57 replies to this topic

[Syrkres]

Yep - running a Q6600, have been running perfectly fine (though haven't played in about 3 weeks) then went in last night and BAM! total drop in FPS.

I use to run fine in 15-21FPS when others were in the high 40s, now I can barely play the game.

Anyone find some settings to try will be greatful!

[Bagheera]

TehArgz, on 28 November 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

Minimum spec is the minimum spec to load the software. Performance will be minimal. Go load up any version of windows with min specs, tell me how well it works.

Again, I sympathize with the OP, and your specs are slightly better then mine. Similarly I have experienced degraded performance progressively with the last few patches. However I understand that my specs are near enough minimum that I WILL HAVE PROBLEMS. Additionally I do everything that I can to give my system a fighting chance to run this game as smoothly as possible. I don't have any reason to believe the OP has done so much as close his browser window in an effort to help his system, and for that part of it I have 0 sympathy.

edit: furthermore the paragraph directly below the specs on the link you posted.



bolded are my emphasis.

As I have stated many times, I have no expectations of anything but a minimum experience. To me that means a playable frame rate (24+ sustained without any drop outs that are not related to connection problems) at the lowest detail settings, and if necessary at the lowest resolution.

Right now, that is not what I am getting. I am letting my frustration show to much in my wording, but do not confuse that with irrationality. I have, imo, pretty realistic expectations and they were far surpassed at the peak of my performance experience during closed beta.

Niko Snow, on 28 November 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Hi all,

Quick question to Task Manager masters: When the FPS drops, do you notice your CPU / Memory spiking or dropping during gameplay?

Memory use never spikes or really even bats an eye running this game, but I am running 12GB, so that makes sense. CPU is almost continually in the 90s and definitely pegs when the game is at its worst.

I don't remember GPU utilization ever going over 75% and oddly those spikes are when the game is changing states (loading a match, returning to mechlab).

Edited by Bagheera, 28 November 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[TehArgz]

Bagheera, on 28 November 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

As I have stated many times, I have no expectations of anything but a minimum experience. To me that means a playable frame rate (24+ sustained without any drop outs that are not related to connection problems) at the lowest detail settings, and if necessary at the lowest resolution.

Right now, that is not what I am getting. I am letting my frustration show to much in my wording, but do not confuse that with irrationality. I have, imo, pretty realistic expectations and they were far surpassed at the peak of my performance experience during closed beta.

That is not a realistic expectation of a minspec experience, That is more of a 'recommended spec' expectation.
Again, go load up a windows OS with minspec, or even any program really. It is not a pleasant experience, even when it works.

[Bagheera]

We'll have to disagree on that point then. What's more important than semantics is that my machine surpasses the listed minimums, by a very wide margin on the GPU side of the equation, and that the performance of the current patch is far worse than your described example of Window's min spec performance.

Edited by Bagheera, 28 November 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[Socket7]

Bagheera, on 28 November 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

What's more important than semantics is that my machine surpasses the listed minimums, by a very wide margin on the GPU side of the equation,

If the game is heavily CPU dependent (which it is) then you could have 4 GTX 690's in SLI and it won't make a lick of difference. The calculations that are bogging it down are run on the CPU and you cannot simply offload them to the GPU.

CPU's and GPU's are fundamentally different on a hardware level. They are not interchangeable. You need a faster CPU.
Core 2 processors are 4 to 6 years old now.

[Soulcarver]

min spec should be playable, it is not in the current form. doubt PGI can be chasing away customers

[Carmaga]

Here is CryEngine3 minimum system requirements for the end users (gamers that play the game):
Supported OS: Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista, Windows 7
32-bit or 64-bit CPU ( multicore highly recommended )
1 Gb RAM ( 2 Gb recommended )
Graphics card with support for Shader Model 3.0 ( Nvidia GeForce 6600 or better, or GFX cards from ATI/AMD in the same generation )

Core 2 Duo processor can handle cryengine3. They can run Crysis2 (cryengine3) with maxed out settings. And they can run the latest Cryengine3 SDK Tech Demo without problems. They can run MWO patch 1.0.142 without problem.

Here is a quote regarding Cryengine3: "Crytek noted that CPU requirements are highly dependable on the AI and physics usage by the game. The more AI and physics computation involved into gameplay, the faster CPU required." What comes to MWO at this state, my system (C2D E8500) can handle the graphics, but not the compexity programmed into the game. My 460GTX 1Gb supports cuda and it has a physix engine. But it doesn't help much because so far (since open beta was announced) it seems that the developers have been aiming for visual looks and more sophisticated gameplay: increasing the game engine complexity (eg. Mech HUD) patch after patch instead of optimizing the engine.

I hope that MWO developers are greedy enough to expand their end user list to maximum, including Core 2 Duo gamers. "Instead putting money to a new rig give the money to us". Well, I would gladly give the money - have already done it. And I'm going to give more if/when they fix the performance issues.

Edit: I'm not excepting to be able to play MWO with highest "eye candy" settings. Lowest setting suites me just fine.

Edited by Carmaga, 28 November 2012 - 09:51 PM.

[Socket7]

I suspect when/if they move it from running on DX9 to DX10/11 that there will be a marked performance increase. (not sure if that is planned or when.)

There is probably a lot of optimization to be done as well.

Here is the thing though. There is no point spending time optimizing code that is still in active development, and may have to be changed to address a bug. They could spend a week doing nothing but optimizing code, then have to re-write half of it the next week to address bugs, then spend another week to re-optimize it again. All it would do is waste an entire week of time that could be devoted entirely to fixing bugs. This is what it means to be in beta. Optimizations are missing, bugs exist, and if you want the game to run really well, you're going to have to have a system of specs similar to the dev boxes being used. It sucks, but that's the way things are.

Considering the constant level of outrage about PGI "wasting time" and "being lazy" coming from a small but highly vocal segment of the player base, Optimizations HAVE to be on the bottom of the to-do list, because if they have to re-do any optimized code, they really WOULD be wasting their time, and then these players would whinge on even more.

It sucks, but that's the way it goes. If you've got a PC that barely meets minimum specs, you're going to have to turn off all the shineys and run at low resolutions.

[WardenWolf]

Okay, I installed MWO on an older system I have to do some testing. Here are the results from both that and my main rig:

Main System:
Core i5 3550 (quad-core, 3.3GHz)
GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB
1920x1200, all settings hight / aa on / motion blur off
Average 40-60fps in game, sometimes dipping to 30fps momentarily
CPU using all four cores, but only at about half or so per core (some higher, some lower); GPU at 60-70% average

Older System:
Athlon e5050 (dual-core, 2.5GHz)
GeForce GT 430 1GB
1280x720, all settings low / aa off / motion blur off
Average 15-25fps in game, sometimes dipping to 10fps or even a little lower for a second or two at a time
CPU maxed on both cores all the time in-game; GPU at about 50% usage (surprising, given the low-end nature of the GPU in this system)

The game is perfectly playable on my main rig, but not really workable on my older one. I can be a passable LRM boat, but I'm useless up close or when under heavy fire (due to FPS drops as there is more going on on-screen).

Edited by WardenWolf, 28 November 2012 - 10:38 PM.

[Socket7]

WardenWolf, on 28 November 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

1280x720

What are the FPS like at 1024x768?
I'm going to assume you cant bring it down to 800x600 at all.

[WardenWolf]

Socket7, on 28 November 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

What are the FPS like at 1024x768?
I'm going to assume you cant bring it down to 800x600 at all.

I can't check for a day or two, but will post back when I do. However, given the CPU and GPU usage I don't think scaling the resolution down would help: I suspect the CPU is the bottleneck, probably working on things not directly related to the display itself, and lowering load on the graphics card isn't likely to help since it isn't maxed-out currently anyways.

[Socket7]

You're probably right.

Well, that's honestly what I'd kind of expect from minimum spec. It runs walks.
I wonder what would happen if there was some way to disable ******** betty instead of muting her. She cuts in and out right now anyways. Being able to disable all the code related to dialog triggers, or being able to reduce the number of sounds played in general might free up clock cycles for framerate, but that's something only the devs can answer or test as it stands now.

I bet you could play commander pretty well at low FPS 35 ton mech, hide somewhere and watch the overview and give orders to the rest of the lance. Not that many people would be willing to do that.

Edited by Socket7, 29 November 2012 - 12:05 AM.

[Juju Shinobi]

Running an i7-2630QM with a GT540m, **** frame rate

[KerenskyClone]

*Newsflash*

The game runs like crap on Quad Core CPUs as well.

Q8300 Here @ 2.66 Ghz, 4Gig RAM, HD6870.

The game frequently drops into 10-15 dps territory.

[Gun Tuv]

This game is still utterly unplayable on my dual core machine. Yes, the mother board is three years old, However, the gfx card is one month old (geforce 650ti) and EVERY OTHER TITLE I PLAY (BETA OR OTHERWISE) RUNS JUST FINE. Once again I will state that MWO ran perfectly well two weeks ago - how else would I have ten mechs and elite skills? My entire clan of friends is now not playing this game as we are an RL group of friends so if 2/3rds of us can't play this then none of us will. We have a clan of Planetside 2 now. I say this to you guys not out of spite but as a matter of fact - this situation is losing you allies as those people who spent money on a game that appeared to be working for them now have a product that doesn't work. This is a bad thing, the type of thing that makes people feel robbed. My premium is ticking away as I write this and I am slowly coming to accept that I might not get to play this game again for months. Hell, I wonder if it will ever run on my machine again at all or even if you intend to try. You could just keep stalling until dualcores are obsolete (thats just another year or so), up the minimum spec for the gold release then flip us the finger and make off with our Founders fees. And don't any of you people with more recent hardware come chiming in about how I should expect 5-10 fps with a minimum machine. That is complete and utter bull**** and you know it. I've been an avid gamer since the mid-80s and a minimum spec experience is sometimes ugly, perhaps a little choppy under heavy load but NEVER EVER as unplayably awful as this.

PGI need to commit to making this stable (25-30fps) for the gold release for the minimum specs that were published at the time of the Founders packages being offered. On top of this they need to offer a hard reset at the point of it being a finished product so those of us who were robbed of a perfectly functional game that we had invested time and money into after just a month can get back what we have paid for. At the end of the day if the minimum spec had said quadcore at the time I purchased the Founders package I WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE PURCHASE.

[plaguebreath]

Gun Tuv, on 29 November 2012 - 04:17 AM, said:

PGI need to commit to making this stable (25-30fps) for the gold release for the minimum specs that were published at the time of the Founders packages being offered. On top of this they need to offer a hard reset at the point of it being a finished product so those of us who were robbed of a perfectly functional game that we had invested time and money into after just a month can get back what we have paid for. At the end of the day if the minimum spec had said quadcore at the time I purchased the Founders package I WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE PURCHASE.

I feel much frustrated as you are, coz before this 2 patch at least (and not without heavy tweak on user.cfg I could play at least at 30 40fps with dual core E8200@ 3.4 4g ram, now it's just a nice slideshow of pictures that look like crap. Plus I sent a ticket support for ask if there is any viable solution of the problems a LOT of us experimented, the answer was "we are aware of the trouble on the engine and the FPS and we are working 7/24 to fix it but because it's not fixable now I've to say bye bye and close the ticket it's Devs that have to fix it. Ah btw user.cfg just blocked again coz Devs says it's not solution for fix your trouble" That's nice coz me too bought Founder and was happy to play at least a ****** graphic title but at least PLAY. Now after spent more then 24 hours on try user.cfg, alternative config files that unblock the sys_ variables and reinstall gam like 5 times I'd just PRETEND to have a word from devs based on our request. Otherwise as someone up said I've to assume that 7/24 work is only on benefit of Coconuts and fantastic Fairy on cockpit and a crappy voice that's added up to the bugs we already have (yeah so now after the 4fps now there is even sound lag)

[Amunre81]

Ok I'm running a:
C2D e8400@3600Mhz
Radeon HD5770
8 Gb Ram
Windows Vista64-bit
all drivers up to date

And since two patches ago the game runs like sh*t.
I can't get more then 10-15FPS in combat tough I went down from 1680*1050 to 1280*800. And from Medium detail to low detail. I even tried som user.cfgs that lowered visquality even further but only gained 2-5 FPS.
So with that running a Light or even a medium is out of the question the only thing left is a LRM Boat.
But today I saw something that in my view was a little bit odd. When I walk in a straight line I have about 25-50FPS depending on the map. But when I press any direction key, even forward (when running max speed) my FPS drops 5-20FPS immidiately, for a few frames. So perhaps its not just a flaw in the graphics but somewhere else, if a keystroke reduces the framerate.

[x Marder x]

Pls stick to the sticky performance topic, so it grows fast and PGI see´s its urgent to fix.

[Fooooo]

There was a post somewhere from the devs saying that ScaleForm and Action-Script were probably the main cause of peoples problems atm. (the ones going from playable a few patches ago, to not playable now etc.....)

I forget the exact reasons why, but apparently scaleform/actionscript atm is quite a cpu hog and they are going to re-do parts of it or something, but have to wait for an update from the dev's of scaleform or action-script or something...........like I said, I can't remember exactly what the reason or plan was, but they did say it was causing perfomance issues they could see on their end or something.....

Take from that whatever you will........

[Kill Dozer]

Niko Snow, on 28 November 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Hi all,

Quick question to Task Manager masters: When the FPS drops, do you notice your CPU / Memory spiking or dropping during gameplay?

CPU usage is pretty much maxed across all 4 cores of my Q6600 when the game is launched into a map. It will show +/-50% cpu usage just working in the mech lab. My GPU is an "eVGA 560 GTX Superclocked 2GB" card, it can handle this game but it doesnt get fully utilized at this time.

I haven't checked memory usage.

Edited by Kill Dozer, 29 November 2012 - 07:30 AM.