Atomic Systems

Hello

I have recently built a new computer. My specs are:

Intel i3-2100 3.1ghz processor
8GB DDR3 Ram
ASUS HD 6770 1gb DDR5 graphics card
120GB SSD drive with train sim 2012 on
SATA Drive 7200 rpm with Windows 7 64bit on

I am curious why even with the above specs train simulator 2012 is still giving poor performance. I am suffering with low frame rates and even worse the constant stuttering. I have followed the guides and fiddled with the graphics settings but i find it does not make a difference weather its on low or high settings.

Can anyone offer any advice and what specs they find work for them on their computer?

Many thanks
Paul

With this sort of question, you normally get referred here:

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 9&t=118677

Sounds like you've been there already.

My system seems similar to yours, especially GPU, and it's also been recently built. I found the launcher settings have the greatest effect on performance: with TSX on, I've set these at Anisotropic filtering x4, no antialiasing, and I use framelock of 30 fps. In-game settings are medium-high, with detail set at about 7. For that, it's playable in the bigger stations, at around 18-20 fps with the odd sticky patch; once away from heavy scenery areas, it sits at 29 fps (locked at that), with the odd dip for passing ai traffic, and stutters and pauses here and there. I find those settings give a compromise between looks and performance that I can live with.

I didn't really build my system with the intent of playing TS2012, but with hindsight, and some of the advice on here, it seems that my system might be a bit light on GPU. I spent about £80 on the GPU; based on what I spent on the CPU, motherboard and RAM, perhaps that should have been nearer £200.

Having said that, people with much better systems are struggling. General opinion seems to be that the core game is less than optimal.

Also, some routes are heavier than others. If you think you might be able to handle a steam engine, try the Bath to Templecombe route as that is one of the lighter ones. Otherwise, try Hedborough North as that is a fairly lightweight diesel-oriented route.

However, a Core i3 and a Radeon 6770 should not be having too much trouble with framerates per se, so long as you haven't gone crazy with the settings (or with the size of your monitor). You might be running into a different problem which is (temporarily) addressed by the "30FPS Lock" option on the Launcher. As long as your framerates are usually at least 30fps, the "30FPS Lock" option should smooth out your experience considerably.

Low performance is normal, TSX engine is currently the most unoptimized 3d engine in pc gaming. Also RSC guys didn't tested tsx on any ATi/amd gpus so it's worse with those gpus.
Lot of us waited for the new engine as it will offload the CPU a bit. But that didn't happened, according to my tests TSX engine uses more CPU (of course still only one core) than RW2 used before, and now wasting a lot of GPU power too. Maybe it's good for the winter that comes as your pc heats up the room

crazyfrogbro wrote:Low performance is normal, TSX engine is currently the most unoptimized 3d engine in pc gaming. Also RSC guys didn't tested tsx on any ATi/amd gpus so it's worse with those gpus.
Lot of us waited for the new engine as it will offload the CPU a bit. But that didn't happened, according to my tests TSX engine uses more CPU (of course still only one core) than RW2 used before, and now wasting a lot of GPU power too. Maybe it's good for the winter that comes as your pc heats up the room

Do you have any facts to support this view or are you simply being cynical and guessing?

If it's the first, I'm sure we'd all look forward to you sharing your knowledge this is based on. if the second, then such comments are unhelpful, unwelcome and arguably breach forum rule 3, so please don't make them.

Ash

Do you have the F4HUD enabled or disabled?

Here's my PC spec: i5-2500K and Radeon 6970 (both unclocked), 4GB RAM and a 'bog standard' SATA 7200rpm hard drive, display is a Samsung 23" 1680x1050.

I'm getting an almost perfect running of RW3 in TSX. The initial settings are Anisotropic x 8 and MLAA MSAA x 8. In-Game settings are all at MAX.

The framerate is locked at 30 and the count very, very rarely dips below that.

Draw your own conclusions.

jetstream wrote:Here's my PC spec: i5-2500K and Radeon 6970 (both unclocked), 4GB RAM and a 'bog standard' SATA 7200rpm hard drive, display is a Samsung 23" 1680x1050.

I'm getting an almost perfect running of RW3 in TSX. The initial settings are Anisotropic x 8 and MLAA MSAA x 8. In-Game settings are all at MAX.

The framerate is locked at 30 and the count very, very rarely dips below that.

Draw your own conclusions.

And do you use the F4 HUD?

Well for one, in TSX mode there isn't any point in enabling any of the anti alias below the SSAA levels, but even then its pretty pointless since they are performance hogging for what little the do, the new rendering method for TSX mode pretty much makes MLAA and MSAA impossible to use and no benefit comes from having those settings enabled.

The biggest effects which currently hit performance are shadows, water, passenger density and the scenery detail, shadows have the bigger performance hit, unless you have a suitable high end graphics card you might aswell honestly switch it off, lower levels of shadow causes glitchy and flickering shadows and higher stuff taxes the system to much when all the shadows cast all over the environments.

I wouldn't say TSX engine is the worse un-optimised graphics engine ever, I've seen far worse than what TSX mode does to a system, the problem mostly with TSX right now is its still not utilising both CPU and GPU resources enough or correctly enough to get a smooth running, for example its still using far more CPU than GPU even though its got slightly better utillisation of both compared to RW2.

The F4 HUD doesn't really effect performance, nore should it have any deciding factor on performance as its just interface UI and I have seen little difference between FPS with it on and off.

There is however a noticable pause which one can experience when tile loading happens and everything stutter-pauses for a second or less, this is something which still needs to be looked into by RS.com as it causes FPS to tank to 14 or lower before returning to normal, this has the effect of breaking up sounds ingame but also causing a cycle of memory usage I've found after repetitively happening and seems in some way to cause the memory leak which is rumoured to appear every now again. While I cannot prove if the memory leak is consistant I do see 6.9gigs of my RAM out of 8 gigs being used by TS2012 at times before it seems to run sluggish, which in past experiences with other games displaying the same behaviour is a memory leak of some kind.

Anyway besides all this, what I mentioned at the front about shadows and water shader should be a starting point then knocking down other settings, to TS2012 is alittle more optimised than it is now max settings will just be far more sluggish than lowering the settings to a acceptable level which can be achieved with some fiddle time.

good morning everyone


with respect, i feel with everyone who has problems with the new game engine, and i understand the frustration of some guys.
i got some problems too, and i'm sure that the guys from RS.com are working hard to fix the complications.
but guys, how many topics do we need for the same problems/comments?

as i joined this forum in 2008, i was a little bit proud of it. it was very informative.
in the end, it's only a game. don't strain your nervs too much.

sorry moderators for my post.

regards

Rail-X

crumplezone wrote:with TSX right now is its still not utilising both CPU and GPU resources enough or correctly enough to get a smooth running, for example its still using far more CPU than GPU even though its got slightly better utillisation of both compared to RW2.

With shadows on it uses all gpu resources as it can (i've never seen a game that have so big impact when i enable shadows) But yeah without them it's same like before. Uses 1 cpu core, and not much gpu. For me TSX looks like not a new engine, but the old engine with added view distance and changed shadowing methods. Moreover, who makes a directx 9 engine for late 2011? That's why i think it's just the old engine with some features added plus a new name.

RailX wrote:good morning everyone


with respect, i feel with everyone who has problems with the new game engine, and i understand the frustration of some guys.
i got some problems too, and i'm sure that the guys from RS.com are working hard to fix the complications.
but guys, how many topics do we need for the same problems/comments?

as i joined this forum in 2008, i was a little bit proud of it. it was very informative.
in the end, it's only a game. don't strain your nervs too much.

sorry moderators for my post.

regards

Rail-X

No need to apologise Rail-X, that's one of the best posts on this issue that I've seen!

A few members need to understand that the moderation team have no problems with criticism, provided it's constructive. However, what we've seen of late is a procession of threads, all pretty much saying the same thing, and when views are questioned or countered, exactly the same points have been repeated over and over again.

To answer Rail-x's rhetorical question "How many threads do we need?" Ideally only one - focused, thorough, containing all the problems people are having rationally stated. Reasoned debate is fine, particularly if supported by contact with RSC's support line.

it's only pointless repetition that gets everybody nowhere and dilutes the argument.

Ash

To answer Rail-x's rhetorical question "How many threads do we need?" Ideally only one - focused

This would be a great help. What I mean is that a proper "RW3 Techincal Issues" Thread Stickied or a dedicated section of the forums. That way the main disscussion doesnt get clogged up and it also makes searching for a fix to any particular issue easier.

Ive often done a search relating to a particular problem. Sometimes I get the info i need (Thanks very much) often I get a number of threads all mentioning the same thing but with no conclusion. Now I appreciate that a solution may not be known, but its frustrating having to check so many different threads in order to get the same (lack) of result.

If there were a dedicated thread (Moderated so that only tech issues were discussed) I think it would be very very useful.

Just MHO.

This is really strange. I'm getting the exact same performance as you folks with computers 3 times as powerful as mine.

q6600 Overclocked to 3.6
6gb ddr2 900mhz ram
9800gtx video card overclock by 75mhz on the core.

launcher: (driver level forced Anisotropy at 16x), aa at ssaa 2x2.
in game: everything low except view distance-medium, object and terrain- highest, shadows, very high, scenery-10.

FPS locked at 25