Promotion to non-experimental options Use large address aware, ambient daylight, use model instancing
#11
Posted 11 September 2014 - 06:55 AM
All three options work fine for me.
Cheers,
Sid
#12
Posted 11 September 2014 - 08:56 AM
For a little while I have been deleting the RunActivity.exe file and renaming the RunActivityLSS.exe file. Is this a waste of time if I check the option in the experimental tab.
This sim gets better and better, thanks for all the hard work.
#13
Posted 11 September 2014 - 09:05 AM
#14
Posted 11 September 2014 - 09:27 AM
-Mike
#15
Posted 11 September 2014 - 04:24 PM
I know that sounds odd, but many Core2Duo motherboards were 64 bit but only supported 2GB of Ram...
I would assume Windows would simply manage the memory better?
I've always been an advocate of LAA, and even posted a method of modifying the MSTS executable to allow it to use it, and I don't recall any negative feedback on it whatsoever? I'd vote for having LAA it as a default.
Instancing is a great option for those with fps issues, but may not be desirable for everyone: Best to remain an option, moved out of experimental.
Ambient Lighting doesn't seem to have any effect whatsoever - other than to change Ambient Lighting. Sounds like it's time to move it out of experimental...
Robert
#16
Posted 11 September 2014 - 08:28 PM
rdamurphy, on 11 September 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:
I suspect that it would attempt to give ORTS-LAA 4GB of virtual memory, but if you tried to use it Windows would thrash the swapfile so badly that the computer would become unusable. Non-LAA would do it to, though perhaps not quite as badly. "Thrash" seems to occur when a program tries to use more virtual memory than about 3/4 of the real RAM all at once (for RAM < 4-6 GB) - at that point you're probably starting to squeeze the stuff Windows has to keep in-RAM for operation. The process memory allocation figures you normally see in the Windows Task Manager are virtual memory, not real. The "Performance" tab will tell you (in different ways for different Windows versions) how much physical RAM is in use for the system as a whole.
I had a work laptop that when delivered had Win7 Pro 64-bit and 2GB RAM. It worked generally OK for email, browsing, Word, and light Excel use. Dreamweaver could get a little choppy. Attempting to use my graphics program (ACD Canvas+GIS) was an exercise in futility - Real Work with it involved map projects with multiple layers (CADD or GIS-like), fair-sized publication files, or image processing, or sometimes all 3 at once, and quickly used up available RAM forcing excessive swapfile use. There were times when I couldn't even get Windows to kill the program - there was so much thrashing going on that the system became unresponsive. Simply shutting down the computer sometimes took 4-5 minutes. I was later able to get the RAM upgraded to 8GB after which there were no more hangups. Why they got 2GB ... who knows ... low bid I suppose.
All the recommendations I've seen are that you don't use 64-bit Windows unless you have at least 4GB of RAM, even though you can theoretically boot it in 2GB. Oh yes, "thrashing" in this context is the system spending so much time swapping things between real RAM and the swapfile on disk that nothing else gets done. You can largely eliminate the problem by using a SSD for the swapfile rather than a conventional hard disk, but if you have the money to do that then why are you messing about with a computer that has 2GB RAM?
#17
Posted 12 September 2014 - 04:03 AM
Mike B, on 11 September 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:
Yeah, LAA lets OR allocate more but it won't do that just because you selected LAA, only if you crank the settings up. If the amount OR has allocated (LAA or not) exceeds the RAM not being used to keep Windows running, you'll get swapping and performance will likely tank.
In the future, we could make the performance tuner spot this problem and turn things down automatically.
#18
Posted 12 September 2014 - 04:35 AM
But... Win64 8.1.1 works perfectly. And it's much faster and much cooler than the WinXP that the laptop originally shipped with.
BTW, I bought the laptop off of Craigslist for $60...
Robert
#19
Posted 12 September 2014 - 08:32 AM
Win7 (no experience with 8 except in a phone) feels snappier in old hardware than XP. Things may not actually run faster in 7-8 (same old hardware, after all), but they seem to start up faster and (in my experience with Pentium-D/2G and Pentium Dual-Core E6300/4G) seem more stable. Driver availability for old hardware is probably the limiting factor for using Win7-8, and 64-bit can make it harder to find some drivers. MS' generic drivers will probably work, but at some performance and feature cost.
#20
Posted 12 September 2014 - 03:43 PM
I love being able to log in with my fingerprint!
Win 8 Is WAAAYYY faster than Win7. My main machine, the i7 at 4.4G with 16GB, and an SSD boots from BIOS beep to desktop in under 6 seconds. The old laptop is almost "instant." Probably about the same amount of time.
I have my main machine dual booted with Win7/8.1.1, and Win8x is so much faster than Win7, that Win7 almost reminds me of booting into my 223MMX with Windows98...
Robert