57 replies to this topic

[Texugo87]

I am also experiencing unplayable FPS. On my dual core machine CPU is basically maxed as soon as the game launches into a map, 95%+, in mechlab it runs about 50%. Surprisingly RAM usage is only about 60%.

[Zolthar]

Turn off the V-Sync.

If you have Virtu MVP, Turn off the V-Sync in the Virtu MVP control panel.

[WardenWolf]

I know it isn't an answer for everyone, but the company I work for is having a drawing for a free computer in December - one that, based on its specs, should play MWO just fine. All it requires is that you 'like' three Facebooks pages (ours and two hardware sponsors) and then enter your email address. It would be awesome if this could go to someone here who is struggling to play MWO with their current system

Puget Systems Spirit PC Giveaway

Puget Systems partners with Fractal Design and ASUS to give away a $1600 gaming PC for the holidays

If you're looking for a new gaming PC for the holidays, we just wanted to alert you to a giveaway we're running. We've parntered up with Fractal Design and ASUS to bring the latest computer hardware to a PC that we're giving away on December 16th

System Specs
Fractal Design Define R4 Case
ASUS Radeon HD 7870 2GB
ASUS F2A85-V PRO ATX Motherboard
AMD A10-5800k Trinity 3.8GHz
16gb Kingston Ram

This PC is valued at over $1600, and you can enter at http://woobox.com/zafg2t

This contest is running over Facebook, and all you have to do to enter is hit "Like" on the partners involved, then enter your email address (you will NOT be added to spam lists!).

We hope you're having a great holiday season so far, and good luck!

About Puget Systems

Puget Systems is a specialized integrator of custom personal computing systems meticulously designed to exceed the discriminating requirements of consumers, enthusiasts, gamers and businesses in multiple industries. Puget Systems combines industry-unique custom innovations, the highest quality leading-edge components with an unparalleled commitment to personal service and support. Founded in 2000, Puget Systems is headquartered in its new facility in Auburn, Washington. For more information, please visit www.pugetsystems.com
Facebook: PugetSystems
Google+: PugetSystems
Twitter: @PugetSystems

Media Contact:
President, Jon Bach
Puget Systems
(425) 458-0273 x6003
jonbach@pugetsystems.com

[Sorry for the bad formatting - I copied it from an email and it lost something in the translation]

Edited by WardenWolf, 29 November 2012 - 09:04 AM.

[Strykeforce]

CPU usage across the four cores during game is 60-90%. on the front end it averages 60%. Not sure what's the load on my GPU.

CPU is a Core 2 Quad Q8200 @2.33ghz
GPU is a Gt560

[Corvus Antaka]

make sure you try reinstalling / purging everything

[Mikhalio]

Not to clutter the mapper's thread, this may be intended or a critical oversight issue introduced in the Nov 23 patch:

- Terrain seems to damage the jenner legs when moving at high speeds (138.5 kmph +) or hitting the ground over any jump distance. Is this intended ? If so, good as it puts a soft cap on driving at top speed like a coked' out Jeep advertisement.

- Is ground supposed to be adding or subtracting speed ? Is this going to be added ? In the current form it is faster for Jenners and other light mechs to bunny hop with JJ similar to counterstrike 1.5 vs. using the XL300 and go flat-out running. Bunny hopping definitly gets around the speed cap, due to how the Crytek engine calculates forward momentum.

[mareNight]

Has PGI commented on the low FPS yet? I am patiently waiting to hear whether this is an optimization (software) problem or hardware issue with dated machines.

I have a core2dual with GTX 560 ti, and 4 gigs of ram, but have no plans to upgrade my machine for at least another year. So depending on their response ill either get to enjoy MWO or go back to playing D3....

[Miraxes]

1. fps drops only when you trying to turn the 'legs' of mech.
2. did you saw, that fps is normal in the spectator mode?
i hope this info will be useful for devs

[Bagheera]

Socket7, on 28 November 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

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.

Gee, really? This had never occured to me. /sarcasm.

Fact: This game claims to run on systems substantially slower than mine.

Fact: My system runs everything I actually need it to run.

Fact: My system runs everything else that I want it to run pretty much flawlessly - except this. Up to and including samples in this and other threads such as SW:ToR and Planetside 2.

Fact: MW:O is a "want," not a "need." If I have to upgrade to play it, it is likely that the two following things will happen:

1. I will do it in my own sweet time.

2. The money used to do it will come out of my discrestionary (in this case gaming) budget and as such is money that would otherwise go directly to PGI.

Trying to pretend that I do not understand the problem is not constructive. The bottom line has been put forth quite astutely by someone else:

Soulcarver, on 28 November 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

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

If the published minimum spec is unplayable, it is not what the minimum spec should be. Period.

If it is impossible to make the minimum spec playable, the publish spec needs to be raised to one that is. Period.

I took this opportunity to voice my, quite valid, furstration at the deteriorating state of performance since Mid September. Prior to that my FPS average had peaked around the 40fps mark. Perfectly fine. I would settle for 24. I have always used the lowest gfx settings possible, and lowering resolution has had no measureable affect on fps for me, ever. Even when I had things running smooth. I bear PGI no ill will, and I certainly am not clamouring for a refund or asking for resets or any of that either. This will be my last post on the topic, as my purpose is not to argue with users, but to make a point to PGI, and then to patiently wait for them to either resolve the issue, or to announce that it's just not going to happen. In the meantime I'll just see how things are progressing from patch to patch. I'd love to just keep playing, but it's intolerable right now. Completely pointless. To borrow TehArgz example, it's like watching WinME*** on a TRS-80.

If I have to wait for a more complete and bug free game in order for optimization to be the focus, that's fine. I'm a patient man and the handful of gamers I know in RL are playing Planetside 2 anyway.

Look. Don't misunderstand me here. I actually really enjoy this silly, broken game - but there are other things more important to me than games and my money goes to those first. Like I said in another thread, I could go buy a whole new computer's worth of top of the line gaming parts right now. But I'm not going to do it, because that puts me $X farther away from my house down payment, or it puts me $X farther away from purchasing equipment I actually use to make money. All I want is for people to consider this: Every time you blame a player for the way the game performs on their system and tell them "LOL UPGRADE DUMMY" you are suggesting that people give their money to someone other than PGI.







*** - yes, I picked the worst one on purpose.


I also have no actual idea how to speel discresctionary.

Edited by Bagheera, 29 November 2012 - 07:10 PM.

[plaguebreath]

Dugabighole, on 29 November 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Has PGI commented on the low FPS yet? I am patiently waiting to hear whether this is an optimization (software) problem or hardware issue with dated machines.

I have a core2dual with GTX 560 ti, and 4 gigs of ram, but have no plans to upgrade my machine for at least another year. So depending on their response ill either get to enjoy MWO or go back to playing D3....

Same situation as you with exactly same config ...

[Carmaga]

Dugabighole, on 29 November 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Has PGI commented on the low FPS yet? I am patiently waiting to hear whether this is an optimization (software) problem or hardware issue with dated machines.

They have not commented about low FPS (@1.1.155 patch), but they have commented about the performance of Duo Core systems (@1.0.150 patch). As far as I know, 1.1.155 and 1.0.150 patches are brought by different teams. Regarding 1.0.150 patch they have been so kind to share the information about the performance issues. Unfortunately, every time someone from PGI makes a comment, people get furious. But you have to remember that PGI has exciting titles such as Need For Speed: Shift and Transformers - Revenge of The Fallen not to mention about the multiplayer net code for Duke Nukem Forewer.

And I'm so happy that PGI had the courage to bring us a long waited MechWarrior Game!

The people who are suffering from low fps and stuttering are all desperate - including me with my C2D E8500 cpu. It's easy to say "be patient", but we all need to do that. PGI knows the issue and as far as I know, they are working with it.

Eventually you are able to play MWO with Duo Core systems that meets the announced minimum system requirements. PGI has committed to it and they have never said otherwise. But I have to admit that it's frustrating to wait while not knowing the time-line. It may happen during the next patch or it may happen after 10 or more patches.

The latest comment made by Staff Moderators regarding the issue is approx one week old:

Quote

I'm just going to say it again we're committed to the game running well on dual core CPU's we've never stated otherwise and continue to work on performance as one of the top priority issues for all configurations.

And

Quote

I just wanted to post an update for the community so far our investigation has shown that it seems the performance issues for this patch are most noticeable to users who had borderline frame rates already i.e. min spec users.

Currently it appears to be a combination of more expensive in game HUD operations the HUD uses ActionScript which appears to be causing some hot spots that are more noticeable on weaker cpus, we're working to isolate and optimize these areas and potentially also in game streaming.

The in game streaming again appears to be hurting lower end machines much more than higher end machines, we're still investigating but I wanted to post an update on what we've found so far.

Here is PGI official announcement (Jun 15)

Quote

Right now a duo core system is our minimum spec machine but it is also our main focus of concern. It is playable on those specifications and I have tested it myself but it is currently very much a minimum spec type of experience running on low-detail settings. It’s obvious that a Quad core system is the key as even the earliest Core 2 Quad systems run the game very well and it is our goal (since there are still so many out there), to optimize the Core 2 Duo systems to run much faster.

Hope this following quote allso helps:

Spoiler

Copy-paste from here

Quote

People from the graphical team cannot solve netcode bugs. Switching emphasis only works within departments.

Some bugs at present may be beyond the capability of the current team to solve - particularly netcode optimisation. It's probably not a coincidence that they're attempting to hire a lead network programmer at this stage. Most bugs, however, don't fall into this category. The bugs we're seeing now are by and large not the same ones we saw in closed beta. The bugs we used to have include having absolutely no rendering of textures whatsoever (you pilot based on red triangles and minimap only, because you can't see anything else), while new bugs in recent patches include an absurdly high crash-to-desktop rate that was never an issue prior to the introduction of some new content, and disappearance of the HUD upon shutdown.

Introduction of new content creates new bugs, if they were to fix all bugs for one phase, the new set of content they introduce after that will restart the whole process again. Most games never truly finish quashing all bugs entirely, but main gamebreaking ones will all be destroyed prior to Release. The more content a game has, the more bugs it will thus have. Massive games like Skyrim have accompanying massive amounts of bugs, whereas small games like Minesweeper can have none by release.

The new content has to be released on some semblance of a schedule or the game will never make it to release. Some games are stuck in the phase of bugfixing forever - 'development hell': the most recent example of this is Final Fantasy XIII Versus, but it never even made it to beta. When combined with #3 it makes sense to fix bugs while also releasing content, then only switch full emphasis to bug quashing just before release in order to release the product in the shortest development time possible.

This is a Beta, and the B there stands for Bugs. Admittedly it's a relatively special Beta, since normally progress from even Open Beta is never carried into Release - but adequate communication has been made that spending money at this stage is a purchase-at-your-own-risk thing.

We only see the product, we can't see the process going on behind the scenes. A lot of optimisation and bug fixes are invisible to the general end user. Thus they're better positioned to decide on what to fix and what to implement on what schedule than we are. We are better positioned to see what the bugs are, and to report them to them development team for fixing. Deciding on the priorities for them is not our job.

Edited by Carmaga, 02 December 2012 - 07:59 AM.

[plaguebreath]

Thank you for your post Carmaga I've readed it and remember all the words from devs on the hard working. I'm happy about it, sincerely. But, and this is only MY opinion, they just make a big fault on disable AGAIN user.cfg customize an now we are already on week 2 of no play for me because of that. As they said the more you add content the more bug the product will have so judging from all the stuff they add now in 2 weeks and for future plans the product will be full of bugs with no one care on solve them once and for all to let people play. Offcurse we, people of 4 fps we can all enjoy the nice new Camo game on the mech lab ohhh hoooooo so happy ! BTW this is not a problem of netcode so graphical team can keep on work hard on it without study TCP IP and packet stuff. You said right that every time Devs write something the post is full of complain, at this very moment I AM UPSET with Devs as probably other people here that probably just quit to play without even show the care they had for a title that WE were waiting for so long time.

[Al Bert]

Hi, its me again, the opening poster I still dont understand why in the mechlab and the pilotlab and home, the large differences in FPS occur. I finally found a gadget to monitor the GPU, here are typical curves:




In the above graph, coming from a different application, I switched to "Home", "Mechlab", "Pilotlab", "Mechlab" and "Home" again - GPU usage is quite straight around 73% and 99%. I am no expert but my guess is that this should not be the case for this GPU (the CPU btw is quadcore 3610QM @2.3 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Windows 7 64bit).



The curve above shows the GPU in the first half of the graph in-match at 100% (~30 FPS, River City, very high detail, PostAA) and right when it drops out of game, to nearly 0% - in that moment, the launcher window is not active. Once it is active again, GPU usage goes up to nearly 75% (=Home of the launcher). After that i made a screenshot and pasted it into XnView, thats why the GPU usage drops. After that, I can get the first picture again by switching between the three tabs.

CPU usage is quite low, i took a look at the Windows ressource monitor but have no screenshot at hand.

Bottom line, i think the GPU usage for this system should be highest in game and not 99% in the Mechlab. And I also believe that the GPU has appearently things to do which it should not have to.

What is your experience?

Edited by Al Bert, 04 December 2012 - 03:29 AM.

[XtremeLord]

change from 6670 to gtx 660 ti
dont help at all, fps still low
maybe this game run from my onboard vga

[nonplusultra]

I have also performance problems with the mechlab. Its running very "laggy". I need the same Power to run the mechlab as i need to play the game. U should improve that. ;-)

(Core i5, 4GB RAM)

Edited by Chaser187, 04 December 2012 - 09:12 AM.

[Al Bert]

I have to mention: it happened again (see opening post) - first match after patch: straight 60 FPS in Home, Mechlab and Pilot Lab, no issues at all. Second time I started the client, everything like usual: 40 FPS in Home and Pilotlab, 60 FPS in Mechlab. No frickin idea what the cause is.

This tread evolved quite a it around man other things (just with respect to the opening post), so maybe some you can watch oput for this effect next tuesday and report it here - thanks.

Al Bert

[R3D Alert]

Just wanted to point out, some people are mentioning older CPUs and laptop CPU & GPUs and expecting them to run on upper-level settings but if you check something like this out, it may help you visual your actual computing power: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

Someone mentioned their Q6600 quadcore running it like crap: http://www.cpubenchm...600+%40+2.40GHz

http://i48.tinypic.com/23locjn.png

The funny thing is from Google searches, the Q6600 costs around $115-$150. A really rock solid, really great value, long term gaming CPU like the i5 2500 costs $219.  Definitely worth the upgrade. Although there is definitely TONS of room for optimization and improvement, no doubt about it.

Edited by R3D Alert, 24 January 2013 - 08:38 PM.