Settings for upgraded Railworks

[AndyM77]

You shouldn't require to have SSDs to run TS2012,

Even with a SSD there are still pauses with tile loading, obviously not as bad as with a "Spinner" but it's still there (8GB of system RAM so it's not a lack of that either!)

[jaycat]

I agree with this, SSD and 6GB memory, latest CPU/Motherboard and I still get stutter on most routes - even when the controls are reduced and shadows turned off - I am still not happy with performance.

[Easilyconfused]

I agree with this, SSD and 6GB memory, latest CPU/Motherboard and I still get stutter on most routes - even when the controls are reduced and shadows turned off - I am still not happy with performance.

So have you emailed RS.Com on their support address with details of the problem and your machine specs ?

[theokus]

You shouldn't require to have SSDs to run TS2012,

Even with a SSD there are still pauses with tile loading, obviously not as bad as with a "Spinner" but it's still there (8GB of system RAM so it's not a lack of that either!)

Correct Andy.
Even in game play.
But not as bad as in RW2 > before, under and after bridges f.i. > with lots of scenery near the track.
Sometimes in more open fields.

Did a small test with Oxford > Paddington

Launcher > Basic Settings > LOW

Options in game
Lowest > 45 fps
Low > 56
Medium > 36
High > 40
Highest > 33

Highest + LD Shadows + Procedural Flora >> 33 fps

+ Depth of Field >> 37
+ Adaptive bloom >> 32
===================================================================
All te same with Medium Settings in the launcher > 33 fps
===================================================================
I did the ride in the Summer > Oxford - Paddington >> between 30 and 60 fps
===================================================================
And I did learn that 14 fps is nog good.
20 is not bad.
Between 30 and 60 is not engough too, I guess
===================================================================
i7 960, 3.2 GHz
Geforce GTX470

12 gig ram > bit slow
Part Number CMX6GX3M3A1600C9
Capacity 2048 MBytes
Memory Type DDR3 (PC3-10700H)
Speed 667 MHz (DDR3 1333)

Asus PT6 Deluxe V2
===================================================================

[Kromaatikse]

I've done quite a lot of investigation into both CPU and GPU performance under RW3 in the past few days.

Some routes are very heavy on the CPU - WCML-N is the prime example especially around Polmadie ad Motherwell, but Horseshoe Curve also uses a lot of CPU power when loading scenery and will happily halve the framerate while doing so. On these routes, upgrading from a Phenom II to an overclocked Core i7 (which I borrowed yesterday) shows a noticeable boost, but it is still possible to drag even the latter beast down to the 14fps threshold, and not be able to blame it on the graphics card.

It looks like scenery loading is still done in the main thread, whereas it's the single task that most needs to be split off into another thread. I'm going to explain this to RSC myself as firmly as I politely can. A second thread does seem to be in continuous low-level use, but it's not clear what it is used for - perhaps the physics is now done there.

The good news is that, ignoring the rather silly SSAA modes, a Radeon 5870 or a GTX 460 is enough to run TSX with all the fancy new features turned up to maximum. It is also possible to turn on all features, if not at maximum, on some lesser graphics hardware, including the 8800GT I bought several years ago, and - astonishingly - on the AMD Fusion-A8 3850 which I bought specifically to investigate cheap upgrade options.

I'm going to do my best to summarise and explain all this in yet another FAQ.

[theokus]

I've done quite a lot of investigation into both CPU and GPU performance under RW3 in the past few days.

Some routes are very heavy on the CPU - WCML-N is the prime example especially around Polmadie ad Motherwell, but Horseshoe Curve also uses a lot of CPU power when loading scenery and will happily halve the framerate while doing so. On these routes, upgrading from a Phenom II to an overclocked Core i7 (which I borrowed yesterday) shows a noticeable boost, but it is still possible to drag even the latter beast down to the 14fps threshold, and not be able to blame it on the graphics card.

It looks like scenery loading is still done in the main thread, whereas it's the single task that most needs to be split off into another thread. I'm going to explain this to RSC myself as firmly as I politely can. A second thread does seem to be in continuous low-level use, but it's not clear what it is used for - perhaps the physics is now done there.

The good news is that, ignoring the rather silly SSAA modes, a Radeon 5870 or a GTX 460 is enough to run TSX with all the fancy new features turned up to maximum. It is also possible to turn on all features, if not at maximum, on some lesser graphics hardware, including the 8800GT I bought several years ago, and - astonishingly - on the AMD Fusion-A8 3850 which I bought specifically to investigate cheap upgrade options.

I'm going to do my best to summarise and explain all this in yet another FAQ.

Good man!
(too good for this world )

The "killer" with my GeForce GTX470 = Anisotropic x 8; pulls everything down...
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_ge ... 70_us.html

[Rafair7643]

I know the square root of hee-haw regarding CPU/GPU etc etc., and I'm sure a few folks are the same.

For those who don't already have it, I can recommend the freeware Gamebooster, which shuts down background processes and frees up memory;

http://www.iobit.com/gamebooster.html

[theokus]

I know the square root of hee-haw regarding CPU/GPU etc etc., and I'm sure a few folks are the same.

For those who don't already have it, I can recommend the freeware Gamebooster, which shuts down background processes and frees up memory;

http://www.iobit.com/gamebooster.html

Ok and thx.

I have 12 gig of ram.
(Windows 7 Ultimate on 64 bit)
When the game is running I stay here under the 4 gig.

[nsupersonic]

For those with more than one and identical sized / type hard disk drives

Although frame rates are the same for me on a 2-3 year old machine, with the anti aliasing off and bilnear selected as same as for some other users on the game settings tab . Putting hard discs into a RAID 0 configuration in my original PC setup, seems in the case of the new version of railworks, run smoother than RW2, This even though 20 -30fps (Portsmouth route - example) is considered low by today's graphics cards...


hope this helps

regards
Charles

EDIT - does seem that the game does not now more than ever; soley rely on the graphics card for a smoother run

[Kromaatikse]

I'm a bit surprised too. RW3 does ask a lot more of the GPU than RW2 did, if you turn on TSX and especially with shadows, but it isn't really very much less demanding of the CPU.

I think the most important thing is that scenery loading is still not split off to it's own thread, where it could run without interfering with the flow of the main graphics rendering. If it was, then the framerates would be a lot more consistent, instead of dipping nastily at semi-regular intervals.

[paulz6]

Kromaatikse, thanks for doing these tests that will help a lot of people.
If you can provide any insights into the affects of CPU v GPU, that would be very helpful for those who are considering upgrading processor power or graphics processing power. In some cases it may be better go the whole hogg when finances allow. The more temporary solution could delay the longer term less temporary solution, and cost more overall over time.

[paulz6]

I think the most important thing is that scenery loading is still not split off to it's own thread, where it could run without interfering with the flow of the main graphics rendering. If it was, then the framerates would be a lot more consistent, instead of dipping nastily at semi-regular intervals.

Are you absolutely sure about this? I am wondering if there are more advanced things to consider. You are not unique about banging on about this particular issue, so I would doubt our exalted/demonic ones hadn't considered this. You are not unique with your two-penny answer though as what to the solution maybe either! I think you seem to know more about this than I do though. I just grasp to my antiquated knowledge, using this to guess or speculate what might be happening. The joys of reaching near Middle Age. OK, Gandalf was getting on a bit, so may be I shouldn't be so hard on myself.

[Kromaatikse]

Well, after a bit *more* investigation, it looks like scenery loading isn't the *only* thing that can drag framerates down - but yes, I am sure that scenery loading is no more decoupled from the graphics rendering than it was in RW2.

The other big thing that causes CPU-related performance trouble is snow. If I make a new scenario on Horseshoe Curve without snow in it, and drive the same route as The Champion, the framerate is considerably higher, doesn't dip so low during scenery loading, and the scenery loading takes less time so I'm back to higher framerates more quickly. So something about snow is different from rain and causes more CPU load. I'll have to look into that further once I've sorted out my hardware article.

There also seems to be some relationship to the number of wagons in view or nearby. At one point during The Champion, it is possible to see three long freight trains all together - and even though one of them is effectively a static consist, this is clearly the slowest framerate I can generate on my machine. Of course this is while it's snowing hard, so without careful analysis it's difficult to separate the various causes.

Vern suggested that the new area tool is inefficient... I haven't seen any evidence of that, at least on my newer machines. There are bigger fish to fry, certainly. Without snow but with shadows, Oxford-Paddington is actually considerably slower at the London end than at any point on Horseshoe Curve with it's millions of trees - and it doesn't have the excuse of hundred-wagon trains strewn liberally across the timetable. So on a per-tree basis, the area tool is much more efficient, both in terms of author and CPU time, than placing trees manually.

[lemberg]

What I've found is that the Cpu shows about 70% use, and also there is no difference between a ordinary hard drive or an SSD.

thanks Keith

[harbin]

It also would seem TS2012 is quite happy to run on a nvidia card compared to ATI which I'm seeing alot of reports of not getting good performance or not working outright even with equal spec graphics card from both companies.

That could be why I am getting with TSX off 40fps, with TSX on but every thing set on low 20fps & only 14/15fps with everything set on high (resolution @ 1920x1080). Or should I be getting better results than that...

Operating System
MS Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit SP1
CPU
Intel Core i7 870 @ 2.93GHz
RAM
8GB Dual-Channel DDR3
Graphics
ATI Radeon HD 5570 1GB DDR3
Hard Drives
1465GB SATA Western Digital
977GB SATA Hitachi
117GB SATA TOSHIBA
Audio
Realtek High Definition Audio