Ideal computer for Trainsimulator 2013

[ihavenonamenoreallyidont]

Pagefile? What pagefile?
I disabled that once I got SSD.....there's two schools on that as well....I haven't seen any performance diff either way, but it reduces wear on the SSD. It may not matter anymore with SSD technology now, but as it has not caused issues, I keep it off.

No issues here, either, with the pagefile being turned off.

[ttjph]

I tried a ramdisk for the sim and that did increase performance but I didn't do any comparisons so I can't say by how much, I followed the instructions which required you to remove the pagefile completely, never caused me any problems, but since putting my OS on an ssd I never bothered going through the faff to re install it.

What files did you put on the RAM disk, and how much memory does your system have?

I use a RAM disk on my 24 GB work PC for specific purposes (FE analysis), but I can't see how it could be used to help RW on my 4 GB home PC... hoping to be enlightened!

[gptech]

Pagefile? What pagefile?
I disabled that once I got SSD.....there's two schools on that as well....I haven't seen any performance diff either way, but it reduces wear on the SSD. It may not matter anymore with SSD technology now, but as it has not caused issues, I keep it off. In the post 32 bit world and large memory the only reason to keep would be if an ancient program just refused to live without it.

That blows another of my theories out of the water, doesn't it?

It would seem then, that the SSD has little influence when playing the game, the benefit comes from reduced loading times and allowing Windows to whizz about what it does unhampered. Any boosts in game you're getting are more from your other hardware, something we've long spouted on about---a balanced system works wonders.
There are definately 2 schools of thought regarding page file sizes and locations, another legacy from ye olden days which I suspect will go on and on and on......

We'll have to agree to differ on the BIOS flashing though, at least when it comes to doing it as a matter of course on a motherboard. I agree that todays flashing routines are far less fraught than those way back when, and certainly dual BIOS boards do give some backup for if/when it goes wrong. I've a slightly better record at flashing than you, I've never lost a board through flashing, and it is something I've done my share of; though I've seen many paperweights produced by a 'flash gone bad'---once saw a very experienced and highly respected guy suffer two bad flashes within an hour of each other.

One thing we mustn't lose sight of is the fact that the advice 'flash your mobo and re-install Windows' given in a techie forum elicits a shrug of the shoulders and a 'Yeah, I'll do that after tea' ; however, this forum is populated by *normal* people, many if not most of whom don't know, care or have the least bit of interest in their motherboards manufacturer and it's BIOS revision level. For many the 1:50, 1:100, 1:200 or whatever chance of a flash going badly is unacceptedly high, they don't have the skills to bring it back to life nor the funds to pay for it fixing so rather than take the risk they'll stay as they are--for these people a bad flash is. a killer Admittedly there are definately times when a BIOS flash is required, but when advising that we have to make sure the 'audience' fully understands the procedure and any consequences.

I think we're in danger of getting bogged down on this one, after all the thread was started about a budget system being good enough to play TS2013 well, and we've gone off somewhat onto more luxurious hardware. We glossed over one very important part, a part that would probably be of more benefit to those thinking of buying a new system or upgrading an existing one...choice of components, specifically the motherboard. We're both testament to the fact that you don't need the latest and greatest, all singing, all dancing feature laden board on the market and a board from a reputable manufacturer that offers the features that you'll use is all that's needed. Having an 'H' prefix is not a badge of shame!

I'd be very interested in your 'SSD for TS2013' benchmarks when you get round to them though, and I'll be more than happy to provide comparative observations from the 'spinner' side of the fence---incidentally, does your motherboard support Intels RST?...I'd be particularly interested to see how that fares, my (admittedly limited) experiences with SSD's have really only been with them as fast cache on servers.

[sargnickfury]

Some more rambling thoughts....

I really can't say what all is being boosted by OS on SSD. If I were to hedge a guess. I think the reason it helps to be on OS drive more in regards to frame rates to be honest is, just that the background services and OS running on a bloated platform take more away from frame rates then the speed of loading game files... So anything to speed up Windows! (also turn indexing off) If you run Anti-Virus and I surely do, any AV that is worth having for protection is going to cause a little slow down. I use kaspersky which has a gaming mode so that it doesn't bother game or it's files, but that doesn't mean it's still not doing things in background. I know some people turn AV off all together, having been a victim of some vicious viruses in the past that really destroyed my file libraries, I will never go that route....I must have either Bit Defender or Kaspersky, and Kaspersky seems to have best gaming profile atm.

The more I think about it though, putting game on SSD may help now and then when you enter a new area, and not just at load times. When PC pauses to check game cache etc I don't think cache is loaded into memory completely. Would be nice if that could be redirected. I really am not sure how and when the cache is used.

Does anyone know if TS2013 will make use of all memory? I.e. if you have a 20GB+ insane rig, will it use the maximum it can use? or is there still a cut off my program? Would be nice to just have it load everything in memory it will use. Memory has gotten so cheap it seems to be the one thing everyone has plenty of who is on a 64 bit platform.

For me the biggest differences has been my recent cpu upgrade. (and Using the command line to limit FPS to 40 helped with stutters). And knocking shadows back from best quality by one notch. But the CPU Upgrade has literally had a 15+ fps effect...it did NOT have that much effect on any other game (BF3, Metro, etc) So clearly this is a cpu intensive game. ( I was coming from a i3 2120 to a i7 3770 though) So as much as I love my SSD for quick boot ups, I'd say having a strong CPU may be a better investment for frame rates. I did not test my SSD for TS2013 performance to be honest. But in other intensive games putting OS on it probably made a 5+ fps improvement by comparison...it's biggest help has been in instant boot ups when tweaking settings etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the above mentioned Av wasn't a the major reason for SSD improvement as where it used to have really slow down boot up since AV loads first, now it's just instant.

I do think getting a QUALITY motherboard as in dependable and who made it matters, Asrock, Asus, Gigabyte being my favorites.. and you want good bus performance, but their budget boards will provide that. The super boards with high costs are really only beneficial for extreme overclocking, and for certain features which if you don't know if you need them, you likely don't. As long as the BUS is not a bottle neck to cpu and memory..it's as good as you need for most users. My p8h67 has been fine...

I will give my humble opinion on choosing best computer for your money, for normal people I would sum up in this order what to look for.

1.) GPU this matters most still and always will but as they get really expensive for diminsihing returns don't blow everything on the fastest, and latest. But more plenty of fast onboard memory is huge on this game.
2.) CPU, it doesn't have to be an i7, but check sites like Anandtech, Toms Hardware etc and compare the cpu on the pc your checking out for it's performance and how it compares. As they won't be using TS2013 for benchmarks look at whatever game seems most effected by cpu. Because ts2013 will be strongly effected by it.
3.)Motherboard Bus speed and memory...this is a highly intensive textures game...so fast memory and bus speed do matter. Many companies like Dell and Gateway etc use really substandard motherboards. You don't have to have a superboard, but you do want a quality one. Places that build PC's to your specs usually have better boards. They don't ever advertise this much anymore so check or ask.
4.) SSD will speed up boots and or loading but honestly other then load times it doesn't have as big an effect as you think, and in my opinion getting the best performance from SSD does require tinkering with things like bios, and other techie things. It's a new technology, and there have been many updates to fully take advantage of it. so it may be of even less benefit if your not tech savy. It WILL speed up boot times for OS or game depending on where you use it.
5.) Your monitor choice can have a huge impact....Super resolution monitors are not your friend for game performance no matter how good they look in store, the lower the native resolution, the more friendly to your frame rates. running a higher native resolution monitor in a lower one looks funny, and has led people to think you HAVE to run in high resolutions then you do to look good. You don't want to use a 2560x1440 monitor on anything but a beastly multi GPU gaming machine..and if you use a lower resolution it will not look very good and also will cause lag. A fast 1080p tn monitor like Benq's gaming monitor, or even better a quality 24" crt (if one can still even be found) will give you more options for lowering screen resolution, and having good frame rates while remaining crips and clear with zero lag. 1280x960 on my crt looks better then friends IPS because it runs native and smooth.... High resolution monitors means being a slave to gpu power. If you want that 27"
2560x1440 ips, be prepared for buying multiple $400 graphics cards to pump out graphics.

[gptech]

When PC pauses to check game cache etc I don't think cache is loaded into memory completely. Would be nice if that could be redirected. I really am not sure how and when the cache is used.

Thats the bit I'm interested in, particularly when related to SSD's--it is afterall what they were 'invented' for; of course the limitiations (designed or not) of the game itself play a big part here.

Does anyone know if TS2013 will make use of all memory?

It's a 32 bit app, the 'smidgen under 4 GB' (VAS of course) rule applies here, though of course any clever work by memory management software could possibly get round that---whilst limited to being able to use 4GB of RAM there's nothing to say which 4GB it's using at any one time. Peter's you're man here... he's done some testing with 'FancyCache'.

I will give my humble opinion on choosing best computer for your money, for normal people I would sum up in this order what to look for.

I can only second those opinions, (apart from number 4----it's not new technology, must be 30 years old now but the implementation in home systems is only something thats become popularised in the past few years) but you DON'T need the most expensive or most feature rich components, but rather components that do what they're supposed to do and do it well is what counts. To add my opinion with regard to motherboard choice: Asus really went to town and fully embraced the SandyBridge and then the IvyBridge platforms, and they would be my first choice of manufacturer...OK, I'm actually using an MSI board myself because when I was in a position to buy, buying an Asus board was like trying to buy chicken lips and MSI were the 'next best' supplier.

All the various strategies we've argued about---sorry, DISCUSSED--in this thread should only be viewed as parts of the whole: each and every PC is a compromise between cost and performance, some parts can be procured at least cost albeit with less features, but at the core of any PC is a bloody expensive bit of kit---the trick is working out which bit that should be!

[lemberg]

Don't forget a Good Power supplie.

Keith

[BadWhippet]

If you're using a 32-bit operating system such as Windows XP 32-bit, Vista 32-bit and the rather rare Windows 7 32-bit, these can only use the first 4Gb of all available memory.

This seems like more than enough, but any input/output hardware devices with their own memory on board (e.g. graphics cards) occupy some of that space too, leaving less RAM for everything else. In other words, if you install a spanking new graphics card with its own 2Gb memory on board, this uses up 2Gb of your usable 4Gb system memory used by the rest of the system leaving 2Gb or less for the rest of your system to use, actually reducing your overall system performance.

There is nothing hardware-related you can do to work around this, but upgrading to a 64-bit operating system will help. Background tasks in your 64-bit operating system will be able to use ALL installed memory, freeing up the first 4Gb needed by any 32-bit software and your overall game performance will be much smoother as a result.

[theokus]

Don't forget a Good Power supplie.

Keith

http://www.bequiet.com/en/powersupply/301

I use the 900 W.

[rkk01]

Interesting...

Where I am at right now probably precludes a hardware upgrade - it would need to be mb, CPU and ram as a minimum

However, an OS upgrade might be long overdue.

I'm currently on XP Pro, having been put off upgrades by Vista. We use 7 at work and that seems ok.
Is an upgrade to 8 feasible / simple? And is it going to wipe out all of my older stuff.

[gptech]

I'd recommend that you take a major OS revision, XP to Windows 7 or 8 isn't just a service pack sort of upgrade, as a good reason to cleanse your PC of all the junk you'll have accumalated. It's actually debatable if you can do an in-place upgrade from XP to Win 7 so I'd back up all your important stuff, then I'd back up all you important stuff, and lastly I'd make sure you had a backup of all your important stuff before 'nuking' the XP installation and installing 7 or 8.
Depending on the age of your machine, you might find it doesn't boot from the Win 7/8 DVD due to changes in how MS have produced the discs. Try booting from the disc (when/if you get one), nothing will happen to your PC until you start the process of installing the OS going, all you need to know is whether it'll boot. If it does, make sure you've done the backup thing and go for it.
If it doesn't boot all you'll need is a bootable CD with a Boot Manager on, Ultimate Boot CD (UBCD) springs to mind but there are many about---and they're free!!

[rkk01]

I have 3 internal HDs in my PC at the mo, two of which 'should' be bootable...

My main OS HD is a WD Raptor, TS2013 lives on a second drive and the third is a data drive & reserve / emergency boot.
Would it be sensible (possible?) to have Win 8 on on HD and retain a bootable XP install in reserve?

Other option is to leave the current PC "as is" for older XP native games and build new (don't want to loose my Silent Hunter / Grey Wolves)

[johnrossetti]

One of the things W7 makes VERY easy to do is Dual Boot. If you don't want to loose, or cannot transfer certain programmes to W7 then if you have a decent size HD with some spare room (for example) a 512Gb HD, partition it in half and load W7 on the "new" half, (or even 1/3-2/3)
When installing itself W7 will find XP (or what ever) and ask you if you wish to dual boot, and then it will set it up for you. If you dont have any Spare HD, buy a second HD install it and the same routine applies.
The improvement to certain Pc's hardware by just installing W7 (64bit) (and extra memor if possible) can be quiet good. Obviously not as good as starting afresh. BTW it really is worth getting W7 Professional.
As for W8, I had the beta version for a year and was not all that impressed. Yes, it works, but so much of it is for Wizzy Kids (sorry) and Wizzy Hardware (touchscreens etc) I didnt bother to keep it. Windows 7 is rock solid and very forgiving. I dont think you can "upgrade" to W7 from anything other than Vista.
Good Luck

[rkk01]

I dont think you can "upgrade" to W7 from anything other than Vista.

That would be an issue

It seems that there are a lot of different W8 packages around...! Win 8Pro 64bit upgrade being the most applicable, I presume?

is it rollbackable....

[ovale]

I already expect to be subjected to some comments, so keep them to yourselves

The OP was asking for the ideal computer for Trainsimulator 2013.

I use BootCamp running Windows 8 on my 2010 iMac 27 " with 12 GB RAM and an ATi graphics Radeon HD 5750 with 1GB VRAM

Although I have a fitted SSD , the Windows installation is run off the 2TB hard disk.

At maximum resolution of the screen, with all the settings on max, with the heaviest AI traffic load, TS 2013 runs beautifully smooth

[gptech]

I already expect to be subjected to some comments, so keep them to yourselves

The OP was asking for the ideal computer for Trainsimulator 2013.

I use BootCamp running Windows 8 on my 2010 iMac 27 " with 12 GB RAM and an ATi graphics Radeon HD 5750 with 1GB VRAM

Although I have a fitted SSD , the Windows installation is run off the 2TB hard disk.

At maximum resolution of the screen, with all the settings on max, with the heaviest AI traffic load, TS 2013 runs beautifully smooth

Actually, the OP wasn't asking anything, he was informing us how his new PC fared with the game. If you'd rather not have your posts commented upon it seems odd to make those posts in a public forum.