56 replies to this topic

[MrPenguin]

siLve00, on 14 November 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

still you have to agree....

low spec = more ppl

look at all the mmorpg´s ... look at CoD ( for example ) i can go on and on.....

you have to agree too.. PGI is doing a very very bad job with their program coding... its not stable at all ( yeah the beta arguement is getting old.. so much time and blablba )

for me its a complete failure to go open beta with such a poor code.

Unless they re-make the game in a new engine, the best you can manage is with a fairly recent at least mid-range i5 duel core and up.

Its not a codding issue, its an engine issue... well, not really an issue.

Cryengine 3 is a next gen engine, it was designed for newer and more powerful hardware. By default, its optimized for quad cores, but PGI is trying to optimize it for duel cores. Its essentially a "You get what you get" situation. If they can get it optimized for much older tech then thats fantastic... but if they can't well then tough luck. They're so far in that theirs literally no turning back.

[Vlad Ward]

My HD5750 can run this game at 55fps with no problems. It probably helps that I'm not using an E-series pentium chip. Bloomfield = <3.

[Mercules]

siLve00, on 14 November 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

still you have to agree....

low spec = more ppl

look at all the mmorpg´s ... look at CoD ( for example ) i can go on and on.....

you have to agree too.. PGI is doing a very very bad job with their program coding... its not stable at all ( yeah the beta arguement is getting old.. so much time and blablba )

for me its a complete failure to go open beta with such a poor code.

You have to agree... crappy game = less people. They are using the latest engine which is optimized for better hardware than some people have. Granted they should maybe state that a bit more upfront and have a "Recommended for stable game play" list since this is a beta.

In any case this will all be improved on Saturday. No, there won't be a patch, but I got rid of my 3 year old mid-ranged computer with 1 year old midranged graphic card and will be unwrapping all the various pieces and parts that will become my new computer.

Remember, those "gaming" rigs that seem to be reasonably priced always skimp somewhere and something like a MoBo can make the fact you have a fast CPU and GPU moot if it can't pass the data back and forth very fast. So some of those Mid-ranged systems are in fact Low-ranged with some good parts. I was going to buy a pre-assembled package till I noticed I could get a good CPU&MoBo OR good Video Card in the systems but not both in one.

[deforce]

im sure this is a bug, but here goes. at very high max settings i get about 40fps and during some larger battles ill drop to 20ish fps. so i do have a decent comptuer that can run the game.... heres the kicker i set my settings to HIGH when i was previously at VERY HIGH and my FPS from the start was 15 and would bottom out at 7fps. NO this was NOT THE 4FPS bug, i restarted my client multiple times and did nothing. went back to VERY HIGH and was back to 40+ FPS then tried HIGH again and dropped to less than 15FPS. Not sure if this issue is specific to some hardware i own or not.

So you may want to try actually going at a higher setting and it MAY improve your frame rate.... i did not test med/low or any other settings.

[Vlad Ward]

^ Did you try reinstalling the client from scratch to make sure none of the "High" texture files were corrupt?

[SteelShadows]

Lin Shai, on 14 November 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

I'm not a forum troll. I have, however, played games on PCs since the 286 came out.

Unfortunately this game is using a new engine that simply isn't going to work well, ever, on what is basically dinosaur tech even when right now we're basically experiencing one of the slowest "need to upgrade" cycles in PC gaming ever.

My 4 year old mid-range-when-built (AMD 965BE quad core) gaming rig played this game acceptably (~30fps). I finally upgraded my video card last month (from my four year old mid-range-when-bought 275GTX) and it now plays it at 60FPS @ 1920x1200 with high detail (and I didn't buy the card just for MWO - it's not the only game starting to push some pixels beyond what my 4 year old tech could handle).

To keep up with PC gaming I've had to buy exactly 2 mobo/CPU combos and 2 video cards in 10 years. My new video card will probably carry me at least another 4.

Compared to the '90s? Ye gods that's amazing.

At some point, you're going to have to upgrade from that old processor. If there's still some games you like that are using older engines then you're good and can play those. It's possible you could put off upgrading for another year. But to expect new engines to run on old tech just isn't reasonable, and MWO is using a new engine.

I have to agree with this. While with any game you want to have a wide player base, they have to take into account the engine they are using, and how old of technology they are willing to work towards.

I'm currently using a Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz with a GTX 275, and for the most part I'm getting 30's fps with dips into the 10's and jump to the 40's. That's on a CPU that's almost 6 years old now. I also remember during the 90's when I was basically building a new computer every 2 to 3 years in order to keep up with gaming requirements. For those who don't have the hardware to run the game at what they view is playable, I'm sorry, and I'm on the edge of it as well, but it's time to upgrade or look at other games. While the expected lifespan of components is longer now, in gaming it's still not at the level of until the component burns out and probably wont be for a while longer. It is the price we pay for pushing the boundaries ever forward.

[Infavol]

im also waiting, ive been playing bf3, MOHW,blops2, and CS:GO maxed atm, but running around 20-25fps on low settings for this game


8gb 1600 vengeance
Zambezi OC to 4.4ghz
6950 OC with triple fan after market cooling
2TB 7400rpm drive(soon to be ssd)



also, im going to trade this desktop for a laptop this weekend, does anyone know if an g75 can even handle this game on lowest settings?

[Grraarrgghh]

This just in:

PC gaming is costly. Film at 11.

[Xantha]

siLve00, on 14 November 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

dont argue with such fanbois...
they think your hating the game or pgi because you criticize something...

they dont get your point that your trying to help with that hint.. and your correct.. most games are made for low-mid spec systems.. so they are playable for a large scale of ppl.

but like i said... those guys your argueing with.. dont get it.. that pgi and mw:o needs much more players as it has right now.

about your topic... since the netcode suxx and the game isnt stable at all.. what you think they gona fix first ?

1. netcode
2. programcode
3. they add more mechs ?

you can choose only 1

You forgot 3rd person view. It'll fix his FPS issues.

[deforce]

i didnt try a clean reinstall, the game is more than playable at max settings so i just reverted to it. i was just hoping if i went to high settings i would stay above 30fps even in the large battles.

[MrPenguin]

Mercules, on 14 November 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

You have to agree... crappy game = less people. They are using the latest engine which is optimized for better hardware than some people have. Granted they should maybe state that a bit more upfront and have a "Recommended for stable game play" list since this is a beta.

In any case this will all be improved on Saturday. No, there won't be a patch, but I got rid of my 3 year old mid-ranged computer with 1 year old midranged graphic card and will be unwrapping all the various pieces and parts that will become my new computer.

Remember, those "gaming" rigs that seem to be reasonably priced always skimp somewhere and something like a MoBo can make the fact you have a fast CPU and GPU moot if it can't pass the data back and forth very fast. So some of those Mid-ranged systems are in fact Low-ranged with some good parts. I was going to buy a pre-assembled package till I noticed I could get a good CPU&MoBo OR good Video Card in the systems but not both in one.

Too be fair, I wouldn't really call Cryengine 3 "optimized" in any sense, if you get what I mean.
Its still got some work to be done on it IMO.

[OpCentar]

Thing is, F2P is all about numbers, player numbers that is.

So, I got a E8400, it gets about 5-40 FPS depending on the map. This would all be fine if the minimum requirements didn't state:

Quote

Minimum PC Requirements

MechWarrior Online minimum requirements:
CPU: Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz / Athlon II X2 245e
GPU: GeForce 8800GT / Radeon HD 5600/5700
RAM: 4 GB
OS: Windows XP 32-bit SP3
DirectX: DX9
HDD Space: 4 GB
We're aware the game will run on some systems that are running on lower end specs but we can only offer minimal support in this situation.

E6750??? that CPU can't hope to get more than average 15fps if not lower. Those minimum requirements are just wrong. It should state a Intel Q6600 and the AMD first quad core generation equivalent.


There are players out there who check the min req, try the game and uninstall it after the first battle because it lags so much they simply can't do anything. They won't come back so soon, if ever again to checkout MWO.


This goes out to whoever is in charge - admit the game can't run on dual core CPUs. Remove the old minimum requirements and post new ones with first generation quad core CPUs. When you optimize the game, you can redo the min req and downgrade them to dual cores again.

[Grraarrgghh]

It's a shame you can't download the game for free first and try it out to see how it runs on your dinosaur computer.

[Mercules]

MrPenguin, on 14 November 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Too be fair, I wouldn't really call Cryengine 3 "optimized" in any sense, if you get what I mean.
Its still got some work to be done on it IMO.

LOL! very good point, but that just means that low end systems are going to have an even HARDER time running it.

[Grraarrgghh]

AFAIK "MInimum requirements" means that the game will run. Not that it will run well or even be somewhat playable.

[Mercules]

OpCentar, on 14 November 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Thing is, F2P is all about numbers, player numbers that is.

So, I got a E8400, it gets about 5-40 FPS depending on the map. This would all be fine if the minimum requirements didn't state:



E6750??? that CPU can't hope to get more than average 15fps if not lower. Those minimum requirements are just wrong. It should state a Intel Q6600 and the AMD first quad core generation equivalent.


There are players out there who check the min req, try the game and uninstall it after the first battle because it lags so much they simply can't do anything. They won't come back so soon, if ever again to checkout MWO.


This goes out to whoever is in charge - admit the game can't run on dual core CPUs. Remove the old minimum requirements and post new ones with first generation quad core CPUs. When you optimize the game, you can redo the min req and downgrade them to dual cores again.

Minimum System Requirements is just that. What is lacking is understanding of what that means. This means the game will open up and play, not that you will be able to play it well, but it will run.... barely. That is why most games have minimum and Recommended Always consider the Recommended to be what you need to actually play the game.

[Elistaire Drummond]

It is not optimized... but sorry! If you run console-like-rigs (6 year old hardware...), so don´t expect playable framerates on high settings. Really.

[MrPenguin]

Grraarrgghh, on 14 November 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

AFAIK "MInimum requirements" means that the game will run. Not that it will run well or even be somewhat playable.

Thats actually correct.
Thats why its recommended to be above minimum.

[Clay Pigeon]

OpCentar, on 14 November 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

Thing is, F2P is all about numbers, player numbers that is.

So, I got a E8400, it gets about 5-40 FPS depending on the map. This would all be fine if the minimum requirements didn't state:



E6750??? that CPU can't hope to get more than average 15fps if not lower. Those minimum requirements are just wrong. It should state a Intel Q6600 and the AMD first quad core generation equivalent.


There are players out there who check the min req, try the game and uninstall it after the first battle because it lags so much they simply can't do anything. They won't come back so soon, if ever again to checkout MWO.


This goes out to whoever is in charge - admit the game can't run on dual core CPUs. Remove the old minimum requirements and post new ones with first generation quad core CPUs. When you optimize the game, you can redo the min req and downgrade them to dual cores again.

Are you running at 1024x768? Because that's what min specs are usually for.

[Vlad Ward]

Clay Pigeon, on 14 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Are you running at 1024x768? Because that's what min specs are usually for.

This got me good, because it's so damn true.

How many of the people complaining about awful FPS are trying to run the game at 1920x1080 or higher on those dinosaurs?