[James Ross]

R H Steele, on 28 January 2014 - 11:23 PM, said:

I have been using the RunActivity.exe -- would it be of any benefit to use RunActivityLAA.exe? I'm running XP with maximum ram allowed and a GE Force GTX 650Ti card.

On a 32bit OS (as Windows XP almost certainly will be), you need to alter the boot configuration and it can have knock-on effects to the whole system. Search for "3GB tuning" for how to do it, but be prepared to undo it if anything weird happens. :)

[R H Steele]

James Ross, on 29 January 2014 - 02:38 AM, said:

On a 32bit OS (as Windows XP almost certainly will be), you need to alter the boot configuration and it can have knock-on effects to the whole system. Search for "3GB tuning" for how to do it, but be prepared to undo it if anything weird happens. :)

Thanks James. If I'm not mistaken you've covered this point in other posts --- point being - configuring XP to use more ram. I've always thought that XP (with all service packs) automatically uses all the ram available, up to the max 4GB. Different systems show different ram available, 3.25, 3.5, 3.6 depending upon hardware config. (that counts graphics card, sound, and size of page file?) Doesn't sound like it worth the trouble of a screwy or failed boot.:sign_thanks:

[James Ross]

R H Steele, on 29 January 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Thanks James. If I'm not mistaken you've covered this point in other posts --- point being - configuring XP to use more ram. I've always thought that XP (with all service packs) automatically uses all the ram available, up to the max 4GB. Different systems show different ram available, 3.25, 3.5, 3.6 depending upon hardware config. (that counts graphics card, sound, and size of page file?) Doesn't sound like it worth the trouble of a screwy or failed boot.:sign_thanks:

It's not actually about how much RAM the OS uses, but about how it divides up the virtual 4GB that every process has on a 32bit OS. Normally it's 2GB for the program, 2GB for the OS. The special option makes it 3GB and 1GB. It is the squashing of the OS side down to 1GB which can potentially cause problems.

[beresford]

James Ross, on 29 January 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

It's not actually about how much RAM the OS uses, but about how it divides up the virtual 4GB that every process has on a 32bit OS. Normally it's 2GB for the program, 2GB for the OS. The special option makes it 3GB and 1GB. It is the squashing of the OS side down to 1GB which can potentially cause problems.

Is the graphics memory overlaid on the program portion or the OS portion? Would any benefit accrue from splitting (say) 2.5 and 1.5?

[James Ross]

beresford, on 29 January 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

Is the graphics memory overlaid on the program portion or the OS portion? Would any benefit accrue from splitting (say) 2.5 and 1.5?

The split is only about virtual memory, not the physical memory that might be shared by the graphics card. You also can't control the split, it just has normal and 3GB modes.

[timmuir]

Using Dan's CCC settings for a benchmark, and changing my screen format settings in OR to 1680x1050 I found a place I'm most happy with. A good test is with a traction route with wires against a sky backdrop. While not as clear as in MSTS, still jaggies in the wires, it's a lot better. This is with the FOV set at 28.



Thanks all for your input! :sign_thanks:

[R H Steele]

Tim, you bring up a good point. You gotta adjust the graphic settings so it looks good to you. I take your point about the wires, but the image softness would bother me -- I like it a little crisper (like my bacon), In any event, I think Open Rails has much more latitude for user adjustment. Certainly the 16:9 aspect ratio is a great improvement.

Just putting this out there for anyone to answer. In the future will Open Rails be registered with Nvidia (for example) or be supported by them? Of what benefit? I'm not quite sure how to ask this question, not being a seasoned gamer.

[timmuir]

Gerald, did you click on the image to get the full size picture? It gets like well-cooked bacon. Also, the conversion to jpg format removes some of the original .png crispiness, too. :sign_thanks:

[R H Steele]

timmuir, on 29 January 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

Gerald, did you click on the image to get the full size picture? It gets like well-cooked bacon. Also, the conversion to jpg format removes some of the original .png crispiness, too. :)

:) :sign_thanks: Yep, crispy bacon all right! :sorry2: In fact when you get the right size it looks downright tasty!