[jamesc25313]

Keep in mind OR take advantage of four cores and from your specs I see dual core, which taxes the two core you are using with tasks that four cores (quad core i5 i7) would handle. Im simplifying this, but get yourself any old quad core and four gigs of ram a decent video card and youll be fine. Ive ran OR on GTX 970 and didnt notice no difference between its performance and one of a GTX 770 and the cost is half. My 670 runs OR fine but is a bit more taxed. Id say the 770 is good for the price and squeezes the most out of OR without squeezing so much out of your pocket. Laptops are a no-no for performance..

[markus_GE]

jamesc25313, on 21 May 2016 - 08:21 PM, said:

[...]
Laptops are a no-no for performance..

I wouldn´t say that just in general.

I´m only on laptops, and though no one of my two machines is top notch, I can still get decent graphics AND running.

The old one is a bit weak, for sure, with a 2.27GHz dual-core i5 and AMD Radeon HD5650 Graphics with 4GB Sys-RAM and (IIRC) 1GB V-RAM. Yet I could still squeeze out around 30 FPS @ 2000m visibility with dynamic shadows on (includes ShadowAllShapes, but with a slightly changed shadow map setup, which I can´t recall ATM) and world object density @ 10 on the Surfliner 2 in LAUPT. The MONON would get s little rough, though, graphics wise.

On the new rig, I have not ye had the chance to do extensive tests. Yet, an i7 quad-core @ 2.5GHz with 1 GHz boost, 8GB Sys-RAM, an AMD R9-256M GPU with (IIRC) 2GB V-RAM should do considerably better, seeing how the bottleneck has always been the GPU for me.

I did some tests already, but no much, as has been said. One test I have done involved the same setup and location as mentioned above, which gave me FPS in the mid 40s to mid 50s range, at times hitting 60, were V-sync would kick in and limit FPS.


On a side note, way back when I promised I´d go and compare the two machines ORTS-wise. Well, time has been scarce and will still be for a month and a half. I´m hoping to delve into ORTS again then, first getting used to all the new features, and then doing said tests. Looking forward to it already!


Cheers, Markus


PS: Both machines, now 7 and 1 year(s) old, respectively, were bought new and, at the respective time, cost a tad over 700€. Note, of course, that this was for a complete computer, in upper middle class.

[Jovet]

Noisemaker, on 21 May 2016 - 07:02 PM, said:

Yeah, I kinda figured the graphic card may not be the best. And no way to get a driver or something to beef it up? I know with sound stuff I was doing, an ASIO driver reduced latency to like 0.3ms. But nothing like that for video I guess? And yes, I always shut down my lappy when not in use, and start fresh from Power On when I return.
What kind of video spec's should I be looking for if I were to buy a new lappy or tower? What's the 'equitably nice' parameters to have without forking out a lot of money?

Drivers are only as good as the people who write them. A buggy and poorly-implemented driver will cause all sorts of problems. This is why most manufacturers strive to improve drivers over time. Later versions tend to be better than early versions, but each manufacturer, each driver version, and each hardware revision can be different. This is an item to research when you're considering a new computer or new hardware. There are whole websites devoted to analyzing hardware performance and drivers are critiqued too.

But as I said above, you can't get blood from a turnip. (I always have loved that phrase!) The built-in Intel graphics hardware is not designed for playing games. It is bare-bones, for office work or home email/web browsing and light multimedia. It is cheap and you get what you pay for.

Computer gaming has always been at the forefront of pushing computer performance. Games rely on a lot of computer oomph to achieve good performance, since a lot of things are going on under the hood all of the time. As computer technology has evolved, a lot of the oomph that the central processor used to do has been offloaded to a secondary processor on the video card itself. MSTS was not really coded to take good advantage of this, but Open Rails sure is. One can go buy specialized "gaming" computers aimed at providing performance in computer games. These tend to be more expensive because 1) higher quality components cost more 2) higher performance components cost more 3) people are willing to pay for something that "just works."

It used to be an unspoken rule that laptops are not used for gaming. This stemmed from several reasons, but the most basic one is that laptop components strive to balance power consumption and battery life against performance, and thus tend to be inferior performance-wise. Of course, there are now "gaming" grade laptops which are on par with desktop systems... but they're expensive. You're paying for that portability factor. When you choose a laptop for gaming, though, you're really cementing yourself into a future you cannot alter. For most desktop computers it is pretty easy to replace critical components like upgrading (or adding) a graphics card. For laptops—nope! You're stuck with what it comes with. Personally, I just cannot see many situations where one would need to pay up the nose to have the portability and un-upgradability of a laptop to play computer games. As far as I'm concerned—for most people—the unspoken rule still applies.

For your last two sentences, there's no simple answer. For the most part, your computer's performance will be as good as you are willing to pay for. One can certainly stick a $30 graphics card into their computer, but they should not expect the performance of a $300 graphics card. If money is your primary factor, then begin by considering how much you want to spend. Is a $120 graphics card good enough? It has to be if that's all you can afford. I suggest deciding on a budget and shopping around with that budget in mind. Compare what you can get for what you're willing to pay for right now with "added features" or performance of more expensive options. You may choose to adjust your budget accordingly. In today's world, computer hardware has advanced to the point that many of the detail numbers just don't make as much of a difference as they used to. You already know you don't want an "Intel Graphics" system...but if it's not a laptop, that can always be upgraded—assuming the power supply can dish out the juice. This is why I (personally) hesitate to splash out a list of "minimum" specs, because beyond what the minimum the software (games) you want to run needs, it's a personal comfort zone. If you find some options you like, I'm sure we can give our opinions on them, if you want.

[elvasleis]

My new PC specs.
Cost $1,500 Australian

Processor = Intel® Core™ i7-6700 CPU @ 3.40GHz (8 threads, 4 cores, 3.4 GHz) (L1 Cache 128 KB) (L1 Cache 128 KB) (L2 Cache 1024 KB) (L3 Cache 8192 KB)
Memory = 7.9 GB
Video = NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti (2.0 GB RAM) (nvlddmkm 10.18.13.6510)
Display = \\.\DISPLAY1 (1280 x 1024, 32-bit, primary, 0 x 0)
Sound = NVIDIA High Definition Audio (nvhda64v 1.3.34.4)
Sound = NVIDIA Virtual Audio Device (Wave Extensible) (WDM) (nvvad64v 1.2.37.0)
Sound = Realtek High Definition Audio (rtkvhd64 6.0.1.7553)
Disk = C: (Local Fixed Disk, NTFS, 465.2 GB, 321.8 GB free) SSD
OS = Microsoft Windows 10 Home 64-bit (10.0.10586)


Open Rails runs on all routes with no stutter at 60fps.

I still have to fine tune the Video settings as at the moment I get flashing,moire and tree shimmer problems.

Regards Geoff.

[Jovet]

elvasleis, on 23 May 2016 - 01:48 AM, said:

My new PC specs.
Cost $1,500 Australian

That sounds to me like a petty good system for a while. You might consider adding more memory to it at some point, depending on what you do with it. Remember that more memory means larger disk cache.

As some non-nVidia video hardware seems to have trouble on Windows 10, I would not suggest using a card that isn't nVidia based.

elvasleis, on 23 May 2016 - 01:48 AM, said:

I still have to fine tune the Video settings as at the moment I get flashing,moire and tree shimmer problems.

The flashing and simmering are problems with Open Rails as far as I can tell. They'll get sorted out eventually. The moire you'll need to fix with the video settings, yeah.

[elvasleis]

Hi Joseph,
Thanks for your advice.

Regards Geoff.

[shaun]

I am glad I saw this topic. I posted a similar topic because I am having the same issues. I have a desktop pc with win. xp. I have stutters on all the routes I have on openrails. I will try all of these tips and if I can't get it to run smooth, I will come back and repost.

[R H Steele]

Jovet, on 23 May 2016 - 09:58 AM, said:

That sounds to me like a petty good system for a while. You might consider adding more memory to it at some point, depending on what you do with it. Remember that more memory means larger disk cache.

As some non-nVidia video hardware seems to have trouble on Windows 10, I would not suggest using a card that isn't nVidia based.


The flashing and simmering are problems with Open Rails as far as I can tell. They'll get sorted out eventually. The moire you'll need to fix with the video settings, yeah.

For a specific type of flashing...when bodies of water change color, please see this thread:
https://www.trainsim...open-rail/page2especially posts #3 thru #7

[elvasleis]

With Monogame there is no noticable shimmer.
Flashing water may still occur.