51 replies to this topic

[Azuanite]

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

Edited by Azuanite, 30 December 2012 - 04:39 AM.

[GODzillaGSPB]

What happens if you play any recent AAA title with your no graphic card PC?

[WolvesX]

Mechwarrior is an AAA imo, but very poorly optimized. They really really need to work on this.

[The Cheese]

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.)

Edited by The Cheese, 30 December 2012 - 04:48 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

This is cryengine 3.
It's made to look extremely pretty.

Hawken is unreal. It's made to run on toasters. 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.

I dislike the ancient unreal games, because they're holding everybody back.

[The Cheese]

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

I dislike the ancient unreal games, because they're holding everybody back.

How so?

[J4ckInthebox]

the fact that you are able to run MWO at 15 FPS with an integrated graphic card is amazing in itself.

Edited by J4ckInthebox, 30 December 2012 - 05:21 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

The Cheese, on 30 December 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

How so?

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.

[Colaessus]

I second this:
the fact that you are able to run MWO at 15 FPS with an interated graphic card is amazing in itself.

About Hawkens, no one cares.

Edited by Amro One, 30 December 2012 - 05:21 AM.

[Pr8Dator]

Seriously, Unreal engine is still the tried and proven engine... I would have loved MWO more if it is Unreal based rather than cryengine.. makes my laptop and PC cry...

But yeah, I know unreal engine asks for a lot of royalty... 25% is really too much to pay... I hope PGI is actually paying lesser for Cryengine3 or there would be really no advantage at all using it.

Edited by Pr8Dator, 30 December 2012 - 05:23 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Pr8Dator, on 30 December 2012 - 05:22 AM, said:

Seriously, Unreal engine is still the tried and proven engine... I would have loved MWO more if it is Unreal based rather than cryengine.. makes my laptop and PC cry...

But yeah, I know unreal engine asks for a lot of royalty... 25% is really too much to pay... I hope PGI is actually paying lesser for Cryengine3 or there would be really no advantage at all using it.

It looks terrible. It's old, it's washed up, the colors are always brown and muted, and compared to what happened to DX3, well... If you want to play old, brown games, that have tiny textures, you can buy an xbox 360.

I want my modern games to look modern. It kinda defeats the purpose of even making new games if they're all going to be the exact same one. You need to make progress.

[Pr8Dator]

Vassago Rain, on 30 December 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

It looks terrible. It's old, it's washed up, the colors are always brown and muted, and compared to what happened to DX3, well... If you want to play old, brown games, that have tiny textures, you can buy an xbox 360.

I want my modern games to look modern. It kinda defeats the purpose of even making new games if they're all going to be the exact same one. You need to make progress.

Well, the washed up colors are due to the ambience occlusion... we get that in caustic valley too. Remove all that filters and Unreal actually look very good. 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.

[Vassago Rain]

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

Well, the washed up colors are due to the ambience occlusion... we get that in caustic valley too. Remove all that filters and Unreal actually look very good. 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.

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

It's just that you never tried it.

[Red squirrel]

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.

I think you mix up FPS which mainly depends on your Graphics card (my 6 year old PC with a new GTX570 runs fine)
and netcode issues (hitdetection)

But wow 15 FPS what integrated graphic are you using!? Haswell prototype because you work at an IBM Fab?

[Barghest Whelp]

Yeah, I don't really feel that the cry-engine gives me "that" much more eyecandy compared to U3-engine. At any rate, the drop in performance is not in any way justified imo. In fact, I was quite dissapointed when I noticed that MWO was running on cry-engine 3.

The farcry games have been known to eat up a lot of resources. Even farcry 1 runs choppy on a midrange modern computer, at least at max detail, and there are plenty of games newer games that look way better and require far less resources.

But in response to the OP: because of battletech! That is all.

[Pr8Dator]

Barghest Whelp, on 30 December 2012 - 05:41 AM, said:

Yeah, I don't really feel that the cry-engine gives me "that" much more eyecandy compared to U3-engine. At any rate, the drop in performance is not in any way justified imo. In fact, I was quite dissapointed when I noticed that MWO was running on cry-engine 3.

The farcry games have been known to eat up a lot of resources. Even farcry 1 runs choppy on a midrange modern computer, at least at max detail, and there are plenty of games newer games that look way better and require far less resources.

But in response to the OP: because of battletech! That is all.

Cryengine3 was the reason I turned away from this game initially when the founders packages were offered. When I watched that Caustic Valley trailer back then, I only thought to myself... OH SH*T. I only returned to this game last month because I could try it for free and oh well, been stuck since then. but really, your eyes eventually get used to any kind of graphics after a while and it won't feel any different. What matters really is the quality of gameplay and low fps really isn't quality gameplay for an online game.

However, that said, the recent patch proved that there is still much improvements that can be made to this engine, esp with the future intro of DX11, so lets be patient and see how it does.

Edited by Pr8Dator, 30 December 2012 - 05:47 AM.

[Flapdrol]

different games have different requirements.

[Texas Merc]

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?

[Taizan]

Quake 3 runs better than MWO on my laptop.

Apples & oranges, maybe try running Crysis 2, Homefront or any other CE3 game and then compare how it runs on your low performance system? I don't have the best GPU (ATI 5770) and still get around 35 - 45 FPS which I find quite decent.

[Barghest Whelp]

Pr8Dator, on 30 December 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Cryengine3 was the reason I turned away from this game initially when the founders packages were offered. When I watched that Caustic Valley trailer back then, I only thought to myself... OH SH*T. I only returned to this game last month because I could try it for free and oh well, been stuck since then. but really, your eyes eventually get used to any kind of graphics after a while and it won't feel any different. What matters really is the quality of gameplay and low fps really isn't quality gameplay for an online game.

However, that said, the recent patch proved that there is still much improvements that can be made to this engine, esp with the future intro of DX11, so lets be patient and see how it does.

Yeah, that'spretty much what I'm thinking. I mean don't get me wrong, I've been hooked on this game since I learned of it's existance, but if the fps drop below a playable level, I'll probably stop playing until I can afford a computer that can run it. My problem right now is that it's hardly an option to get a desktop because I need to stay mobile, and I already shelled out a good amount for this laptop.

I still feel it was a poor choice of engine for an online only game, but like I said, I still love the game. Not going to stop playing because of it. Gameplay is where it's at for me too. Let's hope they are able to optimize the game further.