Atomic Systems

ightenhill wrote:Why does (as an example) Barstow look like its had a whitewash in Legacy mode? We keep being told it should be the same as RW2 .. The fact is its not and its a mess..(or is it just me that sees this)

As in 'whitewash' do you mean the brightness?

Just for general calibration, I'm running an Intel P4 at 3 GHz, 3 GB, GeForce 7600 GS, Win XP Pro 32.

I've only had a couple of runs on Oxford-Paddington so far since the upgrade; no specific problems, but I echo the comments about needing to turn the detail down further than with RW2. TSX is out of the question, and at native full-screen 1280x1024 I've got scenery around 5 with *everything* else at minimum / off. 14 fps happens a *lot*, although I'd describe it as "playable" - just.

It would be nice if there were a few legacy improvements in the pipeline...

ttjph wrote:....but I echo the comments about needing to turn the detail down further than with RW2.....

Not strictly true, you may find you're on the in-game 'Low' setting but the detail levels are RW3 are higher than RW2, so a setting of 'Low' in RW3 equates to a 'Medium' setting in RW2. Quick check--set the water detail to low in RW3 and have a look at a river.

'Low' 'Medium' and 'High' are only relative to each other in the confines of the game version, not necessarily across versions.

RSBen wrote:

Kromaatikse wrote:The 8500GT is indeed a rather weak GPU. Until the Adaptive Bloom bug is fixed, why not try turning down the screen resolution to reduce the load on it?

I'm not so sure what you're seeing is bloom. I can say with 100% certainty that the bloom post processing effect is turned off in legacy, looking at the code and testing it. What you're likely seeing is a trick with mip mapping to give the effect of light glow at long distances. Post a screenshot of what you see, so I can verify this.

Well, here goes. These are from my main PC with the settings adjusted accordingly. I reused the diorama from the graphics settings FAQ - while setting that up, I simply could not find any difference between Adaptive Bloom being on or off.
This is probably the most revealing one. The headlamp of the 47 is clearly glowing over a much wider area than it's lens. Also, the Adaptive Multisampling bug still seems to be there if you look at the 166's cab wall.
But if I zoom in to the 47, the glow disappears. So whatever it is, it's not dependent only on distance.
The same type of glow appears on the 166's main headlamp.
And this one is with TSX *on* but Adaptive Bloom *off*. The F7 headlamp's glow is most definitely soft around the edges. With TSX off, this looks totally different with hard edges.

All of the above situations are what I first expected Adaptive Bloom to be used for, so I looked there first to find any difference between having bloom on or off - since I needed screenshots to demonstrate the difference to others. I eventually gave up.

Kromaatikse, why is the 166 cab see-through? Sorry for the threadjack; just intrigued.

gptech wrote:Not strictly true, you may find you're on the in-game 'Low' setting but the detail levels are RW3 are higher than RW2, so a setting of 'Low' in RW3 equates to a 'Medium' setting in RW2. Quick check--set the water detail to low in RW3 and have a look at a river.

'Low' 'Medium' and 'High' are only relative to each other in the confines of the game version, not necessarily across versions.

Ah, OK - good info.

Doesn't help me with framerates though! New PC sooner rather than later, methinks...

Kromaatikse, Many of the lights have an alpha poly which gives it a glow anyway, no matter is bloom is on or off.

d

Not strictly true, you may find you're on the in-game 'Low' setting but the detail levels are RW3 are higher than RW2, so a setting of 'Low' in RW3 equates to a 'Medium' setting in RW2.

That may well to true but I can't even load WCML North all I get is a blank screen and that is with the settings almost as low as they can go!! This never happened before!

Also the issue with Bristol to Exeter on two different scenarios the game crashed just outside Bristol in exactly the same place, also with settings pretty low. This also never happened before!!

And the sudden plethora of SBHH which again never occurred before.

I think what I will try tonight is try everything on the lowest possible settings or turned off and try and work upwards!!

I realise my system is a bit of an old relic but I could run RW2 before with little problem!

I was getting SBHH galore on just trying to change the scenario rolling stock on one of my routes on my main desktop computer. Doing the same thing on my new laptop produced no SBHH or crashes at all. This is in legacy or TSX mode. My conclusion is that repeated SBHH are simply due to the some computers struggling to process information and not a bug in the program as such.

Absolutely and I wasn't suggesting the SBHH were bugs I realise that it is probably a problem with my system.

I fully accept that I will have to upgrade my computer at some point, unfortunately funds are going to restoring an Austin Maxi at the moment! However, I did assume that I would be able use Railworks in legacy mode in the same way I could run Railworks 2!

Recieved an email from Richard Armstrong at AP yesterday about the Lighting Enhancement Pack

Understandably and unfortunately, because of restraints on his time, he is only able to support one version of the simulator.

As far as I know, AP's scenario and sound packs are supported as one across the board

Thanks for the info Richard

RSderek wrote:Kromaatikse, Many of the lights have an alpha poly which gives it a glow anyway, no matter is bloom is on or off.

In which case, how on earth do I see a difference with the filter on or off? I looked quite hard to find one and failed.

The fact is, GPU load *is* higher in RW3 without TSX, than it was in RW2. If it isn't the bloom filter, what is it?

ihavenonamenoreallyidont wrote:Kromaatikse, why is the 166 cab see-through? Sorry for the threadjack; just intrigued.

I believe that's the old shader bug with Adaptive Antialiasing showing up again, as explained in the caption. It doesn't show up with TSX on because Multisampling is disabled by it.

The fact is, GPU load *is* higher in RW3 without TSX, than it was in RW2. If it isn't the bloom filter, what is it?

Would this be the reason some of us are in fact having trouble in legacy mode where we didn't in RW2. Suddenly are poor old graphics cards are being asked to do more work than they used to?!!

Sorry for the "numpty" question but I am not what you would call an expert on such matters!!

I'm simply basing my statement on the reverse situation - on a machine with a fast enough CPU but a poor old graphics card, RW3 with TSX off is slower than RW2 (and I have a backup copy of RW2 to prove it with).