58 replies to this topic

[Matthew Craig]

To try and add some clarification around what DX11 will and won't do.

DX11 support is being added primarily to add support for other features in the short term and obviously we're also planning long term; over time DX9 will ramp down and DX11 will ramp up. As we bring new features on board it would be risky to be designing more and more of the game in an environment where we are not testing with DX11.

DX11 should generally perform better than DX9 one of the primary reasons I see is the introduction of constant buffers. One of the most expensive CPU side operations remains draw calls, as shaders have grown in complexity the number of shader constants that need to be setup has grown and CryEngine uses some reasonably complex shaders. Constant buffers reduces the overhead for the average draw call which can help result in smoother performance.

DX11 is not intended currently to be a major visual bump, there is better water and the enabling of other features but that isn't the primary goal at this time. The primary goal is to have the DX11 pathway active and being developed and debugged to reduce risk down the road. Will there be bugs in the short term, yes most likely but best to find issues and solidify the DX11 renderer in Open Beta (if it causes you issues it's trivial to switch to the DX9 renderer while the issues are resolved).

As I mentioned in an earlier post we understand the communities current frustration with the perceived instability of the game; however, other than DX11 there are no major disruptions planned to what exists on Production so we will continue to stabilize from here. We understand that there were points in the closed beta where technically the game could be considered more stable than now, but it didn't have 3.4, wasn't running on production hardware and didn't have DX11. This complexity is now accounted for for all intents and purposes so as mentioned the road should be that much smoother from here forwards.

[Kdogg788]

Mastodonic, on 11 November 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

I've been waiting on this for so long. Got a Gtx 680 and the game runs like balls. Even worse after this last patch. Every game on my PC is sexy as hell and runs smooth except MWO.

I run the game on a GTX 570m all maxed out and if I'm not recording, typically run 40-50fps.

-k

[Nightstriker]

Thanks Matt!

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Matthew Craig, on 13 November 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

To try and add some clarification around what DX11 will and won't do.

DX11 support is being added primarily to add support for other features in the short term and obviously we're also planning long term; over time DX9 will ramp down and DX11 will ramp up. As we bring new features on board it would be risky to be designing more and more of the game in an environment where we are not testing with DX11.

DX11 should generally perform better than DX9 one of the primary reasons I see is the introduction of constant buffers. One of the most expensive CPU side operations remains draw calls, as shaders have grown in complexity the number of shader constants that need to be setup has grown and CryEngine uses some reasonably complex shaders. Constant buffers reduces the overhead for the average draw call which can help result in smoother performance.

DX11 is not intended currently to be a major visual bump, there is better water and the enabling of other features but that isn't the primary goal at this time. The primary goal is to have the DX11 pathway active and being developed and debugged to reduce risk down the road. Will there be bugs in the short term, yes most likely but best to find issues and solidify the DX11 renderer in Open Beta (if it causes you issues it's trivial to switch to the DX9 renderer while the issues are resolved).

As I mentioned in an earlier post we understand the communities current frustration with the perceived instability of the game; however, other than DX11 there are no major disruptions planned to what exists on Production so we will continue to stabilize from here. We understand that there were points in the closed beta where technically the game could be considered more stable than now, but it didn't have 3.4, wasn't running on production hardware and didn't have DX11. This complexity is now accounted for for all intents and purposes so as mentioned the road should be that much smoother from here forwards.

Does this mean DX9 will be phased out completely? I understand your goal is to support computer systems built in the last 5 years (the intro of DX10/11), but I imagine a significant portion of the MWO subsciber base is still running Windows XP or legacy video cards (8800GTS) that do not support DX11.

[Onyx Rain]

I pray they focus on the performance improvement aspects that dx11 may offer above all others things (Dx11 related)


Anyone with FPS issues not running a custom .cfg file, game booster and setting their process priority to "realtime" ought to give it a try. Details at the link in my signature. I've already heard from 2 people who tried the configs (Originally made by others) I posted and did the other tweaks and got 10+ extra FPS

[IntruderAlert]

There is a DX9 toggle in the options menu.
I can only assume this is intentionally there to turn off DX11 mode if it does not work for you..

[christophermx4]

Matthew Craig, on 13 November 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

This complexity is now accounted for for all intents and purposes so as mentioned the road should be that much smoother from here forwards.

I actually think the game runs a little smoother now than when I first started, but hey, maybe that's just me. At any rate, good luck to you!

[Lin Shai]

Jeye, on 12 November 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

The CryEngine is heavy on the CPU. In most cases your FPS bottleneck will be your CPU speed and not your GFX card. My mouse cost more than the GFX card in my 2nd PC but with a 3.8Ghz i7 it still gets 40 FPS avg in medium settings.

Each 100 mhz increment on the clock changes the FPS by ~6-7

Erm ... not so much.

AMD 965BE @ 3.4Ghz with a 275 GTX: 30FPS

Replace 275GTX with new shiny 670GTX: 60 - 70 FPS.

And the AMD chip was never anything more than a "bargain" mid-range chip when I bought it almost 4 years ago.

You reach a point of diminishing returns once you're on any modern-ish quad core. After that it's all GPU.

[Budor]

Matthew Craig, on 13 November 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

To try and add some clarification around what DX11 will and won't do.

DX11 support is being added primarily to add support for other features in the short term and obviously we're also planning long term; over time DX9 will ramp down and DX11 will ramp up. As we bring new features on board it would be risky to be designing more and more of the game in an environment where we are not testing with DX11.

DX11 should generally perform better than DX9 one of the primary reasons I see is the introduction of constant buffers. One of the most expensive CPU side operations remains draw calls, as shaders have grown in complexity the number of shader constants that need to be setup has grown and CryEngine uses some reasonably complex shaders. Constant buffers reduces the overhead for the average draw call which can help result in smoother performance.

DX11 is not intended currently to be a major visual bump, there is better water and the enabling of other features but that isn't the primary goal at this time. The primary goal is to have the DX11 pathway active and being developed and debugged to reduce risk down the road. Will there be bugs in the short term, yes most likely but best to find issues and solidify the DX11 renderer in Open Beta (if it causes you issues it's trivial to switch to the DX9 renderer while the issues are resolved).

As I mentioned in an earlier post we understand the communities current frustration with the perceived instability of the game; however, other than DX11 there are no major disruptions planned to what exists on Production so we will continue to stabilize from here. We understand that there were points in the closed beta where technically the game could be considered more stable than now, but it didn't have 3.4, wasn't running on production hardware and didn't have DX11. This complexity is now accounted for for all intents and purposes so as mentioned the road should be that much smoother from here forwards.

What about SLI support? Any chance of getting that in...pretty please.

Edit: While i am already at it (beggin) a checkmark for depth of field (like the one for motion blur) would totally make me a happier bunny atm. i have to set post processing to 0 or mess with the .cfg files while not getting the desired effect: Everything maxed but without dof.

Edited by Budor, 14 November 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[lsp]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 14 November 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Does this mean DX9 will be phased out completely? I understand your goal is to support computer systems built in the last 5 years (the intro of DX10/11), but I imagine a significant portion of the MWO subsciber base is still running Windows XP or legacy video cards (8800GTS) that do not support DX11.

So they can buy new ones. It's about damn time if your on a 8800.

[sokitumi]

Quality information from Mr. Craig up there. Basically just preparing for the future.. but he lost me at

Matthew Craig, on 13 November 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

... communities current frustration with the perceived instability of the game....

I perceive blacked out lobby, crashes, memory leaks, inaccurate hit detection, 8vs6(or less) disconnections, poor weapon convergence, tears in the distant terrain, mechs with floating parts, trigger lag, etc etc etc..... fairly frequently.

[Thor Dyrden]

RiceyFighter, on 13 November 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

I seriously don't understand why this engine is just terribly optimized. SYSTEM: Radeon HD 5805 I5 760 6GB Ram Windows 7 X64 I run any game on High at 1080p and maintain at least 40 fps including BF3 and Crysis 2 but this game I have to set it on 1680 x 1050 on medium/low just to get a weird fluctuation of 20 45 fps.

Very strange performance issues... originally read this thread cause of DX11 - but seem to have gotten a performance-issue thing.

To show it is working on some systems:
Intel Core i5 @3.9Ghz
Nvidia 560 ti
8GB Ram
Windows 7 64bit

So just a medium system - but I can perfectly run MWO at 1920x1200 with almost Very High Settings (Post Proc. and Shadows are High).
Measured FPS during the game today - Avg fps is 40+ and MinFPS is 33

So perfectly playable for me.

[Boymonkey]

IntruderAlert, on 14 November 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

There is a DX9 toggle in the options menu. I can only assume this is intentionally there to turn off DX11 mode if it does not work for you..

I hope so cos my vid card does not support it.

[Inveramsay]

Budor, on 14 November 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

What about SLI support?

That I'm pretty sure lies with nvidia to include in their drivers

[Epok]

i dont get why so many people are having trouble running the game with good graphics cards...im using an NVIDA 9400GTX which according to the pop up that comes up every time i launch the game is unsupported and i havent had any problems at all

[MrChompers]

We are all spoiled with DX11 in so many game that we sometime forget about performance vs. eye candy. I remember when Bad Company 2 came out and it was essentially broken for the first few months because EA/Dice would rather jam a product out into the market and make a bunch of money then care about the gaming experience. Im glad even though this is Free-to-Play, that these developers aren't rushing in guns blazing and making sure its all good first. DX9 is still a very good looking platform and I love the game

[Treckin]

Edited by Treckin, 30 March 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[Roaddog]

MOST problems with this game are in fact hard drive problems. I switched from my 2 TB 5400 rpm hard drive to a 64 gb SSD and the performance steadied and most problems subsided. I went from 15-30 FPS to 40-50 steady.




My rig from Speccy.

Operating System
Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1
CPU
AMD Phenom II X4 965 51 °C
Deneb 45nm Technology
RAM
8.00 GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 666MHz (9-9-9-24)
Motherboard
MSI 760GM-P34(FX) (MS-7641) (CPU1) 39 °C
Graphics
X213H (1920x1080@60Hz)
AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series (6850) (Sapphire/PCPartner)
Hard Drives
56GB OCZ-VERTEX2 ATA Device (SSD) 30 °C
1863GB Seagate ST2000DL003-9VT166 ATA Device (SATA) 42 °C

[Khobai]

Quote

hope dx11 will make the maps look better.

It wont. The problem there is the textures.

Quote

i dont get why so many people are having trouble running the game with good graphics cards...im using an NVIDA 9400GTX which according to the pop up that comes up every time i launch the game is unsupported and i havent had any problems at all

Uh im surprised that card even runs this game. Thats like a super low end card... certainly you cant be running it on more than 1024x768 and low settings. And it has to look AWFUL.

IMO, you really need at least a Nvidia 560 or Radeon 7850 to play this game, have it look half-decent, and get half-decent FPS.

Edited by Khobai, 30 March 2013 - 11:00 AM.