In need of advice

[ferdy]

Do I really need a gaming PC to run TS2012?

Whilst I appreciate that my current PC is struggling with some aspects, and despite a comment from DTG Support that my graphics card can handle most of the program it might struggle with newer content.

To that end I would really like some advice on what I should purchase. As I am a technical Luddite any advice is better than none.

[gptech]

Business PC---powerful CPU, appropriate graphics system to display the required images on screen
Gaming PC--powerful CPU, appropriate graphics system to display the required images on screen.......and a 200 quid price premium for adding the words 'Gaming PC' to the title. "Gaming PC" is more a marketing ploy than a true class of machine.

OK, a PC designed for hard core gaming will come with other bells and whistles, but if all you want is to play games as a hobby rather than an obsession you just need a decent CPU coupled to a graphics card that can handle gaming. What's your budget and do you have any preferences?

[BipolarExpress]

I run it fine on a second-hand, mid range Dell business PC - however I have done stuff that a technical luddite wouldn't want to do such as upgraded the video card (and PSU), added more memory and added a solid state drive (SSD).

So, you don't need a top end machine, but you do need to consider the power of the video card (business machines don't usually need a powerful one). Also, I've found using 64 bit Windows (with 8Gb of RAM) and the SSD enhances performance - even though people will point out that TS is a 32-bit program and can only use 4Gb of RAM (the 8Gb just gives it 'headroom' with all the other stuff that's going on).

I'm sure other folk on here can recommend specific machines, however, in summary you don't need a 'gaming machine' - the current TS is old tech - my recommendation would be fast processor (at least dual core), 'adequate' video card, SSD, 64 bit windows, 8Gb RAM.

Also, consider that the next generation of TS (due 'soon') will almost certainly benefit from a more powerful PC.

Hope that this helps and isn't too technical for you.

All the best,


Steve

[Trev123]

My computer is 4 years old see below and runs TS2016 fine, mind you I do have a 6 months old video card which improved performance.

[gptech]

Also, I've found using 64 bit Windows (with 8Gb of RAM) and the SSD enhances performance - even though people will point out that TS is a 32-bit program and can only use 4Gb of RAM (the 8Gb just gives it 'headroom' with all the other stuff that's going on).

The extra memory is of absolutely no use to TS, adding more than a 32 bit application can address doesn't give it 'headroom'---BUT, as a 64 bit operating system will give TS (or any other 32 bit application) the full 4GB of VAS any extra memory is of benefit at a lower, system, level. Even with only 4GB of RAM installed a 64 bit OS will improve how TS runs as VAS can be/is composed of both *real* memory and disc space that Windows uses as a surrogate memory location---in other words it fools the applications that they're writing to memory rather than just a disc location. Of course you'd be daft NOT to equip a new system with anything less than 8GB of RAM but the 64bit OS brings the biggest 'boost' in that combination.

A very small, pedantic even, clarification but one that is 'oh so important' to make.

An SSD won't particularly improve game performance, your frame rates will be exactly the same whether using a conventional spinning drive or an SSD, but an SSD will give significantly shorter loading times (for both the game and scenarios) and will reduce in-game stutters as tiles are loaded. All good stuff, but not essential for enjoying the game. Think of an SSD as being the 'icing on the cake', but is the extra cost viable? Do you spend an extra £100 on an SSD or on a faster/more efficient CPU or a more powerful graphics card? You will gain some performance boost by having the game (or any other programs) on a separate physical drive to the OS, regardless of which technology is used, so specifying 2 drives in a PC is a 'good idea' if funds allow.

Also, consider that the next generation of TS (due 'soon') will almost certainly benefit from a more powerful PC.

Unproven, possibly even untrue, at best an opinion based on guesswork and also a generalisation---of course EVERY program would 'almost certainly benefit from a more powerful PC'. There are more indications that the next generation TS will run on the machines we're already using than there being a need to upgrade---of course if you're already towards the bottom end of the spec ladder you may need to upgrade, but if you can run TS comfortably today you should be OK with the Unreal based version.

[ttjph]

If you post the specs of your current machine here - in particular, the exact model of CPU (such as "Core i3-550") and the exact model and memory of your graphics card, or the exact model of your complete system if it was bought as such - then we should be able to make some educated guesses as to the best route to getting some improvements.

Along with your budget for said improvements, of course!

[GatwickSpotting]

Also, I've found using 64 bit Windows (with 8Gb of RAM) and the SSD enhances performance - even though people will point out that TS is a 32-bit program and can only use 4Gb of RAM (the 8Gb just gives it 'headroom' with all the other stuff that's going on).

The extra memory is of absolutely no use to TS, adding more than a 32 bit application can address doesn't give it 'headroom'---BUT, as a 64 bit operating system will give TS (or any other 32 bit application) the full 4GB of VAS any extra memory is of benefit at a lower, system, level. Even with only 4GB of RAM installed a 64 bit OS will improve how TS runs as VAS can be/is composed of both *real* memory and disc space that Windows uses as a surrogate memory location---in other words it fools the applications that they're writing to memory rather than just a disc location. Of course you'd be daft NOT to equip a new system with anything less than 8GB of RAM but the 64bit OS brings the biggest 'boost' in that combination.

A very small, pedantic even, clarification but one that is 'oh so important' to make.

An SSD won't particularly improve game performance, your frame rates will be exactly the same whether using a conventional spinning drive or an SSD, but an SSD will give significantly shorter loading times (for both the game and scenarios) and will reduce in-game stutters as tiles are loaded. All good stuff, but not essential for enjoying the game. Think of an SSD as being the 'icing on the cake', but is the extra cost viable? Do you spend an extra £100 on an SSD or on a faster/more efficient CPU or a more powerful graphics card? You will gain some performance boost by having the game (or any other programs) on a separate physical drive to the OS, regardless of which technology is used, so specifying 2 drives in a PC is a 'good idea' if funds allow.

Also, consider that the next generation of TS (due 'soon') will almost certainly benefit from a more powerful PC.

Unproven, possibly even untrue, at best an opinion based on guesswork and also a generalisation---of course EVERY program would 'almost certainly benefit from a more powerful PC'. There are more indications that the next generation TS will run on the machines we're already using than there being a need to upgrade---of course if you're already towards the bottom end of the spec ladder you may need to upgrade, but if you can run TS comfortably today you should be OK with the Unreal based version.

GP, whilst I appreciate you're trying to help and educate, please ensure you're 100% knowledgeable on the subject at hand before misleading people with such an assertive tone. An SSD can and WILL actually improve FPS. Yes, the majority of loading 'lag' comes from the asset blocks, but during my analysis of the game I found there's generally about 10-50 reads a second from the game files stored on the drive. Depending on variables such as route/train/weather etc this can have quite a strong FPS impact as to whether these items can be loaded within the FT.

Secondly, we already know the new Train Simulator will be using UE4 just like their fishing game so minimum requirements and 'playable requirements' can pretty much be deciphered from this.

Lastly, on the subject of 32/64bit OS and RAM: 4GB of RAM combined with an x86 system will result in only 3.5GB of that being usable to all but system processes. You speak of the pagefile but I can assure you that should not be brought into this equation, and should be pretty much ignored and considered an 'emergency buffer' to keep the system working in the event of a ML etc. I don't have time to go into great detail here, but do know that having more than 4GB of RAM in a x64 environment WILL give the TS application headroom in the sense it will (depending on programs open) have at least 4GB of VAS available from the RAM at any point.

[ferdy]

My computer is 4 years old see below and runs TS2016 fine, mind you I do have a 6 months old video card which improved performance.

That is some serious kit you have, and way beyond my price range.

[ferdy]

If you post the specs of your current machine here - in particular, the exact model of CPU (such as "Core i3-550") and the exact model and memory of your graphics card, or the exact model of your complete system if it was bought as such - then we should be able to make some educated guesses as to the best route to getting some improvements.

Along with your budget for said improvements, of course!

It is a Dell Vostro 400, which, being Dell, doesn't lend itself to much in the way of internal improvement. The CPU is Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz, which I know is not going to give me good results. The graphics card is NVidia Geforce GT 640. I've seen comparison tests between that and the GTX 750 Ti, but I suspect that I am constrained somewaht by the power supply(only 350 watts). I have had prices for a new custom built unit which seem to be OK, but then I have to ask someone to build it(maybe a call to my brother in law!)

What I was looking for was a reasonable "off the shelf" system, using Windows 7 64 bit. Money is a factor, mainly because of the resultant domestic problem should I go ahead.

I am probably clutching at straws here; when I first bought Railworks my old PC could handle it, but over the years specs have changed, and foresight isn't in my skill set.

I could take the easy way out and dis-associate myself from the sim, but overall Ts 20xx has a better look about it.

[gptech]

GP, whilst I appreciate you're trying to help and educate, please ensure you're 100% knowledgeable on the subject at hand before misleading people with such an assertive tone.

OK...May I suggest that you also adhere to that?

You speak of the pagefile but I can assure you that should not be brought into this equation

I agree; the pagefile has nothing to do with it so why have you introduced it? No mention of the pagefile at all in my post; VAS (Virtul Address Space) is completely different to the pagefile/swapfile/virtual memory.
Here's a quote from MSDN (which I'm sure we'd all class as a 100% knowledgeable source)

The virtual address space for 32-bit Windows is 4 gigabytes (GB) in size and divided into two partitions: one for use by the process and the other reserved for use by the system. For more information about the virtual address space in 64-bit Windows, see Virtual Address Space in 64-bit Windows.

the amendment/extra info for a 64 bit OS is

By default, 64-bit Microsoft Windows-based applications have a user-mode address space of 8 terabytes (7 terabytes on Itanium-based systems). However, applications can specify that the system should allocate all memory for the application below 2 gigabytes. This feature is beneficial for 64-bit applications if the following conditions are true:
•A 2 GB address space is sufficient.
•The code has many pointer truncation warnings.
•Pointers and integers are freely mixed.
•The code has polymorphism using 32-bit data types.

All pointers are still 64-bit pointers, but the system ensures that every memory allocation occurs below the 2 GB limit, so that if the application truncates a pointer, no significant data is lost. Pointers can be truncated to 32-bit values, then extended to 64-bit values by either sign extension or zero extension.

To specify this memory limitation, use the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE:NO linker option. However, be aware that problems can occur when using this option. If you build a DLL that uses this option and the DLL is called by an application that does not use this option, the DLL could truncate a 64-bit pointer whose upper 32 bits are significant. This can cause application failure without any warning.

You can disable the pagefile, but you can't disable VAS. Although written for FSX, http://support.precisionmanuals.com/kb/ ... rrors.aspx explains things nicely enough.

Secondly, we already know the new Train Simulator will be using UE4 just like their fishing game so minimum requirements and 'playable requirements' can pretty much be deciphered from this.

Debatable, but it does give is an indication of what we're likely to see. We've already looked (briefly) at Euro Fishing in another thread to find whether the stipulation for more than 2 cores in the CPU is actually accurate. From the admittedly very quick tests done it would appear not.

An SSD can and WILL actually improve FPS. Yes, the majority of loading 'lag' comes from the asset blocks, but during my analysis of the game I found there's generally about 10-50 reads a second from the game files stored on the drive. Depending on variables such as route/train/weather etc this can have quite a strong FPS impact as to whether these items can be loaded within the FT.

I'll sort of give you part that one, but stand by the opening words of my paragraph:

An SSD won't particularly improve game performance

In your testing were you testing like for like, or had you also moved to having the game on a separate physical drive to the OS? Any change in addition to that of changing the drives technology renders any observations inaccurate. http://www.pcgamer.com/how-do-ssds-affe ... rformance/, http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/290 ... erformance and http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/12/ ... ri9BmfA5hE might be of interest, even though they corroborate my view rather than yours.
There's no doubt an SSD gives significantly faster reads, which as you've found can better frame rates when loading but you've completely left out the influence the CPU has on the process nor have you determined whether the reads are game files or copies of such files in VAS or the pagefile.

[gptech]

That is some serious kit you have, and way beyond my price range.

You'd be surprised... just what is your budget?
You're a self confessed Luddite so I assume diving into the innards of your machine is a non-starter, but many local PC retailers/electricians can/will/could swap components out for you. Accordingly, costs can be reduced by using parts of your existing system, upgrading the 'guts' of the machine (motherboard, RAM, CPU) but keeping your existing drives and case. There are a lot of options available.

EDIT: Missed your post about the specs, and as it's a Dell and likely to be *awkward* in many respects:

[url][/http://www.cclonline.com/pc-range/HOME- ... 020001/url]

That's using the onboard graphics of the CPU, but your 640 should be able to be fitted.

Have a look around, there are many good systems from reputable dealers/manufacturers available at good prices.

[GatwickSpotting]

Just briefly before moving on as to not clutter up this topic GP:

OK...May I suggest that you also adhere to that?

Indeed, I did.

the pagefile has nothing to do with it so why have you introduced it?

You made reference to it in your original post:

VAS can be/is composed of both *real* memory and disc space that Windows uses as a surrogate memory location

Here's a quote from MSDN

Not sure what your point is by posting it? It just confirms exactly what I said: 32bit systems use 3.5GB of RAM for programs (hence available VAS) when 4GB of RAM is available- the rest is for system PAP.

Debatable, but it does give is an indication of what we're likely to see.

Thankfully I have quite a lot of experience with Unreal Engine 4, and am extremely familiar with how it runs in various situations. Anyone who is will know its reasonably predictable in its system usage compared to the Kuju Engine + 2011 Deferred Render Engine.

In your testing were you testing like for like, or had you also moved to having the game on a separate physical drive to the OS?

Like for like. I have 8 installed drives to my case, and a NAS storage system. When developing for Train Simulator I regularly move the whole installation from my 512GB SSD to my 1TB 10000RPM HDD, and sometimes my 4TB 5200RPM drive. Just two days ago I moved it from the 4TB HDD to the SSD, and in all situations got on average about 5-10FPS more (35-40 up from 25-30). My OS is on its own dedicated 128GB SSD.

but you've completely left out the influence the CPU has on the process

Technically part of the process but so long as it was never a bottleneck (it isn't) it really is irrelevant to this specific test- which is the performance outcome.

Anyway, this is far from the origin of this topic, if you have any concerns/wish to respond, please drop me a PM rather than add more OT clutter to this poor chap's topic.

[gptech]

You made reference to it in your original post:

No, I wrote that VAS can be comprised of *real* memory and a 'surrogate memory location' that is actually hard drive space. I'll admit that 'surrogate memory address' may have been a better description, but there's no mention at all of the pagefile. If I was talking about the pagefile I'd have written pagefile.

Not sure what your point is by posting it? It just confirms exactly what I said: 32bit systems use 3.5GB of RAM for programs (hence available VAS) when 4GB of RAM is available- the rest is for system PAP.

Sort of, 32bit programs can access approximately 3.5GB of RAM, regardless of whether the system is 32 or 64bit, but RAM is not equal to VAS. I'm impressed though that you can see any reference to 3.5GB of RAM in the part I quoted.

Just two days ago I moved it from the 4TB HDD to the SSD,

Now repeat the experiment, but this time by moving it to the 10,000 RPM drive. You've moved it from a drive that spins rather slowly to say the least, so perhaps you've found the 'tipping point' at which speed of disc read does make a difference.

[peterfhayes]

Lets just get clear on the VAS.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Physical RAM or the Paging File - they are both part of the hardware.
The VAS is part of the OS or software. It is just a set of virtual addresses.
The VAS does NOT have "real memory" just "virtual memory". It does NOT address anything in the RAM or any HDD.
The OS loads the code into the VAS (aka process address space) just to protect itself if anything goes wrong - the OS then passes any code to the cpu, etc.
Think about it in a 64-bit app (with the appropriate flags set - such as DTG's Fishing Game, X-Plane -10 64-bit, Photoshop 64-bit, etc) these apps can address up to 8 TERABYTES of VAS - now I have never seen an 8 terabyte HDD or 8TB RAM modules. Hence if these apps are addressing up to 8 terabytes of VAS its certainly not on any hardware.

In a 32-bit app running on a 32-bit OS there is a maximum of 4GB VAS (irrespective of RAM installed or PF - in early systems most only had 1 or 2GB RAM installed)) available to the 32-bit app eg TS2016. BUT, the system needs 2GB VAS for the kernel, etc, leaving only 2GB for TS 2016, BUT the VRAM needs an amount (usually in 256/512KB blocks) and if you have a large VRAM it can deplete the VAS so that TS 2016 will never load. Using a card with a 1GB of VRAM, TS2016 has only 1GB VAS to load into - making it very flakey! that's why the /3GB switch is used, in an attempt to claw back up to 1GB VAS back from the system.

A SSD will let TS2016 load faster and will smooth out frame rates (rather than actually increasing them significantly) especially as in TS2016 where there are far more reads than writes.

RAM - 8GB is ideal - why? TS2016 can address up to 4GB of Physical RAM (being a 32-bit process in a 64-bit OS with LAE set) - Now the 64-bit OS usually will use around 2 - 2.5GB RAM for its processes (that's a possible 6.5GB total that COULD be needed), so for wiggle room - 8GB is good as it will cut down access to the PF. I now use 16GB RAM on all of my rigs and in most cases I rarely see any access to the PF.

IMO you do not need a high end PC to run TS2016 (only). You need a balanced system comprising all of the components.

When we get the UE4 version it may not need a higher spec PC, GTG fishing doesn't nor does ETS 2 64-bit. If the code is well written as in X-Plane for instance then we could see any PC running it without issue.

Regards
pH

[gptech]

Ta Peter, that should clear up any misconceptions we've managed to build in whilst trying to explain in *luddite* terms whether moving to a 64 bit OS or adding RAM brings the bigger benefit--and that 8GB of RAM is of no use to TS directly but that a 64 bit OS would certainly benefit from it.