, they worked hard on their particle effects settings, else it will tank any computer ...

Edited by MrVaad, 11 June 2019 - 10:42 AM.

[MechaBattler]

From what we've seen, they're not doing anything flashy with the graphics. So hopefully the work is going under the hood to ensure a stable game. And not just them doing the bare minimum. Fingers crossed.

[Khobai]

I think cryengine gets blamed way too much. Its not cryengine. Other games on cryengine run at much higher framerates than MWO. MWO is just very poorly optimized.

[LordNothing]

Nesutizale, on 11 June 2019 - 06:35 AM, said:

To me it looked a lot like they just took over the MWO assets and did little for useing the Unreal engine to its fullest potential in terms of graphics.

On another note...MWO dosn't look so bad on the highest setting. Sure it has aged but its still not that bad...just the performance is very bad.

cryengine was built on the assumption that cpu clocks would keep rising. they figured 5ghz+ cpus would become the norm and that the engine would only get better with age. then moore's law stalled and its hard to get a 5ghz clock without extreme measures (overclocking and water cooling). my cpu could probably do it with a bigger case, a bigger cpu cooler, a bigger psu, a fat wallet and some ear protection. had the engine been built on the assumption that core counts were going to go up then crytek might have done better than they did with it. and to be fair things like vulkan didn't exist yet.

nothing wrong with cryengine itself, but it is a large beast to wrangle even with more modern hardware and its mostly optimized for mid '00s gear (especially the version that pgi is using). cryengine derivatives have been really impressive, like dunia. id love to have massive open maps like what you had in far cry 2 in mechwarrior. i dont think ive played any games on lumberyard. i used to like idtech engines for their uncanny stability, but more recent games under those engines have been lackluster. when they added megamaps the textures started looking all washed out and even grainy. rage was really bad at this but you could see it in quake wars. engines like unity are good when you are more interested in making the game and dont really want to push the boundries of what is possible and are willing to work within the limitations. i dont really have any strong opinions about unreal. i did like the original unreal and unreal tournament. but those are ancient at this point.

Khobai, on 11 June 2019 - 10:52 AM, said:

I think cryengine gets blamed way too much. Its not cryengine. Other games on cryengine run at much higher framerates than MWO. MWO is just very poorly optimized.

a game engine is a tool and a tool can be used wrong. but the above applies. mwo team went for looks but failed to realize as an online competitive game, people would rather have performance. people turning off effects and boosting contrast just so that enemy mechs are visible at range, and it ends up making the game look terrible.

map design has way to many small details that do nothing for mech combat. you could flatten things out abit and get an extra 10-20% more performance out of it. and were just talking crap on the ground that's smaller than a locust's foot.

but there is one thing every cry engine game has that other engines dont. crashes. its known for pushing hardware harder than it should. cryengine has killed more power supplies than anything else i do, and that includes some cpu intensive workstation applications that i use (things where every core goes to 100%). at least in cry2 and higher, like i remember playing far cry on janky hardware (with equally janky off grid power) just fine. thats why pc hardware enthusiasts always pose the question "can it run crysis?", just just one of the most brutal stress tests your computer can run.

Edited by LordNothing, 11 June 2019 - 11:55 AM.

[MrVaad]

LordNothing, on 11 June 2019 - 11:11 AM, said:

cryengine was built on the assumption that cpu clocks would keep rising. they figured 5ghz+ cpus would become the norm and that the engine would only get better with age. then moore's law stalled and its hard to get a 5ghz clock without extreme measures (overclocking and water cooling). my cpu could probably do it with a bigger case, a bigger cpu cooler, a bigger psu, a fat wallet and some ear protection. had the engine been built on the assumption that core counts were going to go up then crytek might have done better than they did with it. and to be fair things like vulkan didn't exist yet.

nothing wrong with cryengine itself, but it is a large beast to wrangle even with more modern hardware and its mostly optimized for mid '00s gear.

I'm on the side that Cryengine gets blamed way too much. You don't need a 5ghz cpu
It can use at least 6 cores with many threads. I see a quite balanced usage of my 6 cores ryzen (stock) and not very intense.

People assume they need more cpu if their graphic card is not at 100% usage.
But that's not always true, there are other bottlenecks. And in MWO, quite a few of them can be fixed with the cryengine editor (and it's so damn frustrating)

Edited by MrVaad, 11 June 2019 - 12:00 PM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Missions will be randomly generated this could be amazing or awful depends on how many tiles sets they have and number of mechs and vehicles and aircraft how much variety they have and how well balanced they are. They can always add more tile sets with patches and expansions and mechs ect.

Edited by SirSmokes, 11 June 2019 - 12:04 PM.

[LordNothing]

MrVaad, on 11 June 2019 - 11:58 AM, said:

I'm on the side that Cryengine gets blamed way too much. You don't need a 5ghz cpu
It can use at least 6 cores with many threads. I see a quite balanced usage of my 6 cores ryzen (stock) and not very intense.

People assume they need more cpu if their graphic card is not at 100% usage.
But that's not always true, there are other bottlenecks. And in MWO, quite a few of them can be fixed with the cryengine editor (and it's so damn frustrating)

its mostly an example of poor future proofing than anything. the problems are really bad when the dev pushes the limits too hard. too much detail in the art, too many particles, and even the most stable of gaming rigs can have problems. every game engine has its problems and cryengine's primary problem is stability. it does everything else very well. one thing i noticed on my old rig was that when it crashed it was almost always due to thermal throttling. cryengine would go "run faster" and the hardware would go "nope". cryengine was the only thing that could crash that rig, and it was a 4790k.

Edited by LordNothing, 11 June 2019 - 12:10 PM.

[GottFaust]

All this talk like "they aren't doing anything new techwise"...
Has no one else seen this?

[Nightbird]

Ray Tracing is the future and it's great that PGI got Nvidia to help pay for part of MW5 development. That been said, even with the newest 2080Ti RTX, you can't fully render in full ray tracing mode at 1080 resolution and 30FPS so I can't wait to enjoy this feature in 5 years.

[Nesutizale]

I have indeed never seen that presentation of PGI and Nvidia. RTX is a nice thing but as pointed out it eat resources like crazy it seams.

[GottFaust]

Nightbird, on 11 June 2019 - 12:49 PM, said:

Ray Tracing is the future and it's great that PGI got Nvidia to help pay for part of MW5 development. That been said, even with the newest 2080Ti RTX, you can't fully render in full ray tracing mode at 1080 resolution and 30FPS so I can't wait to enjoy this feature in 5 years.

Nesutizale, on 11 June 2019 - 12:55 PM, said:

I have indeed never seen that presentation of PGI and Nvidia. RTX is a nice thing but as pointed out it eat resources like crazy it seams.

Assuming their optimization is similar: I can pull a solid 50-60FPS with RTX turned on in metro and tomb raider at 4K with everything else maxed out on a 2080ti. Unless they manage to completely drop the ball there it should be more than playable.

[Nightbird]

GottFaust, on 11 June 2019 - 01:00 PM, said:

Assuming their optimization is similar: I can pull a solid 50-60FPS with RTX turned on in metro and tomb raider at 4K with everything else maxed out on a 2080ti. Unless they manage to completely drop the ball there it should be more than playable.

Full ray tracing...

Quote

The inclusion of ray tracing in Shadow of the Tomb Raider marks the implementation of the third and final ray tracing technique we currently have at our disposal. Battlefield V uses ray traced reflections, Metro Exodus uses ray traced global illumination, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider uses ray traced shadows. In the future we’ll likely see games that use a combination of these techniques but right now each game is choosing one of the three and after today we should have a good idea at how each works to improve visuals.

https://www.techspot...tr-ray-tracing/

I'll give you one guess why each game is only choosing 1 technique.

[GottFaust]

Nightbird, on 11 June 2019 - 01:04 PM, said:

Full ray tracing...



https://www.techspot...tr-ray-tracing/

I'll give you one guess why each game is only choosing 1 technique.

Fair, but MW5 appears to be using all 3 in that demo. We'll have to see at launch.

[Nightbird]

GottFaust, on 11 June 2019 - 01:06 PM, said:

Fair, but MW5 appears to be using all 3 in that demo. We'll have to see at launch.

That would be quite cool indeed.

Also, for the cost of full ray tracing, there's not too many examples, but this Quake II fully ray traced tech proof-of-concept went from 400fps to 100fps on the newest 2080Ti, so I would use that as a ballpark of how long we have to wait for a modern graphics game. If runs at 100fps today, 25fps with ray tracing might not be bearable today

https://www.pcworld....erformance.html

[LordKnightFandragon]

GuardDogg, on 09 June 2019 - 06:40 PM, said:

As you look, I think MW5 is going to be the real deal. Like a simulator (that I am looking for), other than a fast paced first person shooter video game like "MWO". When the modding starts, going to bring MW5 to the front. First, the hud display needs work. If you look at modern military huds today "2019" and then compare to "3025". Cockpit enhancements (MFD), webcams in co-op. Like to add vehicles, buildings. Hopefully a mission maker as well. Waiting for MW5 forums to start. Maybe going to far. But that thought of piloting a huge mech simulator. When MW5 does positive, then we can see Batletech/Mechwarrior go far, than die from negatives.

Based on some of the videos ive seen, where they say "its not a sim, its not a management sim, its not this, its not that....to me it sounds like its going to basically be little more than MWO with PVE and 500 less mechs.....my hopes for it are not that high honestly. Then again, my overall feeling towards new games is pretty negative overall. Most are buggy, lack depth, content and actual challenge and enjoyment.

[GuardDogg]

LordKnightFandragon, on 11 June 2019 - 02:28 PM, said:

Based on some of the videos ive seen, where they say "its not a sim, its not a management sim, its not this, its not that....to me it sounds like its going to basically be little more than MWO with PVE and 500 less mechs.....my hopes for it are not that high honestly. Then again, my overall feeling towards new games is pretty negative overall. Most are buggy, lack depth, content and actual challenge and enjoyment.

From the vids, of the walking, destroying buildings, waypoints, and more. Looks like a simulator to me. I do not see any super fast paced action at all like MWO in any of the videos. MWO is like playing counter-strike (which I despise ever), 2-5 minute battles, small maps and I have seen mechs try to bunny hop to avoid being hit, but they do get hit.

**************

MWO ThunderBolt 64.8KPH @"12:16"




***************

MW5 ThunderBolt 64 KPH (and pilot using it like a simulator, setup at Mechcom)

Edited by GuardDogg, 11 June 2019 - 09:01 PM.