26 replies to this topic

[VagGR]

Crytek has released the system requirements for Crysis 3...

http://www.pcgamer.c...s-system-specs/

their minimum is a dual core on a DX11 system...and in their example the model they used (E6600) is even lower than the one MWO lists in its minimum specs (E6750)

do you seriously mean to tell me that MWO is more demanding than Crysis 3?

will there be a patch tomorrow? will the build be playable or are we going to wait for yet another patch fingers crossed?

please focus on performance....pleaseeee....

[Egomane]

Wrong sub-forum, but I will anser your question anyway.

Crysis 3 will again be available on consoles, so there are textures and effects, that are dumbed down to a level that will make it playable on such low-spec hardware. As far, as I am aware, this is not the case for MWO.

Minimum hardware requirements on games often mean, that this rig will run the game on its lowest setting. They are not a guarantee that you will have fun with the game, with the minimum specs. Most of the times, not even the recomended specs are enough to fully enjoy a game in all it's glory.

So to answer your question: do you seriously mean to tell me that MWO is more demanding than Crysis 3?
Yes, MWO is more demanding then what CryTek claims to be are the minimum requirements for C3.

[XBigBenX]

VagGR, on 03 December 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

Crytek has released the system requirements for Crysis 3...

http://www.pcgamer.c...s-system-specs/

their minimum is a dual core on a DX11 system...and in their example the model they used (E6600) is even lower than the one MWO lists in its minimum specs (E6750)

do you seriously mean to tell me that MWO is more demanding than Crysis 3?

will there be a patch tomorrow? will the build be playable or are we going to wait for yet another patch fingers crossed?

please focus on performance....pleaseeee....

So i had previously an E8500...it worked...not really fast but playable(around 20 minimum).
So i guess it will not really work also on a E6600 except i like slideshows.
I Upgraded to an i5 3550 p and a new board, after that i runned at 40 FPS minimum.

And by the way MWO is still Beta.

[Flapdrol]

VagGR, on 03 December 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

do you seriously mean to tell me that MWO is more demanding than Crysis 3?

Everything is more demanding than Crysis 3. It has to run on a PS3.

[VagGR]

Egomane, on 03 December 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

Wrong sub-forum, but I will anser your question anyway.

Crysis 3 will again be available on consoles, so there are textures and effects, that are dumbed down to a level that will make it playable on such low-spec hardware. As far, as I am aware, this is not the case for MWO.

Minimum hardware requirements on games often mean, that this rig will run the game on its lowest setting. They are not a guarantee that you will have fun with the game, with the minimum specs. Most of the times, not even the recomended specs are enough to fully enjoy a game in all it's glory.

So to answer your question: do you seriously mean to tell me that MWO is more demanding than Crysis 3?
Yes, MWO is more demanding then what CryTek claims to be are the minimum requirements for C3.

it is a comparison that has to do with the performance of the game after the recent patches, so yeah im on the right sub-forum

have you seen what mwo on the lowest settings looks like?! obviously not...well let me tell you, it looks like an old console game pixelated textures, foliage pops up only a few meters in front of you...even the freaking smoke effects have "squared" edges...
so, no its not more demanding

as for min. specs ... they are the spec that a game is considered playble on the lowest settings thus guaranteed enjoyable to a point (no you wont anjoy the high fidelity visuals but you will enjoy the gameplay and its mechanics)..there is a reason companies issue min and rec specs...so consumers can base their purchase on them.

XBigBenX, on 03 December 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

So i had previously an E8500...it worked...not really fast but playable(around 20 minimum).
So i guess it will not really work also on a E6600 except i like slideshows.
I Upgraded to an i5 3550 p and a new board, after that i runned at 40 FPS minimum.

And by the way MWO is still Beta.

you really missed my point...and having an i5 3550 which is a pretty strong ivy bridge quad core should give you way more than 40 fps...so maybe you too should be asking for some more optimization....

yeah its a beta..i know..more than you know...

Flapdrol, on 03 December 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Everything is more demanding than Crysis 3. It has to run on a PS3.

whatever...

and to all 3 of you...im not attacking pgi so pls dont blindly run to their defense...performance and optimization is a very big issue right now, whether you like it or not, and i made this comparison in order to show that this issue should climb on the top priorities (instead of another hero mech for example)...

Edited by VagGR, 03 December 2012 - 06:37 AM.

[DrnkJawa]

It needs optimization....so patience!

[Flapdrol]

VagGR, on 03 December 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

whatever...

and to all 3 of you...im not attacking pgi so pls dont blindly run to their defense...performance and optimization is a very big issue right now, whether you like it or not, and i made this comparison in order to show that this issue should climb on the top priorities (instead of another hero mech for example)...

Nah, matchmaking and bugfixing should be at the top, performance improvement should be at nr 3.

[VagGR]

DrnkJawa, on 03 December 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

It needs optimization....so patience!

i know... i know... im just a bit worried seeing that we went through cb with no major performance update and now in ob last couple of patches really messed performance up..

in other words maybe its about time to shift focus on optimization instead of content...

Flapdrol, on 03 December 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Nah, matchmaking and bugfixing should be at the top, performance improvement should be at nr 3.

....says the guy with an i7 ! just kidding

believe me, if it was No3 i would be extremely happy...but right now it feels like its No10 :/

Edited by VagGR, 03 December 2012 - 06:53 AM.

[StonedDead]

I totally agree that optomization needs to be higher priority. Untill a couple patches ago the game was playable for me and getting better. Now I can still play, but it degenerates into a slide show when I get into combat. I am on a low end system (athalon x2 255) and would be happy with 30fps that I can get, if it was at least consistant. I don't even give a crap about matchmaking ATM, I just want to play the game fairly smoothly. Bugfixing should be number 1, and the first bug they should work on is performance they ruined with the last few patches. I'm even ok with running on low GFX settings. It's not that bad, and I don't see squared smoke or super pixally maps set on custom(everything low or off). So many more people would play if the games performance was fixed even with all the bugs that seem to be popping up. That would be a good thing too, the more people that can play the game, the more people there are to give feedback about bugs so they can get fixed faster.

[DrnkJawa]

VagGR, on 03 December 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

i know... i know... im just a bit worried seeing that we went through cb with no major performance update and now in ob last couple of patches really messed performance up..

in other words maybe its about time to shift focus on optimization instead of content...

i hear ya man, but for now try turning off vsync cause from one of my favorite maps forest colony became the map i started to dread the most since i know ill lag more than slideshow

[Egomane]

VagGR, on 03 December 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

have you seen what mwo on the lowest settings looks like?! obviously not...well let me tell you, it looks like an old console game pixelated textures, foliage pops up only a few meters in front of you...even the freaking smoke effects have "squared" edges...
so, no its not more demanding

Yes, I did see how MWO looks on lowest setting. I presented it with those settings at a convention a month ago. My demo players and I were impressed how good that game looks at those settings and how smooth it is running on a two and a half years old laptop.

We did not notice the effects you just described!

I just now played a game in those settings again and deactivated my user.cfg as well. I did not see anything you described above. Trees were visible at good distance, textures were smooth, no block effects. There are differences, but they are not what you described.

VagGR, on 03 December 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

as for min. specs ... they are the spec that a game is considered playble on the lowest settings thus guaranteed enjoyable to a point (no you wont anjoy the high fidelity visuals but you will enjoy the gameplay and its mechanics)..there is a reason companies issue min and rec specs...so consumers can base their purchase on them.

I am playing for a looooooooooong time now and have seen many claims on minimum and recommended specs. My best advise to you: Never trust them and always expect those values to be a bit higher then they claim. They are a marketing tool and nothing else!

VagGR, on 03 December 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

you really missed my point...and having an i5 3550 which is a pretty strong ivy bridge quad core should give you way more than 40 fps...so maybe you too should be asking for some more optimization....

yeah its a beta..i know..more than you know...

A processor does not make framerates. The combination of processor and graphic card does. So if he is claiming to now make 40 fps, it is because the rest of the system can not deliver more than that. We don't know what else he is running in his system besides the CPU.

VagGR, on 03 December 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

and to all 3 of you...im not attacking pgi so pls dont blindly run to their defense...performance and optimization is a very big issue right now, whether you like it or not, and i made this comparison in order to show that this issue should climb on the top priorities (instead of another hero mech for example)...

I am not running to anyones defense. If I did, I wouldn't do it blindly, as I am not a fanboy of anything. I like to keep myself informed and make a judgement on that.

As much as I look through the MWO game folders I can not find any defined low or high ress textures for MWO, only textures. Nothing indicates that we have a game, that provides such a thing. But maybe I didn't look close enough, who knows?

Crysis 3 is made available for consoles and their measly graphic processing unit and low memory. Those low spec assets are created and there is nothing preventing CryTek from implementing them for lower end systems into the final PC version of the game. Unless you were part of the alpha of C3, you can not make a good guess on what the graphics will actually look like on low performing systems and how smooth the game will run on those.

Until I see evidence, I make my judgement on the predecessor Crysis 2 (still CryEngine3). That game ran smooth on low end systems, but it did have some of the worst textures I have seen for a AAA game, until mods and later the high texture pack replaced them. With those higher texture packs, lower end systems were no longer capable of providing a smooth game performance.


And last but not least:
You are not commenting on the last patch. You are comparing two games and their possible performance with each other. I believe that belongs more in the realm of general discussions and not in patch feedback.

[VagGR]

@egomane

i wont even quote..jesus man why are you so offended...? acting like you have something to prove...and so passionate to prove me wrong...

so according to you im totally wrong the current build is just fine....?! and i guess the textures slider in the games options menu is there for marketing purposes because you went through the games folders and couldnt find any indication that the game provides different levels of texture detail...

im comparing 2 games using the same engine on the matter of optimization which seems quite an issue at least after the last 2 patches..

and last but not least..you and your demo players were impressed on how mwo looks on the lowest settings and crysis 2 had the worst textures for a AAA title...?!

ok my friend you've made your point...i dont know why you feel the need to prove yourself over me and i dont even care .. and since you seem to know so much and be right about everything i wont even bother to answer you anymore...

Edited by VagGR, 03 December 2012 - 01:49 PM.

[fxrsniper]

This will play better with a Quad core CryEngine 3.4 is beginning to be resource heavy. To get good performance there has to be a medium range on your rig. That being said dual core and High Card= Bottle neck, Quad core and low end card=Bottle neck There has to be a medium. Also keep in mind that DirectX 11 is not in yet but there is a problem for some as GDDR3 video cards do not support DriectX 11

[nigtig]

Flapdrol, on 03 December 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Everything is more demanding than Crysis 3. It has to run on a PS3.

[Sir Roland MXIII]

What I find hilarious about all this discusion is the fact that despite being newer, which in the end isn't worth anything in and of itself, there are 'older' engines that are far more powerful than CE3. For example, Unreal Engine 3, which is 5 years old, and performs well on computers BELOW minimum spec.

I know, because I did for most of the past 5 years. Min spec for UE3 requires a dual core, I ran a single core, and my GPU was slightly below min spec as well. It ran, and ran fine, albiet on lowest settings. Besides performance capacity there are many things better about UE3 as well - for instance, UE3 made hitboxes obsolete, 5 years ago, with per-pixel hit detection.

UE3 also obsoleted bump-mapping, by combining both the role of bump mapping and hit detection in a new graphics model - each part of a game that is rendered by UE3 has two meshes, which is normal, but what is NOT normal is how they are used. Where engines like CE3 rely on one mesh to be the graphics and another the hitbox, UE3 has a motile skeleton mesh that is low-poly, like the obsolete hitbox, and covers where and what a unit is doing. The skin is a high poly mesh rendered over the low poly skeleton, which is bump mapping at an unreal level - pardon the pun.

For the CPU and GPU, this results in the game having characters and maps that look extremely high poly, but perform as if low poly - a truly revolutionary idea, executed extremely well. Many, MANY games since have used UE3, some of which were MMOs - Tera, for example - which means the UE3 netcode has already been sorted out and is now standard, prior to someone like, say, PGI, using UE3.

Now, the hit detection of UE3 is achieved by having each part of the overlaid mesh act as a hitbox - because of this, you get a sort of WYSIWYG shooter - what you see, is what you can hit. Granted, MW:O has semi complex hitboxes, because it's using seperate hitboxes for each mech hit location. So I can feel like it's the more accurate per-pixel hit detection... until I go to shoot at something moving 90+ kph that is actually, somehow, able to OUTRUN it's own hitbox.

This is ludicrous, especially given that I have never seen that issue anywhere else, and this is something that, say, UE3 would have to be TOLD to do. And nevermind the fact that the UE3 graphics are out-*******-standing on my machine where the MW:O are set to low so I can have a semi-playable piece o' **** graphics experience. Woohoo. Joy. I am seriously impressed. /Ben Stiller Voiceover.

Short version, I guess, is this. Just because CryEngine 3 is newer does not make it good. New can be poo. Old is still the ****.

Moral of the story: When it comes to game engines, PGI chose... poorly.

Edited by Sir Roland MXIII, 03 December 2012 - 06:14 PM.

[nigtig]

Sir Roland MXIII, on 03 December 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

What I find hilarious about all this discusion is the fact that despite being newer, which in the end isn't worth anything in and of itself, there are 'older' engines that are far more powerful than CE3. For example, Unreal Engine 3, which is 5 years old, and performs well on computers BELOW minimum spec.

I know, because I did for most of the past 5 years. Min spec for UE3 requires a dual core, I ran a single core, and my GPU was slightly below min spec as well. It ran, and ran fine, albiet on lowest settings. Besides performance capacity there are many things better about UE3 as well - for instance, UE3 made hitboxes obsolete, 5 years ago, with per-pixel hit detection.

I can also vouch for this, I had a core 2 dual 2.0GHz, 9800GTX, and it ran UE3 perfectly on decent graphics. Only reason I upgraded recently was to play cryjunk engine and BF3. And my new stuff doesn't play cryjunk engine with decent performance even on low (only game tested so far was mwo, though).

Sir Roland MXIII, on 03 December 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

... until I go to shoot at something moving 90+ kph that is actually, somehow, able to OUTRUN it's own hitbox.

I've not been able to experience this because the game lags like hell when I'm in a fast battle.

[Sir Roland MXIII]

nigtig, on 03 December 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

I can also vouch for this, I had a core 2 dual 2.0GHz, 9800GTX, and it ran UE3 perfectly on decent graphics. Only reason I upgraded recently was to play cryjunk engine and BF3. And my new stuff doesn't play cryjunk engine with decent performance even on low (only game tested so far was mwo, though).

Indeed, as it should be - UE3 was designed with dual core CPUs in mind, Intel Extreme Dual Cores in particular, but was made low-key enough it could run on single cores too. These days that functionality isn't always kept, but that's where it started.

nigtig, on 03 December 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

I've not been able to experience this because the game lags like hell when I'm in a fast battle.

That makes me feel both blessed, and sad. I seriously hope some day PGI realizes performance enhancements are supposed to make performance go UP.

[Az0r]

I'm not saying MWO is perfectly optimised, but ARE running a 6yr old processor....

[VagGR]

and to think that the mechwarrior reboot trailer was made on the UE (yeah the one with the warhammer in it)

im fine with CE..i can live with low graphics...and that was my point in the first place and thats why i made the comparison...mwo on the lowest can and should be playable on lower end machines..and i just hope we wont have to wait another 5 patches to see that...

[nigtig]

Az0r, on 03 December 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

I'm not saying MWO is perfectly optimised, but ARE running a 6yr old processor....

It's bad FPS for me and this is my specs:
OS: Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601)
CPU: AMD FX™-8120 Eight-Core Processor (8 CPUs), ~3.1GHz
RAM: 8 GB Corsair Vengeance
Motherboard: Gigabyte 970A-DS3
Video card: AMD Radeon HD 7700

It didn't even seem to get any better when I turned down from the suggested high to low. But I play on low now just to be safe.

I've noticed when I got the HUD dissappearing bug (all 2d stuff like chat, crosshair, radar, etc dissappears), the game seemed to have perfect performance. But maybe it was just coincidence.