105 replies to this topic

[mekabuser]

zverofaust, on 24 November 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Never, I hope. Welcome to 2012 gaming. Now go take your circa 2006 hardware and go play some 2006 games for which it was made and leave us non-poors to our better games

special things happen to d bags who think like you do.
enjoy it when it does.

[Sevaradan]

mekabuser, on 24 November 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

special things happen to d bags who think like you do.
enjoy it when it does.

it appears that the successful troll was successful.

[Diablobo]

Mavairo, on 24 November 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....ars_(video_game) Well there's also this game apparently using Cry Engine 2.
One that's not a typical shooter down the line
http://en.wikipedia....cay_(video_game)

Also keep in mind Crysis is in of itself not just a pretty typical shooter as there are ALOT of things going on there as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis It's not like it's just COD or something lame like that. I think that was part of the reason PGI picked the Cry engine, due to the suits capabilities in crysis, along with it's rock solid physics engine. (which PGI has yet to utilize even remotely properly)

You have to admit though, it's pretty lame that the FPS in this game is so horrendous at times that it'll bring computers that are comfortably above Recommended Specs running on medium and high mix settings down to anything under 50 fps. Let alone continually exist and run at 25 to 30. Especially with as ''far'' along in development we are.

It's not like the Cry Engine 3 is a new fangled engine, it's had time to be proven in development cycles. I'm going to try a little experiment either tonight, or maybe next weekend, where I get crysis 2 on steam. And see how what my frame count is in it. I'm going to take a cautiously optimistic guess and say my FPS there on near identical settings here is around 50 based on that games recommended spec list and my rig comfortably spanking them.

The problem is this game isn't using our graphics cards, not in any capacity worth mentioning anyway. And it has frequent memory leaks.

MWO is WAY more complex than Crysis. The heat system, criticals, internals, and multiple weapon systems on the same player ramps the complexity up big time. Hit resolution and damage scoring is way more complex. The multiplayer aspect just multiplies the overhead.
MWO makes Crysis seem like COD.....IMHO. I have yet to hear a compelling argument to change my mind, and I would be willing to bet the programmers know it too.

[Mavairo]

Diablobo, on 24 November 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

MWO is WAY more complex than Crysis. The heat system, criticals, internals, and multiple weapon systems on the same player ramps the complexity up big time. Hit resolution and damage scoring is way more complex. The multiplayer aspect just multiplies the overhead.
MWO makes Crysis seem like COD.....IMHO. I have yet to hear a compelling argument to change my mind, and I would be willing to bet the programmers know it too.

There's different hit locations in Crysis 2, I just bought it and did my test. At any rate there is nothing in MWO (especially environmentally speaking and Particle Effects wise) that justifies the huge gap in performance.
None.

The suit has like 4 different functions that it has to keep track of, as well as weapon statistics (of which there are plenty and you can even check the weapons stats in game) the tactical map is loaded with ALOT more useful information, and you can drop several markers to tag and keep track of, to say nothing of in game threat analysis of various targets, enemy situational awareness, detection ranges etc.

The stuff you're referring to is not going to make the game harder to run. hit locations critical slots, etc programming wise are very minimal in terms of game performance impact.

I am playing Crysis 2 on Extreme Settings and nailing 45 FPS even during fire fights on a very cluttered fully rendered environment.

To say nothing of how quite frankly Fugly mech warrior is even on jacked up Ultra settings to Crysis 2.

The game's uglier, at best has as much to track, -everything- also over all is a faster pace in Crysis, as your movement rate across the screen in a given environment is much faster, to say nothing of how much more filled each environment is.
The increased relative movement speed makes things harder to render and keep up with without frame drop. (much more difficult to manage than Crit points, or hit locations)

There's no excuse for MWO to be performing like this.
None.
I down loaded Crysis 2 tonight just to see if my rig is capable of handling a Crysis engine 3ed game, and it doesn't just handle it, it Man Handles It. This game is just **** poor programmed. I didn't play a single Crysis game before now. And my god.

Yeah, if you're only getting like 20 to 30 fps here on med to med high settings like I am. You can run Extreme on any other Cry engine 3 powered game if it's been coded worth a damn. I'm not going to be shelling out any further cash to upgrade my rig now. It's not my computer. It's this game.


****************EDITORS NOTE*********
Just for ***** and giggles I just jacked MWO up to very high across the board. It's now running at a stable 30+ FPS. It's still not as good, as what Crysis 2 runs at nor is the game nearly as pretty. And I do get occasional frame drop down to 24 FPS. Something is fishy in denmark. And we still need DX 11.
Snow Forest Colony it drops at times to 18 FPS but will also run as high as mid 40s.
It definitely seems map specific as to how low the frame can drop. Forest Colony and the snow version seem to have it the worst so far. The bizarre thing though is the game is over all running -better- by not a small margin on Very High, than it was Med and highs. There's a couple more things I will try to fiddle with later. But at least the game isn't dropping down and staying in the mid teens to low mid 20s. (going to disable windows Aero tomorrow and see if that makes any changes in overall. I didn't have to disable it to get Crysis 2 on full bore but we've already established this game's coding is poor on efficiency)

I know one thing for certain, games shouldn't Run Better when you jack the settings up like that.

I don't think anything I did tonight will help the poor dual core guys out though. But it is food for thought for my fellows that have quad cores that had fairly abysmal frame rate for the graphics quality. (it's still not Great mind you but it's a start)

Edited by Mavairo, 24 November 2012 - 10:56 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

byteu2, on 24 November 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

A lot of cheap gaming systems sold, are i3 processors. Which are still only dual core. Let's face it, hyper-threading is not extra cores. And given how many games there are, that do not require 4 core computers, it's difficult to justify uprading your computer for a game, if you are a frugal person. I had a Core2Duo 3.0GHz with Radeon 6850. I tried MWO on it. I feel your pain. It's been fine as a secondary gaming computer, until MWO.

An I3 is many times more powerful than a Core 2 Duo and an I3 will run this game, as I had one when this game came out. Upgrading to an I5 did make about a 10 FPS difference though. this game is heavy on physics, which is primarily handled by the CPU, not the video card.

[Corvus Antaka]

This is the only modern game that "Requires" a quad core. If I upgraded, it would solely be for this game right now, and that is a bad requirement to have when stepping into a market to sell the game.

PGI knows this. Last patch I had 25-40 FPS steady on every single map, and only forest colony standard was unplayable.

This patch, we obviously have problems, which PGI is aware of.

Given that Crysis 2 can run just fine on a dual core, I think that once optimizations go in this will improve.

What many of you fail to realize is that right now, in beta, other items have much higher priority than optimizations because optimization passes are done AFTER everything has been finalized, like the HUD, graphics layers for maps, textures, etc.

It makes sense to do it this way, and while it leaves lower end pc users in a bad place, this is not some new or big revelation - most every game development cycle handles this in the same way.

I'd like for it to be playable again by next week, but really the lower end-pcs just have to hold tight, fiddle with tweaks, and give PGI some time to streamline their optimization process.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 24 November 2012 - 10:44 PM.

[Freeride Forever]

Kernfeuer, on 24 November 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

well maybe this will sound an bit mean...but why ur dont buy just an better computer?...well how old is ur sys..5 years or even more?..and now expect do play an modern 2012 game whitout any problems?..and imagine that even those modern computers got some problems whit this game..because...well yes its beta u know

so better think about that before complaining here

Some people can't afford to upgrade their system. The standard for games currently isn't that high (set by consoles) & MWO does not look like something that a dual core system should have trouble with. Maybe they can only afford $5 or $10 towards a game every so often. That's money that PGI could be making, if they had something worth spending it on. It all adds up & there may be a lot of kids that'd like to spend some of their paper money or grass cutting money on this **** if, like I said, it were worth spending it on. You wanna know why don't he upgrade? 'Cuz if any game is worth upgrading a system for it ain't MWO. When so many other, better games can run better with so much less the question "why don't you upgrade?" gets sorta "mooted" by the much more relevant question "why don't I go play something better, that runs better on all systems including my 5 year old dual core?"

[Mavairo]

It's also worth pointing out, that games that are frankly much more pretty, even using the same physics and graphics engine run at higher FPS, on equally high, or higher settings than does MWO. So just upgrading your rig might not be all that substantial in terms of benefits gained either.

For some reason you have to play with the settings again. And Up Them.

"get a better gaming rig" is all fine and good advice, providing the game is actually optimized correctly. Or for people that have money they can spend.

That being said, what if frankly you're already well beyond what the recommended specs are, and are still having fps drops down to 18 fps? Advice at that point shouldn't be "get a better rig" it should at that point come to the devs, with the advice of "Fix your inefficient code or people won't be able to actually enjoy your game"

[Sifright]

Yea tell me to upgrade.

when I'm running an Ivybridge i5 at 4ghz with 8gb of ram running at maximum clock speeds it can handle with a 7870 graphics card.

I still get horrendous frame issues on caustic and forest colony or in the middle of heavy mech brawls.

The game is hideously optimized. It's almost as bad as Hellgate london was, which at the time was a complete piece of ****.

Core 2 Duo should be able to run this game with out much problem the fact we are getting cpu bottlenecks is absurd its because the game engine is junk.

any one trying to say heat management and hitbox locations are the reason for that is insane. the calculations involved in that are so simple you can handle them with a penpaper practically in real time if you think thats the reason for the fps issues you have no idea what the **** you are talking about and you should keep your stupid ignorant *** flaps shut.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 24 November 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

This is the only modern game that "Requires" a quad core. If I upgraded, it would solely be for this game right now, and that is a bad requirement to have when stepping into a market to sell the game.

PGI knows this. Last patch I had 25-40 FPS steady on every single map, and only forest colony standard was unplayable.

This patch, we obviously have problems, which PGI is aware of.

Given that Crysis 2 can run just fine on a dual core, I think that once optimizations go in this will improve.

What many of you fail to realize is that right now, in beta, other items have much higher priority than optimizations because optimization passes are done AFTER everything has been finalized, like the HUD, graphics layers for maps, textures, etc.

It makes sense to do it this way, and while it leaves lower end pc users in a bad place, this is not some new or big revelation - most every game development cycle handles this in the same way.

I'd like for it to be playable again by next week, but really the lower end-pcs just have to hold tight, fiddle with tweaks, and give PGI some time to streamline their optimization process.

it would be nice if this were true. but when people running near top of the line modern pcs are getting ****** frame rates as well something is going very very wrong.

Whilst my i5 isn't top of the line it's overclocked enough to beat out i7's that aren't.

Edited by Sifright, 25 November 2012 - 08:22 AM.

[Mavairo]

Sifright, on 25 November 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

Yea tell me to upgrade.

when I'm running an Ivybridge i5 at 4ghz with 8gb of ram running at maximum clock speeds it can handle with a 7870 graphics card.

I still get horrendous frame issues on caustic and forest colony or in the middle of heavy mech brawls.

The game is hideously optimized. It's almost as bad as Hellgate london was, which at the time was a complete piece of ****.

Core 2 Duo should be able to run this game with out much problem the fact we are getting cpu bottlenecks is absurd its because the game engine is junk.

any one trying to say heat management and hitbox locations are the reason for that is insane. the calculations involved in that are so simple you can handle them with a penpaper practically in real time if you think thats the reason for the fps issues you have no idea what the **** you are talking about and you should keep your stupid ignorant *** flaps shut.



it would be nice if this were true. but when people running near top of the line modern pcs are getting ****** frame rates as well something is going very very wrong.

Whilst my i5 isn't top of the line it's overclocked enough to beat out i7's that aren't.

Even sadder is it doesn't matter, AMD or Intel.
Nvidia or ATI.

The game still drops frames like a cheap lady of the evening drops her panties.
When your rig is on the level to the point that Crysis 2 is now your computer's *****, and in this game it's still crashing down to a mere 18 fps at times, there's a problem.

[Nils]

Check your mobo specs and see if you can drop a better cpu into it. You don't necessarily need to buy a completely new computer...that's the joy of the desktop.

[Sifright]

Nils, on 25 November 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Check your mobo specs and see if you can drop a better cpu into it. You don't necessarily need to buy a completely new computer...that's the joy of the desktop.

No it's the joy of playing a game that is running with junk code.

[burns]

All the guys saying "buy new pc" pls, just walk away.
You have no clue what you are talking about, all you do is bloating this thread with your nonsense.


1) Nothing the renderer does (on lowest settings) warrants for such ****** performance.
There´s a load of other games that bring more gfx for better performance.
2) People with high end pc´s are having alot of troubles aswell.

This means the problem at hand solely connects to subpar MWO code/optimization. Simple logic.

[Sifright]

Diablobo, on 24 November 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

MWO is WAY more complex than Crysis. The heat system, criticals, internals, and multiple weapon systems on the same player ramps the complexity up big time. Hit resolution and damage scoring is way more complex. The multiplayer aspect just multiplies the overhead.
MWO makes Crysis seem like COD.....IMHO. I have yet to hear a compelling argument to change my mind, and I would be willing to bet the programmers know it too.

Those things you describe as complex in computing terms are the simplest calculations you could possibly imagine.

Simply put you are ignorant and have no idea what you are talking about.

To clarify they managed to pull off that **** on 486's more than 15 years ago. It's always amazing to see what people with no knowledge try to excuse based on 'complexity' that doesn't exist.

Edited by Sifright, 25 November 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

It is frustrating, but remember they WANT to make it workable on Dual Cores... but wanting and having, sometimes in development, end up at divergent ends.

I get that some people can't afford to upgrade (though for most adults who say that, I think with careful budgeting, and a little sacrifice on other things (McDonalds, cigarettes, Cable, Air Jordans, etc) upgrading to a quad core is not an impossible endeavor.).

That said, Quad Cores ARE the de-facto standard today, and have been for a couple of years. Only your very cheapest Dell and Compaq Laptops still run on Dual-Cores, and even most of the better Cell Phones and Tablets, are running Quad Core processors now.

While playability for everyone would be nice, it is not reasonable. When Mechwarrior 4 came out, a lot of older computers could not play it. Mechwarrior 2 usually meant at the time, investing in an expensive video and sound card. Not everybody can play CoD or Crysis, or whatever game is out there. Game technology is moving forward. To use a stripped down enough engine to ensure "everyone" could play, would mean a game that is obsolete BEFORE it launches.

I feel your pain, but backward compatibility, honestly, should be very low on their to do list, considering the Herculean tasks they have to cover beside that.

[Mavairo]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 November 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

It is frustrating, but remember they WANT to make it workable on Dual Cores... but wanting and having, sometimes in development, end up at divergent ends.

I get that some people can't afford to upgrade (though for most adults who say that, I think with careful budgeting, and a little sacrifice on other things (McDonalds, cigarettes, Cable, Air Jordans, etc) upgrading to a quad core is not an impossible endeavor.).

That said, Quad Cores ARE the de-facto standard today, and have been for a couple of years. Only your very cheapest Dell and Compaq Laptops still run on Dual-Cores, and even most of the better Cell Phones and Tablets, are running Quad Core processors now.

While playability for everyone would be nice, it is not reasonable. When Mechwarrior 4 came out, a lot of older computers could not play it. Mechwarrior 2 usually meant at the time, investing in an expensive video and sound card. Not everybody can play CoD or Crysis, or whatever game is out there. Game technology is moving forward. To use a stripped down enough engine to ensure "everyone" could play, would mean a game that is obsolete BEFORE it launches.

I feel your pain, but backward compatibility, honestly, should be very low on their to do list, considering the Herculean tasks they have to cover beside that.

But what about when your computer Face Rolls Crysis on Extreme settings already and you STILL drop below 20 fps in this game? They have the Exact Same Engine, and frankly Crysis 2 is light years beyond this game in detail, and physics. I run Crysis 2 on Extreme settings, at 45 FPS in the heaviest of fighting. This game? When it decides to give everyone a nice dose of Frame Drop it runs at 18 fps. Normally it runs 30. Sometimes it runs 45. See the problem? Let alone that -somehow- when you Raise the settings you can actually get an FPS Gain, vs lowering your settings which sometimes will actually Decrease your FPS.

I have a Quad Core, I have 8 gigs of ddr3 ram, both are OCed. I have a GTX460 is also Factory OCed from EVGA and it is Twice the graphics card the Recommended GTX 285 is.

It's not a backward compatibility issue it's not a Cry Engine 3 issue, it's crappy programming on PGI's part that's the problem.
Sure they should make it for quads now a days. But when other games have the exact same engine and there is a Minimum of a 15 fps difference, with a HUGE disparity in graphics quality (and the slower one is the uglier one) there are issues that upgrading your pc just will not solve.

Edited by Mavairo, 25 November 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[Sayyid]

Fiatsu, on 24 November 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

Upgrade you cheap Bastardi

Stop being a credit rich spoiled brat.

[burns]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 November 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

It is frustrating, but remember they WANT to make it workable on Dual Cores... but wanting and having, sometimes in development, end up at divergent ends.

[..]

I feel your pain, but backward compatibility, honestly, should be very low on their to do list, considering the Herculean tasks they have to cover beside that.

And here´s where you´re wrong: It already ran good on dual cores!
It only became totally unplayable with the latest patch.

Bishop Steiner, on 25 November 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

When Mechwarrior 4 came out, a lot of older computers could not play it. Mechwarrior 2 usually meant at the time, investing in an expensive video and sound card.

Indeed, i remember very well how MW2 simply refused to run on my DX4, only 33 mhz less than required specs and the stubborn pos just wouldn´t start. Returned it to the shop and got Duke3D & Crusader:No Remorse instead - great fun too - and the start of my ongoing FPS jouney

[Sifright]

Bishop Steiner, on 25 November 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

It is frustrating, but remember they WANT to make it workable on Dual Cores... but wanting and having, sometimes in development, end up at divergent ends.

I get that some people can't afford to upgrade (though for most adults who say that, I think with careful budgeting, and a little sacrifice on other things (McDonalds, cigarettes, Cable, Air Jordans, etc) upgrading to a quad core is not an impossible endeavor.).

That said, Quad Cores ARE the de-facto standard today, and have been for a couple of years. Only your very cheapest Dell and Compaq Laptops still run on Dual-Cores, and even most of the better Cell Phones and Tablets, are running Quad Core processors now.

While playability for everyone would be nice, it is not reasonable. When Mechwarrior 4 came out, a lot of older computers could not play it. Mechwarrior 2 usually meant at the time, investing in an expensive video and sound card. Not everybody can play CoD or Crysis, or whatever game is out there. Game technology is moving forward. To use a stripped down enough engine to ensure "everyone" could play, would mean a game that is obsolete BEFORE it launches.

I feel your pain, but backward compatibility, honestly, should be very low on their to do list, considering the Herculean tasks they have to cover beside that.

again pure ignorance. Mechwarrior 2 did require this as it did things that weren't achievable with out new hardware in terms of technology.

This game does NOTHING NEW that should require brand new hardware because the tech isn't on older cards. frankly speaking it's being held back by absolutely horrendous code this shows in the vast number of areas they are suffering in.

Steam hardware survey.

2 Physical cores is currently the largest single bracket of users.

4 cores is the 2nd largest bracket.

you are talking about brand new computers which still haven't filtered through to the population as a whole.

That said any one against performance optimisation for older machines is a fool. Those of us sporting the latest equipment will have improved performance if they can make it run better on older stuff.

[DerelictTomcat]

What really gets my goat at times is anyone who brings up their financial situation mentioning they are having a baby or they have kids. Having a kid was a choice and if you have them you will find money to support them. Buying a new computer is much the same if we want them we find the money to buy them. But you will never hear me complain I don't have enough money to have a kid because I'm supporting a new computer.

Live with the choices you make and don't dump on others because you made them, be happy your significant other can get back to work after an illness and you are not stuck being the only provider for your family. Apparently you really want to play MWO or you just like to complain? The answer is you need a new computer, I just built one myself. In MWO I get 60 FPS with drops to 45 or so. If you want to play that is the answer sorry if its not the one you're looking to hear.

I have to think those with expendable cash are the actual target market of consumers for PGI not those who are not willing or able to upgrade at will. Gamers have really gone soft.

In these forums post in the off topic/hardware, accessories, peripherals section you will get help there in figuring out if you can save anything from your old system or need a total rebuild.

And remember...

You can never make everyone happy!