228 replies to this topic

[Red Klown X]

How people can have so much time for make this topic troll ?

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Signal27, on 20 February 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

I'm having a problem with "greyed out" textures on certain maps. But from what I understand the devs are well aware of this and working on it.

Are you using an ATI card?? I had that issue, and deleting the shader cache only worked temporarily. Going in to the CCC and disabling "Surface Format Optimization" fixed the issue permanently for me; I haven't had issues with missing mech textures since then either.

[Spoon]

Thontor, on 20 February 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

I also think you are nuts if you think the 2009 MW5 trailer looks better than MWO.
But hey, that's must my opinion.

I think you must have been dropped on the head as a baby if you don't think the 2009 MW5 trailer looks better and far more immersive (destructible terrain anyone? a city that looks slightly more detailed than the boxes that go for buildings in mwo etc). But hey, that's just my opinion.

tyrone dunkirk, on 20 February 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

This. MWO doesn't have top of the line graphics that push the limits and puts every other game to shame, it's so miserable. Then again, I do understand the gripes that it utilizes the cryengine and doesn't have the same graphical prowess as Crysis 3, but the fun gameplay coupled with the still-sharp visuals is really a combination that makes this game really fun for me to play; not to mention it's the revival of mechwarrior, so that's kind of cool too.

Actually MWO is anything but sharp. As the devs attempt to cover everything up in massive post processing blur and filters.

tyrone dunkirk, on 20 February 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Again, I don't usually play super high-end graphically capable games

That much is very apparant!

tyrone dunkirk, on 20 February 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

and prefer console gamplay to PC ( personal preference ) but MWO has some of the sharpest visuals I've seen out of quite a few games.

Considering you prefer ancient console hardware, I'm not suprised you havent had much to compare mwo with!

Mister Blastman, on 20 February 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

I've played lots of games in the last decade including Crysis and Far Cry 3. I'm happy with MWO. It looks fine.

Gameplay > Graphics ANY AND EVERY DAY!

The more time devs spend on the game and not graphics, the better the experience for all of us in the long run.

I'd usually sort of agree.
But I really liked to play mech games to become immersed and to feel like im in a big stompy mech.
MWO is really failing to do that for me since it has such lifeless terrain that is so devoid of little details.

[Tice Daurus]

Ok you petulant children, let's spell this out so we can get this out of the way...

Right now, this game...still in BETA. Graphics issues are the LAST things on the mind for this guys. I'm sure they could slap in DX 11 graphics fairly quickly here if they wanted to, but right now, it's the important things, like weapon balance, bug fixes, engine stability and most importantly NETCODING is what the DEV's need to focus on FIRST. The game needs the bugs worked out as much as possible. When that stuff can be addressed, they'll get to it.

And let's add that the 2009 trailer was based from stuff that they had to throw out of the Microsoft/Activision coding because they are on the CryEngine 3. And they are doing all of the coding from scratch. This is not stuff you can slap and paste in from Crysis 2.

IT'S ALL NEW CODE. Which they have to write from scratch to create the destructable environments, game engine, etc., etc....

And here's the other thing...for this being on a DX 9 platform of graphics, the game is a hell of a lot better than what I've been used to in the past. So bottom line, it's coming along. Let them do their job.

[Ricktor Black]

Inertiaman, on 20 February 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

I'm not sure you've adequately compared it to any other new titles in that case.

Well, to me it looks great where it counts. The mechs are amazing and look perfect to me, I wouldn't change a thing. Also all the weapons effects are spot on and I wouldn't change those. If there are sacrifices in the rest of the areas to make sure the mechs and weapon effects are great and the game still runs well.... then so be it. I never once looked at the game and thought it looked ugly. Maybe it's because I have a decent computer and keep the settings cranked and it runs at 60fps? Not sure.

[Chunkylad]

This game looks amazing. OP has obviously never played the older Mechwarrior games. I have been nostalgiaing back to MW4M the past few days and just dread the lack of detail compared to this. Once DX11 comes out I am picking up another 560Ti for some SLI action. Will be a fun project fitting that in my mATX build. I want to max this, I don't like medium settings as much as ultra, but I do get so much better fps.

[nksharp]

M A L I C E, on 20 February 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

You know what else makes this game look old?

Vanilla Oblivion...

Yes, compare a game that came out in 2012 to a game that came out in 2006, BRILLIANT.

[Spoon]

Mazzyplz, on 20 February 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

you can't make the graphics like single player, this is multi player with 24 people (soon - for now 16 people)
running on a variety of rigs.

if this was single player the graphics would be the full power of cry engine. but it's kept simple with low textures etc so you can load it fast, play it fast, no hickups, and without too much advantage over someone with a bad rig

As someone else already pointed out earlier in this thread. Yes you can.
That's the wonderful thing about the PC, you can make the game scale. That's what all the little sliders in the graphical options are for.

Then again Battlefield 3 alone completely invalidates your post, as that game sounds and looks amazing and has support for way more players in a match than MWO will probably ever have.

[Karl Split]

cant say i could care less if the graphics are super shiney or just ok. I want cw and bug fixes and new maps stop trying to pull people off useful development just to make it marginally more shiney.

Personally i still quite happily play my atari st games, its gameplay not graphics that make a great game

[Donnie Silveray]

From what I see the main general problem with MWO is that it is running on DX9, an outdated API when the game itself and it's assets were designed for DX10 or 11. This has a larger impact than you probably realize, as not everything is the fault of the engine or renderer. It is in fact, the artist's fault, but this situation is beyond their control.

To explain: A skilled artist and programmer can make a game that looks ungodly good despite it using archaic gear. This is true in virtually every situation in life. A man can make a beautiful animated short using nothing but colored sand on a projector. A man can screw your perspective with chalk on a sidewalk. In this case with MWO the artists are producing assets meant for a higher DX version than what we've got. In the end we're left with something the artists never intended. It's like someone drew a great painting but a collection of lines made a certain object look like a ****, which screws up the whole meaning of the image.

Now on the other hand... if every asset was made to take advantage of whatever shortcomings DX9 has it is very likely we wouldn't have this argument. If not then we simply blame the artists for being average.

[Dishevel]

Spoon, on 20 February 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

As someone else already pointed out earlier in this thread. Yes you can.
That's the wonderful thing about the PC, you can make the game scale. That's what all the little sliders in the graphical options are for.

Then again Battlefield 3 alone completely invalidates your post, as that game sounds and looks amazing and has support for way more players in a match than MWO will probably ever have.

**** I love BF3.
If I could run a big stompy mech on their maps...
Destructible terrain, decent textures.

Of course then I would want Mechs, Armor, Infantry, Air and Dropships.
It is 2013 and I really am spoiled. What I want from Mech Warrior is ... EVERYTHING.

[Spoon]

Tice Daurus, on 20 February 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Ok you petulant children, let's spell this out so we can get this out of the way...

Right now, this game...still in BETA. Graphics issues are the LAST things on the mind for this guys. I'm sure they could slap in DX 11 graphics fairly quickly here if they wanted to, but right now, it's the important things, like weapon balance, bug fixes, engine stability and most importantly NETCODING is what the DEV's need to focus on FIRST. The game needs the bugs worked out as much as possible. When that stuff can be addressed, they'll get to it.

Hahahaha

oh
wow

hahaha

Are there still people saying that? "GAIZ GAIZ, SHUT UP ITS BETA"
Thats what people were saying half a year ago too and before that. Have you still not woken up to reality?
The game won't magically become better looking by just slapping Dx11 on it. Wake uuuuup.
All the graphical assets (models/textures) are still going to be the same thing. Dx11 won't suddenly turn a 256^ texture into a 1024^. The maps as you see them now are pretty much 'what you see is what you get'. Sure, the devs will probably add some more details here and there over time. But the game won't mysteriously turn into something amazing looking overnight.
What MWO needs is 3 dudes that specialize in level design and terrain doodads/buildings/plants and can churn out amazing map after amazing map. It's just a lack of available talent.

Donnie Silveray, on 20 February 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

From what I see the main general problem with MWO is that it is running on DX9, an outdated API when the game itself and it's assets were designed for DX10 or 11. This has a larger impact than you probably realize, as not everything is the fault of the engine or renderer. It is in fact, the artist's fault, but this situation is beyond their control.

To explain: A skilled artist and programmer can make a game that looks ungodly good despite it using archaic gear. This is true in virtually every situation in life. A man can make a beautiful animated short using nothing but colored sand on a projector. A man can screw your perspective with chalk on a sidewalk. In this case with MWO the artists are producing assets meant for a higher DX version than what we've got. In the end we're left with something the artists never intended. It's like someone drew a great painting but a collection of lines made a certain object look like a ****, which screws up the whole meaning of the image.

Now on the other hand... if every asset was made to take advantage of whatever shortcomings DX9 has it is very likely we wouldn't have this argument. If not then we simply blame the artists for being average.

No, sorry. That's not how it works, mate.

[Yemo]

Signal27, on 20 February 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

I'm having a problem with "greyed out" textures on certain maps. But from what I understand the devs are well aware of this and working on it.

It is most likely not the cache, the cache is just "storing" the problem. At least for me it was. Deleting the cache meant a few problem free games, then it came back.
As recommended somewhere else I made a new application profile in my catalyst control center (then => games => 3D application settings) for the MWOClient.exe. I switched off something like "surface optimization" in "Texture filter" (have a non english ui, something like that) and dont have that problem anymore.

Edited by Yemo, 20 February 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Spoon, on 20 February 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

I'd usually sort of agree.
But I really liked to play mech games to become immersed and to feel like im in a big stompy mech.
MWO is really failing to do that for me since it has such lifeless terrain that is so devoid of little details.

Well even compared to MWLL, MWO looks decent. MWLL looks worse in many ways but has superior "details" that make your mechs--even a tiny Raven, feel huge.

Yeah, MWO could use more of those tiny details like cars and little houses with intricate detail like MWLL tries to do. Overall though, I think it looks fine.

The sense of scale at least could be better.

[Spr1ggan]

Zapmunk, on 20 February 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

r_ColorGrading = 0
r_DepthOfField = 0

Half the game's graphics problems solved.

How do i do that?

[xhrit]

This game looks way better then what ran in the Tesla pods.

I am soooo happy.

[SUBZERO8K]

I think the main issues with the game are:

- Inconsistent textures
- The Depth of Field effect
- Their LoD solution

I don't see any reason as to why they are using the DoF effect. I believe they have stated that it's a balancing technique or something, but you still CAN see the enemies at a distance, just as a blurry mess. Activate Heat Vision and you can see them just fine. I'd like to the the DoF removed, as it would make the game look much better. That is provided they find a better LoD solution, which theoretically, should be able to come in a more elegant fashion with tesselation in the DX11 update. Tesselation should be a lot smoother than the current mesh swapping we are seeing that's quite jarring.

I think if they removed the filters in the game it would look a lot more beautiful.

[nksharp]

Nope. Oblivion looks like ****, crysis 1 maybe looks better, especially modded.

[jakucha]

Looks decent as it is, and will look much better when we get DX11 or whatever.

[Tice Daurus]

Spoon, on 20 February 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Hahahaha

oh
wow

hahaha

Are there still people saying that? "GAIZ GAIZ, SHUT UP ITS BETA"
Thats what people were saying half a year ago too and before that. Have you still not woken up to reality?
The game won't magically become better looking by just slapping Dx11 on it. Wake uuuuup.
All the graphical assets (models/textures) are still going to be the same thing. Dx11 won't suddenly turn a 256^ texture into a 1024^. The maps as you see them now are pretty much 'what you see is what you get'. Sure, the devs will probably add some more details here and there over time. But the game won't mysteriously turn into something amazing looking overnight.
What MWO needs is 3 dudes that specialize in level design and terrain doodads/buildings/plants and can churn out amazing map after amazing map. It's just a lack of available talent.


No, sorry. That's not how it works, mate.

Gee Spoon, maybe if you quoted my ENTIRE quote you would have read the point in which I said, "Let them work on it."

You know, I'm not a developer or a coder of games. However, the DEV's had said in the past that they would rather make sure the game work correctly with minimal bugs and a game that stable at a rate of 95% or better before they work on the graphics of the game. And maybe you're right, it might take some serious work to up it from the DX 9 to DX 11 graphics. Again, I don't know. But at least I can be decent enough to admit when I'm wrong and not be a jerk about it. Do you know why people are still saying it's BETA?

And I will agree maybe it is a lack of available talent or not enough talent. Or maybe, just maybe, that they are working on it still and it's still unfinished and that they've already done the work but want to make sure that the aren't any problems with it before releasing it. You know, doublechecking their work first before releasing it and making sure they don't look like a-holes because they want to do the job right the first time. But given the fact that this is PGI and not EA or Blizzard or Microsoft, they are doing a damn fine job. Imagine some snotty nosed kid, while you're at work doing something that you know would take 8 hours of solid work to do on a major project, and then after you get done, and you're happy with the work you've done have that 11-year old kid and go and say, "Well, that could look better and it could have been done faster had you had people better than you doing the job."

Before you go and criticize, how about acknowledging they are doing what they can with what they've got and the DEV's aren't robots who work 24/7/365, mmmkay?

Edited by Tice Daurus, 20 February 2013 - 10:03 AM.