[markus_GE]

disc, on 01 May 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

About the tests: I thought that ShadowMapCount is controls shadow map "LODs", so if 4 is set and 2048*2048 shadowmapResolution is set, then there will be a 2048x2048 map for the closest objects, 1024x1024 for more distant, 512 even more distant, and 256x256 for the most distant objects. So lowering this would cause performance impact, but the opposite happens. So what is is that ShadowMapCount?

I also thought so at first, but then, why not try, and look what it did :) And yes, I would also like to know that (obviously forgot to add it in the post above...)

[James Ross]

disc, on 01 May 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

About the tests: I thought that ShadowMapCount is controls shadow map "LODs", so if 4 is set and 2048*2048 shadowmapResolution is set, then there will be a 2048x2048 map for the closest objects, 1024x1024 for more distant, 512 even more distant, and 256x256 for the most distant objects. So lowering this would cause performance impact, but the opposite happens. So what is is that ShadowMapCount?

That's not quite how it works; it generates each shadow map at the same resolution (e.g. 1024x1024) but each subsequent one covers a much larger area from the camera. Reducing the number of shadow maps should increase performance, as should lowering their resolution.

[markus_GE]

Yeah, that´s also what I experienced - however, it´s just suitable for finetuning performance VS graphics, like I did. It doesn´t really affect framerates, far less that the ShadowMapBlur option. What for is that actually inplemented? I personally think, with it turned of the shadows look much more realistic..

[James Ross]

markus1996, on 02 May 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Yeah, that´s also what I experienced - however, it´s just suitable for finetuning performance VS graphics, like I did. It doesn´t really affect framerates, far less that the ShadowMapBlur option. What for is that actually inplemented? I personally think, with it turned of the shadows look much more realistic..

The blurring is, I believe (it was a while ago that I implemented this) to soften the edges of the shadows to avoid sharp jaggy edges. I'm not really sure what the difference looks like in the game today though...

[disc]

James Ross, on 02 May 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

The blurring is, I believe (it was a while ago that I implemented this) to soften the edges of the shadows to avoid sharp jaggy edges. I'm not really sure what the difference looks like in the game today though...

it's still needed for that reason, however it blurs too much. 1024 or above the shadowmaps aren't so jaggy. so blur intensity could be reduced.

[markus_GE]

At the 2048 resolution I´m using now (3 shadow maps), it´s alsoo acceptable without blur - if you don´t zoom in zo half a metre :sweatingbullets:

[Metro4001]

I hate to bump an old thread but whooooo, OR framerates have definitely taken a dive. I don't understand the rhyme or reason for it. I'm running an activity on the Scenic Sub 2.0 and the framerates range from 1-70, but average about 40. OR doesn't seem to like vegetation near the tracks at all. I can go through certain areas and the framerates are fairly good and go through seemingly identical areas and the framerates drop to the teens, or worse. AI trains don't have any bearing on this. I look at the memory usage on my graphics card and it's about 900 out of 2500mb. It's a GTX570. Any tips?

[spud]

Just for comparison I ran the same scenerio with v1251 and v1605 with nothing different or changed and there is a 50% drop in FPS between the two versions.
:furiousPC:

[copperpen]

I too have just run a comparison on one activity using 1265 and X1614 using the same standard starting view. In both cases the FPS steadied on 150, so no FPS drop here.

[markus_GE]

As I somewhere above was requested to do so, would you mind telling what your render and updater process values are like like? (in F5 hud press shift + F5 as many times, until you see the values)

Cheers, Markus