51 replies to this topic

[Texas Merc]

edit....

who is in charge of the nursery computers?

where is NANNy?

[Thirdstar]

Texas Merc, on 30 December 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

fast forward to 2015.......

why is mwo so crappy graphics wise? why didnt they use a better engine to begin with?



rewind....


get the point?

Yes the Devs should worry about way the game looks like in 2015 instead of making sure it plays well in 2012-13. Please never develop games.

[Randodan]

Talking about engines -- a game like MWO clearly shouldn't be based on a first-person shooter type engine, such as the Unreal engine and the Cryengine. Their purpose is to deliver rather small maps in great detail, which is fine when you're a foot soldier, running and gunning.

When inside a tank, plane, or 'Mech for that matter, game maps should be based on other engines that deliver large-scale environments meant for simulation warfare. A engine with huge distances to be rendered, but also scalable enough to present city combat.

This would open up MWO to be a much bigger game with gameplay that would allow to capture "planet-size" maps.

[KovarD]

Vassago Rain, on 30 December 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

Deus ex 3 is a custom engine, that looks better than both in many ways, but runs much smoother, with more tech features, because of the N64 approach.

LoL. Deus EX Human Revolution is ugly like hell (horrendous animations and models). You can't compare with Crysis. Try Syndicate with Starbreeze Engine it looks way better than Deus EX.

[Acenan]

Vassago Rain, on 30 December 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:

Because if your game looks like it's 2003 in 2012, you're doing something wrong. I want the BIG textures, and TONS of shadows and tesselation of cryengine 3.

When I buy a computer or console to play videogames, I expect them to be as advanced today as they were back in the wooden age of gaming, where each release was a step forward. If I wanted to play unreal mechs, I'd own an xbox 360.

You have clearly no idea of what you are talking about. . .

If this is 2003 for you, i like to now what planet you live on.

[Thirdstar]

Oh dear god the OP has ignited THE ENGINE WARS!!!!

[KovarD]

Pr8Dator, on 30 December 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

But if realism is key then I would rather see Frostbite3 with its environmental destruction and highly realistic rendering rather than cryengine. Cryengine is nice looking but its too heavy, not big on environmental interactions and also not so realistic.

CryEngine 3.4 can do everything that Frostbite 3 does, and plus it can make look better.

All enviroment destruction on Frostbite 3 is scripted like the trailer of Mechwarrior of 2009, so its not "highly realistic" for me. Water on Frostbite 3 is a joke.

[Sid Vishus]

mwo has only one real problem its the ultra low fps until this is fixed for all players this game is unplayable .real shame other games play fine so until the devs realise the fps isue is stopping the game and servilely limiting cash flow from members people like myself will not be paying for a 4FPS shooter

[Throat Punch]

The OP's post reeks of a "Hawken is better" troll post disguised as a discussion about graphics problems/ graphics engines to me and people took the bait.

Then again I'm a pessimist.

[Barghest Whelp]

Acenan, on 30 December 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

You have clearly no idea of what you are talking about. . .

If this is 2003 for you, i like to now what planet you live on.

Double kill!

No, but seriously, that was one awesome post. I think you just won the forums. The point being that the cry-engine is in fact not so fantastic. Sure it looks nice in many ways, but it really doesn't justify the immense drain on resources.

Never the less, I'm certain they're not going to change engine this far in to development.

[Carnivoris]

STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS, PEOPLE! Seriously, if you want to game, get a PC with a 3d video card. Until then, you have no ground to stand on. Your machine isn't built to play games. You don't have the hardware to make the immense number of calculations per second required to run 3D games. Do you hammer nails with a screwdriver?

[Thirdstar]

Carnivoris, on 30 December 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS, PEOPLE! Seriously, if you want to game, get a PC with a 3d video card. Until then, you have no ground to stand on. Your machine isn't built to play games. You don't have the hardware to make the immense number of calculations per second required to run 3D games. Do you hammer nails with a screwdriver?

The OP really doesn't seem like a troll. His point is especially valid. MWO is less optimized than it should be. The forums are awash with people with perfectly good PC setups getting crap performance, including me.

[Pyrrho]

Vassago Rain, on 30 December 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

Frostbite is quake 3. You can shoot up he terrain just fine in cryengine, too.

It's just that you never tried it.

When you lie, angels cry rivers of blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_3

[Cube2223]

Well, in my opinion both engines are very good. But unreal engine is made to be BEAUTIFUL and is better optimized. And cryengine is made to be REALISTIC but is less optimized.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

This game doesn't stretch graphics cards at all, most seem to run at 20-40% capacity. It's the CPU that is the bottleneck. depending on the CPU/MB/RAM combination some people can run it fine on a 2 core while others have problems on a 4 core.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Azuanite, on 30 December 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

It plays smoothly, with 40 fps and the 200 ping i get for my location doesn't hamper as much as i still find all my shots go where i want it too. The graphics of the game also looks like alot better than mechwarrior.

But when i play this game, i be lucky to even hit 15 fps.

Why is this

Unrefined code is unrefined?

[DrBunji]

Am I really the only one who thinks that OP is full of ****, claiming to be running Hawken at 40fps without a graphics card?

[Stone Wall]

The Cheese, on 30 December 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

2 reasons:
1) This game and/or game engine isn't optimised (if I may use use buzzword) yet. There's still a lot of tweaking to be done to get it running smoothly on a wide range of hardware.
2) UE3 (the engine that Hawken runs on) has been around since 2004 and therefore can run Hawken smoothly on a TI calculator.

Preemptive retort: Of course I'm exaggerating with point 2, jackass. (but it will run smoothly on just about any computer that's less than 6 years old. That's not an exaggeration.)

so ITT: the OP compares a 2004 engine to Crysis 3

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

DrBunji, on 30 December 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

Am I really the only one who thinks that OP is full of ****, claiming to be running Hawken at 40fps without a graphics card?

I assumed he meant with a crappy one lol

[Carnivoris]

Thirdstar, on 30 December 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

The OP really doesn't seem like a troll. His point is especially valid. MWO is less optimized than it should be. The forums are awash with people with perfectly good PC setups getting crap performance, including me.

I built this machine about 2 years ago from second hand parts. I get 40-50 FPS every time I play, save for when I get the 4fps bug. That's being addressed by devs. Also, you have to accept that this is beta and the engine has not yet been optimized. We don't even have DX11 yet. That will come in time.

If OP wasn't trolling, he wouldn't have mentioned Hawken. I've seen this tactic before. Proponents of one game going to another game's forum and badmouthing that game. So, yeah, he's trolling.