45 replies to this topic

[Enervation]

to put my two cents in, i must disagree with those who say cryengine 3 is brutal on machines. it is actually quite tweakable, with literally thousands of settings that you can adjust to impact performance vs quality concerns. obviously, no one actually uses that many options, but it is still a very flexible engine.
i run the game on an alienware m11x laptop (the first one, before they added 'r's to them) although admittedly, i do have dedicated video and that makes a huge differance imo.
1.3 dual core
nvidia gt 335m
4gb ram, shared with video
lots and lots of gigs of free storage, although that makes little differance when the swap file is only so large
i run the game at the base widescreen res (1280x720 iirc) and presuming i can find a current cgf workaround that allows me to disable particles and shadows, i can kick out 12-18fps in close combat.
(i raided in WoW on a gateway laptop for years that cranked out 5-7fps so 12-18 is smooth sailing for me xP)
while it is not optimal, and does require some footwork on your part, there is a lot of instruction out there on how to adjust the config files to run lower settings for lower end machines.
i hope to see you in a drop in the near future

[lsp]

Probably never will be.

[MadMatty]

I all so had the low FPS rate which made this game un-playable, untill I turned my resolution down in the options screen. Doing just that made the game more playable as I also am using a laptop with Intel HD4000 graphics. Just turn it down and it is a whole new gameing experiance

[Ghibs]

Quote

Intel HD 4000 Graphics Card
Intel i7 processor @ 2.3 GHz
Windows 7 64-bit
8 GB of RAM

The Intel HD 4000 seems to be the weak point here. I have one like yours, but it's also has switchable graphics to a nvidia based GPU, but I normally play on the desktop with a AMD Radeon.

Some one else suggested you drop the resolution for a improvement, you might want to try that. If you're looking to run this on a native resolution on your laptop, I think the Intel will struggle to keep up with your expectations. Not the answer you want to hear but those are the limitations you have.

Here's a link to a benchmark that Tom's Hardware did. You'll be particularly interested in the Crysis 2 benchmarks.

Edited by Ghibs, 02 November 2012 - 01:57 AM.

[Minos Murdoc]

CenturionOmega, on 01 November 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

As for my system specs:
Intel HD 4000 Graphics Card
Intel i7 processor @ 2.3 GHz
Windows 7 64-bit
8 GB of RAM

Here is your problem. The Devs have stated that the minimum GFX card should be either a GeForce 8800GT or Radeon HD 5600/5700. The intel cards are ok for basic 3D stuff but will have a fit if you try to run anything like this (as you have found).

I cant find the post they had it on but i copied it for the THG forums. The specs to run the game are

MechWarrior Online Minimum System Spec:
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz or Athlon II X2 245e
GPU: GeForce 8800GT or Radeon HD 5600/5700
RAM: 4 GB
OS: Windows XP 32-bit SP3
DirectX: DX9
HDD Space: 4 GB

MechWarrior Online Recommended System Spec:
CPU: Core i3-2500 or AMD Athlon II X4 650
GPU: GeForce GTX 285 or Radeon HD 5830
RAM: 8 GB
OS: Windows 7 SP-1 64-Bit
DirectX: DX9
HDD Space: 4 GB

[Molecule]

After having read all the different comments here I have to say the following:

Dual-core rigs that play other state of the art games with a decent framerate (30-40) should not be unsuitable for MWO even if the engine is different. To reply with "but it's another engine so you cannot compare it!" to someone who plays BF3 on a high or even ultra-high setting on a dual-core system without a problem but crawls at a 15-25 FPS at MWO is neither realistic nor can it be considered a very "smart" or "educated" reply.

Fact is that MWO is still too CPU hungry and needs LOTS of optimisation because fact is that it should run smoothly on dual core rigs which are accompanied by a decent graphics card.
I have to agree with the OP that this is F2P and therefore aimed at a much bigger audience. Fact is that roughly 50% of the gaming population is still running on dual core systems (check the Steam stats if you don't believe me).

Don't get me wrong: I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS GAME and I am lucky that I have a quad-core system with a relatively decent graphics card. What I can see though is that others who are only running a dual-core with a MUCH BETTER graphics card are unable to play this game at a decent frame rate YET are able to play almost every other game on the market on high settings with a very good performance when it comes to FPS.

It is good to defend something because you like it but there are just too many folks who can testify to the above mentioned facts. Something IS still wrong with the tweaking of the engine and it has to be addressed if this game is to become a big hit in the F2P-landscape.

[grobuzga]

Ok here's somethin from me. When i first saw MWO only thing i could play it on was my laptop, Intel B960 dualcore with GeForce GT620M 64bit. Since it was barely playable even on low detail preset, and anyway i was about to buy myself new TV, i decided to buy new PC as well. I have played with pretty good comfort for some days, but after last patch there's considerable FPS drop when im facing friendly or enemy mechs, even not in direct sight, just turnin in that direction causes my fps go down badly. This issue isn't detail-preset-dependent for me, I have good fps even with veryhigh preset, just until i face more than 3 mechs in front of me. My PC is: AMD Phenom 955BE@3.8GHz, 8Gb RAM, AMD Radeon HD7770 1Gb VRAM. So I suppose there's some rendering error which causes fps drops...

[Minos Murdoc]

grobuzga, on 02 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

Ok here's somethin from me. When i first saw MWO only thing i could play it on was my laptop, Intel B960 dualcore with GeForce GT620M 64bit. Since it was barely playable even on low detail preset, and anyway i was about to buy myself new TV, i decided to buy new PC as well. I have played with pretty good comfort for some days, but after last patch there's considerable FPS drop when im facing friendly or enemy mechs, even not in direct sight, just turnin in that direction causes my fps go down badly. This issue isn't detail-preset-dependent for me, I have good fps even with veryhigh preset, just until i face more than 3 mechs in front of me. My PC is: AMD Phenom 955BE@3.8GHz, 8Gb RAM, AMD Radeon HD7770 1Gb VRAM. So I suppose there's some rendering error which causes fps drops...

This is a known issues and is being worked on. couple of guys i play with get the FPS bug they exit the client and relog and its fine for another 4-5matches. Not saying its a fix but a workaround till they have it fixed.

As to Molecule's comments. Yes the game has a way to go but then it is still in BETA and we are here to test test test. It make me laugh when people compare this to something like BF3 which is a finished game, had all the testing and optimisation done to it already. But having working in the games industry the engine DOES back a difference but i'm not going to get into that. Just that YES i do agree with you that the game need lots of optimisation, but i'm still enjoying it and reporting any issues to the devs as a tester should be doing.

[Molecule]

Youngbull1980, on 02 November 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

This is a known issues and is being worked on. couple of guys i play with get the FPS bug they exit the client and relog and its fine for another 4-5matches. Not saying its a fix but a workaround till they have it fixed.

As to Molecule's comments. Yes the game has a way to go but then it is still in BETA and we are here to test test test. It make me laugh when people compare this to something like BF3 which is a finished game, had all the testing and optimisation done to it already. But having working in the games industry the engine DOES back a difference but i'm not going to get into that. Just that YES i do agree with you that the game need lots of optimisation, but i'm still enjoying it and reporting any issues to the devs as a tester should be doing.

I think you slightly misunderstood the direction my reply was pointed towards or I just slightly failed to make it clear that it is a reply to the "comparing the engines" part. Mea culpa if the latter one is the reason.
I am not a specialist when it comes to engines and neither am I very knowledgable when it comes to game development. The only thing I can see is that the CPU-load drastically outweighs the GPU-load which is contrary to what I have experienced with other games (and not only finished products but other beta tests). If this balance is reversed we will have a lot more happy campers out there and I am sure we will get there....Yes, we are still in beta and the game is unfinished and I fully acknowledge that.

My previous post was merely a reacting to the standard replies that imply that one ABSOLUTELY needs a high end rig to play this game which is simply untrue if certain things are improved. Yet it is the current situation that you are on the dead end if you are only running a dual-core even with the most powerful graphics card on the market.
This is a serious issue if you ask me because if roughly 50% of the testing population runs on dual-cores then PGI is looking at a big chunk of those 50% shaking their heads and hitting the uninstall button.
THAT would be a major pity if you ask me because this game rocks everything I have played in a long while when it comes to an action filled war simulation of sorts.

I am absolutely happy with what the devs are doing even though I still am unsure if it wasn't a mistake to go OB before those FPS issues have been properly addressed for dual-core users. I have been around in this beta since May and have the luxury of looking back on the many many improvements the developers have managed since then and I applaud them.
From a business point of view I have to underline again and again though that you have to address those dual-core players asap if you do not want to lose a big chunk of your potential cash cow.

Edited by Molecule, 02 November 2012 - 02:58 AM.

[doc3057]

This beta needs help badly and fast as i have messed up and lost 2 lower end cpu's. NOT THE GAMES FAULT it just helped. The engine needs to use far less cpu to make this a viable f2p game

[Minos Murdoc]

Hi Molecule,

Sorry for the misunderstanding and i was in agreement with your points. Once they get the optimisation done we should see a shift more towards GPU. I'm not an expert myself but have a couple of friends who work at crytek and the cryengine 3 is more than capable once setup and optimised. But at the same time if you do run on a machine under the min specs you have to expect some performance issues (min specs are never quite min spec though so you can go abit under them)

[HighTest]

I've tried this on my Acer TimelineX with:

Intel i3-2320
nVidia 540m graphics
4 GB RAM

And at 1366x768 I can run the game on max setting with a little noticeable judder. If I move it down to High it's nearly perfect except in River City.

It even runs on the Intel HD graphics, but I wouldn't recommend it.

I added this for comparison purposes anyway.

Edited by HighTest, 02 November 2012 - 08:00 AM.

[madman24k]

The Gunman, on 31 October 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

That sounds more like a bug... I play on a laptop with minimum settings and I don't get that.

Just to update: I fixed my problem, and the game runs just fine now. I reinstalled and repatched and it seemed to fix it

[ZigZagJoe]

Ironically the game ran way better before that abortion of a patch to cryengine 3.4. You could even run it on under-spec systems without too much issue, just some specific tweaking. Post patch, game is roughly the same graphically at the same detail level, except you have to drop down 3 detail levels to get playable FPS. So, looks shittier, and runs shittier.

doc3057, on 02 November 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

This beta needs help badly and fast as i have messed up and lost 2 lower end cpu's. NOT THE GAMES FAULT it just helped. The engine needs to use far less cpu to make this a viable f2p game

We have these chunks of metal called heatsinks - you may want to invest in one. If you buy a boxed CPU they even give you one for free. Thermal paste, too. You may also want to look into actually mounting case fans.

I have not seen a modern 3d game (read: released in the last decade) that does not use 100% of at least one core. Admittedly, cryengine does use multiple cores, but the bundled heatsinks should be more than enough for that given adequate case ventilation and room temperature. It's not the game's problem, it's the system.

[StainlessSR]

Molecule, on 02 November 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

After having read all the different comments here I have to say the following:

Dual-core rigs that play other state of the art games with a decent framerate (30-40) should not be unsuitable for MWO even if the engine is different. To reply with "but it's another engine so you cannot compare it!" to someone who plays BF3 on a high or even ultra-high setting on a dual-core system without a problem but crawls at a 15-25 FPS at MWO is neither realistic nor can it be considered a very "smart" or "educated" reply.

Fact is that MWO is still too CPU hungry and needs LOTS of optimisation because fact is that it should run smoothly on dual core rigs which are accompanied by a decent graphics card.
I have to agree with the OP that this is F2P and therefore aimed at a much bigger audience. Fact is that roughly 50% of the gaming population is still running on dual core systems (check the Steam stats if you don't believe me).

Don't get me wrong: I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS GAME and I am lucky that I have a quad-core system with a relatively decent graphics card. What I can see though is that others who are only running a dual-core with a MUCH BETTER graphics card are unable to play this game at a decent frame rate YET are able to play almost every other game on the market on high settings with a very good performance when it comes to FPS.

It is good to defend something because you like it but there are just too many folks who can testify to the above mentioned facts. Something IS still wrong with the tweaking of the engine and it has to be addressed if this game is to become a big hit in the F2P-landscape.

You refute your first statement with your second. So by your logic, since I get great frame rate in D3 I should also get great frame rate in MWO? Look at any review of a graphics card that is tested on several different games, you will see a whole lot of different numbers. Now if it was stated that he could play crysis 2 with no problem, but couldn't MWO, then I would have not had anything to argue about.

World of Tanks - released (NA) April 12, 2011
BattleField 3 - released (NA) October 25, 2011
MechWarrior Online - NOT EVEN RELEASED

Not only are those other games out of beta, they have had over a year to fix any other problems. MWO hasn't even been in beta for a year yet much less released.

Also you need to actually check what the stats are counting. Going by the criteria that steam uses (PHYSICAL CPUS (PC)), my I3 is a 2 core cpu, but it behaves and processes threads like a 4 core cpu due to hyperthreading. Also those selfsame stats show that (4 CPU adoption trend: +2.6% (18 mos)). Yes, this game is currently not optimized, would you rather them spend time optimizing or fixing bugs?

(Added in edit)
Here is a review of Crysis 2 performance that should be looked over.

http://www.techspot.com/review/379-crysis-2-performance/page8.html

Even with a smoking hot Video card, a core 2 duo only got 23FPS in DX9
while this is at Extream quality, lowering the quality of the game setting and the performance ability of the Video card at the same time should result in comparable performance to what is shown.

Edit for spelling added content

Edited by StainlessSR, 02 November 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[doc3057]

ZigZagJoe, on 02 November 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

We have these chunks of metal called heatsinks - you may want to invest in one. If you buy a boxed CPU they even give you one for free. Thermal paste, too. You may also want to look into actually mounting case fans.
(i never said anything about heating it to the point of failing) 100% cpu usage for to long can damage a cpu without overheating it.

I have not seen a modern 3d game (read: released in the last decade) that does not use 100% of at least one core. Admittedly, cryengine does use multiple cores, but the bundled heatsinks should be more than enough for that given adequate case ventilation and room temperature. It's not the game's problem, it's the system.

if you are seeing 100% usage of a cpu's core on every 3d game in the last ten years something is not right at all with your setup. no game i have played in the last ten years that works as it should uses 100% cpu as thats why you have a gpu. if i was seeing 100% gpu in game i would not even care but im seeing less than 10-20% at times on gpu.

[Molecule]

StainlessSR, on 02 November 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

You refute your first statement with your second. So by your logic, since I get great frame rate in D3 I should also get great frame rate in MWO? Look at any review of a graphics card that is tested on several different games, you will see a whole lot of different numbers. Now if it was stated that he could play crysis 2 with no problem, but couldn't MWO, then I would have not had anything to argue about.

World of Tanks - released (NA) April 12, 2011
BattleField 3 - released (NA) October 25, 2011
MechWarrior Online - NOT EVEN RELEASED

Not only are those other games out of beta, they have had over a year to fix any other problems. MWO hasn't even been in beta for a year yet much less released.

Also you need to actually check what the stats are counting. Going by the criteria that steam uses (PHYSICAL CPUS (PC)), my I3 is a 2 core cpu, but it behaves and processes threads like a 4 core cpu due to hyperthreading. Also those selfsame stats show that (4 CPU adoption trend: +2.6% (18 mos)). Yes, this game is currently not optimized, would you rather them spend time optimizing or fixing bugs?

(Added in edit)
Here is a review of Crysis 2 performance that should be looked over.

http://www.techspot.com/review/379-crysis-2-performance/page8.html

Even with a smoking hot Video card, a core 2 duo only got 23FPS in DX9
while this is at Extream quality, lowering the quality of the game setting and the performance ability of the Video card at the same time should result in comparable performance to what is shown.

Edit for spelling added content

I wish you had read my second reply as well which explains what I meant in more detail. Dumping details about hardware or benchmarks of FINISHED games (I also mention that fact in my 2nd reply) on me won't change the fact that the performance of MWO is still below par when it comes to lower end dual-core machines....And yes, if that dual-core friend of mine plays BF3 on very high settings without a problem (meaning 30 FPS+) and Crysis 2 for that matter then I expect MWO to be at least playable at around 25-30 FPS AFTER THE ENGINE HAS BEEN FINALLY OPTIMISED.

Due to the fact that he has a decent graphics card (a NVIDIA something 460 to my knowledge which is stronger than my own card mentioned below) he also plays newer games next to MWO on decent settings and still achieves a playable framerate (25-30 FPS). But even the fact that he played Crysis 2 on his machine in the 30+ FPS range doesn't say anything since Crysis 2 is a finished product and MWO is not.

And to come up with my last example to make it absolutely clear to anyone else that might choose to misunderstand my previous post: I am aware that MWO is unfinished: On my own system which is a i5 2500K, 8 GB RAM, Radeon 6780 HD I reach about 25-39 FPS which indicates to me that something is wrong. Especially when I see that my GPU is hardly used compared to my CPUs which are "burning in hell" so to speak. I also have played Crysis 2 on my system without a problem.

Summary: The content of my post was not to say that:

1. MWO is finished
2. MWO should run smooth on an ancient system

BUT

I definitely want to say that:

1. MWO should be playable on systems with (dual core) CPUs from around 4 years back if a decent graphics card is used and this is especially true for systems which are able to run almost any other modern game on playable FPS rates.

Again, my first post was merely reacting to the many replies saying: You need a state of the art CPU/GPU-rig to play MWO which is not only incorrect but would clearly contradict any F2P business plan.

Reason for edit: fixed some grammar/spelling/wording

Edited by Molecule, 03 November 2012 - 02:42 AM.

[CenturionOmega]

Been awhile, thanks for the suggestions guys. looks like i'll lower my resolution, see if that helps. See you all out there!

[DrnkJawa]

How is it bad on low end machines!?
If you can run GTA IV you can run this!
But seriously im not expecting magical FPS on my laptop but i am using the following:
Intel i3 2.53ghz
3gb RAM
Radeon 6370M 1gb
Windows 7

[Pinselborste]

problem was the cryengine update wich screwed all the optimisation.

it ran at 40 fps with my old quad core back in closed beta, with the i5 3570k it ran at 60 fps. after the cryengine update its running at 45 fps. and its even worse for older pcs.