16 replies to this topic

[BaronSaturday]

So I see a lot of people complain about optimization. I will say that HAWKEN needs some better optimization. I don't think anyone will argue against that point. However, in this video, I go into discussion about expectations. Where I see complaints come from, for the most part, is on the low end and high end. Everyone in the middle seems quite happy.

There's a rule of thumb with computers. Spend too little and you're wasting money. Spend too much and you're wasting money. Especially with graphics cards. There's a sweet spot for GPUs. Some say it's as broad as $100-$200. I say it's between $125-$175 with some exceptions above and below. In this range you will get the most power per dollar.

There's a psychology behind the $200+ range. You're expectations will be super high. Unfortunately, if you buy a GTX 990 or an R9 390x, no game will use all of it's abilities. You'll get cool things sprinkled in and you're going to max out every game and never drop below a jillion fps, but it won't be what you expected.

As for optimization, in this video you will see that my $119 card never dropped below 35 fps (save for a brief RAM blovkage), it stayed mostly in the mid 40s and went into the high 50s on max settings with PhysX on while recording via a webcam. So, is HAWKEN as poorly optimized as some say or is just kinda poorly optimized?

[Hyginos]

 if you buy a GTX 990 or an R9 390x, no game will use all of it's abilities. 

 

I disagree. Not only will games continue to get more intensive, but people can already push the limits of flagship cards with high resolutions and games like Witcher 3 (and 2 even) have settings that are included with the idea that all but the mightiest of cards will not handle them. Additionally, If you want to run a 144hz monitor, you'll probably need a card in the over $300 range to hit that frame rate (at least in Hawken). 

 

Note also that your sweetspot will change based on your expected minimum performance as well as your disposable income. For example, you state that your card hovered around 40 FPS. I would consider that an utter failure.

[BaronSaturday]

I disagree. Not only will games continue to get more intensive, but people can already push the limits of flagship cards with high resolutions and games like Witcher 3 (and 2 even) have settings that are included with the idea that all but the mightiest of cards will not handle them. Additionally, If you want to run a 144hz monitor, you'll probably need a card in the over $300 range to hit that frame rate (at least in Hawken). 

 

Note also that your sweetspot will change based on your expected minimum performance as well as your disposable income. For example, you state that your card hovered around 40 FPS. I would consider that an utter failure.

I don't think you understand what the sweet spot is.  It's the area in which you gain the most power for every dollar spent.  Why you consider 40fps a complete failure is beyond me.  Once you start hitting to mid 40-60 is right where it needs to be.  40 is hitting the point where the only way to notice the difference between 40 and 60 or 40 and 120 is to swing the camera around so fast that it becomes unrealistic to do so in any match anyway.

Edit:  Given that this game has a turn cap, beyond 35 is not required by any means and would likely go unnoticed were it not for bench marking software.

Edited by BaronSaturday, 19 August 2015 - 10:14 AM.

[Hyginos]

I don't think you understand what the sweet spot is.  It's the area in which you gain the most power for every dollar spent.  Why you consider 40fps a complete failure is beyond me.  Once you start hitting to mid 40-60 is right where it needs to be.  40 is hitting the point where the only way to notice the difference between 40 and 60 or 40 and 120 is to swing the camera around so fast that it becomes unrealistic to do so in any match anyway.

 

 

I occasionally drop my monitor refresh from 144Hz to 60Hz so skyrim physics engine doesn't break, and if I switch to Hawken without changing it back I notice almost instantly.

 

The point I was trying to make is that getting the best dollar for money measured by raw bench performance is irrelevant if you fail to hit the minimum (which, again, will vary by person). If you want to run Hawken at 4k, or across a 5790X1080 array I highly doubt you can hit a playable frame rate (even by your standards) with a sub 200$ card. Or if you're like me and have absurdly high standards you'll probably need something in the GTX 970 range at least to be satisfied with performance.

Edited by Hyginos, 19 August 2015 - 10:27 AM.

[Meraple]

[Video showing FPS in exploration mode]

Exploration mode tends to give alot more FPS than actual multiplayer matches from what I know.

Since the latter is where most players spend the bulk of their time in this game, I'd much rather see the FPS there.

Edited by (KDR) Meraple, 19 August 2015 - 10:49 AM.

[Draigun]

No, it's horribly optimized for the entire spectrum of desktop and laptop horsepower.

 

Sure, the value for the gpu is vastly superior towards that "sweet spot" you mentioned, but ultimately, many enthusiasts and consumers would rather future proof their solution to ensure optimal performance for at least another few years.

 

You will probably get around 30 to 45 max in actual games, as Meraple is correct. Just like offline TDM bot practice, offline exploration has no latency or netcode to process. A real and accurate test into how Hawken handles certain optimization should be tested through an actual mutli-player match.

 

Also, whether or not this is a bug in the engine's ability to process frames real-time, this can happen on hardware that can run 144+ frames per second on nepacaka's custom INI files:

Spoiler

 

[CrimsonKaim]

Solution for everything: http://www.geforce.c.../specifications

[XPloyt]

The first thing that improved my gameplay was unlocking the 60 fps framerate cap and allowing it to jump up 122 - while viewing on a 60hz screen I might add - and it removed around 10ms of input lag. It consistently kept me over 2000 mmr. Screen-tearing was never really an issue, but maybe that's due to the turn-rate cap.

 

 I was quite impressed in the subtlety of the way the mechs shake within the walking animations after moving to a 144mhz screen, same with hellfire missiles.

[BaronSaturday]

I occasionally drop my monitor refresh from 144Hz to 60Hz so skyrim physics engine doesn't break, and if I switch to Hawken without changing it back I notice almost instantly.

 

The point I was trying to make is that getting the best dollar for money measured by raw bench performance is irrelevant if you fail to hit the minimum (which, again, will vary by person). If you want to run Hawken at 4k, or across a 5790X1080 array I highly doubt you can hit a playable frame rate (even by your standards) with a sub 200$ card. Or if you're like me and have absurdly high standards you'll probably need something in the GTX 970 range at least to be satisfied with performance.

Firstly, the sweet spot isn't a subjective value.  Your standards speak nothing to raw power per dollar.  That's the point of the sweet spot.  Your sweet spot and THE sweet spot aren't the same.

Secondly, I'm not trying to tell anyone not to buy a $200+ GPU.  But, one can't just assume that by buying in the higher price ranges, everything is going to be awesome all the time.

My point in this whole discussion is that HAWKEN, while not greatly optimized, is broadly optimized.  It will run a playable framrates on decent settings on a lot of stuff.  There's the occasional frame dip that needs to be addressed.  No getting around that.  Getting the game to a place where the high end user can be just as happy as the low end is the most important thing as far as optimization goes.  However, there's a matter of expectation that needs to be addressed.  In all of my experience in PC gaming (which goes back to virtual machines on my mac G3 having a friend come over and try to allocate the sound files for Starcraft so I could hear what was going on) the people I have heard complain the most are the people in the $200+ range.  This has only been my experience.

Seems it's been Totalbiscuit's experience as well.  I don't know how many videos he has where he's like, "I have two SLIed Titans,  IDK why this is happening."  Then I'd play the game on a 7770 and get perfectly playable rates through and through.

[Rainbow_Sheep]

In other news, I finally worked out how to turn off performance reducing power plans on my laptop which has an integrated gpu

 

.-.

[Superkamikazee]

Welcome to pc gaming folks. You don't need a high end gpu to play games on pc, but you also can't expect much from integrated graphics as well (until Skylake of course). 

 

People are complaining about optimization all while playing the game on a potato, which is to be expected since this is a free to play game. I experience no issues with a GTX 760 maxed at 1080p, a 750ti would handle this game no sweat (1080p) Hell, my old gtx 560ti handled the game without issue (1080p). People playing on horrible rigs have little excuse, this game is not demanding or taxing by todays standards, even by the standards when this game was first released it wasn't all that demanding. If a 5 yr old card (560ti) that can be had for $50 used can play it, stop crying about optimization, it's not bad. 

 

Good day.

[CraftyDus]

As for optimization, in this video you will see that my $119 card never dropped below 35 fps (save for a brief RAM blovkage), it stayed mostly in the mid 40s and went into the high 50s on max settings with PhysX on while recording via a webcam. So, is HAWKEN as poorly optimized as some say or is just kinda poorly optimized?
 

 

Vanashinkaku and Hughes would talk about testing the game a lot at a certain minimum spec machines in the lab for 30fps in cockpit broadcasts, and making adjustments to the game to fit. In this way Hawken was generally optimized. However critics of the devs often would disparage the game/maps for being poorly optimized as new content was released. 

 

hovered around 40 FPS. I would consider that a failure.

 

If my Hawken game (or any pvp shooter) would dip to 40 fps, not only would I notice, but I wouldn't be able to get away with much, or use my reaction time advantages.

 

 Once you start hitting to mid 40-60 is right where it needs to be.  40 is hitting the point where the only way to notice the difference between 40 and 60 or 40 and 120 is to swing the camera around so fast that it becomes unrealistic to do so in any match anyway.

Edit:  Given that this game has a turn cap, beyond 35 is not required by any means and would likely go unnoticed were it not for bench marking software.

 

The problem with not knowing something is that that we can't know what we do not know.

The fact is frame rates below 100 are extremely obvious, and can really throw off your game if you are accustomed to playing in high framerate conditions. 

 

I occasionally drop my monitor refresh from 144Hz to 60Hz so skyrim physics engine doesn't break, and if I switch to Hawken without changing it back I notice almost instantly.

  if you're like me ...you'll probably need something in the GTX 970 range at least to be satisfied with performance.

 

There was some controversy at a cs tourney a couple months ago when some pro players were complaining via twitter at how bs the machines the organizers provided were only getting 200 fps.

While cs is playable at 200fps, I would be searching my pc for a problem to fix if I was only getting 200fps in a match.

 

My point in this whole discussion is that HAWKEN, while not greatly optimized, is broadly optimized.  It will run a playable framrates on decent settings on a lot of stuff.  There's the occasional frame dip that needs to be addressed.  No getting around that.  Getting the game to a place where the high end user can be just as happy as the low end is the most important thing as far as optimization goes
 

 

Again Hawken was designed to play at 30 fps on some minimum spec'd machines in the lab by ADH.

But considering 30fps as ideal invites console vs pcmr type arguements.

I can get 30 fps on my laptop with plastic graphics settings.

But with dips down into 20 fps or less, I'm basically running around as a free kill in any lobby ove 1800mmr.

[TheButtSatisfier]

Is there a single document or page that one of you can post with instructions on how to optimize Hawken graphics settings? I feel ashamed for getting between 60-90 FPS on Hawken now. Most settings are turned down, too.

[CounterlogicMan]

You can mess with the ini all you want. You can theorize on what cards are optimum. The simple fact remains. There are some deep issues in UE3/Hawken's optimization that causes fps issues on almost all cards/cpu. The issues seem to be more exacerbated on AMD cards to my extreme displeasure. Most likely a consequence of all the Nvidia special treatment.

 

Why do you think they hired a engine programmer with 5+ years experience in UE3? Nipping the engine issues in the butt. 

Edited by CounterlogicMan, 20 August 2015 - 04:15 PM.

[Reippers]

Can anyone tell me the command that we type by pressing F5 to make the verification of FPS during the game?

[Hyginos]

Can anyone tell me the command that we type by pressing F5 to make the verification of FPS during the game?

 

stat fps

Edited by Hyginos, 23 August 2015 - 06:44 PM.

[Reippers]

stat fps

 

Tank you.