44 replies to this topic

[Pr8Dator]

I will, not because I want to, but because I am already getting only about 8fps in a brawl, making me feel like an ***** in a fight. But I love the game enough to stay on and try my best to enjoy the game. But if it goes down another 3 to 5 fps in the coming patch like it does all previous patches... I will have to quit this game. I believe myself and many other paying players would be forced to quit too. I have paid lots to play this game and if I really have to leave (maybe for Hawken and make them rich instead?), I will.

[Elkarlo]

http://mwomercs.com/...-end-computers/

[Kremator1968]

Please update your PC first. I normally find that people complaining have crap machines and expect amazing performance. Got news for you - you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!

[Wieland]

People always complain about bad fps but dont post their specs.

[Pr8Dator]

Kremator1968, on 16 December 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

Please update your PC first. I normally find that people complaining have crap machines and expect amazing performance. Got news for you - you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!

Core i5, 1GB gpu capable of playing every single game in the market now in high with good FPS... I dun think I have a low end rig..

[Moonsavage]

I have a so-so Acer G5900 i5 650 with a GT560 ti
The game runs very well in 1920 x 1024, with a bit of graphics latency right at the start of a round (as textures are loaded probably)

I do think this is kinda the low-end for this game though
Pr8dator - 1gb video memory doesnt really say much about the card, you're going to need something fairly modern for this game

Edited by Moonsavage, 16 December 2012 - 05:42 AM.

[Johnny Morgan]

not because I want to, and it would be a break until I upgrade to a newer system or they get a performance patch out.

[Wieland]

Pr8Dator, on 16 December 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Core i5, 1GB gpu capable of playing every single game in the market now in high with good FPS... I dun think I have a low end rig..

Cant you be more specific about your GPU? How much RAM do you have and what operating system.

[Raso]

I do or do not play games because of gameplay and communities. Graphics aren't even on my radar when it comes to critiquing game beyond visual and artistic ascetics.

I really feel sorry those these people out there who put so much stock in graphics. I wish I could sit them down with an SNES or a Sega Genesis and force them to play games like Star Fox, Contra, Sonic and Metal Warriors and other great games of old that lacked photo realism, HDR and anti-aliasing. Would they be able to get even the smallest sense of enjoyment out of them?

[Moonsavage]

Raso: Sniping is a large part of this game - with low graphics setting you would be placed at a disadvantage... all the games you quoted earlier were not competitive multiplayer.

[Max Immelmann]

ever since open beta, and just before in the closed beta, my FPS went to hell in a hand basket. used to get a STEADY 40 FPS, now i get an unstable 8 - 30. game also freezes 0.5 - 3 secs. everytime i torso twist. i too am a avid lover of the game, but when graphical problems hinder my game play, it is time to spend my money else where.

OS: W8
CPU: AMD athalon quad core, 2.5ghz
GPU: nvidia 550ti
RAM: 6 gigs ddr3
Sound card: sound blaster go/fx
HD: more space than i will ever use

[Lightfoot]

I ran MWO at first with a Nvidia 250 GTS 1 GB. No problems. Now running it with a GTX 550 ti I got for about $100 and no problems. Never see FPS lagging at all so I guess FPS must be 30 or above. This is on a 3 core Phenom 2800 GHz. Windows 7 x64, 8 GB RAM.

Some issues I saw that caused FPS lagging in MWO that I have read about were some optical or laser? Mice with a high polling rate, there is a workaround somewhere. Some Radeon Cards. And a culprit for many FPS issues on other games is using a 32 bit version of Windows 7 or Vista with a 1 GB or higher video card. This is because Windows allocates system RAM for it and allocates as much as 800MB to 1.5 GB for itself, then when the game and other apps demand for RAM gets added in and that amount nears or passes 3.5 GB system RAM you start getting low FPS and out of memeory CTDs. That problem is not linked to any game, it's from 1 GB video cards trying to run with the 32 bit OS RAM limit of 3.5 GBs.

Edited by Lightfoot, 16 December 2012 - 06:18 AM.

[Raso]

Moonsavage, on 16 December 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

Raso: Sniping is a large part of this game - with low graphics setting you would be placed at a disadvantage... all the games you quoted earlier were not competitive multiplayer.

Trust me you can snipe more than effectively with 20 FPS. People who insist that they can see a difference past 50 FPS are either lying or mutants who's genes will be the foundation of tomorrow's super soldiers.

This game's graphics are more than adequate and aside from the FPS bug it's FPS is fine. If anything what's needed is better performance during a brawl. When surrounded by ACs, lasers, glowing armor, muzzle smoke and lighting fast Jenners the game can sometimes slow down a bit but I think that's more a net code issue than a graphical one because it seldom happens unless there are several high speed mechs around. Aside from the the game looks amazing and handles great.

Quake was competitive. Tribes was competitive. Those games had terrible graphics, low draw distances and low polygon counts. It's not about people being competitive, that's just an excuse gamer repeat like parrots, it's about people obsessing over the superficial. Having better graphics than the Jones's is part of that competitive nature because you can brag that your higher graphics make you special or a better player and they don't. Turn down your shadows and other settings if you're having poor FPS issues. If winning is the most important things you don't need specular lighting and HDR, it's just extra fluff. But it's not just about winning it's about being better. It's always about being better and at everything even that which doesn't matter. But, hey, if that's how you gotta rock your socks what ever, to each his own. Far be it from me to insist that being so superficial is some how a bad thing.

[Moonsavage]

Yeah, well, name-calling aside, the initial engagement in mechwarrior games is at range. Draw distances are important to that game function, as is target resolution (in a game where I am constantly shooting AC20 rounds between people's torso and arm gap). If you want to play with a handicap, then more power to you, most people don't.

[Flyby215]

1.6ghz i7 (quad-core + hyperthreading + overclocking capable), 1 gb graphics card (nVidia 260M), 8gb ram, x2 SSD, Fibre-Op Internet (hard-wired), native resolution 1920 x 1080.

Plays Starcraft 2 on Ultra unless heavy combat; Diablo 3 can play on high smoothly (except for certain bosses), Civilzation 4 max settings smooth, Need for Speed medium-high smooth.

MWO everything on lowest possible settings, generally playable, but down to under 10 FPS under heavy combat situations.

I understand that for a gaming rig my laptop is sadly outdated, but compared to the average computer being sold today it's still pretty comparable. As such, I would hope for better performance. If the FPS drops again I will have to step away from the game. If it at least remains stable, I can stay and hold out until late 2013 when I'll be upgrading to a new machine.

Edited by Flyby215, 16 December 2012 - 06:22 AM.

[Raso]

Moonsavage, on 16 December 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

Yeah, well, name-calling aside, the initial engagement in mechwarrior games is at range. Draw distances are important to that game function, as is target resolution (in a game where I am constantly shooting AC20 rounds between people's torso and arm gap). If you want to play with a handicap, then more power to you, most people don't.

It's no handicap. More FPS or target resolution won't prevent you from missing or shooting between people's arm and torso. Some times even the best shots miss. Put bluntly 99% of the time it's your fault when you miss not the game's. That remaining 1% of the time will never go away due to the technical limitations of not actually playing in real life.

[FallguySoldier]

No fps problems on my end and I'm only running an AMD HD Radeon 6950, not even top of the line these days. And only a Phenom II X6 1100T CPU? Yeah, I'm surprised I'm actually running this game smoothly. I only experience some netcode issues, but they come and go.

My issue right now is that the graphics are NOT beefed up enough. I want DX11, I want antialiasing (better ones, anyway), I want more HD textures, I basically want this game to look like Crysis 2/3, but with mechs.

So for those of you who are having performance issues, I feel bad for you. I also feel bad for you if you aren't able to appreciate impressive graphics and would prefer the old days. Hell, I grew up with the SNES and I thought the graphics looked awesome for some games (such as Legend of Zelda: A Link to The Past, awesome graphics for an old game), but I can never go back further to an Atari or Commodore, that's just being masochistic right there.

[neviu]

how about a freaking forum ban for all the cries and ***** topics,
thats being done lately by alot of people god,...

[B0oN]

I tell you guys with miserable fps something.
Get adequate tech and you shall suffer less.
For those without the wallets to do so, keep on saving .

My specs:
Asus P77Z8-V
i5-3570k 4,4GHz
8GB 1600 MHz RAM
Asus DC2 GTX580 Core905MHz/Shader1810MHz/VRAM2300MHZ
2x500 GB Caviar Black
2TB Hitachi Deskstar
X-Fi Xtreme Gamer

And even if this rig looks bomber, IT AINT.
It´s just mediocre.
So please stop calling your PC´s "good", or stuff like that.
Good would look otherwise
Back to your saving-plans, guys.

[stjobe]

Flyby215, on 16 December 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

1.6ghz i7

There's your problem. MWO at the moment is seriously CPU-bound, and a 1.6 GHz i7 is going to be a real bottleneck.

I recently swapped out my old Q6600 (2.4 GHz) for an i5 3570K (3.5 GHz) and not only did it increase my framerate by 5-10 FPS, I am now almost always top of the loading list in a match (whereas with my Q6600 I would almost always be at the bottom) - which means it's the CPU that does most of the loading work.

I run the same old Radeon HD4870 with the i5 as I did with the Q6600, so any changes are purely from the CPU (and of course changing from 4 GB DDR2 RAM to 16 GB DDR3 RAM).

Next on the upgrade list is to ditch that HD4870 for a GTX 670. That'll end any performance woes for me at least.

Edited by stjobe, 16 December 2012 - 06:46 AM.