64 replies to this topic

[Ghost_19Hz]

Wish i could say i made this special for you, but anyway these are averages from many matches, about 10 per map.
I set my max frames per second to 75.
You will notice that it reaches very high frames at maximum, and that the average for my system is acceptable. The real issue i have is the insane drops that periodically happen for sometimes seemingly nothing. I can forgive some FPS loss in a huge battle, but not past 25 FPS.
sys. spec below.

i5 2500k (3.8gHz); AMD HD 6990 (base clocks); 8GB corsair (1600? sry forgot timings); WD caviar black 1TB HDD

EDIT: something i should clarify too, i've been tweaking the user config file for awhile now, i was getting an average of about 30-40 w/o changing the config, i even lowered the settings to all low and still got 30-40.

I felt like their in game configurations weren't doing anything for frame rates, just made the game look crappier and so i did some digging and found BladeXXL's post on how to get the config working and tried out some of the posted ones and got somewhat better frames and have been tweaking the user config file since then. I really should collect more data but i get distracted and forget to record, still having too much fun playing.

Edited by PythonCPT, 08 December 2012 - 02:10 PM.

[Ghost_19Hz]

Here's some more data added. Notice the extreme drops in frames on the minimum, despite the very high maximums. Something is causing it to pull down hard, not sure if its the mech models or the terrain, as i look around in game, i can see the average FPS drop in certain directions. This leads me to believe its the terrain. Also forgot to mention resolution, 1920x1200.

[Crazycajun]

Alfred VonGunn, on 07 December 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

DX11 isn't on yet.. Net code is still in pre-optimization levels.. They are still adding code.. and as stated above.. IT IS BETA

This load of bull does not hold true anymore...this is complete ... barring content addons

they had plenty of time to fix the code ....they wont do it...
they already stated dx11 is finished...wont add it in ..
my crossfire rig tears up other games... this one takes a crap on me...

stop saying beta..u sound like a bad broken record ...its no longer a excuse that can be flung round anymore

[ho1mes]

Having recently moved up from a dual core to a quad core, the difference is night and day. This game is very CPU hungry. yes, but if you have a low end system and bump the processing power you will notice a very big change.

[Bootcut]

Sometimes I have had some serious fps drops. looking around I get fine fps but as soon as a mech enters the screen (no matter the range) I drop to what feels like below 1 fps. However deleting the shaders catalog in the user map (under install) solves this. Doesn't happen often, but every now and then, restarting the client with a bat file that deletes that folder solves it. So something is fcked up there. They get corrupted somehow. so recommend starting the game with something like this in a .bat file:

rd /s /q "E:\Games\MechwarriorOnline\MechWarrior Online\USER\Shaders"
cd "E:\Games\MechwarriorOnline\MechWarrior Online\Bin32"
MechWarriorOnline

Cheers

[SkyCake]

no such thing as high end in cryengine

[Abrahms]

Ok good! Its not just me.

Seems to be a mixture of how horrible crysis is (even Crysis 1 still has crappy FPS for its graphics - poor optimization. Frostbite 2 looks 5 times better and runs 3 times faster) and how slow these developers are.

It isnt like we have computer geniuses here that can eventually come up with a solution. Its like a group of monkeys trying to get the stick to open the coconut.

[JimSuperBleeder]

Bitslizer, on 08 December 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

I don't have this problem, can play all day long without needing to restart, and I've been playing since June in closed beta and only ran into the 4fps bug ONCE

Luck of the draw and system config issue i guess

Pretty sure it's my processor. Haha

[Chameleon Silk]

ok, well i have exact same 6950 2 gig as you and maybe its a threading issue with your cpu (its beta give them time to fix things!)

the difference is i have an i5 2500k, i get 45-60 fps on highest setting + motion blur on low, so technically your peformance seems to be right in line with what you cpu should be able to do maybe down a few frames but not a whole lot, i hope your disabling vsync for a boost in performance.

(its not a pretty sure its your processor, it is because of your processor for sure.)

I'm not saying your not getting the frames you want because its weak cpu (that is beside the point) its most likely due to AMDs architecture just plain being different and less optimized for at this stage.

goodluck.

Edited by Chameleon Silk, 09 December 2012 - 02:04 AM.

[Chameleon Silk]

@ the guy who said they had plenty of time to fix the code ....they wont do it...

dude you should stay away from software development or even betas if your impatient, even if its a year that does not mean they cant or won't fix something, you realize that coding is a painful process that can take months to get something simple locked down and water tight.

my magnum opus I've been working on is years in the making, and most people who look at it think i did it in an afternoon not years of coding... so i mean get real.

if years from now its still a buggy mess then yes something is wrong, but dont ***** about bugs in a beta, its a beta. this name of this topic alone speaks thousands of words about peoples egos, an AMD 8150 is not a high end computer, it may be the high end AMD but its far from top performance, same goes for 6950 its a great card works terrific but high end would be 2 of them in crossfire.

@ "stop saying beta..u sound like a bad broken record ."

well stop complaining that you have a beta bug or that crossfire doesn't work well with the game, sound spoiled despite your legendary founder status, cause its in beta! and will be until they declare it not beta... its not like minority report the ball rolls out and it says beta has ended, its done when its done and not before, you cant cook a steak without the burner on and until you turn the burner on you cant cook the steak. confused. good, cause i hope i wasted some of your time like you did mine.


@ "I felt like their in game configurations weren't doing anything for frame rates, just made the game look crappier"

well of course not they have no idea what your system contains and even if they did they can only best guess based on what they know about the hardware. if you have high amount of VRAM then you can push textures to a higher level, a launch dx10 hardware solution you may want less shadows.... only you know the strengths and weaknesses of your computer, its time like this when i feel elitist... this is not something that is based off of just this game this is stuff that applies to just about every PC game since the dawn of PC gaming and people are just figuring it out now? next I will have to deal with some person come on and tell us that 8 gb ram will increase FPS, how much misinformation is out there is unbelievable, but you know if people actually just stuck with proven facts instead of talking out their other "hole" to feel validated then you wouldn't have so many people feeding myths to new comers. /rant about IT world.

i sound like a downer but hopefully you do figure out something that makes it a lil less painful.

Edited by Chameleon Silk, 09 December 2012 - 02:17 AM.

[Insidious Johnson]

Alfred VonGunn, on 07 December 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

DX11 isn't on yet.. Net code is still in pre-optimization levels.. They are still adding code.. and as stated above.. IT IS BETA

LOL. another apologist. How about you take into account timetable, PR, p2w, and social failures of PGI into account and give us a balanced picture. When PGI makes fewer head scratching moves you'll find more people willing to agree with you. Less rewarding bad production, more rewarding good production. Don't make me get a rolled up newspaper!

Canon Unit Names debacle
Flirting with 3PV
The higher numbers on your patch represent both its sequence and the actual number of new bugs
Removal of the CNT-AH and replacing that functionality with an MC only mech
Netcode would have to be rolled back to July to end 91% of the netcode whining.
Constant removal of previous features necessary for balance for the purposes of "rebalancing".
A long list of only partially, if even addressed, problems created with each patch.
Since going to "open beta" we've had about as many "hot-fixes" as we've had patches.

We need less kneepads hitting the ground at this time. Admittedly, devs need to feel safe enough on the street to get to work to do the jobs we've already paid them to do. The job needs to get done before determining whether to blow or "Bobbitize".

[Chameleon Silk]

so much fail here who the hell thinks AMD 6 core is actually faster then a 4 core i5-2500k

it don't matter what 6 core you have from AMD its not faster then an i5-2500k, i would expect the 4 core AMD to actually perform better then the 6 core due to the higher clockspeeds. I'm speaking from a gaming standpoint not for applications that may actually utilize all 6 cores.

I just recently left AMD to build this i5 system, this i5 system destroys anything AMD that i have ever had... but its not like there aren't some weird issues for intel camp as well, i fire up black ops 1 the other day to find it performs half as fast as my Athlon II (with same video card) go figure, but thats the only case where the i5 is not as fast that i have seen after months of gaming.

and to complain about hotfixes is ridiculous they are scrambling to fix something they overlooked while you guys yell at them to add moar features faster, don't you see how stupid the whiners are being, **** sit down and enjoy the game, i know i am.

[Bad Karma 308]

Chameleon Silk, on 09 December 2012 - 02:25 AM, said:

so much fail here who the hell thinks AMD 6 core is actually faster then a 4 core i5-2500k.................

The best AMD CPU, the 8 core FX8350 performance only comparably ranks to Intel between the Core i5-3470 and I5-3570K. It isn't the home-run promised by AMD.

Here is a decent CPU hierarchical chart to stack and rack your processor: http://www.tomshardw...ock,3106-5.html Whole Article: http://www.tomshardw...clock,3106.html


But for everyone that is complaining about the horrible FPS (even for a high end system) I have a pretty much maxed out system and it still hangs and stutters on MWO. Usually I get decent FPS up in the 60+ range but some maps, some battles, it gets drops into the 20-30s and even gets the 4FPS bug once in a while.


CPU: 2x intel Xeon E-52687W LGA 2011 W/HT all 32 cores @3.1
MEMORY: 128GB Mushkin PC1600
GPU 2X EVGA Signature GTX690 4GB
SSD: OCZ Z-Drive R4 CM841 1.2TB PCI-E
Monitors: 3x HP ZR30w 30" (only one used until SLI is switched on)
Resolution (7680 x 4800 all 3 monitors) (2560 x 1600 for 1 monitor) all settings on "very Hi" and unchanged between patches
OS: Windows 7 Enterprise
Internet 50/15 Mb/s


Just wait for the optimization to go into effect and things should be a bit better. Although Crytek just put out the new requirements for this same engine on Crysis 3: http://mwomercs.com/...re-requirments/

Edited by Bad Karma 308, 09 December 2012 - 04:24 AM.

[Chameleon Silk]

@Bad Karma 308


actually that is higher then expected performance versus what i was thinking but I still think the i5 2500K stock was a better chip versus the 8150 from AMD at stock speeds.

also the 8350 is an 8 core.

the 8350 part is definitely a better gamer reaching in my mind parity with the 2500k but its certainly not any faster and that's the 8350, i said 8150 cause OP said 6 core and that is most certainly slower then the 2500k.

Edited by Chameleon Silk, 09 December 2012 - 04:23 AM.

[Bad Karma 308]

The core count got away from me, My apologies, I'm vested in another thread that is taking a bit of my attention and I responded too fast.

If you check the chart link you'll see that, rest assured, the I5-2500K still outclasses the 8350, but not by much at this point.
A lot of the benchmarks do show that it isn't a cleansweep for Intel either, each CPU trades blows on different points.


While I don't favor AMD or Intel, I am really worried by AMD's troubled financial issues and hope they can pull out of it. I think left unchecked Intel would easily abuse their monopoly.

Edited by Bad Karma 308, 09 December 2012 - 04:33 AM.

[The Amazing Atomic Spaniel]

Dodger79, on 07 December 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

... now averaging 35 fps with constant drops to 10-15. Drivers are up tp date, os is Win7 64bit running on an i7 920, 6GB RAM, X-Fi Titanium, said 670 GTX and installed on a SSD. Everything else runs fast and smooth like hell, MWO gets worse woth every patch...

Almost exactly the same here: i7 920 @ 3.8 GHz, 6 GB RAM, 2GB 6970 card, Win 7 and I get the same frame rates as you do. Playable, but not impressive at all.

[Diss]

Same for me, dual core i7, tons of ram, GTX 660 card, horrible FPS.

[Chameleon Silk]

Diss i hate to be a bother but the i7 is not a dual core, tons of ram is not a specific amount, I'm sure the GTX 660 has different models and memory configurations and horrible fps could be 8 or 28 depending on what the person deems horrible fps.

if your gonna post specs of similar problems you should at least post accurate and detailed information.

anyone averaging over 30 frames per second really have no right to complain its smooth and working decent then in terms of playability people under < 30 fps when they clearly should be over that much, do have a reason to voice their issues.

Edited by Chameleon Silk, 09 December 2012 - 06:04 AM.

[Stone Wall]

I run a Radeon 6670 with a 3.6ghz processor and I have no problems after going into Window mode.

[Chameleon Silk]

i to find window mode works better then fullscreen 3d (which is usually faster cause card ramps up speed in 3d mode) another thing that seems to effect stability is leaving motion blur on at least low.